CCMIN082112 - Laserfiche WebLink

they support OneBayArea and the flawed process that accompanies it and what they will do as elected officials to fight regional collectivists. Karla Brown thanked Councilmember McGovern and Mayor Hosterman for their work on the settlement agreement. She asked that the Council consider placing a cap or strong encouragement to stop the development of 5-story buildings in Pleasanton. With regard to Site 8, she noted that there is potential for an additional 10,000 square feet of commercial space and asked that any mention of 420 residential units on this site be eliminated. She referred to page 13 of the staff report, which lists bars as a conditional use, and said she would not like to see them as part of a mixed-use development. Vice-Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. Councilmember McGovern said she remained concerned about the maximum number of potential units under the SEIR. She said that at these numbers there is the potential for 3,000 units, which is not at all what she was expecting and considerably more than is needed to satisfy RHNA. She said she also has strong concerns about the open space requirements, particularly as the City has never rezoned this much land for multi-family development and she believes the amount of open space needed here is much different from high-density housing. At the last meeting she learned that the General Plan requires 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. She said she would like to take a close look at the requirements in the General Plan as well as this proposal in order to ensure that children are provided with appropriate play areas and that livability standards are met. Councilmember Sullivan requested an analysis of the number of residents that could be expected in a 5-acre development and how that compares to the General Plan's open space standard. Mr. Dolan explained that they are mixing concepts. The General Plan's standards for parks and open space require that there be "x" number of acres of open space per 1,000 people. That is different from analyzing the needs of a particular development project. He said that most of these sites rated well in the rezoning because of their proximity to parks. He said there was never any dialogue about making open spaces more of an obligation than on previous developments so staff kept the standards in line with existing ordinances. He noted that they also added language to ensure that there are spaces with the proper dimensional area to accommodate some play and that, based on the language that references quality of life and livability of the community, open space will be part of the initial conversation with any development applicants. He further explained that the building types that are viable at 30 units per acre take up much more land than high-density developments, making it difficult to plan for large uninterrupted areas of open space. Councilmember McGovern said that there are numerous open space concessions in the guidelines, all of which erode what is available for children. She referred to the open space development standards, which call for an area of 1,600 square feet at minimum for developments of 101 or more units and said she did not believe this to be sufficient. She asked again that the Council and staff take a hard look at the amount of space needed to support the needs of families and their children. With respect to the 65 foot, 5-story maximum height, she said she wanted to analyze this in the context of each individual site. She referred again to the Planning Commission minutes and comments regarding limiting the Nearon site to 3 stories for consistency with adjacent developments. Mr. Dolan confirmed that the development across from the Nearon site is 2 or 2.5 stories. He said the dialogue has been more that sites such as this would be developed with multiple building types, perhaps a 2-story building on the frontage and a 4-story building to the rear of the site in order to meet the required density. He noted that there are 4-story office buildings in the surrounding area and estimated that little of the development at the rear of the site would be grossly visible from adjacent development. City Council Minutes Page 15 of 19 August 21, 2012