From: City of Pleasanton
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: City Clerk Form submitted on City of Pleasanton Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 3:40:17 PM
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
Your
Name
Phyllis Couper
Your
Email
Subject Hopyard Development P23-0177 & tract 8672
Message Dear Council Members:
I would like to point out that the citizens of Pleasanton who elected you are expecting you to enact policies that are for their benefit and support. The string of housing dictates will never end. Unless this Council is willing to stand up to the bully threats of lawsuits, slashed funds, etc., this city will be over run with hideous construction that will not benefit low income but will create more infrastructure problems and costs. Traffic, parking, water, sewage, schools, police, and emergency service costs will fall on the city tax payers while the developers will collect their profits and walk away. Perhaps zero lot line homes, two story with facades of a village look like those on east side of Chase Avenue could be an option. One only has to look at the nightmare of construction in Hayward to see what Pleasanton could look like in a few short years. Please send the developers back to the drawing board for a more compatible plan. Thank you, Phyllis Couper
Submitted On:
Apr 15, 2024, 08:46PM PDT
City Council Meeting - Submit
your written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Dorene
Last Name:
Paradiso-carroll
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
April 16, 2024
Agenda Item Number
23 Comments
Both my husband, Patrick J. Carroll and I, oppose this entire project.
This project does not fit into the existing neighborhood, and surrounding areas. It is not consistent with the quality of life Pleasanton is known for. People work hard to earn enough money to be able to finance a home in Pleasanton, with the quality of life we have always been known for. This Council should be protecting the City of Pleasanton.
Dorene Paradiso - Carroll
Patrick J. Carroll
From: Laura Taggart
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7:31 AM
To: Steve Hernandez <[email protected]>; Paul Eichenholtz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing Form submitted on City of Pleasanton
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
Hi Steve and Paul,
I look forward to our meeting tomorrow morning at 9am. I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting tonight, unfortunately. I read that there has been a recommendation that the Affordable Housing units remain low-income which I am very pleased to hear. I would like to know why we would pay $900,000 out of Pleasanton’s Affordable Housing fees to reduce the project to 55 units. It seems those funds could be better used to offset future low income affordable housing projects and if the developer is willing to cover the cost of the 9 units originally recommended that seems like a more reasonable option and prudent use of our funds.
Here are the questions I sent you on March 22 which are some of the questions I would like to discuss tomorrow.
1. What factor or who determined that under Alternative 2, the 8 one-bedroom units would need to be for moderate income families?
2. Do I understand correctly that in moving from 57 units to 55 units that those 2 less units represent one of the lower income homes and one of the regular homes?
3. Did I hear that the lower income units are 2 story duets and that the regular homes are 3 story condos?
4. Is it possible to see a map of this project?
5. I see online that there is a listing of the affordable housing projects in Pleasanton.
Is there also a map that shows all their locations?
6. If LIHF funds are used to close the affordability gap, what other uses will not receive these funds as a result?
7. Do you have a print out of the recipients of the HHSG from last night and the amount of their grants?
Thank you and I look forward to our conversation.
Laura Taggart
From: Diego Mora
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: Fw: 3200 Hopyard Affordable Housing
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:12:59 AM
Attachments: Outlook-logogreen-.png
Outlook-website ic.png
Outlook-twitter ic.png
Outlook-Facebook i.png
Good Morning,
We have received a public comment (see below) for item #23 on the 4/16 City Council Agenda via project at 3200 Hopyard Road.
Please add to share with the Council - thank you!
Best,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner, Community Development Department
925-931-5618
[email protected]
City of Pleasanton | P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566
From: Todd Myers
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 1:23 PM
To: Diego Mora <[email protected]>
Subject: 3200 Hopyard Affordable Housing
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
Hi Mr .Mora
As you know we have a agenda item on Tuesday regarding the Affordable Housing build on Hopyard and South Valley Trails. Harvest Church did not notify the public for a long time about selling their property.
Seems like they just want money. This area for all these condo units with affordable housing units is a terrible place to build. I have sent you an email before and told you about my concern about traffic and the dangerous situations this would create.
We can build affordable housing in other areas. This is not the place.
Please
do not approve. My wife said we will probably move if this is accepted Valley Trails resident for 14 years
Todd Myers
From: Diego Mora
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: Fw: I"m very concerned about the poor planning regarding the development of the apartments on Hopyard and Valley Trails Dr
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:13:23 AM
Attachments: Outlook-logogreen-.png
Outlook-website ic.png
Outlook-twitter ic.png
Outlook-Facebook i.png
Good Morning,
We have received a public comment (see below) for item #23 on the 4/16 City Council Agenda via project at 3200 Hopyard Road.
Please add to share with the Council - thank you!
Best,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner, Community Development Department
925-931-5618
[email protected]
City of Pleasanton | P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566
From: Aaron Cooper
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 7:33 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: I'm very concerned about the poor planning regarding the development of the apartments on Hopyard and Valley Trails Dr
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the development of the apartments on Valley Trails Drive. After reviewing the plans for this property, I believe it's being rushed through with poor planning that would act as a detriment to the surrounding community. My specific concerns are as follows:
Insufficient parking
Due to the fact that only 1 parking space is provided per apartment, this location would turn my neighborhood into a parking lot, with every available space filled with parked cars.
The parking provided in these spots is grossly insufficient.
Your allowing this to happen would destroy the surrounding neighborhoods! Already impacted schools
Has any consideration been provided regarding how this amount of new housing
would impact our elementary school?
I will be attending the city council meeting on April 16th to make my voice heard. Please take the need of the Pleasanton residents OVER the needs of this developer who's interest in our community is only for short-term gain.
From: Diego Mora
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: Fw: STOP high density development at 3200 Hopyard Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:25:50 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Outlook-logogreen-.png
Outlook-website ic.png
Outlook-twitter ic.png
Outlook-Facebook i.png
Good Morning,
We have received a public comment (see below) for item #23 on the 4/16 City Council Agenda via project at 3200 Hopyard Road.
Please add to the report - thank you!
Best,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner, Community Development Department
925-931-5618
[email protected]
City of Pleasanton | P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566
From: Badari Kalagi
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:05 AM
To: Diego Mora <[email protected]>; Karla Brown <[email protected]>; Valerie Arkin <[email protected]>; Jack Balch <[email protected]>; Jeff Nibert <[email protected]>; Julie Testa <[email protected]> Subject: STOP high density development at 3200 Hopyard
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
Hi,
We are residents of Valley Trails neighbourhood and, we would like to voice our opposition to high density development at 3200 Hopyard
Thanks and Regards
Badari Kalagi
From: Diego Mora
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Scan from LegacyREA Pleasanton C7765
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:19:16 AM
Attachments: 3242 001.pdf
Outlook-logogreen-.png
Outlook-website ic.png
Outlook-twitter ic.png
Outlook-Facebook i.png
Good Morning,
We have received a public comment w/ attachment (see below) for today's item #23 on the 4/16 City Council Agenda via project at 3200 Hopyard Road.
Please add to the report - thank you!
Best,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner, Community Development Department
925-931-5618
[email protected]
City of Pleasanton | P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566
From: Connie
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 6:06 PM
To: Karla Brown <[email protected]>; Valerie Arkin <[email protected]>; Jack Balch <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Julie Testa <[email protected]> Cc: Diego Mora <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Scan from LegacyREA Pleasanton C7765
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
After some read the City Staff report regarding the City Council meeting tomorrow and the upcoming discussion on the plan on Hopyard and S. Valley Trails Drive there seems to be some confusion on where I stand on it.
Some of the City leaders have indicated that they are not confused; but I felt I better send my statements to the City Council so you can see that the option you will be voting on tomorrow is better than what was originally presented by the builder but…
…“It is an improvement. But it is not enough”
And
“We would also like to see a duet or two on S. Valley Trails Drive so that the 3 story units are on Hopyard Road and closer to the arroyo. The buildings that can be seen every day as we drive into the neighborhood would be the two story ones. Again, this makes them more compatible with the neighborhood.
So you can have larger homes on Hopyard Road and gradually go from high to a little lower so they blend into the neighborhood.
This would help with our concerns regarding safety on Hopyard Road, parking and lines of traffic on Valley Trails Drive and Hopyard.
Thank you for our help with this”
So, if you read the attached, you will see that I feel, as most in this town do, this plan is the lesser of two evils.
We don’t like the plan, but realize there is no way out of it with the State dictating what the Cities are doing.
We prefer the alternative plan with the two, two story duets overlooking the two Cherry Blossom homes, instead of the three story buildings on the original plan.
The original plan had 11
windows and decks looking directly into one childs’ bedroom window. Plus, the shade study showed that the two back yards were pretty much useless since they didn’t get much sun. You can see why the two duets.
If I could have a plan 3, I’d prefer two additional two story duets on Valley Trails Drive, as I already explained.
We all know the plans are bad, but let’s make the most of it and chose the best plan for Hopyard Road and Valley Trails.
Thank you.
AWARD WINNING REALTOR
DRE#01081927
ConnieCoxHomes.com
What Is Your Home Value?
Facebook
Instagram
"Did you know? I am here to answer any of your real estate questions. If you are leaving the Tri- Valley real estate area, I can help connect clients with agents all across the US. Including Kansas, Washington, Washington DC, Iowa, and Alaska. Or if you know any friends who need real estate advice."
If you want to change the topics, or frequency of emails, that you receive, email me directly and I’ll refocus your subscription.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:26 PM
To:
Connie <[email protected]>
Subject: Scan from LegacyREA Pleasanton C7765
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – April 16, 2024 Agenda Item #4 - Revisions to Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) to Enact Updated Commission Structure
1. Q. The proposed updates for the Library Commission duties were presented by Heidi Murphy on March 7 to the Library Commission. The members of the Commission had two concerns with the proposed changes, which are summarized as follows. • Budget - All references to reviewing or advising on the budget have been removed.
While we understand that setting the budget is not under the purview of the Library Commission. Without context of the budget, we do not believe that we can make logical, reasonable recommendations regarding programs and services related to the Library. The Commission will basically be operating in the dark, and thus unable to set priorities. Therefore, we ask that item 1 of the commission duties of the muni code specifically articulate that the adopted budget be reviewed by the Commission. • Seasonal Programs - The wording of item 3 stated that the Commission would review and advise on seasonal program and service plans. Because all programs and services are included, the wording needs to be changed as follows. Review and advise city staff on program and service plans seasonally or Review and advise city staff on program and service plans in line with the Activities Guide cycle.
A. Please note that this feedback was incorporated into the updated duties # 1 and 3:
The duties of the Pleasanton Library Commission shall include the following:
1. Develop a commission workplan to be provided to City Council for consideration during the budget process. The workplan should be based on the goals and strategies outlined in the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan as well as the role of the commission.
2. Review and recommend policies to the City Council related to library services. Ordinance No.
City Council, April 16, 2024 Exhibit A to Ordinance, PMC Amendments, Page 6
3. Seasonally, review the adopted library budget, program and service plans, and key performance indicators.
4. Advise the City Council on capital projects related to library facilities.
5. As community leaders, receive library related feedback from the community.
6. Act as an advocate for library and cultural programs, services and facilities within the community.
7. Serve as liaison between the city and other library-related entities including, but not limited to: local municipalities, local nonprofits, Alameda County, state, and national agencies.
Due to the interdepartmental nature of the city budget, commissions have historically been involved with budget through the two-year priority-setting process. With the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan, this priority-setting type work has been incorporated into duty #1. This allows the commissions to weigh in on the priorities for the budget year. 2 Commissions have also been kept engaged through the quarterly and annual reports provided to the commissions. These have included performance measures, qualitative data and high level budget information. This has been incorporated into duty #3.
Agenda Item #23: Planning Commission Approval of a Proposed Project at 3200 Hopyard Road Density Bonus Law
1. Q. What is the difference between “concessions” and “waivers” as defined in density bonus law? Does the 55-unit project alter the requested concessions and waivers compared to the 57-unit project?
A. Concessions and waivers in State Density Bonus Law are similar in that both reflect reductions or exceptions from typical development standards in order to allow a density bonus project to achieve its allowable density. However, they differ in the following ways:
(1) A “Concession” (also known as an “incentive”) is a reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning or design requirements, the basis for granting of which is that it would result in “identifiable and actual” cost savings to the project. State law prescribes how many concessions must be granted based on the proportion of affordable units in the project – ranging from 1 to 4 concessions.
(2) A “Waiver” is also a reduction in development standards – however, the basis for granting waivers is that the standard would “physically preclude” the project from being built at the permitted density and with any concession. An unlimited number of waivers may be requested.
The number of concessions (one) allowed for the project is the same with either version of the
project - the threshold to qualify per Density Bonus Law is 10% lower-income or 10 % moderate income units, which would be met with either option. There is no difference in the number of concessions and waivers requested between the two versions of the project – the text at the end of the second paragraph on Page 4 of 9 should have been more carefully worded to read: “The applicant has requested one incentive and 11 waivers for the 57-unit project, and one incentive and 11 waivers for the 55-unit project, which are summarized below in Table 1. ”
Affordable Housing Agreement and City Contribution
2. Q. For Option 2, if the Council chose to retain the units at 100% AMI, what would the City’s obligation be with respect to funding or purchase of the units? Would the AHA need to be revised?
A. (1) The current draft AHA for Option 2 (55 units) includes the following key terms:
a) The developer agrees to make the units available for sale at $375,000 per unit, which is equivalent to 100% AMI (using current cost factors). b) The City agrees to provide funding from the LIHF to increase the affordability of the units from 100% AMI to 80% AMI. The LIHF amount to bridge the gap from 100% to 3 80% AMI, for all 8 units, is estimated to be in the $800,000 - $1 Million range. ($100,000-$125,000 per unit).
c) Units will be deed restricted at 80% AMI. In practical terms, the units will be sold through escrow with a qualified buyer paying the price up to 80% AMI, and the City bridging the funding gap between 80% and 100% AMI price.
(2) The current AHA does not state that that the City would buy the units. However, in theory the City could opt to purchase some or all of the units – it would require a separate Council approval to allocate LIHF for that purpose.
a) If the City Council chose not to allocate any LIHF funds to lower the affordability of the units from 100% to 80% AMI, then the AHA would need to be revised to reflect that the units would be deed-restricted at 100% AMI versus 80% AMI. b) Note that, for the 55-unit project, the original offer made by the developer was to deed-restrict the units at 120% AMI and make a (total) $77,228 payment to the LIHF . The revised proposal negotiated by staff is significantly more favorable in terms of the affordability of the units, with or without City funding. Without any City contribution, 80% AMI affordability is only proposed by the developer in conjunction with the 57-unit project (Option 1 and related AHA).
3. Q. Are there likely to be interested and qualified buyers for the affordable units? Does this vary based on the price/affordability of the units?
A. (1) According to a market study conducted by the City’s consultant (BAAHA), there is unlikely to be significant interest in purchasing units if priced at 120% AMI, because it is too close to the market rate for a 1-bedroom condo, and unlikely to be attractive to buyers when coupled with the restrictions that would limit re-sale appreciation caps, and other limits.
(2) At present, there are 50 homebuyers in the City’s “interested buyers” database at 80% AMI; 60 homebuyers at 100% AMI (and 75 homebuyers at 120% AMI). This suggests (and staff believes) there is likely to be good demand for the units at either 80% or 100% AMI. However, the interested buyers list is dynamic, and buyers may be more or less interested in particular units based on size, location, amenities and other factors.
4. Q. What has been the uptake on the City’s Downpayment Assistance Loan Program (PLALP)?
A. The program was re-vamped in 2021 (to increase loan amount from $20,000 to $100,000 and make the loan be a no-interest, shared appreciation loan versus incurring interest. The program is funded through the Low-income Housing Fund (LIHF). Only one buyer has taken advantage of the program under its new terms – staff believes this is principally because of the high cost of homes in Pleasanton, which makes purchase out of reach of qualified buyers, even with downpayment assistance.
4 Procedures, decision and timing for approval of the 3200 Hopyard Road Project and AHA.
5. What are the requirements per the Municipal Code, and SB 330 with respect to the April 16 and any subsequent hearings? What actions need to be taken by the City, and by when? A. Per the procedures for when an item is “called up” by City Council (PMC 18.12.040), a hearing must be conducted within 40 days of the request by City Council for review of the item. The City Council must at least open the public hearing at the April 16 meeting in order to meet this requirement.
(1) Per SB 330, a maximum of 5 public hearings are allowed for the project. The April 16 meeting represents the 4th of the allowable public hearings. (2) After the hearing is (opened and) closed, City Council then has 40 days to render a decision (to approve or deny the project) per PMC 18.144.040. In practical terms this would require another City Council meeting, constituting the 5 th and final
hearing allowable under SB 330.
(3) The Council could choose to take action on the project (only) on April 16, and defer a decision on the affordable housing agreement until a subsequent meeting in May. However, given the close relationship between the project and the AHA, it would be most logical for the approvals to be considered concurrently.
6. What are the repercussions if the City does not approve an SB 330 project within the specified number of hearings or PMC timeframes?
A. (1) If the City fails to take action on the project within the specified 5 hearings, then it would be deemed approved.
(2) If the City failed to take action on the project within the timeframes specified by the PMC (without agreement from the applicant to extend) then it could be subject to legal action.
Agenda Item #24: Bi-annual update to the City Council regarding Police department operations, services and activities
1. Q. How many of the crimes in the community are being commited by our unhoused? A. The City does not track housing status in relation to crime data. Crimes committed with no suspect info are difficult to discern and while the City could search by address field “transient”; some unhoused have a mailing address which makes that analysis unreliable.