03 ATTACHMENT 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Commission City of Pleasanton December 14, 2022 Page 4 discretionary PUD rezoning process involving Planning Commission review and City Council approval. The City should ensure that the “PUD conformance” process is actually streamlined in relation to objective planning, zoning, and design standards. Importantly, the HAA narrowly defines what constitutes an objective standard. In particular, a standard is objective under the HAA only if it (1) involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and (2) is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(h)(8)). Any standard that does not meet both of those requirements is not objective under the HAA. Moreover, the HAA also contains a reasonable person standard for objectivity determinations such that a housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4)). In this regard, City planning staff and not the Planning Commission should be responsible for streamlined project approval. This is appropriate because such review will apparently only involve confirmation that a project complies with objective design standards; no discretionary policy determinations would be made. Given the reasonable person standard established in the HAA there is no need for a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission to determine if a given housing project meets planning, zoning, and design standards that are actually objective. The City should also clarify that this new streamlined process is in the form of a “housing site plan conformance” or “development plan” review so as not to be confused with the time-consuming procedure traditionally associated with an actual PUD rezoning process. B. The City Should Allow for Sufficient Community Input and Review of the ODS and IZO Amendments. We are also concerned that the City’s rapid adoption of comprehensive ODS and amendments to its IZO does not allow for community input and thoughtful decision- making. Such community input and thoughtful process is necessary to ensure that the standards adopted are actually objective and consistent with modern development and market requirements. This is the only way to ensure that such standards do not improperly constrain housing development. It is premature for the City to adopt comprehensive ODS or IZO amendments given the substantial issues that still need to be addressed and resolved as set forth in HCD’s November 14 letter. For example, the City is still formulating minimum development standards for projects with density ranges between 8 and 29 dwelling units per acre. Thus, it is impossible for stakeholders to determine whether these standards are actually consistent with contemporary market, design, and engineering constraints. While the ODS do assign minimum development Attachment 4 - ODS Public Comments - 01-26-23 CC - Page 4