PC 03/31/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Harris presented the staff report which suggested that the public hearing be opened, public testimony received and continued to April 14, 1982 to allow more public testimony and recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Doherty indicated he hadn't had time to read it and was not comfortable about taking public testimony about something which he has not read. Commissioner Lindsey stated he concurs with this. Chairperson Getty said that inasmuch as people are here to speak on the matter they should be allowed to do so. Commissioner Wilson asked if this HPD was only for the western side of Pleasanton or covered the entire City. Mr. Harris said it hasn't been limited with this respect. He said, however, it is not intended to be an overlay district. Commissioner Wilson said if the Planning Commission is going to study this they should know if it applies to the western side of Foothill or all properties within the City. Mr. Harris said properties would actually have to be rezoned for this to apply. The public hearing was opened. Margaret Tracy, 262 Madison, Livermore, asked if the matter could be the first thing on the agenda at the next meeting. She spoke to concerns of: the proposed ordinance doesn't state the area to which it applies, the eastern slope of the Pleasanton ridge covers six miles; didn't want any kind of development permitted on slopes of over 15g in the area; the HPD does not speak to mandatory sewer facilities or unstable slopes; she asked how much sewering would be mandatory; does not speak to leach lines where unstable condi- tions exist; does not speak to lot size and asked how much more than 17~ grade could be acceptable; asked about the Fire department requirements as stated in Section 2.32.1.2. She said line 3 should read must not m_~, for required data. Mrs. Tracy spoke to U.S. Geological Bulletin No. 139A of 1976. She suggested the Planning Commissioners get a copy of this. Lee Henderson, 2870 Foothill Road, addressed the fourth page of the proposed ordinance 2-2.32.06. He asked if subdivision breaks up ownership. Mr. Harris said that separate parcels doesn't have to mean separate ownership. Mr. Henderson then spoke to minimum lot size 2-2.32.06. He said this is unfair treatment of neighbors who are on two acres when others are on five. He said it is unfair to existing owners to allow one-half acres. He suggested one acre minimum. Mr. Henderson spoke to open space and staff's contention that no one will be responsible. for the land. He said the open space has a much better chance with larger parcels and people responsible -16' ...___ _. _ .. ... _ . __ .. . _........ _..___ ~. __ ~.. . _ . _ . _ ... ....__ _ . _r,