CCMIN081506 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Recused: Councilmember Sullivan and Thome Council member McGovem Mayor Hosterman Council member Brozosky The matter was continued to September 5, 2006 for further consideration. a2. PUD-54. Grec Reznick. Threehand LP Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan to subdivide an approximately 20-acre site into eight-lots, consisting of seven single-family lots for custom homes and one lot for a City water tank located at 5 Windy Oaks Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD-HR/OS (Planned Unit Development - Hillside ResidentiaVOpen Space) District (SR 06:201) Councilmember Brozosky recused himself from the item because he owns property within 500 feet of the project and left the dais. Jerry Iserson, Planning and Community Development Director, introduced the staff report noting that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD development plan subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff, including conditions that allow the Roberts family to review and approve the plans for the portion of an emergency vehicle access (EVA) road located on their property should it be determined that the EVA from the Reznick property be connected to the Roberts' driveway. Additionally the Commission modified Condition No. 79d to allow the Planning Director to approve some expansion to the Designated Development Areas for Lots 1 and 3. Staff recommends that the Council approve the application by finding that there were no new or changed circumstances or information which require additional CEQA review of the project; find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan and Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan; find that the proposed water tank site location, home site locations, and road realignment are consistent with the intent of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and are environmentally superior alternatives in that the locations minimize site grading, tree removal and visual impacts; and make the necessary PUD findings. Councilmember McGovern inquired about the tree report that would be approved. She mentioned the report indicated quite a few Blue Oaks were being removed. Her concem was that Blue Oak trees were not common and what was the possibility the trees being replaced would be with the same species type and whether they were difficult to grow. Mr. Iserson responded it was his belief the trees removed would be replaced with similar trees; he was not aware that the Blue Oak was especially difficult to grow if planted in this location. He noted if a substitute tree was required, a native oak species would be planted if feasible. The proposed design guidelines to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with the tentative map City Council Minutes 9 August 15, 2006