CCMIN110309 - Laserfiche WebLink

and residents and that, when it came to BART, it was felt that its position was best suited to the advisory group. He advised that if the Council proposes to appoint a union representative to the task force, it do the same with BART. Councilmember Thorne said there seem to be misconceptions that the City Council and Planning Commission will be relinquishing a certain amount of decision making ability through this process. Mr. Fialho confirmed and said that the policy makers are a part of this task force because they, in addition to staff, are most familiar with the new General Plan. He said that the recommendation that comes out of this task force will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and then ultimately to the City Council. Councilmember McGovern reiterated concern over the directive that the task force "will articulate a vision and goals statement for development of sites adjacent to the BART station and park as a whole." She said that this seems to indicate development over and above what is being contemplated here and is not in line with the development of safeguards for monitoring and protecting the City's growth and quality of life standards. She said that Hacienda Business Park has a currently approved capacity for roughly one million square feet more of commercial space, and that she cannot agree to the idea of the park as a whole until capacity has been addressed. Mr. Fialho explained that some of this planning process may have collateral impacts which have a broad effect on the entire park. He referred to page five of the staff report and cited some of these impacts as pedestrian access, traffic, and common amenities. He suggested that any concerns about this leaving the door open for other properties should be mitigated by the upcoming Housing Element update. He said that the discussion of those properties, new RHNA allocations, and where those units will go are all part of that equation and that the next two years should provide a clearer idea of where those rezonings will occur. Councilmember McGovern said this seems to be a prime example of the "cart before the horse" on several fronts. She said this is an issue of reciprocity and asked that it be made clear that the Council, in the scope of this work, is not looking to increase the capacity of the business park at this time. She asked what the vested rights of the three sites in question are. Mr. Dolan could not confirm exact build out numbers but referred her to the last meeting's discussion on FAR at those sites. He clarified the term "vested rights," noting that while the property owners have a right to build office space as opposed to residential, there is still an approval process that any development would have to pass. Councilmember McGovern suggested that a capacity similar to the square footage currently allowed for each site be considered. She said that the task force could certainly request additional square footage if it found it appropriate. She explained that this would give the public the assurance that the capacity is not increased while also acknowledging that the infrastructure in place was built with that capacity in mind. Councilmember Sullivan said there is a lot of prehistoric discussion on the rezoning of Hacienda to mixed -use, one of those concepts being the idea of no net impact increases. He said the three sites in question have existing development allocations and that any change to that land use plan should consider how that changes the impacts. He suggested that if those impacts are increased, a decrease in commercial space elsewhere in the park could be considered. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 21 November 3, 2009