CCMIN110309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman requested legal advice on the Council's ability to preclude property owners from developing their sites until this task force has had at least one years' time to consider its recommendations to the Council. City Attorney Michael Roush stated that even a moratorium would not prevent a property owner from submitting an application which the City must then process. He explained that the intent of the rezoning ordinance was to send a message that the City Council is interested in seeing the PUD modification process completed before any specific application for those parcels is submitted. The language surrounding the good cause clause was added to that ordinance in an open fashion to allow both the property owner and the Council discretion as to what would constitute that. Councilmember Sullivan read from page two of the staff report and asked if the following language could be added as a guiding principle: "It is intended that the development proposals for these sites will be consistent with design, density, and use guidance provided by the PUD modification process. Thus, it is expected that the approval of future development plans for these 3 sites would be deferred until the completion of the PUD task force process." Mr. Fialho directed him to page five of the staff report, noting that one of the guiding principles states that development on individual sites would be deferred until completion of the major PUD modification process. Councilmember Sullivan said that guideline met with his intent. He was concerned that 12 months is an artificial deadline and sets the process up for failure. He noted that the Las Positas committee took three years to develop a good end result and he would prefer a goal of 12 to 18 months. Mayor Hosterman noted that the goal is not a mandatory deadline and argued that 18 months is just as arbitrary as 12 months. Councilmember Sullivan said he would prefer an arbitrary goal of 18 months. Regarding the existing encumbrances to residential property owners, he was not clear on the situation until recently and cannot understand the idea that they are paying the same encumbrances, without voting rights, as multi million or billion dollar real estate trusts. He agreed that whatever comes out of this process should not result in additional financial responsibilities to homeowners and also said that, as a part of the contractual arrangement, he would like to see the City revisit that agreement. He agreed with Ms. Dennis that an education process is necessary at the outset of the task force process, although he didn't necessarily feel it should include RHNA. Councilmember Thorne said he agreed with fellow Councilmembers concerning the financial impacts to residential homeowners. He also stressed the need to ensure that any TOD project is financially viable. He concurred that apartment community representatives should be tenants, and chosen by tenants. He supported the inclusion of dissenting opinions, stating that those opinions have driven the ultimate decision of several task forces he has served on. He acknowledged that BART is a commercial stakeholder in this process but said that, as one of many parties who will be impacted, it can give its input from the advisory committee. He expressed the same opinion of trade unions. He concurred with Councilmember Sullivan that Stoneridge and Valley Drive neighborhoods as well as Las Positas College should be invited to the advisory committee and noted that virtually any citizen is free to participate. He cautioned against broadening the scope of the task force to such an extent that it carries on forever and City Council Minutes Page 11 of 21 November 3, 2009