PC 07/07/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

27. Alternatives: Require normal residential PUD development plan review of discrete projects, consistent with Master PUD and Specific Plan (makes referendable). Specify City review process in effect at time of application for subsequent approval. Discussion: San Francisco has insisted on subsequent residential approvals being "administrative" rather than legislative. If legislative, San Francisco fears it could lose its practical ability to build this project notwithstanding a Development Agreement. Referendums only say "no" if upheld; they do not say what will be approved or what needs to be changed. There is no legal limit to the number of referendums. The initial approvals give City decision-makers the same discretion at the "residential development permit" stage as it would have with a PUD development plan under this package of rules; the only change is whether it is referendable. While the initial approvals "lock in" the City's current review structure, staffdoes not see this as a significant issue. Pleasanton changes its review process rarely (adding a "professional Design Review Board; eliminating it, etc.). For staff the key is that the review itself is allowed, and the project specifies that all current reviews will continue to apply to the project as it develops. Principles of Agreement: Specifies the structure found in the initial approvals. Staff Recommendation: Staff is satisfied that the process included in the initial approvals is sufficiently the same as the normal City process to allow the typical City review. The overall project will be referendable, as will any major change. Losing the ability to referend discrete projects within the project itself, in staffs view, is not giving up much. Staff believes the local review process currently used is adequate. Staff does not share San Francisco's concern that future changes would somehow be to the project's detriment. Staff would normally support using procedures in effect at the time of an application; however, this is a minor issue which staff was supportive of modifying if it helped resolve other, substantive issues in the Principles of Agreement. Limitation on New Requirements/Normal City Police Power Issue: The initial approvals are too restrictive in limiting the City's ability to react to changing circumstances and/or inaccurate projections of impacts. Proposed Project: Development Agreement limits City's police power for 20-year term; restricts ability of subsequent approvals to add additional/new mitigations; Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 29 June 9, 1999