SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Citizens for a Caring Co SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Corn the City Council P.O. Box 1781 , Pleasanton CA 945After Distribution of Packet Date ✓-� �3 Mayor Jerry Thorne and Pleasanton City Councilmembers Ap 1 Ly,LU13 Chairman John Casey and Pleasanton Housing Commissioners RE: May 1 Workshop on Affordable Housing Policy and Pleasanton's IZO Dear Mayor Thorne, City Councilmembers, and Housing Commissioners, Thank you for holding this workshop on Pleasanton's affordable housing policies. Citizens for a Caring Community(CCC)truly appreciates your attention to this issue, as well as the interest of property owners,their development partners, and the many residents who defined these issues through participation in creating the Hacienda TOD guidelines, Housing Element Update, and the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. We especially appreciate that staff has included an option from CCC for your evaluation.A one page outline (Option 4 in the staff report) is attached to this letter in order to simplify your review. The Palmer decision provided CCC with the opportunity to put our members'collective knowledge to work,gained over years of working on affordable housing issues in Pleasanton and Alameda County.The result in Option 4 not only solves the "Palmer problem", but would also dramatically improve Pleasanton's ability to pursue the goals, policies, and programs in our Housing Element. Option 4 advantages over Options 1. 2.3. and 5 1. Palmer would not apply to NP/HDR zoned sites. Although sites would be designed as a whole, nonprofit developers would provide all units below 80% AMI on a separate parcel. Rents or sale prices of market rate units would be unrestricted. 2. NP/HDR zoning would provide a minimum of 40%of rental units below 80%AMI,including below 50%AMI. The current IZO requires only 15%at this level of affordability. Pleasanton's actual workforce housing need,as reflected both by local business research and RHNA, has historically been 40%or higher. Option 4 is also substantially more consistent with Pleasanton's Housing Element,which commits Pleasanton to the goal of fulfilling RHNA by encouraging nonprofit development. 3. NP/HDR sites would serve the full range of Pleasanton's workforce households earning below 80%AMI. Approximately 40%of Pleasanton's workforce earns below the Area Median Income.Yet, in complying with the IZO's 15% requirement,for-profit apartment complexes rent only to households at the very top of each income category, i.e. to those earning 80%AMI, but not 70%AMI, or to 50%AMI, but not to 45%AMI.Thus, the vast majority of Pleasanton's lower income workforce and their employers currently receive no housing benefit from the IZO. In contrast, nonprofits rent to the entire range of workforce households earning below 80%AMI, and this provides a greater return to businesses paying the LIHF and their employees. 4. All Pleasanton's Moderate Income housing requirements would be filled on NP/HDR sites.ALL housing built at less than 30 units/acre would pay the LIHF. At least 40%of the units on sites zoned NP/HDR would be at the same or higher density than the nonprofit housing. Because HCD automatically credits housing built at 30 units/acre as Moderate Income, lower density residential developments would not need to provide any Moderate Income housing, and thus would pay the the LIHF. 5. Tenants in market rate units will no longer pay higher rents to subsidize affordable units. The current IZO requires for-profit rental complexes to set rents high enough to support the rent restricted affordable units. Universal compliance of for-profit developers under the current IZO unfairly impacts the moderate income workforce occupants of market rate units with higher rents throughout Pleasanton's market rate apartment stock.