02 - Laserfiche WebLink

guidance provided by HCD, as well as best practices from other regions that have already gone through HCD review and certification. The analysis relies both on approved data sets, as well as local knowledge and community input. The analysis includes five sections: Inclusive and Equitable Outreach, Assessment of Fair Housing, Analysis of Sites Inventory, Identification of Contributing Factors, and Priorities, Goals, and Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Appendix G - Housing Resources: Identifies local resources available to support the continued development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing in Pleasanton, as well as opportunities for energy conservation. In addition to Pleasanton-specific resources, there are regional resources that can support the City's housing goals, including those offered through Alameda County and the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA), the State, and the federal government. General Plan Amendments Staff has carefully reviewed the Pleasanton General Plan, to determine any necessary revisions to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Stoneridge Mall Framework, Housing Element and Objective Design Standards. Amendments include, among other minor amendments: • Adjusting the land use table (Table 2-3) and land use map to account for the Housing Element rezone sites, • Modifying language scattered throughout to ensure it does not conflict with State law; • Adding site specific policies for several sites; and • Policies for Stoneridge Mall, derived from the Stoneridge Mall Framework components developed to date. Exhibit A of Attachment 3 outlines the General Plan amendments. On January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the general plan amendments and recommended the City Council adopt the amendments. Among the public comments received for the January 11 meeting (see below), including from representatives of some of the housing sites, and requesting in some cases, adjustment of the General Plan policy language with respect to individual sites (Area 21 (Kiewit) and Area 22 (Merritt).2 For Area 21 (Kiewit) comments suggested a clarification to proposed Land Use Element Policy 12, with respect to the Kiewit site and calculation of net density for the high density/affordable housing component of the site. For Area 22 (Merritt) clarification of policy language was requested to indicate that sites subject to annexation and a PUD (a discretionary approval) would not be subject to the strict application of the Objective Design Standards. Staff finds these changes to be appropriate and has incorporated them among the General Plan Amendments, in Policy 12, for the two sites respectively. 2 Comments from the representative of the Merritt site were submitted as part of a comment letter on the Objective Design Standards, but included a request also relevant to the General Plan amendments. Page 10 of 14