CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ apply to the Vineyard area. That is not different than what was done for the cross-hatched areas on the San Francisco Water Department property. He believed what the Mayor was alluding to on the San Francisco property (the fact that about 2200 units were established), was not because the cross-hatchings were there, but in order to do the consistency requirement in terms of showing that traffic circulation, park acreages, etc. meet a particular overall conformity requirement, staff had to pick a number of units for purposes of developing the circulation element and other policies in the general plan. The numbers of units being talked about in the Vineyard Corridor are so small that they won't make a big difference no matter what staff would do. If your intention is to show it as a Specific Plan area with some level of residential development, the staff will pick a number of units in order to develop the circulation element and levels of service at various intersections, but that does not say those units will be permitted. It is just a number for purposes of establishing consistency with the General Plan. The Specific Plan says that the intensities of what happens within the Specific Plan boundaries are determined when the Specific Plan is developed. That is what he thought Mr. Tarver's motion had been. Mr. Tarver agreed, but it has not been interpreted that way. He made a comment about 127 units being too low and 480 units being to high. He tried to make the point that putting 480 units on the flat land and what that would look like and it was not going to be good. The principles on the Corridor that have been laid out as guidelines will probably lead us closer to 127 units than anywhere near 480. He wanted to take the Specific Plan, put the amount of acres for schools, parks, residential, low density, medium density, etc. and then develop a Specific Plan. It is a tradeoff and compromise, but it starts with the expectations of what will happen and build up, rather than starting with the largest number of units and trying to reduce them. Ms. Michelotti did not think Council was starting with any number of units. Mr. Swift believed the prior motion indicated there was no designated intensity whatever. What the Mayor is saying tonight is that the acreage remain the same as recommended by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee did not recommend a school in the area or any open space, so some of the recommendations for potential uses for this site would not be there. Staff can calculate the number of acres for medium density residential, low density residential, etc. Those were designated for particular properlies in the Steering Committee recommendations. If the recommendation is to use that same intensity throughout the corridor that is one direction, but that is not what the prior motion was last week. That motion will get about 127 as the midpoint, but could go a little higher. That is the intensity of the land use recommended by the Steering Committee. Ms. Michelotti had hoped that with the prior motion we would develop a Specific Plan and in the process look at individual parcels as you proceed down the corridor to see what makes the most sense as far as units and to keep in mind the kind of look that is desired. In the process, she wanted to encourage some of the other uses to be developed in the Corridor and to come up with a Specific Plan for the entire area. Basically, that was done in another Specific Plan, which came up with 750 units to support all the infrastructure. She wanted to see other alternatives developed with and without infrastructure costs, resulting in fewer units. 07/09/96 -40-