Laserfiche WebLink
AppellanYs Position: The proposed Development violates the DTPP r$�A. - Page 17 <br /> affordable housing (Appeal, pp.1 , 1.B.2) <br /> Citv's Response: <br /> 1 . The Prolect is not required to provide affordable housinq. City <br /> requlations do not require affordable housinq since the Applicant is <br /> not seekinq a densitv bonus per State law. <br /> The City has no basis for conditioning this Project to include affordable housing units. <br /> The developer did not request a Density Bonus or other concessions that would give the <br /> City a basis to require affordable units. <br /> 2. The Proiect does provide for a varietv of residential unit tvpes and <br /> sizes in order to appeal to a variety of income qroups. <br /> The Project includes a variety of unit sizes and types, including nine (9) podium style <br /> units that directly front Middlefield and Jefferson to activate those frontages as well as <br /> 22 units which open onto the interior landscape courtyard. The breakdown of unit types <br /> are as follows: <br /> -112 — 1 Bedroom Studio (24°k) <br /> -256 — 1 Bedroom (54°k) <br /> -79 — 2 Bedroom (17°k) <br /> -24 — 3 Bedroom (5°k) <br /> Thus the Project provides for a variety of unit sizes to appeal to a variety of income <br /> levels. <br /> 3. The Applicant has proposed to "unbundle" parking from the base <br /> rent of the unit in order to make the units more affordable to a wider <br /> variety of residents. <br /> Parking spaces would be "unbundled" from the apartment units so that car park spaces <br /> will be leased to tenants as an additional cost to the base rent. Unbundled parking <br /> results in both lower rental rates and unit purchase prices, which contributes to <br /> increased housing affordability. In addition, there also are studies showing that <br /> unbundled parking results in reduced parking demand and reduced greenhouse gas <br /> (GHG) emissions. See Master Response V for further discussion and background on <br /> the benefits of unbundled parking. <br /> IV. The Project does not require additional CEQA review and is in compliance <br /> with the DTPP EIR. <br /> A. The Appeal Should Not Be Granted on the Grounds that it violates <br /> provisions of the DTPP EIR. <br /> AppellanYs Position: Additional environmental analysis is needed because this <br /> "individual projecY' is the "firsY' in the implementation of the DTPP and various other <br /> Page 17 <br />