CCMIN101381 - Laserfiche WebLink

// 141 ,/ Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the negative declaration. Mr. Ted Fairfield, Civil Engineer representing George Oakes, stated that the City is the applicant in this zoning request, and that zoning is a necessary by- product of annexation. Mr. Fairfield stated there are no plans for development of the property or any decision as to how the property should be used. He advised that the annexation is desired to resolve some drainage problems. He stated that improvements in the area surrounding this property were built to city standards and it makes sense to brine all the property under one Jurisdiction. Mr. Fairfield advised that the flood insurance mandates are different under the county than under the city. Mr. Fairfield stated that Mr. Oakes has owned this property since and there will be no development of the parcel for several years to come but th&t annexation is requested at this time in order to install the improvements under city specifications. He quoted a letter written to the City Manager in February settin~ forth the reasons for this request, as being to make the property flood control im- provements. Mr. Fairfield concluded by stating he has no preference as to the ~on~nS designation as long as it is zoned something that will allow for annexation. The following persons spoke in opposition to this application and negative de- claration: Ms. Jacqueline Olivetins, President of the Pleasanton Meadows ~meowners Associa- tion and Cabana Club Board of Directors, presented a letter dated October 13, 1981, setting forth the reasons for opposition to this item. She cited air quality pacts, traffic/circulation impacts; noise impacts; impact on public services; growth- inducing impact; and disagreement with the mandatory findings of Bi~ificance in Par~ III of the negative declaration. She stated that industrial zonisg of the property would allow the possibility of immediate industrial development is so desired, and that this would lower property values in the area. She requested the application be denied, or at least made residential zoning. Mr. Roy Daily, retired Pleasanton Meadows resident, stated he felt it was the intent of the neighborhood to remain residential, and that any industrial develop- ment will create truck traffic, and change the life style of the residents in the area. Mr. Jim Shubert, Pleasanton Meadows resident, stated that industrial development detracts from any residential area and he felt there are other ways this area cam be more appropriately developed. Ms. Carol LeOerton, representing Fairlands School, stated she was opposed to any increase in truck traffic on West Las Positas Boulevard because of the traffic ~azard it will create for children attendinE this school. Mr. Kevin Melaby presented a map showing the area where he lived and stated it had been indicated to him at the time he purchased his home that the area would main residential. He stated that a change of zoning to industrial would be a mis- carriage of Justice, and that this zoning designation should be reconsidered. Ms. Bobble Askew asked if Mr. Oakes would be willing to have the zoning on this property as residential. The City Attorney explained that the ~aneral Plan desEgnates this area as industrial and that any change other than industrial or agricultural would require a general plan amendment. Mr. Fairfield stated that annexation is all that is requested but that zoning is required and that the General Plan shows this area as industrial. He stated that Mr. Oakes is willing to change this zoning to any zoning the city wants, and is not opposed to residential zoning. 5. lO/13/Sl