|
1
<br />planned unit development procedure would be preferable, Livingston & Blayney recom-
<br />mended that the developer be given informal assurance that a C-N planned unit
<br />d welcp~nt will be favorably considered when all of the drawings and statements
<br />required for planned unit development approval are received. Mr. Fales read a
<br />letter from Mr. J.A, de.5a.•ia, Executive Vice President of American Forest Products
<br />Association, dated April 12, 1965, requesting a continuance of the C-2 clas~ifica-
<br />tion to contf.nua th. present activity of the Western Sierra Lumber Co. at Santa
<br />Rita Rd. and Valley Ave., and also to permit a shopping center. Mr. Fales said
<br />tzat since the subject property is not within t::e Pleasanton City Limits and is
<br />subject to the settling of pending litigation, the zoning classification will rest
<br />with Alameda County. Mr. P. Scales, of Essenar Investments, was present in the
<br />asdience and urged favorable consideration of hie organization's application for
<br />rezoning in order to locate a shopping center. He introduced Mesara. Sylvester
<br />and Praser who worked on the subject project. Mr. Sylvester commented regarding
<br />the architectural aspects of the proposal, including landscaping, parking, drive-
<br />ways, etc., and displayed a rendering of the proposed shopping center. Mr, Fraser,
<br />of John S. Thompson Co., commented on parking stall sizes and the ratio of square
<br />footage to parking. Mr. Scales assured the Commission that his organization
<br />desires to go ahead with the development in an orderly fashion, and would comply
<br />with any reasonable schedule the City imposes. Mr. Norman Warnow and Mr. B.
<br />Eachelbach spoke against the proposal, stating they believe there is sufficient
<br />commercial area now allocated. There being no further comments, it was moved by
<br />Commissioner Lozano, seconded by Commissioner Johnston, and carried, that the
<br />public hearing be closed. Mr. John Blayney spoke regarding the possibility of
<br />commercial areas on two corners if Western Sierra develops within the County juris-
<br />diction. Mr. Blayney stated further that the proposed shopping center is precedent-
<br />setting, and therefore the City should insist on a high standard as a model to
<br />which future shopping centers must look. More study should be given to the subject
<br />application before rezoning ie formally decided upon, he added, although informal
<br />approval should be granted at this time. Commissioner Lozano stated that since
<br />150 acres have already been zoned commercial, he felt that Safeway Stores might
<br />investigate location in an area already so zoned. Chairman Landon inquired of
<br />City Attorney Struthers regarding possible City control of development on Western
<br />Sierra property. Mr. Struthers replied that the consent and cooperation of Alameda
<br />County might be obtainable in view of the pending litigation, and there could be a
<br />Board of Supervisors policy decision. He stated further that it would be a minimum
<br />of 60 days from May 24 that a decision might be forthcoming on the Mitigation, If
<br />the Supreme Court accepts the appeal, it would be difficult to estim.3te a decision
<br />date--perhaps late 1965 or early 1960. Commissioner Rega asked Mr. Blayney for
<br />clarification of C-N zoning versus planned unit development. Mr. Blayney explained
<br />that the City has more control under planned unit development, and also that it is
<br />more flexible and would not necessitate ae many variances. Chairman Landon said
<br />he was impressed with the plan, but would be in favor of denying the appiicar_ion
<br />at this time pending the outcome of the litigation and a clarification of future
<br />development of the Western Sierra property. Upon motion of Commissioner Antonini,
<br />seconded by Commissioner Lozano, the following resolution was adopted by the fol-
<br />low:ing vote: AYES: Commissioners Antonini, Lozano, Rega and Chairman Landon;
<br />N0: Commissioner Johnston; ABSENT: None.
<br />RESOLUTION N0, 414
<br />WF3EREAS, the application of Essenar Investments of Auburn, 155 Montgomery
<br />St., San Francisco, for an amendment to Ord. No. 309, rezoning
<br />approximately 8 acres located at the southwest corner of Valley Avenue
<br />and Santa P..;,ta Road, from the A District to the C-N District, has come
<br />before Chis Coe~ission;
<br />tiOW, TnJ:ilEORE, BF, I•. RES~"»,VED, that the above-named application for re-
<br />z~nin~ be denied.
<br />Chairman Landon opena~l the public haa::'nU on tl-.c anpli.cat<.on of Devmar, Inc.,
<br />268 Grand Avenue, Oakland, for an amsndman* to Or~i, ?',o. 309, rezoning approximately
<br />6', acres at ti:e. sou*_heast. career of uAn".a P.ira Road and the private road ocaned by
<br />the Kaiacr Ccmpsny, ;ros L•:~e -1 Distrxct to the C-PI,^,^-1.5 and R-2 Districts,
<br />Mr. Taleo reed the ataf£ report as contained in a report by Livingston and Blayney,
<br />dated April 9, i9(+5, enuw2:.ating r,i:: lor_ativnal dise~dvantages of the proposal, and
<br />staY.ing thst the abo~-o apnlication by E.^,senar'.z±.ves~~encs is a more logical choice
<br />for a nei.ghbor.'iood rhoopf.:~ cc~^Mer in this pa*~ of Pleasanton. Mr. J. McDevitt,
<br />of Devmnr, Ync.„, vas p?:~.~er.: in t':e audieac^ a~?d _?akA in rebuttal to Livingston
<br />and Blayney's rYCCmneac'.~t:io~+r•, and stated tea;: the treccl of Safeway and Lucky
<br />stores Ls tosard 18,000 to 2.0,000 aq,ft, market:.. There being no further comments
<br />from the sudiance, it F'aE moved by Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Commissioner
<br />
|