CCMIN051899 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ron Cote, 870 Montevino Drive, had concerns with the traffic on Montevino Drive and the cut-through traffic that will be caused by this project. David Harris, 1331 N. California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, representing the owner of Lot 31, stated the owners have not asked to be treated any different from the owners of Lot 29 and 30. All three lots were scheduled for a single lot split which would result in two lots. At the March 23 public hearing, the Foleys objected and staff therefore recommended that no lot splits would happen. When he appeared at the April 28 public hearing he presented evidence that the owners of Lot 29 and 30 had no intention of splitting their lots. He wanted to enter into the record a letter from Mike Madden, owner of Lot 29, which stated Mr. Madden did not have a problem with Lot 31 subdividing. If Lots 29 and 30 are consenting then why can't the Lot 31 be split. The lot split would result in one more house being constructed on the lot, but it would be further away from the Foleys than the now existing home. He said the City would have no liability if it treated Lot 31 differently. In the 1984 County of Alameda zoning ordinance lots 29, 30 and 31 were originally a 20 acre parcel. The Foleys objected at that time to the subdivision of the lot, but the County allowed it to be split into three lots. When the property was annexed into the City the County zoning ordinance became obsolete. The Specific Plan has determined that a. lot split would be appropriate. He submits that the impacts on the Foleys is minimal. He urged Council to approve the split of Lot 31. Sheila Fagliano, 1364 Vineyard Avenue, feels Mr. Foley's concern is the processing of the animals would be impacted if Lot 31 were split. She does not have a complaint about that process. She is not asking for anything special; just what was originally planned. Michael Kyle, 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400, requested Council to consider awarding Mike Goodwin four additional lots than what is presently designated. The existing plan has 17 units consolidated on the western portion of lot 28, which pushes the units against Mr. Goodwin's property. Mr. Goodwin is asking to put two additional units down below and two additional units between the lower area and the existing house on the slope area. He asked if the grouping of the homes on the western edge at the common boundary line could all remain medium density residential and then move some of the units to the west to be on Mr. Goodwin's property. He mentioned that just because a piece of property is hilly does not mean that it cannot grow grapes. The vineyard areas are just as important as the open space. Even if Mr. Goodwin is dedicated the four extra units, 60% of the property would still be dedicated open space. In order to gain the extra lots for Mr. Goodwin, the lots could be shuffled around or four lots could be added to the 189 number. He also had a problem with the economic analysis that said the cost of construction varied only three dollars between a high end home and a medium range home. He had an engineer look at Mr. Goodwin's property, who said there are 17 buildable lots. He requested to submit a summary of his comments in writing and photographs for the record. He invited Council to visit Mr. Goodwin's property. Mike Goodwin, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, said the homes on lots 22, 23, and 24 will be more visible than any of the homes he would build. He requested visibility analysis be done for Pleasanton City Council 25 05/18/99 Minutes