CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Brad Durga, Greenbriar Homes, 43160 Osgood Road, Fremont, owners of the Lund Ranch property, supported not changing the definition of gross developable acres. He indicated the Greenbriar Company has been working on its project since 1999 and filed its application in 2002. It is currently in the EIR process and is a funding developer for the North Sycamore Specific Plan. All infrastructures in that plan was sized and designed to accommodate the future development of the Greenbriar site. The company wishes to continue through the process in a fair manner. He noted it is important to maintain the stability of the swale and the necessary reports have been done to evaluate the plan. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, expressed concern about the definition for gross density and any modification that would affect existing specific plans in the city in relation to steep slopes, landslides, etc. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, said she was puzzled by the 25% slope because she assumed that was in the 1996 General Plan. She found it in the public health and safety standards. It is also in the Conservation and Open Space Element, page 17 of the existing General Plan. Policy 13, to protect the health and safety of the community by excluding development in hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas. Program 13.1 - land containing no slope of less than 25% should be limited to one single family home per existing lot of record. She did not understand why certain properties are being discussed at all. When the EIRs were done, there were no overriding circumstances to say the properties needed to be developed. She believed the staff recommendation for the wording for excluding the 25% slope for gross developable acres was excellent. Even if a developer had the funds and engineering skills, but there would still be an effect on the trees and environment. She had a question on where any units would be moved. There are 98 units at the midpoint of the General Plan for the Un property, which is zoned rural residential. She asked how its possible that half of a hundred units equals 98? Also she felt rural density residential zoning should not be within city lines. She believed that equaled one home for every five acres. That would not include infrastructure costs. The only way to develop such an area would be to congregate the buildings so a developer can pay to build infrastructure. She did not think these sites were suitable for rural residential development. She referred to the urban growth line and noted on one side the property was designated public health and safety and on the other side of the line with the same terrain the property is designated rural residential density and development is being discussed. She felt the best thing is to have gross developable acres apply to areas that can actually be developed, even if they were planned unit developments. Cindy McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, referred to the map provided to the public and asked if that covered all properties that would be affected by a change in the definition of gross developable acres within Pleasanton's sphere of influence and the current General Plan? Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 2 11/29/05