Laserfiche WebLink
191 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr requested some clarification on the tentative and <br />final maps considering that this was one single parcel and final <br />maps would be presented on several parcels. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith replied that there would be a tentative map of the <br />entire property that the County could work with and final maps on <br />the two sections referred to earlier. He explained that final <br />maps could be worked out from tentative ones. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes emphasized that if the project would be done <br />partly through the City, he wanted a 100% assurance that a package <br />sewer plant would not be part of the development process which <br />would be started through the County. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith indicated that he would recommend a process that <br />would eliminate the package but that they did not want to give it <br />up entirely in case they had to deal with a different Council by <br />the time they were ready to annex. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes expressed his discomfort about working <br />simultaneously with the County and asked Mr. Smith if they would <br />agree to a preannexation agreement with a specific plan as long as <br />the entire project would be done through the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith replied that they wanted to work on nine lots for <br />1989 and eleven in 1990. They would then go to the City, and <br />eventually, everything would be annexed to the City and under the <br />City's control. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked Mr. Swift if there were any controversy <br />surrounding the two parcels that would prevent them from being <br />approved by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the only issue on the area on Foothill <br />Road is what improvements to make on it, how wide it would be, if <br />it would be three lanes or two lanes with a turn lane. He added <br />that these could easily be worked out, although the general plan <br />would have to be changed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired why a joint process was being considered <br />when the City had a process for annexing, zoning and developing <br />within the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked Mr. Swift what the problem was with the <br />parcel on the south end. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the staff had a problem with several <br />lots on the extreme west, up against where the slope came in. He <br />said it was not certain if they could have nine or ten lots on the <br />south end without getting into those on the west side. The only <br />other issue is where that road intersects Foothill Road, which <br />could be resolved by engineering; it would probably require <br />widening the road on the San Francisco Water Department side. <br /> <br /> -18- <br /> 8-1-89 <br /> <br /> <br />