01 - Laserfiche WebLink

their representatives now show divergent opinions regarding these height restrictions. She said she appreciated Mr. Paxson and the property owner for working with the community but stressed that the terms agreed upon were not the neighborhood's preference. In fact the strong preference was then and still is a full reversal to the original zoning. She asked the Council to either rezone the site to commercial only or support the proposed amendment and height restrictions. Councilmember Brown asked if Ms. Kriegbaum was speaking on behalf of all residents or a representative group. Ms. Kriegbaum explained that a core committee conducted a survey that included almost every home in the Parkside development. The core committee, which is largely comprised of block captains, then polled residents to see what compromise could be achieved throughout this process. She reiterated that the predominant view was that the CM Capital 2 site should remain a commercial only site, but residents understand the financial implications of such a change and were willing to consider reduced residential density. James Paxson, Hacienda Business Park, said he also spoke on behalf of Embarcadero Properties, the current owner of the CM Capital 2 site. He also shared his appreciation for time spent by the Parkside residents to reach a reasonable compromise. He said the CM Capital 2 site is an important component of the Housing Element and represents a strong housing opportunity. While there are still some points of mutual disagreement, he felt they were not the most consequential. They would like an opportunity to clarify the height limit in the future and at one point had discusses something to the current development envelope allowed for office space. They also support the concept of setbacks and a density in the neighborhood of 12.5 units per acre. He stressed that to eliminate the residential zoning entirely would be a significant setback for both the business park and the city, and that the opportunity to weigh in on the matter was available to the public when it was considered as part of the last Housing Element Update. Sharon Morris, Parkside, urged the Council to halt all new residential development throughout the city and to remove the residential zoning overlay from the CM Capital 2 site. Joan Natsch, Parkside, read from several of the more than 300 letters collected by the Parkside neighborhood although noted that the comments came from residents throughout the city. The comments related to preserving the historical charm of Pleasanton, the "Dublinization" of Pleasanton with high-rise high-density housing, the city's limited resources and the current drought. One predominant theme expressed was a desire for the Council to prioritize the concerns and desires of the community over the statewide housing goals and to adopt a growth plan that is slow and balanced. Ms. Natsch said the Council has both an opportunity and responsibility to be innovative leaders in developing affordable housing in a way that will enhance rather than detract from the city's character. She also requested that the CM Capital site be down-zoned and the height restricted as described. Matt Morrison expressed concern that the Housing Element relies on an Urban Water Management Plan that the city knows is insufficient to meet current requirements during drought periods. Zone 7's Plan, which was prepared in 2010, presumes an ability to obtain water reserves from Kern County during periods of heavy drought, but this has proven to be unreliable. The Housing Element fails to provide the tools needed to slow development and turns all the control over to Zone 7. George Bowen said the city serves two masters, its residents and the state, which seem to be in conflict. He noted that the Housing Element opens by stating an intent to form the goals and objectives sought by the community. Law mandates that the city hold public forums to take comment and then act on behalf of and in accordance with the wishes expressed by the community. He expressed concern that the Background Report omits the rather considerable comments regarding growth that were made at one of the two community workshops held on the Housing Element. He acknowledged staffs interpretation of Program 46.5 but cautioned that the state may not have the same interpretation. He City Council Minutes Page 10 of 17 September 2,2014