Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fred Howell, 1476 Houston, Lafayette, stated the proposed project fills a need <br />in the community for apartments. He stated this will be a moderate to low income project <br />with 25% set aside for lower income housing. He advised the project fits within the <br />purposes of the zoning for this particular property, has excellent traffic access, and <br />will be cluster designed with large setbacks from street and parking. He stated that <br />negotiations have not been completed with the City and County of San Francisco for ac- <br />quisition of a portion of their property necessary for the project. Mr. Howell pre- <br />sented drawings showing the design of the proposed project, which he plans to build in <br />two phases. He also reviewed the landscaping plan. He concluded by stating he felt <br />this is a fine project and will help alleviate the shortage of apartment complexes in <br />Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mike McQuaid, representing the Pacific Locomotive Association, asked if there <br />was any conflict with the pipeline. He stated this proposed project could cause a con- <br />flict at the corner of Bernal Avenue if the railroad proposal between Pleasanton and <br />Ni!es Canyon is approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Howell stated he did not think there would be a conflict as long as the proposed <br />railroad project stays on the Southern Pacific right-of-way. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed <br />on the application and the mitigated negative declaration. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Brandes stated he had concerns regarding the density of this project <br />as it is much higher than any other project already approved within the City. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Butler stated he had concerns about the land arrangements pending <br />with the City and County of San Francisco, and felt it would be premature to approve <br />this project without knowing whether or not they can use the land. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Council- <br />member Butler, that Resolution No. 84-252, denying the application of EVH Partnership <br />and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland for PUD zoning and development plan approval <br />of a 296 unit multi-family residential development project and related facilities on <br />an approximately 12 acre site at the southwest corner of Bernal Avenue (extension) and <br />Sunol Boulevard, be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> No action was required or taken relative to the mitigated negative declaration be- <br />cause of the above action taken by Council on this item. <br /> <br />Application of Lee Amaral for PUD (Planned Unit Development)-zoning and development <br />plan approval for an eight unit multi-family residential project on an app~oximate. ly <br />0.28 acre site at ~04 St. Mary Street (southwest corner of St..Mary Street and Peters <br />Avenue). Zoning for the property is currently R-1-6500 (S.Angle-fa~ily Residential) <br />District <br /> <br />Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration <br /> Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 84:274) dated May 14, 1984, regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the negative <br />declaration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee Amaral, applicant, stated he concurred with the recommendations of Planning <br /> <br /> 9. 5/22/84 <br /> <br /> <br />