CCMIN082708WS - Laserfiche WebLink

into the streetscape, wide sidewalks, transit, lighting, signage, linkages from transit station and presented existing examples of TOD development in various cities. Commissioner Fox confirmed with staff that out of discussions from workshops and outreach efforts done prior to 2004 and given flexibility for adding specific types of development, this influenced the mixed use land designation idea. City Manager Fialho also noted that after 2005, the Commission and Council spent time refining each of the elements. There continues to be a debate, however, as to what kinds of density should be present in the park and the City has studied this through the environmental review process. Commissioner Fox referred to mixed use versus transit-oriented development which requires development to be one-half mile from the BART station, and confirmed mixed use could be located almost in any kind of commercial area and not necessarily by a transit stop. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said the reference has been that transit is BART and confirmed with Mr. Iserson that transit also included busing, bicycles, walking, and in some cases streetcars or other transit modes and that all of these function well. Councilmember Sullivan asked the differences between the walkability and the environment of a mixed use development on the same site versus in the same area, noting some have felt the park is already a mixed use development, but it may be difficult to walk from an office use to a retail center when it is 3 miles away. Mr. Iserson said one traditional type of mix use is ground floor retail with residential above, as the idea is for convenience. Mr. Iserson continued in his presentation of examples of mixed use development, said park planning objectives, design guidelines and submitted plans could be reviewed through workshops and involve Hacienda representatives, staff, the Commissions and the public. Community Development Director Brian Dolan further compared the specific plan and PUD processes, stating the specific plan is an additional layer of process, stating it involves one to two years of community input.. The PUD process would encompass a parallel process; discuss park-wide issues at the same time as considering PUD application; and would take about one year to complete. Because residential projects are already designed, theoretically they could be modified during the process. Commissioner Fox questioned whether an additional elementary school would be needed. Mr. Dolan said staff has not anticipated the need for another school, and Mr. Iserson agreed this would need to be discussed in the forthcoming process. He said James Paxson has had initial discussions with the school district; however, if the need is cited, financing of a school would need to be addressed. City Manager Fialho noted staff was not making any value judgment on whether or not a school is necessary, discussions would need to take place and resolved through the expanded PUD modification process or specific plan process. Commissioner Fox referred to the use of "stakeholders" and questioned if existing property owners had been part of the process to date. Mr. Iserson said there has been some informal discussion but staff will ensure that residents from the community are included in the process. Commissioner Fox questioned in a specific plan process whether a subcommittee would be formed that includes all of the property owners, as compared to a PUD process which is driven CC/PC Joint Workshop Minutes 2 August 27, 2008