CCMIN052008 - Laserfiche WebLink

City Attorney Roush noted; however, that the City cannot use public funds to support or oppose such things, but it can be placed on the website. Vice Mayor Thorne supported the resolution as it will remove the ability to do land use planning within the local jurisdiction and he also said he was in the process of drafting a letter to the Editor on the matter. Councilmember McGovern was surprised that Prop 98 sponsors were misrepresenting the truth and agreed with speakers of its impact, if passed. Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan//Thorne to adopt Resolution No. 98-207 opposing Prop 98 and Resolution No. 08-208 supporting Prop 99. Ayes: Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: None Absent: None 20. Review, discuss and provided direction to staff regarding Hillside Protection Regulations Special Projects Manager, Jerry Iserson gave the staff report, stating the purpose of the item is to review, discuss and provide direction to staff regarding potential hillside protection regulations. He said the submittal of the Initiative creates the opportunity to discuss policies and regulations and considers if new regulations are warranted. He said staff would review existing policies and regulations, discuss the potential policies as proposed in the proposed hillside Initiative, identify issues for consideration, and also identify options and receive Council direction regarding a public review process. He discussed areas where hillside protection currently exist such as the Measure F area, Southeast Pleasanton Hill area, Foothill Road designations, areas where potential landslides may occur, and the Land Use Element through health and public safety zoning. Policies where hillside protection exists include the Public Safety Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, the Community Character Element, a future Ridgeline Protection Ordinance and Scenic Hillside Design Guidelines, the West Foothill Road Corridor Overlay District, and the PUD process. The existing policy focuses on ensuring the stability of slopes and safety of hillside development and is keyed into the 25% slope, which is present in the hillside Initiative. There are also policies to preserve topographical features, natural land forms of hilly areas, open space and trees, reducing visual impacts, promoting views, protecting habitat areas in wildlife corridors and allowing development that is consistent with those policies and honoring the development of property rights consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Iserson said the Council has the option of adopting the Initiative or submitting it to the voters; it seeks to amend the General Plan by adopting policies which would not allow grading, to construct structures on hillside slopes of 25% or greater, no development would be allowed within 100 feet of a ridgeline and it would exempt developments of 10 units or fewer. He provided an example of what a 25% slope looks like and examples of properties with such slopes. Questions could include what areas are subject to the new regulations and whether all hillside areas should be under the protection of a hillside regulation; should it apply to the Vineyard Corridor; if the objective is to preserve views and wildlife, would it make sense to consider all projects rather than setting units at 10 or fewer, as there are many that include land with 25% slopes or more in them; would it apply to structures only on 25% or greater or would it apply to City Council Minutes 6 May 20, 2008