CCMIN072479 - Laserfiche WebLink

There being no further Council questions or comments at this time regarding the application, Mayor Brandes proceeded with the public hearing and requested testimony in opposition to this item. Mrs. Charlotte Severin, 4513 Mirador Drive, expressed opposition to the appli- cation. She requested the following be entered into the record relative to her testimony. Mrs. Severin read a portion of a memorandum from the City Attorney the Planning Commission dated April 3, 1975, regarding the Hillside Planned Develop- ment Ordinance as follows: "Recently, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that 17 acres of property known as Annexation No. 66, located south of Angela, west of Mirador, north of Pico and east of the former city limit line, be zoned from S (Study) District to R-6500. When this matter was heard by the City Council, staff recommendation was to deny the recommendation of the Planning Com- mission and refer the matter to the City Attorney for preparation of a Hillside Planned Development Ordinance for placement on the Planning Commission agenda for its meeting of April 9, 1975. It was the intention of the City Council that the Planning Commission consider this Hillside Planned Development Ordinance and, upon adoption of the same by the City Council in either its present or revised form, the properties located in Annexation No. 66 would be considered for placement into the Hillside Planned Development District zone." Mrs. Severin also quoted from the draft Hillside Planned Development Ordinance referring to the intent of the Hillside Planned Development as follows: "It is therefore the declared intent of the City that appropriate undeveloped land in hillside areas be placed in a Hillside Planned Development District, to be identified by the initials H-P-D, in order to accomplish the following: a. To preserve significant features of a hill area in essentially their natural state as part of a comprehensive open space system; b. To encourage in hill areas an alternative approach to conventional flat land practices of develop- ment; c. To minimize grading and cut and fill operations consistent with the re- tention of the natural character of the hill areas; d. To minimize the water run- off and soil erosion problems incurred in adjustment of the terrain to meet on-site and off-site development needs; e. To achieve land use densities that are in keep- ing with the general plan; however, in order to retain the significant natural fea- tures of the hill areas, densities will diminish as the slope of the terrain in- creases; f. To insure that the open space as shown on any development plan is consistent with the open space element shown on the General Plan; and g. To pre- serve the predominent views both from and of the hill areas and to retain the sense of identity and imageability that these hill areas now impart to the City of Pleasanton and its environs." Mrs. Severin stated the homeowners were concerned that the HPD be achieved in any development of this land, and they felt the plan presented tonight does not meet the criteria of the Hillside Planned Development. Mrs. Dorothy Reid, 4525 Mirador Drive, presented a petition to the City Council that was previously submitted to the Planning Commission, signed by 92 residents in the area, which read as follows: "We the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Pleasanton to require that an environmental impact report be prepared precedent to consideration by the Planning Commission of the above request. In addition, and subject to approval of an EIR, we most strongly urge the full application of the hillside ordinance, extension of traffic patterns already set in adjacent proper- ties and the preservation of the heritage trees situated on the property of the proposed development". Mrs. Karin Kearl, 4524 Miradot Drive, stated she felt very strongly that the Environmental Impact Report was not properly prepared. She asked about the align- ment of Pico Avenue and what impact this would have on the adjacent school and sports areas. 8. 7/24/79