CCMIN062904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Ayah asked about the parallel tracks. The timeline listed in the staff report takes the City to December 2005 for adoption of the General Plan. The parallel track could be running along until this time. Different criteria were given to eliminate projects that the Council probably should not look at and the staff report gave various criteria. She asked if there were any projects left that could follow the parallel track and meet all of the criteria listed in the staff report. Mr. Swift said the two identified in the staff report as potentially viable are the Vintage Hills Shopping Center site change that was supported by both the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission for potential review. The traffic generated from this is far less than the shopping center that is already there and that the model assumes is going to be full. That kind of beneficial traffic impact would absolutely take place. That project could be done without having it stumble against a General Plan policy that would make it have to walt until the full General Plan Update is completed. Staff notes that that project does have neighborhood issues and Council may not want to move forward on it until the full General Plan is completed. That is the position of the Planning Commission but not the Housing Commission. The other site that from a purely traffic standpoint that potentially could work within the existing policies is the South Bay Bernal Property site because it is located in an area where it has access to schools in the morning along new streets where they do not have impacted intersections. Switching that site from office to residential is very beneficial in terms of the level of service at Valley and Bernal Avenues and the freeway off ramps simply because it switches the traffic from in bound to out bound and does not conflict with the Bernal Corporate Center traffic that is coming from the freeway to go to that Center. This is an example of a site where Council potentially could process a General Plan amendment and make it consistent with the existing General Plan policies. That site does not receive the support of either the Housing Commission, which took no action on it pending being told what was going to happen with the housing cap, and the Planning Commission, which did not support that site for land use and reasons that related to the Bemal Property Initiative. Councilmember Brozosky asked how many houses are yet to be built before the City reaches the housing cap. Mr. Swift said that if all of the existing designated sites build at the mid-point, the City has approximately 1700 units that the City could add onto newly designated property. Councilmember Brozosky asked how many units could be added to this number. Mr. Swift said it would all depend on density. Many of the sites would be assumed to be at the higher density of 25 to 40 units per acre, especially if a mixed use is being considered around the BART station. Any of the transit oriented developments need to have that type of density in terms of a land use standpoint. There is a need for certain types of housing, whether it is senior housing or affordable housing, any type of worker affordable housing. The City has not built a high-density residential project since Greenbriar's last apartments were developed. Townhouses could be put on a certain type of land. Any development with 8 units or greater per acre is high density residential Minutes of the 3 06.29.04 Joint Workshop City Council & Planning Commission