CC Min 1983-06-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 1 (continued) City Attorney Schricker referred to the subject record and presented the City's legal perspective of the matter. He cited the Government Code sections relating to appeals of non - owners, stating the grounds are narrow. Mr. Schricker stated that the Tentative Map for the Podell development had to be changed to conform to the requirements of the Planned Development Permit (PDP) 82 -08 and that it has been treated as a resubdivision of Parcel B. Mr. Schricker observed that the appellant appears to believe correction or revision of the prior tentative map is involved, but the City has handled the matter as a new subdivision of Parcel B and only the sections of the Government Code relating to resubdivision are relevant. He responded to statements made by the appellant in his appeal letter. Planning Director Schroeter stated that a condition of PDP 82 -08 is that a conforming tentative map be filed. Mr. Schroeter described the original plan and the approved revised plan and, in response to questions, stated that more parking is being provided than is required and that the PDP density is less than allowed in the R -3 District. He noted that the appellant has cited alleged conflicts with the CC &Rs (Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions for homeowners) and pointed out that if conflicts exist, they are a private matter between the buyer and seller. In response to request, City Attorney Schricker stated the nature of the evidence which the Council may consider in appeals from interested persons other than the subdivider with respect to Planning Commission decisions on subdivision matters. Mayor Stangel declared the public hearing open at 8:25 p.m. Michael Galligan, 64 Cove Lane, the appellant, stated the City Attorney regarding the status of his appeal, believes he is an owner of record and referred to his and 26 and June 23. In response to question, Mr. Gal member of the homeowners association and of the board that he is not authorized to represent them. he disagrees with stating that he letters of May 13 ligan stated he is a of directors, but Discussion followed and Mr. Galligan and Mr. Schricker replied to questions and commented concerning Mr. Galligan's position as appellant; his objections to the possible changed nature of ownership if larger numbers of one - bedroom units are built; the effect on shared ownership of common areas of increased units; whether the change might not result in fewer persons using facilities if one bedroom units predominate; and the expectations of buyers of units in the first phase of the development. John Murray, 568 Seahorse Lane, suggested a more stable environment will be provided by construction of mostly two - bedroom units. He urged Council to sustain the appeal on a policy basis. Mike Pollano, 34 Cove Lane, owner of a one - bedroom unit, stated he objected to the increased density allowed in PDP 82 -08 and believes his share in common facilities will be reduced. Reg.Mtg. 6/27/83 Page 2 MINUTE BOOK NO. 44 Page No. 172