CCMIN042881 - Laserfiche WebLink

235 Council reviewed each of the conditions established by the Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 1962, and made the following changes: CONDITION NO. 4 It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, that Condition No. 4 be amended to read as follows: "That the total building floor space on the subject property shall be a maximum of 35% of the gross acreage of the subject site (approximately 1,250,170 sq. ft.) all in accordance with Exhibit A, Range of Proposed Buildin~ Floor Space and Building Footprints, dated 3/10/81, and made a part of this case by reference". The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITION NO. 56 It was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, that Condition No. 56 be amended to read as follows: "That the development shall provide on-site private security guards as determined by the Police Chief". The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITION NO. 66 After discussion, it was moved by Mayor Mercer, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, that Condition No. 66 be amended to read as follows: "That any business on the subject property which employs over 100 employees shall. be encouraged to institute a van pool program and stagger work hours to reduce peak traffic genera- tion". The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITION NO. 69 Mr. Harris advised that the applicant has requested that Condition No. 69 be amended as per his written request to Council dated April 28, 1981, and that staff has no opposition to the amendment. Mr. David Brown, representing Reynolds and Brown, stated he had not seen the amendment until tonight and he is not prepared to give his opinion on the amendment, and he did not think this is a proper method to handle such a technical and detailed matter. He stated he felt this issue should be resolved between the developers and staff, not at Council level. Mr. Brown asked that Mr. Meyer's application be continued until this matter is resolved. He added that circulation is a critical point and should be given careful consideration. The City Attorney advised that an ordinance could be introduced tonight that would be adopted at the next meeting, and in the meantime this matter could be resolved. After further discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, that Condition No. 69, be amended to read as follows: "That the north terminus of Street B shall align with the north/south street in the Reynolds and Brown project. The final alignment of the street, appropriate com- pensation between the Meyer and Reynolds and Brown developments and timing of street 8. 4/28/81