CCMIN030106 - Laserfiche WebLink

need to determine whether they can be safely built upon and so on. The regulations do not say these areas have to be excluded from the calculation of residential density. Ms. McGovern felt the areas could be excluded based on the findings of the studies. Ms. Stern said that was possible, but it would need to be carefully defined. Ms. McGovern asked if the cost of land could be increased based on the zoning? If a property were public and institutional, it might cost less per acre than if it were zoned for residential. Ms. Stern said that made sense, especially in commercial areas. Mr. Iserson agreed that generally residential property is more costly. The property can be subdivided to get salable lots that bring more income than one large piece of land. Occasionally, there are churches or private schools that go into commercially zoned areas or residentially zoned areas. Private schools have been established in Hacienda Business Park. Matt Sullivan asked for clarification of the residential designations. Ms. Stern said low density is a maximum of two units per acre and rural density residential is one unit per five acres. Mr. Sullivan clarified that if the 25% slope rule is used the possible units on the ridge along Foothill Road would be reduced from 98 to 64 units. He asked if all the low-density residential properties were rezoned to rural density residential, what would be the difference in units? He then inquired if the Yee property had some vested approval for part of it? Mr. Iserson said the Yee property was approved for a PUD for a number of lots back in the 1980's. The upper portion approval expired and they came back with a tentative map for the lower portion along Foothill Road for six lots. They are on the books as approved legal lots, but the public street was never installed. The City should go through the reversion to acreage process since the public improvements were never accepted and the subdivision agreement has expired. Basically, they are no vested development rights. Mr. Sullivan then referred to geotechnical issues and he felt the existing regulations were not effective in dealing with sensitive areas to minimize development in those areas. Ms. Stern responded that these policies are addressing different issues than those that would exclude an area from density calculation. These policies are assuring safety in developing those areas, but are allowing development to proceed under certain circumstances. Whereas, the other policy being considered is to reduce the number of units on slopes to help maintain a more rural character. 3. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Mayor Hosterman opened the meeting to the public. Marta Adams, 7199 Valley Trails Drive, felt that thirty units were too much for the church property. It would increase traffic and could affect property values. She believed the thirty units would be in condominiums or townhouses. She understood the church's need for funds, but Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 5 03/01/06