SR 06:208 - Laserfiche WebLink

homeowners and landowners who tend to believe that if they have a Rural Density Residential designation, they can build 100 homes. Ms. Roberts commented that "Agriculture" is mentioned very briefly in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan and noted that there are several parcels in the flat area of the Vineyard Corridor that were required to put in vineyards, such as the Heinz and the Hahner properties. She added that the Commission also previously discussed mitigating this by forming an easement conservancy and that this Element should include that the Tri- Valley Conservancy does work with some of City lands, with easements in Ruby Hill and back-up easements in Vineyard Corridor. Commissioner Fox asked Ms. Roberts if she had any proposal on how to include the Tri- Valley Conservancy in the language for Policy 12 regarding the preservation of permanent open space, all areas of outstanding scenic qualities. Ms. Roberts replied that she believed this language already exists in the Element and proposed the following: "Encourage developers to work with the Tri- Valley Conservancy to place easements on their properties for the purpose of permanent preservation." Ms. Stem noted that this is referred to in Program 12.4: "Encourage developers to dedicate scenic/conservation easements for private open space areas possessing exceptional natural, scenic, and/or vegetation or wildlife habitat qualities." She stated that the Program does not specifically mention the Tri- Valley Conservancy but that it could be done. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, inquired how any new language prohibiting the construction of houses on 25 percent slopes and areas prone to landslides would affect properties with existing POO zoning and which already have a designated number of homes in the Housing Element. He provided the example of the upper portion of the Spotorno property, which was designated with 75 homes but was recently found to be landslide prone. He inquired how this situation would be treated and if the designated houses would be moved to another area. Ms. Stem noted that this Element addresses open space land rather than lands designated for development and that it would be unlikely that policies and programs in this Element would actually affect developable land. Chairperson Arkin clarified that land use zoning is different from General Plan designation and that the updated General Plan would apply to future POOs and would not affect existing ones. He added that the Spotomo property has a General Plan land use designation but not an approved POO or land use zoning. Mr. Iserson concurred with Chairperson Arkin that the Spotomo property does not have a POO development plan approval. He explained that the Housing Element shows the property as having 75 units at the midpoint ofthe General Plan and that the City is not locked in to building that number of homes should some issues arise regarding land slides or 25-percent slopes that would prevent that number of units from being achieved. He added that the City does not have to approve the number of units at the midpoint; it has the discretion of approving any number of units on a POO development plan, and should it approve fewer units than that identified in the EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 3 of8