CCMIN052196 - Laserfiche WebLink

because most people will use a parking lot instead. He does not want to eliminate all parking lots, but suggested joint use of parking lots; such as church parking lots to be used weekdays. Another comment referred to allowing space for people to work on their cars, etc. Mr. Calthorpe stated the side drives are best and most usable. Ms. Dennis liked Alternative 5 a lot. One of the things she liked was moving the housing away from the railroad tracks. She felt there was more potential noise impacts from the railroad tracks than from a community park. The only thing lost from Alternative 4 to Alternative 5 was proximity of the community park to the Village Center housing. How are you going to transport people from the east side Village Center concept across the golf course to the park? She felt the housing will be used by people with children who will want to use the park. There needs to be some kind of sidewalk system or trail through the golf course. This could be handled by design guidelines. She agreed the length of street, as well as the width of the street, could affect the speed of traffic. One thing that concerns her about a lot of stop signs is the resultant air pollution from traffic stopping and starting. She preferred people driving for longer distances at reasonable speeds. The idea of houses fronting the golf course is great. The design guidelines should address fence designs for those properties with the back facing the arroyo. As you see the project come together over time, she was concerned that the overall integrity will be lost by piecemeal development. She wants design guidelines done as early as possible and felt that will improve community acceptance of the project, and will allow planning for the products to pay for what the design costs in the public space more easily if we know what we are trying to accomplish and how much it will cost. There is great benefit to be gained by talking about that now. We have spent all this time on the design and she felt there is community support and she does not want to lose that. We have the maximum flexibility now and the more piece by piece development, the less flexible we will be. Mr. Tarver felt the real issue was whether there should be design guidelines before annexation. If the answer is yes, we need to get to it so it doesn't delay the project. He appreciates San Francisco's point of view, but we need to be sure we protect the community. He felt the processes should run parallel. Ms. Michelotti asked where you apply the neo-traditional planning. It seems to be assumed that everyone wants neo-traditional on all developable land and she disagreed with that premise. She felt the 55 acres of Village Center is definitely a place where neo-traditional planning would fit as well as in some places on the south parcel. However, the west side and middle part with houses around a golf course, should have flexibility for the lower density housing. She could imagine little houses with porches next to the golf course. Ms. Dennis indicated the design guidelines can be as flexible as you want to deal with fences and streetscapes. She just wants to be sure the overall concept is retained. Mr. Tarver said we could debate this all night, but the question is do you believe we should have design guidelines for this development. He commented on previous remarks; keep the bike lane along Berual; review the fire station site; an underpass instead of an overpass, etc. 05/21/96 -12-