PC 03/10/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Chapman provided the Commission with a memorandum dated March 10, 1999 and requested that the following statement be included in the minutes: "The City seeks to determine that the acquisition of a roughly 25 acre parcel in the area south of Pleasanton is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan. However, the Planned Unit Development application (PUD-98-16) directly contradicts the General Plan in that it extends by several hundred feet the Urban Growth Boundary set by the General Plan. The 1996 General Plan Map shows an Urban Growth Boundary sitting far behind that delineated in the Happy Valley Specific Plan. The General Plan outlines several factors that must be considered before adjusting the Urban Growth Boundary, including: 1) whether the adjustment is otherwise consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, 2) whether the adjustment would have a significant adverse impact on agriculture, wildland areas, or scenic ridgeline views, and 3) whether the adjustment would induce further adjustments to the Urban Growth Boundary (see General Plan, p. 11-7). In addition, the Urban Growth boundary line extends into the Wildlands Overlay, which is inconsistent with Alameda County's East county Areas Plan, Policy 1, environmental protection clause. This encroachment violates the 1996 General Plan's "Wildlands Overlay" definition section II, page 6, in that the area in question (southern border-2200) feet is designated as Open Space: Public Health and Safety/Wildlands Overlay not Open Space Recreation. None of theses factors have been sufficiently considered by the Planning Commission. I believe this change in the Urban Growth Boundary will have a significant adverse impact on one or more of these criteria, and that fiW_her environmental review is required before the Planning Commission determines either that the Urban Growth Boundary should be extended or that PUD-98-16 conforms to the Pleasanton General Plan." Mr. Chapman further noted this record should also be made a part of Item No. 6.c. Ms. Schaffer did not offer any oral comments. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Discussion ensued relating to the different alternatives contained in the staff report. Commissioner Sullivan commented on previous discussion for this area and the desire by many people to have the development be single-story structures to permit the best view of the Valley, and the golf course from the flat land. He noted if there is a need for additional lots, he would like Alternative 5A. Further, that lots 1 through 5 be conditioned as single-story homes to eliminate view impacts. He noted he concurred with the 75-foot sideyard separations of houses in this area to help with view impacts. Commissioner Maas expressed concurrence with utilizing single-story homes and 75-foot setbacks and conditioning of secondary units to meet the 75-foot separation of lots 1-5. Commissioner Cooper expressed concern with the funding gap for this project and taxpayers making up the difference. He noted his desire to accommodate the maximum number of lots allowed by the Plan. He noted that some single-story homes are appropriate for development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 March 10, 1999