PC 08/08/79 - Laserfiche WebLink

PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 to "Commercial and Offices". The Planning Commission may recommend the above change or any other designation it deems appropriate. A negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. Mr. Harris reviewed the staff report and indicated which property was involved on the General Plan Map for the audience and Commission to see. He stated the staff concurred with the application, however, they felt an alternate location should be suggested at this time. Commissioner Wilson asked if the 98 acres were in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Harris stated they are. Commissioner Doherty said he was concerned with using a designation "B" for BART instead of specific property as it might have a negative effect in the future and didn't wish to do anything to jeopardize BART coming to this area. The public hearing was opened. Robert Eynck, Taubman Company, spoke representing the owners of the Stoneridge Center and peripheral properties surrounding the shopping center. He stated he did not represent department stores as each own their respective parcels within the center, but only represented the developer's portion of the shopping center excluding areas owned by the stores. He stated that they concurred with the staff report and urged the Commission to pass the General Plan amendment application. Commissioner Geppert asked if Stoneson owned the property on the freeway side and asked if Mr. Eynck represented them? Mr. Eynck responded that Stoneson owns 88 acres located between the red line shown on the map presented and I-680 and that Taubman has no control over this area and is not addressing those 88 acres. Joe Burkhardt, Stoneson, stated his company encourages the General Plan amendment application. Commissioner Wilson addressed Mr. Burkhardt stating he understood Mr. Burkhardt concurs with staff concerning this application but doesn't agree with the proposed alignment. Mr. Burkhardt explained he concurred with the application as proposed, but did not make any recommendations as to where the future alignment should be. Commissioner Geppert inquired whether or not Burkhardt would like BART crossing their property. Mr. Burkhardt responded present zoning is compatible with the idea but as to where BART should be located is BART's decision and therefore the location of the parking structure and station must be deferred until BART is ready to proceed. Chairman Doherty asked if they were prepared to sell property to BART. Burkhardt stated BART would have the full cooperation of the property owners. Howard Goode, BART, spoke and stated another representative of BART was also present; Bob Allen. He stated the alternative route shown in red on the map is agreeable to them. He stated this route is feasible both from a construction and engineering standpoint and even better than the original location. He stated there would be a report made to the BART Board of Directors in the next two months on all routes within the BART system and this report would be the basis for applying for grants over the next three years of $65,000,000. Mr. Goode stated that he concurred with the staff report and that the alternate location was a good one, at least for the time being. He stated they were primarily concerned with alignment and not the station at this time. Commissioner Jamieson stated he would like to see it run along I-580 and then down I-680. Mr. Goode stated it was also possible BART would use a subway system. .._ _. _. .