CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver appreciated staff s attempt at clarification. Mr. Roush suggested including at the end of the second sentence "unless other policies of the General Plan render that acreage as not developable." He felt that was the concept being described by Mr. Swift. It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Dennis~ tO accept the staff recommendation and amend it to modify page II-4, last paragraph, sentence 3, to read as follows: "Gross Developable Acres shall include all privately owned acreage within a parcd and shall exclude all publicly owned facilities (e.g., City-owned parks, flood control channels, and public school sites) or such sites planned to be purchased by a public agency. Acreage to be devoted to publicly owned facilities dedicated as part of a project (e.g., roadway rights-of-way, parks, and trails) shah be included as 'gross developable acres.' The General Plan Map's conceptual depiction of major arroyos as Open Space-Public Health and Safety shall apply the Open Space designation to the entirety of flood control channel rights-of-way as ultimately determined by the City. these arroyos are not to be counted as part of residentially designated 'gross developable acres' whether the arroyo is proposed for dedication or not. The terrain of land shah be considered when land use designations are given, so that terrain which is not feasible for development does not get redesignated to Low, Medium, or High Density Residential, unless other policies of the General Plan render that acreage as not developable." Ms. Dennis agreed with the motion because the first sentence is a little confusing and the exclusions need to be a litfie closer so people are not confused about what is or is not possible. Ms. Mohr was not sure the fifteen lines of the staff recommendation was any better than the four lines of the Planning Commission. The more you try to explain it, the more complicated it gets. Ms. Michelotti still wanted some way to reference another part of the General Plan so a difference in acreage could be so noted. Mr. Tarver felt that historically Council has addressed that at the PUD stage, when the developer indicates it will dedicate non-developable open space to the City if it wants it. Ms. Mohr cited the Presley project, where the City is getting a staging area and a trail system through it. Presley could just as easily have proposed one hundred large lots with no trails and no staging area. The proposed paragraph gives Council the option to negotiate. 07/01/96 -11-