Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a 24 percent affordable unit ratio on the Busch property development. Ponderoea <br />Homes Is asking that it receive the full benefit of all 51 of its credits, and thet If it brought <br />a project before a Council in the future that only requires the use of some of its credits, <br />that Ponderosa Homes be allowed to retain the balance of the credits to use on other <br />sites. This request is also consistent with the City's Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. <br />POnderoea Homes strongly believes it is time for Council to make a decision regarding <br />this issue and it is entirely appropriate for this Council to make this decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked for clarification regarding the difference between A1temative <br />One and A1temative Three. He believed that A1temative One would allow Ponderoea <br />Homes to use all 51 credits on one site. Alternative Three would allow Ponderosa <br />Homes to use the 51 credits on different sites throughout the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian said that Alternative One allows Ponderosa Homes to use all 51 <br />credits only on one site. POnderosa Homes would not be allowed to use the 51 credits <br />anywhere else but the Busch property. In Altemative Three, Ponderosa Homes could <br />use the 51 credits at a different site. <br /> <br />Mr. Sweeney pointed out that Ponderosa Homes would be required to ask <br />Council if it could use the 51 credits on another site. Council would have the discretion <br />to say no. Ponderosa Homes agrees with this and would like for the issue to be <br />resolved tonight. He pointed out that the 51 credits have significant value. Ponderosa <br />Homes is putting significant, additional investment Into affordable housing in retum for <br />the potential opportunity to recover some of these credits. He noted that the staff report <br />included an amendment to the School District's option agreement that satisfies Council's <br />concem. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked how much money Ponderosa Homes has put Into the 172-unlt <br />senior apartment development? <br /> <br />Mr. Sweeney said that Ponderosa Homes applied for bond financing for this <br />project. He noted that the City provided a cash grant of $205,000. Ponderosa Homes <br />asked Council to consider making the grant a loan because it was current income and <br />Ponderosa Homes would be required to pay taxes on it if It took it as a gift. He pointed <br />out that a contribution on a per unit basis does not compare with the amount of money <br />that the City of Pleasanton has granted other developers. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala noted that page four of the staff report indicates that the developer's <br />contribution to the development has generally consisted of providing the land at no cost, <br />and as indicated in Attachment 2, Ponderosa Homes indicates that it has provided a <br />loan of $1,906,000 to date, and that an additional loan is anticipated in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Sweeney said the project is running over budget. Ponderosa Homes is <br />making cash contributions over and above the amount of money that wes allocated from <br />the State. Ponderosa Homes will effectively retire the loan out of cash flow by paying <br />itself. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala pointed out that staff has not seen detailed information demonstrating <br />this loan. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />11/02104 <br />