PC 091003 - Laserfiche WebLink

COIT'lmissioner Roberts noted that variances had been approved VV'ith unusual lots" and that l'\/lr_ Lortl-:touse-Zeis seemed to have a legal nonconforming l...1-se. lVfr_ Lo-rthouse-Zeis noted that many sections or the Happy Valley Speci:t"ic Plm-:t vvere removed from the document:", particularly FAR specification guidelines (Developme1"1t Standards 9-13)_ He believed that the City had ren'1oved iten-"1s :f'ron:1 the Specific Plm-:t at. vvilL I\I1:r. Iserson noted that there vvere no F~R guidelines in the Speci:t"ic Plan", so that could not have been deleted. He added that the lots deleted -rrom the ordinance vvere larger than six acres. I\I1:r. Lofthouse-Zeis stated that Steve Otto had sent him an e-mail" stating" "''''The site development standards 9 through. 13 vvere deleted_ In addition" number 8 vvas rnodified to eliminate reference to Lot 98."" I\I1:r. Iserson emphasized that occurred because they vvere greater than six acres in size_ ~Jerry V\Tagner" 6344 ~lisal Street,. believed that this hearing vvas premature,. and stated tl,at the area of Happy Valley under discussion vvas located in ~lameda County. He believed a Pleasanton Specific Plan did l""l.ot apply to COUI""l.ty land. He noted tl"1at tl""l.e City"s treatment of tl'1e Happy Valley residents vvitl-:t respect to the golf course,. traffic,. and the bypass road. He did not believe the Happy Valley residents vvould ever vote for anl""l.exatioT1_ Vince Barletta" 6290 Laura Lan.e" did not expect to see a bypass road to be built in Happy Valley,. and concurred vvith l'\/lr. Toomey"s commen.ts about the lot sizes_ He believed that the potential 10 parcels that could be built on may yield 1 1 houses over 20 years. He believed this vvas a noble attempt" and that he believed it should be completed_ I-Ie did not believe many of the neighbors V\iould choose to annex into the City. He did not believe it vvas reasonable for a single homeovvner to be required to sV'Veep the streets_ He noted that there vvere no storm drains in the area" and did not believe that biosvvales vvere necessary to be placed on the lots_ He noted that 60 percent of the lots vvere tvvo acres or less" an.d observed that the plan called for a I-n.inimum of tvvo acres. He believed that the City had good intention.s" a1'1d agreed that development guidelines vvere needed. He liked the rural character in the area" and suggested that the Specific Plan be revisited. He believed that a bypass road V'Vas necessary" and did not vvant the area to be sold O",---1-t to the develC)pers_ l\Ilaurice Cook,. 6443 Alisal" submitted a speaker card,. bl..lt vvas not in attendance to speak. Vanessa Kavvaihau" 871 Sycamore Road,. believed tl""l.at the purpose o-t- SpeciTlc Plan had been to preserve the rural character of the area, but seemed to encourage piecemeal annexation irlstcad. She stated that the City Council o~jected to piecemeal anne:xat.iol.-:t_ She expressed concern about the proposed develoPITl.ent standards and desigl.'1 guidelil.'1es not being applied to the properties unless they V'Vere annexed to tl""l.e City_ She noted that the property ovvners vvould be required to sign a pre-annexation agreement before they could build or IT10dify their homes_ She objected to this practice, and vvas concerlled that PLANNTNG C01VflvnSSION 1V1INUTES September 10, 2003 l:>age 20