CCMIN121614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Force has discussed that Cope Lake would not be suitable for something along the lines of how Shadow Cliffs Lake is used. Mr. Dolan explained that most of the recreation discussion surrounding Cope Lake has been more general and passive in terms of trails and hiking opportunities, not as swimming, boating or canoeing use. However, if the approved Plan does have a park component in that area then the city will have to work with Zone 7 to determine exactly what uses would be appropriate. Vice-Mayor Pentin said he believed that Zone 7 has always taken the approach that any recreational use is secondary to that of water needs and that they generally consider trails to serve more as roadway access for maintenance needs as opposed to bicycle or pedestrian paths. Mr. Dolan confirmed that Zone 7 is committed to its mission as the primary priority. However, Zone 7 has been cooperative in terms of exploring other possibilities over the year and indicated that they may be open to other uses provided they do not interrupt operations or result in any cost to them. Vice-Mayor Pentin noted that the language of Measure FF, under section 2(b), acknowledges that the General Plan stipulates that the Urban Growth Boundary may be reevaluated at such times as comprehensive land use changes are considered for the reclaimed quarry lands along the eastern edge of the boundary. He asked any Mr. Dolan confirmed that this is something that has been contemplated for 20 years and that the issue is really a matter of what the determination of what a "minor" change is. Councilmember Narum asked if the Base Plan or alternatives provide the flexibility for at least one higher-density residential project in the event that the next RHNA planning period were to illustrate that need. Mr. Dolan explained that none of the plans aside from the 1,400-unit option contain any multi-family and so adopting something similar to the Base Plan or any of the currently proposed alternatives would require additional environmental analysis and a plan amendment. He noted that the next planning cycle is almost 8 years away and likely far enough down the road as to warrant some revisiting of CEQA and another public hearing process in order to incorporate high-density development, even if the 1,400-unit option were retained. Councilmember Narum asked and confirmed that that dialogue would generally be a part of a citywide effort to identify where and how to locate any development needed to accommodate future RHNA numbers. Councilmember Narum referred to page 36 of the Draft Preliminary Plan where it states that the density may not exceed 4 units per acre in residential areas that buffer existing neighborhoods. She then pointed out that Figure 5.1 appears to place a 5 unit per acre development up against the Ironwood neighborhood and asked staff to explain this conflict. Mr. Dolan explained that the full text of page 36 also discusses flexibility in housing density and that moving towards a single-family only based plan required that the lowest density exercise this flexibility in some areas. Specifically, the language requires only that the edge next to the existing development not exceed 4 units per acre in order to provide an appropriate transition into higher densities. Councilmember Narum expressed concern that this is not particularly clear and could result in issues similar to those encountered with the development "blobs" in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan. Mr. Dolan said staff would work to clarify the language, particularly the meaning of "located near existing." City Council Minutes Page 7 of 18 Dec 16,2014