CCMIN012505 - Laserfiche WebLink

3. Action Items Concerninq General Plan Update Process - Circulation Element Update - Alternative Process Mr. Brozosky said if one looks at the 1996 General Plan and looks at the changes from that to a new General Plan, one is looking at the year 2015 comparing a vision from 1996 versus a vision from today. It is hard to compare a vision that may not come true due to circumstances surrounding the city. He felt it was easier for people to visualize what exists today and move forward. If you take what exists and add what is approved for development, then it is possible to review changes to land use and circulation. He felt it was better to take what is built and approved and make that work before adding more residential development. Adding more housing will probably not improve traffic. It may be necessary to change some land uses in various parts of town. With regard to Ms. Maas' comment about the staff knowing what they are doing, he did not feel the average citizen had confidence in the govemment or trust that it would do the right thing. He was concerned about using Option A because it was making minute changes in something that is not working. He preferred to start at the macro level and work down. He believed it was easier for the community and the Council and Planning Commission to start with what is in existence and move forward. At the end of the process, he knew there would have to be a comparison with the 1996 General Plan. He supported Option B. Ms. McGovem indicated she was definitely in favor of Option B. It sets land use assumptions first. She believed traffic was generated by land use and it was backwards to plan street formations before it is known what will be built on the land next to the streets. Mr. Sullivan felt all this was splitting hairs. The process may start from different points, but very quickly will reach the same place. The criteria he uses in making the decision is to use the process most understandable to the public and most conducive for public participation. The other criteria is that the process meet the requirements of CEQA in every detail so the General Plan is legally solid in the future. Schedule is also an issue. At the last meeting, the process was expected to take a year and at this meeting there is talk it will take two years. Whether Option A or B is selected, he felt there must be a way to streamline the process. There could be a review of street widening, extensions, interchanges, etc. but he did not want to go through every single one independently. He felt once there is an understanding of how the network works; he felt the process could get to the macro level to study impacts. He said he could accept Option B if it was deemed easier for the public to participate. Mayor Hosterman originally was more interested in following Option A. However, staff has assured her that no matter which option is followed it would still be in compliance with CEQA guidelines. She has recently received a number of emails from people with concems about widening Vineyard Avenue. City Council Special Meeting 2 01/25/05