PC 10/26/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION 10/26/83 Page 23 Commissioner Lindsey thanked the general plan review committee for their recommendation. Commissioner Wilson also felt that some alternatives should be discussed with which they are not in accord such as no PUD project, freeze the development, etc. He stated we don't seem to agree with any of that although it has been reviewed. Commissioner Doherty said the benefits to the City having a PUD rather than the previous zoning gives the City some clout should it be needed in the future. He stated the development is a credit to the community. He felt much more comfortable having a PUD in the area than the current zoning. Hacienda is a first class development in North Pleasanton. Commissioner Getty felt it was important to point out that the area, for a very long time, has been planned for commerical/industrial growth and there has been some problems with residential areas being close to freeways, etc., and believes the land is well suited for industrial/commercial growth and not for residential use. Commissioner Lindsey said he frequently hears of the excitement of the existing residents about the possibility of the future of residents working in the City in which they live. This is a very real potential for the citizens. Commissioner Wilson interjected that ~ one time putting residential in the park was discussed and it was determined it would not be a good idea. Commissioner Doherty spoke to Condition No. 2 and the changes that Mr. Harris brought up early in the evening with regard to Conditions No. 1 and 106. Commissioner Lindsey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Getty that the Planning Commission finds (a) that all feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project and that other suggested mitigation measures and alternatives are either within the jursidiction of another agency or are infeasible, all as spelled out in Exhibit A, of the draft resolution; (b) finds that all significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible; (c) finds that the remaining effects are acceptable because the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, all as enumerated in the draft resolution and testimony made before the Commission; and (d) recommends approval of PUD-81-30 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, modifying Condition No 1 and 106 as requested by staff and Condition No. 2 incorporating the recommendation of the general plan review committee[(3(a) - (e)] ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Lindsey, Wilson and Chairman Jamieson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None __.__ ____....___.~,..._.~.._...._.._.._..~_~._._~..~-..e..__...........-~.......__._.. ,.. _.. _.... ..._._,__._.,_._._...._..... .. .. T