CCMIN050107 - Laserfiche WebLink

put it on the ballot will continue to keep it on the California ballot until he gets it passed. If it passes, it will severely restrict City and Council abilities to make land use decisions and severely restrict their ability to predict traffic issues. So, he felt this flexibility must be built into the General Plan. He also noted there was a project called Oak Grove currently in front of the Planning Commission, it started out as a project of 90 homes, some council members decided they would like some open space in the development and the community is not all in favor of the project, so they got the community, the neighborhood and developers together to come up with a solution and this was able to be done. But, the solution called for 50+ homes. If proposition 90 had passed, it states that the taxpayer would have paid the difference between the 50 and 90 homes, and no councilmember would then make land use decisions that would cost citizens millions of dollars, so flexibility is crucial in the General Plan. Another example is ABAG and their numbers. He felt the plan should list out concerns, such as 580, Dublin Boulevard, other streets in their neighbors’ backyards, and this should be put forth as the Council’s policy statement and hopefully we will get close to a consensus using that type of approach. Regarding land use, he preferred the Consensus Plan; however, he felt the General Plan must be flexible and would strongly encourage the Council not to use any specific projects. He wanted the flexibility to look at other projects, like the land on Stanley Boulevard that could become affordable homes. He does not think they specifically looked at having some residences on the water district property downtown which might be covered under the 100 allotted to the downtown area, but he really wanted a lot of flexibility in the General Plan from a land use perspective to be able to respond to some of the external pressures. Councilmember Sullivan said he appreciated both the Mayor and Vice Mayor’s remarks about a direction, and said he would like to re-visit the proposal he suggested last week as a direction the Council could take to get to the end. He was open to discussion and modification and wanted to discuss the full proposal to see where it goes. He thinks there are two goals the Council needs to address; to agree on a circulation plan and element for the General Plan that best meets our local transportation needs and fits and is part of the strategic goals that we have for the regional transportation network and that the region has. He thinks secondarily and not necessarily less important, that it addresses the concerns of all of our community stakeholders, mitigates the issues and impacts that any decision made will create and is foremost responsive and fully representative of this community as a whole. He believes simply an up or down vote on the Stoneridge Drive extension was not the answer and a compromised solution is needed. Councilmember Sullivan said he supported removing the extension from the General Plan for many years before he was on the Council and when he was on the Planning Commission, and this has been his position all along and it has made sense to him now and in the past. As a Councilmember and a representative of the people, it is difficult to move away from that hard position and look for a way to deal with the problem differently. He felt it was possible to create such a solution and hoped that other Councilmembers will see the value in such an approach and is looking to achieve some common ground. Councilmember Sullivan proposed retaining Stoneridge Drive extension in the General Plan, move forward with the EIR and finish up the General Plan as soon as possible. In City Council Minutes 18 May 1, 2007