22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Allen referred to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) chart on page 20 of the staff report and noted that this project originally came to the Commission because it was part of RHNA and was supporting some of the low-income capacity. She requested Ms. Soo to explain the implications of this project with respect to the City's RHNA numbers, especially for very-low- and low-income versus moderate versus above-moderate. Ms. Soo replied that the 117-unit apartment included 27 affordable units, 6 of which were very-low-income units, 12 were low-income units, and 9 were moderate-income units. She indicated that the current project includes 10 low-income units for households with 80 percent of the annual median income. She added that the net in the very-low-income and low-income categories previously included a surplus of 163 units, which is now reduced to 155 units with the removal of the 18 units from the original Summerhill project and the addition of the 10 units from this current proposal. Chair Allen referred to the last paragraph on page 20 of the staff report regarding the comment that "vacant/underutilized sites with a density of 30 units per acre or greater am considered inventory for the construction of very-low- and low-income housing; permitted and approved sites with a density of 30 units per acre or greater am considered inventory for the construction of moderate-income housing; and lower-density single-family residential sites am considered inventory for the above-moderate-income category." She requested clarification that when a site is first inventoried for 30 units or more but has not been approved, those would be considered as lower-income, but once they are approved such as was done for this project specifically, those units would be moved out of low-income into moderate-income or above-moderate-income, depending upon the category. Ms. Soo said yes. She indicated that should this project be approved, the table will be revised or updated accordingly. Commissioner Piper complemented the applicant for working so hard and so closely with the Parkside neighborhood and to come to such a wonderful agreement. She stated that, particularly after hearing Mr. Bowen's speech, it seems everybody is so happy, and this does not happen very often. She indicated that it is really neat to sit up there and hear that. She congratulated Summerhill, Parkside, and Mr. Paxson and stated that she excited for the project and really supports it. Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Piper. He stated that from a City perspective, he knows the City had more than it needed earlier and it was not really providing a lot of for-purchase properties that were lower in square footage and more affordable, and this project brings that to the City. He added that he also knows that when the City of Pleasanton lost the court battle over the housing cap, the City did not want to provide more than it had to, and this helps that and also brings that affordability in ownership as opposed to just rental property. He stated that he is very pleased to see what Summerhill has brought forward, something the City has not seen for a while. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 13, 2015 Page 4 of 6