11 ATTACHMENTS 08-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

page 2 Staff has consistently defined their objective for East Pleasanton as zoning for enough density i.e.30 unit/acre residential units to claim satisfaction of RHNA.They intentionally prefer not to address how much affordable housing Pleasanton actually needs (according to our own studies,rather than RHNA)to serve business and market rate housing.Why?Staff likes to point out that commercial and single family for sale housing development generate more tax revenue per acre than higher density and/or nonprofit affordable residential development.This perspective is known as the"fiscalization of land use',often remembered as the phenomenon that caused government officials to throw good planning out the window in favor of fighting with neighboring cities and, often their own residents,for the opportunity to locate a big box retailer on their side of the highway. It's also the genesis of the California Legislature's 1969 designation of affordable workforce housing as'a matter of State concern', and all the"fair share' housing law that followed.If building affordable workforce housing were as profitable as shopping malls,office complexes,tract homes,and Mc Mansions,there would be plenty. In spite of the fact that developers can't make money building workforce housing affordable below 80%AMI,Pleasanton still has a responsibility to locally address housing needs we generate with the profitable and revenue positive market rate development we allow. And just how big is that need? The City's Draft Nexus Study recently completed by Economic&Planning Systems includes the following information: '...According to the U.S.Census Bureau's'On the Map',49.6 percent of all Jobs located in the City of Pleasanton In 2010 paid less than$40,000 per year,which equates to the'very low income'level for the County'(page 9-'Nonresidential Housing Linkage Fee Nexus Study') We encourage the Planning Commission to think of affordable workforce housing as an infrastructure investment serving much the same purpose as water treatment plants,passable roads,reliable mail delivery,streetlights,fire departments,and good schools. These land uses provide important benefits(including indirect financial benefits) to both businesses and residents without directly generating tax revenue for the City or profits to a developer.They also prevent negative impacts and costs of growth from being passed off onto neighboring communities which do not enjoy compensating economic benefits.. Just as State regulations require Pleasanton to have enough sewer capacity to prevent overflows into local creeks,California housing law intends to prevent the air pollution and traffic impacts upon adjacent communities that occur when city decides to'dump'its workforce onto the nearest highway rather than allow enough housing to mitigate the effects of its'jobs center'. Can an attractive development plan for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area provide on-site mitigation for the housing need generated by all market rate development?Would the plan have any capacity for additional affordable workforce housing that could move Pleasanton a bit closer to jobs/housing balance? We request that the Planning Commission ask for a new, Environmentally Superior alternative to be included in the EIR.Since Economic&Planning Systems has worked on both the EPSP and Pleasanton's Nexus Study,they already have much of the information needed to provide such an alternative.While it wouldn't have the design input from the Task Force, such an alternative would provide much useful information on how the Pleasanton can use its remaining land to move toward greater balance within the Urban Growth Boundary.If you have any questions,please feel free to call me at 925-426-1525 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 8QC/tg Olzei 'da Citizens for a Caring Community Attachments: 1.Previous written comments 2.Assumptions and affordable housing need generation tables from E&P S