PC 051403 - Laserfiche WebLink

solutions_ He noted that with the scarcity of housing in the Bay Area, he wished to determine the appropriate density for the site_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Hines noted that they would be willing to prepare an EIR if necessary. Coxi~iiiissioner Maas noted that she had met with Trumark representatives to look at the project In response to her inquiry whether any creek mitigation could be made downstream for the Canyon Creek residents, Mr_ Hines replied that mitigations could be put in place_ He was unsure of the extent of what would be required, and noted that he would rather keep the creek as natural as possible_ He noted that in the past, he had done retention ponds to collect water before it is released in a steady flow_ In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the park situation in Canyon Creek, Mr_ Hines replied that he would have neighborhood meetings_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr_ Hines confirmed that he would be willing to discuss combining the Canyon Creek Park with a new park on the property so that the City would be willing to look at it_ Mr_ Pavan noted if the properties were to be combined, they would meet the neighborhood park standard of 5 acres. The issue of access of a public facility through a private project must be addressed as well_ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED_ Commissioner Maas noted that the residents would have liked the City to maintain the park, which it was reluctant to do because of the size and remote location of the park_ She recalled a similar situation with the two linear parks near Laguna Oaks, where the City assumed ownership and maintenance once they were combined_ Commissioner Sedlak noted that because the usable area of the park is small, it was not practical for the City to maintain_ Commissioner Maas noted that she supported moving the park because the safety issues, and believed that it may be moved in conjunction with this application_ A discussion of the fences around the tot lot ensued. Chairperson Arkin advised that the Commissioners would address each question from the staff report_ Regarding Question 1, Chairperson Arkin did not support either development concept because the proposal needs to be accepted by the neigl-ibors_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 14, 2003 Page 11