CCMIN021798 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Costanzo said that would be corrected. Roger Smith, 6344 Alisal Street, indicated most of his points had already been made by other speakers, but he was confused regarding the secondary units. The original plan said in-law units would be within the existing dwelling and not visible. Now he is heating about detached units. He was opposed to detached secondary units. He asked Council to have the detached units come before the Planning Commission and Council on a case by case basis. Ms. Ayala said the State does consider detached units as affordable housing. She asked if he was against affordable housing in the Greenbriar development? Mr. Smith felt it was inappropriate for affordable housing to be incorporated in the Greenbriar plan. He said the Specific Plan did not include affordable housing and that is the plan that should be implemented. Hass Bozorgzad, 6546 Arlington Road, said if there is an adopted Specific Plan, why all this discussion? He supported what his neighbors said. He felt Council should stay with the proposal (original A) as listed in the Specific Plan. He was concerned that agreements had not been signed as of yet with Greenbriar in so far as compensation. Rosemary Foreman, 5836 San Juan Way, said she bought her house knowing that a large development was going to be built behind her house. Greenbriar has been very cooperative in working with the neighbors. She liked what she saw in Alamo, another Greenbriar development. She said to allow Greenbriar to pay the in-lieu fee because she was told there would not be low income housing behind her. Wilona Perry, 5848 San Juan Way, said when she bought her property she was told there would be a school. The school district obtained the property by condemnation and now it is selling the property for a profit. This bothered her. She said if the Sycamore area keeps developing, where will all the children go to school. She was opposed to affordable housing here. However, she felt this proposed development was beautiful. She asked what the restrictions would be on the detached units. She felt the north side should only be single story homes. She was told by the Planning Department that the setback behind her would be further than fifty feet from her fence line. Ms. Michelotti said the second unit law for the State of California takes precedence over the City of Pleasanton ordinances. It basically states that a detached granny flat could be rented to someone other than a relative. She mentioned the Alamo development and Presley Homes development have granny flats, if someone wished to see what they looked like. Ms. Ayala felt if someone owned a $700,000 home and was going to rent the detached unit, they would be very particular about tenants or they could choose not to rent it at all. Pleasanton City Council 2/17/98 Minutes 14