PC 10/26/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

The Public Hearing was opened. Peter Turner, attorney, representing McManus, addressed the Commission stating he understands the concerns of the planning staff and residents. Since Proposition 13 has passed with its financial impacts on the City, he said he realizes the City doesn't have a substantial amount of cash for land acquisition for parks and that there were other parks in other parts of town which are undeveloped and these would have priority. Mr. Turner stated that regarding this application, they have had public meetings with the residents in the neighborhood, notice of which was put in the Pleasanton Times and Herald. Residents on Mohr Avenue have indicated that there should be no more traffic on their streets. There- fore, in preparing the application to the City, five acres were eliminated from the rear and traffic was planned to exit onto Hopyard Road. David Heldt, Brown, Heldt and Associates, 730 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, spoke also on behalf of the applicant. He noted that his task was to design a development that would be compatible with the adjacent Sports Park. Mr. Heldt then presented several plans and described alternatives with regard to residential development. After reviewing the alternatives offered by Mr. Heldt, Commissioner Wilson stated there didn't appear to be any on-street parking available. Mr. Heldt stated that the driveways would be extra long and could easily accommodate additional cars. Mr. Geppert then asked Mr. Heldt whether or not they had looked into problems of traffic accidents, etc., and how it may be necessary to signal the intersection. Mr. Heldt stated that 300- 400 units need no signals, but that it might warrant pedestrian signals. The EIR shows that it will increase the traffic by less than 10~ and that this was the case during peak hour traffic on Las Positas. Mr. Turner then addressed the Commission reiterating the desire to have the General Plan Amendment effect more than 40 acres. He stated the goal is to allow the property to be undeveloped as it goes through RAP. He further stated that whether 40 or 60 acres are changed doesn't change the speed of RAP. Also, the property would still be subject to purchase by the City at anytime. Mr. Geppert then asked with regard to the 5 acres, what would McManus propose to do with the acreage. Mr. Turner replied that it would be available for park dedication requirements of the City. Chairman Doherty then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak either for or against this proposal. Rich Pile, 4572 Ross Gate, spoke stating that he is generally opposed because; (a) he questions the requirements of the City, County or State for emergency fire egress onto the property. At this point, City Attorney, Harvey Levine, pointed out that the Fire Department has designated there be two accesses to the property. Mr. Pile then stated he is concerned with possible traffic problems that he feels would happen. ~g_