Laserfiche WebLink
Staff feels that each of the five alternative plans are workable, subject to minimizing potential <br />traffic circulation, and freeway and amphitheater noise impacts. Staff is recommending that the <br />Council take public comments on the five alternative plans and provide comments of its own <br />for use by staff in creating a unified concept plan for the Phase II Specific Plan Area. <br />Comments relating to the following planning items would be particularly helpful: <br /> <br />· Land use <br />· Site location <br />· Parking <br />· Vehicular access <br />· Noise <br />· Views <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACTS <br /> <br />Phase II Specific Plan <br /> <br />Consulting fees for updating the Draft Phase II Specific Plan document are currently budgeted <br />by the City. <br /> <br />The Specific Plan is intended to be a long-range plan. Individual future projects are expected to <br />be funded by a variety of sources. The Project Implementation Policy of the current Draft Phase <br />II Specific Plan (page 29) addresses the matter of future funding sources and reads as follows: <br /> <br />"Policy 1: Consider the use of all available City and non-City funding sources for any <br />potential development project in which the City participates, with the goal of achieving <br />the most fiscally sound funding package consistent with the Economic and Fiscal <br />Element of the General Plan." <br /> <br />All five site plan alternatives discussed in this report are similar in terms of major cost <br />components, with the exception of Alternatives A and C which include an ACE train station. At <br />this conceptual planning stage of the Specific Plan process, staff feels that it would be premature <br />to evaluate comparative future project costs. However, such an analysis could be conducted <br />once the more precise plans are developed, if desired by the Council. <br /> <br />Phase I Sports Field <br /> <br />The Bemal Community Park Reserve for Phase I improvements (CIP #007065) has a current <br />fund balance of $4.77 million, which includes $291,000 in Proposition 40 State Park Bond Act <br />funds allocated after the original CIP budget was adopted. This funding should be sufficient to <br />fund the proposed park amenities, provide an adequate project contingency, and cover the <br />estimated design fees, based on the probable cost estimate prepared by M.D. Fotheringham, Inc. <br />Exact costs, however, will not be known until the formal bid process is completed. Should the <br /> <br />SR 05:010 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />