4 - Laserfiche WebLink

SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION The subject property is a flat, approximately 11,426-square-foot lot developed with an approximately 1,427-square-foot single-story home and an approximately 880-square-foot detached garage to the rear. There is a gravel driveway along the southeast property line which expands into a concrete pad between the back of the house and the garage. There are 10 mature trees on-site, none being native species and of which four are heritage-size. Nine of the trees are along the property lines and one heritage-size tree is in the front center of the lot (see Figures 1-3). The property is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Uses adjacent to the subject site include multi-family residences and a trailer park to the north, single-family homes to the northeast and south, and the Alameda County Fairground racetrack to the west, across Rose Avenue. Existing residential single- and multi-family homes in the area are one- to two-stories. Figure 1: 715 Rose Avenue Google Street View l 4, A ,. -,/, rt i! °L f ht.!, .rc .. 'e r. .. - * ♦ i�.• 'fit ,. r R +�. • ;,� _�.'�7R ,t // ~' seri - ,. .,. f- 1 —0',4 4....., ... • 7�..t,i,'I .. b_ ri • .e I - fir ,�s •1 !4- ir '+} + fe, — il.„ • " f ; :,� , '� I Aii" r . P19-0410, 715 Rose Avenue Planning Commission 2 of 11 using requires review and approval by the Planning Commission. As proposed and conditioned, staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and zoning districts. The Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. ion of work force housing to allow compliance without artificial restraints. He concurred with streamlining ADUs and utilizing the State mandate to address the housing need. He concurred with the need for denser number of units and creating affordable opportunities for families that reflected the different ethnic profiles and interests. He expressed concern about the impacts of infill on existing neighborhoods. He indicated support for employer partnerships. Commissioner Allen asked the implications for the housing sites included in the Housing Element. Ms. Clark stated the Council provided direction on the proposed housing sites and the environmental analysis was starting, therefore, it would be difficult to reconsider the sites. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION/INFORMATION 8. Reports from Meetings Attended (e.g., Committee, Task Force, etc.) There were no reports from meetings attended. 9. Actions of the City Council Ms. Clark provided a brief overview of the items listed in the report. 10.Future Planning Calendar Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 February 23, 2022 to be a leading innovator in providing affordable housing for the Pleasanton workforce. He suggested Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 February 23, 2022 icing was critical. She suggested reconsidering the basis for the low-income housing study, especially for residential. She requested more data on the expenditure of funding and what percentage was directed at adding more housing versus the other programs, because HCD was looking at the number of built units. She stated it was worth exploring a housing overlay zone but the ordinance should align with State law for short term. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 February 9, 2022 a business person would be equal with building a unit and paying an IZO. Ms. Clark explained the basis for the inclusionary zoning requirement, and the amount of the low-income housing fee were different and therefore, there was a disjuncture between the two fees (i.e. the in-lieu fee does not cover 100 % of the cost of constructing an affordable unit). Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 February 9, 2022