CCMIN030106 - Laserfiche WebLink

reviewed, even though it may not work across the board. He wanted a closer look at the existing General Plan language about seismic safety issues to see if it is strong enough. He has been frustrated over the last seven years with some of the measures to protect the ridge that were not used effectively, such as the West Foothill Road Design Guidelines, etc. He was in favor of rezoning the low-density residential areas to rural density residential and to look at this as a package. He referred to Mary Roberts' idea of hillside residential zoning and felt it made sense for this area. Each property should be reviewed individually using these guidelines, as a rule of thumb but there should be a specific plan for the rest of the lots. About five years ago, the Planning Commission reviewed the Foothill Road Guidelines and strengthened them then sent them on to the City Council for adoption, but nothing was done. Basically, he wanted to protect the ridge better than is currently being done. He did not support higher density housing west of Foothill Road. He supported the General Plan language that talked about lower density as the urban growth boundary is approached. There is a place for higher density housing elsewhere in Pleasanton and he supports it in the right places, but up on the ridge is not the right place. He supported using this philosophy to analyze the other listed properties on a case-by-case basis. He was interested in some of the things he heard regarding the Austin property, but he was also concerned about the increased density. He said he needed more information. Jerry Thorne felt the 25% rule was troublesome because there are situations where that rule would not apply. There needs to be some way to do what Council wants to do without a categorical rule to restrict 25% slopes. There are places where development could occur in a safe manner that preserves hillsides. He opposed the 25% rule and preferred to review things on an individual basis. Steve Brozosky believed there was some confusion regarding the 25% rule, whether building on a slope or including the land in calculation of gross density. There are provisions in the General Plan that prohibits building on 25% slopes. The discussions at the last several meetings deal with whether to count the total gross acreage of a property or to exclude the area that is less than 25% slope. He noted there are some small properties along Foothill that are zoned for residential use with everything else zoned agriculture. There are other larger properties in the city, which are all zoned differently. He liked the suggestion of Ms. Roberts about hillside residential zoning. The reason for discussing whether to include or exclude the 25% slope is to set good expectations for property owners on what they can expect to build. There are some properties that because of the zoning and if the 25% slope in not excluded, it would look like the developers can have more housing units than the city would actually approve. Property owners get frustrated with those situations. He believed the best approach was to zone property a certain way in the General Plan so when an application comes forward there is a general idea of what could be approved. He believed that would provide consistency and expedite the process. He wondered if the 25% slope rule was being discussed only in regard to Foothill Road or the whole city? Council has already said it would not apply to the whole city, so he did not want to look at it just for this one area. He supported reviewing projects on a case-by-case basis. If the 25% rule is not to be applied, he suggested that staff calculate the housing units based on both gross acreage and on acreage excluding the 25% slopes to provide a comparison. At this point, he was not ready to down zone any of these properties. He also did not want to use the 25% rule in one part of town and not the rest. Mr. Sullivan said he remembered the discussion of 25% slope rule regarding the southeast hills and he believed the decision was to table the issue and be silent on it because there was a process in progress that should be completed before making a new rule. The issue was to be revisited at a later time. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 16 03/01/06