My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
20
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2021
>
092121
>
20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2021 11:48:44 AM
Creation date
9/16/2021 11:43:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/21/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
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
Housing Commission Comments: <br />Chair Brown referenced the proximity to services/amenities and the criteria of increasing <br />Middle School radius to one mile, similar to High Schools, and stated he thought it was <br />appropriate for older students, but not for elementary or middle school -aged students. <br />Commissioner Pace stated he was not supportive of the criteria. <br />Chair Brown discussed school capacity and enrollment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. <br />Clark discussed the school districts methodology for determining figures in relation to the <br />Housing Element and agreed it would likely be helpful to consider capacity over several years, <br />since it tended to fluctuate. <br />Commissioner Allen agreed with the Housing Commission's suggestion regarding significant <br />trees. Ms. Clark commented that it may be difficult to provide an objective standard here, <br />since specific tree counts, number of heritage trees would not be known for individual sites. <br />Commissioner Nibert preferred to retain criteria 6c as is. Ms. Clark mentioned that was a <br />comment from Housing Commission. <br />Chair Brown asked if the Commission had input on comments related to the public comments <br />received from Ms. Combs. He then inquired whether the Commission had any thoughts related <br />to rezoning and stated he felt strongly about vacant lots. He noted correspondence he had <br />received suggesting priority for sites with existing General Plan designations for housing. Ms. <br />Clark stated the majority of sites would likely require a General Plan amendment or rezoning of <br />sites, so this may not be a useful criterion. <br />Commissioner Allen moved to recommend approval of the draft housing selection <br />criteria with modifications including: (1) Item 2, to add an additional point and category <br />related to the distance from BART to include one-third mile, one-half mile and three- <br />quarters mile; (2) Item 4e would bundle the four natural hazard items into one point and <br />if the property does not have any of those hazards it would receive one point; (3) Item 7, <br />change category name and add Item b, related to one point if a parcel is vacant or <br />underutilized; (4) adding to Housing Commission recommendations to include: a) <br />adding one point to being on a recycled water pipe line, b) procedurally, the Director of <br />Community Development will work with PUSD to ensure appropriate method for <br />determining over enrollment that extends over a single year, and c) Director of <br />Community Development and staff will provide definition related to what was currently <br />defined as `significant tree removal' <br />Commissioner Nibert seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: <br />Commissioners Allen, Brown, Gaidos, Nibert, and Pace <br />NOES: <br />None <br />ABSENT: <br />None <br />ABSTAIN: <br />None <br />Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, August 25, 2021 Page 7 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.