09/24/69 - Laserfiche WebLink

• --. .-~ He made reference to the density, if measured as a regular single family development, would produce a density of 6.1 units per acre, rather than the 6.75 as noted in the staff report. The members in the audience who were opposed to the application were: Mr. Bob Rose - 7468 Muirwood Court. - This gentleman presented a petltion covering a two-block area. Mr. Rose stated that he did not feel that 25 persons attending a Homeowners Association meeting is representative of the entire development of Stoneridge. Mr. Robert Pearson - 3590 Churchill Court - a resident of Fairlands development. Mr. Pearson still maintains that there are grave moral questions to be answered when a developer alters the original type of development that was panned. He felt that the City Council and Panning Commission should consider the serious application as to how the area has to be developed. He further read an article written on the dangers of smog, making the comparison of the higher density, more cars, and the end result of greater smog in the Valley. Mr. Walter Bolling, 4971 Hillcrest - worried about the quality of construction of the existing residences. He demonstrated photographs showing crahked'drivexaya and sidewalks within the present single-family development. Mr. Robert Lee, 4938 Drywood - Made reference to the streets in the development. There are numerous dips and grooves in the street, which Mr. Lee maintains the developer will not correct. Mr. Lee made reference to the meeting of the Home- owners Association which he attended, but nat being a member at the time, was not able to vote. He felt the vote was unconstitutional, and stated that he was told at the meeting that if he would donate $2 to loin the Association, he would then be able to vote. He too made reference to the smog problem and also the school situation. Mr. Bill Conley, 4961 Drywood Street - This gentleman stated he was not totally opposed to the development but slightly ambivalent to the idea. He would like more facts on the matter. A Mr. Young, 7911 Stoneridge Court. Was upset about the smog.: Also referred to the automobile, stating that the auto produces approximately 87~, of all smog. There being no further comments, upon motion of Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Commissioner Pereira, and carried, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Gibbs had a few comments. He felt that several of the people in the audience that evening were misinformed regarding the number of cars generated by a townhouse development as the increase in density is relatively minor. This particular concept will give more open space than the single-family type of development. Commissioner Pons - a resident of Stoneridge, addressed the audience, advising them that he did go to the Irvine Ranch in Los Angeles, a development of town- houses and single-family homes in much larger scale than what is proposed for Pleasanton, and Yound that he liked the design very much. He feels that the homeowners in Stoneridge are not clear on what they are getting into, accounting for their concern. Commissioner Pons' only question was if the architect and developer were going to put together a unit as nice looking and market it at a reasonable price. He recommended that the developer not go higher than 6 unit per acre. Commissioner Antonini - was concerned about the density. Felt that 6.75 was a little high, but also conceded that townhouse development is the coming thing. Commissioner Pereira -expressed concern regarding the development of a balanced community. He feels that perhaps this type of housing may be the answer to adequate housing for a wider segment of the City's population. As far as the smog and air pollution is concerned, he did not feel that this matter could be solved at the local level. Chairman Garrigan - Stated that it is extremely important to remember the Genex~l Plan and the diversified type of housing. Believes the development in question does include a large amount of open space as compared to the conventional single-family housing. -2-