22 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 3 THE CITY OF — L ~'wawa LE ASANTON January 10,2020 The Honorable Steve Glazer California State Senate State Capitol, Room 5108 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Pleasanton response to current amendment of SB 50 Dear Senator Glazer, Thank you for soliciting comments on the latest version of SB 50. Our various departments continue to read through and analyze the bill so please expect additional comments. The items, below are from our initial read. We have been discussing these amendments with Senator Wiener's office and appreciate how a majority of our recommendations on community plans (item#2 in attached TVC letter dated November 15, 2019)has been amended into the current version of the bill. However, a number of significant concerns remain. The amended version of SB 50 is an improvement for cities. The inclusion of a two-year delay in implementation, along with the local flexibility provided through an alternative method of compliance,are positive improvements. Also,the new provisions that provide that local residents would receive priority for 40%of affordable units that are created pursuant to SB 50 is an improvement and can help ensure that local residents can benefit from any new affordable developments. That's practical. On the other hand, we have concerns about the lack of detail currently included in SB 50 about how alternative plans would be evaluated. This is of concern,because if a city is not able to develop an alternative plan(or doesn't have something that they have already approved that would qualify as an alternative plan)then you would be subject to the default provisions of SB 50(which are unchanged from last year)related to density,parking,height requirements,etc. The bill still requires any alternative plan to increase density, reduce vehicle miles travelled,and affirmatively further fair housing,however,the increased density requirements and the transportation efficiency metrics are not laid out in the bill, so it is difficult to know what that would exactly look like. Similarly,the process for HCD/OPR to certify alternative compliance plans is not laid out in the bill and would need to be developed by the departments through a guideline process after the bill is signed into law. That requires a lot of faith in state agencies that don't always operate in ways that are in the best interest of cities,and, in the absence of this certainty, makes it difficult to unequivocally support the proposal. And,as previously noted in our November 15 letter,the amended bill leaves unchanged the definition of"major transit stop"and would continue to include limited service commuter rail, such as ACE, in that definition. We would continue to support, as previously requested,the reduced waiver of minimum parking requirements more than 1.0 spaces per unit. More P. 0. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 123 Main Street City Manager City Attorney Economic Development City Clerk (925)931-5002 (925) 931-5015 200 Old Bernal Avenue (925) 931-5027 Fax: 931-5482 Fax: 931-5482 (925)931-5038 Fax: 931-5492 Fax: 931-5476