CCMIN112178 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Mercer then spoke to the heavy use of neighborhood parks for sports activities. He inquired if Mr. McManus would be required to supply signals even if he isn't the ultimate developer. Mr. Levlne responded that any developer is subject to zoning requirements on the property, and if required such condi- tions can be imposed. Councilmember Brandes stated that regardless of who develops the property, conditions and obligations go with the piece of property. He stated that these types of concerns are strongly controlled by the City. Mr. Robert Zulkowski, 4573 Ross Gate Way, inquired as to whether or not the property could be purchased by the East Bay Area Park District. He stated that if no vehicles could come through, he would have no objection to the general plan amendment. Mayor Mercer then explained the East Bay Park District is for un- incorporated areas only. Ms. Irene Bennington, 4957 Mohr Avenue, spoke to traffic counts and asked that consideration be given to on-street and off-street parking if clustered homes and apartments are considered for the McManus property. ~yor Mercer reiterated that the City Council is not considering an approved plan. He stated the City has parking requirements which must be met when development occurs. Mr. Harry Luce, 4633 Ross Gate Way, requested Council to use foresight in laying this property aside for future City use. In rebuttal to the public testimony in opposition to the McManus application, I{r. Turner stated that the property would be developed in sections based on the Residential Allocation Program limitations; regarding signals, they would pro- bably be installed early-on; regarding the Williamson Act, Mr. McManus is not a farm,,er. Mr. Thomas McManus, applicant, presented some additional history of the pro- perty. He stated that whenLivingston and Blayney developed the general plan for this property it was deemed suitable for residential use. He stated that taxes are paid on the basis of residential use. Mr. McManus citedthe 1955 development of Pleasanton Heights and the fact that it is an excellent development and an asset to Pleasanton as an example of what McManus proposes to do with the pro- perty under consideration. He expects to have an orderly and fine subdivision. Mr. Pat Gibson spoke again to the fact that the EIR is not outdated. There being no further public testimony, MayorMercer declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Mercer commended the audience for their orderly participation on this item. Councilmember Kephart commented regarding park land and the 154 acres un- developed or 5.1 acres per 1000/population. He stated there is an overabundance of park land. Councilmember Butler questioned th~ need for more than 105 acres of park land at this site. He stated that the 105 acres is more than sufficient. He stated he felt the traffic concerns of the residents regarding the eastern end of this property were valid. 4, ii/2i/78