My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
112712 Special Meeting
>
01 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2012 4:42:30 PM
Creation date
11/16/2012 4:42:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/27/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Under this Interpretation#1, if a property owner wanted to develop more than 10 housing <br /> units by subdividing the legal parcel to create more than 10 parcels, such subdivision <br /> would be subject to Policy 12.3. Sentence 2 would be interpreted as preventing the serial <br /> subdivision of 10 or fewer parcels consecutive times. <br /> Internre #2: A literal reading of the sentences could result in a severe, and perhaps <br /> unintended, restriction on subdivisions in hillside areas of the City. The languagde in <br /> Sentence 1, which discusses "10 or fewer housing units o si single property" mean that <br /> the term"legal parcel" (singular rather than plural "parcels"), <br /> no subdivision can occur in order to be exempt from the Initiative's Policy 12.3. <br /> Effectively,this approach would mean that no more than 10 housing units could be built <br /> on just one parcel,most commonly seen in situations like a ten-unit apartment complex. <br /> Under this reading of Sentence 1, if a property owner wanted to subdivide property to <br /> e <br /> create 10 parcels for 10 housing units, or even 2 parcels for 2 housing units,therefore tetsubject <br /> development of the units would no longer be on a"single property" and <br /> to Policy 12.3. That reading would result in severe subdivision restrictions on hillside <br /> properties, and appears to be contradicted by Sentence 3,which reflects the proponents' <br /> intent to exempt 10 or fewer housing units on"legal parcels" (plural). <br /> inter nre radon#3: Another interpretation of the language in Sentence 2, "... sub-dividing <br /> ... to approve more than 10 housing units is not allowed", could be read to apply to all <br /> property within the City, not just those in the bill areas. A person out"uncontrolled <br /> growth"interpretation might claim that the Purpose statement language <br /> growth" and"overall quality of life" reinforces such an interpretation. <br /> Such reading,however, is strongly discredited by the normal rules of statutory <br /> construction where all provisions of the statute should be read together. Here, Sentence 1 <br /> also uses the term`legal parcel" and states that housing developments of tell of fewer <br /> units on a legal parcel are exempt from Policy 12.3. In that Policy 12.3 is expressly <br /> directed at properties with slopes of greater than 25%or within 100 vertical feet of <br /> ridgeline,the restriction on subdividing is not applicable city wide. Additional support <br /> for that position lies with the title of Policy 12.3, "Ridgelines and hillsides shall be <br /> protected.% as well as the statement of reasons to "Protect our scenic hills..." <br /> Overall, the plain language of the text of the Initiative could lead to d f oe nit practical l of <br /> application(Interpretation #2),or an application that runs contrary to <br /> statutory interpretation and the statement of reasons(Interpretation #3). A broader <br /> reading,which gives equal weight to the initiative and statement of reasons, provides an <br /> approach which harmonizes all three sentences(Interpretation #1). This is the <br /> interpretation used in the preceding analyses. <br /> 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.