Laserfiche WebLink
A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Doherty that the recommendation to eliminate the Urbanization Line <br />be approved. <br />Motion: Commissioner Getty <br />Second: Commissioner Doherty <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty and Lindsey <br />Noes: Commissioner Wilson <br />Absent: Commissioner Jamieson <br />Resolution No. 1907 was then entered and adopted. <br />Tract 4671, Chang Su-O Lin <br />Application of Chang Su-0 Lin for tentative map approval for a <br />12-lot residential subdivision to be constructed on a 4.2 acre portion <br />of a 36 acre site located on the west side of Santa Rita Road between <br />the SPRR tracks and Laramie Gate Circle. The property is zoned <br />R-1-6500 (Single-Family Residential) District. A negative mitigated <br />declaration of environmental impacts was also considered. <br />Chairperson Wilson stepped down and abstained from this project as <br />he has a financial interest. <br />Mr. Harris explained the staff report and stated condition 12 is <br />suggested as the mitigating measure for the negative declaration. He <br />further suggested that condition 2 be removed as it is covered in the <br />report of Engineering Services. Concerning number 12, relating to noise, <br />Mr. Harris suggested the following condition be added: "that the <br />developer construct a functional noise barrier along Santa Rita Road <br />and the SPRR tracks, the design to be approved by the City prior to <br />recordation of a final map. <br />Mr. Warnick suggested one change relating to Parcel "A" -- that if <br />intended for a park trail and/or sewer line, the developer grant to <br />the City Parcel A with title of that property to the City. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Larry Bartelson, MacKay and Somps spoke on behalf of Mr. Lin, owner <br />of this project. He addressed two items; condition 2 regarding <br />Parcel "A". He stated they show it as a parcel to be dedicated for <br />parks and this was because it was requested by the Planning Commission <br />earlier. He asked that a P.S.E. be shown including lots 9 and 10 <br />and that if the City wants a trail system there, a credit for park <br />fees should be granted. He said the existing system was not set up <br />for sewer but 'that this matter is a City prerogative and if the City <br />wants a separate parcel, a credit for park fees should be issued. <br />He stated that regarding condition 16 of the engineering report they <br />would like added: "---within the tract." He asked for clarification <br />regarding the underground utilities. He stated this was all of the <br />concerns. <br />-15- <br /> <br />