01 - Laserfiche WebLink

noted that it in fact uses the word "committed." If in fact the city is making a commitment then the language should be amended. Mr. Fialho explained again that the policy was crafted as part of the last Housing Element, which does predate the start of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process, in direct response to the challenge against the city's housing policies. The idea behind it was to ensure that the city did not discriminate against any type of housing as it embarked on what is a massive land use planning process, and it is very specific to that outcome. The issue of whether or not the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process will continue is separate and both the Council will have plenty of opportunities to weigh in on how that plays out. Mayor Thome opened the public hearing. Becky Dennis, Citizens for a Caring Community, said that a down-zoning of the CM Capital 2 site would be the second instance of lost housing in an already well-vetted location. She said this would reflect poorly on the city and demonstrates a lack of support for making the idea of housing obligations work for the entire region as a whole. She acknowledged comments regarding the drought and noted that she has raised the issue of sewer capacity in the past as well. She stressed the need to focus on the provision of workforce housing if this is a real concern because affordable housing generally takes longer to develop. She also now has significantly more information about how the provision of market rate housing increases the demand for affordable housing and how that relates to Inclusionary Zoning. She felt a full EIR, as opposed to an addendum, that applies the information gained from the recent nexus study should be applied to this Housing Element Update. Michael Pirrozoli asked that the Council take advantage of any and every opportunity to down-zone those sites that it can until the city has an opportunity to fully assess the impacts that projects already in the pipeline has on traffic, water, schools and other resources. Kelly Cousins, East Pleasanton Specific Plan Task Force, expressed concern over some of the proposals for the Plan's EIR and related studies. She explained that at the last Task Force meeting, several of the proposed studies were deemed infeasible by developers due to Growth Management limitations and the need for a bond to fund those developments. She questioned the wisdom in examining options that don't offer benefits in terms of RHNA or affordable housing, require a costly relocation of the transfer station, would increase crowding in schools and would require the construction of a very expensive regional cut through road. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that no decisions have been made regarding the East Pleasanton Specific Plan nor does the Housing Element, with the exception of Program 46.5, relate to the east side in any way. James Bitter, Mahn County, stated that while General Plans have historically reflected the land use preferences of the residents, recent legislative changes have created a new dynamic in which the state usurps local control over land use. He encouraged the Council to take a stand, as others are starting to do, against the state and special interest groups and return planning to the people. Lynn Kriegbaum said she spoke on behalf of residents of the Parkside neighborhood. She explained that while residents had previously asked the Council to rezone the CM Capital 2 site back to its original commercial designation, neighborhood representatives have since met with James Paxson of Hacienda Business Park and the current property owner to reach a resolution. At the recent Planning Commission meeting, they were pleased to jointly request that the site be down-zoned to 12.5 units per acre and that height restrictions be lowered to a maximum of two stories and 35 feet. They also agreed that items such as setbacks and design would be more appropriately addressed if and when a project comes forward. While the Planning Commission unanimously concurred with this proposal, the height restrictions were omitted from the recommendation. Further discussions with the property owner and City Council Minutes Page 9 of 17 September 2,2014