CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

commitment made by the City that some reasonable level of density of development would be allowed in the Corridor. His clients spent about $200,000 to produce a Specific Plan for reasonable development at 480700 units for the Corridor. The recommendation in the draft General Plan Update is for 127 units. He feels them is a basic equity problem and this is not what they agreed to when this process started. Mr. Wendt indicated he has not had a chance to analyze the Planning Commission recommendation which does not assign any particular density to the property, looks at the preparation of another Specific Plan and determines density based upon what sort of infrastructure is necessary to develop. His immediate reaction is that the owners have already spent three years and $200,000 on a Specific Plan and another plan is not necessary. Mr. Wentit reiterated their major concern is the inconsistency of the draft General Plan with the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. The basic goal and intent of the SLVAP is to encourage and preserve viticulture and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley. If that is desired, the adoption of this General Plan with density levels afforded for the Vineyard Corridor will not work. The SLVAP divides the property into four categories: vineyard, Ruby Hill, and two transitional areas (Vineyard Avenue and Alden Lane). The transitional areas are between one level of development and another. The Vineyard Corridor is between the City of Pleasanton and Ruby Hill. The plan provides three aspects: (1) provide economic incentives to encourage viticulture in the vineyard area (one way to do this is to establish mitigation fees and the funding of an agricultural land trust); (2) direct new residential development to appropriate locations, including the transitional areas; and (3) to raise money and establish an agricultural land trust that can accept contributions and be a recipient for the mitigation fees that will develop from Ruby Hill and the transitional areas. There is a $10,000 per acre mitigation for those areas taken out of agricultural production within the transitional areas. The plan envisions urban and residential development within the transitional areas and the Vineyard Avenue Corridor is clearly one of those areas and is an in-fill area. He did not believe the Vineyard area should be treated as an agricultural area because the SLVAP clearly treats it as an area of limited capacity for agricultural use which can be used as a gateway between the two. If you describe the kind of density the General Plan Update is suggesting (127 units for the whole corridor), he could not imagine any court upholding a mitigation fee of $10,000 an acre for development of that property. He believed the implementation of the SLVAP is questionable if the proposed General Plan Update is adopted. However, with reasonable density, both aspects of the Area Plan are satisfied. He strongly recommended that the density in the various land use categories not be reduced. That will have impacts on jobs/housing balance, on low and moderate income housing, and other things. Other issues, such as gross developable acres and the subtraction of property not feasible for development because of location, are questionable. He was opposed to a housing cap for the City, and felt it will call into question the entire growth limitation program. He otherwise supported all the Planning Commission recommendations. Ms. Dennis had a question about the acreage and mitigation fee. From what has been described, the mitigation is for land that is developed which is currently in agricultural production or is of a certain type. How much of the acreage in the Vineyard Corridor qualifies? 05/28/96 5