PC 042810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan said that it was. Commissioner Pearce stated that bullet point 1 of Condition No. 19 refers to requiring 24-inch box replacement trees to be native, but the 15-gallon are not. Mr. Pavan stated these should also be native and revise the condition. Commissioner Pearce inquired what the sizes of the houses were in the photo simulations. Mr. Pavan stated that he believes they are 8,500 square feet. He added that the project architect, Joseph Gorney, was present and could speak to this. Commissioner Pearce referred to bullet point 3 of Condition No. 31 on page 10 of the Conditions of Approval, which states the maximum floor area as 8,500 square feet exclusive of 700 square feet of garage area, whichever is less. She inquired what “whichever is less” referred to. Mr. Pavan stated that “whichever is less” should be deleted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Commissioner Pentin disclosed he met with the applicant long ago and discussed the project. Marty Inderbitzen, applicant, representing Dr. William and Lydia Yee, stated that Tom Fraser from WRA, the consulting biologist; Joseph Gorney, project architect; and Darryl Alexander, project engineer, were present in the audience to answer questions. He indicated that they worked through the project at great length with staff and that modifications to the project are minor compared to the last review. He noted that the project has been reduced by two lots, and substantial impacts to the project area with regard to the Foothill Road frontage and tree impacts have also been reduced. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that they worked hard to address issues and comments received regarding environmental impact following the first Planning Commission meeting before they could move forward. He added that they are in agreement with staff that the best way to deal with issues is to review them and determine whether the project could be self-mitigated. He indicated that they spent a significant amount of time and money figuring out how to deal with the creek issues, including a lot of design with a hydrologist, grading design, and meetings with representatives of agencies, boards, and City engineering staff on site. He noted that they reviewed every design on how to fit road-widening and a bike path into the 200-foot long location and could not arrive at anything that made sense while still allowing the project to be financially viable. He indicated that they modified the project in a manner that would be close to meeting everyone’s desires. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 28, 2010 Page 9 of 15