My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
041613
>
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2015 3:03:53 PM
Creation date
4/10/2013 3:42:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 1,4,6,9
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
206
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
ATTACHMENT 1. <br /> Citizens for a Caring Community <br /> P.O. Box 1781 , Pleasanton CA 94566 <br /> February 21, 2013 <br /> Pleasanton Housing Commission <br /> City of Pleasanton <br /> Pleasanton, CA 94566 <br /> Re: Agenda Item 06 <br /> Affordable Housing Agreement with Pleasanton Partners <br /> PUD-85-08-1 D-4M <br /> Dear Chairman Casey and Housing Commissioners, <br /> Citizens for a Caring Community has a number of issues to raise regarding the approval of this draft <br /> agreement with Pleasant Partners. Some of our concerns have to do with the application of Pleasanton's <br /> IZO to high density developments on land zoned solely for the purpose of meeting Pleasanton's mandated <br /> need for affordable housing. The other concern has to do with the unfortunate reversal cf precedent that <br /> this agreement represents. <br /> To take the issue of precedent first, you should be aware that Pleasanton has always required either <br /> deeper or greater affordability of apartment developments in Hacienda than this agreement would require <br /> of Pleasant Partners. For instance, in 1997 Pleasanton approved Archstone Hacienda, which was built at <br /> 23 unit/acre. Archstone provided, in perpetuity, 25% of their units (1, 2, and 3 bedrooms) for households at <br /> 80% AMI. In addition, they provided a 3 acre public park, and a bridge providing access to a park on the <br /> other side of the adjacent arroyo. <br /> In contrast, Pleasant Partners proposes to provide only 10% affordable units for 80% AMI households. <br /> They also want credit for 5 moderate income units that Pleasanton will already receive credit for at the <br /> proposed density of 36.3 units/acre. Approving their request would set a new precedent that severely <br /> diminishes our future ability to meet our affordable housing needs It also severely undetuts Archstone, <br /> the market rate housing provider just across the street, who has gone above and beyond to assist <br /> Pleasanton in meeting our housing goals. The fact that Archstone has provided high quality (and <br /> presumably profitable) housing for over 15 years makes the need to excuse Pleasant Partners from the <br /> bare minimum of affordability required by the IZO questionable at best. <br /> CCC believes that the application of the IZO itself is a serious impediment to meeting Pleasanton's need for <br /> workforce housing affordable to those earning 80% AMI and below. For one thing, at 15%, even strict <br /> adherence will never net enough affordability to meet Pleasanton's needs. For another,judging from the <br /> voluminous attachments covering the Palmer and Patterson cases, developers feel the aw does not <br /> require them to comply. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.