Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift said that is correct. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said if one property owner is approved density double the mid range then <br />someone else would have to receive less than mid-point in order to stay within the dwelling unit <br />cap. He had a concern with doing this and felt future developers were losing their development <br />rights. Even though the City is receiving $23,000 per unit for a density transfer, .the units will <br />be worth more in the future. He did not want to subject the City to substantial future liability <br />and litigation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the General Plan does speak to the issue on how to handle properties <br />above or below the mid-point. It was contemplated that properties would be developed above <br />and below the mid-point. The General Plan objective is to balance throughout the City the <br />properties being developed above and below the mid-point. The 29,000 unit cap modifies how <br />staff looks at designating the units. If density is increased on one project there will be a project <br />somewhere where the number of units will be reduced. The City is close to the 29,000 unit cap.. <br />The City Council needs to consider all the issues and how it would like to handle them. He said <br />it would be a boring City if all the properties built at the mid-point. Staff is keeping a close <br />calculation on the 29,000 so the City would not be in trouble with any "takings" issue. This <br />project is the first project that has a significant mimber of units beyond the mid-point. Council <br />needs to give direction to staff on how to proceed. Staff suggested to the Planning Commission <br />that it might want to discuss what amenity is satisfactory. The Planning Commission has agreed <br />to set up a process to identify standards that can be used in the future so developers, staff and <br />decision makers will know what level of amenity translates into development intensity. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said if the numbers were dropped, then the City would begin to lose the <br />infrastructure costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said staff's position in regards to street improvements is that enough <br />improvements have to be constructed, in order to make the project work. In order to make this <br />project work a left turn pocket must be built, the street must be widened, and it must be built <br />according to Foothill Road standards. If the number of units that are allowed on the property <br />makes the economic feasibility not work, then the developer needs to wait for better economic <br />times. It does not make sense to allow a project to be built if it does not have the infrastructure <br />to support it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said it is okay to approve projects at less than mid-point so long as there is <br />some economic use of the property. A takings claim can be defended. In addition, the initiative <br />that the voters approved provides that in the event there is a taking, Council does have the <br />discretion to exceed the cap to the extent to avoid the takings claim. If there are a number of <br />projects approved above the mid-point, someone in the future will have a reduction in units. <br />He said built into the process is the ability to look at the numbers, in order to avoid a takings. <br />claim. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 12 11/03/98 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />