CCMIN061990 - Laserfiche WebLink

282 come up with a list of shrubbery considered to be natural landscaping to ensure that Foothill Road retains its rural character. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that Resolution No. 90-107 be adopted, based on a review of an initial environmental impact study done for this project and on a finding that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and on a further finding that a negative declaration is appropriate in connection with RZ-90-5, the application of the City of Pleasanton to create an overlay district establishing development standards, design regulations, and related matters applicable to the Foothill Road corridor and to apply these regulations to properties along the western side of Foothill Road, between the road and the 670 foot elevation contour line generally, from Dublin Canyon Road on the north to lands of the EBRPD on the south. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Butler ABSTAIN: None Mr. Brandes recommended that the language suggested by Mr. Wallace be added to the proposed ordinance to address the various problems brought up regarding properties in the area. He commented that one of the reasons for annexation is for the City to control the property's development in relation to the City's needs and interests and expressed concern about the annexation of properties which are currently being developed under County standards. He stated that the flexibility in Mr. Wallace's language would cover the concern about lots of records currently outside the City limits and considering future annexation and that these unusual circumstances like Judge Gale's property could be seriously considered at the time annexation is requested. Ms. Mohr inquired under what circumstances the City could annex a property that already has a parcel which has been approved by a previous jurisdiction. Mr. Roush replied that the City can annex properties with parcels on them, but it cannot undo the lots that have been created. He added that a property in a situation like Judge Gale's could be considered an existing lot of record and be exempted from the guidelines upon annexation. Ms. Brandes expressed concern that allowing something for a property that is being annexed which was not allowed for another property that is already in the City would mean granting a special privilege to the property being annexed. - 6 - 6-19-90