My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
03 ATTACHMENT 3
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2023
>
012623 SPECIAL
>
03 ATTACHMENT 3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/20/2023 5:44:45 PM
Creation date
1/20/2023 5:19:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/26/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
03
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2023\012623 SPECIAL
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
<br />Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, September 8, 2021 Page 8 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Chair Brown discussed the benefits of higher density providing amenities, located as far <br />away from single family homes as possible. <br /> <br />Commissioner Allen asked if the lack of a grocery store near Stoneridge Mall would <br />impact tax credits. Mr. Williams stated he would research and get back to the <br />Commission. Ms. Clark discussed staff’s consideration of housing sites for tax credits <br />and site selection criteria. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nibert mentioned the grocery store in a neighboring town and whether <br />the tax credits would apply. Mr. Williams stated the determination was based on the <br />proximity of the housing development to the amenity, irrespective of whether the <br />amenity was located in the same jurisdiction. <br /> <br />Commissioner Allen requested additional information on relative weight of tax credits. <br />She asked the density ‘sweet spot’ for a five-acre site. Mr. Williams stated affordable <br />housing for a family development usually had a threshold of 120-135 units as the <br />maximum for the total size of the project, and higher density on smaller sites to make <br />the project financially feasible. <br /> <br />In responding to Mr. Williams’ comments regarding six-story developments, <br />Commissioner Allen asked if Mr. Williams thought six-story developments were <br />appropriate for Pleasanton’s smaller scale downtown. Mr. Williams discussed the <br />downtown in Mountain View and floor area ratio restrictions. He discussed potential <br />development in downtown Pleasanton and whether it could be four stories. Ms. Clark <br />discussed the height limitations in the Downtown Specific Plan, and its very specific <br />policies to limit heights to three stories or less. Commissioner Allen discussed a battle in <br />the City of Livermore over a higher-density project on its Main Street. Mr. Williams <br />discussed the San Rafael Downtown Specific Plan. He stated too low density should not <br />be developed in certain areas, such as townhomes in a business park. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />There were no comments from the public. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br />Commissioner Nibert agreed that high density development would need to be around <br />Stoneridge Mall and Hacienda and close to BART, to receive tax credits. He suggested <br />creative solutions to attain the RHNA numbers. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gaidos stated higher density was necessary to fulfill the State’s <br />requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.