CCMIN112178 - Laserfiche WebLink

31 3 Mr. Brown discussed the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial and his report of recommendation to approval this general plan amendment for Mr. McManus. He reviewed park area throughout the City of Pleasanton and suggested that Council require resources to develop prior to any City purchase of the subject land. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open. Mr. Peter Turner, Attorney representing Mr. McManus, reviewed the development history of the site and stated that the property has a value of 2~ rnil]lion dollars and taxes are paid based upon residentS. el property. He stated that a public meeting was held at Century House, and ~hat they had distributed 500 notices to the residents on the streets east of the park, on Mohr Avenue. Mr. Turner stated the pri~aary concern of the residents speaking at the meeting was that they d~.d not want the traffic to go dox~-n Mohr Avenue, He stated that in dedicating the five acres for. park dedication they are show'-~xg they do not need to have access through that area. .xlr. David Heldt, representing Brown~ Heldt and Associates, AIA, San Francisco, was then introduced by Mr. Turner. Mr. Heldt showed a possible development plan and stated that the EiR takes into account'z the traffic concerns brought up by the citizens and that Mr. McManus is willing to help mitigate the problems. Mr. Heldt indicated that the alternatives mentioned by the Mc}~anus people were in line with the 25% multiple/75% single family goal of the City's General Pls~z~. He added that the development would be done in three phases. Mr. Pat Gibson, Traffic Engineer, re. presenting McManus, spoke to his study concerning the proposal in generaL. Also speaking in favor of the General Plan Amendment was Judith Mayhew, 5548 San Jose, representing Mission Park Homeowners Association, stating that this group was opposed to the City buying property for the-sports park, She stated the City has many undeveloped parks and believes it to be fiscally irresponsible to even consider the purchase of this property for this purpose by the City. The fol!o~,ing persons spoke in opposition to the General Plan Araendment. !,tr. Doug Bennington, 4957 Mohr Avenue~ stated that the Planning Comraisslon recommended denial and he concurs with that decision. tle cited the Los Angeles and other areas of the State where foresight was not ~sed to set aside proper park areas. He also stated the EIR is outdated and that the property is poorly shaped for residential use. Mr. John R. Frick, 4798 Sutter Gate, stated he was from Los Alamitos where it is extr~-nely congested because of lack of foresight in the setting aside of park properties. Mr. Doug Stuhr, 4849 Mohr Avenue, stated he felt McManus' intentions were sound. He expressed concern in that he didn't know who the developer would be of the property and, therefore, how could anyone consider the possibil.lties as sho~a by the Mc~anus group. He stated that the property is not suitable for residential development. 2t.1/21/78