CCMIN082482 - Laserfiche WebLink

115 stated that any other decision than 17 units with 35 acres of open space would violate the General Plan conformity. Mr. Engel stated that Mr. Henderson is con- cerned about protection of the hillside as to slides, erosion, visual impact, and tree removal. He requested that all heritage trees be preserved. He concluded by stating that Pleasanton can be proud of its planning and stated that allowing a maximum of 17 units in the Deer Oaks project would be consistent with previous developments and in the best interest of the community. He stated that lots 13, 14, and 15 should be combined as recommended by the Planning Commission, and there should be access through Deer Oaks Court. Mr. Engel urged Council to review this application very carefully before any decision is made. Ms. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, Livermore, representing Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, urged denial of a Planned Unit Development permit for the subject property because the area is unique and should be protected by an open space ordinance. She stated that tonight~s vote on the Dunkley proposal sets a precedent ~ for lands west of Foothill Road extending up Pleasanton Ridge, which she felt are a resource to be preserved, not a commodity to be exploited. She stated that in fairL ~" hess to a study committee on the Hillside Planned Development ordinance, the HPD OD revisions should be settled and then the Dunkley proposal considered under t~e [] specifics of the revised HPD law. A revised Hillside Planned Development ordinance [] can clarify for both the developers and the general public what the direction and intent of the City Council will be. Ms. Tracy stated that State Law required that ~ cities have an open space ordinance consistent with their General Plan, and ~hat Pleasanton is nearly a year late in meeting the required state deadline of October 1981. She stated that the Pleasanton General Plan indicates "open space for health and safety" for the Dunkley property, and added that health and safety are the very reasons why this property should be kept predominantly in open space. She stated that development of the Pleasanton Ridge area could cause renewed movement of margin- ally stable old landslide deposits; that approximately 85% of the landslides have ._ been on slopes steeper than 15 percent. Ms. Tracy urged Council to use their police Cit ~ power to maintain open space as indicated in the y s General Plan. Mr. John Innes, 1586 Foothill Road, property owner south of the subject proposed project, stated he was not for or against the proposed development but was concerned about the Hillside Planned Development ordinance and how future growth of the Pleasan- ton Ridge would be controlled. He stated that in discussion with the Planning Commis- sion, two members stated that the City does not need the HPD ordinance. He stated that Council should determine if a Hillside Planned Development ordinance is needed and to form strong guidelines for those who wish to purchase and development property as well as for those who wish to keep the land as it is. He stated that Council should enact the proper ordinance and then allow development, and that consistency is needed in this unique area. Mr. Innes requested Council to suspend, delay, or hold the public hearing open on Mr. Dunkley~s proposal until a decision is made on how the entire ridge will be developed. Mr. Dunkley rebutted by stating that Deer Oaks Drive is not visible and that it will not be when improved. He stated that Mr. Engel's comparison of his project to those of Longview and the Boatright property was not realistic or ligical, and should not be relevant to his proposal. He stated he agreed with the condition to preserve the heritage trees and that any tree removal must be approved by City staff. He stated the soils report revealed very little earthquake slippage. He stated the proposed 2,000 sq. ft. limit on size of houses presents a sense of consistency. He stated he favored private ownership responsibility for the open space rather than common open space that no one takes care of or is concerned about; and that private ownership should only allow fences, and no structures. There being no further testimony, Mayor Butler declared the public hearing closed on the application and the Environmental Impact Report. 8. 8/24/82