CCMIN061698 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift said the motion did not give the south side of Happy Valley any additional units. Staff was directed to work with the property owners on an agricultural compound at the top of the hill. Mr. Rasmussen referred to page 29 of the staff report that states "One unit per two acres throughout the Happy Valley area and one additional parcel beyond this density limit (four total) shall be permitted for the 6.4 acre PUD LDR portion of lot 110 (Christensen property). Six additional parcels (22 total) shall be permitted for the 33 acre PUD LDR portion of lot 98 (Spotorno Flat Area) in return for significant dedication of open space land or open space easements to the City at the time of final subdivision map approval." Ms. Ayala asked if a formula had been used to determine the average for the open space easements. Mr. Rasmussen said the above formula was used for the Christensen and Spotorno parcels. For Chapman and Schaffer, the Planning Commission recommended that they be allowed to subdivide one five-acre parcel in the open space area. The General Plan does not allow subdivisions to occur in open space areas. In order to allow these property owners to get additional development, staff suggests a density bonus be applied. The Chapman property would receive an additional two units, and the Schaffer property also would receive up to two units. Ms. Dennis had a question regarding Proposition 218. Is it true the City cannot impose different conditions? For example, could the City require some property owners to pay the entire cost and other property owners pay a portion or nothing. Mr. Roush said that is correct. There is nothing that prohibits a property owner or group of property owners to absorb a higher cost. If an assessment district or a benefit district is formed, the costs would have to be distributed proportionately based on the benefit. If the Council wanted to put a cap on the cost of the existing property owners, without having it fall on the undeveloped property owners, the Council could use City money to keep such a cap in place. Ms. Dennis asked at what point does a decision need to be made in regards to financing. Ms. Acosta said tonight Council should start to limit the options and then direct staff to work with the property owners before the final financing plan is determined. Ms. Dennis asked what the City standards were in regards to water and sewer. Mr. Swift said if a property owner is using a well for drinking water, there is no City standard. The City's rule is that well water not be connected to the City water source because of the potential for contamination. The Specific Plan allows property owners to continue using their well. The same rules apply to using City sewer. The City applies the same rules as the Pleasanton City Council 20 06/16/98 Minutes