My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:052
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:052
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/2/2006 3:51:31 PM
Creation date
2/2/2006 3:39:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/7/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:052
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
<br />REVIEW BY PUSD <br /> <br />As noted above, as part of the credit review process, the City-PUSD Liaison Committee <br />reviewed potential impacts that affordable housing credits may have on the Option Agreement <br />with the PUSD and Ponderosa. The Option Agreement provides the PUSD an option to <br />purchase a 23-acre site for the development of a new school and sets forth the method for <br />determining the sales price. Of primary concern is the fact that the issuance of credits could <br />affect the appraised value of the site if the PUSD exercises its option to purchase the property. <br />The price of the land is determined by an appraisal of the property. As a result, if the <br />developer's request for credits is approved, the property would be appraised assuming a <br />residential project with 100% market units. If the credits are not approved, the appraised <br />value would be based on a residential project with a mix of market and affordable units. <br />Because the 100% market project would most likely appraise at a value that is higher than a <br />mixed market/affordable development, the price the PUSD would have to pay for the property <br />would be higher. <br /> <br />After rneeting with City staff, PUSD staff met with Ponderosa to explore options to mitigate <br />the impact the issuance of credits would have on the Option Agreement. As an outcome of <br />these discussions, at its meeting of October 14, the PUSD Board aff'mned that the appraisal <br />process should be conducted as if the property would be developed with a mix of affordable' <br />and market housing consistent with the City Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Attached for <br />council review (Attachment 3) is a copy of the letter outlining the Board's action. Because the <br />City is not party to the Option Agreement, no approval is required by the City. However, <br />based on the attached letter, staff has determined the matter has been resolved to the District's <br />satisfaction. <br /> <br />COMMISSION RESPONSE TO THE RETENTION OF CREDITS IN THE <br />INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE <br /> <br />In addition to reevaluating the use of credits as it relates to the Busch development, the <br />Council asked the Commissions to review the retention of credits as part of the Inclusionary <br />Zoning Ordinance. As an outcome of this discussion, both commissions expressed their <br />support for the credits, as a useful tool for meeting affordable housing needs. The <br />Commissions indicated that any particular concern regarding the application of credits could <br />be addressed by the Council which has the authority to decide each request for credits on a <br />case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />Staff continues to support the retention of credits as part of the Inclusionary Zoning <br />Ordinance. While the application of credits will not be frequent, it presents another tool that <br />may assist with acquiring affordable housing. <br /> <br />SR:03:308 <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.