PC 07/12/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mark Stechbart, Box 5160, San Ramon, of the Building Industry Association of Northern California, agrees with the Chamber of Commerce position paper. He feels all private property should be included in the gross developable acreage; growth rate should be driven by infrastructure; feels the super majority requirement of a 4/5's vote in a General Plan amendment is wrong; fiscal analysis is too costly; opposes the change in density definitions; feels the deletion of the West Las Positas interchange would have long-ranging city-wide implications; feels in-lieu park fees should be maintained because smaller projects are unable to donate land for parks; and finally, regarding the language of urban separators, he feels this is a suburban area and the planning language should reflect suburban separator lines. Mr. Stechbart feels the Tri-Valley Planning Council should give their input to this process. In respon~e to Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Stechbart discussed the region's achieving the goal of 15% affordable housing. Commissioner McGuirk questioned the speaker about his comments on fiscal cost analyses. Discussion ensued with the Commissioners feeling some larger projects do need to have cost analyses done. /- AI Spotorno, is opposed to the Commissioners accepting a minority report from the Steering Committee, and he also feels the Steering Committee was loaded with "no growth" people. He cited examples of the Steering Committee changing the density numbers for Vineyard Corridor to 100 (25 less than is already in the 1986 General Plan) and changing the yearly build-out cap of 750 to only 350. Mr. Spotorno also commented that there are no caps placed on the San Francisco Water Department property, but there are caps on private property owners. Mr. Spotorno also noted an error in the staff report stating they had 45 acres of open space; Mr. Spotorno advised that they had always had densities attached to that land. Dave Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, was on the Land Use Sub-committee. Mr. Jones stated the Circulation Sub-committee proposed that Rose Avenue should be extended to Valley Avenue. However, he believes there are no traffic problems in this area and the extension should be removed from the General Plan. Mr. Jones advised that his family bought the parcel because it was zoned for apartments, but they have never been able to develop because of the Rose A venue extension. He also noted that the extension of Rose A venue was to coincide with the extension of Del Valle Parkway. Because the Del Valle Parkway extension has been removed, Mr. Jones feels the extension of Rose Avenue should also be removed. The speaker also believes the extension of Rose Avenue would violate the Circulation Sub- committee's New Policy 4A and 4A.1. Mr. Jones further commented that Rose Avenue should have been extended in 1970 when the land changed hands from the USDA to the County. In response to Commissioner Barker, Mr. Jones advised that his zoning has been changed to R-lO,OOO from High Density Residential (Apartments). Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 12, 1995