CCMIN012197 - Laserfiche WebLink

density transfers from various places (Lund property), etc. All those can be investigated in conjunction with the specific plan. What staff really needs direction for is whether to place the units primarily on the golf course property, because that is the most efficient way to do it to assure that you can have a bypass road plus the golf course and not change the financial feasibility. Ms. Dennis clarified that she understood the motion to mean that there would not be a change in the density. Mr. Swift said the only change in density is to add the extra lots on the golf course property. That property is currently shown on the General Plan as golf course, so there may need to be a General Plan amendment to add some residential development on the golf course designated land. Ms. Michelotti questioned the trade-off of additional units to build the bypass road. Her question is on the number of additional units required. Mr. Swift explained that as staff works with the golf course architect to lay out the area for residential units, they will take into consideration where additional units can be added without compromising the quality of the golf course and that will give a better idea of how many units can be added, where the clubhouse will be, where the road will and how much the road will cost based on its design. If the cost of the road comes down, and they have a better idea of the value of the residential units, then there will be a trade-off on how many houses there will have to be. Ms. Michelotti asked where do the specifics on the road get addressed? Mr. Swift indicated they will be addressed by the golf course architect and in the environmental impact report. Ms. Michelotti was concerned about the vehicle trips that would be generated. Ms. Ayala indicated that at this point Council is just giving staff direction with flexible planning principals. These issues will come back later. Mr. Pico felt the motion was for a base golf course concept with a bypass road which works. He suggested a friendly modification to items 2 and 3: Item 2 would include "enough single-family homesites - projected to be between 24 and 34 - on the golf course properties to cover the costs of acquiring and developing the course and the bypass road." Item 3, where it states "The Road should be financed by supporting new housing development" is not necessary because that is covered by the reference above and we don't want ambiguity. Ms. Michelotti wanted to know where we address other areas that may be tied to this for additional financing? She does not want to preclude anything. 21 1/21/97