My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 081314
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 081314
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:19:41 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:14:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/13/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
shut everything down through no inventory in the beginning and consequently had to <br />essentially allow all the way up to the total that had been required in the last housing <br />cycle. He noted that the City never even got there and could not enforce the annual <br />limitation during that planning period. He noted that the Council then stated that while <br />the City had lost its housing cap, the pace of growth was still a concern; because the <br />City no longer has the cap, the Council wanted to be a little bit stricter and adopted a <br />program whereby the annual allocation was going to be the total RHNA assignment for <br />the planning period divided by the number of years. He noted that based on the <br />numbers for this RHNA cycle, the City's annual allocation that it can meter out through <br />the Growth Management Ordinance starting July 1, 2014 is 235 units per year, which is <br />lower than the established 350 units. He indicated that the next RHNA number will then <br />be adjusted based on what the City's RHNA assignment will be, and the State is not <br />necessarily always consistent about the length of the planning period either, depending <br />on things that happen at the State and when certain agencies issue their numbers. <br />Commissioner Ritter referred to the table that showed the different projects and their <br />numbers on the low- and very-low- income units. He inquired if the likelihood of those <br />units being built is in the 80 percent or 90 percent, and if the City will be hurting itself <br />should one of them is thrown out. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that how close the City should get to the exact number is an inexact <br />science. He pointed out that the City did have a cushion the last time. He added that if <br />he submits something on the inventory, he has to be able to look HCD in the eye and <br />say that it is a good housing site and might happen. He indicated that he did not want <br />to speculate on what the chances are on each of those projects. He noted that there <br />are certain people who think the ideal housing site is one that is designated for <br />residential development but know that development is unlikely. He added that the City <br />clearly did a pretty good job last time because it got real projects on a lot of the sites. <br />Commissioner Ritter noted that it is still good then to have a surplus. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that HCD has told staff that certain people have called and questioned <br />some of the City's sites, so there is no assurance that every single one of the sites is <br />going to pass muster. <br />Chair O'Connor clarified that the sites do not have to pass muster and be built, as long <br />as the site is viable and is accepted by HCD. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that what he meant by passing muster was that it be accepted by <br />HCD. <br />Chair O'Connor stated that he thinks Commissioner Ritter's question referred to what <br />would happen if one of these sites does not get built. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2014 Page 16 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.