PC 011404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Peter MacDonald, applicants' attorney, 400 Main Street. Suite 210, read the following letter from Mr. Hafker to the Commission into the record: "Dear Members of the Planning Commission: "I really appreciate your hearing me out this evening. I am normally not shy, but I had back fusion surgery on October 23`d, and I am on painkillers. "My wife, Hermine, and I have been cooperative with the City and my neighbors, and Greenbriar throughout the development process. "I feel like the plan for my property meets with the requirements of your planning. I know I could ask for an exception, but I would rather comply with the planning requirements without asking for an exception. The plan says 15,000 square foot lots, and I can more than meet that requirement. "We cannot afford an expensive gamble and any certainty you can give us will be appreciated. If you vote to uphold your plan, it will make processing our subdivision much easier. Thank you for any help you can give us." Mr. MacDonald noted that Mr. Hafker is a carpenter and precise by nature, in words and actions. He noted that Mr. Hafker had been in a car accident in 2000 and had not worked since then. The extra lot would be helpful in terms of his unplanned retirement, but the cost of processing the PUD was very substantial; he wished to get a sense of what was being proposed. He believed that staff was correct in its assessment between 90-95 percent of the time and added that Mr. Iserson's report correctly identified the Specific Plan as the controlling document. He did not believe that the zoning amended the Specific Plan. He read a portion of the staff report which quoted the NSSP concerning the intent of the PUD-LDR land use category: "Development within this district is generally intended to conform with the provisions and permitted uses contained in the R-1 One-Family District of the City of Pleasanton's Municipal Code, with a minimum parcel size of 12,000 square feet on flat land and 15,000 square feet on sloping land and land which is located either south of the East-West Collector or adjacent to the northern plan border (gross density of two units per acre)." Mr. MacDonald noted that normally, if one intended to amend the Specific Plan Land Use Map, it would not be used with words like "generally intended to conform." In addition, he did not believe that there were 12,000-square foot lots with a gross density of two units per acre. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. MacDonald replied that the parenthetical statement, "(gross density of two units per acre)" is a descriptive clause in pages of text which are ultimately summarized with a General Plan Land Use Map. He noted that phrases such as "generally intended to conform with" become an amendment to that Land Use Map, and it becomes difficult to understand what it means. He believed that the planning process was - intended to clearly lay down the rules. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 Page 10 of 22