PC 02/10/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

voted in favor of a specific plan for this area; however, due to the lengthiness of the process he would not be in favor ora specific plan for this area. He spoke in favor of building parks in the downtown area and suggested that another option for review be conducted, such as a study of the Rose Avenue extension versus a specific plan. Commissioner Maas expressed concurrence with Commissioner Coopers comments. Commissioner Kameny expressed concurrence with Commissioner Cooper's comments. He stated he would be in support of a study of the area versus a specific plan. Commissioner Sullivan expressed support with a citizen advisory-type study being performed. However, he noted that a study of the area would eliminate the environmental review of area along the Arroyo. He spoke in favor of a study being performed combining planning development and the planning of schools. He expressed concern with the School Board's ability to guarantee additional school sites being constructed by a specific date. Chairperson Kumaran noted that he voted not to reconsider because a study would have been conducted to address areas of concern; however, he noted that Commissioner Roberts' statements about the change in traffic pattern areas, impacts on schools, and the need for an EIR, he would be in favor of the alternative to include this area in the Downtown Specific Plan. Discussion ensued relating to the timeline for completion of the Downtown Specific Plan, school improvements that will be conducted by March 2000, the merits of doing a specific plan on this area, providing a solution to the school overcrowding issue, the Planning Commission and School Board examining school issues jointly, effects of Proposition IA in tying development to school issues, and the drawbacks of not approving the project until a later time, including losing agreed upon developer fees. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED The applicant readdressed the Commission and stated that the developer has already spent $500,000 and 14 months on this project, worked extensively with City staff, and eliminated a considerable number of lots from project. Further, that the developer has addressed the concerns of both staffand the Planning Commission including additional study sessions and readdressing issues relating to schools. He commended staff on their professional experience and noted that staff is not in favor of further environmental studies. He concluded by requesting that the Commission approve the PUD with the Rose Avenue alignment. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Chairperson Kumaran, recommending to the City Council that a study be performed of the undeveloped Rose Avenue properties which considers the impacts of the extension of Rose Avenue to Valley Avenue; an analysis of the cumulative environmental impacts to the Arroyo and undeveloped properties; evaluation of growth management and school crowding issues; and, potential alternative land-use issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 February 10, 1999