PC 01/13/65 - Laserfiche WebLink

1 The next item on the agenda was a referral fmm Alameda County on the request of SchuL.te-Bla•~kwell Development Ca. far rezoning frog A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-1-B-S (6200 eq.ft.j and r~l-B-S (7000 sq.ft.) approximately 110 acres l.ocaced east n` i'.aati:ill Road batzeen Bernal Avenue and U.ii. ~Iighway 50. M-. Campbell read the lector cf referral from the Alameda County Planning Commission, doted Dec. 9, 1SH4. Ms, 'Eed Fairfie?.d, of MacKay 6 Sompa, engineers for the developers, reviewed for the Commission the history of this proposed develcpaeat to date: ir_s location in a conCested area between Pleasanton and Dublin, a drafted sewage and water agreement between the developers and the City o£ Pleasanton, and S.hst the final Legal authority for acceptance of the Final Map will be Alameda County. The City Engineer of Pleasanton has worked out design criteria with Alameda County. Tor. Fairfield stated further that some changes have been made in the map from that originally presented before the Commission, including a K-8 elementary school in place of ahigh school, a cabana site adjacent to the school ~.•ith another cabana site yet to be located, and a possible 5-acre park site in the northeast corner of the property. The density is now 4.04 instead of 4.07 ae previously indicated, with a gross density of 3.45 lots per acre, which is compatible with the new Pleasanton General Plan. Mr. Fairfield pointed out that the back-up lots to P.oot- hill Road would be the larger lots. Commissioner Johnston stated that he ie not in 'favor of back-up lots on Foothill Road, end would prefer retaining the estate- type character. N,r. Fairfield said that west of Foothill Road estate-type lots will probably continue, but property east of Foothill F.oad is desirable for sub- divieione, is owned by subdividers, and large (1-5 acre) lots are not economically feasible there. Also, if lots fronted on Foothill Rcad they would have to drain toward Foothill Road with large banks in back. Co:maiseioner Rega suggested the possibility of draining toward cul-de-sacs, and stated he would like to see more consideration given to lots fronting on Foothill Road in the future. I•fr. Campbell, epeaking as City Engineer, sold he would not reco~aaend fronting lots on Foothil?. Road for the reason that it is planned as a major thoroughfare. Upon motior. os' Chairman Landon, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, the following resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Antonini, Lozano, Rega and Chairman Landon; NOES: Commissioner Johnston; ABSENT: None: RESOLUTION N0. 378 RESOL~CD: The City of Pleasanton Planning Commission hereby reconm;ends that the Alameda County Planning Commission act favor;~bly with regard to the request of Schulte-Blackwell Development Co. for rezoning from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-1-B-5 (6200 sq.ft.) and R-1-B-5 (7000 aq.ft.) approximately 110 acres located east of Foothill Road between Dernal Avenue and U.^u, Highway 50, and notes that the density conforms with the new proposed City of Pleasanton General Plan. The next item on the. agenda was a referral from the Alameda County Planning Cam- miaeion on the request of Geldermann Enterprises for rezoning from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-1-B••4 (one acre minimum), a parcel of approximately 375 acres located on "Pleasanton Rdige", west of Foothill P.oad. Mr. Campbell read the letter of referral from the Alameda County Planning Commission, dated December 22, 1964. Mr. Stewart Saunders, of Geldermamm Enterprises, was present in the audience, and displayed before the Commission a map of the area and presented details of their rezonin; request. Mr. Snundera explained that the subject progeny lies west of Pleasanton's General Plan area. however, the access road ?:al:.s within Pl.easenton's planning area. He sail: that, although one-acre minimum lots era required, rot many one-acre 10±a aro p?.cased. At the present time the zaxting requested is the only type of County zrtziag which tee.*.a the developer's re:~ui.sc~:~.ata. They a*-e planning to eetabiish asd restrictions prohibiting division o£ the lots in this development. There are less than 100 lots on 385 acres p;.anned. Geldermenn Enterprises have been cTOxkirg on plans for this de-.•e?.opment since 1961, and have nu plane for resale of tae subject prop_rty. F.f•. "sunders stated further that the Tentative Mep for this pmnerty has been diacusar_d with Alameda County, and that it is clear that the topogr^F';y dictates much larger lots than the one-acre ninimu¢ After coaside_zabl.e di,ruasion between the m-~fiera o_` Cho Cow 3s~ion, Mr. Saunders and the staff, it wsc the consensus that reconmendati~n be made to the County Plan- ning Co~.~ns.ou regarding adherence ae closely ns passable to the Pleasanton Genera? Plan c>ith reap°ct to density, and Chat rlope xnservation and topography be taken i.rtc consideration in the deaignaCion of la*.*vr density lots than the one- acre minimum. Upon motion of Chaixcnan Landon, seconded by Coa~i.saioner Lozano, the following resolution was adopted by unanimous voCS: