CCMIN102699 - Laserfiche WebLink

would have had to go through the Fairgrounds. The Nolan property does have streets that provide access from two points, Fair and Rose, so it does not have the problems the Braddock and Logan project did. Ms. Michelotti believed that as this area has been reviewed there has been the assumption that there would be some kind of east/west connection. This project is far enough away that it would not be affected no matter what eventually happens. Mr. Swift agreed there are many more issues at the west end, including where the alignment will eventually go as well as sewer and water easements. The Nolan property is not affected by any of that. It can use existing sewer and water systems. Ms. Ayala asked if this property was within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Mr. Swift said no. Ms. Michelotti clarified that the staff recommendation included a six foot wall on the Fairgrounds property and a requirement for a bond in the event the property the Nolans are residing on is every developed in the future. However, she had sat on the front porch of the Nolan home and she did not want to see their view taken away. She believed that was protected under the proposed conditions. She supported the project and the inclusion of the five units of affordable housing. Her only concern was that the housing is compatible with the development and existing neighbors. There is little opportunity left for affordable housing and by providing subsidies of about $93,000, this is something that should be supported. It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to adopt Resolution No. 99-130, approving a Negative Declaration for PUD-99-05. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Dennis, Michelotti and Mayor Tarvet NOES: Councilmember Ayala ABSENT: Councilmember Pico ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to introduce Ordinance No. 1798, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, approving the application of SummerHill Homes/Nolan Farms, as filed under Case PUD-99-05, subject to an additional condition that the fencing along Rose Avenue provide the same setback as the sideyard set back as the house on that lot. Ms. Ayala could not support the motion because of her concerns on infrastructure and her perception that this project was being rushed because of the CAPP Initiative. She was concerned that if housing is continually approved along this area before the Rose Avenue extension is put in, it will never be extended. The timing of this project is not Pleasanton City Council 18 10/26/99 Minutes