12 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Ms. Ellgas repeated the four points and noted that this is the desire of the Pleasanton Voters for Smart Growth. She added that there is already a setback for the adjacent site and a height limit for the adjacent neighbors on the same street. She noted that the height limit they are currently proposing is different, and they would like to address that should a residential plan is proposed for that site. George Bowen stated that he has one recommendation for the Housing Element, but he would like to provide some context first. He noted that Mr. Dolan mentioned that adjacent neighborhoods to the CM Capital site are the most concerned, and he challenged that by saying that he believes the City has received upwards of over 800 communications from people around the City, and he would call it 500 to 600 as there may be overlap between some petitions and letters. He indicated that Parkside is a neighborhood of 225 homes, and this is a community issue. Mr. Bowen stated that CM Capital is one property in the excess or surplus that is under discussion. He added that this is not just about water, although the news about the continued drought is certainly dire, and even if small high - density housing uses less water per home, according to his math and depending on the denominator, the 2,650 units approved over the last five years is a ten - percent growth in the population or the number of housing units in this City. With regard to the accounting issue mentioned by Mr. Dolan, he stated that his number, which they verified at the last City Council meeting, is that 1,807 units have been approved since 2012. He noted that staffs number was higher, but he suspects some of those were not appropriate to RHNA. He continued that some of the 1,807 units are under construction, and the City's total RHNA number is 2,067; this equates to 87.4 percent of the current RHNA number being approved for building. He added that he and other members of the community, and not only the Parkside neighborhood, are concerned that if 87.4 percent of the RHNA number has already been approved for construction, a vast surplus of zoned property is going to be of great interest to developers who have already pounced on properties zoned just two years ago. With respect to the Housing Element, he proposed just one change which he submitted by email to staff: the current language for Program 1.1 reads "Discourage the redesignation of areas designated for High Density Residential development. The objective of this program is to ensure that adequate sites are available to accommodate the City's regional housing need for all income levels." He stated that he thinks this again refers to the RHNA number, and he discouraged redesignation, proposing the following language change: "Maintain the designation of areas designated for High Density Residential development that are required to accommodate the City's regional housing needs for all income levels." He indicated that this small but important difference will allow the City to redesignate the zoning of those areas that are in excess of the RHNA number. Liang Liao stated that he has lived in Pleasanton since 2010 and agreed with all of the comments made by all who had spoken before him. He agreed especially with Mr. Bowen that this is not just a neighborhood issue because none of the high- density DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 8/13/2014 Page 9 of 18