PC 071112 - Laserfiche WebLink

With respect to the density question, Ms. Stern clarified that the previous document on the standards and guidelines talked about a maximum site density for each of the sites at 50 dwelling units per acre. She noted that to be consistent with the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that was prepared for this project, it was necessary to state a maximum number of units for each of the sites that were analyzed as part of the project description in that SEIR; these maximum numbers have been added to each site on Table 2.1 at the beginning of the document. Ms. Stern stated that there was also a request to allow or actually encourage mixed -use development on sites, and staff has clarified that this is fine as long as such additional development was anticipated in the SEIR. She noted that this is covered by the CEQA analysis that has already been done and added that theoretically, higher densities can be considered in the future but would require a new CEQA clearance. She clarified that because some of the prototypes of housing types that might be allowed have a density range that extends beyond the maximum number of units that will be allowed on a site, the applicant would use those in conjunction with a lower density type of building design; for example, garden -style apartments with surface parking at around 20 units per acre could potentially be mixed with a townhouse, flat, or something with podium parking that may be 40 units per acre, for an average density of about 30 units per acre. She noted that this anticipates and provides some variation on the sites, such that there could be a mix of housing types or building design types on one site. Ms. Stern stated that with respect to the questions raised about compatibility with surrounding development, staff has added a bullet point to the end of development guideline C -11 -1 which clarifies that placing lower -scale buildings and lower- density building types adjacent or across the street from lower- density development is desirable. Ms. Stern stated that one of the questions on open space was related to considering the paseos as open space, and a second question referred to counting private open space versus the group open space area. She clarified that staff is referring back to the ordinance requirements that would be applied to any multi - family development that comes forward at this time. She noted that staff recommends keeping that requirement and maintaining that ordinance requirement rather than making any changes specific to this; for example, not counting the 20 and 30 -foot wide paseos which could be fairly generously landscaped as open space would make it difficult to comply with the open space requirement for these sites. With reference to the question on what is meant by 'larger developments" mentioned in one of the standards or guidelines in relation to encouraging a public park on larger developments, Ms. Stern indicated that 'larger developments" is defined as generally over five acres. Ms. Stern stated that a developer had asked in a letter that staff consider allowing low -entry landscaped walls within that paseo area. She indicated that staff found this to be reasonable and added it since the paseos are between 25 and 30 feet wide between PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 11, 2012 Page 5 of 16