CCMIN030106 - Laserfiche WebLink

the church has difficulty maintaining the property since it is a small congregation. He supported development of some of the church property and felt it would improve the neighborhood. Patricia Ratto, 3661 Gettysburg Court South, said she supported the development of some of the church property. She felt some of the opposition was because people did not have all the information. There will not be apartments or town homes. She said the park will remain and the church will be improved. The additional homes would add value to the neighborhood. She wanted to see something done with the property and felt the Ponderosa proposal was wonderful for the neighborhood. She appreciated the decisions made by Pleasanton Councils over the years and felt they had done a good job. She noted the Valley Trails Homeowners Association consisted of fourteen homes and she hoped it would grow with more people involved. Brian Casey, 4414 Shearwater Court, indicated he owned the property to the north of the Guesthouse Inn on 2025 Santa Rita Road. He said there have been issues from that property but he has been able to work with the property owners to resolve problems. He was concerned about changing the property zoning to high density residential and the potential for affordable housing. He wanted to know what is considered affordable housing, restrictions to qualify, what is the exact plan for the property (two stories, condos, apartments), will there be rental restrictions, and what is better tax base for the city, residential or business. He asked for clarification of midpoint density. In summary, he wanted the property to remain in the existing designation with a single story. If there is a change in designation, he asked if conditions could be included to build an eight-foot cinder block fence, and to limit window exposure to his property. Mayor Hosterman indicated the Guesthouse Inn occupied a two and half acre parcel and requested a midpoint density of 37 units. These are all potential developments that could be years in the making. As these applications come forward, the public will be notified and there will be ample opportunity for input. Mr. Iserson indicated there is no specific development proposal before the city at this time. This is merely a request by the property owner to consider changing the land use from commercial to high density residential so they would have the ability to submit a plan. Once the plan is submitted, it would be rigorously reviewed by staff according to various criteria and would then have Planning Commission and City Council hearings. There is an extensive process that would provide answers to specific questions. Raili Glenn, 10 Tehan Canyon Road, asked where the road would be located leading to a new residence on the Joel property? The present easement only covers three residences and she felt adding more traffic on that easement would violate her easement rights. She asked if the Moller property owners had been noticed of the meeting, since this would affect them as well? She said the Joel property had a greater than 25% slope and could not be developed. She asked why Council was even considering development here? Bill Lide, 8001 Jorgensen Lane, addressed the Austin property proposal and felt it was a responsible proposal. The family has been working with the neighbors in a responsible manner and is continuing to do so. He also supported having cows and horses on the residual land that is not developed. He wanted the grazing land set aside in perpetuity. He wanted to take advantage of every opportunity to slow and quiet the traffic on Foothill Road. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 9 03/01/06