SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton City Council � FA R E L L A January 18, 2023 BRAUN*MARTELLir Page 3 identifies no evidence of a significant policy shift at BART, and BART itself is consistent that it plans to proceed based on its long-range plan. Pleasanton's housing inventory, by listing 100%of BART's parking lots for 100% affordable housing, lacks substantial evidence to conclude that BART will "likely"discontinue use of these two parcels. Pleasanton should not count on this site as meeting the need for 555 units of affordable housing during the 2023-2031 period. The draft Housing Element has a second problem with listing the BART parcels to satisfy 555 units in the lower income category: the local zoning. According to the draft, Pleasanton zoning of these parcels provides for a minimum density of 20 units/acre, and a maximum of 30 units/acre. See Draft Appendix B at B-4, Table B-6, footnote 4.2 While AB 2923 enables BART to override this city law, AB 2923 expires at the end of 2028, before the end of this Housing Element. See Public Util. Code § 29010.6(k). Despite state law requiring such rezoning by July 2022, Pleasanton did not rezone the site to comply with AB 2923's standards for transit-oriented developments, and does not include a plan to rezone the site within the draft Housing Element. BART could therefore only achieve the projected density by developing the site within the narrow time window provided by AB 2923, in order to take advantage of this state law by overriding Pleasanton zoning laws.3 After AB 2923 sunsets at the end of 2028, it will not be legal under Pleasanton law for BART to build the 555 units of housing that are projected in the inventory, unless other state laws (e.g., density bonuses)enable BART to override the City's local zoning restrictions. Particularly given that BART does not plan to even consider development plans for Pleasanton until the 2025-2030 time frame, and even then, only if it obtains additional staffing, Pleasanton's zoning law preventing construction of housing at the density claimed in the chart renders the site inventory not suitable, available, and realistically developable at the density claimed by the inventory. The proposed findings fail to address why the City claims that BART's existing use is likely to cease during 2023-2031. Section 3 of the resolution by the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the required finding because all sites are"primarily underutilized as surface parking and or surface parking with commercial buildings where the existing uses are of marginal economic viability,the structures are at or near the end of their useful life, and the City has received affirmative interest in developing housing . . . ." While the BART parking lots are indeed"surface parking,"they are not underutilized,the BART station is not of"marginal economic viability"or"at the end of its useful life,"and BART"has not expressed an affirmative interest in developing housing during the planning period." The City 2 The referenced footnote may be incorrect. In a document located at http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BloblD=33648, we note that the density for the site is described as 30-35 units/acre. Either way, however, the use of—37 units/acre, based on the minimum density under AB 2923 standards that Pleasanton did not adopt, is improper. 3 Pleasanton was opposed to AB 2923; it even lobbied the Governor to veto the bill, and its mayor was quoted saying the bill was unconstitutional.