|
on a lot-by-lot basis, with the refined grading/engineering analysis, tree analysis, etc.,
<br />that will be submitted with the tentative subdivision map. This condition would require
<br />one-story homes on high visibility lots only when there would be no grading and/or tree
<br />impacts and when there would be a clear benefit with respect to visual impacts on off-
<br />site views compared to two-story homes.
<br />Summary
<br />Staff recommends a 20-percent overall FAR with a maximum FAR of 12,500 square
<br />feet on Lots 10, 26, 32, 33, 34, 45, and 51. A consistent FAR means that the home size
<br />will be proportional to the lot size. The question of the optimal floor area for the Oak
<br />Grove lots will be reviewed with the site-specific design applications. Based upon the
<br />proposed design plus the site-specific engineering and view analyses, staff and the
<br />public can assess the design issues of the proposal and make the necessary changes.
<br />Staff considers this method to be fair and effective for owner and neighbor alike. While
<br />a maximum floor area ratio is part of the proposal, it is not considered absolute - a
<br />proposed house size can be reduced as a means to resolve impacts to design,
<br />topography, grading, visual, existing trees, etc.
<br />Miscellaneous Issues
<br />The June 13th Planning Commission staff report includes a detailed analysis of the
<br />following areas: "Building Design Guidelines" (pp. 49 - 54), "Landscape Design
<br />Guidelines" (p. 54), "General Plan" (pp. 14 - 18), "Grading/Urban Stormwater
<br />Runoff' (pp. 48 - 49), "Open Space Ownership" (pp. 45 - 48), "Trails and Staging
<br />Area", "Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance" (p. 19), "California Government Code
<br />§65863, et seq." (pp. 19 - 20), "Growth Management Allocations" (p. 19), "Site
<br />Design" (p. 44), and "Green Building Measures" (p. 54).
<br />PUBLIC NOTICE
<br />The project was noticed to an area greater than the 1,000 feet as shown on
<br />Attachment 6, Exhibit E-2. The public comments generally cover the project and
<br />environmental issues pertaining to available City and regional parks to service the
<br />residents of the proposed project, available school capacity to serve the children of the
<br />proposed project, impacts to the quality of life of existing neighborhoods, loss of existing
<br />trees, loss of open space provided by the subject property, loss of views, the single
<br />public street connection to Hearst Drive, the emergency vehicle access to Grey Eagle
<br />Court, proposed density, traffic and circulation, etc. These areas are addressed in the
<br />Final EIR and the June 13th and June 27th Planning Commission staff reports.
<br />Staff understands that the Kottinger Ranch Homeowners Association has reviewed this
<br />plan and has indicated its support for it. Issues pertaining to the open space ownership
<br />and public trails/staging areas for the development plan were addressed at a
<br />stakeholders meeting which included City staff, representatives of the Kottinger Ranch
<br />Homeowners Association, Tri-Valley Conservancy, the applicant, and the public.
<br />ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
<br />If the City Council intends to consider approving or conditionally approving the project,
<br />then it must make the environmental findings attached as Exhibit "B-4", Environmental
<br />Page 24 of 27
<br />
|