PC 04/14/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

RZ-82-5, City of Pleasanton Application of the City of Pleasanton to amend Article 23, Chapter 2, Title II of the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton in order to modify the hillside development review procedures of the City. The Planning Commission may recommend any action on this matter consistent with the General Plan. A negative declaration of environ- mental impacts will also be considered. Mr. Harris epxlained the staff report and introduced Assistant Planner Richard Glenn, author of the proposed ordinance stating that Mr. Glenn would give a brief summary explaining the staff's thinking in the draft presented. Mr. Glenn then pointed out both the significant and insignificant differences between the proposed ordinance and the one in current use. He addressed concerns expressed with regard to 'where' the ordinance should apply, i.e., just west of Foothill Road or in Pleasanton wherever there are hills, etc. He said staff has left this open in the ordinance and thought that perhaps some parts of the southeast portion of the City and other areas which will be coming into the City could be regulated under this ordinance. He said the ordinance is not meant to be an overlay. He said development should be strongly discouraged in areas where slopes exceed 25~. Mr. Harris pointed out that if this ordinance is adopted, no pro- perty would automatically be zoned Hillside Planned Development (HPD). He said property would first have to be zoned except for those properties already zoned HPD which currently come under the HPD Ordinance. He said staff is not proposing an overlay district. The public hearing was continued from the March 31, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, Livermore, represented PARC. She stated the ordinance is vague as proposed. She said some areas of the ordinance would accommodate political pressure and that laws should be made to preserve environmentally sensitive lands. She addressed Sections 2-2.32.08f(1), 2-2.32.08g, 2-2.3208a(1), 2-32.06a(6), 2-2.32.03a, 2-2.32.12b, 2-2.32.09b(2). She said the first section restates the policy of the General Plan, but does not implement it, the second section relating to allowing zoning administrator to control design and materials is not right and doesn't want the administrator to have that much control over the ridgelands. She said regarding materials many aspects have to be considered; fire, earthquakes, earthquake safety and the open space element. She said she has confidence in staff but that staff can change under -4-