Laserfiche WebLink
units/acre. Of course, the type/size of units is also a key factor (three <br />one-bedroom units take up the same space as two two-bedroom units, and <br />so forth). The neo-traditional planning elements, primarily reduced street <br />setbacks, should make 32 units/acre a viable discrete project option. To <br />approach 40+ units/acre, a project would need to be four stories, over <br />parking. Construction-related cost issues have kept these types of projects <br />from being proposed in Pleasanton, but recent rent increases may be <br />changing this economic reality. <br /> <br />At issue with this requirement is the clash of goals: increased population <br />density leading to a viable pedestrian-scale commercial-residential mix <br />versus loss of the "village" atmosphere to an intensively "urban" design <br />element. Increased density in the Village Center has benefits throughout <br />the project and in meeting City Housing Element policies. However, <br />four-story residential would be a new housing type to Pleasanton and <br />would change the perception of the project, as it is not easy to design these <br />types of buildings to look "village residential" -- the design theme <br />currently specified. The alternative which allows a City discretionary <br />review of such buildings would allow them only after review of site and <br />architectural review, not as a matter of "right," and may satisfactorily <br />straddle the issues until a viable project is actually proposed. Staff <br />believes reducing the density is counterproductive, not only by losing <br />intensities near the Village Center but also by encouraging suburban-type, <br />auto-dominated multi-family plans with surface parking. If no more than <br />two-story projects are desired, the density should be reduced to 20-22 <br />units/acre and a two-story height restriction applied. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Not specifically addressed. <br /> <br />StaffRecommendation: Staffis comfortable with the present limitation and would also <br /> be comfortable with allowing City discretionary approval of four-story <br /> product types in the Village Commercial and Village Residential Zones. <br /> <br />Affordable Housin~ <br /> <br />Issue: The project should have more mandatory affordable housing. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: The project is required to have 3.9% lower-income units, in <br /> perpetuity; another 11.9% would be rentals which would likely be affordable <br /> to moderate-income households "by design." The project would pay in-lieu <br /> fees on 84% of its units and these fees and other City Lower-Income Housing <br /> Fund fees to be used on-site could create additional affordable housing <br /> opportunities. <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 6 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />