Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Stern said those calculations have not been done as yet. There are alternatives for <br />uses like childcare in terms of where they can be located, such as in commercial districts. Staff <br />has not done an analysis of all of the needs of all of the uses that could go into public and <br />institutional districts. There are several vacant parcels. <br /> <br />Ms. Fox asked if there were more than the three listed parcels of public and institutional <br /> <br />land? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson did not think so, but he noted schools, daycare centers, and churches are all <br />allowed to go into residential districts as well. Staff has not felt a need to do an analysis of how <br />much public and institutional land is needed because there are other options. In connection <br />with applications for large family daycare, staff has been in touch with Child Care Links and is <br />aware of the need for those types of facilities in Pleasanton. <br /> <br />Ms. Fox asked if a parcel is rezoned from public and institutional to something else, is <br />there another sizable site that could be zoned public and institutional, other than the east side or <br />quarry lands? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson responded that there is the Zone 7 building that was vacated on Hopyard <br />Avenue. Staff can prepare an analysis of the desirable amount of public and institutional land in <br />the city if Council desires. <br /> <br />Trish Maas indicated she would have to recuse herself regarding a certain property <br />affected by the 25% slope issues and asked if she could still ask questions regarding the 25% <br />rule. <br /> <br />Michael Roush indicated according to the regulations of the Fair Political Practices <br />Commission, she could not ask questions because that would be participation in the discussion <br />concerning that issue. She could ask a question as a member of the public when the Council <br />and Commission have that discussion. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman asked for clarification of the 25% slope issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern indicated that currently when one calculates residential density on a ten-acre <br />site, whether on a slope or on flat land, all of the property is used in the calculation. For <br />instance, if there is a low density residential designation on the site, a midpoint for that would be <br />one unit per acre, or ten units on the flat acreages and ten units on the hillside terrain. Most <br />hillside development is done as part of a planned unit development and the Council has a lot of <br />discretion on what kind of development to be approved, so there is no obligation to approve <br />units at the midpoint or higher. If there are constraints such as landslide, slope or seismic <br />issues, the number of units could be reduced. There is a certain expectation on the part of the <br />property owners in terms of the number of units which could be approved. The idea of <br />eliminating the areas with 25% slope or more in calculating residential density will perhaps <br />reduce that expectation on the part of the property owners. In general, the subject parcels <br />without applying that rule have a potential of 98 units. When the rule is applied there could only <br />be 64 units. <br /> <br />Steve Brozosky referred to the 25% slope and thought at a previous meeting there had <br />been discussion about whether to adopt that rule and he thought Council had decided not to <br />take it into consideration. He wondered why this is back for just the Foothill district and not the <br />whole city as previously proposed? <br /> <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council/Planning Commission <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />03/01/06 <br />