|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Pleasanton residents see housing projects increasing around our city it’s important to know: The state is mandating that Pleasanton produce 6,000 new housing units in this current housing cycle, an inflated and unrealistic number.
In our last cycle, Pleasanton accomplished 300% of our required market rate housing goal. As nearly all California cities we fell short of our affordable housing mandates. Pleasanton made a strong effort to produce affordable housing using a policy that requires private developers to include a percentage of below-market-rate homes within new residential projects.
This is what you should know about the state’s false agenda.
In recent years, residents have heard: housing affordability is simply a matter of “not enough supply”, and if cities like ours deregulate (remove local decision-making) and just build more, prices will fall. Credible economic research shows that supply alone will not deliver affordability particularly in high-cost communities like Pleasanton.
Studies from respected institutions such as the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution and research economists at the Federal Reserve demonstrate an important reality: new construction primarily produces market-rate or luxury housing. Developers will price units to cover land, materials, labor and profit. In the Bay Area, those baseline costs are extremely high.
Deregulation does not eliminate the cost of land, concrete or labor.
In desirable regions, new units are typically absorbed by higher-income buyers and investors. That may increase total housing stock, but it does not reduce rents to levels affordable for teachers, service workers or young families. The filtering process, where new units eventually become affordable over time, will take decades, if ever.
Here is the critical issue for Pleasanton residents: under current state mandates, our city must plan for approximately 6,000 new housing units, of which 3,000 are income qualified affordable housing units. What is rarely discussed is the cost of required subsidies.
Affordable housing does not become affordable by deregulation; it becomes affordable through subsidy. The average public subsidy required per affordable unit in the Bay Area ranges from $500,000 to $900,000 per unit.
Using a conservative estimate of $500,000 per unit, 3,000 units × $500,000 = over $1.5 billion, costs could approach $2 billion.
The state has set cities up to fail. Pleasanton does not have a $1.5 billion to $2 billion housing fund. Nor has the State of California provided funding at that scale to match its mandates. This creates an imbalance: cities are required to zone and approve units (or receive harsh penalties) but are not provided the funding necessary to make those units affordable to lower-income households.
This is why simply calling for “more supply” is not a solution. Supply without subsidy produces market-rate housing, California has produced a significant number of market rate homes, and developer profits.
To produce affordable housing, we need:
* Dedicated funding sources (regional housing trust funds, expanded tax credits).
* Preservation programs to protect existing naturally affordable units. Not tear down for expensive new construction.
* State legislation that pairs housing mandates with permanent funding streams rather than shifting unfunded obligations to local governments.
Housing affordability is not solved by wishful thinking. It requires billions in state and federal subsidy.
Our goal is a Pleasanton that remains livable, and welcoming, but we must align mandates with fiscal reality to achieve that goal.
Pleasanton can’t continue to absorb the burden of the state’s unconstitutional unfunded mandates. Article XIII B, Section 6 of the California Constitution prohibits unfunded mandates on local governments.
Pleasanton must join together with other cities to challenge the state’s failed housing agenda.
Editor’s note: Julie Testa is in her second term on the Pleasanton City Council, representing District 3.
'This case is unusual': Lawsuit against Pleasanton over police pursuit crash heads to California Supreme CourtMarch 29, 2026 4:10 pm
Swalwell accuses FBI Director Patel of election interference in governor’s race, threatens legal actionMarch 30, 2026 7:21 pm
Police union negotiations, threat training on Pleasanton council's closed agendaMarch 30, 2026 5:01 pm
The key issue is whether state-required housing obligations count as a “state mandate” that triggers reimbursement under Article X111 B, Section 6. Based on how California law treats housing mandates, the council member’s claim is very likely incorrect.
What Article X111 B, Section 6 requires:
The California constitution says the state must reimburse local governments only when it mandates a new program or a higher level of service. Courts and the legislature interpret “programs” to mean administrative or service delivery obligations, not broad policy requirements that apply statewide.
Why the council member’s claim does not align with the law:
Saying “the state is forcing Pleasanton to absorb the cost of new housing” implies the state must reimburse Pleasanton. But the state is not requiring Pleasanton to build new housing.
The state is requiring Pleasanton to zone for new housing and adopt a compliant housing element. Zoning and planning duties are not reimbursable mandates under Article X111 B. Therefore, Pleasanton must absorb its own planning and administrative costs, just like any other city.
Nothing in Article X111 B, Section 6, suggests the state must pay cities for complying with housing laws. The constitution focuses on programs and services, not land use regulation.
Here is some concrete, no nonsense list of what Pleasanton should actually do between now and 2030 to land in that “good 2035” future you would feel proud of—grounded in what the city is already planning and what it is still avoiding.
1. Turn the Housing Element from paper into buildings
Pleasanton already has a state certified 2023–2031 Housing Element and an EIR that assumes up to about 7,700 new homes citywide. The question now is whether those homes stay theoretical or become real.
• Prioritize BART and job center sites:
o Policy: Upzone and actively promote housing on the sites already identified in the Housing Element near BART, Hacienda, and major corridors.
o Why it matters: More homes where transit and jobs already exist means less freeway commuting and less pressure on older single family neighborhoods.
• Fast track lower income and workforce housing:
o Policy: Create a clear “priority processing” lane for projects with meaningful affordable units (teachers, nurses, service workers).
o Why it matters: Hitting the lower income RHNA targets is where most cities fall short; Pleasanton cannot just build market rate and call it a day.
• Lock in with robust design standards, not endless delays:
o Policy: Use the new Objective Design Standards from the Housing Element update so projects that meet the rules cannot be stalled on subjective “neighborhood character” arguments.
o Why it matters: You get well designed buildings and predictable approvals.
2. Treat PFAS and water as infrastructure to fix, not excuses to freeze
Pleasanton and Zone 7 are already moving on PFAS treatment—new facilities are being built to remove “forever chemicals” from groundwater.
Finish and expand PFAS treatment capacity:
o Policy: Commit to fully funding and completing PFAS treatment plants and plan for future expansion as demand grows.
• Why it matters: Clean, reliable local water lets Pleasanton grow safely instead of hiding behind water as a reason to say “no.” Tie new development to water upgrades:
o Policy: Require that large projects contribute to PFAS treatment, recycled water expansion, and conservation measures through impact fees or direct improvements.
o Why it matters: Growth helps pay for the fix, instead of being blamed for the problem.
• Scale up recycled and non potable water use:
o Policy: Expand purple pipe (recycled water) for parks, medians, and large landscapes; incentivize drought tolerant retrofits.
o Why it matters: Frees up more potable water for homes and reduces vulnerability in dry years.
3. Attack commute and freeway congestion at the source
The real congestion problem is the jobs–housing imbalance—too many people working in Pleasanton but living far away.
• Build more homes near jobs:
o Policy: Allow higher densities and mixed use in Hacienda, Stoneridge, and other job centers, not just around BART.
o Why it matters: Shorter commutes mean fewer cars on 580/680 and more workers who can actually live in town.
• Improve local alternatives to driving:
o Policy: Safer walking and biking routes to BART, downtown, and shopping; better local shuttles or on demand transit for seniors and workers.
o Why it matters: One does not bike at 80, but younger residents and workers will—if it is safe and convenient.
• Coordinate regionally on traffic:
o Policy: Work with Dublin, Livermore, and the county on corridor level planning for 580/680 and major arterials.
o Why it matters: Traffic does not stop at the city line; neither should the solutions.
4. Make Pleasanton a place where seniors and workers can both stay
Seniors have been here thirty plus years; the city should work for them and for the people who care for them, teach kids, and keep services running.
• Encourage senior friendly housing near services:
o Policy: Incentivize smaller, accessible units (elevators, no stairs) near downtown, medical offices, and transit.
o Why it matters: Gives you and your peers realistic options if you ever want to downsize without leaving Pleasanton.
• Protect and upgrade existing apartments:
o Policy: Programs to preserve older, more affordable rentals and prevent displacement as new projects come in.
o Why it matters: Keeps long time renters and workers from being pushed out just as the city improves.
5. Change how decisions are made, not just what is on paper
The biggest trap Pleasanton falls into is reactive politics—fighting each project instead of following a clear, agreed upon plan.
• Stick to the adopted Housing Element map:
o Policy: When a site is designated for housing in the Housing Element and meets the standards, the default answer should be “yes.”
o Why it matters: Avoids endless relitigation and keeps the city in good standing with the state.
• Be honest with residents about tradeoffs:
o Policy: City communications that clearly explain: “If we don’t build here, we risk state penalties, lawsuits, and worse traffic from longer commutes.”
o Why it matters: People deserve the truth, not the illusion that Pleasanton can freeze in time without consequences.
• Use regional plans as a guide, not a threat:
o Policy: Align local decisions with Tri Valley and ABAG planning on housing, climate, and transportation.
o Why it matters: Pleasanton is part of a bigger system; planning like it is an island is how it got into trouble before.