Laserfiche WebLink
and the 23 units per acre categories, as shown in the second row of the table. She <br />added that the City is over and above what it needs for Above - Moderate single - family <br />homes. <br />With respect to the other Options, Ms. Stern stated that the Very-Low vary between <br />25 percent to about 47 percent of the need, in terms of how much of the City's <br />remaining RHNA need they could potentially meet. She continued that in the Moderate <br />category, the range is up to about 24 percent to 47 percent of the City's remaining need <br />for land that is zoned around 23 units per acre; and finally, the Above - Moderate <br />generally meet the City's need. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the real take -away from it is that none of the Alternatives achieve <br />the objective that we started out with in the beginning, which was to plan for two RHNA <br />cycles for this higher density and total units. He noted, though, that the Preferred <br />Alternative is on the lower end of all the Options in achieving that objective, with only <br />Option 1 being less, and the reason why it does not do as well is because some of the <br />other Options that have the same total number of units are at that 65/35 split. He <br />pointed out that what is basically being said is that 65 percent are going to be <br />single - family and there are enough of those, but the City does not have enough of the <br />higher density. He noted, however, that that is the preference of the Task Force, and <br />this is just one more input that the Commission should consider when it looks at those <br />Alternatives. <br />Chair Pearce called for a break at 8:50 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. <br />Chair Pearce asked Mr. Dolan why CEQA requires a Preferred Plan to be identified as <br />opposed to all of them just be Alternatives. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the typical use of CEQA is a project, and it is typical to identify a <br />project and then look at alternatives to that specific proposal. He indicated that he has <br />seen EIRs that evaluate each alternative equally, but it is not very cost - effective <br />because the same conclusion can be reached by using one alternative as the base <br />case and then the analysis compares the other alternatives to it. He noted that it is a <br />little more efficient that rewriting the whole thing over and over and over again for each <br />alternative. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired it if does not give more emphasis to the Preferred <br />Plan but just uses that as the base. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that there is definitely more text to it. He noted that the analysis starts <br />with the one alternative, but then there is an alternative section which basically states <br />what is different between this particular alternative and the other one. He added that it <br />would then identify, for example, that this one alternative is not going to have that <br />impact or that other alternative will have an additional impact; those impacts will have to <br />be identified as well as potential mitigations for the differences. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 25, 2013 Page 27 of 45 <br />