AgdaPkt 2014-09-22 Closed and Joint with SA

Browse Search

Page 8 of 9 the planning pipeline. Furthermore, the City is only allowed to approve four (4) General Plan amendments per year and processing all requests may not be possible and would limit other City business. This may be the most suitable alternative, however, for upcoming or recently submitted projects that do not fit within the adjusted MAD allocation, but still wish to proceed with their application. 2. The second alternative would take this General Plan limitation into consideration. The City could only take forward the General Plan amendment (and do the associated environmental work) and require that each developer process their own DTPP amendment. While this is more desirable than Alternative 1, staff does not believe this is the best alternative, as it would delay DTPP implementation and would create a more lengthy process as well. 3. The third alternative would be to simply raise the maximum office development allocation, without adjusting the other development allocations. This would require further detailed environmental review. Staff does not recommend this alternative at this time, as this could be accomplished (if desired) during a Downtown Precise Plan, Phase 2 or by individual applications as noted above. Projects that Do Not Fit within Current or Adjusted MAD Allocations It is likely that not all projects currently in the planning “pipeline” will be able to fit under the adjusted MAD allocations. This will be studied during the environmental review period. If this proves to be the case, project applicants whose projects exceed the adjusted MAD allocations may still proceed with their projects. However, as described above, these projects will require individual General Plan and DTPP amendments, and must undergo separate environmental review. Long Term Strategy City staff will be bringing options for Downtown Precise Plan Phase 2. This would occur after the adjustments are made, most likely in early 2015. ALTERNATIVES Please see alternatives above for the Maximum Allowable Development “Reservation” process and the Maximum Allowable Development limitation modifications. FISCAL IMPACT It is expected the environmental work associated with adjustments to the Maximum Allowable Development allocations described above would cost approximately $60,000. A significant amount of staff work is also involved in implementing and modifying the DTPP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Downtown Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report was adopted by the City Council in 2011. Any modifications made to the adopted DTPP will be completed in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This action to direct staff to further study potential Downtown Precise Plan modification is not considered a 9.C. - Page 8