Laserfiche WebLink
by taking this action, it will cause future legal problems. She asked how many total acres are <br />on the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated there was about 270 acres, but only 40 acres are below the 670 foot <br />elevation. The rest of the property is covered by Measure F and has no development potential <br />other than one house per lot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico did not support the motion, because he was not in favor of the Low Density <br />designations for the Kolb-Miller and Lester properties. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the designation could be readdressed if the geologic information <br />indicated Low Density was reasonable for the Kuki property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated a General Plan amendment could always be considered. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Mr. Pico to adopt the General Plan Steering <br />Committee recommendation with the exception that the Low Density designation for the <br />Lemoine property be retained. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to modify <br />the Planning Commission recommendation to include the Kuki property as Low Density on <br />the areas below the 670 ft. elevation but that no development would occur above the 670 <br />foot elevation, with a clear understanding that the number of units is 0 to two per acre, <br />there is a Foothill Overlay District, and additional geotechnical information is necessary. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt he understood Ms. Michelotti's intent, but he believed the process <br />allowed for adjustment when there is an actual proposal for review. If there is a project than <br />meets all conditions, it is possible to be approved. However, he objected to raising the <br />expectation of development rights on that property when there appears to be good reason not to. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt this was a half-full/half-empty situation. She felt this motion would leave <br />the opportunity open once the geologic assessment and other data are in place to approve <br />whatever makes sense for the property. If that is one or two units over Rural Density, it would <br />not be necessary to come back for a General Plan amendment. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Miehelotti and Mohr <br />NOES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Pico and Mayor Tarvet <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> The motion failed. <br /> <br />07/02/96 -25- <br /> <br /> <br />