PC 10/10/79 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Commission October 10, 1979 Page 7 Commissioner Wilson stated that at a previous Planning Commission meeting the homeowners indicated they liked Plan B and Plan B is what is being considered tonight. He stated this Plan has been modified to comply with requests made of the developer. Mr. Pridemore stated that interpretations of comments previously made concerning Plan B were distorted. He stated that what they said previously was that if Centex only presented Plan B at the other meeting they would support it but that Centex presented Plan A and B and they would not give support to either plan. Chairman Doherty spoke to concerns of Dr. Pridemore regarding Pico and the problems with the school easements and the fact that the school district isn't aware of it. Walt Schaumburg, explained that the proposed project would take a portion of the school site but that the property was dedicated a number of years ago for a right-of-way. Charlotte Severin, 4513 Mirador spoke in opposition to this proposal. She stated one of their concerns was that the HPD be met, the natural state of the land be preserved and that an EIR needs to be prepared addressing traffic and cut/fill. She stated there would be a massive movement of land. She stated her concerns were not concerning the quality of homes. Ed Catalano, 627 E. Angela spoke in opposition to this project. He stated the grading would be massive in his opinion and there would be a rape of the land if this project were approved. Arnold Abbrott4537 Mirador (s/w corner of Abbie and Mirador) addressed concerns with traffic flows and view obstruction. Mr. Douglass spoke again addressing concerns of the previous speakers. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Campbell explained major thoroughfare and secondary thoroughfare as it related to Pico. He further stated that concerning "cut/fill" and "grading" the word "massive" is a relative matter of personal opinion. He stated there are other areas within the City which have more grading, etc. than this proposal. Commissioner Jamieson suggested that if the proposal is approved an additional condition (426) be added that no two-story homes shall be built nor rear fences built on the lots which would block the view of Mirador and Angela Street residents. He also stated he wanted condition 4~5 to reflect that all perimeter fencing, especially fencing along Pico Avenue, shall be approved by the Design Review Board instead of the staff. Commissioner Getty made a motion finding that the mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study for those aspects of the project which could have significant effects would reduce the effects to insignificant levels and, thus, if such measures are included as conditions to project approval, she moved that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved for PUD-79-11. This motion was seconded by Chairman Doherty. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes Commissioners Getty, Jamieson, Wilson and Chairman Doherty Noes None Absent Commissioner Geppert Resolution No. 1805 was then entered and adopted approving the mitigated negative declaration for PUD-79-11. A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Wilson to approve PUD-79-11 subject to the conditions of the staff report amending condition #5 as described above and adding condition 4426 as suggested by Commissioner Jamieson. -7-