12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

She noted that staff has determined that from this perspective, the proposal with lots smaller than one acre meets the intent of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Fox referred to seasonal drainage and inquired how this would work and the possibility of flooding. She further inquired if there would be grading to put this in some sort of gully or if it would this way. Ms. Soo replied that there would be no grading on Parcel A and that a bridge would be built across the seasonal drainage as required by the Water Board and the Army Corps of Engineers regulations. She added that an environmental consultant will review the detailed design work and that all work will be permitted by various agencies per their standards. With respect to water, Ms. Soo stated that water is present during the rainy season but that the property is very dry during the summer months. Commissioner Fox inquired if the open space would remain private or eventually be public, and if there would be a conservation easement over it. Ms. Soo replied that it would be a parcel owned by a Homeowners Association and that it will not be open to the public. Commissioner Blank thanked staff for reworking Condition No. 40 but that the language is exactly the same in both staff reports. Commissioner Narum noted there was a memorandum dated December 10, 2008 which Commissioner Blank said he did not have. He confirmed the item was satisfactory. Commissioner Blank stated that he did not find the standard condition typically included regarding preparing the house for solar panels. Ms. Soo replied that it was in the Design Guidelines, to which the houses are required to conform. Ms. Decker added that this could also be included as a standard condition, and Commissioner Blank requested that be done. Commissioner Blank inquired if the current staff report included any changes from the staff report from the December 10~h meeting. Ms. Soo replied that there were no changes. Commissioner Narum referred to the density issue and inquired if it were feasible to remove a lot and redistribute the other lots to achieve the one-acre minimum. She added that she was not sure having the open space remain private met the Specific Plan goals. Ms. Soo stated that she believes it still met the intent of the Specific Plan because of the location of the building pads on each lot. She noted that while Lot 4 seems to be larger, moving land from this lot into Lot 3 and so forth would limit the building area may and make the home sites awkward. She added that this would also affect the grading of the lots, especially for Lots 2 and 3. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 2 of 10