PC 12/11/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commissic 12/11/85 Ted C. Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer, representing the Walter Johnson Foundation spoke. He discussed park access referring to the three plans put up for the Commission's review. One plan was the original proposal with proposed public access for a park, one plan is a consensus plan with no public access to the park and one plan is an alternative plan. They are now down to 21o dwelling units and are allowed 228 on the property without a general plan amendment. It is possible to revise the plan to fit 210 lots either on a plan with public access road or without it. Inasmuch as they have reduced the project by 60 units they are less enthusiast about building a staging area and large public street. They will do so if required by the City but would not do so as willingly as they would have prior to removing the 60 units. Mr. Fairfield then passed out an exhibit showing the East Bay Regional Park Area of approximately 900 acres. The East Bay Regional Park Area will be both south and northwest of the City's 230 acre park. He asked that the Planning Commission consider this fact when recommending access. Mr. Fairfield stated that the density recommended for both the east and west sides of Foothill Road is below that allowed by the General Plan. He reviewed Condition No. 3 of the staff report and stated that inasmuch as they have increased the number of custom lots and reduced the number of townhouses, they do not see any reason to keep "Medium Density" in that condition. Regarding Condition No. 5(a) on page 9 of the staff report they opt for the "or" which calls for all roads to be private and that no road access be constructed to the staging area; Condition No. 5, page 10, he asked that the word "eliminate" be removed and "minimize" inserted in its place; Condition No. 6, page 10, he requested that 35 ft. be substituted for 30 ft. because 30 ft. is inconsistent with the recommendation of the staff report to eliminate pad grading. Mr. Fairfield agreed to the change of No. 22 was stated by Mr. Swift. In Condition No. 23 he opted for the "or" portion of that condition. They do not want to face houses on Foothill Road. They prefer a 20' landscape strip be between the street and the lots with open-type fencing. Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Fairfield how much landscaping there would be from the fence to the right-of-way. Mr. Fairfield indicated there would be a minimum of 20' outside the street right-of-way. The townhouse area would have a minimum of 50 ft. and substantially more in most cases. The wood and wire open fencing will provide private landscaping on the sites. The developer would install a 20 ft. landscaped area maintained by the homeowners association. Regarding Condition No. 28, Mr. Fairfield asked that "reasonably" be inserted in front of the word "possible" to avoid any confusion. They desire to save all of the trees that can reasonably be saved, but don't want the inference that they must absolutely be saved. Further, he indicated that he is in accord with Condition No. 31 as stated by Mr. Swift. Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Fairfield to review the purpose of the proposed Condition No. 6. Mr. Fairfield reviewed the development of a home on a lot which has a slope. Mr. Fairfield - 3 - _..__ __ _ _ .. T ..