CCMIN091686 - Laserfiche WebLink

159 bring that to Council that.they will request assistance at that time to help further the opportunity for quality education for the School District. Secondly, with regard to the general plan draft~ there is an impact in the result of the red~ction or elimination of the density bonus which was formerly allowed for planned unit development zoning. The reduction of 25% bonus par- ticularly impacts low density area. With the creation of the rural residen- ~ tial designation which allows one unit per five acres it appears that there is a major change in the area of low density. It seems it would be logical to increase the.range Of the low density designation. This would not require a change in the existing general plan. Mr. Dunkley stated that in his own per- sonal experience with the tund Ranch, Grey Eagle and Deer Oakes he utilitized the opportunities created by the density allowed under the PUD low density area. All of those projects demonstrate that a fine project can result in that density range. It was his recommendation and request that the density ranges be changed that impact low density range from the range of .2 to 2-1/2 units per acre. That would change the bottom end of the density range, and restore the density range of low density residential previously in the general 'plan. Mr. Oliver Swinnington, owner of three 40-acre parcels on the ridge, stated he has been trying to develop a summer home on a 40-acre parcel that was down-zoned some years ago. He stated the grandfather clause as defined by the County drew a line at 50- acres so as to exclude the 40-acre lots. He felt he is entitled to five acre parcels which were in existence before. He asked if existing clause or record of any size parcel are grandfathered in. He stated he was amazed that a general plan would write into it that the City is holding land for the Park District. He felt this creates some sort of act on the part of the general plan to say that the City is giving this land to the Park District at a reduced rate and in so holding this land Council is depriving it of the good use that the property owners want to make of it; he stated he only wants a summer cabin. Others have been denied the beneficial use their property for some time because of a few words and desires of people to hold land for a park district that may not have a litigimate claim to the property. Many people have owned their lands since the late 1800's. The property owners would like to cooperate with the City without. artificial limitations in terms of elevation, limitations of 200 feet from the top of the ridgeland, and put together a planned unit zone. Mr. Lee advised that under the proposed plan this property owner would have the right to construct a single family home on any lot regardless of size upon the ridge. The Committee's recommendation which is contained in the draft general plan essentially supports the idea of studyinging additional land going further westward from the top of the ridge to see if in fact there is a likelihood for development potential. Mr. Zack Cowan, Attorney, 66 Mint Street, San Francisco, representing David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, presented his letter to Council setting forth his concerns regarding further development because of unstable and highly erodable slopes of Pleasanton Ridge and the amount of traffic on Foothill Road. He stated these problems threaten to overwhelm the general plan's good features and drastically reduce the quality of life in Pleasanton. He stated Mr. Glenn is concerned about his safety and value of his property. He is at risk now from the slopes of others and from possible future development. He feels that the proposals and plan which generally restrict development at the 8 - 9-16-86