01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

with the custom home building but the exact number is not known until the houses are developed. There is strong language about saving trees, especially heritage trees. There are requirements to mitigate those removed and the current estimate is that up to 67 trees could be removed given custom home building. However, if this number is taken with the 58 removed, that number is still less than the number which was analyzed and mitigated in the EIR. He said there will be about 400 trees planted as part of the mitigation in the common areas of the site and this could increase up to 600 on lots, depending upon how many are removed. Mr. Iserson said as recently as today, the developer has returned with a proposal to modify the development plan on Court 1, which consists of high visibility lots, whereby some changes may be made. He said Lot 2 would be removed to another portion of the site, and if Council decides to approve the plan with this modification, staff would suggest adding a condition that the lot moved be considered as part of the tentative map. It would have to be placed in an area where the EIR did consider or contemplate development. The court would be made into a driveway which would take up less area. The lot in the back would be shifted so that it is able to be moved over and sit more on a flat area. By doing this, it would allow for more area to be used for tree planting which would provide screening. In addition, the lots off of Court 1 would be lowered an additional 5 feet from what is shown on the current plan and also the applicant has agreed to make Lots 2, 3 and 4 as one story homes. If this is the Council's preference, a maximum height limit will need to be arrived at for the one-story homes, which is typically around 24 feet. Mr. Iserson said staff has recommended approval but is trying to provide a balanced analysis. First and foremost is the open space dedication. The General Plan encourages open space to be provided, as well as trails, and this would be a major piece in terms of assembling such an open space area together in the future. The trail staging area would be away from the Kottinger Ranch development, the current project of 51 lots has the advantage of almost half the density and impacts as the original 98 unit plan. There is nothing to say the maximum density in the General Plan must be approved, and the applicants have agreed to reduce this density. The excess units between the proposed and that allowed in the General Plan and in the housing element can be used for the actual development of low-income housing units in the City which staff feels is an advantage over taking the funds; although staff would receive inclusionary in- lieu fees if no other projects were approved. The project has mitigated all of its impacts except for the two which are the subject of the request for a Statement of Overriding Considerations--the cumulative traffic impacts at I-680 and Bernal and Santa Rita and Valley which at General Plan build-out would be problematic intersections. The second impact identified is the cumulative biological impact of the loss of the Blue Oak woodland areas; however, the applicant would be providing many new oak trees. Regarding options for the City Council, once the public hearing is held there are a number of options to take; 1) to certify the EIR and approve the PUD subject to the draft conditions of approval and approve the development agreement. The conditions of approval before the Council reflect those changes suggested at the last meeting and a few minor changes which have come since that time; 2) to certify the EIR, approve the PUD with any modified conditions such that the Council may approve the modification presented for Court 1 or other changes up to even eliminating some lots; 3) to certify the EIR and refer the PUD and development agreement back to the Planning Commission for further consideration; 4) to certify the EIR and deny the PUD and the development agreement; or 5) Not to certify the EIR; which would effectively deny the PUD and the development agreement. Staff recommends that the Council approve Options 1 or 2 and make the findings stated under the housing section relating to excess lots and the other PUD findings, suggest that when the City Council Minutes 6 October 2, 2007