CCMIN040682 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Wood stated that in a project such as this the following had to be considered: (1) how it will effect the property owner; (a) how it will effect the neighbors; and (3) how will the City and the rest of the citizens benefit. Council- member Wood stated he did not find this project in the best interests of the City. Councilmember Mohr stated she concurred with Councilmember Kephart. She stated that Council had recently approved another project of high density that was family oriented and with the same level of income. She stated her original concerns re- garding durability and quality of the project had been met. She stated that Pleasan- ton has a great need for affordable housing and to delay further will only increase the costs. After further discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that the application of Richard and Ursula Ultsch and Theodore Bates for prezoning and development plan approval for an approximately 247 dwelling unit project on an approximately 29 acre site located at the north side of Vineyard ~' Avenue opposite Sauterne Way, be approved, subject to the staff recommended condi- %H tions with the elimination of Conditions numbers 9, 33, 37, and 38. CO The roll call vote was as follows: Q~ AYES: Councilmembers Kephart and Mohr NOES: Councilmembers Butler, Wood, and Mayor Mercer (~ ABSENT: None There being no further motions for approval, the application has been deemed denied (Resolution No. 82-119). Application of Reynolds and Brown for P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) development plan approval for a second phase of development for the 56 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Hopyard Road and 1-580 in the vicinity of Bannister and Owens Drives. The proposed development plan proposes fourteen individual office and research and development buildings on the site ranSin8 from 1.2 to 7.2 acres in size with structures ~roposed up to five stories in heiSht. Zoning for the propert2 is P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) Industrial/Commercial and Offices. The City Council may recommend an~.action relative to the proposal consistent with the General Plan On the basis of an Initial StudJ of the potential environmental impacts of the proj ect~ the Director of Planning and Community Development has determined that the proposed project would not have any potential siSnificant adverse effects on the environment and that an environmental impact report need not be prepared. This Initial Study is available for review at the Plannin~ Division~ 200 Bernal Avenue~ Pleasanton. Comments on this decision maXbe directed to either the Plannin8 staff prior to the above meeting d~te~ o~..~irectly to the City-Council at the above noticed meeting Mr. Harris'presented his report (SR 82:132) dated April 1, 1982, regarding this matter. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the nega- tive declaration. Mayor Mercer stated he had some concerns regarding this application and would like to continue the item until after review of the North Pleasanton studies relative to traffic, water, fire, etc. Mr. Tom Terrill, representing Reynolds and Brown, stated the developer would like to get the plan approved so that construction could begin as soon as possible. He advised that a significant delay could cause them to lose their sewer permits. The 7. 4/6/82