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 2 <br /> Citizens for a Caring Community <br /> P.O. Box 1781 , Pleasanton CA 94566 <br /> March 21. 2013 <br /> Pleasanton Housing Commission <br /> City of Pleasanton <br /> Pleasanton CA 94566 <br /> Re: Agenda Item 8 -Affordable Housing Agreement with Pleasant Partners <br /> Dear Chairman Casey and Pleasanton Housing Commissioners, <br /> After reviewing the staff report for this Agreement, Citizens for a Caring Community (CCC) offers the <br /> following comments and suggestions: <br /> Pleasant Partners' Option 2 is a disappointment to us, and probably to you as well. Although the City Manager <br /> assured the City Council on March 5 that Pleasant Partners is eager to comply with Pleasanton's now defunct IZO, <br /> the new proposal fails to meet that minimal standard. He also asserted that, although the IZO had ceased to exist as <br /> law, the City would still require applicants to fully comply with the Hacienda TOD Standards and Design Guidelines <br /> ("Guidelines"). However, we believe that Option 2 falls well short of the Guidelines as well. <br /> Reviewing the contributions of multi-family development in Hacienda to Pleasanton's affordable housing <br /> stock, both before and after adoption of the I laeienda TOD Standards, would lead one to expect the California Center <br /> development to achieve so much more: <br /> Pre-Guidelines adoption <br /> Archstone Hacienda developed at lower density, but provided greater affordability with 25% of of its <br /> units to renting to households earning 80% AMI in perpetuity. <br /> Post-Guidelines adoption <br /> BRE was approved with 15% of its units affordable to households earning 50% AM1. <br /> On March 14, St. Anton Capital (Ncaron site)proposed to the California Statewide Communities <br /> Development Authority that 20% of their units (34)would be affordable to households earning 50% <br /> AMI. This includes 13 -IBR, 18-2BR, and 3-3BR (see attached Housing Bond Application). <br /> Compare these to California Center's two proposals. <br /> February 21 (Option 1): March 21 (Option 2): <br /> 50% AMI: 10 units (studios-5, IBR-5) 8 units (studio-5, IBR-3) <br /> 80% AMI: 21 units (IBR-5, 2BR-6, 3BR-10) 15 units (studio-3, IBR-4, 2BR-4, 3BR-4) <br /> 100%AMI: 5 units (1BR-5) 23 units (studio-8, 1BR-5, 2BR-6, 3BR-4) * <br /> TOTAL AFFORDABLE: TOTAL AFFORDABLE: <br /> Option 1 - 31 units or 10% affordable Option 2 -23 units or 7.5% affordable <br /> Only apartments renting to households earning below 80% AMI should be counted as affordable, <br /> on any parcel zoned 30 units/acre. Housing built at this density is, by definition of State law, affordable to <br /> moderate income households earning 80-120% AMI. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.