PC 02/09/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

proposed violates the rules set forth for preservation. He referred to the density proposed for the 1.6 acres and asked what happens to the 0.8 acres that remain. He said that property would take at least six more units; thus, in actuality they are talking about 18-20 units - 30' buildings with 10' set- backs from property line and it doesn't make any difference what angle it takes. He indicated the views need to be guaranteed. J. Niday, 4440 Entrada Drive spoke to concerns with inadequate drainage in planning Pleasanton Heights. He said the storm sewers may be adequate but the manholes get plugged and do not take the water. He said that two-three blocks down Bonita, one block on Entrada and Neal all drain into the opening in front of his home and that water comes one-half way up to his home during inclement weather. Bonnie Krichbaum, 303 Neal Street was confused in whether or not the project is 2.4 or 1.6 acres. She indicated that if medium density has a maximum of eight units/acre, the proposal is not at 50~ allowance on the 1.6 acres. She said in looking at the plan it doesn't appear to have 59~ open space. She said the height of the proposed structures would obstruct solar panels, etc. She said they believe the plans need work and are willing to discuss the matter but no one has talked to them. John Tomkins, 4385 Entrada Drive said he is not against the development but that there is a problem with density and 10' setbacks and wants to maintain the single-family atmosphere. He addressed Item No. 13 of the Negative Declaration stating he does not believe it is accurate. He indicated that Mr. Barbee had said that only the first level would be blocked on Del Sol on the south side. He further stated that Mr. Lund came to his house the previous night was unsure as to whether Mr. Barbee had said this or not and if he did was not sure it was true and would have to check on it. He said that he told Vic if the two story blocked residences on Del Sol it would most certainly impair his view. He further realized that there are no view ordinances within the City but did state that the residents on Angela and Mirador were previously concerned and granted view easements in the approval of the Cork Harbor project. He addressed No. 8 of the Initial Study regarding noise and said it would have an amphitheatre effect. He stated that an EIR should probably be done on this because of the land character- istics. He further didn't understand the push for sewer permits and felt the surrounding owners didn't have sufficient notice to respond to this proposal. He invited the Commission to his home to see the view from his vantage point. Commissioner Jamieson preferred that this matter be deferred so that the applicant and nieghbors could resolve their differences.