CCMIN012682 - Laserfiche WebLink

221 Mr. Hirst stated the project meets the standards of the General Plan relative to density; that traffic will not be significantly increased - this project will generate less traffic than a single-family development; possible public transporta- tion stops could be created at this location; noise should not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood; does not anticipate a great number of children in the project; there is on-site provision for playgrounds and open space and a common area recreational facility provided. Mr. Hirst stated he feels the points raised are legitimate but feels the Environmental Impact Report adequately deals with them. Mr. Ash asked if the $400,000 park dedication fees would go to this sector of the Vintage Hills area. Mayor Mercer advised these funds would not necessarily be allo- cated to the area of Vintage Hills. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. Mayor Mercer advised that some of the fees listed on the sheet presented by Mr. Parrish are not City fees, such as Zone 7 and DSRSD, and that these fees would have to be paid at the time of obtaining the permits, and that the City fees are cost- related items that should be reimbursed. Councilmember Butler stated there are a few concerns that the Environmental Im- pact Report does not address but he felt these could be addressed later, and they are not significant. It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that Resolution No. 82-27, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines, and as outlined in the letter of Mr. James A. Griffen, 3036 Chardonnay Drive, and that a negative declaration is appropriate for prezoning and development plan approval for a 250 dwelling unit project on an approxi- mately 29 acre site located on the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Sauterne Way, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Kephart Councilmember Butler stated he felt this project is an innovative idea and an unusual approach to lower cost housing and a different way of achieving this type of housing. He stated it should be kept in mind that this development should be compared with mobile homes rather than condominiums. He stated he felt it is a high quality pro~ect of good design but had problems with the lack of parking spaces in regard to each unit, and the responsibility that is being placed on the home- owners association. He added that if this project were being proposed as an adult community he would not have any concerns. Councilmember Mohr stated her concerns regarding the quality and wearability of the units had been satisfied, that the density corresponds to condominiums, and it provides the opportunity for ownership which should be available to people. She stated she felt to have a clubroom for the homeowners association seems an unwarranted expense. She stated the question of parking is a valid one, and she was concerned that there is no public transportation to the area. 7. 1/25/82