Laserfiche WebLink
363 <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Ms. Mohr declared the public <br />hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that he had no problem with Lots E and F. <br />He added that because circumstances in the community have changed <br />since the PUD was originally approved and modified, he felt that it <br />was inappropriate to have another hotel in any part of Pleasanton <br />at this time. With regard to Lots B and C, he indicated that he had <br />no problem with the specific uses but that a strip/commercial <br />retail in the area would not harmonize with the development on the <br />two other corners of that major intersection. He asked staff if it <br />would be appropriate to change the PUD to reduce retail or to deny <br />specific parts of the PUD and have Item 6f adjusted accordingly. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the list of allowed uses on Item 6f <br />could be modified to indicate that Lot B can be used for a free- <br />standing restaurant, financial institution and garden offices, and <br />that retail from Lot C would be deleted and a free-standing <br />restaurant could be allowed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver requested more information about staff's concerns <br />about the build-out model being five years old and an additional <br />study being done. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that staff will redo the General Plan <br />build-out model partly in conjunction with the General Plan five- <br />year revision that is upcoming this fiscal year. Staff would <br />develop a model similar to the short-term models which would <br />indicate the build-out from all the sites covered by the Signature <br />Center to show whether or not the distribution and the effects are <br />what they would be. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Mr. Tarver, that <br />Resolution No. 90-138 be adopted, based on a review of an initial <br />environmental impact study done for this project and on a finding <br />that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in <br />the City's guidelines and on further finding that a negative <br />declaration is appropriate in connection with the following <br />applications of PacTel properties: (1) PUD-80-16-3M, the <br />application for planned unit development rezoning for the major <br />modification of the approved Meyer Business Park (Signature Center) <br />development plan to relocate approximately 1,250,170 square feet of <br />approved commercial, office and industrial uses on an 82.0 acre <br />site located generally in the northwest quadrant of Hopyard Road <br />and Stoneridge Drive; (2) PUD-80-16-5D, the application for design <br />review approval to construct a three-building, approximately <br />138,500 square foot office complex on an 8.81 acre site located in <br /> <br /> 7-17-90 <br /> <br /> - 15 - <br /> <br /> <br />