01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice-Mayor Pentin said he felt that the height limits and setbacks guidelines requested by Mr. Paxson, which are consistent with the business park, were appropriate. Councilmember Brown offered a second to the motion. She said she initially felt compelled to support the very strong and clear message issued by the community, which was to remove the residential zoning overlay on the CM Capital 2 site. Given subsequent negotiations and agreement by the Parkside neighborhood to accept a density of 12.5 units per acre, she too could support the compromise. Councilmember Narum noted that she voted against the rezoning of this particular site when it came forward several years ago, although this was because she felt more property was being rezoned than was necessary. She said that she had also expected to lean towards a removal of the residential overlay tonight, but that she was appreciative of the efforts made by the stakeholders and could support a down-zoning to 12.5 units per acre. She acknowledged the need for affordable housing but noted a current surplus of over 30% in the very low and low income categories and said it is important that the city take a bit of step back until it can better understand the cumulative impacts of these rezoning. She expressed discomfort with the 45-foot height limit that would be allowed under current business park standards and asked if the Vice-Mayor would amend the motion to include a height limitation of 40 feet. Vice-Mayor Pentin rejected the proposed amendment. Councilmember Brown voiced her support for a 40-foot height limitation and rescinded her second to the motion. MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Brown to accept the Planning Commission recommendation to rezone the CM Capital 2 site to a density of 12.5 units per acre, with the with the caveat that it revert to its current zoning if HCD were to object, and to implement a building height limitation of 40-feet. Mayor Thorne said he was concerned by the comments that the Council is obligated to respect the wishes of the people and take a stand against the state. He reminded the public that the Council did just that, which resulted in an agonizing and costly battle in which the city stood alone. He also noted that through his work with the League of California Cities and ABAG, he is one of the few elected officials in the county to have fought against both RHNA and Plan Bay Area. Acknowledging and sharing concerns over the impacts on schools and infrastructure, he asked whether the city has the ability to slow development by reserving the issuance of building permits until such time as enough units are accumulated under Growth Management to allow a project to move forward. Mr. Fialho explained that in order to accommodate a development that exceeds 235 units, the permitting could either be phased over multiple years or the Council could borrow from future years' allocations and apply it to the project so that it may move forward then. Mayor Thorne asked if it would be possible to stipulate that a phasing process, rather than one that borrows from future years, would be the city's practice. Mr. Fialho said "yes," although not as part of this document. He explained that if the Council wished to preclude this or future Council's from borrowing allocations from future years, it would have to undertake a separate discussion on amendment to the Growth Management Ordinance. Mayor Thorne said this was something he would be interested in exploring further, as he sees a distinct need to slow growth in light of current and future impacts. He said he found the proposed changes to the CM Capital 2 site to be a reasonable compromise that he could support. City Council Minutes Page 14 of 17 September 2, 2014