SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton City Council � FARELLA January 18, 2023 BRAUN+MARTELLLP Page 11 Many in the community want the existing retail uses to continue. Most recently this opposition included a proposal at the January 11, 2023 Planning Commission meeting to remove it from the site inventory completely, followed by a successful 3-1 vote,to cut in half the proposed number of units that could be built. The Housing Element does not evaluate how the existing uses may constitute an impediment to residential development or the current market demand for the existing use;the City appears not to have even tried to obtain or analyze the leases for the many tenants of the property, including Sunshine Saloon, True Value Hardware, Jack in the Box, or any of the other many businesses there. The draft Housing Element states that the City is"unaware"of leases that would preclude development on any of the sites. Merely being unaware of leases does not satisfy the statute, which required the City to investigate conditions that would preclude development. Inclusion of this property on the inventory appears to be based solely on the owner's expressed interest in redevelopment. Unfortunately,this is not enough, particularly in light of the community and governmental opposition and the owners' stated plans. While the owners had proposed to redevelop the entire site,their plans have been scaled back in the face of this opposition. The owners now propose to develop only four of the eight parcels. (APNs 946- 3295-6,-7, -10, and -3295-2-2). Within the last month,the owners have told both the City Council and the Planning Commission that Sunshine Saloon, True Value Hardware, and the Jack-in-the-Box,and the other retail buildings on parcels APN 946-3295-9, -11, -12,and -13 will remain in response to the community demand. Given the community demand,the community opposition to having these four parcels develop,the governmental opposition to having these four parcels develop, and the owners' proposal to leave the existing retail uses intact,the City cannot reasonably claim that these four parcels have a"development potential"during the next eight years(Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1)),that they"realistically"(id. § 65583.2(c))can accommodate the units projected on the inventory (as of the January 3, 2023 draft, 55 moderate units and 17 above moderate income units), or that these parcels are"suitable and available for residential development,""having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level . . . ." Id. § 65583. No one—not the owners, not the Planning Commission, not the City Council,and not the City staff—actually believes that these four parcels have a realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment on the scale listed on the site inventory.' We suspect that staff carefully chose to list"lower" income units only on those parcels that the owners said they would build on, and then chose intentionally to list the remainder of the parcels for moderate or above-moderate income units. Given the requirements of section 65583 and 65583.2(g)(1), listing the remainder of these parcels as accommodating the need for any income level is inappropriate even absent the statutory presumption that existing uses will continue. A city that knows that the owner has expressly stated its intention to continue existing retail uses on parcels should not list that parcel on its housing element.