PC 11/01/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

would reduce the number of apartments in the City and though condominiums and townhouses are being built in Pleasanton, very few apartments are. He noted that there were 35 units approved by the Design Review Board on one of the lots subject to this rezoning and 106 units on another and that both of these developments are scheduled to be considered under R.A.P. which will be heard by the City Council November 16, 1978. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Grove, Mission Park Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the downzoning. He argued that the traffic is horrible at this time despite traffic count figures, and stated that in actuality, if the proposed rezoning is not approved, the Mission Park area could end up with 50~ multiples. He argued that since the Mission Park area is separated from other areas in the City, the application of 75~ single family units and 25~ multiples should be applied in their area. Karen Mohr, Mission Park Homeowners Association, said she has had dis- cussion with former council members and planning commissioners and learned that this approval to the annexation and zoning of this area to the City was based on the fact that the subdivision was going to front on the City corporation yard and sewer plant. Now that the sewer plant is going to be phased out, the high density isn't appropriate. Mrs. Mohr stated that Pleasanton needs lower priced single-family homes for their young as well as senior citizens, but that apartments would attract primarily transients who would not identify the same way in the community that home- owners would. Charles Seymour, 4927 San Gabriel Court, of the Mission Park Homeowners Association addressed current traffic problems of the area and feels very strongly that in not rezoning the property the scope of problems would increase. He stated there is only one safe entrance and exit in Mission Park at this time; when using Sonoma Drive you are taking your life in your hands. He stated more density would compound the problem. He said parking on Sonoma at the existing apartments is terrible; there are wall- to-wall cars parked on the streets with empty parking stalls in the units. He stated problems are going to get worse if density grows in Mission Park. He asked that these facts be considered and that the Commission not just look at some report showing traffic counts which, in his opinion, do not give a true picture. Steve Chandler, counsel for the property owner of the three parcels, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He stated the area was annexed to the City of Pleasanton on March 4, 1963 and at that time the City entered into an annexation agreement by which it agreed to the existing zoning; the zoning since that time has never been changed. He said that the owner has held all of that property for the entire period of time in good faith. He stated this area was not developed previously because of lack of sewage capacity and this is no longer a problem per the Negative Declaration. He stated that the present action of the City Council is obviously without the consent of the property owner. Mr. Chandler stated in response to the Homeowners' Association that it was his understanding the 75~-25~ per- tained to the City as a whole and not to a specific area. He stated that you don't get lower cost housing by lowering density and that the Staff Report of June 7, 1978 recognized this. He said the property owner has paid taxes based on multiple-type housing. -6-