11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

for the general public to walk over, but rather, was only for emergency services response vehicles. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether the development agreement was current, Mr. Roush replied that it was. Commissioner Olson expressed concern that the first condition of approval indicated that the conditions of approval would be subordinate to the development agreement. He noted that the development agreement was a legal document and added that Section 12.10 on the last page stated that the agreement consisted of 26 pages and three exhibits, and "supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the parties with respect to all or in part of the subject matter hereof." He noted that there was no mention of the conditions of approval, which he found to be troubling. Mr. Roush noted that was typical language in development agreements and added that Commissioner Olson's point was well-taken in that adjustments would be made in the development agreement to include PUD conditions into the document. He believed that language could be crafted to address that concern. Commissioner Olson noted that Section 3.03 of the development agreement (Affordable Housing) referenced 20 affordable units, which represent 20 percent of the maximum density of 98 units. He believed that should be changed to refer to 51 units at this time. Mr. Roush noted that would not be the case because in the negotiations with the developer, if the developer built affordable units off-site, the developer would build 20. If that did not happen within the five- year time period, the developer would pay aloes-income housing fee for the 51 units that would otherwise be payable if it were a 51-unit project. Ms. Decker added that the affordable housing discussion had occurred with the Housing Commission as well and that the Commission had supported this proposal. Commissioner Narum noted that page 51 of the EIR discussed the applicant's proposal for the floor area ratio (FAR), listing a number of lots that they agreed to limit to a maximum size of 12,500 square feet. She added that the chart showed that the 20 percent across-the-board calculation ended up with up to 20,000 square feet and requested clarification on the reason for the 12,500 square feet the applicant was willing to limit them to. Mr. Pavan noted that the applicant wished to designate certain lots as estate lots which could exceed 12,500 square feet predicated upon the design of the house in question, as shown in the design guidelines. Staff adopted an across-the-board 20 percent FAR, knowing that it would result in proportionately larger houses, which reflected what the applicant had originally proposed as estate lots. He noted that the houses on these lots must still be presented to staff for design review, and the approved plans would then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and concurrence. If the Commission did not concur with an approval, the Commission may call it up as a public hearing. Ms. Decker noted that when staff examined projects through Pleasanton, lot sizes of homes that were not necessarily based on an FAR would receive numerous requests for modifications to PUDs. She noted that it was also difficult for the planner at the counter to look up the ordinances EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 5 of 19