PC 042314 - Laserfiche WebLink

forever be a business park, that there would be no apartments or housing built on that property. She added that she was also told two years ago and was just repeated tonight that the City just needs to show it has the acreage and that the development may probably never happen; yet, there are now 177 apartment units being built behind their homes. She pointed out that 850 units have already been approved for construction in Hacienda Business Park, and this will impact the schools that are already over - extended with students. She indicated that the City has over 1,000 units in excess, and not building on this site will not impact its numbers. She added that while the City's numbers show that there would be very-low- or low- income units, the developer can buy out of that by paying a fee and not have those units available, which does not really benefit the people who need low- income housing. George Bowen, a 29 -year resident of Pleasanton, stated that there are a number of reasons to request the rezoning of the CM Capital property, focusing on the perspective of "WWPD: What Would Pleasanton Do ?" He indicated that Pleasanton had a General Plan that was largely driven by Measure GG, a voter cap, a housing cap, the Urban Habitat Pleasanton lawsuit which Pleasanton vigorously fought, he believes, for two reasons: first, because Pleasanton did not agree with the outside intervention and its ability to plan the City of Planned Progress, and second, because Pleasanton did not agree with the needs imposed by the State. He noted that as part of that settlement, Pleasanton was forced to comply with the State - imposed housing mandate which was in staggering conflict with the City's General Plan. He stated that then Mayor Hosterman said that the Council, with help from City staff, was going to lawfully protect the City's best interests and maintain as much local discretion as possible. He added that the 2012 rezoning plan was forced upon the City, which had no choice then. He indicated that the only reason the housing cap was increased and the 70 acres was rezoned to allow high- density housing was because of external pressure and not because it was what was best for Pleasanton. He added that, in fact, it could be argued that it was a windfall for property owners and developers. Mr. Bowen stated that the City has a choice now: since the RHNA requirements have been significantly reduced, the City has a surplus of high- density -zoned properties which will allow the construction of unneeded and unwanted high- density properties. He indicated that after being forced to shoehorn numerous high- density properties and less than desirable parcels which already have resulted in building review processes for over 800 units, the City has a historic but fleeting opportunity to recapture some of its civic self- determination in deciding the character of the City. He stated that he strongly advocates, and believes that many of the citizenry present tonight also believe, that the City needs need to continue to be the "City of Planned Progress" and not take the opportunity to rezone. He added that he thinks the voters would believe this is needed in order to maintain the City's long- standing approach to growth. Anthony Ghio stated that he would like to see the CM Capital site rezoned as well, having gone through the entire Summerhill planning stages of 30 units per acre which ties the hands of the Planning Commission. He indicated that he thinks Summerhill provided a blueprint and, while slightly altered, the 30 units had to go in there, and the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2014 Page 15 of 27