13 - Laserfiche WebLink

received related to units at risk of conversion, and stated there were no units at risk of conversion in Pleasanton. Chair Brown mentioned points raised during the September 21, 2021 Council Meeting regarding racial mix of diversity and whether it was evenly distributed throughout the City. Ms. Clark stated that data would need to be further gathered, but mentioned the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis which would look closely at the distribution of various populations in the city. Commissioner Morgan mentioned the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and explained he considered the percentage of Pleasanton employees that could afford market rate or affordable units. Ms. Clark explained that the income limits set by the State determined the income a typical household needed to afford either a purchase or rental, but a household could include workers in various job categories and wage levels. Commissioner Morgan asked if data was available on wage levels of jobs in Pleasanton to match to housing. Ms. Clark stated wage information by sector could help illustrate this data, understanding that a sector can contain many different sorts of jobs, at varying wage levels. Commissioner Morgan anticipated a high level of employees could not afford housing in Pleasanton. Ms. Clark concurred that the data showed the majority of households could not afford the median priced for sale unit and a large portion could not afford rental units, without being cost burdened. Commissioner Nibert discussed the stakeholder group overview, providing 12 various inputs related to housing needs. He stated he understood that staff would consider all public comments and information. He followed up to a previous comment made by Commissioner Morgan and mentioned below market rate occupants are still cost burdened; he further discussed a recent article he read where another city had entered into an affordable housing contract that had reduced rent of a standard below market rate apartment about $200. He mentioned that although it was a reduction, it was still priced rather high, and expressed his concern that even after completing this process, if the root of the problem is not addressed, the City might face a similar situation where the housing needs would not be fulfilled. Housing Constraints Analysis — Are there any comments on the Housing Constraints Analysis (Appendix C)? Commissioner Nibert mentioned cost of land as a constraint and requested cost of land be acknowledged in terms of financing or redevelopment costs. Ms. Murillo confirmed that land cost was included in Section C3-2 on Page C34 and stated more detail could be added. Commissioner Allen requested additional information on land cost in relation to density. Commissioner Morgan agreed that that information was valuable. Ms. Clark suggested a focused discussion on the economics of housing production at a later time. Chair Brown asked if the outcome of fee reduction could be deduced. Ms. Clark stated it was part of the overall development and fee cost. Chair Brown stated he was trying to understand City fees as total cost and impact on project development. Ms. Clark stated information was included in Table C-11 on Page C32, which could be expanded. Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, September 22, 2021 Page 4 of 6