Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brian $~ft <br />May 1~, ~001 <br /> <br />Safety, noise, and pollution issues as a result of being located on high traffic <br />thoroughfares at the comer of Hopyard Road and Gibraltar Drive. <br /> <br />· Safety concern for elementary age children crossing Hopyard Road to attend the <br /> nearest school. <br /> <br />· No amenities such as parks, public open space, recreational facilities within V2 <br /> mile; nearest park is over a mile away. <br /> <br />· Land and construction costs are prohibitively high for residential development. <br /> <br />Market rate multi-family housing is not economically feasible. Archstone <br />Communities, a for-profit multi-family developer with projects in Hacienda, <br />evaluated a mafltet-rate, 130-unit project with 19 affordable units (15%) per <br />Pleazanton's inclusionary zoning ordinance. The projected yield of 7.22% is <br />below their 9.5-10% requirements, and they would not be interested in pursuing <br />our property. Pleasanton would actually need to provide a subsidy of <br />approximately $6,800,000 to make a market rate project of this size feasible. <br /> <br />Affordable housing is not economically sensible. A reputable, well respected Bay <br />Area sponsor of affordable housing has concluded that a $15.100.000 permanent <br />subsidy would be required for a 130-unit, tax credit and tax exempt bond financed <br />affordable housing project. At a subsidy amount of $116.154 per unit, affordable <br />housing on our site does not make sense when compared to other affordable <br />projects such as Ridge View Commons where a subsidy amount of approximately <br />$19,500 per unit was needed. <br /> <br />Onoosition bv the Hacienda Business Park Owners Association (HBPOA~ <br /> <br />· HBPOA's General Manager, Mr. James Paxson, wrote a letter to Major Tom Pico <br /> stating the park's strong opposition to housing on our site. <br /> <br />Reasons for the park's position are: <br />1. No amenities that residents desire - bad planning to put residential there. <br />2. Inconsistent use within the area. <br />3. Expectation of considerable opposition from ndjoining neighbors. <br /> <br />Housing on our site would be like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. It simply <br />doesn't fit. The site is not a good residential location, housing is not economically <br />feasible or sensible, and a housing project would entangle us in a lengthy dispute between <br />the city and the HBPOA. Following is a more detailed discussion 0f each of these areas. <br /> <br /> <br />