CCMIN050404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Homes' rents will be restricted in perpetuity as long as this project is standing, at rents that start with a formula that is based on 50 and 60 percent of the median household income of households in Alameda and Contra Costa County. The formula to dete~ine the rents for many of the other affordable housing projects in town was based on 80 percent of the median household income, and, therefore, the rents were higher. Most of the projects had a time limit on how long they were to remain affordable. Ponderosa Homes understood that decision and it made the conscious decision to go forward with the project, but had it known on August 20, 2002 that the fee would go fi.om $606,000 to $1,370,000, Ponderosa Homes would have stopped the process and gone back through it and asked for a waiver oft}ds fee, which is a huge burden on this project. Ponderosa Homes believes Council ought to consider the equity and the appropriateness of the fee on this project. He noted that seniors do not use public parks like families. Seniors living in this project and the affordable units will have access to that park and they will not be required to pay for it because it is a private park. The homeowners in the Busch area will pay for this park and the developers of the senior housing project will subsidize the senior rental units because the residents who live in the 138 rent restricted units cannot pay for the park. He noted that this project is over budget and it is over budget because Ponderosa Homes made it that way in some respects. The landscaping is being enhanced and Ponderosa Homes is looking at making this project as attractive and livable as possible for the seniors. Ponderosa Homes does not believe that the process worked, and it is asking Council to consider rolling back the fee to the fee that was in place the evening that the project was approved by Council in 2002. Ponderosa Homes will still pay the $606,000, but it does not believe that $1,370,000 is appropriate. If Council was sympathetic to the point of view that the process did not work, Ponderosa Homes would ask that Council send this project back to the Planning Commission to discuss with it the appropriateness of its request. Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle, said that the request for fee waivers slows down the approval process, and it seems to be a continual stumbling block in allowing the types of housing in the affordability ranges. She believed the staffrecommendation for postponement of the in-lieu park dedication fees is supportable, and she encouraged Council to consider it. She suggested that Council consider a revision in the way that fees are calculated for the different types of housing that is approved in the City. She noted that there are many requests for fee waivers, which is a part of the process, but those requests are beginning to negatively impact both the affordable housing fund and the park fund. Since the fee is reviewed annually, she thought it would be appropriate to have a policy that would not charge such high fees for housing that is designed to be affordable for people below 80 percent of the median income. She suggested building this into the fee structure and replacing the money that would not be collected for each of the individual units on to the large lot, single family housing that is designed to be affordable to people of higher incomes. She noted that the families in Pleasanton do benefit fi.om the City's ability to provide this type of housing for its relatives, parents and grandparents. It does not seem efficient to have to discuss the issue of fee waivers when every single proposal comes forward. She noted that some type of waiver is typically granted and the level of waiver could be adjusted depending on the City's ability to do so fi:om year to year. She believed a different approach would allow the City the Pleasanton City Council 10 05/04/04 Minutes