CCMIN030106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Trish Maas, 7942 Racoon Hollow Court, speaking as a private citizen, commended the Austin group on the offer of open space in perpetuity and urged the city to work with them. Regarding the 25% slope, she did not want it considered in regard to the west side of Foothill Road. Council has said it would not be looked at in another area of the city, so why do it on the west side. She believed the city would use due diligence as far as not allowing homes to be built in unsafe areas or that are not visually appealing from the flat lands. She did not want to add another layer of bureaucracy for these landowners, who have been waiting a long time to do what they want to do. Mary Roberts, 1666 Old Vineyard Avenue, speaking as a private citizen, did not think the 25% slope regulation was the right approach. Perhaps a different zoning, like hillside residential, was a better solution. Council and the Commission could then work with the Foothill Overlay, seismic areas and the 25% slope. She believed the real goal was not to have a big development on the hillsides. Most of the properties on Foothill are not large developments, but are just a house here and there. She believed there were places where a house could be built. The Planning Commission has looked at lots on Foothill and reduced the size of a house, or changed the location of the house on a lot. The Commission has always forbidden construction on a ridge where sky would be visible behind a house. That has worked well on Foothill Road. She said there is a new development on Vineyard and the Planning Commission had carefully required single story houses along Vineyard. What was not expected was two story houses going up a hill. She believed there should have been a specific plan for the area west of Foothill. Unfortunately that cannot be done at this time. Many owners there are expecting to be able to develop their land. If the area is viewed as hillside residential and those regulations are strengthened, particularly with regard to design, she felt staff could adequately review the plans for problems such as geologic impacts, too much grading, or environmental impacts. However, in some instances, she felt it would be possible to build a home. Cindy McGovern, speaking as a private citizen, believed that the 25% slope rule was a part of the General Plan until it was revised in 1996. Mr. Iserson said it was part of the general plan on the West Foothill area before the Ridgelands Measure F was adopted, which changed all 25% slope area to open space. Ms. McGovern commented that from some of the testimony it appears the 25% slope rule never existed in Pleasanton and that is not true. Until 1996 it was taken into consideration when looking at land use. The 25% slope should not be included in the net area for development within a piece of property. She felt Council needs to rectify something that was missed once Measure F was adopted. Measure F did not take into consideration all the ridgelands in the community. She felt the 25% rule should be put back into place. She asked if all the 25% slopes are now open space pursuant to Measure F and if not, why not? Mr. Iserson responded that Measure F used the 670-foot elevation contour and everything above that was generally 25% slope and put into open space. Below that, there are pieces within parcels that are more or less than 25% slope. Ms. McGovern reiterated her point that this 25% slope rule was part of the General Plan in 1996 and it was a mistake to take it out. She felt there were other ridge lands in this community that are just as important as that affected by Measure F and she would like to save as many as possible. There were no other speakers. Joint Workshop City CounciVPlanning Commission 13 03/01/06