11 ATTACHMENTS 08-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Citizens for a Caring Community P.O. Box 1781 , Pleasanton CA 94566 September 24,2013 Pleasanton Planning Commission Pleasanton CA 94566 Re:Agenda Item 6.b.,East Pleasanton Specific Plan Dear Chairwoman Pearce and Planning Commissioners, Citizens for a Caring Community(CCC)has followed the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process since its inception. Because staff has not Included ongoing Input from the general public or stakeholders to the EPSP Task Force,I have attached CCC's comments for your review.Here is a summary of our concerns. 1. HOUSING: All the EPSP Options generate much more need for Very Low(below 50%Area Media Income)and Low (below 80%AMI)than they fulfill.CCC determined this by applying the housing generation factors set forth in Pleasanton's Draft Nexus Study(needed to legally establish Pleasanton's updated Affordable Housing Ordinance and Lower Income Housing Fee)as opposed to the RHNA numbers assigned to Pleasanton by ABAG. In other words,by Pleasanton's own measure, all of the Options development of either Preferred Option or any Alternative Option would lead to a substantial increase in below market rate(BMR)workforce housing need,rather than bringing the City closer to jobs/housing balance. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL: Because all Options Increase Pleasanton's deficit in workforce housing for families earning less than 80%AMI,all Options would result in additional commute Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT),and Increased carbon emissions credited to Pleasanton.The staff report includes Exhibits showing the Options'impacts on water supply and traffic, but none on diminished air quality resulting from greater in-commuter'traffic.The City should also explore the impacts of additional housing built elsewhere in Pleasanton to mitigate the additional demand for all housing types not met by the Options within theEPSP area. 3. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY:All Options occupy limited land with too much market rate for-sale and rental housing. Therefore,as 30 unitiacre development sites become more scarce,the UGB could go the way of the Housing Cap. Pleasanton does not have a policy of requiring large properties zoned to Include 30 unit/acre residential to provide,at a minimum, on-site mitigation for the need market rate residential and office development creates for BMR housing. Off-site location of sufficient BMR housing within the UGB will become increasingly difficult until the UGB becomes an illegal'barrier'to meeting workforce housing and air quality requirements. 4. The EPSP need's a better"Environmentally Superior"Alternative with on site mitigation of the all affordable housing demand created by Its market rate commercial and residential development. Discussion CCC initially held high hopes that East Pleasanton would provide a unique opportunity for residential development that could make a substantial and attractive contribution to addressing Pleasanton's lack of affordable workforce housing.The Options now before the Commission seem to indicate that this may not be the case after all.They primarily address property owner and development stakeholder interests in a plan that pays for the necessary infrastructure(including 15%or less affordable housing requirements),and returns a profit to investors.The Preferred Alternative meets their needs.Does it also meet Pleasanton's?