PC 090821 - Laserfiche WebLink

centers. He stated tax credits flowed towards projects with financial support from other funding sources. Commissioner Morgan stated he looked forward to affordable housing projects coming to Pleasanton, to help meet RHNA numbers. He asked the reasons not to pursue higher density development. Mr. Williams stated it was important to be very thoughtful about the location of higher density development. Commissioner Morgan inquired about sore points for high density. Mr. Williams stated parking was an issue but visual appearance to adjacent neighbors was the biggest issue. He stated it was necessary to ensure existing amenities. He mentioned the City of San Jose and City of Redwood City regarding building taller buildings near single family homes. Commissioner Gaidos suggested looking at sites with higher density to fulfill the RHNA numbers. Chair Brown discussed the benefits of higher density providing amenities, located as far away from single family homes as possible. Commissioner Allen asked if the lack of a grocery store near Stoneridge Mall would impact tax credits. Mr. Williams stated he would research and get back to the Commission. Ms. Clark discussed staffs consideration of housing sites for tax credits and site selection criteria. Commissioner Nibert mentioned the grocery store in a neighboring town and whether the tax credits would apply. Mr. Williams stated the determination was based on the proximity of the housing development to the amenity, irrespective of whether the amenity was located in the same jurisdiction. Commissioner Allen requested additional information on relative weight of tax credits. She asked the density `sweet spot' for a five-acre site. Mr. Williams stated affordable housing for a family development usually had a threshold of 120-135 units as the maximum for the total size of the project, and higher density on smaller sites to make the project financially feasible. In responding to Mr. Williams' comments regarding six-story developments, Commissioner Allen asked if Mr. Williams thought six-story developments were appropriate for Pleasanton's smaller scale downtown. Mr. Williams discussed the downtown in Mountain View and floor area ratio restrictions. He discussed potential development in downtown Pleasanton and whether it could be four stories. Ms. Clark discussed the height limitations in the Downtown Specific Plan, and its very specific policies to limit heights to three stories or less. Commissioner Allen discussed a battle in the City of Livermore over a higher-density project on its Main Street. Mr. Williams discussed the San Rafael Downtown Specific Plan. He stated too low density should not be developed in certain areas, such as townhomes in a business park. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no comments from the public. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 September 8, 2021 ms suggested a one or 1.25-acre site family development with 75-90 family dwelling units per acre. He discussed Commissioner Allen's mention of studios but explained that the housing shortage was based on family housing. He explained the State had changed its focus in the last two rounds of tax credits to require more family units, and he was seeing entitled projects with a larger number of studios were switching to include more larger, family units. Ms. Clark referenced a discussion with Mr. Williams regarding competitiveness for tax credits and geographic priorities. Mr. Williams stated geographic locations needed to have surrounding amenities and services and priority funding was provided for projects near transit Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 September 8, 2021