PC 12142022 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Commissioner Nibert , Traffic Engineer Tassano confirmed that 40 ,000 square feet of retail was included in the model at Valley Plaza . Vice Chair Gaidos asked why Boulder Court was recommended to be removed from the list. Associate Planner Campbell explained that the score was not high and there was no owner interest , making it slightly less feasible . Vice Chair Gaidos discussed removal of Area 12 due to impacted schools and difficulty of relocating services . He asked the significance of not having a site on the RHNA list and future efforts to develop. Ms . Clark explained the need for rezoning which would be more discretionary on the part of the City. Chair Pace clarified that those units even if not included in the Housing Element , would count towards RHNA targets . Vice Chair Gaidos discussed the possibility of the School District creating housing on Area 25 . Ms . Clark discussed the opportunity for the City and District to plan a project that would create affordable units for teachers and staff. Ms . Clark discussed State law allowing development of workforce and teacher housing . Vice Chair Gaidos discussed the unique opportunity with the School District property and expressed concern with losing that ability . Commissioner Mohan questioned the lack of objective standards by HCD . Ms. Clark discussed room for interpretation by HCD and shifting rules causing frustration throughout California . She stated the City had to adopt a Housing Element compliant with State law, which was certified by HCD. Commissioner Mohan suggested landowner interest be higher on the list. Ms . Clark stated sites with stronger owner interest were elevated . Ms . Campbell stated affirmative owner interest was received for the sites recommended for inclusion . Commissioner Mohan discussed conversations with Southern California cities regarding mid-cycle review . Ms . Clark explained SB35 for projects with a certain proportion of affordable units which were subject only to ministerial review . Commissioner Mohan confirmed that the consultants were sharing what other cities had gotten approved . Commissioner Jain discussed misinformation on the internet and information gleaned from Southern California cities . He asked about C1 . Ms . Murillo explained that C1 from HCD was a general comment about discrete timelines for programs . Commissioner Jain discussed concern related to SB828. Ms . Clark explained that SB828 was a 2018 law modifying the RHNA process . She stated the City was working towards producing a Housing Element that met the RHNA requirements . Commiss ioner Jain discussed the 5% buffer and questioned whether the City was overproducing . Ms . Campbell explained the assumed capacity . Commissioner Jain discussed the proposed density of Valley Plaza and suggested the numbers were conservative . Ms. Clark explained the reasoning for conservative assumed capacities . Commiss ioner Jain expressed concern with two buffers (based on conservative density of sites and overall sites). Ms . Clark discussed the recommendation to include a buffer to address no-net-loss capacity concerns. She explained review of the proposed sites . Chair Pace explained the advantage to the listed sites . Ms . Clark discussed the rezoning process . She explained that both number and affordability of units had to be accounted for and analyzed when reviewing a housing development project. Commiss ioner Jain asked about Sites 14 and 15 and the impact to the Santa Rita Road I Stoneridge Drive Intersection. Traffic Engineer Tassano explained that he had not called out Rheem as an area of concern . He explained vehicle miles traveled and limited impact on Pleasanton development. He discussed evaluation of impacts to the circulation network. Ms . Campbell explained the recommendation to remove Site 15 . Ms . Clark discussed the program to examine all standard of the RM Zoning including parking standards . In response to Commissioner Jain , Ms . Clark stated inclusionary affordability was applied to both rental and for sale units and would be deed restricted in perpetuity to ensure units remained affordable . Commissioner Jain explained the inclusionary requirement and comment that smaller units created more affordability . Chair Pace discussed HCD 's questions about site selection and whether the City 's assumptions were accurate . Ms . Campbell stated the site-specific comments were predominantly related to the feasibility of redeveloping the sites . Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 December 14 , 2022