21 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Meghan Campbell EP FA R E L L A BRALN ,MARTELILP November 30, 2022 Page 4 and 2d floor of Kaiser Pediatrics, dated 9/16/2022); B21-2047(estimated $825,000 job value for tenant improvements to remodel and replace X-ray equipment in Imaging Room, and related workstations, dated 7/21/2021); B21-1365 ($425,000 job value for tenant improvements in Adult Medicine A; dated 5/27/2021). The 6-acre parking lot has, during the last eight years, also been covered with solar panels to supply electricity to the adjacent building; solar panels are not a temporary fixture installed by someone who plans to build on a site. The solar installation, for which Pleasanton issued building permits B17-1140 and B17-1141, cost over$900,000. See Pleasanton Building Department Records B17-1140, B17-1141. HAC Appendix Tabs 6, 7. Solar installations save money on utility costs but can take seven years or more for them to recoup the cost of installation. They are an unambiguous sign that the existing uses plan to remain for the long- term. The Kaiser parking lot was rezoned as part of the last housing element, but there have been no applications filed for redeveloping the site, no known interest expressed by Kaiser, and no plans to move the medical facility that uses the parking lot(indeed,to the contrary, Kaiser continues to make extensive and recent improvements). Given the extensive improvements to the parking lot by adding a solar system at a cost of nearly one million dollars, and these other indications, Pleasanton lacks substantial evidence that the existing use will cease during the next eight years. The site is presumed not to be realistically suitable and available for meeting the need for affordable housing. 3. Stoneridge Shopping Center The retail mall in Pleasanton, Stoneridge Shopping Center, has previously had two portions of its parking lot rezoned to permit residential construction, and the City's draft Housing Element proposes to rezone five more parcels, including portions of the existing retail mall building. Neither the earlier rezoned portions nor the five new parcels count towards meeting Pleasanton's share of the regional need for affordable housing, however. A. The Earlier Rezoned Parcel The City first lists 10 acres of the 28.63 acre parcel with APN 941-120109403 on both table B-12"Housing Sites(Under Existing Zoning)"and then lists the same parcel on table B-13 as a site to be rezoned. The charts are inconsistent about the capacity and how much of the need for lower income housing will be met by this parcel; one chart indicates that 400 units can be built, with 88 affordable for lower income; the other reports that the same site has a realistic capacity of 253, but with 141 lower income units. But regardless, given that both charts include the same parcel,the totals are wrong because they double-count the same site. The site should not be listed on either chart, however, because there is not substantial evidence that the site is"likely"to be redeveloped during the next eight years. The site was first rezoned when the owner of the mall, Simon Property Group, indicated that it would consider