21 SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Commission Review Generally, the Planning Commission supported the program/policy adjustments in response to HCD and the rezone site list proposed by staff. However, there were a variety of questions and comments made by individual Commissioners related to some of the sites, methodology, and policies as follows. The Commission did not provide a consensus set of recommendations: • Indicated a desire for a focus on creating affordable ownership opportunities • Inquired about Level of Service (LOS)analysis and modification made when intersections fail • Questioned penalties if City does not produce housing • General concern around quantity of sites included and potential impacts-as such,the Commission largely looked for ways to reduce the site list if possible • Questioned if the Housing Element should adjust the methodology for calculating the assumed capacity for the high-density sites to use the midpoint density instead of the minimum density permitted(to match the methodology for low/medium density sites and allow additional sites to come off the list) • Asked if the Housing Element could increase the minimum density for certain sites(to allow additional sites to come off the list) • Some Commissioners recommended excluding a buffer above REINA, others were more comfortable with the current buffer as it stood at approximately 4-percent of total REINA. There was also support for using any rejected sites as a back-up list of sites that could be rezoned if sites developed below their assumed capacity(to comply with No Net Loss provisions) • Request to remove Area 18 (Valley Plaza)and another to require mixed use development at this location if included-this is due to the current mix of commercial uses on the property. (Note,the draft Housing Element assumes a mixed-use development, and the EIR modeled inclusion of up to 40,000 square feet of commercial in addition to residential) • Request to add in Area 20(Boulder Court)- if Kiewit is included, Boulder may be a nice compliment and allows other sites to be removed • Request to remove Area 23 (Sunol Blvd)-this is due to the current commercial uses on the site, particularly the existing hardware store/lumber yard. • Request to remove Area 25 (PUSD District)-this comment was made as this site is owned by the school district. It was noted that not including the site in the Housing Element inventory meant the City could retain more control over what gets built(e.g.,teacher housing). • Request to add Area 26 (St. Augustine) • Request to add Area 3 (PUSD-Donlon) Staff has the following response or additional detail with respect to some of the points or suggestions made by various Planning Commissioners: • The City's Housing Element noted that the use of the low-end of the density range for high density sites reflected a"safe harbor"approach. Using the mid-point may be more challenging for HCD to support(and would require evidence or data), since Pleasanton has a limited track record of higher-density housing being built. • The low-end density ranges could potentially be increased for some of the sites; however, the City's consultant recommends that a minimum "spread"of approximately 10 du/acre in any density range be used. Therefore, sites that could be candidates to increase the low end of the density range and maintain a 10 du/acre spread include Area 9 (Metro 580),Area 11 (Old Santa Page 2 of 5