SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Farella Pleasanton City Council Braun+Martel June 1, 2023 Page 5 want to build housing, even if they did not have an existing use on their property that is legally presumed to be an impediment. These owners are, at most, happy to have an increased range of options with no responsibility or intention to build housing. HCD specifically faulted Pleasanton's adoption draft for this exact issue: [I]n many cases, the element demonstrates the potential for redevelopment. However, in other cases,the element does not describe affirmative owner interest or should further evaluate the extent existing uses impede additional development. For example, in Areas 7 and 8,the element describes the owner is interested in evaluating future development or interested in rezoning. These are not affirmative statements of interest in residential development in the planning period. Given that the two owners who responded have only expressed interest in rezoning, rather than building housing, Pleasanton lacks substantial evidence that redevelopment is 'likely"on these three parcels, and that they meet the need for 112 units of lower income housing. 7. Sunol Boulevard(APN 947-000400105, 947-000400107, and 947-000400304)has the same kind of problem,though the issue arises instead under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1). Pleasanton claims that this site will accommodate 459 units, including 117 moderate income units: more than its entire buffer for both the moderate and above- moderate categories. The Housing Element states "Staff has received affirmative interest from the property owners in redeveloping their properties for high-density housing." (Housing Element at p. B-35). If true, that could satisfy the requirement to"consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development . . ." Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1). But unfortunately,the property owners here did not indicate an affirmative interest in redeveloping the properties at all. As the response to our Public Records Act request showed, instead indicated that they were willing to have their property rezoned as long as it didn't mean that they have to change anything, and as long as it meant that they could still intensify industrial uses instead: As I understand,you propose to zone the site to Mixed Use PUD. The PUD standards for our site would be that all uses permitted in the IP [industrial park]zone could be continued,or expanded and updated, while the option of redeveloping the site as 30 units to the acre residential would be added to our options with the property. My understanding is"Mixed-Use"zoning as described will not have any negative impact on continuing business on these properties or any future desire to grow or expand business activities. Also, if business conditions or alternate offers make redevelopment of this site advantageous in the