PC 07/28/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

_. Ralph Juhl, 2680 Foothill Road, Pleasanton, stated his property is surrounded by the Deer Oaks project. He said that because he knows this land will be developed, he would like to see it done by Mr. Dunkley as he knows he will do a good quality job. He further stated Mr. Dunkley has shown concern for the neighbor's problems. He stated that his only concern was with the open space and the fire hazard. Commissioner Getty said she did not know how else the open space could be controlled other than through the Homeowners Association. Commissioner Jamieson stated he felt that Dr. Juhl should meet with Mr. Dunkley and make sure the CC&Rs are adequate. Dr. Juhl stated he feels he can talk with Mr. Dunkley and work out his concerns. Claudia Juhl, 2680 Foothill Road, Pleasanton, stated that if the houses were spaced out over the open space to make the lots 6 acres or so, it would take care of the problem with so much open space. Commissioner Doherty stated that this should be something that should be worked out with the property owners and the developer. Commissioner Jamieson stated it would have to be done at this time because splitting up the open space among the property owners would be an enormous undertaking. Commissioner Doherty stated the open space would be separated among the nearest lots and would put control under one person and a stipu- lation could be added that the open space could never be built on. Commissioner Jamieson stated he felt this should be a serious con- sideration. Chairperson Lindsey asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Henderson, 2870 Foothill Road, Pleasanton, stated that he felt the developer in this case has received preferential treatment from the City. Mr. Henderson referred to this case being considered as a PUD. He stated that a request was made for a HPD review a long time ago and that the committee, of which he was a member, spent consi- derable time reviewing it. He expressed his dissatisfaction that some of the Commissioners are now expressing a viewpoint that they are not sure an HPD ordinance is necessary. Mr. Henderson also questioned why they were asked to do this review. He further questioned why the Commission was scheduled to review the HPD ordinance one week after this case was to come before the Commission. Mr. Henderson further expressed his view that this case should not be heard as a PUD, but should be subject to the HPD ordinance now under review. John Innes, 1586 Foothill Road, Pleasanton, stated his concern of future development in this area. He stated that up until now the development has been under control of the current HPD ordinance. He said he felt it was not appropriate to apply for a PUD in this -17- ._....._.._..._._._._....~ ._.._.... ._ __. __.~.... ...._.___._.____,_....~___..,__..._ __...__ _~._ .__...,..., _..___,_ ...r.__ ..