PC 02/13/80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Doherty asked for any person in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or against to come forward. As no one came forward to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Getty asked Mr. Harris to explain why it would be necessary for the developer to participate in building a bridge at Martin Avenue. Mr. Harris explained the General Plan regarding the Martin area that there is a school in the area on Martin Avenue and a bridge is needed across the Mocho and that for the property to be in conformance with the General Plan the bridge is needed. He stated that right now there is only one access to the property but that if Pimlico were extended there would be a second access to the prop- erty and that somebody has to pay for the bridge. He stated this should be addressed now and staff feels developers should pay for one half of the bridge to make it a PUD inasmuch as PUD would benefit the developer but would not be beneficial to the City as proposed. Mr. Oakes then reiterated that he has dedicated property already as a result of the PUD and done many things which benefit the City. Mr. Harris then stated that park dedication has increased since Mr. Oakes made his dedication 10 years ago. The Commissioners then asked who would pay for the other half of the bridge. Mr. Harris stated that would be done by the developer of the south side of the Mocho. Commissioner Wilson asked what the amount would be for the 'in lieu of cost. Mr. Harris stated these figures would have to be worked out between Mr. Oakes and the City. Commissioner Leppert asked if the distances between structures as mentioned in item #11 reflect the current City Code. Mr. Harris stated the only change being suggested is 3' in the two-story structures. Commissioner Jamieson then asked if funds for the bridge would go into the general fund or would be held separately. Mr. Harris stated he believed they would be held separately. A motion was then made by Commissioner Jamieson that based on the Initial Environmental Study done for this project, it is the Commission's opinion that PUD-79-15 would have significant adverse effects on the environment, but that these effects could be mitigated to an insignificant level by certain conditions of approval of the project. The negative declaration shows water, transportation-circulation, utilities, and archeological impacts as being significant and that conditions #3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 would reduce those impacts to an insignificant level and that the mitigated negative declaration is appropriate for the project. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: Noes: Commissioners Jamieson, Wilson and Chairperson Doherty Commissioners Geppert and Getty Resolution No. 1843 was then entered and adopted recommending approval of the mitigated negative declaration for PUD-79-15. Commissioner Geppert stated he did not support the mitigated negative dec- laration as it did not properly address traffic. He further stated he wasn't sure that extending Pimlico would alleviate the problem. -3-