PC 120804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vanessa Kawaihu, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that she had e-mailed staff to say thank you for writing the letter. She noticed that she received two phone calls from Brianne Place residents, thanking her for sending the letter and leaving the notices in November. She gave credit to the City for writing the letter. She noted that her letter was somewhat sterner and also covered stormwater issues. She noted that the County only noticed for residents within 300 feet and that she often did not receive those notices. She thanked the City for its input to the County and hoped that the applicant would have all his permits in place before the additional grading occurred and before the original nine units were sold. She noted that the urban growth boundary line should have a feathering effect. She indicated that the new units requested by the applicant would be an infill project and noted that the buffer strip would be subdivided. She added that the plan did not include access plans for the lots. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that he strongly agreed with the letter, particularly the conflicts that the project presents with the Happy Valley Specific Plan with respect to lot sizes, land use, density, and sewer and water connections He had spoken with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. He noted that the first eight to ten homes of the project fell within the five-acre minimum for sewer and water; the new project brought it down to roughly three homes per acre. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin whether the developers could force the City to annex the development if their plan failed, Ms. Nerland replied that the City may be able to say no to the annexation but believed there was no legally and politically definitive answer. Commissioner Fox noted that the letter addressed ten items and believed it would be stronger if the City ranked the areas of concern in order of importance to better communicate the priorities. Chairperson Roberts agreed with Commissioner Fox's suggestion of prioritizing the City's concerns. Commissioner Blank supported further clarity in the City's letter so there was no question about its intent. Chairperson Roberts advised that this issue would probably not be resolved by the meeting of December 20, 2004. Ms. Nerland summarized the Commissioners' discussion, indicating that they concurred with sending the letter and that the language in the letter should be strengthened and prioritized. In addition, the Commission desired the presence of City staff at the County meeting of December 20, 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 8, 2004 Page 16 of 19