11 ATTACHMENTS 02-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Ms. Stern noted that the first row shows the estimate of the units to be planned for, which is basically about 1,200 Very-Low- and Low; 810 units in the Moderate category which is 23 units per acre; and 832 units of Above-Moderate which is anything less than 23 units per acre and basically all of the single-family that Mr. Rasmussen has shown on the various Options. Ms. Stern stated that she has to correct a mistake made in the staff report that implied that the Low and Moderate units that were zoned for those densities in the Preferred Plan met 50 percent of the City's requirement. She noted that they actually meet only 30-31 percent of the remaining need in the Preferred Plan for both the 30 units per acre and the 23 units per acre categories, as shown in the second row of the table. She added that the City is over and above what it needs for Above-Moderate single-family homes. With respect to the other Options, Ms. Stern stated that the Very-Low vary between 25 percent to about 47 percent of the need, in terms of how much of the City's remaining RHNA need they could potentially meet. She continued that in the Moderate category, the range is up to about 24 percent to 47 percent of the City's remaining need for land that is zoned around 23 units per acre; and finally, the Above-Moderate generally meet the City's need. Mr. Dolan stated that the real take-away from it is that none of the Alternatives achieve the objective that we started out with in the beginning, which was to plan for two RHNA cycles for this higher density and total units. He noted, though, that the Preferred Alternative is on the lower end of all the Options in achieving that objective, with only Option 1 being less, and the reason why it does not do as well is because some of the other Options that have the same total number of units are at that 65/35 split. He pointed out that what is basically being said is that 65 percent are going to be single-family and there are enough of those, but the City does not have enough of the higher density. He noted, however, that that is the preference of the Task Force, and this is just one more input that the Commission should consider when it looks at those Alternatives. Chair Pearce called for a break at 8:50 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Chair Pearce asked Mr. Dolan why CEQA requires a Preferred Plan to be identified as opposed to all of them just be Alternatives. Mr. Dolan replied that the typical use of CEQA is a project, and it is typical to identify a project and then look at alternatives to that specific proposal. He indicated that he has seen EIRs that evaluate each alternative equally, but it is not very cost-effective because the same conclusion can be reached by using one alternative as the base case and then the analysis compares the other alternatives to it. He noted that it is a little more efficient that rewriting the whole thing over and over and over again for each alternative. DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 9/25/2013 Page 10 of 28