CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

There were no other speakers from the public. Mayor Hosterman invited questions from the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers. Anne Fox said she had looked at General Plans from other California cities and one issue repeated was that as slopes increase past 15%, there are issues with roadway designs and grading. She noted there are various percentages of slope restrictions throughout California and asked how the Pleasanton staff selected 25%? Mr. Iserson felt the percentage is chosen based on what each community feels is appropriate based on a number of considerations such as slope, safety, visual aesthetics, etc. In the Oakland and Berkeley hills, there is development on land much greater than 25% slope. In other areas, it is much less. Public streets are not allowed to be built in Pleasanton on anything greater than a 15% slope. A building site may be greater than 25%, but there are stringent requirements about the slope of the streets for fire truck access and general safety. Ms. Fox believed that whenever there is discussion about gross developable acres even on flat land, much of the time there is an overestimation of the number of housing units and when the application comes forward it is less than that. Even on the Bernal property there was discussion of 318 acres available and after reviewing what was really available due to the creek ways, etc. it is significantly less than 318 acres. She asked if the definition and calculation of gross developable area could include language to better estimate on the flat areas what is really developable. Mr. Iserson said on this General Plan level, the definition is broad. Each site is not specifically reviewed. However when a PUD application comes in, staff requires very specific maps to show what must be subtracted, such as an arroyo, from the developable acreage. Staff moves from general to more refined as it goes through the PUD process. Staff is very aware of the specific acreage of a property from which density can be derived. Jennifer Pearce asked in light of the 2004 legislation, what is the city's responsibility, if it decides to lower the density, to identify the sites at which the densities will be changed? She has heard concerns from the public about where the density will be located. She wondered how that is addressed in the General Plan process? Mr. Iserson said staff would keep an accounting of properties that are down zoned through the General Plan process. If those properties are mentioned in the Housing Element as containing a certain number of units and they eventually have fewer units, then staff would have to insure that those units are included elsewhere. There are 1,680 units representing the difference between current General Plan build out and the housing cap that represents land that can be rezoned to accommodate some of those units. Staff will be mindful of that. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 5 11/29/05