PC 05/13/81 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Jamieson, Lindsey and Vice Chairperson Getty Noes: None Absent: Chairperson Wilson Resolution No. 1983 was then entered and adopted approving case Z-81-46 subject to the conditions of the staff report of 5/13/81. GP-80-8, City of Pleasanton Application of the City of Pleasanton for a general plan amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Element consisting of nineteen changes in land use designation of particular areas and three changes in the circulation patterns proposed in the Pleasanton General Plan. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was also considered. Mr. Harris explained the staff report stating that the items being con- sidered for general plan change were the result of a land use committee's review of Pleasanton last year. He said these represent about one-half of their recommendations - the other half were already considered under a negative declaration. He described the proposed changes on the General Plan Map for the benefit of the audience. He suggested that testimony regarding this application along with that of Prudential and Stoneson be considered under the same action as they inter-relate. He stated that the applications of Amaral and Breilh are separate subject matter and should be considered independent of the other pro- perties. Mr. Harris further reviewed each of the staff's recommendations concerning the proposed changes. Commissioner Jamieson inquired about the acreage to be changed out in Fairlands and that he needed to know whether it was four or six acres. Mr. Harris stated that the Assessor's Parcel Map was checked and that the map indicated the property is 4.2 acres. The public hearing was opened. GP-80-8, Comments on Recommendations No. 1, 2 and 3 Joe Burkhardt, represented Stoneson concerning GP-81-2. He said he is no longer representing Taubman, but Stoneson. He explained the long range concept of the Stoneridge area. He explained the differences in what citizen committee is asking and that which Stoneson is applying for. He urged approval of the Stoneson application. Mr. Harris then explained how case GP-80-8 was noticed; i.e. notice to the property owners, land use committee, citizens who spoke at the land use com- mittee meetings and other interested persons. He said the only people notified 300 ft. from any given piece of property on this list were the persons on Longspur because they had previously expressed so much interest in the Tam property at Valley and Hopyard. He further said a quarter page ad was put in the Valley Times, noticing all other persons. -5- .._ _ T.... ~.__