CCMIN012406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson said when discussing low, medium or high density, it is necessary to assign some range of units per acre so there is a common definition when using those classifications. The midpoint doesn't mean anything other than an average for projections. Some properties are developed under and some are over the midpoint, so the planning staff is not bound by that number except that it is in the Housing Element. If there is not some degree of specificity in terms of dwelling units per acre and ranges, then staff looses common ground in terms of what is referred to for development. It does not give anyone any entitlements whatsoever. Until an application is approved by the city, there is no entitlement. Ms. McGovern referred to the 98 units in Oak Grove in the southeast hills and the fact that if the city wants fewer units, then there must be a transfer of units to another location. She wanted to know if there is a way to protect the city so it has flexibility on what to build and when. She wanted a way to reduce the need for density transfer. Mr. Iserson said the Housing Element would not be updated for several years so these land use decisions will not be incorporated until 2009. Mr. Fialho suggest one way to avoid the transfer of units is to create this study area concept where there is range of possibilities for residential and even office and commercial that are placeholders for future analysis and discussion, but it doesn't entitle anyone to a certain amount of density. If Council wanted to it could take all three areas mentioned by Mr. Arkin and put them into special study areas and subject them to future specific plans. Mr. Brozosky asked for further clarification of the density transfer. He said if something is zoned two to eight units per acre and the approved development is less than the midpoint, then there must be a transfer of density someplace else. It seemed that anything over two units was not a downzone, and asked why it was necessary to transfer. How did the midpoint get selected and how did that work into the Housing Element. Mr. Iserson said not every project or property in town is bound by this density transfer idea. It is only because in the Housing Element two years ago it was necessary to list sites that had development potential and how many units they could enable. After the Housing Element was adopted the State enacted a new law that said the city was locked in to those properties listed in the Housing Element. It does not pertain to every other property designated for residential. He also pointed out that State Law says a General Plan must address intensities of uses and densities. He acknowledged that putting the three areas into a study area for a future specific plan might get out of the quandary for right now. Using the midpoint was a methodology established years ago for use in making projections for the future population, number of housing units, densities, etc. that are needed for traffic, park or school planning. Staff felt that was a reasonable way to make projections. Vice Mayor Sullivan indicated a special meeting was apparently not necessary, however there was one speaker who had requested to speak so the workshop agenda was amended to allow further public input. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, commented on the notice of the scoping meeting to prepare a draft environmental impact report for the General Plan. She felt that residents in south, southeast Pleasanton, Foothill Road and various other small parcels of land not addressed in the previous five workshops have not had their issues identified. If they have not been following all the community meetings and Planning Commission workshops, they do not know what issues they may have with the development of the draft EIR. She felt it was Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 14 01/24/06