12 ATTACHMENTS 5-7 - Laserfiche WebLink

December 13, 2021 City Of Pleasanton Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2021 Agenda Item 3 Dear Planning Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the sites analysis for Housing Element Update. I participated in the community input process as well. While the staff report covers most of the comments made of which I am aware, I think it missed a couple that I and others made. Starting at the top with Site #1, Lester: With on 31 units on almost 15 acres, this site is underutilized, especially considering Pleasanton's RHNA for Above Moderate Income (AMI) housing. Staffhas asked the question in the past whether some of Pleasanton's AMI housing should be accommodated in a high density format. I would suggest that Lester is a perfect location for 300 500 luxury condominiums. Indeed, there is no more lovely or appropriate spot for such a development in Pleasanton due to the beautiful adjacent Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park, BART (access to SF cultural venues), easy Interstate Highway access, and Stoneridge Mall. From a climate action standpoint, it generally makes sense to build luxury housing in a high density format whenever an attractive site is identified. Pleasanton's latest Census data shows that only a small percentage of our AMI residents currently work in Pleasanton. They commute to executive and other high paying jobs outside the Tri - Valley. Their commute emissions can only be partially mitigated through use of electric vehicles. However, their large lot, single family homes also generate substantial GIIG emissions. Green construction of luxury condominiums on the Lester property would reduce the level of per household GHG emissions associated with our current AMI housing stock. It would also substantially reduce water use per household. Kiewit (Sites 21a, 21b) and Steelwave (Sites 28a, 21b): I have reviewed SteelWave's November 16 letter to the Ellen Clark. Nonetheless, I believe these sites are extremely problematic from a GHG emissions point of view, and I have serious concerns about Pleasanton's ability to meet our CAP 2.0 goals if these properties receive any residential zoning at this time. My concerns were shared by others during the community input session I attended. Those residents with the greatest concerns participated, as did I, in the last attempt to develop an East Pleasanton Specific plan. Among the points raised was the significant amount of light industrial and office development necessary to make any plan alternative economically feasible. In their letter to Ms. Clark, SteelWave states their intent to build a mixed use development on page 4, points 3 and 4: