PC 10/13/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Specific Plan. She stated hollywood driveways have been done in other developments; however, lot density would decrease. Chairperson Roberts noted that the grading in the Specific Plan states that "You should respect natural forms. It should be limited as much as feasible. Grading which modifies the tops of hills and interrupts natural hill form could be detrimental to the natural beauty of the area and should be avoided. Other reasonable alternatives are available." She noted that reasonable alternatives, in her mind, would be cutting some of the houses from the project. She stated that due to this being a very difficult area, SummerHill has done the best they can do. She noted she would not be in support of the project, as proposed. Commissioner Maas commented on a reference in the staff report and in the Specific Plan as to "retaining a semi-rural lifestyle." She noted she has tried to keep that in her mind in going through her comments, and analyze whether this project does this. She expressed appreciation to the Spotomo family and SummerHill for all of their efforts. She noted the Spotomo's have been in the City of Pleasanton for a considerable length of time and they have every right to do what they need to do. Further, she stated that the Commission, has every right to do what they need to do to ascertain whether this is the best project for the residents and the City of Pleasanton. She stated that the best project is not before the Commission tonight. Chairperson Maas expressed concern with the grading and building up of those homes and assuming risk for some of these slide areas. She expressed concern with the geotechnical issues, the bank erosion, the grading, and the disturbance of wildlife. She noted that after viewing the Moller Ranch development, it was evident why the residents of Pleasanton feel so harsh and critical about the Moller Ranch project. She noted she did not approve of the Moller Ranch project, and would not support doing the same thing on the Spotorno property. Commissioner Maas noted that the visual analysis was confusing. She commented on Geoff Coopers' term of"claribility", and she expressed concern with still being able to view those homes and in the future being reminded of a poor decision she could have made. She noted that she understand the pressure the developer was under to finance the project, and if the by-pass road could be eliminated, with fewer homes nestled in the hills, it would make sense. She noted that the removal of trees, as a result of the by-pass road, was very sad. She expressed concern with the park issues and where children and families in this development would go. She noted that the project at the present time has too many flaws, and she suggested that the developer come back with a new plan. She noted that this project is not consistent with the General Plan, as well as the Specific Plan. In conclusion, she noted at this time she would have to deny the project or move to continue. Commissioner Kumaran noted he was on the Commission when the Happy Valley Specific Plan was approved. He commended the Spotomo family for all of the efforts they have made. He noted that the positive aspects of the development are bringing the development to 78 units, with the medium density area being 56 units, and five homes instead of nine being considered for the custom home area. Commissioner Kumaran recognized that the project has taken a long time; however, he stated that this part of the PUD needs additional work, given all of staff's proposal. He noted that stafftries to bring good projects to fruition in Pleasanton. He stated that he has to certify or support the statement that the Specific Plan or General Plan parameters are met. He expressed concern with the statement the peer review geologist noted on the geotechnical considerations "that the proposed measure might work" and Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 18