01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember McGovern referred to the new Type 3 fire truck and confirmed the developer must first purchase the vehicle for the Fire Department; that if other projects in the area could make use of them, there could be some reimbursement. However, at this time it was the developer's obligation to pay for it. She asked Mr. Iserson to confirm whether or not the City would have to eventually reimburse the developer for the vehicle. Mr. Iserson reported that the City would note, but future development may. Councilmember McGovern questioned the location of the new fire truck, and City Manager Fialho said the new truck would be located at Fire Station 1, which meets the response time. Councilmember McGovern referred to construction phasing, stating lots 1-7 would be built first and construction to the water tank would not occur, nor would the emergency fire roads. She asked what this would do for the staging area after the 5`h lot is sold. Mr. Iserson said the project is phased because the first 7 lots are served by the lower water tank. After the 7 lots are sold the developer would construct the other water tank and complete all infrastructure and the staging area at that time. Councilmember McGovern referred to the visual analysis and questioned if the actual house size was placed on the actual lot in order to conduct the analysis. Mr. Iserson said he would have to ask Marcia Gale, the City's visual consultant, who could respond as to the sizes of the homes. Marcia Gale, Managing Principal of Environmental Vision, said there were two views with respect to the visual simulations that the Planning Director presented, one from Red Feather Court, the other from Grey Eagle Estates, and each appears in the DEIR. She said they created a set of development assumptions for those homes that utilize the mandatory design guidelines. So, they employ the setback requirements, the FAR coverage, and other technical assumptions for the house sizes. The presentation regarding the 20% cap FAR was information that came after the DEIR was prepared. Regarding the specific assumptions for the lot development for the 98-lot project and then the reduced 51-lot project, Ms. Gale said the assumptions are based on the mandatory design guidelines and setbacks. Councilmember McGovern said she read that when the houses were first done, they were about 7,000 square feet or less and she asked if these were the first set of lots used for those assumptions. Ms. Gale said they did not use one uniform house size for all 51 or 98 lots and believed the range or average was 6,700 square feet. Councilmember McGovern said she read something that EIR visuals simulated use at 6,600 square feet, and Ms. Gale said this was an average size; that these were custom lots with a set of fairly complex mandatory design guidelines. There are several different lot sizes and the 6,700 square feet is an average size, meaning there are larger sized homes on some of the larger lots that were not considered high visibility lots as there were also some smaller homes for the smaller lots situated on steep slopes. She said they did not take one size house and place it uniformly on the 51 lots. Councilmember Sullivan said it sounded as if design guidelines and mitigation measures were used to arrive at likely house sizes for a specific lot and that this was the size placed there versus putting 12,000 square foot houses on every lot or the minimum on every lot and these would be likely or typical based on the guidelines for that lot. Ms. Gale agreed with his summation. City Council Minutes 8 October 2, 2007