|
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph
<br /> ir. X71 r r'` � 6, yq( � /rr��.
<br /> .t iS' x yM y,: `` -. 426'r
<br /> R ah i A
<br /> •
<br /> a
<br /> •
<br /> •r s 4 as
<br /> d '
<br /> k
<br /> # � { " A` J '' y" 5' '"sY, �IIF� 5/.:- 'S SSS}
<br /> v ,,
<br /> 34.
<br /> ,;it,i,iiat4,,, ,, I
<br /> *,* .: , 1
<br /> 4 tk.,0 .,„ t
<br /> s'...,1\ ..' l9..;'1 (tt. ,er 1::',41-r-te4167:,44, f ."..it' i's A,
<br /> \\s:71+' :.;44°P ...c W11‘k
<br /> iiirigl4
<br /> `" ; k •�.
<br /> li
<br /> yi
<br /> fr
<br /> 4,„,t---.1 *117 „-44,44
<br /> ,r iih�
<br /> F
<br /> Figure 3: Focused Aerial View
<br /> d'
<br /> "Pr ,.., e a
<br /> Y` L � F i 'c �k' ¢ G r^f 4
<br /> a' •. 71v r'� -Nisi. r1 'f
<br /> / '! 1* dmf y •' ��f
<br /> p
<br /> r .
<br /> lik
<br /> k
<br /> s � d
<br /> Viz ♦ ,
<br /> 4
<br /> P19-0410, 715 Rose Avenue Planning Commission
<br /> 3 of 11
<br /> ri
<br /> •
<br /> .e I - fir ,�s •1 !4- ir '+} +
<br /> fe, — il.„ • "
<br /> f ; :,� ,
<br /> '� I
<br /> Aii"
<br /> r .
<br /> P19-0410, 715 Rose Avenue Planning Commission
<br /> 2 of 11
<br />using requires review and approval by the Planning Commission. As proposed and
<br /> conditioned, staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan,
<br /> Downtown Specific Plan, and zoning districts. The Planning Commission may approve,
<br /> approve with conditions, or deny the application.
<br />ion of work force housing to allow compliance without
<br /> artificial restraints. He concurred with streamlining ADUs and utilizing the State mandate to
<br /> address the housing need. He concurred with the need for denser number of units and creating
<br /> affordable opportunities for families that reflected the different ethnic profiles and interests. He
<br /> expressed concern about the impacts of infill on existing neighborhoods. He indicated support
<br /> for employer partnerships.
<br /> Commissioner Allen asked the implications for the housing sites included in the Housing
<br /> Element. Ms. Clark stated the Council provided direction on the proposed housing sites and the
<br /> environmental analysis was starting, therefore, it would be difficult to reconsider the sites.
<br /> MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION/INFORMATION
<br /> 8. Reports from Meetings Attended (e.g., Committee, Task Force, etc.)
<br /> There were no reports from meetings attended.
<br /> 9. Actions of the City Council
<br /> Ms. Clark provided a brief overview of the items listed in the report.
<br /> 10.Future Planning Calendar
<br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 February 23, 2022
<br /> to be a
<br /> leading innovator in providing affordable housing for the Pleasanton workforce. He suggested
<br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 February 23, 2022
<br />icing was critical. She suggested reconsidering
<br /> the basis for the low-income housing study, especially for residential. She requested more data
<br /> on the expenditure of funding and what percentage was directed at adding more housing versus
<br /> the other programs, because HCD was looking at the number of built units. She stated it was
<br /> worth exploring a housing overlay zone but the ordinance should align with State law for short
<br /> term.
<br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 February 9, 2022
<br />a business person would be equal with building a unit and paying an IZO.
<br /> Ms. Clark explained the basis for the inclusionary zoning requirement, and the amount of the
<br /> low-income housing fee were different and therefore, there was a disjuncture between the two
<br /> fees (i.e. the in-lieu fee does not cover 100 % of the cost of constructing an affordable unit).
<br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 February 9, 2022
<br />
|