CCMIN050107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Stern summarized by stating they were asking for direction in terms of the Preferred Circulation Network and Preferred Land Use Plan and they would be using this in terms of developing the rest of the General Plan document and the Draft EIR document. Councilmember Sullivan questioned whether it mattered which option was chosen, given the fact that the model indicates little difference between the land use options. He said he was particularly interested in the transit-oriented development project proposed by Hacienda and asked if options could be left open throughout the rest of the General Plan process. Mr. Fialho said staff could structure language within the Land Use Element or within the Housing Element to accomplish this, within the context of the housing cap. He felt areas of the Business Park could be zoned Mixed Use, other areas could be receiver sites for density allocated under the current housing cap, and more residential might also be accommodated above the housing cap within the General Plan. Councilmember Sullivan requested that the City ensure the ability for people to be able to do an initiative or referendum of the Council’s decision, wanted the community to be aware of their options, and that as the General Plan is finalized, the City is not creating onerous hurdles. Michael Roush, City Attorney, referred to the example the Council adopted in 1996 with respect to the West Los Positas Interchange. In this situation, if at some point a decision was made by the Council to approve the funding and construction of the interchange project, there could be a one-year hiatus period during which time opponents would have the opportunity to circulate an Initiative. The alternative would be that there could be discrete portions of a General Plan update that would reference the Stoneridge Drive extension if a referendum or initiative were pursued. Councilmember Sullivan questioned what options there were for Council if it wanted to put part of the General Plan on the ballot. Mr. Roush explained that the Council could adopt the policy and then ask the voters if they agree with that decision, or alternatively send the question to the voters and ask them to make the decision. Councilmember Thorne questioned flexibility regarding the land use element, said there were other sites within the city that could be used for various types of housing. If the Council decided it wanted to use that rather than something in one of the scenarios, could it do that and could the Council structure the general plan to include those as well as the transit oriented development? Mr. Fialho said anytime density is reduced in one area you can apply the savings to another part of town. Councilmember Thorne confirmed with Mr. Fialho that if the Council decided not to do one of these projects. It could use something else in place of it, so long as the property is zoned Residential. If it was not zoned Residential, the City would need to pursue a General Plan Amendment. Councilmember McGovern said, in looking at the three different plans, they allocate housing on specific areas and she questioned if it legally became binding or not to develop 350 units, i.e., at the West BART station. Ms. Stern said this did not have to do with the acceptance of the project but more a recognition that a project could be approved up to that number of units. City Council Minutes 7 May 1, 2007