PC 082306 - Laserfiche WebLink

~„ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regazding whether there would be any structures in conjunction with grazing, Mr. Pavan noted that the only structure in the open space azea would be the existing covered barn shed, which the cattle currently use for shade. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regazding the mechanism that would prevent the City from converting the open space to another use in the future, Mr. Pavan noted that the General Plan designation is being changed to Agricultural and Grazing. He noted that the Laguna Oaks and Jorgensen Lane neighbors had expressed that concern and that staff had promised to bring that issue back to the Planning Commission with its review of the subdivision map. Two possible entities had been identified to hold a conservation easement: the Tri-Valley Conservancy and the East Bay Regional District Pazk Foundation. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regazding whether the disclosure on page 11 (43.d.) was sufficient to address chickens or other noisy animals, Mr. Pavan confirmed that the open space azea was limited to only cattle grazing. Ms. Harryman noted that while cattle grazing was the focus with respect to this application, the Agricultural zoning could come back. She noted that the Chicken Ordinance would be in effect, but there was no discussion of chicken farms. /" Regarding page 15, Item 77 (sprinklers), Commissioner Blank inquired whether the pressure tank was sufficient to maintain the 60-gallon-per-minute flow independent of an electrical source. Mr. Pavan confirmed that was correct and that it was pressurized to maintain a 60-gallon-per-minute flow for ten minutes, even without power. Commissioner Blank noted that the historical photographs were excellent and suggested that the Pleasanton Museum may be interested in obtaining copies. Chairperson Arkin complimented the applicant on one of the highest quality presentations they had seen. Commissioner Arkin moved to: (1) find that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental impact and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate and recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) find that the proposed amendment to the Pleasanton General Plan conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan and recommend approval of Case PGPA-11 changing the land use designation of the 30-acre Austin property from Rural Density Residential (1 du/5 ac) to Low Density Residential (<2 du/ac) land uses; (3) find that the proposed PUD rezoning of the subject property from A (Agriculture) District to PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development -Low Density Residential) District on the remaining 22 acres, and the PUD development plan ~ subdividing the subject property into eight custom home sites and designating the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 23, 2006 Page 9 of 17