CCMIN091686 - Laserfiche WebLink

153 Land Use Mr. Daniel O. Curtain, ~r., of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, 1855 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, Attorney representing TMI, presented his let- ter dated September 15, 1986, supporting the Planning Commission's recommenda- tion that Program'14.1 be substituted with a new program to read as follows: "Use the growth management program to select for early development projects which complete and/or install critical portions of the City's planned public facilities systems". He strongly felt that this approach allows the City through a specific plan process to phase the development, including TMI's, in an orderly fashion rather than having the property put into a blanket Urban Reserve. As to the General Plan Land use Map designation, TMI is in favor of the recommendation that the area be designated specific plan; however, they believe that the low density residential designation for the 133 acres is not the proper designation. They feel that the larger parcel should be designated medium density residential and that the smaller 32 acre parcel be designated high density residential as recommended by the Residential Review Committee. In addition, TMI feels that the Caltrans proposal that a freeway interchange be placed on the corner of the smaller 32 acre site not be designated at this time on the General Plan because the traffic studies do not show the need. Mr. Curtain supported the recommendation that the TMI area be designated as a specific plan area but disagree with the residential density levels. Mr. Martin Inderbitzen, Attorney, 62 West Neal Street, asked to draw at- tention to one specific issue in the Land Use Element, regarding the calcula- tion of gross versus net acres in the Planned Unit Development. There is a definitionof gross acres; Planning Commission made some changes but he felt there are some addi'tional changes that should be made. Basically, everyone needs to be aware that by implementing this definition of gross acres the City is making a dramatic change in its policy in terms of how it approaches planned unit development. This definition excepts from the calculation of gross acres those areas set forth as examples such as parks, schools, arroyos, railroad rights-of-way and a general designation of other areas. In the past those were not automatically excluded but left to the discretion of the Plan- ning Commission or City Council in the implementing of planned unit develop- ment. What occurs with this definition and with the new planned unit develop- ment approach is that not only is the "bonus density" that has previously been allowed now eliminated but a developer is encouraged to provide public ameni- ties by way of planned unit development; but secondly told that not only do they have to provide them but acres designated to those uses cannot now be included in the calculation for density for the rest of the project. That amounts to a double-take. In the past a developer has been able to offset those lands dedicated for public uses by increasing in their density; which seemed to be a fair trade-off and an appropriate way to deal w.ith the project. By leaving this definition out you are not acquiscing in that but you are giving yourself an opportunity to weigh the merits of a project when it comes before Council and not have to go through some formof general plan amendment to view it differently. Mr. Inderbitzen recommended that PUD definition used in the past be continued because it worked well. Mr. Lee advised the recommendation for this change originated with the Residential Review Committee when they were reviewing individual land use par- cels. Their thinking was that in moving into a new neighborhood for example new residents would like to have the closest idea of what could be built on a parcel of land as suggested by the general plan map and they suggested because of that, that they would not like to see the PUD density bonus of 25% which was formerly allowed because it led to misunderstandings on several occasions, 5 - 9-16-86