PC 071206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Arkin commented that the issue of doing some higher density within the project was not contemplated in any of the alternatives. He inquired if there would be a place in the process in which the Commission can say that it wants another alternative that has these pazticulaz chazacteristics. Ms. Decker replied that as with any other project, that would take place at a study or work session, where the Commission would have the oppommity to analyze, evaluate, and comment on the project overall, essentially after the Commission has been informed of the environmental impacts. In relation to the inclusionary housing ordinance, she clarified that the ordinance does not specifically state that they need to be built on-site. Chairperson Arkin inquired if there is a requirement that all this has happen within the 45 days. Ms. Decker replied that the 45-day review period is just the first review and comment period for the Draft EIR, and after that period, those comments aze built into another document that becomes the Final EIR, which is then distributed and rides with the project. She clarified that what she was suggesting is that between those two periods and after knowing all of the environmental impacts of this site for development, the Commission look at Alternative 4 and have a discussion about the proposal. Chairperson Arkin requested clarification that the 45 days does not prohibit the Planning Commission from directing that other alternatives be looked at and inquired at what point the Commission loses its ability to make that request. Commissioner O'Connor notes that it was his understanding is that the 45 days is just to comment on the EIR, not the development itself. Commissioner Fox noted that at the scoping session in February 2005, there were some comments from the public and from some of the City Council members to have a small project, like 10 to 15 homes. She noted that she was surprised that was not part of the alternatives, a project that would not need to conform to the inclusionary zoning ordinance but would be smaller scale. She indicated that she would like to see an approach where it is not done at the ridgetop level but somewhere in the middle between the valley azeas and the ridgetop level. She commented that in some of the diagrams in the grading, she could see houses built on steep slopes and looked as if there are almost three stories. Chairperson Arkin inquired if staff could put together a memo explaining exactly what the Commission's options aze and how this project would work. Ms. Decker replied that she would be happy to provide an outline as far as the process is concerned and recommended recommend that the Planning Commission continue the discussion of the Draft EIR to July 26s'. She added that staff can also bring back additional information with regazd to the process. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the Commission needs to see if there are other options for the EVA access if the one that is proposed is not going to work. He added that he would like to see on the grading how many of the lot pads have to be graded in order to fit a house onto a lot 25