My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN102682
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
CCMIN102682
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:52:11 AM
Creation date
11/10/1999 12:33:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
153 <br /> <br /> this item on the negative declaration. The City Attorney advised he would have to <br /> look up the specific section. <br /> <br /> Mayor Butler recessed the meeting at 11:50 P.M. <br /> <br /> Mayor Butler reconvened the meeting at 12:00 midnight. <br /> <br /> Mayor Butler thanked the citizens for their involvement in this matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald advised that pursuant to Section 21151 of CEQA, as amended in 1981, <br />if the Council finds that public controversy has emerged but that there is no sub- <br />stantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which <br />exist in the area, then the Council can still approve the negative declaration. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Mohr, and seconded by Council- <br />member Wood, that Resolution No. 82-422, determining on the basis of a review of <br />initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental <br />impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and that a negativ~ declara- <br />tion is appropriate for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval for <br />an approximately 238 unit manufactured housing project for an approximately 29 acre <br />site located on the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Sauterne Way, be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Butler <br />NOES: Councilmember Mercer <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Mercer, and seconded by Mayor Butler, to deny the <br />application of Ken Earp, et al, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan <br />approval for an approximately 238 unit manufactured housing project for an approxi- <br />mately 29 acre site located on the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Sauterne <br />Way. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmember Mercer and Mayor Butler <br />NOES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mohr, and Wood <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mercer stated this project has been before the City for almost a <br />year; that it started out with narrow streets, no open space, etc. He stated that <br />after some changes to the plan, he felt this project is still too dense and will not <br />solve the affordable housing problem. He stated he did not feel this is the best <br />project for this property and is not a good deal, and he would not want the project <br />in his neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Mayor Butler stated he has been a leading proponent bf low cost housing, but <br />there are some problems associated with this project that he is concerned about; <br />the size of the duplex units being his biggest concern, stating he felt that to <br />crowd two families in a living space of 700 sq. ft. per unit on small lots, is not <br />good planning. He stated he felt the density, traffic, and fire protection issues <br />could be mitigated. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mohr stated the density falls within the range specified for that <br />particular parcel; the size of the units should be viewed in terms of livability <br />depending on how many go into it, type of occupants will generally be singles and <br />couples, and that there will not be a large number of families occupying the units. <br />She stated she felt that what this project offers is valid and the need is great. <br /> <br /> 13. 10/26/82 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.