Laserfiche WebLink
page 4 <br /> While staff has focused the Task Force's attention on accommodating RHNA numbers within <br /> the EPSP area, the Task Force should also consider the factors that generate housing need. <br /> Creating a plan for East Pleasanton that creates more housing need than it can mitigate on site <br /> has risks. <br /> For instance: <br /> Given Pleasanton's current jobs/housing imbalance, and the substantial resulting daily in- <br /> commute, a plan that creates more jobs than housing will make it impossible for Pleasanton to <br /> write a certifiable General Plan Air Quality Element. <br /> Pleasanton has limited land within the City's Urban Growth Boundary to designate for future <br /> workforce housing. Yet, as with the Housing Cap,the Urban Growth Boundary is vulnerable to <br /> invalidation if it prevents Pleasanton from meeting State mandated housing requirements. <br /> It makes little sense to create land use plans such as those represented in Options 1, 2, and 3, that <br /> will result in such a greatly increased demand for affordable housing while providing only a <br /> small percentage of what is needed. At this point Options will only benefit the property owners <br /> and their associated development interests. The Options presented fail to include elements to <br /> meet Pleasanton's interest in bringing jobs and housing into balance, and could eventually <br /> threaten the integrity of our UGB. <br /> Therefore, I request that the Task Force ask staff, property owners, and developers to create one <br /> or more alternatives that, at least, self mitigate the housing need generated and, if possible, <br /> contribute to the long term process of providing all the workforce housing needed to serve our <br /> thriving business community. <br /> Thank you for your consideration. <br /> Very sincerely, <br /> Becky Pe K.4.4y <br /> Citizens for a Caring Community <br />