PC 051221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Brown referenced Page 12 in the agenda report and inquired about the idea for a zoning buffer to address "no net loss" and asked if there was any risk. Ms. Wise suggested the buffer could be a positive policy decision, but noted the State could modify policies in the next (7th ) cycle which might impact use of 6th cycle sites. David Bergman, Lisa Wise Consulting, discussed the need to consider availability of sites and existing development standards. He stated additional sites could be reviewed as-needed in the future, or front loaded by building in a buffer over and above RHNA. Commissioner Allen suggested that, if the City wanted to incentivize building at the zoned levels, it should set more affordability targets higher than the current 20-percent. She suggested ensuring the process strategically look at the right affordability ratio that the City wanted to expect for affordability projects. Ms. Clark responded that the process would involve looking at a complete range of zoning strategies, potentially included re-examining the inclusionary housing requirement. She reminded the Planning Commission that it was necessary to also plan for market rate housing as part of the RHNA. Commissioner Pace referenced the City's existing trends and stated the affordability numbers in current RHNA would not be met. Ms. Clark responded that he was correct; however, Pleasanton was not alone because it was expensive and difficult to build affordable units in most cities. Commissioner Gaidos stated he did not yet have any questions. Commissioner Nibert referenced the statement that the City would need to consider long term leases and asked about existing long term leases. Ms. Wise responded the sites analysis considered underutilized sites and the potential for development into affordable, housing units. Mr. Bergman discussed mechanical, market and capacity based screens in considering potential sites and use/re-use of land. He discussed the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirement for certain site-specific analyses in communities with RHNA above 5,000 new units. Commissioner Nibert asked if the screening criteria were already identified. Mr. Bergman explained their process in site selection including parcels with potential for change in use, then possible improvements in land value and built Floor Area Ratio (FAR) compared to allowable FAR. Associate Planner Jennifer Hagen discussed staffs notation of property owner's requests for changes in zoning and use of social media and public outreach. Chair Brown asked if AB1397 required a property owner to express interest. Ms. Hagen stated it was not a requirement since the City's RHNA number was over 5,000 but property owner interest would be beneficial. Commissioner Morgan asked for a comparison of Bay Area Cities on meeting market rate and affordable housing requirements. Ms. Clark stated that information was available. Ms. Wise anticipated the City's performance was similar to other cities in the Bay Area. Chair Brown asked if the 5th RHNA Cycle was lower due to other cities taking the majority of the requirements and how does the 6th RHNA Cycle compare to the cities of Livermore and Dublin. Ms. Clark stated she had not looked at that data point but could bring back the Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 May 12, 2021