PC 05/12/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

the creek. He commented on the 30 percent FAR and noted only three or four lots would be affected. He noted that the present site plan is a compromise for all parties and that 25 percent of the project would be single-story homes. He noted that this area was meant for development due to a Specific Plan being conducted. In conclusion, he requested that the Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Discussion ensued relating to construction access to development, whether the Specific Plan supersedes the General Plan, and the amenity package. Chairperson Kumaran expressed appreciation to staff and residents for their work on the project. He noted that Pleasanton's schools are at full capacity and at the present time there are no mitigation measures for addressing school overcrowding issues. He expressed concern with the levels of traffic in Pleasanton as indicated in the 1998 Base Line Traffic Study and noted that 1000 units have already been approved in Pleasanton. He noted that this amenity only benefits a small amount of residents in Pleasanton, that the Specific Plan clearly states there should be preservation of rural views and rural character; therefore, the density of the project should be at 1.25 traits per acre (43 units). He spoke in support of the removal of lots 26, 27, 28 and 29 to retain views, combining lots 34 & 35, and reducing three additional units, for a total of 43 units in project. He expressed support with staffs recommendation for the buffer between projects, lot size at 15,000 square feet, FAR remaining at 30 percent, relocating lot 35 to the south to provide consistency in the buffer, and issues of creek erosion being re-examined by developer and brought back to the Commission for mitigation efforts. He spoke in support of the growth management allocation being on a first come/first serve basis. Further, the Commission should consider staffs proposal to disclose to potential buyers that maintenance efforts will be conducted relating to open space, He noted he would not be in support of Saturday and Sunday construction. In conclusion, he noted he would not be in support of project and suggested that the developer re-examine lower density in the ranges suggested. Commissioner Cooper expressed concurrence with Chairperson Kumaran's statements and stated he would not be in favor of a density bonus due to the visibility of the project, the property being on the edge of the urban growth boundary, and project's only amenity being provision of infrastructure so other projects can be built. He commented on the sensitivity of the knoll area. He noted his support with removal of lots I0, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 that are in close proximity to the knoll, requirements for single-story homes, combining lots 34 & 35, and reducing development by 10 lots for a total of 46 units, to reduce density. He spoke in favor of public access to open space to allow children the ability to play outdoors; restricted buffer/trail strip usage until the project is built, FAR being 30 percent, and Monday through Friday construction hours. He spoke in support of project being designated as a major project for growth management and money being identified early in project to allow the infrastructure to be built. He spoke in favor of erosion issues at creek being re-examined and for developing standards for stabilizing the creek. Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern with the density of project and noted that the amenity does not justify additional units. He noted that an amenity should be a benefit to the broader community. Further, the additional units financially benefit the development, but not the community at large; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 May 12, 1999