14 - Laserfiche WebLink

The Planning Commission could consider the following alternatives to the proposed project: 1. Limit the project to a studio apartment 2. No project, under which the site would not be redeveloped in the near-term. Alternative 1 would decrease the parking requirements by one space. Both one- and two-bedroom units require 1.5 spaces per unit whereas a studio requires 1 space. This would alleviate the need for an in -lieu fee, the parking requirements would be met for the project. However, a studio apartment would reduce the bedroom count by two and create a much smaller unit that may reduce financial viability of the project, as well as making the unit attractive or viable for occupancy by a smaller range of households. In 2002, a two -unit residential apartment building was approved on this site which allowed an in -lieu agreement for four parking spaces. While the Downtown Specific Plan has been updated since that approval, the location remains a suitable location for housing. The current proposal provides 12 of 12 spaces on-site (per the DSP), and would also pay in -lieu parking fees for one unit, pursuant to the PMC. Alternative 2 would not allow for the redevelopment of this site and would result in underutilization of the infill location. This location is walking distance to downtown restaurants and shops and is proximate to many businesses and transit. The project represents a reasonable development scenario for the site and adds a housing unit to an infill location downtown, consistent with the land use designation for the site and the DSP. Based on the above, staff does not recommend the Commission adopt any of the alternatives DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 18.20 sets forth Design Review Criteria. These criteria are set forth in the draft Resolution included as Exhibit A, and includes preservation of natural beauty, relationship of the proposed buildings with the streetscape and surroundings, compatibility of architecture, among other criteria. As described in Exhibit A and based on the information and analysis provided in this Agenda Report, staff recommends the Commission make the required findings to approve the project. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within 1,000 feet of the site as shown in Exhibit F. At the time of report publication, staff has received one public comment attached to this report as Exhibit G. The comment expresses general concern with the parking on Walnut Street and this location. Public comments received after publication of this report will be forwarded to the Commission. The project plans have also been shared with the Pleasanton Downtown Association. To date, staff has not received any comments. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is categorically exempt (Section 15301, Class 1) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no environmental documents accompany this report, P20-1053, 218 Ray Street Planning Commission 10 of 11