01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

project. So the requirements to mitigate the traffic are based on 98 units and there should not be additional traffic not accounted for in the EIR. Mr. Iserson said the applicant is providing a regional and local trail system, none of the trails would connect back to the cul-de-sacs from the Kottinger Ranch community which was an issue of some concern to people. The staging area would be located near the new water tank and no access to the trails would lead back to Kottinger Ranch which is consistent with the City's community trail master plan. Regarding emergency access, a possible connection to the Berloger property was brought up to the north of the site in the vineyard corridor area, which was reviewed in the EIR and not determined to be a great option. Staff felt it was best to go with the two fire roads; one out to Kottinger Ranch via the existing water tank road and the other out to Grey Eagle via the easement over the Roberts property. Regarding the custom home review process, staff design review is suggested to keep up with the spirit of expediting the development review process. However, it is the Council's option to require that the individual custom home design review go through the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would receive all documentation that staff had, but it could be structured to go directly to the Commission. Regarding housing and the fact that the number of units proposed is less than what is actually shown in the Housing Element of the General Plan, State law requires that if a project is approved on a site where the number of units listed in the Housing Element is less than the actual project, then the Council needs to make a finding that those units could be accommodated elsewhere. Staff suggests that if the Council decides to approve the project at 51 or fewer units, that the finding be made that the reduced density is consistent with the General Plan as is, that there is a provision in the development agreement which would allow the developer to apply for the 47 unit difference elsewhere in the city and of those units, it would be agreed that 20 of those would be low, very low or moderate income units, which would be at the Council discretion. Also, a finding would be made that there are other sites in the housing element which are identified that could take those additional 47 units. If this did not occur, the developer would pay the full inclusionary in-lieu fee of approximately $480,000. Mr. Iserson said an issue came up regarding development on 25% slopes. The General Plan does not preclude development on 25% slopes. Generally, what the General Plan says is that those areas where there are 25% slopes, they are designated as public health and safety, which is an open space designation. But, when otherwise designated, the vast majority of the site is rural density residential so it does have development potential. Mr. Iserson said there was specifically a question brought up about Comment A-13 in the Response to Comments portion of the Final EIR. It was not well-worded, and the response indicates that on about 38 of the 51 lots, 20% or more of the surface area is relatively flat, so less than 80% of the lots would have slopes greater than 25%. On about 13 lots, there is less than 20% of the surface area that is relatively flat, and 80% of those lots consists of steep slopes. So, there are lots that have 25% slopes on them and this is not prohibited by the General Plan as long as the appropriate geotechnical mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. Regarding trees, Mr. Iserson said with the 51 lot plan, 58 trees would be removed, 32 would be heritage which are located in the common areas of the site. Additional trees will be removed City Council Minutes 5 October 2, 2007