CCMIN060199 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver said these are design guidelines that staff will use to make recommendations. Council can then make its own decision. It was moved by Ms. Ayala to approve Option 3 on page 4 of the Staff Report. Mr. Pico preferred to stay with the staff recommendations 1 through 8, which included all the recommendations. He had one recommended change and that was to delete item 5(B) that precludes further subdivisionof Lots 29, 30, and 31. He felt the right to subdivide those lots should be retained. The number of units allocated should be retained, so units would have to come off from somewhere else. He agreed it was important to protect the Foley's ranching interests, but he did not think adding one additional unit on Lot 29, 30 or 31 would have a dramatic impact on the Foley operation. Mr. Rasmussen indicated there was discussion about how the number of units were allocated to various lots. For example, when the school moved from Lots 18 and 19 to Lot 19, there was a transfer of units back and forth. There is also a recommendation that the RMC Lonestar property Lot 21 receive three addition units in return for dedication of approximately one mile of right of way land for the realignment of Vineyard Avenue. The 189 homes the plan now assumes does not include additional housing on Lots 29, 30 or 31. If the Council wants to allow those lots to split and stay at 189 units, Council needs to remove three homes from somewhere else. David Harris, 1331 North California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, representing owners of Lot 31, indicated they only wanted what was originally granted to them, which is a single lot split, not more units. He referred to whether this had been in a deed restfiction and indicated it was not because they agreed to be bound by the regulation of the local governing body. There has been no evidence of any potential detrimental effect on the Foley Ranch. The owner of Lot 29 has indicated there is no desire for a lot split. This is a matter of one house farther away from the Foley Ranch. There has been no evidence from the Foley Ranch of loss of profits, of complaints, trespass or lawsuits. He urged Council to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations and allow the lot split of Lot 31. It was moved by Mayor Tarver that the Planning Commission recommendation regarding entitlemerits for Lots 29, 30, and 31 be adopted instead of staff recommendation. Ms. Ayala was concerned that the entitlement must be to all three lots or to none of them and asked for staff comment. Mr. Rasmussen indicated the concern was with consistency and that all property owners be treated the same. Lots 30 and 31 are very similar in size and both have one existing home. Lot 29 is a bit different because it has open space areas and no development potential. He felt Lots 30 and 31 should be treated the same, but Lot 29 could be left out. Pleasanton City Council 16 06/01/99 Minutes