CCMIN111902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Pico invited public testimony. Sherman Balch, 6010 ^lisal Street, indicated he would like the City to allow connection to sewer and water with no strings attached, but that is not one of the options. He urged approval of Option 4, or add wording to Option 3 that would allow staffto work with property owners wishing to subdivide in the County as long as the subdivision is consistent with the Specific Plan. He owns a little more than ten acres, zoned R-1-LBE (five acre minimum lot size). Initially in the Specific Plan/Annexation, he understood that he could subdivide his property into three lots: two 2 acre lots and one 6 acre parcel. Subsequently, he was told he did not have four acres within the Urban Growth Boundary limit line. He wrote to Council protesting the location of the Urban Growth Boundary line because the golf course property is much higher elevation than his property and he felt there was discrepancies in the City's documents. Several City documents indicate he did have four acres within the Urban Growth Boundary line and others indicate he did not. He brought this up for one reason. If Council gives staffthe ability to work with him on the subdivision, he believed it would be a win/win for both parties. He wanted to stay in the County as long as possible. He would be willing to limit his subdivision to two five- acre parcels and develop under the conditions of the Specific Plan. The City would get what it wants (two lots) and he would be able to stay in the County. In November 2000, he filed an application with the County for two S-acre parcels consistent with County zoning. He started and stopped the process several times pending the results of the annexation. After it was det~mdned, his property would not be annexed, he started the County process again. He has applied for approval of an engineered septic system that would discharge clean water into the leech field, which would prevent pollution into the groundwater. He had Health Department endorsement and the item was on the County Board of Supervisors Consent Calendar on October 8, 2002. Supervisor Haggerty pulled it off the Consent Calendar and Mr. Sherman was asked by the County Planning Depamnent to meet with Pleasanton to address any concerns. Mr. Swill said that pending wording of the new policy, it may be possible to reach agreement. However, with the proposed wording, Mr. Balch said he would have to agree to annexation before working out an agreement. He did not want to do that. He urged Council to approve Option 4 or add wording to Option 3 that would allow staff to work with property owners who wish to subdivide. Conditions could be placed on the subdivision to assure compliance with the Specific Plan. Ms. Ayala asked for clarification of the application that was on the County Consent Calendar. Mr. Balch said before he could subdivide his property, several issues had to be resolved. One was the build'rog moratorium because of the septic tank. He was able to avoid the moratorium by designing a septic system which would put clean water into the leech field and would mitigate any pollution of the wells. That was the purpose of the building moratorium. The County Health Depa~hnent had recommended approval. There is technology in septic systems to treat the wastewater and return it to the soil at many levels of cleanliness. The County Health Department is working with the Board of Supervisors on this issue. The Board wants the Health Depauhnent to establish criteria for approving applications on a case by case basis. Ms. Dennis asked if under the County General Plan, he would be allowed to subdivide. Pleasanton City Council 28 11 / 19/02 Minutes