CCMIN101513 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen said the task force has discussed but not yet resolved this particular issue. Alternative 5A assumes a total of 1,759 units and that there will not be additional units serving as a bonus for relocation of the transfer station. The idea behind increasing the total number of units from when this was last presented to the Council was to provide the developer with a more affordable land use in order to incentivize relocation of the transfer station. Concurrently, there was an assumption that the benefit to Pleasanton Garbage Service from free infrastructure to serve this residential area would encourage them to sell off their parcel and relocate. Alternative 5B This alternative is essentially identical to the preferred plan in that it proposes 1,759 housing units, but with a 50/50 single and multi-family residential mix. The change in residential mix would result in a bit more acreage developed at 23 and 30 units per acre in order to achieve the same number of units within the same plan area. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said it can be very difficult for the public to translate a presentation like this into a visual perspective of density. She asked if staff could provide some reference to other parts of town that might be similar in terms of density and acreage. Mr. Rasmussen agreed that it is very abstract and said they would be preparing more detailed information as part of the design guideline process. Mr. Dolan stated that the E and S Ring/Auf der Maur site, developed at 30 units per acre, is 345 units over 11.5 acres. This alternative calls for 1,759 units over about 230-300 acres. He noted that each density within that would have a fairly different appearance. For context, he compared the 4 units per acre density to what was approved off of Rose Avenue and the 8 units per acre to some of the smaller projects across from Gateway. Alternative 6 This alternative proposes the greatest number of housing units at 2,279 housing units with a 58/42 single and multi-family residential mix. The multi-family development is configured a bit differently in this approach, with the higher density proposed in a stretch along Bush Road and the lower densities feather out from there to the existing residential development. This alternative is intended to serve as the most intensive use for EIR and fiscal analysis purposes. Alternative 8 This alternative, which was recommended by the Planning Commission, proposes 1,430 housing units with a 65/35 single and multi-family residential mix. It is again almost identical to the preferred plan with exception of unit count. Mr. Dolan explained that the Planning Commission requested this alternative because in looking at the number of units in each alternative, it felt there was a nice sequence of growth with exception of one gap. The Commission felt this would fill the gap nicely and be helpful in discussions down the road. Mayor Thorne asked and Mr. Dolan confirmed that staff feels the EIR alternatives include sufficient elements to cover all reasonable eventualities in this planning process. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio also asked and confirmed that analyzing the placement or relocation of a certain feature in one option would allow for its use in another option, if ultimately desired. Councilmember Brown expressed concern that changing a feature studied in one context does not necessarily translate with the same impacts in another context. She also questioned staff's description of the Planning Commission's intent with regard to Alternative 8, stating that she was under the impression this had been their preference in the first vote as well. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13 October 15, 2013