CCMIN071090 - Laserfiche WebLink

328 Ms. Mohr stated that according 'to the Initiative, rebuilding a house in case it burned down would be allowed if the property is within 300 feet of a public road; otherwise, the answer might have to come from the court. Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, stated that the Board of Directors of the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce would prefer the City to follow its normal planning process, including a citizen participation component. He pointed out that this position was taken before Mr. Mercer had stated his proposal and that the Board is not endorsing that proposal specifically. He added that as a citizen, he supported Mr. Mercer's proposal. Mr. Gary Gimmel, property owner within the proposed area of annexation, stated that the SPRC Initiative is not an attractive incentive to become part of Pleasanton. He added that he did not want to be in a County that allowed mountaintops to be leveled, as what is taking place along 1-580. He requested that Council consider annexing the area and adopt a planning process that would allow the citizens to work together to create the open space the community wants. Mr. Dan Herrigood, Sunol, inquired if the revised sphere-of- influence under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would continue to retain the 20% total land mass that had a development potential. Mr. Roush replied that under the SPRC Initiative, a person would have the right to develop essentially one residential unit for every existing lot with a maximum of 160 acres. The Initiative does not address the difference between developable and undevelopable acreage. Mr. Butler stated that the Council is not taking any position on the assumptions made in the EIR regarding developable land. Mr. Martin Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, the attorney representing Amador Land and Cattle Company, an interested property owners in the study area, stated that the SPRC Initiative completely bypasses and preempts the planning process, public input, and the opportunity for deliberation and presentation of information which the Planning Commission and the City Council guarantee. He added that the Initiative is more restrictive than status quo or any zoning that exists anywhere in the City because it requires subsequent action that no other property is required to undergo in order to obtain any kind of development rights or any other uses ultimate to the proposed zoning. He requested that Council certify the EIR, adopt the CEQA findings and adopt a sphere-of-influence line to give direction to the citizens' committee. The committee can deliberate on ultimate land uses, 7-10-90 - 12 -