Laserfiche WebLink
project so that it could be redesigned. Staffbelieves the land uses and <br />arrangements further neo-traditional design principles as best they can be <br />accommodated in this disjointed site, accommodating a golf course, and <br />recognizing economic realities and community-wide goals in locating the <br />retail/office uses. Staff does not recommend making major changes to the <br />land use diagram. <br /> <br />Village Center Land Uses <br /> <br />Issue: <br /> <br />The plan does not mandate residential uses be integrated with <br />commercial/office uses within the Village Center. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: The plan allows residential uses and encourages them, but it does not <br /> mandate them. Residential uses must be shown in the Village Center PUD <br /> development plan if they are to be allowed. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Require multi-family residential in Village Center, the amount/design to <br />be determined with the Village Center PUD. <br />Require x units (e.g., 50, 100, 250 units) to be included within the <br />Village Center. <br />Require residential uses, up to three floors total height, over all <br />commercial and/quasi-commercial uses, except immediately adjacent to <br />the Village Green where two floors total height are required. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />Combining residential use above retail/office uses is a key component of <br />neo-tradifional design principles. Staff believes the Village Center land <br />area can support significant residential use in addition to the full <br />component of commercial/office development. Units concentrated in the <br />Village Center not only further neo-traditional design principles, they also <br />make the areas outside the Village Center-Village Residential areas less <br />dense and better able to accommodate the lower range of densities <br />necessary to provide all types of housing within the project. Because no <br />development plan of the Village Center has yet been proposed, staff is <br />uncertain about how many units can realistically be incorporated into its <br />development plan. These units are likely to be more affordable by design <br />(apartments or condominiums), furthering other goals in the General Plan <br />and this Specific Plan. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Not specifically addressed. <br /> <br />StaffRecommendation: Staff believes adding language stronger than that presently <br /> existing is consistent with the overall plan concept; staff suggests language <br /> similar to the first alternative as the best option. San Francisco is not <br /> annexed to Pleasanton at this stage, so Pleasanton can exercise its <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 2 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />