CCMIN091686 - Laserfiche WebLink

199 AYES: Councilmembers BUtler, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Brandes NOES: None ABSENT: None It was moved 6y Councilmember Mohr, and seconded by Councilmember Mercer, that Parcel 31 Pleasanton Joint School District, be designated on the general plan as follows: 6.5 acres as medium density residential, and 1.2 acres as public health and safety, for a total of 7.7 acres. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Brandes NOES: None ABSENT: None Parcel 32 City of Pleasanton GP-86-3, Application of the City of Pleasanton to amend the General Plan Land Use Element designation of an approximately 4.8 acre site from Low Density Residential to Open Space Parks and Recreation and of an approximately 4.5 acre site from Open Space/Parks and Recreation/ to Medium Density Residential generally located in the area south and north of Mission Hills Park, respectively Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration PUD-86-13, A lication of Castlewood Properties for rezoning from the "A" (Agricultura~I to the PUD '(Planned Unit Development}-Medium Density Residen- tial District and development plan approval for a 12 parcel single-family Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration Mr. Swift presented his reports (SR 86:407 and SR 86:409) dated September 16, 1986, regarding these items. Mr. Greg Mix, representing the applicant, stated that the general plan aspect of this second stage affecting the land change is a City-initiated transaction; and they are trying to turn it into a nice project. He stated they have worked out a compromise with the surrounding neighbors for an excel- lent project. He presented the development plans. He stated they agree with the the conditions with the exception of condition No. 7, which they presented a modified condition to staff earlier today, related to the view easement that is required. They stated they also submitted a modified condition No. 11, regarding park pathway. He asked that the modified condition be withdrawn. Mr. Swift stated staff has not been in contact with the neighbors regard- ing the view easement; the applicant has been in contact with the neighbors and they originally wanted a view easement. Staff wrote the condition. He stated the CC&R's should take care of the roof or tree view easement. No one spoke in opposition to these items. It was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that Resolution No. 86-443, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and that a negative declaration is appropriate in connection with GP-86-3, application of the City - 28 - 9-16-86