PC 072507 - Laserfiche WebLink

in large variations; and each individual site being unique and, therefore, the actual number of units developed will be different from the midpoint. Ms. Stern continued that staff has been consolidating several different data bases in the process of arriving at a more sophisticated land development system and found some double-counting that led to fact that the actual number of units remaining to be planned is not 1,685, as determined in January 1, 2004, but 2,007 units. She noted that it would be necessary to build flexibility into the General Plan to accommodate these changes in the number of units so as not to require multiple General Plan amendments; and to look at the proposed Mixed-Use designation to accommodate any surplus units. In response to Commissioner O’Connor’s inquiry regarding the distinction between “Potential Future Units – No Approvals” and “Remaining Units to be Planned,” Ms. Stern explained that “Potential Future Units – No Approvals” refers to lands which have a certain residential designation but have not gone through the approval process, and, therefore, have no approved land use plan or building permits associated with them. She noted that there are parcels along Foothill Road as well as infill parcels in the Downtown area and around town that fall within this category. She continued that “Remaining Units to be Planned” refers to lands that are now zoned other than residential that could potentially accommodate some additional units, such as the commercially- zoned property by the West BART Station area on which some residential units could be built. Chairperson Fox referred to the numbers under “Potential Future Units – No Approvals,” 1,685 vs. 2,007 and noted Ms. Stern’s statement that this resulted from some developments that were under the midpoint. She inquired what these developments that are significantly under the midpoint are and if this also resulted from rezoning residential areas to Commercial and Office. Ms. Stern replied that this is not due to rezoning of parcels from Residential to Commercial or Office. She noted that during the data consolidation process, staff discovered that there had been double-counting of some developments that were identified by property names in one data base and by development names in another, thus resulting in a total number of residential units less than anticipated. She pointed out another example in the Oak Grove development, which was designated under the General Plan and the Housing Element as having 98 units but is now being proposed for only 51 units. She explained that the eventual project being lower than midpoint is the cause for the variation in numbers. In response to Chairperson Fox’s inquiry if the Busch Property project falls within this category, Ms. Stern said it may be the case because the project falls within that window. Ms. Stern then continued that another issue related to residential numbers is assisted living units, which, in past practice, have not been counted against the housing cap. She noted that at a Joint City Council-Planning Commission workshop on the Staples Ranch project, a determination was made that a portion of those units should be counted towards PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 2007 Page 7 of 35