CCMIN110403 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ayala. Mr, Bocian noted that it would be advantageous for a developer to ask for credits if there was a particular site that would accommodate affordable housing units versus another site that would not accommodate those units. The developer can place the affordables on one particular site and not on the other site. It provides latitude for both the developer and the Council in terms of looking at affordable housing projects and where they are best suited throughout the City. As this project came forward, Ms. Ayala believed the developer chose to put all of the affordable units in the senior housing project versus scattering them throughout the for sale housing. At that time, she also believed Council had made concessions for waiving fees and asked how much. Mr. Bocian verified that her comments were correct, and reported that the fees waived were close to $900,000. Ms. Ayala pointed out that Council saw the value in getting additional affordable housing units in the project when it was first approved. Mr. Bocian pointed out that on the first approval, which included 87 affordable units, the fee waiver was somewhat smaller. The City provided a grant of money to the developer in exchange for some additional affordability in the project. When it came through the second time, the grant was changed to a loan. The developer will be required to pay the loan back to the City within 15 years, and the fee waivers were increased to reflect the additional 51 units. The structure was basically the same, except for the grant becoming a loan. On the initial approval, Ms. Ayala pointed out that Council wanted to have all of the affordability in the senior project and it was willing to make concessions then. When the developer came back with additional request so that tax credits at the State level could be achieved, Council then made additional concessions. Mr. Bocian stated that the fee waiver was adjusted to reflect the additional 51 units and the grant was turned into a loan. In the original approval of the project, Ms. Ayaia pointed out that if Council had have stayed closely to the Inclusionary Ordinance, there would have been 38 for sale houses out of the 191 homes which would have been affordable. The senior apathnents would have had fewer affordable units. Ms. McKeehan pointed out that at the time, there was considerable concern in the neighborhood about having affordable units. There were a number of compromises and trade offs made so that the affordable units would be part of a senior project rather than spreading them through the project. Pleasanton City Council 5 11/4/03 Minutes