CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Matt Sullivan felt this issue should be put on hold for now. The city has entered into a process with the developer of the Un property with a goal of trying to address neighbors' concerns, to meet the needs of the landowner and developer, and to get some permanent open space for the citizens of Pleasanton. That process is going very well and he felt to put any kind of ''threat'' to the negotiations would undermine that process. Everyone has entered the process in good faith and he felt it was the wrong time to change this definition. He agreed with the comments of the Planning Commissioners that people want less development in the hills. However, he did not want to make any changes until the process on the Un property is concluded. Steve Brozosky referred to the Lund Ranch and the fact that infrastructure was built for a certain density. If that density is reduced for the second phase, he asked if there was an obligation to the city or was the infrastructure oversized at the developer's risk? Mr. Roush believed there is no entitlement based on the fact that the infrastructure was oversized. That was a financial risk on the part of the developer. He did not believe the city is required to keep the density at a certain level. In regard to reimbursement, if the property is developed they would pay the underlying funding developers for its share of that, but that is a risk of the funding developers, not the city. Mr. Brozosky asked if the city required the over sizing during the first PUD based on the development potential for phase two? Mr. Roush believed that if there was contemplation that the property was to be developed that the infrastructure be sized accordingly. He did not recall whether it was a requirement, but felt it was possible. Mr. Brozosky asked staff to check the conditions of the original PUD to verify the requirements for infrastructure. He noted Council has discretion over the number of units in a PUD. It could be calculated on the number of gross acres and approve half the units, or it could be calculated on something minus the 25% slope and allow more units. There might be some points of compromise. He believed this policy reiterates what is already in the General Plan and just adds it to the Land Use Element. It is possible to require all PUDs to present two calculations; one is the gross acreage and the midpoint, the second would be to exclude the 25% slope based on the policy and the number of units allowed by that. The Planning Commission could then make their decisions. Jerry Thorne felt that even though the issues of the gross developable acres and the south Pleasanton hills are two separate issues in the staff report, they ought to be discussed concurrently. He would not like to usurp the progress being made with discussions with the neighbors on the Un property. Pleasanton has a long history of that being the best way to resolve issues. Some of the major issues regarding development that have arisen in Pleasanton have been resolved by discussions between developers, landowners and the neighbors and reaching win/win solutions. He Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 7 11/29/05