PC 04/14/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

modified. In answer to his concerns regarding 'buildable area', Mr. Swift stated that the definiiton of this is 'no area greater than 25~ slope' according to the proposed ordinance. Art Dunkley, 205-F Main Street, stated that this ordinance has several improvements over the old one in that it is shorter and easier to apply. He said, however, it does have flaws. He said he would assume the ordinance to cover only the west side of Foothill Road. He further said that under the old ordinance, W.I.S. was established providing a method of density and there is no provision in the new ordinance for density adjustment. He presented a graph depicting the proposed ordinance relative to density. He addressed page 5 of the proposed ordinance, he said that by using the rounding, property with 16~ slope could not be developed because of it. He presented his recommended changes and presented them in writing to the Commission and on the slide projector. He reviewed each one. Responding to Mrs. Tracy's state- ments, and referring to the USGS paper 139(8) he stated that many areas have been built in past years without much supervision. Ted Fairfield, 5510 Sunol Boulevard, addressed the Commission stating that the proposed ordinance isn't as bad as it is cracked up to be. He said the new one would be much better than the old one. He said, however, in his opinion, he doesn't believe it is quite ready for adoption. He said the ordinance shouldn't be applied to other areas than west of Foothill Road. He said characteristics of other areas in the City are not the same as those west of Foothill. Mr. Fairfield spoke to 25g slope areas and said there should be a provision, at least, in the ordinance which provides credit for the unbuildable land. He said it is conceivable to have a large parcel whereby you can't even build one unit on it. He stated he is for a reasonable use which would allow a preservation of the ridgelands but he stated he has a problem of minimum lot size and confusion as to whether it could be applied to other areas within the City. He said he has designed many projects on sloping lands. He further said the ordinance as proposed would have people finding every buildak~le lot under the code which would result in more lots through the ridgeland than would otherwise develop. He referred to the hillside ordinances of Saratoga and the Los Altos Hills. He cited Section 2-2.32.12b(2) and spoke to incompatibility of one-half acre lot sizes and praised the major change -- 'slope classification map.' He said the old W.I.S. didn't work. He said that slope classification maps would give one answer but said it wouldn't work in areas of rolling hills in other parts of town. The public hearing was closed. -6- _. _-- -___~.._..._..______.__ ____......_.. _ _ _. ..~.__... ... _ .. _ _._._ ..._.._.. ...,... ._. __. _ .. ..,_ .. ...T_ .