Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commissioi <br />4/24/85 <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairman Doherty <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIr1: None <br />Resolution No. 2646 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of the negative declaration prepared for Case RZ-85-10. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Lindsey that Case RZ-85-10 be recommended for approval subject to <br />the conditions shown in the staff report. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairman Doherty <br />NOE5: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAITI: None <br />Resolution No. 2647 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of Cas% RZ-85-10 as motioned. <br />PUD-85-5, SJD Investment <br />Application of SJD Investments for <br />apprc-~a1 to construct a four-story, <br />office building on an approximately <br />Johnson Drive. Zoning for the p: <br />Development)-Industrial, Commercial <br />Planned Unit Development plan <br />approximately 66,000 sq. ft. <br />2.8 acre site located at 7090 <br />~operty is PUD (Planned Unit <br />and Office District. <br />Mr. Harris presented the staff report recommending approval of <br />the project. He indicated that the applicant would rather <br />provide additional parking in a parking structure rather than <br />provide parking by removal of tennis courts as described in <br />Condition NO. 2. Staff has no problem with this request. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if this project is subject to the North <br />Pleasanton Assessment District. Mr. Harris stated that the <br />project was subject to the big three conditions and they were <br />attached at the general plan stage. <br />Commissioner Innes inquired about the agreement between AVAC and <br />Dillingham relating to traffic issues. Mr. Harris stated that <br />the project could probably go forth even without this agreement. <br />Commissioner Innes asked when the traffic report was completed. <br />Mr. Harris indicated that it was completed using November 1983 <br />traffic counts and is just the same as all of the other TJKM <br />reports. They have not come back with the recommended changes to <br />the assumptions report. Commissioner Innes was distressed at <br />using 18 month traffic counts in analyzing traffic. Mr. Warnick <br />stated that the staff feels that the traffic study properly <br />- 9 - <br /> <br />