CCMIN091686 - Laserfiche WebLink

155 and that they would like t~ have the general plan clarified so that the use that was specified on the map itself would be the use that was allowed and none other. Before, there was a 25% bonus which could be taken advantage of should the applicant file for a PUD; staff has tried to compensate for that 25% increase by aTlowing a greater density within the medium density category and by adding language to allow flexibility of densities within a particular parcel. Mr. Ted Fairfield, Civil Engineer, concurred with the comments of Mr. In- derbitzen. Whether Council feels the words in the general plan or correct or not, Council and developers owe each other the obligation to make sure Council understands the magnitude of the change. There are three changes: first of all the density bonus for PUD's is gone under the current language, he did not personally feel that this is a great loss as he has never used it in any of the projects but on the other hand some people have. Second, the words future streets and thoroughfares have been reinstated in the document but the words arroyos, etc. were not reinstated at the Planning Commission level. If a PUD comes before the City and lands are going to be taken from the owner, lands within his gross boundary for which he is not going to be paid, namely streets, creeks, open space, things that are municipal imposed amenities for which the man is going to lose land and get neither money nor density in re- turn, that is wrong. When considering arroyos and creeks, sometimes 300 feet is involved, and in one future case could add up to 35 acres involved in the arroyo right-of-way. Thirty five acres of whatever density figure chosen to apply to it is a swing in excess of 100 dwelling units, and that is the kind of thing on one piece of land that is at stake with this language. He asked Council to take the word arroyo out and make it clear that it, like major thoroughfares, should be counted. The third change, heretofore there has been a de facto policy in Pleasanton that said that public health and safety equates to maximum of one lot per dwelling unit per five acres. In this general plan public health and safety now becomes zero, so any land that is designated public health and safety has been effectively denied any develop- ment right or use of it of any grazing land. He did not feel this was legal or right. He felt it should be left as it has been in prior years. With regard to the grandfather clause and all projects receiving PUD approval, with the change in policy it is essential that the grandfather clause as written here be acknowledged, kept part of the plan and respected in the future. Mr. Fairfield asked that the record indicate that there has been a pointing out or an indication that without that grandfather clause and given the adoption of the general plan virtually all PUD's now existing would at least be suspect or declared illegal, so the grandfather clause is an essential item and should be retained and underlined. Mr. Mark Evanoff, 512 Second Street, San Francisco, representing People for Open Space, supported the community facilities alternate of the general plan and recommendations of Planning staff and the Planning Commission. More housing will be provided, cost of extending new services will be less, and there is a potential to reduce traffic, and new parks and trails and other community services will be created. He supported specifically staff's recom- mendation not to assign a 4,000 unit carrying capacity to the expanded plan- ning area. He suggested when a study of this is undertaken that Council look at the entire area, including lands within Pleasanton's sphere of influence, particularly those areas north of 1-580 and west of Foothill Road, and that 6 - 9-16-86