My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
10 ATTACHMENT 1-2
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
020122
>
10 ATTACHMENT 1-2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2022 3:43:31 PM
Creation date
1/26/2022 3:41:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/1/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
10
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\020122
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
of unit types, including family housing as well as apartments and smaller units, more suitable for <br />smaller households. <br />If the Planning Commission wished to take the approach of trying to accommodate the entire <br />RHNA on high-density housing sites, then additional sites high density sites would need to be <br />identified, or density increased on sites already included on the list, since there is not sufficient <br />capacity in high-density sites alone to accommodate the entirety of the "gap" between the RHNA <br />and existing zoning capacity. <br />Discussion Questions.- <br />4. <br />uestions: <br />4. Does the Planning Commission agree that it is appropriate to allocate at least a <br />proportion of the City's above -moderate RHNA to high-density sites? <br />5. Should the City consider meeting 100 percent of the gap on high-density sites? Or, <br />should the initial sites inventory reflect a blend of site densities at this stage of the <br />process? <br />D. Site Suitabilitv and Initial Sites Recommendation <br />To help the Planning Commissioner review each site and determine site suitability, staff has <br />provided background information on each site included in the Preliminary Sites Inventory report <br />included in Exhibit A. <br />This report provides information on the site characteristics, known, owner interest, and key <br />considerations for each site. In addition to the background information provided at this meeting, <br />at the following meeting, staff will be able to present to the Planning Commission additional <br />public comments and feedback on the sites. <br />As noted, staff has suggested four sites that could be removed from the list, based on an initial <br />evaluation of the sites criteria, and other parameters such as site suitability. <br />Discussion Questions.- <br />6. <br />uestions: <br />6. Does the Planning Commission support the removal of the three sites as suggested by <br />staff, or should any remain on the list? <br />7. Are there other sites that the Planning Commission feels strongly should be removed <br />from the list, or given lower priority for inclusion? Conversely, does the Planning <br />Commission find there to be certain sites or areas that should be prioritized for inclusion <br />in the initial sites inventory, or that are particularly suitable for housing? <br />8. Are there any other factors, guiding principles or considerations that staff should use to <br />further refine and prioritize the initial sites list? <br />Summary <br />Staff acknowledges that the formulation of the sites inventory is a complex task, with multiple <br />variables and options that will interplay to build the recommended sites list. At this early stage of <br />the sites inventory process, staff would caution against creating an overly narrow list of sites, <br />Housing Element Update Planning Commission <br />18 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.