CCMIN111996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver referred to the San Francisco project and that it must be dealt with because of a series of obligations that have been established. In addition, there are several applications curren~y pending before City staff and he did not feel the people should be wasting their time developing an application that cannot be approved for growth management within the next five to seven years, especially if the City has to accommodate the San Francisco units. Ms. Michelotti did not think it was legally correct that a property owner who has owned property since 1951 should not even have a chance to process an application. Ms. Dennis believed the growth management is a different issue and the applicant is aware of the risk of not getting an allocation. She felt this small project probably had a better chance than a larger one. Council is not talking about growth management tonight. The economics of the project will not improve in the future and it may be difficult to sell townhomes for the current price. When Council priorities are set, it may be the future approvals will be reduced, but that is not where we are today. It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to introduce Ordinance No. 1700, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, approving the application of Utal Properties, et al. for PUD development plan approval for 26 townhomes, common area, and a tot lot located at 3374 and 3442 Santa Rita Road, with the additional condition that the tot lot and common area be enclosed with a wrought iron fence and the soundwall to remain as proposed, as filed under Case PUD-96-15. Ms. Mohr believed that the gate at the southern end is good for access by school children. She agreed with the wrought iron fence around the recreation fence. She felt this is the kind of housing that is as affordable as possible for Pleasanton. She did not believe the residents to the back would accept an apartment complex and it is probably not a good area for single family homes. With respect to growth management, the current plan allows for allocations to be moved forward or back and this application should be viewed with respect to the rules currently in effect. She felt this was a well designed in-fall project. She cannot see anything inconsistent with good municipal planning. Mr. Pico disagreed that this was a well-planned project. He believed the project was too dense. There are 26 units on two acres, no yards, minimal common area adjacent to parking and Santa Rita Road. The plan proposes adding soundwalls and he questioned whether they would be adequate at build out traffic levels on Santa Rita Road. He felt young children would be in danger because they will have to walk along Santa Rita Road. He did not want another soundwall and he did not like the location of the tot lot and barbecue being close to Santa Rita Road. He felt the recreation area should be moved to the center of the project and there should be more amenities. There needs to be another park in this area for children to play in and space to make this project livable. He did not accept the economic arguments. He did not like the design and wanted more front porches, so people are not living behind garage doors. 14 11/19/96