CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson said it covered selected properties that represented the majority of sites. There may be other properties. Ms. McGovern said she would like to know the exact number of reduced units if all properties in the city were considered under the new definition of gross developable acres. She then referred to transferring densities and said she wanted to know all the properties in Pleasanton that could be affected so she would know the number of units that would have to be transferred to another site. She asked if the definitions provided by staff were taken from the 1986 General Plan or were they changed somewhat? Mr. Iserson said there were changes from the 1986 plan to the 1996 General Plan. The area of the General Plan in 1986 where the 25% slopes were specifically excluded from developable acreage had to do with the Pleasanton Ridge area only. By the 1996 General Plan, Measure F had been adopted, which redesignated all the area in the Pleasanton Ridge as agriculture or open space. Because of that change to Pleasanton Ridge, the definition was taken out of the 1996 General Plan. Ms. McGovern asked if it was put in the public health and safety area because of the dangers of building on a potential land slide area? Mr. Iserson agreed that was a strong consideration. There is no specific, definitive exclusion, but there is an opening that says there could be land or geotechnical reports that would say a certain property was safe. Ms. McGovern asked if the new proposed definition is somewhat stronger than what is in the current plan? Mr. Iserson said yes. Ms. McGovern asked if the definition were changed as proposed by staff, whether that would give the city stronger legal support in the event a developer wanted more units than the city would allow. Mr. Iserson believed that so long as some development rights were left on a property that is legally sufficient to stand the test of a court challenge. Michael Roush believed the critical question is whether or not a person had vested development rights. If there are vested development rights, then the ability of the city to alter that becomes problematic. Simply because a property owner has certain density entitlements under a General Plan, would not vest those rights. On the other hand, cities cannot take action that deprives a property owner of all economic use of the property. There is a balancing test in terms of what a city or county can do in terms of a piece of property. Ms. McGovern noted the various mudslides that happen in California after heavy rain and she supported the staff recommendation. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 3 11/29/05