Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Stern replied that that staff has no specific information available but that the steep <br />change in grade is visible. <br />Commissioner O’Connor inquired, should the property be developed as currently zoned <br />in the General Plan with a maximum of eight units, if the developer could still receive <br />approval to build the units in the area. <br />Ms. Stern said yes. <br />Commissioner Pentin inquired if building less than ten units would not be subject to the <br />provisions of Measure PP. <br />Ms. Stern said yes, but there are other zoning and General Plan provisions. <br />Commissioner Pentin referred to the setback for the four lots fronting Foothill Road and <br />inquired if the homes on these lots would meet the required 150-foot setback after <br />widening of the road. <br />Mr. Otto replied that potentially, they would, if the houses were put back far enough. <br />Commissioner Blank referred to Exhibit B and inquired if, should the Commission <br />answer “no” to Question 1, staff would be interested in any discussion on the other <br />questions. <br />Mr. Otto replied that not all of the questions would apply, but the Commission could <br />discuss access to the lots. <br />Noting that staff cannot support access off of Santos Ranch Road, Commissioner <br />Pearce stated that on page 7 of the staff report presents two options for Parcel 3: (1) an <br />access easement across Santos Ranch Road; and (2) direct access on Foothill Road. <br />She noted that the Traffic Engineer does not support Option 2, and staff does not <br />support Option 1. <br />Ms. Stern noted that both options are problematic. <br />Commissioner Pentin inquired if Santos Ranch Road was problematic for any number of <br />units to be built. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that if the numbers of units were small enough, the Commission would <br />have to discuss the comparative benefits of building the homes with building an entirely <br />new road, its resultant scarring, tree removal, and erosion. He added that might be <br />considered if safety concerns could be minimized for a small number of lots. <br />THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS OPENED. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, December 8, 2010 Page 6 of 23 <br /> <br />