CCMIN101293 - Laserfiche WebLink

71 Mr. Pico asked what was Mr. Ghielmetti's expectation of timing for growth management for this project. There was general discussion regarding growth management for this project. Dennis Powers, 3164 Duran Circle, spoke in support of this project. He recommended that Council approve Option//1. Mr. Powers has worked with Signature Properties in developing other projects and has been pleased with its cooperation. Angelina Summers, 4750 Sutter Gate Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. Robert Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, spoke in opposition to this project. He was concerned with traffic and school children crossing the busy streets. He believed that the project should include the 79 acres. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, spoke in support of this project. This would ensure an employment and housing balance in the community and is environmentally sound. He encouraged Council to support this application and select option 2 of the staff recommendation. There being no further testimony, Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Dennis supported this project. She was not completely comfortable with any of the options but felt that the process should move ahead. She had considered the positive working relationship that the City has had with the applicant and the commitment that she had made to the voters which was to help the Business Park buildout in any way she was able to. She believed that this will bring business to the City but it will also f~l some of the City's recreational needs. She support Option 2 of the staff report and preferred to specify the site for the park on Parcels 10A and 10B. Ms. Mohr agreed with the specified parcels for the park but pointed out that this matter had not been heard by the Park and Recreation Commission. Ms. Scribner agreed that the community park issue should not be attached to the approval of this project. The park should be labeled from the beginning as a "community park" not a sports park, etc. She acknowledged that there are very few places for the teenagers in this City to congregate. She, therefore, had her own ideas of having a community center. She preferred Option 1 of the staff report, but would support Option 2. Mr. Pico did not support this project. He felt that it was the wrong time to propose this type of project. He was concerned with the reallocation of the existing growth management and the current unbuilt units (backlog). He was also concerned with the design of the project. He stated that the streets in the single-family residential areas are too narrow. He would not compromise on the 36 foot minimum width street requirement. He suggested eliminating one row of houses and reducing the density of the project. Mr. Pico believed that the City should 10/12/93 9