11 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

process is streamlined in terms of readily knowing that the FAR is consistent throughout the development. Staff continues to recommend a 20-percent overall FAR as described within the June 13, 2007 staff report. Additionally, staff agrees with the applicant to restrict the sizes of homes on the 11 estate lots to a maximum building footprint of 12,500 square feet. This recommendation would provide designs proportionate to the proposed lot sizes. • Open Space -Park and Trails Staff notes that the testimony at the public hearing supported the proposed project open space proposal, including the dedication of nearly 500 acres of land for open space, trails, and staging area. That acreage would also be encumbered with a permanent open space/conservation easement to be held by a third party, such as the Tri-Valley Conservancy, for oversight and management. A grazing plan would also be implemented which would be sensitive to the existing flora and be attentive to the protection of those sensitive habitat areas defined within the EIR. However, none of the benefits of the open space will be available to the City if the project is not approved. Staff believes the EIR is adequate, thoroughly identifies the impacts, and provides mitigation to reduce all impacts (other than two) to less than significant. As to those two impacts, the benefits of the project warrant the adoption of the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations. Staff believes that the applicant has designed the project sensitive to the site's constraints and provides significant amenities to compensate for the development of 51 homes. • Development Agreement/Conditions of Approval Issues Members of the Commission and of the public questioned staff about potentially conflicting provisions in the Development Agreement and/or Conditions of Approval. For example, the developer is required to construct within the open space parcel a regional trail, local trails, and staging area before the sale of the fifth lot. In order to do so, the extension of Hearst Drive will need to be completed. On the other hand, if the project were phased such only Lots 1 through 7 were developed (suggesting that they had been sold), the proposed Condition No. 76 indicates that the extension of Hearst Drive would not have been built (in that it requires a sign to be posted stating the road will be extended). Staff will revise this condition to say, "Prior to the sale of the fifth lot, to the extent the extension of Hearst Drive has not been construction beyond Lot 7, a sign shall be placed at the terminus of the extension notifying property owners that the PUD-33, Oak Grove Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Page I S