CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

but rather terrain, so that only developable property will have low or medium density designations and hilly portions would be designated as rural density residential. Ms. Michelotti indicated the current General Plan defines gross and net density, so anyone looking at a property can understand that of 400 acres, only 100 can be developed. If the rest is dedicated to open space, is there any consideration? Mr. Swift explained that there is still a range in the proposed General Plan update, so Council can choose to allow development towards the high point of a range, depending on the way the open space area is made accessible to the public. Staff is trying to keep the densities allowed on the net acreage left for development in such a scale as is contemplated in the first place. Mr. Tarvet felt the question is whether to modify the recommendation of the Steering Committee. He felt the words stricken by the Planning Commission covered the arroyo. It was clear what was developable and what was not. He did not understand the reason for changing the Steering Committee recommendation. Mr. Swift felt that although the language was different, it was essentially still the Steering Committee recommendation. Mr. Pico agreed with Mr. Tarver but the staff recommendation merely clarified the Steering Committee recommendation. He would support either. Ms. Dennis felt the difference was the issue of publicly owned facilities, such as parks. Under the Steering Committee recommendation those facilities are not included under gross developable acreage, whereas they are included in the staff recommendation. The question is how do you calculate acreage that you may want to place public facilities on as part of development. There needs to be a way of accounting for that designation as far as land that might be asked for dedication for public uses. She also had the impression that the amount of acreage is not significant, but the densities are. How do you get public land and calculate it in advance of actually seeing development? Mr. Tarver said both proposals exclude all privately owned facilities. In other words, if the City of Pleasanton buys ten acres from the San Francisco Water Department property for a school site, San Francisco cannot take the development potential of that ten acres and move it some place on its parcel. There is no transfer of density from publicly owned facilities. Ms. Mohr agreed with that, but how does this deal with arroyos not owned by a public agency. They are typically one of the prettiest features of a property. Why allow a 100 acre parcel that, because of its terrain can only accommodate ten units, be divided into ten large lots with no public open space or a trail along some of those beautiful arroyos under the oak trees. 07/01/96 -9-