22 ATTACHMENT 3-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Brown mentioned circulation and pedestrian walkways and proposed amenities on page 8 of the agenda report; he stated he agreed with the requirement but the way it is currently phrased did not allow for exceptions. Ms. Bonn and Mr. Williams continued the second portion of the presentation related to examples of projects with density greater than 40 dwelling units per acre in other communities. Commissioner Allen referenced a question posed by Commissioner Nibert regarding whether it was profitable to develop all affordable projects at a higher density in a market-based development. She inquired whether a high density, all affordable project could be developed by a market-based developer without the City contributing significant funding. Mr. Williams discussed his experience in affordable housing developments, and indicated both market-based developers and nonprofit developers utilized public funds. He explained that land cost, parking ratios, and density impacted cost. Commissioner Allen asked the 'sweet spot' for density. Mr. Williams 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 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. Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, September 8, 2021 Page 7 of 9