CCMIN091713 - Laserfiche WebLink

need. She said she has noticed considerable land settlement issues within Hacienda and hoped there would be a focus on mitigating that with future development. Frank Brandes said that while the players have changed, the circumstances and discussion are not so different from when he served on the Council in the 1980s. He said it is imperative that Hacienda be completed in the way that was originally envisioned although acknowledged that changes in the economic climate have resulted in certain concessions by the Council to allow developments that he did not agree with. He said the completion of Hacienda is the most important step in securing Pleasanton's long term financial stability. He noted that the East Pleasanton Specific Plan has room for a similar type of development, but said that should not be considered until Hacienda is allowed to realize a full return on its investment. He also noted that as Councils change, so do decisions and those that are made today are likely to be changed in the future. He suggested that as a compromise, the Council could consider whether to exclude each project from the cap on an individual basis. Marty lnderbitzen said that if the sites rezoned in the Housing Element were located outside of Hacienda, they would not be having this discussion. To have such a discussion simply because they are is a somewhat opportunistic attempt to reduce Hacienda's commercial development potential in a way that was not contemplated when the Housing Element came forward. He stressed that the California Center project does not move forward unless the City makes it clear that residential development is exempt from the cap. He said it was always his understanding that a cap is really only an exercise in what the impacts of a development would be on the community, a question that was answered by the EIR's impact analysis. He asked the Council to support the staff recommendation. Councilmember Brown asked and Mr. Inderbitzen confirmed that California Center was given a choice on whether or not to rezone their site and that they considered it an improvement to their property to do so. Mayor Thorne again attempted to clarify his earlier comments, which he felt may have given the wrong impression. He explained that several years prior he predicted that the state's meddling in local land use decisions would eventually become a deterrant to job creation, which is exactly what he sees happening here. He said there is still a clear need for jobs, the Council has heard that Hacienda needs this square footage to remain competetive and they need to support the business park in creating the jobs that this community needs. Councilmember Pentin concurred and said they need to deal with today rather than allow what RHNA will do in 2023 to determinate what they do today. He said the Hacienda cap is very different from the housing cap voted on by the people. He said he had no issue with allowing Hacienda to retain its square footage and did not wish to impede their ability to remain competitive, particularly in light of how important the park is to the city. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said she one thing she has heard repeatedly from the development and business community is that they want certainty. The Council is now in this situation because it failed to provide that certainty when it had the opportunity. She said she put a lot of weight in the cost benefit analysis as the city's long-term financial security is extremely important to her. One factor in establishing that security is providing quality housing for all income levels, which Pleasanton falls short on. She said stressed the asset that Hacienda is to the entire community because it is paid for. She noted that both the EIR and SEIR assessed this level of development and found the resulting impacts to be acceptable. She also noted that the General Plan emphasizes transit oriented development, of which Hacienda is the city's only true example. She said that failing to make a decision tonight fosters a lack of clarity that may hinder development and land the city right back in legal trouble. She said this is not a zero sum game, but rather a community of complimentary projects and that she would not be in favor of reducing the square footage in Hacienda. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 12 September 17, 2013