SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Citizens for a Caring Community P.O. Box 1781 , Pleasanton CA 94566 ( June 17, 2013 Mayor Jerry Thorne Pleasanton City Council Members SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL City of Pleasanton Provided to the City Council P.O. Box 520 After Distribution of Packet Pleasanton, CA 94566 / ,J Date SLr/Q 26!3 Dear Mayor Thorne and City Council members: On behalf of Citizens for a Caring Community(CCC), I have reviewed the staff report including the additional suggestions, Alternative 5 and Alternative 6. My recollection of the issues raised at the last Task Force meeting varies somewhat from the staff report. As I recall, the Task Force expressed an interest in designating the minimum possible acreage for commercial development. In particular, retaining only the neighborhood serving retail and, at most, allowing office development only of the parcel along Stoneridge Drive at the northern end of the SPSP area. Were it not within the Airport Protection Area, it seemed that a majority of the Task Force would have preferred the use of this parcel for affordable workforce housing because of its close proximity to retail and healthcare service jobs. Once again, CCC would like to raise the concern that the designation of acreage for commercial development drives Pleasanton's responsibility to provide workforce housing. In addition, construction of market rate housing also generates affordable workforce housing need for which Pleasanton will ultimately be required to accommodate. Indeed,there is a growing awareness throughout California at al levels of government that housing density does not equal housing affordability. Therefore in planning, if Pleasanton wishes to minimize the amount and impact of new, denser housing development on the existing community, the Council should take into account the amount of affordable workforce housing need generated by both commercial and residential development. What follows is and analysis of Alternatives 5 and 6 using the same ratios from 2011 research by the Economic Roundtable entitled Affordable Housing Benefit Fee Study: The Nexus between New Market-Rate Development and the Subsequent Increase in Demand for Affordable Housing in the City of Los Angeles. (Detailed worksheets for Alternatives 5 and 6 are attached to this letter. For tables showing per unit ratios and AMI bands, see CCC's letter attached to your staff report.) Although the information isn't adjusted specifically for Pleasanton or the Tri-Valley, it is recent, and gathered from a wide range of southern California communities that are part of California's economy. Applying the same ratios to all the alternatives shows that development of the EPSP Area per the new Alternatives 5 and 6 result in even greater unmet affordable workforce housing need than under Alternatives 1-4 that would impact other parts of Pleasanton. The greater generation of affordable workforce housing need in Alternatives 5 and 6 results from increasing the amount of market rate for sale single family and multifamily condominium units as well as the addition of campus office and industrial flex beyond the minimum the Task Force preferred.