01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember McGovern felt strongly that in order to support the concept of consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, height and story maximums should be clearly defined. She said she felt that standards and guidelines for the Bart site were premature. She said that Bart is an intense development that she feels far exceed her idea of Hacienda's capacity and that she felt the guidelines should remain consistent with those for other sites until they are ready to move forward with a funded project. She noted that Hacienda has a maximum allowable square footage and asked how what is proposed here, added to what has already been approved, fits within this limit. Mr. Dolan said it is more complicated than a yes or no answer but that he is certain it would fall within the limits set. He explained that the proposed development sites would generate significantly fewer vehicle trips than the previously considered commercial development style. He said that Bart was in fact taken out of this dialogue in order to allow for a more in depth conversation about the development potential and capacity but at this point, the City has obligated itself through the Housing Elements to do these sites. Councilmember Sullivan asked if, through the SEIR, they have determined that the number of vehicle trips based on the development types proposed here does not exceed what was previously identified for Hacienda. Mr. Dolan said that this level of development does not. He also explained that while the SEIR does not talk about Hacienda's artificial limit, it does discuss the capacity of the transportation systems within that. Councilmember Sullivan requested that staff prepare a table comparing vehicle trips from the previous Hacienda PUDs with those that would result from what is proposed here. Mr. Dolan said yes, this is the type of information staff hoped to present when discussing the overall capacity of Hacienda. Councilmember McGovern said she was bothered to learn that after years of discussing Hacienda's capacity in terms of square footage, they were now basing it on vehicle trips. Councilmember Sullivan explained that the square footage was always based on vehicle trips. He said he submitted the majority of his comments to staff and shared their response with the Council and public. When he questioned whether traffic studies would be required for individual projects that come forward, staff said that additional CEQA analysis, including traffic studies, would be conducted if needed. He asked if the traffic study contained within the SEIR would then be sufficient to cover certain projects. Mr. Dolan confirmed and said that in most cases, a project that is consistent with these standards and guidelines will fall within the envelope analyzed by the SEIR and be eligible for the mitigations identified. Councilmember Sullivan asked that staff present that analysis and the impacts identified at the time that projects come forward. He said he understood why some wished to see the paragraph regarding flexibility in the Vision Statement but that he would like to see it moved towards the end so that the focus is on the guidelines rather than how to get around them. Mr. Dolan said staff would include that as part of their recommendation. Councilmember Sullivan said he heard and agreed with Councilmember McGovern's interpretation of Table 2.1. He recommended eliminating the final two columns, changing the column that currently says "Acreage/Minimum Residential Density" to "Density Range," and identifying a 5-unit range over the minimum where permissible. He said while the standards and guidelines are still not perfect and he City Council Minutes Page 16 of 19 August 21, 2012