11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

GHAD all of the open space lands. However, the next page stated that an easement would be granted to the Tri-Valley Conservancy. Mr. Inderbitzen believed that their presentation addressed many of the concerns and noted that he would be available for further questions. He believed the comments that were derogatory towards the staff, implying that the staff intentionally misrepresented the issues to the Commission or anyone else, did not deserve a response. Chairperson Fox noted that the EIR stated that the house prototypes had an average size of 6,700 square feet, and "based on the same lot size, it was estimated that a 25-percent FAR for the proposed Oak Grove development would yield houses with an average size of 6,192 square feet." She noted that the staff memo noted an average house size for the 25-percent FAR seemed to be in excess of 10,000 square feet and requested clarification of those numbers. Mr. Inderbitzen noted that it would be hard to discern the answer at this time and supposed that the analysis was performed based on the 98-lot project, with a smaller average lot size. He indicated that the response in the Final EIR discussed the building envelope and that it may be that the square footage of the building envelope was averaged to arrive at a different FAR for use in the visual analysis. He noted that there may not be enough information in the Final EIR to know how to interpret the response because it referred to the average size at one point. He was unsure whether he could conclude from that comment that it mattered in the context of the Final EIR and EIR of the visual impacts under the criteria in the General Plan. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether the developer would want a home averaging 6,000 square feet, Mr. Inderbitzen replied that their analysis began with a project with no FAR limitation on very large lots (one acre and larger). They expected that purchasers would want to build large homes on the high-end, custom lots. The price of the lots would demand that they put enough square footage on the lot to justify the expense. To that end, they initiated their own visual analysis and modeling based on 7,500-square-foot houses alone, with no out buildings and accessory structures. He noted that the issue was not just the square footage compared to the lot, but how the house fit the lot in its setting and how it dealt with bulk, massing, setback, texture, and articulation. They proposed a compromise with staff for a 25-percent FAR with a cap of 12,500 square feet, which would be the equivalent of a 25-percent FAR on a 50,000-square-foot lot. The predominant size of the lots was in the 30000-45,000 square foot range. Staff proposed a 20-percent FAR, deleting the 12,500-square-foot cap. He suggested that they can move forward comfortably with staff's recommendation of a 20-percent FAR, and a 10,000-12,000-square-foot cap on the largest lots. He did not believe it made sense to argue over the seven to nine lots that could exceed 10,000 square feet under that model. He proposed that in the event a cap was placed on the largest lots, the proponents be allowed to demonstrate that they could exceed the cap up to the fu1120 percent and still meet the intent of the guidelines as well as satisfying staff and the Planning Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox noted that because of the late hour, the Planning Commission could continue this item to the next meeting, deliberate based on the available information, or request that staff EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 18 of 19