CCMIN030106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Fialho responded that throughout these workshops no formal decisions have been made. There were only recommendations to staff. He recalled the discussion on the southeast hills and believed Council "punted" until completion of discussions with one of the property owners. The issue would be revisited at a subsequent workshop. Staff proposed to bring the issue of 25% slope regarding the southeast hills in the context of the next workshop. When the Council and Commission look at all the options for land use, it would be part of that discussion and feedback would be provided for developing the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Mr. Sullivan indicated he would like to use the 25% slope issue as one of the tools to evaluate properties west of Foothill Road. There are specific Design Guidelines for the area west of Foothill Road that do not apply to the southeast hills or Hacienda Business Park. There is also the 670 foot elevation rule that applies only to that area west of Foothill Road. He would like to have various tools to analyze this area, which do not necessarily apply to the entire city. Mr. Brozosky believed it was difficult to apply one rule that works throughout the whole city. Perhaps the 25% rule should be viewed as a tool to use that would make sense in some areas but not in other areas. Each project should be viewed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Thorne clarified his position was not concern about building on a 25% slope but more the fact that the rule reduces potential on some properties significantly. It is possible to do more on some of those properties and if the 25% rule prohibits that, he did not want to go there. Mr. Brozosky also commented part of the issue involved small pieces of land. If you exclude that from something that has zoning for four or five homes, that is a lot different than property that may have 100-200 units. Mr. Thorne reiterated his desire for case-by-case review rather than using a categorical 25% rule. Mayor Hosterman tended to agree with Mr. Thorne, however because the ridge lands are so sensitive and such a precious amenity to the community, she felt it was important to employ whatever strategies available to ensure that any future development is done as sensitively as possible. She felt projects could be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and possibly allowed to be exempt from the rule if it were clear that an additional unit or two would make sense. She liked having the extra insurance in place and being able to not use it instead of having fewer rules and having to add constraints on an individual basis. She agreed with Mr. Sullivan and recalled the discussion on the southeast hills was that negotiations were in progress for a deal that could be supported by a particular neighborhood and could be good for the developer and citizens of Pleasanton. She remembered the conclusion was that was not the appropriate time to place that kind of constrain on that particular area because of the possible effect on the negotiations. She believed the issue was still on the table for future discussion after conclusion of negotiations. Councilmember McGovern and Commissioners Maas and Roberts rejoined the meeting. Mayor Hosterman continued that she was not interested in higher densities for the hillsides. She was only interested in variations in density on the flatlands and possible transit oriented development at the BART station. She was open to discussions of houses that are affordable by design, but that would also be on a case-by-case basis because of density concerns. She did not want to get something like apartments on the hillside. Finally, she reiterated that the Pleasanton Ridge and the southeast hills were the backdrop that makes the Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 17 03/01/06