01a - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Thorne asked staff to look into the issue of the traffic light at Kottinger and Bernal, feeling it would not be very beneficial at that location. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the traffic light and confirmed with the City Manager Fialho that the light was part of the City's long-term circulation plan for traffic lights in the City, but as part of the project, it was up to the discretion of the City as to when the signal would need to be installed. Mr. Fialho said neighbors wanted to create a metering effect for Hearst at Bernal and by changing the timing at Independence and installing the signal at this location the metering effect is created. He felt that with the reduction of 98 to 51 units, a wait and see position would occur and monies could be drawn from if and when the work was actually needed. Councilmember Thorne questioned whether staff looked at putting a stop sign at Hearst and Bernal rather than a signal. Mr. Iserson said the traffic analysis indicated that a signal would be the mitigation measure; however, a stop sign might be an interim measure and this information could also be brought forward. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the visual simulations and confirmed the City, and not the developer, selects consultants to prepare the EIR. He also confirmed that when the specific house plans and grading come forward, they would be visually simulated. Regarding the new condition for the high visibility lots, Councilmember Sullivan noted lots 29-33 were the five closest to the Grey Eagle neighborhood. He confirmed two lots had been reduced down to 9,100 square feet and the remaining lots were approximately 8,000 square foot range, which he felt could be considered an additional mitigation. Councilmember Sullivan referred to development agreements, questioned when it was advantageous for the City to use such agreements and asked what sorts of conditions existed in the agreement. Mr. Roush said normally when a developer proposes such an agreement, staff tries to determine items that would be in the City's interest that it could otherwise not receive through its regular powers, and opined that the $1 million in traffic fees, the dedication of nearly 500 acres of open space and other items were certainly things the City could not have received through normal conditions of approval. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the project being able to be referendable and confirmed that the 30 days after the second reading was per current State law. Councilmember McGovern asked that the number of houses that are 9,000 to 12,500 square feet be identified and brought back as well as identification of the developments immediately adjacent to the proposed development. She also asked to return with options of what the Council can do if the EIR is approved and whether or not the Council could decide not to look at the PUD and development agreement and have those sent back to the Planning Commission for review. Mayor Hosterman asked staff to return with more information about traffic mitigation on Hearst itself to address neighborhood issues. She noted the item would be continued to October 2, 2007. City Council Minutes 19 September 4, 2007