24 - Laserfiche WebLink

In recognition of this preemption, at its April public meetings the Council discussed alternative growth management measures that it intends to pursue as part of or in conjunction with the Housing Element process. For example, the Council could utilize the Housing Element process to amend its current growth management ordinance to specifically reference City -wide standards for services and infrastructure such as intersection level of service, sewer capacity and water supply, and acres of parkland per 1,000 in population. (The current growth management ordinance provides for the City Council to use the information related to services and infrastructure included in the periodic Growth Management Report to evaluate the capacity to serve additional growth.) Another approach would be to develop a growth management program that would align future growth with the major themes of the General Plan. For example, if sustainability were a priority objective, measures could be developed that would score projects based on energy and water use, potential vehicle miles traveled, Green Building score, or estimated greenhouse gas emissions, and so on, and could require development to attain a minimum score to advance in the development process. Regardless of the final outcome, it is anticipated that amending the General Plan to remove the housing cap will result in the implementation of new growth management measures that are consistent with State law, the settlement agreement, the Council's long range planning goals, and the City's emphasis on protecting and enhancing the community's quality of life. It should also be noted that the General Plan Land Use Element, Policy 24 incorporates language established by Measures PP and QQ that further defines housing units to be counted against the Housing Cap and this language will be removed and part of the amendment process. However, Measure PP and QQ language regarding limitations to hillside development, as currently incorporated in the General Plan will not be amended. Hacienda Rezonings The Court determined that the rezoning of three sites in Hacienda Business Park (including BRE, WP Carey and Roche) as set forth in Ordinance 1998 do not satisfy Program 19.1 of the current Housing Element or State law because they do not actually allow development to occur until after completion of the Hacienda PUD amendment process. As a result, the Court ruled that "land zoning and land -use changes need to be implemented such that they are without condition or need of future discretionary approval." As outlined in the attached April 20 agenda report, the rezonings are necessary to address the 1999 -2007 Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) which sets forth the City's obligation to plan for additional housing units as determined by the State. Notwithstanding the Court order, the City Council determined that retaining its land use control over the Hacienda rezonings and development process, including retention of a having an important effect role for the Hacienda Task Force, was critical to reaching a settlement agreement. In view of this goal, the Tentative Agreement establishes a City directed process for the Hacienda development that includes three broad areas: core development standards, a public process for establishing additional development standards and design guidelines and project approval. Page 5 of 9