SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

FFarella Pleasanton City Council Braun+Martel June 1, 2023 Page 3 HAC Appendix Tab 2. Since then, BART's funding has gone into crisis. See https://�,�ww.sfchronicle.com/vroiects/2023/bart-finance-qa/(March 23, 2023: "Could the Bay Area lose BART? Everything to know about the rail system's 'fiscal cliff."'). BART is projecting a$143 million budget deficit by 2025. Id. So even though Pleasanton city staff is enthusiastic and motivated to work with BART on plans for redevelopment, there is no substantial evidence that the site will become housing because there is no evidence that BART will reciprocate. BART has no money to hire extra staff to plan for the redevelopment of the BART parking lot, even as to the commercial development that BART has stated as its priority. The City Council cannot credibly find that there is"substantial evidence"that the two BART parking lot parcels will become housing at all, much less soon enough for housing to meet the 2023-2031 need. They should not be listed as meeting the need for 555 units of affordable housing. 3. The Macy's furniture store at Rose Pavilion Shopping Center is not a realistic housing site. Rose Pavilion is a thriving retail center with 3.25 million visits per year; 8,900 visits per day. The housing inventory lists two parcels—containing the Macy's Home Furniture store, and about 33%of the parking between Santa Rita and Rosewood Drive. There's no reason to believe that Macy's is about to close the store, even if sales are slightly lower. The building is not dilapidated—it was built in 1991 and new solar panels were installed on the roof in 2017 at a cost of$573,300. And even if Macy's moved out, another retail tenant could move in;there's no evidence to suggest that the building would be torn down instead to build apartments. Moreover, as we have noted earlier, other tenants of the shopping center also likely have lease clauses requiring access to adequate parking;the City seems not to have reviewed existing leases as required by state law, Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1),or even assessed whether the remaining parking would satisfy the City's own requirements for the remaining retail uses in the shopping center. In short,there is no substantial evidence that the owner is likely to redevelop this portion of this shopping center as housing, instead of continuing a retail use in this thriving retail center. These two parcels should not be listed as meeting the need for 62 lower income units. 4. Inklings Coffee on Main Street,and two nearby parcels including a fire lane and several businesses facing Neal Street, are not a realistic housing site. Any developer knows that the City Council would fight hard to prevent a giant apartment building to be built here, in the center of the downtown district. See also May 2023 draft at p. E-89 ("A consistent theme for where not to put housing, was within existing neighborhoods; a number of responses also indicated that downtown was not a preferred location for new housing."). The recent outrage about the project at 4884 Harrison confirms this. But even if the City Council would support such a project—or could pretend that it would, for purposes of passing a Housing Element—there is no evidence that the owner of these parcels is likely to cease their existing use. The fire lane is needed as a fire lane. The parking lot meets an important need in the shopping district. And most tellingly, despite the rezoning of this site for the last Housing Element, no one tore down the retail buildings for /'\ redevelopment: instead, the building with Inklings in it was remodeled in 2016 for