CCMIN082399 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis asked if there was any prohibition on the City in changing the designation of land to a less intense land use. Is the City able to purchase parkland within the redesigned land? Mr. Roush said much of the property with designated parkland is located outside the City. While nothing prevents the City from condemning property outside its boundaries for public purposes, certain presumptions are not as strong when the City condemns extra-territorial. If the property was located outside the City, an appraiser for condemnation purposes has to look at what the highest and best use of the property is. Therefore it would look at both the County and City General Plans and make certain assumptions about what the value would be. Notwithstanding the City's agricultural designation,there may be a County General Plan that may designate the property with a higher use. Mr. Pico said there is an argument that if Measure D passes it, would subvert Pleasanton's urban growth boundary and housing cap. Mr. Swift said the language in the existing General Plan simply states that there will be no more than 29,000 dwelling units within the City at full development of the planning area. The Initiative will not change this. In respect to the urban growth boundary line,the City drew an urban growth boundary line and the policies that relate to the urban growth boundary line state that areas outside the urban growth boundary line will essentially be non-urbanized. However, the General Plan can be amended by a vote of the electorate. Areas within the urban growth boundary line as it currently exists in the General Plan are all proposed for some level of urbanized development. Simply designating property within the urban growth boundary line for agriculture and grazing is not inconsistent with the urban growth boundary line and raises questions about policies in the General Plan. Mayor Tarver said the concept of trying to determine what a group of residents will do in the future is impossible. Mr. Swift said the City does things as it develops property that makes future development difficult or easier. The City created a comprehensive General Plan to determine how the community as a whole would ultimately turn out. He said many factors could change the Plan. Public testimony Edward Houle,3735 Rose Rock Circle,said the Economic Vitality Committee reviewed the CAPP Initiative on Monday, August 16, 1999. He read its recommendation as listed in an addendum to the staff report. Frank Neu, 18210 Carmel Drive, Castro Valley, feels the CAPP initiative is sending a message that families with young children are not wanted. He said this is America and families should not be denied single-family homes in communities where they want to live. He believed if CAPP were passed there would be many repercussions. Pleasanton City Council 10 08/23/99 Minutes