CCMIN031991 - Laserfiche WebLink

79 Mr. Don Wallace, 4134 Walnut Drive, Property Manager for the Moller family, stated that the Mollers are proud of the project and the reception it received from both the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. He introduced the members of the Moller family as well as Mr. Frank Berlogar, geological consultant, Mr. Jeff Holmwood, project engineer, of Bissell & Karn, Mr. Bob LePerle of LePerle Architects, and Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney-at-law. Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, representing the Moller family, stated that the project incorporated the recommendations of City Staff and officials and is consistent with the City's design guidelines for Foothill Road and the City's General Plan and zoning. He pointed out that 82% of the property will remain as open space with hiking trails for the public and that the 18% to be developed will be in areas which will not interfere with the key view corridors. Mr. MacDonald then proceeded to address the concerns that were brought up regarding the project. In connection with the request of Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee (PARC) that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project, he stated that the plan has addressed and mitigated all the environmental impacts. With regard to the townhouses in the quarry area, he stated that the Mollers strongly support the design for several reasons: (1) the townhouses would have no adverse visual impact of Foothill Road since the quarry area is behind the hillside; (2) the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the townhouses would be less that 30%, and the Mollers deserve the financial benefit to be derived from the units; (3) a real market need for townhouses exists, and this would allow Pleasanton residents who want a smaller unit to continueliving in Pleasanton; and (4) the affordability of townhouses. With respect to Condition No. 2g, concerning the total square footage cap of 4,500 square feet for the first tier of lots along Foothill Road, Mr. MacDonald stated that only one of those lots cannot reasonably accept a 6,000 square foot unit and that the cap would take away a number of houses that would be appropriate for the area. In connection with Condition No. 2i which provides that no more than 50% of the building envelope area should not be changed from its natural state and that the grading should not cause a change of three feet or more in height, he pointed out that the area's topography is such that the elevation between the back of the house and the back of the lot frequently changes to as much as ten feet. He stated that the back yard would not affect the view from Foothill Road and that flexibility would allow owners to use their 20,000 square foot lot for a volleyball court or a swimming pool. Mr. Tarver asked Mr. MacDonald if he were in favor of a Negative Declaration as opposed to processing an EIR. - 9 - 3-19-91