CCMIN100615 - Laserfiche WebLink

management units in 2016 and 15 units in 2017 and 3 units in 2018, for a total of 25 units; and that the conditions stipulate through deed disclosures that the developer disclose the fact that the homes border a major piece of undeveloped property specifically the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. Vice-Mayor Brown said she struggles with the idea that hard-fought land by previous City leaders should be converted to more housing, given that they worked on a balance for the adjacent neighborhood to include houses and churches, grocery stores, parks and other amenities. She said there are 1,700 apartments that have been approved by the Council which is a flood of development, and more are coming. She said the state wanted a range and 235 units is supposed to be the maximum under the City's growth management allocation. She is disappointed that the property was not fully marketed to determine if, in fact, Ponderosa Homes is the highest and best use to get out of the church's financial situation. While she wished the City could help the church, to rezone land in the General Plan is not a minor thing to change, but a major modification to amend the General Plan. Vice-Mayor Brown said in the church's financial documents, they are looking for the best way to financially resolve their situation and she questioned if churches will start coming to the City and view rezoning as a financial resource, which is a precedent she is uncomfortable in setting. Church documents indicate that after debt has been paid, they will receive $3.1 to $3.4 million. All churches have spent money on their churches and rezoning should not be a policy as a way to get grocery stores, restaurants, businesses or churches out of financial hardship. She has struggled with the matter and cited water and traffic issues, but said the real issue for her is that this is not the right thing to do for the City. Therefore, she cannot support the motion. Councilmember Pentin said when he first looked at the request, he thought about the drought and 25 additional homes. He also looks at every project individually and he looks at the community benefit. When former Mayor Pico spoke, he understands and said he remembers the many issues surrounding the pumpkin patch and changes. Change has come and what was approved does not work for them and he will not hold the church responsible to build out their envisioned plan. In listening to both sides, he sees community benefit in the sense that the traffic and drought issues are a wash and if anything, is an improvement. He thinks comments by the Mayor and comments he has had with the applicant that they could move this with the allocations on the growth management ordinance to 16, most in 17 and a few units in 18 with a caveat. The City does not know if they will move in a stage 1 or 2 with the drought in another year or two or stage 4. If they do, Ponderosa Homes is taking the chance for a moratorium and that the City will not allow building in 2016, 2017 or 2018 and this is the chance they take, and he is comfortable with that. As far as Julie Testa's remarks about schools, there is a school proposed which will grow and provide classrooms which is a benefit. Lastly, regarding public and institutional zoning land as important, the City does have this and if approved tonight, the church will still be able to create a place of worship in Pleasanton, which creates public and institutional somewhere else, but at least the church remains. With that, he could support the motion as long as the growth management allocations are metered out over the 2016-2018 timeframe. Mayor Thorne said he too struggles with the matter, given all comments that have been brought up. When he first became a Councilmember, he recognized the numerous influences on the City that the Council has no control over. He educated himself through representation on local and regional committees that are determining Pleasanton's future. In the 1980's it was different but things have changed. His fear is that if the Council maintains the public and institutional zoning and there are no buyers on the property and the property sits during another RHNA process, there will be high density housing placed on the property. He also referred to the reason for the 1700 homes and clarified that this was done by a court order and the City had to implement it. He resents the fact that people tell him he supported this as a City Council Minutes Page 18 of 28 October 6, 2015