PC 03/23/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

A motion was made by Commissioner Maas, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan, to receive public testimony and have Planning Commissioner discussion at this meeting, but to de]ay voting on the matter to a future Planning Commission meeting. Further, that if changes are made to the Specific Plan as a result of tonight's hearing, any future hearing will be re-opened for public testimony. ROLLCALLVOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Maas and Sullivan Chairperson Kumaran Commissioner Cooper Commissioners Kameny and Roberts The motion carried on a 2 - 1 vote. Mr. Rasmussen referenced the staff report dated March 23, 1999 and stated that public hearings were conducted on January 20, 1999 and February 17, 1999 in relation to the Project. He highlighted staff-recommended changes to the Specific Plan, including alternative vehicular access to Lot 3; elementary school; daycare center; Lot 21 density bonus; Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 housing density; keeping of farm animals; undergrounding utilities; and open space easements. He further provided an overview of the environmental issues and alternatives addressed in the EIR including off-site Vineyard Avenue noise, cut-through traffic, a four-to-two-lane Vineyard Avenue Reduction Alternative, and an increased housing alternative. Jerry Grassi, Associate Traffic Engineer, provided an overview of the Neighborhood Traffic-Calming Program including low-cost items such as speed limit signs, increased enforcements, and mm prohibition; and higher cost items such as traffic circles and road closures. He further noted that significant resident support is desired for the higher cost items and that residents themselves may be required to participate in the funding of these items. He noted that a description of the Neighborhood Traffic-Calming Program has been sent to several residents in the Vineyard Corridor; however, no responses have been received. Jonathan Stem, Bay Area Economics, referenced the economic analysis document dated March 18, 1999. He provided an overview of changes to the financial feasibility analysis, including increases in developer fees, costs reimbursed to the Ruby Hill and Vista Diablo developers, undergrounding of utility lines, and the assignment of land costs relating to the school and water tank sites. Discussion ensued relating to the changes in infrastructure costs, the actual number of units the infrastructure cost is based on, and the residual value per acre of land. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED PLANNING COMMISSION M1NUTES Page 4 March 23, 1999