My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PACKET
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2024
>
111924 REGULAR
>
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2026 12:24:12 PM
Creation date
11/13/2024 3:02:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/19/2024
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
420
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 5 of 8 <br />unit shall be at least 550 net square feet; (3) a two-bedroom unit shall be at least <br />750 net square feet; (4) a three bedroom unit shall be at least 1,000 net square <br />feet; and (5) for units with more than three bedrooms an additional 200 net <br />square feet for each additional bedroom. <br /> <br />Regarding the size of inclusionary rental units, in response to Planning Commission <br />comments, the above recommendations include some minor adjustments to the minimum <br />square footage, reducing them slightly from the initially proposed unit sizes by 50-100 square <br />feet, to help improve the feasibility of these units for new development. The revisions also now <br />specify that unit sizes are net (i.e., "paint to paint") so that the thickness of walls is not included <br />in the unit size calculation. In developing the recommendations, staff consulted with Van Meter <br />Williams Pollack (VMWP), the City's consultant who has extensive experience developing both <br />market-rate and affordable projects throughout the Bay Area. The recommended unit sizes are <br />based on considerations of livability (adequate living space for the typical household size that <br />would be occupying a unit) and ability to include features such as storage and additional <br />bathrooms as bedroom counts increase. VMWP noted that in Pleasanton, market-rate unit <br />sizes tend to be larger than in more urban areas such as Oakland and San Francisco, so <br />ensuring relative equity between the affordable and market-rate units means that affordable <br />units should also be somewhat larger than in those other locations. <br />• Bedroom Mix (17.44.050.G.) The IZO has been amended to include new requirements <br />for the bedroom mix (i.e., the number of units that are studios, one-, two-, or three- <br />bedrooms) of the affordable units. <br />o For-sale projects inclusionary units must reflect a similar average number of <br />bedrooms as the market-rate units <br />o In rental projects, a mix that includes at least 10% three-bedroom units is <br />required, with a limitation set on studio units (no more than 10% studio units are <br />allowed), and the remainder one- and two-bedroom units. <br /> <br />This mix is the same as that included and approved in the ODS, and matching average <br />bedroom counts in for-sale projects is a commonly used approach that retains equivalency <br />between the market-rate and affordable units. <br /> <br />Alternative Means of Compliance (17.44.040.080) <br />Consistent with direction provided by City Council on August 20, recommended amendments <br />to the alternative compliance section (17.44.080) include: <br />• More detailed findings for approval of alternative compliance proposals, and clearly <br />placing the burden of proof to support the basis of requests on the applicant. <br />• Establishing the City Council as the approving body for all alternative compliance <br />requests. <br />• Establishing a clear priority among acceptable forms of alternative compliance, with <br />(from most to least preferred): 1) Alternative configurations, unit types or clustering of <br />units on site; 2) Constructing units off-site; 3) Dedicating land for an affordable housing <br />project; and 4) Paying the Affordable Housing fee. As proposed in the text amendments, <br />applicants are required to demonstrate that a higher-priority option is infeasible, before <br />consideration is made of a lower-priority option. <br />Page 91 of 658
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.