AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 60 and sustainability as well. He asked for the consideration of the approval of the 2,500 square foot increments as this is not an increase in development density and will allow for the greats benefit to the community, current property owners and future generations. Ms. Vera Bennett commended the Planning Department in their steps to codify the standards for larger properties in the R-2 District. Owning property on Kentfield, she felt the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was appropriate and will greatly simplify the development approval process on new development, saving time, money and frustration for all involved. She felt that the 2,500 square foot incremental option was the most appropriate for the zone and noted the 5,000 square foot option was counterproductive when it came to building lower to middle income housing in the community. She spoke to the lawsuit in June 2009 issued by Attorney General Jerry Brown regarding the City of Pleasant Hill and their cap on housing and development. She noted the lawsuit sent the message that reasonable development does not mean no development at all. Mr. Ishmael Leona noted he was a property owner within the City and a fan of downtown events. However, he felt the changes in density would greatly affect the neighborhood he lived in. He likened it to adding too many tables to an already crowded restaurant. He spoke to the numerous negative effects such high density development would have on the area where he lives including sidewalks and street drainage. He asked Staff if they were planning to deal with these increased drainage issues and upgrading of the streets if this dense development were to occur. He stressed growth in a City was a good thing, and was necessary, but there also had to be strict rules and guidelines in order to make for a better City. Larger development areas put huge stressors on existing services and also result in traffic safety issues. Ms. Margaret Esplana expressed she lived, worked and was a homeowner in the City. She noted housing is an ongoing issue for the City. She hoped for a place her family can call home but also a place for her work family and friends to call home. She stated affordable housing was a significant element in this outcome and she was very passionate about the subject. She is not a property owner or a homeowner on the R-2 properties along the boardwalk. However, she is passionate about the City's continued growth and positive redevelopment scenarios. Change was difficult but she felt the changes in the development densities were necessary to provide affordable housing. Mr. Eric Peterson. a Menlo Park architect, appreciated .the City's efforts on a whole in redoing the Zoning Text Amendment. As a design professional he asked for the approval of the first scenario with 2,500 square feet per building site. He noted clarifying the Zoning Code would reduce delays in current and future multi-family residential projects such as that proposed for Kentfield. He stressed the importance of growth allowances for housing in the City in order to increase the vitality of the community. MIS (Borgens/Smith) to close the Public Hearing Commissioner Comments Commissioner Holt asked Staff, in regards to all three scenarios presented, if they could please explain how the scenarios were developed. Mr. Mehra explained that 2,500 square feet was something Staff had practiced for the last eight (8) years. The increment came about keeping in mind that the R-5 district was Page 9 of 24