PC 07/07/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

conditions/exactions are structured so as to allow little subsequent review; growth management agreement does not permit adjustment of rate of development. Alternatives: Deny the use of a Preannexation Development Agreement. Structure PUD conditions to allow subsequent review of all project impacts in the then-existing setting, at either (i) subsequent project reviews, or (ii) set stages of the project (every two years; at 500th unit, 1,000 unit, etc.). Example: require updated traffic study (noise study, water use analysis, etc.) with City discretionary review and ability to add new conditions to address new impacts. Allow rate and original mitigations only so long as periodic reviews show project projections are being met (e.g., water usage, trip generation, etc.), with City discretion to modify future approvals and/or add mitigations/exactions to address areas where projections did not disclose full impacts. Incorporate ability of City to toll or adjust growth management allocation as it relates to unapproved portions of the project (or all of it) if it makes certain findings concerning a lack of infrastructure/services in the short-term or other growth allocation modifications. (See "Growth Management"; #8 above). Discussion: Simply denying the Preannexation Development Agreement will not fully address these issues, as a vesting tentative map would provide much of the same "vesting" for up to a ten year period. Also, San Francisco has strongly indicated that it requires the vesting protection -- at least as protection against wholesale General Plan and zoning changes -- to agree to annex and develop in Pleasanton. Using PUD "performance conditions" is the best means of allowing the City to monitor and adjust the project (and its requirements) to changing circumstances. These work with either or both a development agreement and vesting tentative map in place. The structure of these ranges from the most limited (monitoring the project for comparison with projections) to the most broad (allowing unlimited review for comparison to then-existing conditions with unlimited options for mitigation). The growth management ordinance assumed a long-term allocation would be possible for major projects. However, this project is very large in relation to others and will of necessity (if it fits within the ordinance's framework) require a long-term period to build out. Granting a long-term allocation assumes the City can satisfactorily foresee and mitigate the impacts of this (and other ) growth. The flexibility, or lack thereof, in the initial approvals also affects this determination at the initial allocation (i.e., the more the City can adjust subsequent approvals to minimize impacts, Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 30 June 9, 1999