PC 01/27/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Rai ph Romer-~o, ~i31 ~~ Foothi l i Rd. as#-:ed where the I and for- the proposed third lane on Foothill Rd. would come from. i"Ir. Rolpl-r responded ti-+a+~ i t i s er:pectec# to come f turn between the e~ i sti ng road ar+d the fence ant; by ut i 1 i ~ i ng the space betweer+ ti-+e trees. i'~r . Rory+erc asi:ed i f dedication had been obtained regar-di ng i C~ feet of county pr opert•f . t~1r . Swift injected that there are pieces that have not been dedicated yet. John inner, 186 Foothill, representing the South Foothill Homeowners Assn. was in favor of widenirig of Foott-+i1I Rd. ~-le requested that the Commissioners 1ooF. closely at the frontage cii'e L~ernal and Footiiiii a related to the Golden Eagle Project so that all alternatives would be studied. Larry l'~lessa, =~46~ Foothi i I Rd. stated that he was i n favor o~ realignment of Foothill Rd. He suggested a tree report a5 i'ie was coricerried that i n tr ~,ri rig to save some wai nut trees that some Her i tags trees would be destroyed . He ast:ed about the use of Adobe F'arl•:. C'ir. Lee responded that its primary purpose was to provide a buffer for- tl'ce Adobe Bui i di ng, an historical 1 andmar ~::. He r+oted tt-iat in the revised plan presented a neigt-+borhood park=: would be added, which would lessen the activity at Adobe t--°ar~~. i''lr. Lee said that access to Adobe F'art~ would be from tt-+e inside of the development. Gee ~e t=inch, 15 L7eer t=Sa~ l~ri ve, F'resi dent of Deer C~a~~ Ho+rieowncrs Assn. stated that they had met with the developers and felt they were doing a good jots. The major concern regardet the buffer Force, preferring it to be done like the Golden Eagle Project. (-ie was opposed to soundwalls; felt tide proposed density was appropriate; favored some douses facing Foothill Rd. He was in favor of real i gnrrient of Foothi 1 1 Rd. as soon as possible acid adding a third lane. He felt tt-+e developer was doing everythircg possible to develop a vxabie project. Trish gloss, 7~.2 Ract:oon Hollow Ct. opposed the project ire its entirety, stating that she was fearful of losing the trees. She was opposed to the realignment of Footl-sill Fid. acid felt the project would adversely impact the schools and the traffic. Jac:;: Wong, represented the developer. He noted that they were not adverse to fronting houses on Foothill Rd. nor to any other of the suggestiorc~. Cornmi ssi over Mi chel otti asi4ed Mr. irJong the si ~e of ti`ce i ots on Parcel B. He said they were planned at ,~,75U sq. feet. The public hearing was closed. Cornrrii ssi over Mi chel otti e::pressed concern that this project would not be under the Fienchmark_ established for tt-+e city for 196 which means that if approved b•,+ the F'UD that growth fiarcagement allocations cart be given but it will not count agai rest the city `s E~enchtrcar-t:. if this development co+~ies through Page 7