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

page 2 Notwithstanding Pleasant Partners' assertions that the rents of all their market rate units will be affordable only to households earning above 120% AMI, the historic experience of other complexes is that rents for market rate apartments tend to fall below those of units reserved for households earning 80% AMI. "Price spikes" seem more the exception than the rule. In any case, it hardly benefits the City to give market rate builders affordable housing credits for renting to households with 80 - 120% AMI, when the State gives Pleasanton "Moderate Income Housing" credit for every apartment in a 30 unit/acre complex that isn't reserved for families earning less than 80% AMI. Furthermore, to include "Moderate Income" apartments in an Affordable Housing Agreement between the City and a developer guarantees a price floor for a percentage of apartments (7.5% in the ease of Option 2) whenever market forces reduce rents in the rest of the complex It's heartening to see St Anton Capital striving to achieve 20% rather than 15%, and to deepen affordability to 50% AMI only. How would approving either Pleasant Partner option, with affordability percentages of only 7.5 to 10% affect St. Anton's ultimate proposal'? Granted, Pleasanton cannot meet its affordable housing needs just by adhering to the Guidelines, or even exceeding them slightly. The potential to provide the 40% affordability (Pleasanton's RHNA, for households below 80% and 50% AM!) can only be provided on larger sites such as California Center. To meet this goal, staff may need to slightly adjust the objectives stated in its report: "Notwithstanding this situation, staff remains committed to maximizing the number of affordable units in each development and will attempt to develop mutual understandings with'Mitre developers that a mixed income development is one that best meets the overall needs of the community" It seems far more feasible for the City to pursue a strategy of maximizing the number c f affordable units on each site, rather than within each discrete complex, to create mixed income neighborhoods rather than mixed income buildings. Creating incentives to include non-profit development on these larger parcels would bring us far closer to meeting our needs. To do less would effectively exclude a large percentage of Pleasanton's lower income workforce from finding housing within the City. Clearly for-profit developers will not produce the percentage of affordability required to meet Pleasanton's workforce housing needs.. Therefore, Pleasanton must marshal the resources to assist landowners in developing their properties consistent community housing needs. In order to facilitate affordable development in mixed income neighborhoods, we need an appropriate ordinance and a linkage fee schedule to make it attractive and feasible. To fully accomplish that, the City has to complete its nexus study . Please put processing the larger 30 unit/acre parcels,including California Center, on hold until these steps are accomplished. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, LIMITS Citizens for a Caring Community