Laserfiche WebLink
Cor-„r,i ssi oner- Tar ~.fer as~:ed t'tr . Swift about the mi t i gat i or, <br />,rieasures as identified i n previ alas traffic studies, i~r . Swi f t <br />respor:ded ti-,at i t woa.~i d be tsandl ec! tl-ae sa:r,e as f oc.ar ot!-,er <br />pr-ojects ir, that area !nT~<T, ~:eyno? d,, Hopyar-d did. , and Owens <br />fir.} <br />i=:urrimi ssi ones 3"li chel otti ~es~: ed t~:e app 1 i cant i f t-te second <br />proposal differs i r, that 5, C?:?C! s;~. feet hatije been added to t:-~e <br />f aci 1 i ty and that i t i s noars a two-story bui 1 di ng rati~er thari the <br />originally planner one-story flat roof. The applicant <br />concurred. <br />Com,T,i ssi ^ner- 1'ii chef otti asE~-ed Mr . S~si f t i f the~f were still using <br />1 ~?8b traffic studies. h1r . Swift said they are brat by the her; t <br />meeting the 157 traffic studies should be available. However, <br />he added that tl-oere will tre little change Between the two <br />figures. <br />Joe Callahan of Callahan and C~Srian stater that he had spo~:en <br />to a r-epresentative cif Call"tans whcr had indicated that Hopyarr <br />co~eld possibly be finished by Sept.IClct. 1;'S8 and Stoneridge and <br />1-68rr try !~~{o:~. 1~?Ei9. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Chairman Lindsey Lo,T,mended the applicant for wort:=i ng so we? 1 <br />wi t!-t staff on a revised proyect . <br />A motion was made by C.ommi ssi oner- I''ii Ll'eel otti , seconded b`~ <br />Co,suT,i ssi oner Eierger r-ecorr,mer,di r,g approval of Case F'Cb-81- i~-4.tL` <br />subject to the conditions of the staff repot t. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE- <br />AWES: Co,z,mi ssi oner- s Berger , H,ryt , C`iI chef ott~ , Tarver , <br />and Ct-,ai rman Lindsey <br />1~CES: gone <br />AEsSEI°~JT: itilone <br />ASSTA 1 ikt a i'~one <br />Resolution h~o. ~'C-88-2~~ was entered and adopted approving C3_e <br />Pl.1L1-81-;;fir-4~I} as motioned . <br />GP_88=1s_City_of_Pleasanton <br />Application of the City of Pleasanton to amend the Housing <br />Element of the General Plan to limit the total number of housing <br />units which can be given Growth Management approval to a maximum <br />of 1 , t?t~U per year and to exempt housing projects of 5 units or <br />less from the i,ti~7{i unit limit. <br />~'tr . Swift presented the staff report r-ecommendi ng that ti-ae <br />h!egati ve Lyecl arati on be approved; that tt--,e Gommi ssi on find that <br />ti se proposed lleneral ~='1 an amendments are consi -tent ssi th t~se <br />goats and policies of the t3enera3 F'1 an and amend the Housing <br />Page ~ <br />