My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
121608
>
15 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2008 4:39:00 PM
Creation date
12/10/2008 4:29:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
12/16/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
15 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Under this Interpretation #l, if a property owner wanted to develop more than 10 housing <br />unity by subdividing the legal parcel to create more than 10 parcels, such subdivision <br />would be subject to Policy 12.3. Sentence 2 would be interpreted as preventing the serial <br />subdivision of 10 or fewer parcels consecutive times. <br />1 -n.eroret on #?: A literal reading of the sentences could result in a severe, and perhaps <br />unintended, restriction on subdivisions in hillside areas of the City. The language in <br />Sentence 1, which discusses "10 or fewer housing units oa a single property" and uses <br />the tenor "legal parcel" (singular rather than plural "parcels', could be read to mean that <br />no subdivision can occur in order to be exempt from the hritiative's Policy 12.3. <br />Effectively, this approach would mean that no more than 10 housing units could be built <br />on just one parcel, most commonly seen in situations like aten-unit apartment wmplex. <br />Under this reading of Sentence 1, if a property owner wanted to subdivide property to <br />create 10 parcels for 10 housing units, or even 2 parcels for 2 housing unit, then the <br />development of the units would no longer be on s "single property" and therefor subject <br />to Policy 12.3. That reading would result in severo subdivision restrictions on hillside <br />ProP~ce+ and ~~ to be contradicted by Sentence 3, which reflects the proponents' <br />intent to exempt 10 or fewer housing unit on "legal perceht" (plural). <br />In e[pretatton #3: Another interpretation of the language in Sentence 2, "... sub-dividing <br />.., to approve mom than 10 housing units is not allowed", could be read to apply to all <br />ProPat3' within the City, not just those in the hill areas. A person supporting this <br />interpretation might claim that the Purpose statement language about "uncontrolled <br />growth" and "overall quality of life" reinforces such an interpretation. <br />Such reading, however, is strongly discredited by the normal rules of statutory <br />construction where all provisions of the statute should be read together. Here, Sentence 1 <br />also uses the tens "legal parcel" and states that housing developme~s often of fewer <br />units on a legal parcel are exempt from Policy 12.3. hr that Policy 12.3 is expressly <br />directed at properties with slopes of greater than 25% or within 100 vertical feet of <br />ridgeline, the restriction on subdividing is not applicable city wide. Additional support <br />for that position lies with the title of Policy 12.3, "Ridgelines and hillsides shall be <br />protected."; as well as the statement of reasons to "Protect our scenic hills..." <br />Overall, the Plain language of tha text of the Initiative wuld lead to difficult practical <br />application (Interpretation #?), or an application that tuns contrary to the normal nrles of <br />statutory interpretation and the statement of reasons (lnterlustatlon #3). A broads <br />reading, which gives equal weight to the initiative and statement of reasons, provides an <br />approach which harmonizes su three sentences (Interpretatton #1). This is the <br />interpretation used in the preceding analyses. <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.