SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton City Council � FARELLA January 18, 2023 BRAUN+MARTELLLP Page 5 Government Code section 65583.2(g)(2)or(g)(1). This site is not properly counted as accommodating 182 lower income housing units. 3. Stoneridge Shopping Center(APN 941-1201-94-3). This parcel consists of a large retail mall,with portions of the associated parking lot; it is the major parcel for the mall, owned by the Simon Property Group. Ten acres of the parcel were rezoned as part of the last housing element; during this housing element,the draft proposes to rezone additional acreage of the parking lot portion of this parcel. The first problem with the City's draft is that the portion of the site zoned and to-be- rezoned for residential housing is larger than 10 acres. The draft tries to avoid this issue by discussing the site in three parts: a six-acre proposed project of 360 units, a four-acre remainder of the 5th Cycle rezoning, and an additional 10 acres of new rezoning in the 6th Cycle. See Appendix B at Table B-8 (listing the same parcel as providing four,then 10, acres)and Table B- 8 footnote 2 (referring to the other six acres, separately listed as a proposed development on table B-3). Despite the formatting,the substantive reality is that the City is relying on 20 of the 28.63 acres of this parcel to meet the need for locations for lower income housing.4 Under Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(B), "A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need . . . ,"and If]or purposes of this subparagraph, `site' means that portion of a parcel or parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this subdivision." Even ignoring the other Stoneridge parcels,5 the designation of more than 10 acres of parcel number 941-1201-94-3 fails this test. The second problem is that the City does not meet its burden to show that the existing use will cease during the next eight years, including as to the 10 acres of this parcel that were zoned during the last housing cycle. A six-acre portion of those acres is reportedly subject to a proposed development: a 360-unit project referred to on table B-3. But the remaining four acres 4 In an earlier comment,we had argued that the City was double-counting,because we had interpreted the listing of 10 acres of a 28 acre parcel on both the"existing"and"rezoned"site lists to be of the same 10 acres. The City has been clear since then that it actually intends to list 20 acres of the 28 acre parcel: 10 acres zoned for high density residential as part of an earlier housing element, and another 10 acres to be rezoned for high density residential as part of this housing element. This solves the double-counting problem, but confirms that the site size is greater than 10 acres, rendering it unsuitable for lower income housing RHNA credit. 5 With the other Stoneridge parcels combined—and the new Stoneridge framework contemplates that the owners could trade or transfer their housing allocations to other parcels— the site as a whole includes well beyond 10 acres zoned and to-be-zoned for lower income housing. Stoneridge Mall as a whole, referred to as"Area 2" in Appendix B (at p. B-20), is designated to provide 28 acres of housing sites total (18 newly zoned acres,and the 10 previously zoned acres), and is counted as providing 1,420 units, including 708 lower income units. The site as a whole,considering the "portion of. . . parcels designated . . ."for lower income housing, violates the 10-acre limit.