PC 03/08/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pete Dahm, 3133 Pawnee Way, spoke in opposition, stating he felt a shopping center would be unesthetic to look at for the residents in the area. Bill Vigil, 3432 Beecham, President of the Pleasanton Meadows Homeowners Association suggested that since the builder has offered to meet with the homeowners, perhaps this should take place prior to this meeting. Mr. Levine stated that this procedure is a recommendation to the City Council only. Mr. Glynn Moore, applicant, confirmed that only a portion of the proposed acreage is presently in shopping center zoning. But, he is asking for offices and neighborhood commercial, both. He spoke of the advantages which can be obtained from a uniquely designed center. He also discussed the governmental controls which would ensure a good design. He indicated a willingness to meet with anyone who may have questions pertaining to this development, including acceptance of any mitigation measures within reason. An unidentified lady in the audience spoke about devaluation of property values for the homes there if the shopping center goes in. Secretary Harris discussed No. 7 - Transportation/Circulation Impacts on Page 2. He made comparison of traffic between multiple development and a shopping center. Also, a supermarket is a conditional use in the "C" District, which would afford many controls by the City over its development. He felt the General Plan amendment is appropriate. The negative declara- tion for the General Plan amendment, in staff's estimation, does not entail any significant impact, but this does not mean any further project on the property would not entail any significant impacts or that mitigation con- ditions may not be applied then. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Doherty indicated that he disagreed with No. 5 under Mandatory Findings of Significance. The traffic situ tion is of consideration, as West Las Positas remains the only exit out of the development. He felt that perhaps the time to review a significant impact may be at the time of development. However, he disagreed with No. 5, feeling that there may be other effects on the environment such as traffic. Commissioner Shepherd concurred with this viewpoint. Chairman Butler asked if the other Com- missioners wished to discuss alternatives to this position. City Attorney Levine suggested that perhaps the negative declaration could be sent back to add mitigation measures. Resolution No. 1618 was entered and adopted making a finding that an en- vironmental impact report should be filed for this proposal. Roll Call Vote Resolution: Doherty Seconded: Shepherd Ayes: Doherty, Jamieson, Shepherd, Wood Noes: Butler Absent: None Abstain: None -10-