PC 06/14/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swirl commented on the plans for widening of Bemal; however, he stated that there is not sufficient distance to meet Cal-Trans distance requirements between Bernal and Sunol Boulevard interchanges for on- and off-ramps. Further, that 1-680 is part of the federal highway system, and the installation of on- and off-ramps would need federal approval. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOgED Mr. Swift referenced a staff report dated June 14, 1999 relating to further consideration of the San Francisco Bemal property. He stated that the 1998 Baseline Traffic Report and an update relating to schools has been provided to the Commission. Further, that the City Attorney is present to answer questions relating to the Development Agreement. Mr. Swift commented that the Notice of Hearing was not modified and that a public notice of hearing will be issued for the June 23, 1999 Commission meeting. Further, that the website will be updated to include the hearings on the San Francisco Bemal property, as well as reference to the San Francisco Bemal website. He stated that a comprehensive staff report will be presented to the Commission at the June 23, 1999 meeting covering the issues raised by the Commission and City Council. Mr. Roush provided a history on how the City Council has conceptually approved projects in the past and the referendum and public hearing process. Discussion ensued relating to the legislative information that will be presented to the Commission and City Council, similarities in the San Francisco Bemal project to the Ruby Hills and Hacienda projects as a P.UD plan, issues relating to the Environmental Impact Review process, modifications that can be made to the PUD, all development structure being reviewed within the use permit, length of time for completion of the project, the developer being subject to new fees for development, the density of the project, annexation issues, assessment districts, and affordable housing issues. (Recess taken from 9:05 -9:10 p.m.) There was considerable discussion relating to the 1998 Base Line Traffic Report, including the existing levels of use, mitigation measures for traffic, and build-out scenarios of the project. There was considerable discussion relating to the school update including the number of students that the school district identifies as the maximum capacity for schools, locations of proposed school sites, and impacts of increasing school fees. Jeff Grote of the Planning Collaborative commented on the need for a planning collaborative. He noted that major funding is being invested in on-site development work and off-site mitigation and that work can be completed on the project fairly quickly. Further, he commented on the Commission's discretion in approving the project. He stated that at the previous meeting, the Commission commented on items that needed additional information and that the applicant will be providing a visual analysis to demonstrate what berms will look like, including pictures and a slide show and design guidelines for lotting, to ensure that development does not resemble the Ray Street development, as suggested at the public hearing. He requested clarification from the Commission relating to plan-related issues and noted he would be providing information related to flood control, design issues, setbacks, transportation and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 June 14, 1999