CCMIN041602 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUD-84-07-3M, Arroyo Village Homeowners Association Application for a minor modification to the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD- 84-07) governing the Arroyo Village development to create site development standards (i.e., size, height, setbacks, etc.) that would permit additions in the rear of the existing dwellings located at 211,215, and 219 Mavis Drive. (IR 02:013) Adopted Ordinance No. 1852, approving the application of South Bay Construction for a modification to a PUD Development Plan, as filed under Case PUD-02-2M. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers -Ayala, Campbell, Dennis, Michelotti, and Mayor Pico NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Jeff Renholts, 7489 Aster Court, indicated he was surprised that Council was reconsidering its decision about a ballot measure for the Bernal property. There have been many meetings on this subject with a great deal of public input. He was upset at so many delays in moving forward with this issue. He also referred to a proposed initiative by the Task Force to gauge public opinion on the land uses. He thought the Task Force had also had many, many meetings on this subject. He did not understand why there had to be a vote of the public on this. He thought the proper forum was the Task Force, the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, he heard a referred to a comment from a Councilmember that they were the "lone bandits". It distressed him greatly to hear public officials refer to themselves as "bandits". Ms. Michelotti clarified that the initiative is not sponsored by the Bernal Task Force. Don Mendez, 218 Ray Street, spoke on behalf of his granddaughters Megan and Maya and thanked Council and staff for the great job on the parks and new playground equipment. He then referred to Council decisions regarding in-lieu parking requirements for two properties on Spring Street, which he felt were treated differently than he was. He believed the approximate square footage of the buildings was 2400 sq. ft., which requires eight parking spaces. These other properties were not required to have eight. They were only required to have six and to pay in-lieu parking fees for three spaces. He felt the only difference between those projects and his project was that the other property owners had an attorney to represent them. He did not believe it was fair that a citizen had to have an attorney to get equal treatment from Council. Mr. Swift indicated he would be happy to meet with Mr. Mendez to review how the calculations were made for each of the Spring Street properties. Staff believes that allocations to all three projects for new construction was pursuant to the Code. Only the new space was required to provide parking, not existing space. In the example of the two houses on Spring Street, the situation was a combination of tearing down and rebuilding the same square footage Pleasanton City Council 3 04/16/02 Minutes