RES 01063 - Laserfiche WebLink

augment~l by a dis~aasion of residential land uses here, staff continues to find the existing land use regulations to ha appropriate. Resi~lenti~ Use In sl~fFs view, the site does n°rmeet many of the locational criteria in the General Plan nor have reasonable residential neighborhood potential to be developed as housing:. it i~ greater than % mille from a park (about one mile +) it is not served by neighborhood schools, within ½ mile of an elementary school (about on~ mile +) · neighborhood shopping is marginally accessible (Albertson's, approximately one mile) w the site is too far from BART to be truly transit-hased housing (about .68 mile) · the site is surrounded by hotel, office, and other commercial uses which, in staffs view, are unlikely to readily change to residential uses · the site is relatively small, at 2.7 acres, and is not of sufficient size to create a mini- neighborhood · if developed with the same two-story character as adjoining uses on the east side of Hopyard Road, the site would yield at most 20 units/acre, or about 50 units; this small number would be relatively isolated · while housing over retail/office uses could conceivably be considered long-term for the area along Hopyard Road now developed as retail and could extend to the Pedro's site, such uses would yield even fewer units (if kept to 2-3 story heights), would be located on a heavily traveled thoroughfare (not a "commercial street" in the nco-traditional model) willl high noise levels and little "neighborhood" components In sum, staff believes this site is too marginal for housing uses. Staff also believes there are other sites in Pleasanton, both vacant and redeveloping, where housing meeting City needs (particularly affordable housing) can be constructed in a manner better meeting the residential policies in the General Plan. Accordingly, staff sees no compelling reason to seek out this site for a housing use simply because it is redeveloping. The applicant has provided its own analysis showing how it believes affordable housing is problematic at this site. While not privy to the exact pro formas done for its analysis, stfiff believes the assumptions given are close enough to reality. Staffhas attached the costs of several affordable projects built in the Tri-Vailey for comparison. Staff notes, howeven that it is staWs belief that the City Council should not make land use decisions based solely on the "economic feasibility" of a given use. Developers are, in essence, speculators. While the City is required to grant land some economic .use, it is not required to grant every developer a profit. The information submitted by the applicant assumed a purchase price of the site which is at the upper end of the scale for Pieasanton. This land cost is a key component in any analysis of economic feasibility. Whether any project "is feasible" is a function of many factors. A softening of the market for office or retail uses, inclusionary housing requirements, and/or changing building regulations all could affect "the bottom line" for any project on this site. Pleasanton has SR:01:132 Page 3