PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

He added that it could be an issue because property rights would be taken away from the developer, subject to a lawsuit. He added that the other thing which Chair Allen touched on is that the community gets together and adopts a General Plan: the midpoint density for the site is 81 units; people then invest in property and propose a development based on what the City tells them is appropriate; and then the City changes it later. He pointed out that it makes that case pretty interesting. Ms. Harryman stated that Brian is referring to an inverse condemnation action that could be brought by the property owner. She added that she does not know how that would fare but that it would certainly be the concern. Commissioner Nagler noted that, just coming to learn about this conversation, he thinks Greenbriar and those who came before Greenbriar who tried to build this property have done a terrific job of trying to comply with what is appropriate and feasible and available at the time; and reducing the number of homes to 50 with Measure PP passing is obviously a substantial compromise. He stated that he objected to the idea that there is some measure of fairness that ought to be awarded to Greenbriar because of conditions or past discussions or something that occurred prior to Greenbriar acquiring the property and that somehow is now unfair to impose upon Greenbriar. He noted that that comes with the property, with the discussion and the history, and the discussions with neighbors; all the prior planning commitments and the private agreements between developers are part of the project. He added that he cannot imagine that when Greenbriar purchased the property and the rights to develop it, all these things were not taken into account as a risk benefit calculation on deciding whether or not to put out the money to potentially develop this land. Commissioner Nagler stated that he is making this point, possibly primarily to give himself guidance if nothing else, that the decision is really about what is best for the affected neighborhoods because, in fact, there is going to be some traffic, and there will be one or two neighborhoods affected. He indicated that it appears to him that the Commission's job is to try and do that in a measured way, recognizing current traffic flows, current densities, construction of the streets, probable utilization, traffic patterns, and so forth, and what is allowed under Measure PP. He stated that that is really the question and not whether or not it is fair to the developer or being a slave to prior discussions. 3. Measure PP Interpretation Measurinq Slope Mr. Dolan stated that applying a slope averaging methodology, the limit of development changed very little and so there did not seem to be any benefit in this particular case to be less conservative. He added that staff can map a slope map but it will not change much. Chair Allen inquired what the implication of the change is, if it means more homes, less homes or higher homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 38 of 46