CCMIN101381 - Laserfiche WebLink

14!. App. lication of the City of Pleasanton to fezone (Annexation No. 88) an appr0Ximate!.y 20 acre site located on the north side'of Vineyard Avenue immediately_east of the Hacienda Mobile Home Park to PUD-Me4~umDensity Residential (Planned. Unit peve!opT' ment) District or to any other zonin~ district consisten.t with the G~nera.~ Plan On the basis of an Initial Stud7 Of .the potential environmental impacts of the pro3ect.~' the..Diregtgr of Planning and Community Development has determined that the proposed. prol~ct .would not ~ave any potential significant ~verse effects on the environment and that an environmental impac.t [~po~t need not be prepared.. This In.itial Study is' available f0;..~evie~ at the P!annin~_ Divisions .200 Bernal Aven~e~ Pleasanton. Comments on this decision ma7 be directed to either the Planning staff prior to the above meetin~ date.,. or directly to the. City Council at. tb~ above noticed meetinM Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 81:350) dated October 6, 1981, regarding this ~tter. Councilmember Kephart abstained from partidipation in this item be£ause of poten- tial Conflict of Interest due to his former business partnerws involvement in the project. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearin~ open on the application a~d the neZative declaration. Mr. ~.illiam Hirst, Attorney, 147 Bernal Avenue~ representin~ T. A. Bates, stated he a~reed with the staff report and he urged approval of the application. Ms. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, stated she was OriBinally opposed to the restriction that only mobile homes be allowed on this property, but after re- consideration she felt this was appropriate and that this restriction s~ould remain as a condition for approval. She presented pictures to show that the present mobile home park is aesthetically pleasin~ to the surroundin~ neighborhood. Mr. Hirst rebutted by statin~ this property should be treated the same as the adJoininB property, with no restrictions relative to allowinB mobile homes only. There bein~ no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearinB closed on the application and the neBative declaration. Councilmember Butler suggested that the miti~ated negative declaration condition relatin~ to Pico Avenue not be removed, and therefore no additional neEdtire declara- tion or Environmental Impact Report would be needed. It was moved by Councilmember ~ood, and seconded by Councilmember Hohr, that Ordinance No. 1001, to be read by title only and waivin~ further readin~ thereof, approvin~ the application of the City of Pleasanton to fezone Annexation No. 88, an approximately 20 acre site located on the north side of Vineyard Aven~e immediately east of the Hacienda Mobile Home Park to PUD-Medium Density Residentia~ (Planned Unit Development) District, be introduced. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, ~ood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED:Counctlmember Kephart Application of the City o.f. Ple~santon to prezone (Annexation No. 89) and approximate1~ 230 acre site located on the west side of Foothill Roads s~uth of Santps Ranch Road to any zonin~ district consistent with the General Plan 8. 10/13/81