11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that the memo provided by Mr. Pavan clarified this issue and noted that it was not 20-percent FAR plus 2,000 square feet; it was 20-percent FAR on the lots, plus the exempted garage. In many cases, the actual size of building per lot was less than what was proposed originally. Mr. Pavan noted that the original design guidelines did not specify maximum house size. However, staff had previously proposed that there be a maximum square footage allowed, whereas the applicant proposed a 25-percent FAR. Staff re-evaluated the issue and what the goals were for FAR, and in looking back at the staff report for the March 28, 2007 meeting, staff discovered that with respect to the 10,000-square-foot size, the smaller lots yielded FARs in excess of 20-25 percent. Staff felt that restricting the FAR to 20 percent provided site buildings that are proportional to the lot sizes and that if a specific size cap were provided, it may potentially defeat the purpose. He noted that of the 51 proposed lots, only 11 lots would have over 10,000 square feet of primary and accessory buildings on those lots. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether a 15-percent FAR would be more in the spirit of 8,000 square feet, Mr. Pavan replied that the Commission, in its deliberation, may include conditions on the project that may not be synonymous with staffs recommendation with respect to FARs. The Commission may also say 20-percent FAR with a maximum house size of a particular square footage, such as the 12,500 square feet that had been discussed. With respect to affordable housing, Chairperson Fox recalled a project in the North Sycamore Specific Plan that the Commission found it could not support because it did not meet the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Because no site is specified for the affordable housing or whether it had not specified whether the 20 units would be spread across the development or concentrated in one area, she would like to know staff s and the Housing Commission's recommendation and how the project could comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with such a vague promise of affordable housing in the future, given the issues with the Housing Element as well as noncompliance with ABAG. Mr. Roush advised that the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance allows the developer to pay a lower-income housing fee if affordable housing cannot be built on-site. The conditions of approval and the development agreement address that fact that if affordable housing is not being developed somewhere else by this developer, then the developer will pay the low-income housing fee for the 51 units. In this case, the developer may be able to build 20 affordable units somewhere else in the community; it was not clear at this point where they will be built as long as 20 affordable units will be built rather than none. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding how a finding that the public health, safety, and welfare would mesh with the EVA that the homeowners would not be able to use in case of fire, Mr. Roush replied that there was an egress for the homeowners via Hearst Drive. In the event that Hearst Drive is blocked, they would have the other access on the fire road from the water tank. It was staff s collective opinion that there were adequate means out of the site, which enabled staff to make the recommendation to make that finding. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 7 of 19