01 - Laserfiche WebLink

• MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Pentin to approve Consent Calendar, as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Brown, Cook-Kallio, Narum, Pentin, Mayor Thorne NOES: None ABSENT: None MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 16. Public Comment Mayor Thome acknowledged those wishing to speak to the Council regarding zoning issues and asked to make several comments. He reminded the public that in 2006, the California Attorney General's office and several advocacy groups sued the city of Pleasanton. While most recall that the suit claimed, and the courts upheld, that the city's housing cap was discriminatory, the plaintiffs also argued that cities like Pleasanton should be limited in their ability to regulate housing and therefore should not have the freedom to limit the size, massing or quality of construction. While the courts were clear in overturning the housing cap and requiring the city to rezone and essentially entitle development on nearly 70 acres of property, the other issue was less clear and the city was left to negotiate a solution with the plaintiffs. Remarkably, through this process the city was ultimately able to craft a set of development standards that turned out to be the most stringent in the state. He acknowledged that the latest Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were considerably lower than expected, which is ultimately a great thing and provides the city with several options going forward. One would be to the let the Housing Element and related zoning stand as is, relying on Growth Management. He reminded the public that the existing Growth Management Ordinance is inextricably tied to RHNA, in that the city cannot release building permits in excess of the allocation for the current RHNA cycle. Other options would include the elimination of certain contentious sites or even all sites not required to meet the current RHNA cycle. He noted that the latter options are not without risk. If, during its review, the state were to find the potential for housing insufficient it could reinstitute a scenario where the city loses the ability to apply those standards that it worked so hard to create. He encouraged the community to consider what level of jeopardy it is comfortable with and reminded them that at the end of the day, growth management results in the same number of potential units as any of the other options identified. Tom Walker, Parkside, asked the Council to consider rezoning the CM Capital site located at 5758 West Las Positas back to PUD-Industrial. He said that if developed with the full 201 residential units allowed under current zoning, it would result in a concentration of 900 residential units along a half mile stretch of road. This would clearly and adversely affect traffic, schools and other public services. Kash Yasnik echoed Mr. Walker's sentiments. He said the proposed residential development would adversely affect his quality of life and urged the Council to find a way within the constraints described by the Mayor to avoid this. George Bowen said he has read a considerable portion of the Draft Housing Element Update and is aware of many of the challenges with which the Council is currently faced. He said he spoke on behalf of many residents in saying that the real issue is slow growth, with a particular concern over the CM Capital site. He provided the Council with over 300 additional signatures to the circulating petition. He acknowledged the varied reasons that it may be unwise to reverse the zoning on the 1,292 high density units that are not needed to meet the current RHNA cycle and said his impression is that the community would support an intelligent decision that meets the city's needs and avoids legal trouble. He expressed concern over the relatively rapid development approvals for 850 new residential units in the business park as well as the overall concentration of units along West Las Positas. City Council Minutes Page 3 of 16 July 15, 2014