My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020
>
012120
>
22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 5:38:54 PM
Creation date
1/15/2020 5:38:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/21/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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).
View images
View plain text
No such historic district has been established by ordinance in Pleasanton, and as <br /> noted, a very small number of Pleasanton's historic resources are listed on the <br /> state or federal register. Thus, they would not be protected from redevelopment <br /> under SB50, unless the City takes action to have them listed before SB50 goes <br /> into effect. It is unclear how the City's regulations to protect locally-designated <br /> resources from demolition, or CEQA protections, would interface with SB50. <br /> New Components of the legislation include: <br /> • Delayed implementation of SB50 until January 1, 2023. <br /> • Provisions that allow for jurisdictions to prepare an alternative local plan ("local <br /> flexibility plan") that can meet the intent of SB50's equitable communities <br /> incentives, but would not necessarily follow those same locational requirements, <br /> or height and density standards. Key parameters for any local plan include: <br /> o That it must meet SB50 goals of increasing housing density and <br /> affordability; affirmatively furthering fair housing; and result in a <br /> comparable degree of transportation efficiency — i.e. not increasing the <br /> amount of driving. No detail is provided as to exactly how a local plan <br /> would show compliance with SB50's goals: one conceivable measure <br /> might be to show that the local plan can accommodate the same total <br /> number of multi-family units (citywide) as would be developable with <br /> application of SB50's standards in jobs- and transit-rich areas. <br /> o An existing, adopted document such as a Housing Element, Zoning <br /> Ordinance or Specific Plan may substitute for the local flexibility plan, <br /> provided that it meets the parameters above. It is unclear whether the <br /> City's updated Housing Element, required to be adopted by December <br /> 2022, would satisfy the local plan requirement because: 1) it is unknown <br /> how much housing would be expect to result from application of SB50 <br /> standards locally, and 2) the City has yet to receive its Regional Housing <br /> Needs Allocation (RHNA), and therefore cannot predict how closely that <br /> number, affordability levels, and range of sites identified will correlate to <br /> SB50. <br /> o If a local plan is not prepared by the City and approved by HCD, then <br /> SB50's development standards would apply by default. <br /> o The bill requires HCD, by July 1, 2021, to develop guidelines for the <br /> preparation, submission and approval of a local plan; HCD would be <br /> required to review and approve any local flexibility plan. <br /> • Additional provisions intended to safeguard against displacement of existing <br /> populations have been added, including that 40% of affordable units that are <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.