PC 01/09/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commissio. January 9, 1985 Commissioner Innes asked about the first project having two recreation areas and this project only having one. Mr. Howell explained that if you removed the tennis courts there would remain a huge area which is equal to the two other areas which are smaller. Mr. Howell also reviewed the size of the pool. Vice Chairman Wilson asked if the applicants agree to the conditions of the staff report. Mr. Howell indicated they do except there is some indication there is an agreement between the Diocese and the City concerning conveyance of street improvements and if it in fact exists they would like the flexibility to remove Conditions no. 10 and No. 11 which would be covered by this agreement.. The Diocese will be sending him a copy of this agreement. Mr. Howell indicated their willingness to comply with the conditions proposed if the agreement doesn't prohibit them. Commissioner Lindsey asked the size of the recreation area. Mr. Howell indicted it is approximately 155' x 180' including the pool area. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Commissioner Getty that the negative declaration prepared for Case PUD-84-21 be recommended for adoption inasmuch as approval of this project would have a negative effect on the environment. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, Wellman and Vice Chairman Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Doherty ABSTAIN:None Resolution No. 2592 was entered and adopted recommending approval of the Negative Declaration prepared for Case PUD-84-21 as motioned. Commissioner Lindsey then discussed the proposed recreation area feeling that one large area is better than two smaller ones because it is unlikely that all of the tenants would be using the area at once, thus giving more area to the people who use it. Commissioner Innes addressed Condition No. 2 and he didn't believe any construction should start until a 40' wide strip is straightened out. Commissioner Lindsey felt Condition No. 5 takes care of that. Commissioner Innes indicated that it refers to 'best effort.' Vice Chairman Wilson felt that Condition No. 2 should reflect no construction should commence until the applicant has ownership of the properties currently owned by the City of Pleasanton and the San Francisco Water Department. Commissioner Innes wanted to see the entire street improved. Vice Chairman Wilson agreed with this. He said the same thing happened with Fromm; the Fair board gave land for an easement and Fromm built a street and bridge. Mr. Harris interjected that EVH has to purchase the land. Vice Chairman Wilson felt that poor - 7 - ...