10/08/69 - Laserfiche WebLink

-, The Commissioners had many questions, such as, the height of the dumpster, possible inconvenience of the elderly residents getting to it, especially in rainy weather. Mr. Al Morris, the architect, was in the audience and stated that it was the residents themselves who requested a different type of garbage disposal. Commissioner Pereira, requested if there was any other way to take care of this problem, i.e., have the architects explore any other methods of solving this. problem. The reply was no. The Planning Director suggested raising the garbage cans from their recessed positions. Mr. Frye stated that the recessed garbage ereas tended to be messy, and also that one large dumpater area was more economical than eight separate areas. There were no conclusions made at this time, and upon motion of Commissioner Pereira, seconded by Chairman Garrigan, and carried, it was moved to continue this item pending a resubmittal of an alternate plan for the garbage disposal situation at Pleasanton Gardens, Inc. 11. REFERRALS FROM CITY COUNCIL. a. Reconsideration of Resolution No. 954 adopted by the Planning Commission regarding the installation of sidewalks for Valley Trails. The Planning Director advised the Planning Commission that this matter is being referred back from the City Council for reconsideration of their action taken under Resolution No. 954 and also because of the revised tabulation as prepared by D. & V. Builders, Inc. The Planning Director further advised the Commission that the tabulation report as submitted by D. & V. Builders appears to be satisfactory, that the Planning Department, in reviewing the information, concurs that the people who expressed no opinion one way or another should be deleted from the total number of answers. If this is done, the total number of questionnaires to be considered would number 57, of which 30 have indicated they are in favor of the system as it presently exists. This would yield a 537, of the total in favor, and 47% opposing the development as presently constructed. The Planning Director further advised the Commission that in his opinion this was still a very inconclusive recommen- dation. Commissioner Gibbs inquired what kind of a meeting was held on this matter at the City Council meeting of October 6, and how this item came to be considered by the Council at that time. The City Attorney replied that the matter was brought up off the agenda. It was an expression on the part of Council, with direction to staff, to return the matter to the Commission for reconsideration of the survey conducted and, in particular, to take another look at-the original intent of the conditions as attached to the approval of Tentative Tract Map #3004, Valley Trails, and its apparent misinterpretation and subsequent misunderstanding by members of Council. The City Attorney did remark that at the time the Valley Trails PUD was being considered the City had not yet refined its PUD procedures which could have accounted for Council's questioning of the intent of Condition 17 of said approval. Mr. Robert Reid, Councilman, was in the audience and stated that for a good while the City has been attempting to encourage developers to utilize new ideas and concepts as far as subdivision development is concerned. Speaking for himself, it was his interpretation that this new idea would be incorporated in the first phase development, with any future construction being on an optional basis, with the City having the power to continue the policy or cancel it out. It was Mr. Reid's firm belief that Council did not, at any time, feel that the -4-