PC 120810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Christine Ellis, President of Laguna Oaks Homeowners Association, stated that she thought the aim of Pleasanton was to protect the ridges from building and thinks it is sad that such a large development, which seems to have many flaws, is being considered. She asked that the Planning Commission look at all issues of the project, including access, density of the homes, and the significant visual impact it will have on changing the ridge. Stan Gamble, applicant, clarified that the development is nowhere near the ridge. He stated that the property goes up and gets steeper; however, the lots to be developed are well below the ridge and will be shielded.He indicated that they are agreeable to dedicating the remainder of the land to the EBRPD and to clustering the homes. He added that there is a need to determine whether a homeowners association or EBRPD would own the 200-foot strip between the homes. Mr. Gamble stated that the plan is very conceptual, and homes are proposed to the north on Parcel 1 to minimize the disturbance of the canyon; Parcel 3 to the south does not have many significant trees; and setting back the homes 150 feet from Foothill Road is not a problem, but they will need a reasonable count if they put infrastructure in for widening Foothill Road as well as for the location of the water tank and an anti-siphon valve being located under the freeway. With respect to coming in off of Foothill Road instead of Santos Ranch Road, Mr. Gamble stated that this would mean having three accesses onto Foothill Road in 500 yards. He added that he did not believe the property has greater than 25-percent slope; the road slope on the north is 15 percent and that on Parcel 3 is 10 percent. Mr. Gamble stated that they are asking for two houses for every three acres, that the homes had been planned for the area for 25 years, and that there are planned developments both to the north and south which have received approval by the Planning Commission. He offered to restrict the homes to one-story and noted also similar to recent houses built in Gilroy and Morgan Hill, vineyards could be integrated, which would make the project even more aesthetically pleasing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Olson proceeded to discuss the questions in Exhibit B. Density 1. Does the Commission support a General Plan Land Use Amendment to increase the density of the subject parcels? If so, how many units and/or what General Plan Land Use Designation would the Commission support? Commissioner O’Connor stated that he has never been a proponent of changing any land designation to increase density, especially in a sensitive hilly area with slope issues. He noted that exceptions have been made because of court cases; however, that type of housing would not be met by this type of development in the hills. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, December 8, 2010 Page 7 of 23