PC 05/27/81 - Laserfiche WebLink

Lee Henderson, 2870 Foothill Road spoke. He explained the three entrances to his property with relationship to the proposal shown on the map. Com- missioner Jamieson asked about the asphaltic berm and he stated he under- stands that this is a substitute for curb. Mr. Dunkley confirmed this was the case. Mr. Dunkley explained the security gate operations. Mr. Henderson said that concerning No. 10 it would be difficult to bring up a fire truck on the yellow road. Further he said he sees no reason for granting a bonus for density. He stated the applicant is suggesting the Ravine be considered. Mr. Henderson explained why it should not be considered. Mr. Henderson read the duties of the Planning Commission and urged the Plan- ning Commission to follow the guidelines set forth thereon. He further said that Boatright and Long could have developed more 1Qts than they have, using the equation proposed by Mr. Dunkley for his development. Mr. Henderson addressed paybacks with relationship to lot value times total number of lots. Mr. Henderson took issue with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study. He said it is not up to date and that if any project required an EIR, it would be this one. Mr. Henderson reviewed comments from the Initial Study. Further he stated that no citizen in the City of Pleasanton deserves preferential treatment, i.e., Dunkley more density that Boatright or Long. Mr. Dunkley of Castlewood Properties, Inc. rebutted the statements made. Mr. Dunkley agreed with Mr. Henderson on Item #13. He said Condition No. 68 is being modified to accommodate this concern. Mr. Dunkley said that WIS is a benchmark and to be used as a guide. He said flexibility is built into the law to allow the proposed development and further that they have not gone against the ordinance. He stated they were granted a variance allowing open space. Mr. Dunkley explained using visual aides. He said Dr. Long was also granted a variance for open space and further that that particular property was general planned only as open space whereas their proposal is general planned low density residential and open space and that they are complying with that land use designation. He said Boatright was granted a density adjustment. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jamieson asked Mr. Harris to comment on the project in total. Mr. Harris complied. Commission Jamieson asked what would be done if Castlewood Properties, Inc. were approved with relationship to Longs' and Boatright property. He wanted to know what would stop them from coming in and asking for a modification to their HPD. Mr. Swift explained that this is a legislative decision concerning one site and that the other two prop- erties were independent legislative decisions; each one made separately. He further said that to allow a density adjustment findings would have to be made as to unusual circumstances, i.e., topographic features. Commissioner Jamieson said perhaps the ordinance needs revision but action is required for this particular case. Mr. Harris stated that currently there is no other vacant property in the City zoned HPD. Commissioner Jamieson asked about precedence setting. Mr. Swift stated precedence would only be set if a second person came in. He said one could say Dr. Longs project is precedent setting. He said it is preferred to look at each of these development .approvals as independent acts. He said as -5-