12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

lots. He indicated that he felt it would run counter to the principle and intent of the Specific Plan if the hillside were taken and made into public land. He added that he supported the project. Commissioner Narum inquired if the project were providing any benefits to the City such as road improvements. She noted that Condition No. 47 states that with the first construction phase, the developer should improve the segment of the Happy Valley Road that abuts the project site as specified in the Happy Valley Specific Plan and inquired if the road would be widened. She stated that she understands that the land is not going to be public, but that given approval of the density, she feels the developer should provide something in return. In response to Commissioner Blank's inquiry if there were other lots in Happy Valley that were less than one acre, Ms. Decker replied that there were. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he has seen in other developments where lot lines could have been drawn into what is now open space to provide larger lots and then designate it as building pad area. He noted that off of Vineyard Avenue, there are five-acre lots with only a 30,000- or 40,000-square-foot living pads. He noted that the same thing could have been done here, but the developer has reserved that land as HOA property as opposed to showing it as part of the actual plan. He stated that he felt they could make them all one-acre lots, but this would make it more complicated and would result in the same end product. Commissioner Blank felt it would be very easy to redraw the property lines so the lots meet the one-acre requirement, but nothing would really be accomplished. Commissioner O'Connor agreed. Commissioner Narum asked Mr. Jost to comment on Condition No. 47 with respect to the Happy Valley Road. Mr. Jost stated that this would be subject to Alameda County's jurisdiction. He added that the City would require the developer to submit plans and obtain an encroachment permit for work that needs to be done, but it would be done subject to the County's standards. He noted that based on the last project, there would not be much road widening. Commissioner Narum then inquired what the improvement was, and Mr. Jost replied that the basic property owner was required to reconstruct the road, but the road itself did not get much wider than what it currently is. He noted that it was slightly widened slightly on the project side but not on the opposite side of the street. Commissioner Narum inquired if this would be the same as what Condition No. 47 would do to the project. Mr. Jost confirmed that it would. Commissioner Pearce stated that she agreed with Commissioners Blank, Olson, and O'Connor that it meets the intent of the Specific Plan and added that she thinks that given it is five lots on a ten-acre parcel, there would be one lot per two gross acres. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 9 of 10