CCMIN012406 - Laserfiche WebLink

reality, some of these developers will be looking for areas to build and there are not too many left. She felt that means the Happy Valley community, which is supposed to be a semi-rural area, would be in jeopardy. Mr. Iserson responded that the 853 remaining unentitled units are under the existing General Plan and represents the difference between the number of existing plus approved units and the current General Plan build out. Staff is suggesting that since one of the issues to be addressed with the General Plan update is whether a new policy should be instituted which prohibits residential development on any slopes greater than 25%, and based on the initial estimates of the impact on the southeast hills and the Foothill Road area, there would be 100- 150 units that would not be allowed to be built if that policy were enacted. Where those units would be moved to is part of the decisions to be made in this General Plan Update. Mr. Sullivan said where those units come from is strictly based on geography. That is a different issue than what will occur in the southeast hills property. Ms. McGovern said there is nothing that says the city has to build 29,000 units. The State and ABAG are not telling the city has to build to its housing cap. Mr. Iserson responded that the State and ABAG do not consider the housing cap because that is a city decision. These agencies only look at numbers of units through their fair share regional housing needs. The city has flexibility on what level it wants to build to under the General Plan. Lisa Regev, 2605 Lotus Street, said her home overlooks Lake I. She appreciated how much the City has been focusing on making the chain of lakes a recreational area because it is beautiful. She believed there is more crime in higher density areas than in single-family home neighborhoods. She asked if that was factored in when considering whether to build high density or low-density residential areas. She did not want high density in the area and wondered about Option 3, since she felt it was friendlier to the existing neighborhood. She did not want a large business like Home Depot and preferred to maintain the character of the city. Sherry Dennis, 3768 Nichole Avenue, noted prior comments about traffic and referred to the first Ponderosa project when traffic was the main issue. At that time, it was explained that the left turn lanes from Santa Rita onto Valley and also plans to get traffic off Valley onto Stanley were limited in how much more they could handle because of the existing physical constraints. Whatever development is planned for the area must use what roads already exist. She believed part of the concern about the red light runners is that it takes three changes of the signal before a left turn can be made and she felt that contributed to the frustration, which caused the drives to run the lights. Whatever use is approved for this area will impact the traffic. There were also plans to expand the water park opposite this area, which will also generate more traffic. She noted the School District did not plan to put a regular school on the Ponderosa site, but instead were considering some type of extension of a high school curriculum. She worked on a subcommittee for housing in the 1996 General Plan review and near the end of the process, the Hanson property came up in discussion and they were told it would be very expensive to recompact the land in order to build houses on it. The committee was told it would not be a good site for residential development. The recommendation was not to rezone anything in that area until EI Charro Road was completed. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 10 01/24/06