CCMIN091686 - Laserfiche WebLink

161 upper level and on the steeper slopes are not artificial and in fact well ad- vised. He urged Council to be more careful with the substantial risks in- volved with development on the ridge; the benefits in terms of housing are not sufficient to justify the enormous risks and liabilities. He supported staff's recommendation with regard to the Community Facilities alternative, and as to eliminating a specific holding capacity for the expanded planning : area until the planning is done for that area. Mr. Vic Lund, 234 Main Street, expressed concern regarding low density and rural density residential uses. Under the proposed general plan the develop- ment benefits for filing under the PUD would virtually eliminate the only benefits allowed a developer. Staff recommendations under the low density residential and rural density residential is unworkable and too stringent. It does not allow the flexibility to properly develop the rolling hills area around Pleasanton. It restricts creativity that benefits all parties such as clustering densities, transfer of parks, open space, and bonuses minimizing excessive cuts and fills of a straight subdivision type project. It would allow the staff to almost completely control all design layout of a project creating a stereotype development. It would make a project more difficult to finance, and raise prices of homes. The existing features and guidelines in the current general plan has resulted in some of the most unique, high caliber [.(') developments in the Bay Area. The proposed guidelines for low density ~ residential would result in a decrease of allowable density in most cases, and result in a form of down-zoning. He asked Council to consider keeping the ~ guidelines for the PUD as they are in the current general plan. He concurred ~ with the remarks of Mr. Dunkley regarding low density residential figures. Mr. Frank Neu, member of the Residential Review Commiitee and owner of property on the ridge, commented on the process by which the Committee arrived at the document. Through the process they arrived at a consenses for a plan they felt would make the City proud and protect the valuable resources of Pleasanton, and encourage high quality residential development and provide an adequate balance between housing and jobs. He stated that several suggestions and recommendations made by the Committee have been disregarded with respect to public healty and safety land use designation, and the expanded planning area west of Pleasanton be considered as future source for much needed hous- ing. He stated some of the deletions were made at the request of the East Bay Regional Park District, which he did not feel was right. He stated the East Bay Regional Park District, through its recommendations, had essentially rewritten the conservation and open space element in order to preserve park land areas. It was not the intent of the residential review committee to pro- hibit lands to the southwest and west of Pleasanton from any residential development but now these lands have been sacrificed to the benefit of the Park District. Mr. Neu suggested that Council allow for residential develop- ment under the land use designation of public health and safety at a density of one unit per five acres and allow clustering of homes of densities of two units per acre; and rely on hillside review ordinances to protect specific areas of interest with regard to natural resources and natural hazards. This should protect and maintain the integrity of the visual resources so vital to the community. Mr. Frank Lane, 5466 Foothill Lane, owner of property above Mr. Glenn, stated a lot of the concerns would be mitigated if the ridgeland were under the control of Pleasanton rather than the control of Alameda County. He stated he and four partners have owned the property for seventeen years; they bought with the idea of each being able to build their own homes. The East - 9 9-16-86