Laserfiche WebLink
070253\14264881v7 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />VIA EMAIL <br />January 17, 2022 <br /> <br />City Council <br />City of Pleasanton <br />200 Old Bernal Avenue <br />Pleasanton, CA 94566 <br />citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov <br /> <br />RE: Steelwave Site -- Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update Sites Inventory (January 18, 2022 <br />City Council Agenda Item No. 12) <br /> <br />Honorable Councilmembers, <br />USL Pleasanton Lakes L.P. (“Steelwave”) owns Site 28 (“Steelwave Site” or “Site”) as <br />described in the City of Pleasanton’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update Preliminary Sites <br />Inventory. The Steelwave Site could provide the City with more than 1,300 units of high-quality <br />housing at varying densities, including 240 units of affordable housing that would help the City <br />meet the lower income component of its Regional Housing Need Allocation (“RHNA”). We ask <br />the City Council to recognize the housing development opportunity our land provides by <br />including it in the Housing Element Update Final Sites Inventory (“Inventory”). <br />Throughout the City’s Sites Inventory development process, City planning staff have <br />recommended that our Site be excluded from the Housing Element Update and that planning <br />for its development should only be considered as part of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan <br />(EPSP) process. Based on that recommendation, in December the Planning Commission <br />recommended a proposed Sites Inventory to this Council that did not include the Steelwave <br />Site. <br />We appreciate the considerable time and effort City planning staff have devoted to the <br />Housing Element Update process. However, as we describe in more detail below, planning <br />staff’s assessment significantly overstates the challenges of completing necessary planning for <br />Site within the Housing Element Law’s required three-year timeline and fails to recognize the <br />many benefits of including the Site in the Sites Inventory. We ask the City Council to recognize <br />these benefits and include the Steelwave Site in the Inventory. <br />A. Planning for development of the Steelwave Site should not be deferred for <br />consideration in the EPSP process. <br />During the City’s public meetings on development of the Sites Inventory, community <br />members and City officials have repeatedly raised the question of whether to include in the