My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/11/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 08/11/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:26:27 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 2:00:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/11/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/11/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Page 10 <br />ridgelands and isn't sure how this should be accomplished - by ordinance <br />or resolution. He said the City has been working on this 1-1/2 years <br />and there is still mass confusion. Commissioner Getty agreed with this <br />statement. <br />Commissioner Lindsey said this is a sensitive area which they want to <br />preserve but that the ordinance is extremely confusing. He said that <br />it might be possible to ask the staff to come back with guidelines <br />and developers could have an idea of what could be done in the area. <br />He said it should be done for the entire area so everyone knows what <br />to expect. <br />Commissioner Jamieson said the people who have to understand the ordinance <br />do so and the staff has expertise in these matters and in interpreting <br />the ordinance. He said Mr. Dunkley's points and examples are well taken <br />and that the ordinance does need to have clarification in areas outlined. <br />He said he doesn't believe there should be general guidelines as stated <br />earlier. <br />Commissioner Wilson spoke to the variables of the current ordinance <br />and he doesn't believe that spending all of this time on this ordinance <br />has done anything to protect the ridgeland. <br />Commissioner Jamieson asked about the example calculated by Rich Glenn. <br />Mr. Harris said that in order to calculate this figure accurately one <br />would need accurate topographic and maps. <br />Mr. Harris stated that if the General Plan were amended to provide <br />guidelines it should be for the overall ridgeland area as well as other <br />hillside areas throughout the City. He spoke to the types of things <br />which should be added or changed in the General Plan guidelines for <br />hillside development. He said some of the guidelines would be excerpted <br />from the ordinance. He said the General Plan is now almost silent with <br />regard to standards for open space and conservation. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Henderson how many units, under the <br />proposed ordinance, Mr. Dunkley would be allowed to have. Mr. Henderson <br />said about 21 units if the data given in the EIR is correct. <br />Commissioner Wilson then asked if he was given to understand that the <br />new ordinance would allow Mr. Dunkley 21 units. Mr. Henderson said he <br />doubted that Mr. Dunkley could come up with 5,000 sq. ft. per lot less <br />than 25~. Commissioner Wilson said the point he is trying to make is <br />that he would be allowed about the same number of units as those <br />approved in the original submittal. <br />Mr. Harris stated that the comments made by Mr. Dunkley using 2.9 acre <br />site is misleading inasmuch as the majority of this hillside is in <br />large holdings - 50, 100, 200 and even 600 acres in the area. <br />Commissioner Getty said that if the purpose of the hillside ordinance <br />is to protect, then houses should be clustered and made not visible. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.