PC 032812 - Laserfiche WebLink

second unit that would be bigger than a lot of houses in their development. She added that garages and accessory structures outside of the 12,500- square -foot house, including poolhouses should be limited. Ms. Roberts expressed concern about the trail and appreciated the fact that Oak Grove is proposing a trail from the Berlogar property through to the Foley property. She stated that the 1993 Trail Plan indicates a Class A trail going across the bottom of the point of the Lin property for good reason. She noted that the Foley property is outside the Urban Growth Boundary and that she thinks the only time there can be easements for trails would be when the property is developed; hence, the trail from the Berlogar property would be necessary, which he had to have as an easement when he developed. She further noted that staff will need to look at the 1993 plan for the regional trails and the fact that there is a Class A trail going across the point from that property from east to west. Ms. Roberts stated that barns in the Vineyard corridor, where there are 20 -acre properties, were limited to 400 square feet. She indicated that there should be height limits for these structures. She noted that she has been going to East Dublin recently and has seen some three -story houses that are being built high on the hills and are sticking out. Finally, Ms. Roberts stated that the EVA is a problem and that she understands Mr. Schmidt's and the Groves' concern. She added that there must be some way that this can be worked out with the Fire Department and the City to indemnify so that the liability is not there. She concluded that she knows that the applicant wants to limit the development to ten units and not just have little pockets; however, there are concerns that more will be added in time, and to think that nothing else will happen ten years down the road is naive. Norberto Ruiz stated that he was strongly opposed to having the new proposed development gated. He noted that with proposed lot sizes of 16 acres to 214 acres, it is abundantly clear that this development is oriented toward high -end sales, not for the top one percent of residents, but for the top one percent of the one percent. He added that a gate to this development will further serve to clearly convey the message that the rest of Pleasanton residents are not welcome. He pointed out that the new development will tap into the infrastructure — fire, police, and utility services — that are paid for by all Pleasanton residents, and therefore, the main road, while private, should not be gated and should allow other Pleasanton residents the freedom to walk, bicycle or drive through the neighborhood. He indicated that Pleasanton has already developed enough gated communities, and the established development guidelines express the community's desire to limit further gated developments. Mr. Ruiz stated that he lives very near the proposed development on a non -gated street where he sometimes sees other Pleasanton residents walking or bicycling the neighborhood. He indicated that this creates a sense of community rather than one of isolation. He added that sales of the lots will not be adversely affected if there are no PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 28, 2012 Page 12 of 33