PC 101001 - Laserfiche WebLink

potential lost habitat or a wildlife corridor which is an important part of the habitat. (2) The park ,- access should be through the road in the development and not through the open space and the hillside at the end of West Las Positas Boulevard because these are one ofthe scenic treasures on the west side of Foothill Road. He questioned the high-end houses that will be built on the property at a time when the City is looking at the State's mandate for affordable housing and updating the Housing Element He pointed out that with the housing cap, there are only a number of available units available and the City should be addressing affordable housing. He indicated that he would not support the project because it would provide no benefit to the City. Commissioner Kameny indicated that he supported the project in September 1999 and that he would support it again now with the five additional conditions. Commissioner Roberts stated that there is no reason to start the project all over again. She continued that she understands Commissioner Sullivan's concerns, but the applicant has done everything possible to get to this point and to not approve the extension is wrong, especially since the land has been purchased, easements have been processed, and the EBRPD will receive money for this project. She added that the site is not a wilderness area because there is an orchard on the land. She indicated that she would support the project with the five additional conditions. ,-. Commissioner Arkin stated that he also requested to appeal the project because he wanted to take a look at it. He stated that his working experience with the developer on the Vineyard Corridor project has been positive, with the applicant working on his recommendations to improve the project. He indicated that he would support the project. Commissioner Harvey indicated that he appreciated Commissioner Sullivan's comments about the project. He stated that the context would have to change enough to make him decide to reject something that fundamentally has already been approved. He added that the applicant appears to have been working in good faith, and that he is inclined to support the project, with the additional conditions if the applicant is willing to comply with them. Commissioner Maas concurred with majority of the comments. She stated that when a developer works actively on a project and through the delays that have occurred, the Commission has a duty to abide by what has been approved, to a point that the developer should not be required to comply with the additional conditions if they preferred not to, since these conditions came after the project's initial approval. She indicated that she would support the project, and whether the applicant agrees to comply with four of the five or with none of them is acceptable to her. Commissioner Arkin commented that when the project was approved, the condition was for two years, and they are now being granted additional time. He stated that the additional conditions were reasonable since these are standard conditions that are being required of all homes at this time. After some discussion, the Commission agreed to require the developer to comply with new Conditions 1, 3, and 4, as well as with the provision giving first priority to Pleasanton workers, .~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2001 Page 13