CCMIN060199 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift suggested that to add those two lots in the plan, Council would need to find two lots to take out. Mr. Pico asked if the owner of Lot 30 had asked for an additional unit or objected to the recommendation. Mr. Rasmussen indicated staff had not heard any objections from that owner to denial of a lot split. Mr. Pico concluded the only objection then was from the owner of Lot 31. Ms. Ayala referred to the history of this area when it was in the County. The County agreed to a split of the twenty-acre parcel but stated it was not to be split again. Mr. Rasmussen agreed that the zoning required a minimum parcel size of five acres and there were to be no more than three parcels out of the twenty-acre parcel. Ms. Ayala felt that was allowed to be changed now because it was not part of a recorded deed. Mr. Rasmussen stated what would be done is to simply rezone the property. Ms. Ayala was uncomfortable doing that because of the County action. Mr. Tarver said he understood that and had fought in the past about changing acreages of rural settings in the County and now the City is doing the same thing. But there are 189 units approved next the Foley Ranch which would have far more impacts than two or three lots on this twenty acre parcel. He did not understand what the problem was. Ms. Michelotti felt they should be consistent; all or none. Ms. Ayala said the problem was then where do you take away units. Mr. Rasmussen then discussed how the units for the entire area had been allocated. It was moved by Mr. Pico, to delete item 5(B) of the staff recommendation and in order to keep the units at 189, that three units be taken from Lot 21, the Lonestar property. Ms. Ayala asked for clarification of the lots on the Lonestar property. Mr. Rasmussen indicated a housing density bonus was allowed to grant Lonestar three additional housing units in consideration for the dedication of one mile of Vineyard Avenue fight of way. Pleasanton City Council 17 06/01/99 Minutes