18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 1. Citizens for a Caring Community P.O. Box 1781 , Pleasanton CA 94566 February 21, 2013 Pleasanton Housing Commission City of Pleasanton Pleasanton, CA 94566 Re: Agenda Item 06 Affordable Housing Agreement with Pleasanton Partners PUD-85-08-1 D-4M Dear Chairman Casey and Housing Commissioners, Citizens for a Caring Community has a number of issues to raise regarding the approval of this draft agreement with Pleasant Partners. Some of our concerns have to do with the application of Pleasanton's IZO to high density developments on land zoned solely for the purpose of meeting Pleasanton's mandated need for affordable housing. The other concern has to do with the unfortunate reversal cf precedent that this agreement represents. To take the issue of precedent first, you should be aware that Pleasanton has always required either deeper or greater affordability of apartment developments in Hacienda than this agreement would require of Pleasant Partners. For instance, in 1997 Pleasanton approved Archstone Hacienda, which was built at 23 unit/acre. Archstone provided, in perpetuity, 25% of their units (1, 2, and 3 bedrooms) for households at 80% AMI. In addition, they provided a 3 acre public park, and a bridge providing access to a park on the other side of the adjacent arroyo. In contrast, Pleasant Partners proposes to provide only 10% affordable units for 80% AMI households. They also want credit for 5 moderate income units that Pleasanton will already receive credit for at the proposed density of 36.3 units/acre. Approving their request would set a new precedent that severely diminishes our future ability to meet our affordable housing needs It also severely undetuts Archstone, the market rate housing provider just across the street, who has gone above and beyond to assist Pleasanton in meeting our housing goals. The fact that Archstone has provided high quality (and presumably profitable) housing for over 15 years makes the need to excuse Pleasant Partners from the bare minimum of affordability required by the IZO questionable at best. CCC believes that the application of the IZO itself is a serious impediment to meeting Pleasanton's need for workforce housing affordable to those earning 80% AMI and below. For one thing, at 15%, even strict adherence will never net enough affordability to meet Pleasanton's needs. For another,judging from the voluminous attachments covering the Palmer and Patterson cases, developers feel the aw does not require them to comply.