CCMIN061813 - Laserfiche WebLink

• The next two RHNA cycle requirements should be dispersed throughout the City in a balanced way; • She would like, as is consistent with past practice, to see density greater at the center and feathered out to the edges of the plan area; She said she found 6 to be too many alternatives, especially accounting for all the variables. She said she preferred the unit and density mixture in Alternative 1 but said she could also consider Alternative 4, which also has a 1:1 ratio of single to multi-family units. She said would like any alternative that moves forward to give greater consideration to the Urban Growth Boundary, locate the school site on the west side and minimize the total number of units while still respecting balance throughout the city. Councilmember Narum responded to the questions posed by staff as follows: • She agreed with fellow Council regarding the cost of infrastructure and support for the extension of El Charro Road, without phasing; • She supported consideration of development beyond the Urban Growth Boundary but felt any decision on the need for a vote of the public to be premature; • Having gone full circle on the matter, she was inclined to leave the OSC at its current location with some aesthetic enhancements. Relocation of PGS warranted more discussion; • A school site, preferably west of El Charro and in conjunction with a public park, should be included; • Busch Road and Boulder Street should connect through to El Charro; • RHNA accommodations should be dispersed throughout the city, with no more than 50% of the City's total inventory located on the east side; • Curvilinear streets sound nice but any decision is likely premature; • Single versus multi-family unit mixture should not exceed 50% on the multi-family side; • Lacking a central point, development should be evenly dispersed throughout the plan area; With regards to density, she noted the 300 unit development at the corner of Bernal and Stanley which, while not specifically in the EPSP area, does have an impact. She said she would eliminate Alternatives 2 and 3 and, while certainly not advocating for it, Alternative 6 should be included as a project alternative to balance the "no project" alternative. She referred to several emails received that day that proposed the plan area accommodate 30% of upcoming RHNA allocations, with 60% single-family/40% multi-family ratio and a total of 1,500 units and said she would like to see this evaluated further. Mayor Thorne responded to the questions posed by staff as follows: • He agreed with fellow Council regarding the cost of infrastructure and support for the extension of El Charro Road, without phasing; • He agreed that any decision regarding the Urban Growth Boundary would be premature at this time and stressed that he had no intentions of ignoring the provisions of Measure FF; • He also agreed that the OSC would be cost prohibitive to move but did feel it required certain mitigations to remain in a residential location; • A public school site must be considered, though he expressed concern about the district's ability to finance it; • He supported the extension of Busch Road and Boulder Street as well as any circulation efforts that alleviate the traffic generated by new development on this side of town; • He agreed that the plan area should not be overburdened with the majority of RHNA accommodation. He asked staff to divide the community into four quadrants, assess the existing balance and future opportunities throughout town; • It is too early to comment on curvilinear street design; • Single and multi-family units should be evenly mixed; • Density should be feathered outward With regards to alternatives, he questioned the viability of 1 and 2 in terms of supporting infrastructure. He felt 4, 5 and 6 were perhaps the most viable, with 6 being included as a worst case scenario for the City Council Minutes Page 12 of 13 June 18, 2013