SR 06:052 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Nelson Fialho September 23, 2005 Page 2 year term from the date the PUSD either closes escrow or terminates its option. Otherwise, we are likely to find ourselves in a position where the Credits have no value to us. When the City Council approved granting us Credits, they required that "The priority is to use the lUC's on the 23-acre Busch site currently under option to the PUSD." We accepted that requirement. We interpret it to mean just what it says. that future City Councils would expect that we would use our Credits on the PUSD Option Site if possible. Because the PUSD has an option that runs through May 2008, we may not have the opportunity to even consider using the Credits on that property (or any other property) until nearly 4 years after the City Council approval of the IUC's on November 2, 2004. Should the PUSD exercise its option, then Ponderosa might only have 18 months to find a site in Pleasanton where it could request the use of the Credits., not the 5 years that we bargained for. As you may remember. if the PUSD exercises its option to purchase the PUSD Option Site. the price of the property would be established through an appraisal process to determine its Fair Market Value. The appraisal to determine the Fair Market Value would take into consideration Pleasanton's lnclusionary Zoning Ordinance which would require that at least 15%, and perhaps as much as 20% of houses that could have been built on the PUSD Option Site would have to be Affordable. The appraisal would result in a much lower Fair Market Value, which reflects this theoretical Affordable requirement. After the Fair Market Value is established, the PUSD is granted a 20% deduction from that value to determine the purchase price. We did not agree on November 2. 2004 to accept the lUC's with Staff's current interpretation of the timing for use of the credits. Had we done that. the PUSD could purchase the PUSD Option Site at a price that reflects an Affordable housing component and a 20% discount from Fair Market Value and we would be nearly out of time to try to find a location in Pleasanton where we could request the use of Credits. As to the level of affordability, we understood Staff's recommendation to be that since the initial Ponderosa/Busch property approvals required that 24% of the units be affordable, Ponderosa would agree that any subsequent development on the PUSD Option Site would not cause the ratio of affordable units on the entire Ponderosa/Busch property to drop below 24%. Today, the PonderosalBusch property development is 38% affordable. If Ponderosa proposed a development on the PUSD Option Site that was 20% affordable, consistent with the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, then the resulting level of affordability for the entire Ponderosa/Busch development would be over 28%. That level of affordability is obviously greater than Staff's recommendation that no less than 24% of the units on the entire Busch property be affordable. At the podium on November 2"', I accepted what I thought was the Staff's recommendation regarding this issue and the Council voted to approve it consistent with our understanding. Again. I would implore the present City Council to review the DVD of that meeting. We are confident that they will agree with our position. These items are extremely important to us. We have provided 51 additional affordable housing units (in addition to the initially required 87 units), which are being occupied by senior citizens in the community now. These units have come at considerable expense to us. We regret the misunderstanding that exists between Ponderosa and the Staff and we, like you, are anxious to conclude the debate regarding these open issues with the City as soon as possible. We. therefore, request that we be granted another hearing with the City Council so that we are given the opportunity to clarify our position and gain their support for it. Sincerely, -Ih-. t) . '&-( Mark O. Sweeney cc: Kile Morgan (Ponderosa) Jeff Schroeder (Ponderosa) BuschCOPHousingCredit.~LtrFialhoREV092305.doc