CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

looked at on its own merits and Council could decide where within that range it is allowed to be. Staffnever did not believe that a project should be approved that would allow more density than what the maximum number of units are in the North Sycamore Specific Plan, which is two units per acre. Mayor Pico opened the public heating. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street #210, attorney for the applicant, stated that in 1996, the Hafkers bought a lot within the North Sycamore Specific Plan area. The lot is designated low density residential, 15,000 square feet. He noted that there were changes in circumstances as development proceeded in th/s area, and Sycamore Creek Way was actually developed further north. A portion ora lot, south of Sycamore Creek Way, was deeded to the Hafkers increasing the size of their lot. The Moreira property was originally going to have a roadway for the cul-de-sac lots, which encountered resistance from Greenbriar and, ultimately, the Moreiras ended up with a private road. The Morieras and the Hafkers worked out an arrangement where there would be easement rights to the private road by the Hafkers. As a result of the changing circumstances, it is possible to create three lots on the Hafker parcel, which by far meets the North Sycamore Specific Plan standards and has all of the required street frontage and access. He mentioned that the Moreiras have an approved parcel map. No one disputes that the three lots exceed the 15,000 square foot Specific Plan standard. The only issue before Council is whether certain words in the North Sycamore Specific Plan override the land use map and pull the rigid requirement that the Hafker parcel not exceed a density of two units per gross acre. It also means not including either of the adjacent streets. The disputed words are "development in this district is generally intended to conform with a gross density of two units per acre." The proposed Hatlcer subdivision generally does conform with a gross density of two units per acre. This is not a case where staffin its interpretation is overly literal in applying the words of the Specific Plan. In this case, staff's interpretation is internally inconsistent with the land use map. To reach that result, one would have to ignore at least four plain English readings of the quoted intent clause that is plausible and consistent with the land use map. The most plausible is that the intent clause is descriptive of the land use map. Also plausible is that "generally intended to conform with a gross density of two units per acre" would include half of the adjacent street. In other words, when one figures gross density in planning, one would include half of the adjacent street. He pointed out that another plausible way to interpret the clause would be that two 17,000 square foot lots are more consistent with the Noah Sycamore Specific Plan vision and the surrounding homes than are 34,000 square foot lots. He believed that a clause that intended to override the North Sycamore Specific Plan land use map would never be phrased "generally intended to conform to." Staff presented the General Plan argument this evening, and he believed that the General Plan was intended to mean two units per acre. He provided a general quote from the General Plan in which it refers to Specific Plans. "All properties lying within the boundaries of a Specific Plan area are subject to the land uses, density, public improvements and other requirements specified in the Specific Plan prepared for that area. The land uses, densities and street alignments shown in the General Plan map within those areas are conceptual only and may change subject to the outcome of the Specific Plan. The Pleasanton City Council 24 02/17/04 Minutes