PC 09/07/77 - Laserfiche WebLink

i Mr. Robert McLeod, 2901 Ptarmigan Drive, Walnut Creek, asked that his property. on Foothill Road near Bernal Avenue be exempted from the Residential Allocation Program. He provided the Commission with some history on the property. It was pointed out by staff that this property is presently zoned Agricultural and Mr. Harris brought to the Commissioners' attention that the RAP recommendation is to exempt minor subdivisions. In essence, the type of development proposed by Mr. McLeod would not be competing under the same circumstances as other subdividers. Next, Robert Field, Attorney with Stark, Stewart, Simon & Sparrowe, spoke for Stoneson Construction Company. They object to the ordinance which does not take into account the obligations entered into under the sewer agreement of 1972, between the City, V.C.S.D. and local developers. He urged that the Planning Commission, in their recommendation to the City Council request that those developers who were a part of the settlement agreement be exempt from this program. While he did not oppose the entire ordinance, he felt the City must recognize existing legal obligations by amending Sec. 2-13.05. Next, Robert Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, former City Councilmember, spoke. He concurred with the City's position regarding a growth management program. He recalled the terms under which the 1972 settlement agreement was made, and that if all developers under that agreement would be exempted from the RAP, that the City should probably just forget about a growth management program. Mr. Chuck Seymour, 492 San Gabriel Court, spoke. Basically, he echoed the comments expressed by Mr. Pearson, concluding his remarks by stating that he felt that in the long run, this plan is in the best interest of the community. Next, Joe Madden, 3851 Vineyard Avenue, wanted to make one point clear, and that is the law of supply and demand. He requested that the Planning Commission, when reviewing this proposed program, would ask the question, "is this going to drive supply down and the cost up?" Brad Hirst, 2456 Minivet Court, spoke next. He wished to call the Commissioners' attention to Page 2 (f) pertaining to the effects of un- controlled residential development. He disagreed with the tenor of the Residential Allocation Program, since he feared it would have an adverse effect on future commercial and industrial development. He cited the low tax revenues Pleasanton brings in and asked that the Planning Commis- sion give very serious thought to this proposed ordinance. Mr. Bob Pearson, then offered some further comments of caution regarding exempting of minor subdivisions. Mr. McLeod said that he would be sub- dividing the parcel into four lots and would be selling them off in that manner. He emphasized that it is not his intention to subdivide the property into one-acre parcels. Next, Mr. Robert Grove, 5555 San Jose Drive, spoke. He requested clarifi- cation of Sec. 2-13.02 (d) of the Ordinance. City Attorney Scheidig explained. Mr. Page Binkley, 933 Happy this plan. There are a lot would pretty well take care ments. He felt such a stria growth of the City. Valley Road, stated he of new products coming of meeting present--day Zgent set of controls wr -2- was "kind of" against on the market which environmental require- ~uld be harmful to