CCMIN052008 - Laserfiche WebLink

for Pleasanton should be ongoing and not just looking at specific properties as a way to protect whatever would come in the future. Vice Mayor Thorne referred to engineering data that creates a nexus to a view line, and questioned where the 25% came from. Mr. Iserson said in an area where there are unstable slopes, potential geotechnical or geological issues, there is more of a risk of failure if building on it. Additional study is needed to ensure it is safe and this is where 25% was identified. He said there is no one number that would be applicable in every situation, but it was formulated as an average number that made sense and flagged areas that required further review. Councilmember Sullivan said he would have assumed there had been significant discussion during the 1996 General Plan regarding the 25%, and Mr. Iserson said the references were actually contained in the General Plan prior to 1996, in the 1989 Plan. Councilmember Sullivan referred to Policy 5.1 in the Open Space Element which states, "develop a hillside protection ordinance', and he questioned why it was in the PowerPoint presentation and not in the agenda report. City Manager Fialho said the premise of Agenda Item 20 is how to go about protecting the hills--by regulation, ordinance or policy. In the background section of the report, staff covered the tools it had on hand today to protect hillside development, such as Measure F, Urban Growth Boundaries, 25% slopes in the Open Space Element and Public Safety Element. And, this policy is clearly there, but it is not an instrument staff currently utilizes. It is not a separate ordinance that we call upon to consider development on affected properties. Councilmember Sullivan questioned when the Council would talk about options for the housing cap. City Manager Fialho said the Council's direction was to bring back options on hillside development regulations, Item 21 relates to the Initiative which deals with 25% slopes, hillside development and the housing cap. If more information is needed on the housing cap and how a unit is defined, then the Council should ask for follow-up information on that issue under Item 21. Councilmember McGovern said she found the grading ordinance under Public Health and Safety, Program 7.5; "Develop a grading ordinance which establishes criteria for evaluating and controlling grading due to development." Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she wondered how the bypass road the Council approved would fall under this, and Mr. Iserson said this was one of the questions to address because it may apply only to roads or to 25% sloped lands where housing would be built upon. She questioned what happens to permits and entitlements already granted prior to this. Mr. Iserson said generally, if the Council has approved a development and found it consistent at that time, it is legal. She believed there was a project issued many sewer permits, and City Attorney Roush said the representation is there have been sewer connection fees paid fora certain development on the Lund property and there would be a question as to whether the payment of this vests that property owner to allow a certain amount of development to go ahead, which is an open question and not something that can be resolved tonight. Councilmember McGovern referred to the various pictures of developments on page 6 of 9, and said one of the concerns is that the ridge tops seem to be flat or less slope than the sides of getting to them. Even though they are flat, most people do not want houses on top of the ridge tops but she believed this is what was occurring with some projects. She said many homes do stand out and the problem is that slopes were graded to get to the flat top which was on top of a ridge. So, the Council should probably look at restricting building to something like 100 feet. City Council Minutes 8 May 20, 2008