02 - Laserfiche WebLink

additional parking spaces is not quite correct, in that those counted would be the driveway aprons to the garages. They are deep enough to accommodate guest parking and delivery services; but they are not designed to be bona fide parking spaces. Regarding Condition 48, this is a standard condition. Mayor Hosterman questioned its necessity, and City Manager Fialho said it is a standard condition and recommended not removing it. Councilmember McGovern suggested changes to conditions, stating she thinks this is a good project for the downtown but she wanted to make it work better. She said staff frequently tells her that when she agrees to something, it becomes precedent setting for something in the future. She voiced concern with the accessory structures and FAR and said Condition 14 does not cover accessory structures. Ms. Decker said the table provides future reviews of the sites with the requirements if a Class I accessory structure were proposed. She referred to page 4 and said it also notes that a Class I structure would not be allowed for Lot 6. She said this is site specific as to what can be accommodated for each lot and what the setbacks and height would be for the accessory structures. Councilmember McGovern suggested and confirmed with staff that a condition that talks about trellises, patio covers, arbors, that could be allowed but not closed structures that would add FAR to open space could be crafted. She also asked the Council if they would be willing to allow storage space within the back of the carport, similar to Peters Avenue. Councilmember McGovern referred to Condition 24 and noise mitigation measures, and hoped that the homes are habitable. She felt the condition should say something about the noise standard will be in compliance with the City's noise standard because she does not want so much flexibility that it reduces the amount of livability within the home. She referred to Condition 26, striving to achieve the 105 points for each home, and she said she never received the green building breakdown. She said striving to achieve means one may not achieve the 105 points, and wanted it to say, "achieve the 105 points, but exceptions may be provided by the Community Development Director". Councilmember McGovern referred to Condition 43; she wanted all conditions of approval to go up to the 75% of recycling instead of 50%. She referred to Condition 51; landscape plan, and said the City is worried about water conservation, and asked that any landscaping be drought resistant and has the low flow irrigation systems. Councilmember Sullivan said the City adopted the Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines, and the Council should talk about how this is factored into other developments. Councilmember McGovern confirmed that Condition 51 could incorporate such measures. Mayor Hosterman confirmed the City is not mandating turf, but rather drought tolerant plantings. Councilmember McGovern referred to Item number 75 which talks about the vegetated bio swales on the lot and she questioned if the City counts those in the open space for the lot. Ms. Decker said yes, with the tentative map review, staff looks at the PUD development plan and how it meets the C3 and NPDES storm water requirements, which entails various solutions, one of which is vegetated bio-swales. Councilmember McGovern said the FAR, when not counting carports, and when entitlement is given to increase the size of the lot with the approval and City Council Minutes 5 November 4, 2008