|
The roll call vote was as follows:
<br />AYES: Councilmen Herlihy, Kinney, Mori, Reid, and Mayor Pearson
<br />NOES: None
<br />ABSENT: None
<br />
<br />MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION
<br />Adoption of Ordinance No. 713, .to fezone from the 0 (Office) District to the PoU.D.
<br />(Planned Unit Development) District that property of .Pico Inv.eStors~ Inc.m described
<br />as Book 946, Page "2549, Parcels 1, 2 and 3, said property located south of Palomino
<br />Drive between Concord Avenue and Pico Avenue, containing 2.06 acres, more. or less,
<br />Pleasanton (This ordinance was introduced 10-8-73 by a 3-2 vote).
<br /> Mr~ Edgar stated this item bad been continued from October 15, 1973, for addi-
<br />tional information and review.
<br />
<br /> Mro Harris presented his staff report regarding the matter, stating that at the
<br />meeting of October 15, 1973, the staff was directed to prepare a report outlining
<br />the series of events which led to the rezoning of the 14 acre Vintage Hills Shopping
<br />Center site located between Tawny Drive, Pico Avenue and Palomino Drive from C-C
<br />(Central Commercial) District to C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) and PUD RM-2500 Dis-
<br />tricts. H~ further stated that the site was part of Study District F which, along
<br />with other study districts in the City, had been placed in the Study District Zone
<br />by the Council as a result of the sewage capacity problems which became apparent in
<br />1971. Study District F, in addition to the shopping center site, contained two C-F
<br />(Commercial Freeway) District parcels totaling approximately 5 acres located on
<br />either side of Touriga Drive, immediately south of Vineyard Avenue, and approxi-
<br />mately 4 acres of RM-1500 and RM-4000 zoned land in various parcels in the immediate
<br />vicinity.
<br />
<br /> In reviewing this study area, it was the planning staff's opinion that, due to
<br />a revision downward of the estimated number of people who would ultimately reside
<br />in the Vintage Hills area, a 14 acre shopping center on Pico Avenue would no longer
<br />be required. It was also the staff's opinion that the C-F zoned land on Vineyard
<br />Avenue was unnecessary since that street is not master planned to be a major arterial.
<br />Based upon this reasoning, the Planning Commission, on October 17, 1972, recommended
<br />that the City Council remove the 14 acre shopping center site from Study District F
<br />and place it in a planned unit development with no less than 7 acres nor no more
<br />than 10 acres to be devoted to C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) uses and with the bal-
<br />ance of the property to be devoted to RM-2500 uses. In addition, they stipulated
<br />that if at all possible, the multiple area be designed to border the existing
<br />multiple uses fronting on Norton Way~ On November 14, 1972, the Commission re-
<br />commended that the 5 acres of C-F (Commercial Freeway) zoned property south of
<br />Vineyard Avenue and the several RM-1500 and RM-4000 zoned properties be removed
<br />from the Study District and rezoned R-1-6500 (Single Family) District°
<br />
<br /> These two actions were reaffirmed by the City Council on Deuember 18, 1972,
<br />(Ordinance No~ 686) except that in the case of the shopping center site, a firm
<br />figure of 10 acres for C-N uses was adopted and the remaining 4°03 acres of RM-2500
<br />multiple was the only part of the site shown as PUD~
<br />
<br /> Mr. Scheidig explained the procedure for consideration of the P.U.Do process as
<br />set forth in the Ordinance Code. He advised the Council that only a resolution is
<br />required to approve a tentative development plan and thus it will be necessary for
<br />the Council to consider its action again. The Council was also advised that until
<br />the ordinance rezoning the property to PUD was adopted - after consideration of
<br />the final development plan - the Council retained the option of not rezoning pro-
<br />perty to the PUD classification°
<br />
<br /> Mr. Edgar read communications from Ho C~ Elliott, dated November 2, 1973, and
<br />David S. Madis, dated November 2, 1973, representing H. C. Elliott, Inc., opposing
<br />the application for rezoning by Pico Investors.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Jim Jarnagin, 3262 Burgundy Dri've, representing Vintage Hills Homeowners
<br />Association, stated that the members of that Association were in opposition to the
<br />application for rezoning for the following reasons: (1) Bad zoning; (2) A conven-
<br />ience market is not needed because of the proposed 10 acre existing commercial
<br />land being adequate; (3) A rezoning might become an economic deterrent to the
<br />10 acre center already approved; (4) Will not improve the traffic situation; and
<br />(5) It is a temporary move to satisfy the immediate need. Mr. Jarnagin urged
<br />denial of this application.
<br />
<br /> 2. 11/12/73
<br />
<br />
<br />
|