PC 03/22/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Samuel Raber, 20 Deer Oaks Court, represented his appeal. He addressed the issue of his filing an action with the Superior Court. Mr. Raber stated that in response to that action, the City took the position that he did not exhaust all of his possibilities before fIling the action. He noted that a major point made by staff was that Mr. Raber had not filed a variance or a major modification to the PUD. Prior to that, staff had always told him the only correct procedure was to file a major modification to the PUD. Mr. Raber disagrees that because this course was taken by someone else that he must do likewise. Mr. Raber believes the issue is whether the appropriate procedure is a modification to the PUD or a variance. He feels a variance application is reasonable and supported by the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Mr. Raber feels an unreasonable requirement is the $2,000 fee and increased complexity associated with a PUD major modification application. Furthermore, he feels that even after the payment of fees and associated land/soil studies, he would have no assurance of approval. He feels the City places him in an unfair financial risk. He believes environmental factors and the concerns of nearby homeowners are of more important consideration. After these issues have been settled, Mr. Raber feels it is reasonable to then require payment of fees. Mr. Raber further commented that he has found nothing in the City Code requiring he file a major modification to the PUD nor any reference prohibiting him from filing a variance. He feels his approach is reasonable, economical and within the Municipal Code. He wishes to leave the building envelope as presently drawn, but he would like to receive a variance to permit construction outside the building envelope. He feels that it is immaterial whether the property is part of a PUD or is part of regular zoning. Commissioner Barker clarified with the applicant that the proposed second unit is less than 1,200 square feet, therefore, it would be in accordance of the State's definition of a second unit. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, staff advised that an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) had been done for this Planned Unit Development and the proposed construction would necessitate review of the EIR. Jim O'Gara, 8 Deer Oaks Drive, advised that he is the secretary of the Deer Oaks Homeowners Association and has been authorized by the President of the Homeowners Association to speak on this matter. He noted that two years ago when this issue arose, the Homeowners strongly voted against the construction of a second unit. Speaking as a private property owner in Deer Oaks, having built a home in compliance with the PUD and the CC&Rs, Mr. O'Gara supports staffs recommendation requiring a major modification to the PUD. He does not feel it is right to change the rules after the fact. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 22, 1995