CCMIN030106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Sean Lemoine, 4574 Rover Rock Hill Road, asked why his family property was not listed on the staff report? Mr. Iserson said part of the property has already been developed with some remaining acreage farther up the hill. He agreed it probably should have been in the report because there are slopes in the area greater than 25%. Staff will include it in the next analysis. Mr. Lemoine asked how the 25% slope rule would affect their property? Mr. Iserson said that analysis has not yet been done. Mr. Lemoine indicated he had walked the property with potential developers and most of the slopes are more than 25%. He said he and his two brothers would like to build their homes on the family property. If the 25% rule is invoked, he believed that dream would not be possible and they would not be able to buy a home in Pleasanton, since most of them are now near $1 million. He believed this was an unfair burden to the last seven or eight property owners in that area. The current zoning restrictions on Foothill Road are the most stringent in the country, not just the state. To add this on top of those restrictions seems like another way to eliminate lots without paying for it. If the regulation reduces lots from 98 to 64, he felt that is a 33% drop in property value. He did not believe other residents of the city would agree to slash their property values by 33%. It was ludicrous to think any development on Foothill Road would be at more than the midpoint of density. In the last ten years, no property has been developed above the midpoint and it took his family that long to get twelve units approved for flat ground. There is an elevation restriction at 670 feet and Foothill Road is at 400 feet, so there is only a 270-foot area in which to build. He felt the 25% rule would eliminate any type of development along Foothill Road. Adding a few homes at the base of the mountain will not detract from the rural character of Pleasanton. David Pastor, 3613 Hawaii Court South, indicated the Evangelical Church is the newest building in that area. All the surrounding homes are older. He referred to a prior attempt to build homes on the church property and said one of the biggest problems with the property is the elevation. If homes were built on that center area, it would be like building a castle on a rock that looks down on the existing homes. He noted Ponderosa Homes usually builds big homes and that is not the character of the neighborhood. If Ponderosa could build small homes similar to those in the neighborhood, it might be possible to get an acceptable plan. However, most of the Valley Trails residents would prefer to keep the park, especially since the city has improved it over the last few years. He reiterated his desire that any housing be small and low and he did not think Ponderosa Homes would agree with that. He would like to see the city buy the property from the church. Linda Marquardt, 3206 Belvedere Court, indicated the land west of Foothill Road is beautiful to look at and to see the cows. Not every city has that asset. It lends character to Pleasanton and she wanted to retain the rural feel. She agreed the property owners should be able to get retirement income from the land, but some arrangement needs to be made to get a balance. She did not think it would be appropriate to surround the Alviso Dairy Park with houses. It would be better to have pastureland with cows, so when the kids go to the Dairy, they can actually see cows. Foothill Road already has a lot of houses on it and there is a lot of traffic. She would not like to change the zoning to anything higher than it currently is designated. She suggested purchasing the surrounding land to extend the Alviso Park. If there are lots, they should be as big as possible with many trees planted to keep the rural feel. Her bottom line was the less development the better. Joint Workshop City CounciVPlanning Commission 7 03/01/06