Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />6/13/84 <br />Page 13 <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairman Doherty <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. 2482 was entered and adopted recommending approval of case PUD-81-30-13D <br />as motioned. <br />Chairman Doherty then asked for a show of hands as to persons present for the <br />next two cases. After reviewing the show of hands he announced that GP-84-6 <br />would be considered before GP-84-5. <br />GP-84-6, City of Pleasanton <br />Application of the City of Pleasanton to change the General Plan designation <br />of the approximately 17 acre City Corporation Yard located at 5335 Sunol Boulevard <br />and the approximately 20.5 acre City-owned parcel located west of the corporation <br />yard immediately west of the SPRR right-of-way from "Public and Institutional" <br />and "General and Limited Industrial" to "Public and Institutional", "Parks <br />and R.e~reation" and "High Density Residential." The Planning Commission may <br />recommend any action on this application deemed in the public interest. A <br />negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be consdiered. <br />Mr. Harris presented the staff report concerning the proposed land use change. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if the subject was 200 units on. the 10 acre portion <br />or the entire area. Mr. Harris indicated it would be for the entire area <br />or a recommendation can be made for just the 10 acres. The matter was <br />legally advertised to allow for the maximum number of acres to be considered. <br />CommissionerWilson asked whether or not the City had entered into an agreement <br />for the other one-half of the road for access to the property. Mr. Warnick <br />indicated there would be a 40 ft. wide easement on the west side of the railroad <br />property. They would prefer to negotiate at least a half street on the west <br />boundary of the property. Commissioner Wilson asked what happened to H & H development. <br />Mr. Harris indicated that they have talked about another project but haven't <br />come back in yet. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if the 10 acreswas going to be contributed to some <br />non-profit corporation for housing use. Mr. Harris stated that the Council <br />hasn't decided whether to lease the property at a nominal fee or donate it. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if the City was serious with the proposed use of <br />the property. Mr. Harris indicated that it may be considered idealistic but <br />that it is a goal for which the City is striving. CommissionerWilson asked <br />if the property has been appraised and whether or not the City has any idea <br />of the value. Mr. Harris said the City has a rough idea. Commissioner Wilson <br />suggested that without the multi-family use the property is worth probably <br />$6,000,OOO.Commissioner Wilson then asked about the density proposed for this <br />property inasmuch as Council expressed concern with density on the last proposal. <br />-13- <br />