SR 06:060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Nerland advised that language be included in the CC&Rs, which was not uncommon, that the City has the right but not the obligation to enforce certain or all of the provisions in the CC&Rs. Practically, the issue is who would enforce the CC&Rs, and the City was not staffed to handle those duties. The City would look to the HOA to take care of its own business. The City generally did not want the HOA to have an expectation that the City would enforce the CC&Rs, and language is placed in CC&Rs to take care of the egregious public health and safety issue, not smaller aesthetic issues. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts what would happen if a resident owned three cars and whether the HOA conld restrict ownership of vehicles, Ms. Nerland confirmed that the CC&Rs could contain that restriction, but, again, it becomes an enforcement issne. With respect to the density and number of affordable housing units on page 3 of the staff report, Commissioner Fox believed they were adequate. She could not see how more units could be added to the site and wanted to ensure the complex was internally consistent. Acting Chair Arkin agreed with Commissioner Fox's assessment, as did Commissioner Blank and Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Roberts believed the density and number may need to be rednced. With respect to the questions on page 4 of the staff report, Commissioner Pearce believed there should be a tot lot. Commissioner Fox agreed that there should be a tot lot, and Acting Chair Arkin agreed as welL Commissioner Fox believed it was important that families not be required to cross the street to play at the tot lot and suggested that staff examine whether the tot lot could be moved to the focal point of the complex or to the arroyo against the green space to avoid noise impacts on the neighbors. She suggested that two or three more guest parking spaces could be gained. Commissioner Blank suggested that the tot lot be placed at the hook on the other side of the focal point to avoid conflict with traffic. He did not believe it should be placed at the back of the lot, which would be a long trip for the children who live at the front of the site. With respect to questions on page 5 of the staff report, Commissioner Fox believed the color and material schemes were appropriate but had an issue with the louvers on the window awnings. She believed the louvered awnings that use a paint color from another part of the building should instead use the color from the composite roof. Acting Chair Arkin noted that he was pleased with the architecture of the design. Commissioner Roberts concurred. With respect to the questions on page 6 of the staff report regarding landscaping, fencing, and the bioswale, Commissioner Roberts noted that she always supported more landscaping. She believed there was sufficient landscaping and did not believe that old orchard trees were worth saving, particularly if they hadn't been cared for. She believed that if the City supported a bioswale, she would go along with it. Regarding the relocation ofremoved trees, she would like to see an arborist's report aboui. the heritage trees and what their value is. She did not understand why some of the heritage trees by the arroyo were being removed, unless it was for the hammerhead, and would like to hear more about that. She would make a decision about the Urban Forestry Fund when she had more information. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, October 26, 2005 Page 4 of 5