PC 10/10/79 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Commission October 10, 1979 Page 6 Inasmuch as RZ-79-15 was approved recommending R-1-8500 and R-1-10,000, Commissioner Wilson made a motion to deny PUD-79-8. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Getty. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes Commissioners Getty, Jamieson, Wilson and Chairman Doherty Noes None Absent Commissioner Geppert The applicant was advised of his right of appeal. Resolution No. 1804 was then entered and adopted denying PUD-79-8, application of Amador Valley Investors. Mr. Oakes asked for clarification on the action taken in RZ-79-15. Mr. Harris explained. PUD-79-11, Centex Application for a planned unit development for a 79-unit single family residential project proposed to be constructed on the 32.4 acre site located between the Pleasanton School playfield and Mirador Drive immediately southerly of the residences bordering Angela Street. Zoning for the property is A (Agricultural) District. A mitigated negative declaration will also be considered. Mr. Harris explained the staff report stating that conditions of project approval of 19 through 25 are mitigating conditions. The public hearing was opened. Robert Douglass, M & M Consultants, representing Centex spoke. He stated they made many changes in their plan, many of which could not be graphically demonstrated because they involved conditions as opposed to graphics. He stated they are furnishing more usable areas not including the slopes; that most of the backyards are mucher larger to reduce the amount of grading. He stated they will have architectural control for the homes; open space would be adequately drained. He stated they will be protecting the view of the existing property owners, trees will be saved, there will be a pedestrian walkway to the school and the alignment to Pico would be done. Mr. Douglass addressed grading and that they don't feel uncomfortable with the HPD ordinance code regarding grading. He stated they will save 6 oak trees. He stated their proposed density is less than allowed by the General Plan. He reiterated they will not impair anyone's view by developing. He addressed the width of the streets and that they are more than willing to do what the City wants. He stated that on the southern boundary they are giving up 80' of right of way. He explained the smallest and largest lot size. Chairman Doherty asked any person who wished to speak in favor of this project to address the Commission. No one wished to speak in favor of this project. He then asked for speakers who wished to oppose this project to come forward: Trent Pridemore, 4507 Mirador, representing the homeowners spoke in opposition to this plan. He stated this plan is basically as before and it was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council recently. He stated their major objections; grading, protection of the heritage trees was not addressed. He stated this is a small parcel with unique features and the project should be designed accordingly. He further addressed concerns with grading, drainage, access to Pico Avenue~x utilization of school property for the development. He stated that as of October 10, 1979 am, the school district was never approached concerning this aspect. He referred to the petition previously presented in opposition to this project with 90 signatures asking an EIR be done. -6-