13 - Laserfiche WebLink

ITEM 4: PUBLIC CO September 15, 2021 Pleasanton Housing Commission Agenda Item 4, Draft Preliminary Update, Housing Element Update Dear Chairman Galvin and Housing Commissioners Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Preliminary Report for Pleasanton's 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. What follows is a synopsis of my primary observations, questions, concerns, and suggestions. I have also included these on annotated PDFs of Exhibit A. Please find my notes attached: Pages 1, 2, A2, A3, A7, A9, A10, All, Alt, A13, A28, A38, A40, C3, D8, D13, D15, D16, D17, G4. The Staff Report indicates (page 1) that the purpose of the Preliminary Report is to "analyze Pleasanton's housing trends". Page 5 notes that, according to the latest American Community Survey, "only 8% of people employed in Pleasanton also work in Pleasanton." Just to put that number in context, here's the trend recorded by the American Community Survey over the last four decades: PLEASANTON RESIDENTS WORKING IN PLEASANTON 1990-27.3% 2000-19.8% 2010-15.4% 2020-8% This trend did not happen by accident. It resulted from City decisions that placed the highest priority on using available land to generate the maximum property tax and sales tax revenue. It has clearly worked. Pleasanton is one of the wealthiest cities of its size in the U.S. That's the upside of favoring development of luxury homes, corporate headquarters, and regional serving retail over developing housing affordable to the corporate employees and essential community service workers. Around 50% of jobs available in Pleasanton pay at the Very Low or Low Income level. The Preliminary Report identifies the greatest business demand as for employees for jobs paying in the $15K to $40K range. Their housing, if truly affordable, would generate less revenue per acre, while the City's cost to provide services for those residents would remain the same. Ergo the de facto decision to build as few truly affordable units for Pleasanton's workforce as possible. Under this asset (land) management approach, a decline in the number of people able to work and live in Pleasanton from 27.3% to 8% represents good progress towards the financial ideal, but much to the horror of housing advocates and environmentalists such as myself. The downsides of Pleasanton's financially successful land use choices are GHG emissions, reasonable access for businesses to an essential workforce, and the City's ability to control its planning future in the face of State housing and environmental mandates. If we want the State to stop bothering our City we need to reverse course and house many more of the people commuting to work in Pleasanton. This is the only path since 92% of Pleasanton residents of employed residents who can afford Pleasanton's housing (those earning $125,000 to $226,080) must commute out of town to better paying jobs than those available in Pleasanton. Increasing the live/work percentage is essential to lower our GHG emissions and, for the first time, quantifiably valuable in the carbon markets. I urge you to recommend innovative housing strategies that take advantage of the unique opportunities available at this moment in time. Item 4 - Provided to Housing Commission for the September 16, 2021 Meeting AFTER PACKET DISTRIBUTION 7