01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Cook-Kallio said the square footage may be two-story or spread out and she asked if the heights were consistent with those used for the average. Ms. Gale said the maximum height was used, so they were showing the worst case. It is a complex site so not every lot is situated at the same elevation above sea level and therefore it is relative to the finished floor elevation and they used the grading plan, which has been submitted to the city. Councilmember McGovern said her point is if we know exactly what the square footage by FAR and the chart is supposed to have, she would have appreciated seeing the possible size of a house that could be on any particular piece of property. She said in Carmel they have story poles on sites where one can actually see the square footage, and she felt that mass was of concern to many people. She said the EIR talks about residential and clustering of development in the actual General Plan of 1996. She did not believe it talked about multiple clusterings and felt the City has changed this definition somewhat by now talking about clustering around courts. Mr. Iserson felt there were different interpretations of this--what his interpretation of the General Plan is that the rural density residential allows one house for every 5 acres. So, you do not necessarily have to have 5-acre lots with one house on each lot spread out on an entire site because then you would be developing on some very steep and other impacted areas. Although, clustering creates smaller lots than 5 acres you still have the same overall density when the entire site is considered, but by putting them on little clusters you could avoid development on the most impacted portions of the site. Staff interpretation is that the project conforms to this. Councilmember McGovern said she sees fingers that are reaching out into an open space and because of the need for more roadway, they take up much more of the sensitive areas. When she looks at the map and EIR and it talks about development on steep slopes, there are 17 lots that say they are developing on steep slopes. She expressed environmental and sensitivity- related concerns of the project and if clustering had occurred in one area, there may be less impact to the environment and the wildlife habitat. Councilmember McGovern voiced concerns about earthquake fault lines and asked if homebuyers are provided this information in their purchase of the lots. Mr. Iserson said there are a number of disclosures required of the project, he was not sure this was one of them, but it could be added if it was not included. He felt that both seismic hazards from earthquakes and landslides were closely studied in the geotechnical report and mitigated and the Council is able to add this as it deemed necessary. He said that in addition, the Geological Abatement District (GAD) will be set up as part of the development that requires the site to be maintained, that slopes be repaired and retaining walls and drainage be handled appropriately, which will act to inform those purchasing the lots that there are geologic issues with the site. Councilmember McGovern felt the areas are sensitive, said these things are part of the mitigation, but all of these items are happening at the map stage which means they could change, and she wanted the City to have the maximum flexibility to make changes in conditions of approval. Mr. Iserson said he did not necessarily think that the requirement for more design level geotechnical reports at the tentative map stage would result in changes to the PUD development plan in terms of the actual lots themselves. Those further studies will be more detailed geotechnical in soils analysis that will be looking in a much more comprehensive and detailed way at grading and citing of houses on lots in order to make sure the construction methods are the safest. He felt this level of analysis will not have an effect on the layout or City Council Minutes 9 October 2, 2007