CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Brian Arkin suggested that if some of the hillside development is down zoned and units are reallocated, they could be placed in the transit oriented development at the BART station. Mr. Iserson said that was an example of what could happen. Mr. Arkin said the units did not have to be moved within the same area, but could be moved elsewhere in the city with less environmental impact. He hoped Council would support changing the General Plan to redefine what gross developable acres is as shown in the Planning Commission report. He believed the community does not want to see all the hillsides developed. He did not like to see this worked out in the PUD process because he preferred setting community standards in advance, so when an application is submitted that the plan would conform to what the community wants. If there is a change on allowable density on the hillsides, that would allow proposed projects to be more in line with what he believes the community wants and cause less confrontation with the surrounding neighbors. He supported a broad-brush review rather than using specific sites. Ms. Fox liked the definition of gross developable area, but wanted more language that says gross developable area should not include creek ways, rivers, retaining ponds and rivers below the stable top of bank as determined by the city engineer. Also in addition to public flood control channels, that it include related rights of way and facilities. Instead of focusing on landslides, the definition should be more general and worded as "areas determined to be unbuildable due to geologic instability as determined by the city engineer." In that way, on flat land if there is a sinkhole possibility because of some issue, that would include that. She also wanted areas above the city's applicable maximum water service elevation as determined by the city engineer, and areas where development is precluded by existing easements. There is also discussion of not including schools. In reviewing other General Plans in California, she noted the gross developable area shall not include areas developed or proposed for nonresidential uses and commercial recreational uses including, but not limited to, churches, schools and child care facilities. She was comfortable with having the area not include areas with a slope of 25% or greater and supported the inclusion of more language that was in the 1986 plan. Ms. Pearce supported the change to the policy. It seems to be a good General Plan policy and if it is accepted then why attack it in every PUD that comes forward. She agreed with Commissioner Arkin that people want less development on the hillside. When PUDs come forward it is nice to see conditions for applicants to conform to rather than attacking them in a piecemeal fashion. She felt if the city had been considering these developments in the 1996 General Plan update, this language would have stayed in and would have been consistent with the 1986 General Plan. Mayor Hosterman invited Councilmembers to ask questions or comment. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 6 11/29/05