11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

unaware of any pending efforts to initiate or consider applications for new or increased assessments covering the project site, or any portion thereof, except for the GHAD." She believed there could be an assessment or a fee. She believed the City's comment should be included in the development agreement at minimum. Chairperson Fox requested an example of some language for the modifications. Ms. Roberts replied that if page 55 of the staff report were to be included in the development agreement, that might solve that issue. She would like to remove any mention of the GHAD as holding the conservation easement. Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle, wished to discuss the grazing issue and the plans for grazing which were discussed in detail in the staff report. She urged the Planning Commission to discuss grazing and noted that the open space area would have a management plan that she believed should integrate the way that grazing will be used in the plan. She believed the fire control issues should also be considered and detailed very specifically. She believed the Park District would be happy to provide resources to the City to do a detailed grazing plan as well as the Resource Conservation District. She encouraged the City to identify the goals in terms of the open space, including species protection, as well as habitat enhancement and maintenance. She had believed that the Tri-Valley Conservancy or similar organization should take control of the easement and did not believe that would be an issue. Robert Coutches, 1044 Hearst Drive, noted that the major issues for Kottinger Ranch residents were views and traffic. He suggested eliminating and moving Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 farther back into the property. He noted that the people at the top of Hearst Drive would be most affected by these first four lots and that their view towards Mt. Diablo would be significantly impacted. He expressed concern about the traffic and noted that there were many similar concerns expressed during the meetings. He noted that traffic on Hearst Drive often moved at a high rate of speed, which he believed was very unsafe. He noted that a speed metering device had been placed in front of his house but believed it was placed too close to the stop sign. He would like to hear further information about the traffic roundabouts. He would like an island or a sidewalk to be installed on the other side of Hearst Drive and suggested that it be narrowed and planted with more street trees. Mr. Pavan noted that Hearst Drive is a public street and, therefore, must meet the minimum width of 28 feet curb to curb; that allowed for two travel lanes and one parking lane. With respect to traffic impacts on the existing section of Hearst Drive, the applicant would be required to pay $1 million to the City upon recordation of the first Final Map to go towards traffic changes, improvements, and mitigation measures. This would include traffic-calming measures on the existing portion of Hearst Drive, worked out in conjunction with the City's traffic engineer, Mike Tassano, as well as representatives of the Kottinger Ranch HOA. He noted that the speaker was correct that it was not addressed in detail but was addressed via condition of approval, which specifically called out traffic calming on the existing Hearst Drive. Ms. Decker wished to clarify the ownership of the open space lands and noted that the development agreement Section 3.04 stated that the developer was to dedicate to the City, or to a EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 17 of 19