01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Brown said the record is clear that Hacienda has been extremely good for Pleasanton. She said there is a clear cause and effect with respect to jobs and housing and that an increase in the former will most likely mean an increase in RHNA. Given that, it is a mistake to make the kind of change requested by staff without thoroughly vetting the potential impacts. She said she is not comfortable with the staff report as presented, which makes no mention of the issue. Based on her own research and using the commercial real estate standard of 176 square feet per employee, 900,000 square feet of additional commercial space equals another 5,100 jobs at build out. Using the City's accepted ratio, this represents another 3,400 residential units which is roughly twice what is currently being considered in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. She said she is not comfortable approving this without having a strategy to take on this additional housing, but that she could support the exemption for the California Center site. She also said she could support bringing projects forward for consideration on an individual basis. Councilmember Narum agreed that Hacienda has been very good for Pleasanton in terms of generating revenue and said it is very important to her that the park be allowed to remain competetive. She said she looked at this as allowing for additonal housing rather than increasing the total square footage of the park. She stressed that the EIR and SEIR deems all associated impacts to be within acceptable levels. She shared Mr. Miller's concerns over schools, though did not have a solution. She said she could support the staff recommendation, provided the extemption applies only to what exists or has been rezoned and not to future housing. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said it suggested to her that in giving Hacienda the ability to provide residential development, the park is somehow using up some of its allotment. She said this begs the question of who owns the property and noted that with numerous owners within the park, it is not fair to punish those who did not wish to rezone simply because others did. MOTION: It was m/s by Cook-Kallio/Pentin introduce an ordinance approving a Major Modification to PUD-81-30 and PUD-85-08, as recommended by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, Narum, Pentin, Mayor Thorne Noes: Councilmember Brown Absent: None BREAK: Mayor Thorne called a bried recess at 9 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:07 p.m. with all member present. 13. Public Hearing: P13-2012, City of Pleasanton — Introduction of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 17.38 (Density Bonus) to comply with State Density Bonus Law Planning Manager Stern presented the staff report, stating that the proposed text amendment follows state law and establishes regulations and procedures that allow for an increase in density above that which would typically be allowed by the General Plan or zoning, reduces development standards, and allows concessions for housing developments that provide certain proportions of affordable or senior housing units. The amendment is consistent with Program 9.6 of the Housing Element, which states that the city would adopt a density bonus ordinance consistent with state law. State code related to density bonuses calls for all cities and counties to adopt an ordinance specifying how compliance with the state law will be implemented and that even if such an ordinance is not adopted, compliance with the law is still required. Adoption of the proposed ordinance, together with other actions to implement the Housing Element, will allow the city to request a streamlined review of the next Housing Element. The streamlined review City Council Minutes Page 10 of 12 September 17, 2013