CCMIN082399 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush said the reason the analysis concluded that the Initiative itself did not result in a taking is because there are a number of economically viable uses in the properties affected. He said the Monterey case cited by Mr. Serna was a superior court case and would not have any precedent value. If the voters repeatedly turn down development proposals, it could raise a takings issue and Council would need to deal with it at that time. He explained that a developer could come forward with a project and by obtaining the necessary signatures,could put it directly on the ballot. Under the CAPP Initiative,the developer would go through the normal planning process and then it would go to the ballot. Ms. Michelotti asked if Council could elect to put the project directly on the ballot as a Council sponsored initiative. Mr. Roush said yes. Ms. Ayala asked if it went as a Council sponsored initiative,would the election be paid for by the taxpayers. Mr. Roush did not know at this time,he would need to research that issue. Ms. Michelotti asked i f cattle grazing would be a permitted use. Mr. Swift said cattle grazing is a permitted use among other kinds of permitted uses. Lona McCallister, 4700 Bel Roma Road, representing Citizens for Property Rights, had a concern with balancing environmental protection and economic viability. Her organization has taken the position to oppose the CAPP Initiative. She listed her concerns regarding CAPP: discourages affordable housing by eliminating high density residential development; how will the bypass road be built if development in Happy Valley is does not occur; who will pay for the elections; only upper end housing prices will be built; under CAPP, open space would be private land; what uses would be economically viable; and how is the Initiative immune to a takings challenge. She felt property did not need to be redesignated in order to achieve what the Initiative is trying to achieve. Mr. Swift reiterated that there are a number of uses other than agricultural. The parcels that are being redesignated to agricultural and grazing differ dramatically than the San Francisco property. The property in the Vineyard Corridor was zoned under the County as one unit to twenty acres. The properties would sell for a high value and therefore there would not be a "taking"issue. With respect to the San Francisco property, there are 500 acres that do not have houses on it and the issue is, what uses would be economically viable. Because of the amount of agricultural infrastructure in the Tri-Valley area, it might be difficult to try and utilize the San Francisco property for high value agricultural use, but it could be used for other uses, such as a golf course, stables,etc. Pleasanton City Council 18 08/23/99 Minutes