SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 2 Attachment 2 page 23, Planning Commission minutes: "Mr. Dolan ...stated that the City is so far behind on its last RHNA round, and it got its Housing Element to address RHNA in the final year of an eight-year planning period. He noted that a year has gone by, and now the City has to have another Housing Element done and complete all the re-zonings, accomplished and annexations if necessary, and going to LAFCO by the end of next year. He indicated that the City cannot really do the Housing Element without really knowing what is going on in East Pleasanton since this area is going to be one of the areas the City is getting the units from." Other than RHNA numbers defined solely as density rather than affordability,this is a developer driven plan, completely shaped by developer needs for financial feasibility and return on investment. Contrast this with the total absence of focus on how East Pleasanton could be planned using revised Housing Element policies that would remedy Pleasanton's inability to secure more than a mere 10%of the housing in 30 unit/acre developments for Pleasanton's workforce earning below 50 and 80%AMI. This is far fewer units than needed to mitigate the additional need created by the balance of market rate residential created in our 30 unit/acre plans so far, much less the commercial and industrial development proposed to go with them. To quote the City's consultant: '... 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." The developer's preference,and the City's apparent agreement,to prevent this portion of our workforce from finding housing in the East Pleasanton was clearly demonstrated with the exclusion of non-profit development from consideration by the developer,the staff, or the Task Force. This occurred in spite of the fact that the consultant, EN,stated that nonprofit development would improve the overall financial feasibility of the plan. Council's preparation of an EIR for this plan will signify your concurrence that the updated Housing Element will conform to meeting the developer's financial needs in the EPSP, rather than the EPSP conforming to Housing Element goals, policie,s and programs that meet Pleasanton's needs and obligations to provide workforce housing and reduce carbon emissions. It will be impossible to include nonprofit housing or greater affordability after the plan is approved and the land is zoned. Even if Pleasanton adopts some groundbreaking policies to secure a greater percentage of affordable housing on 30 unit/acre zoned land, these rules will not apply in East Pleasanton,since the zoning entitlements will conform to the developers' plans you are considering tonight. If this is not your intention as a Councilmember,vote to send the plan back for review after the Housing Element update.Or confer the needed acres of zoning without committing to a definite plan that will so explicitly exclude a higher percentage and greater depth of affordability in accordance with Pleasanton's needs. Attachment 8, EPS Memorandum,Appendix,Table A-12: Note the number of residents employed in the City vs. the number of non-resident employees. With its net contribution to lower income housing need,this plan will substantially increase carbon emissions throughout the Tri-Valley and beyond. Thank you for your consideration. N da/ 012nnia Citizens for a Caring Community