SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

L Farella Pleasanton City Council Braun+Martel June 1, 2023 Page 6 future, we would have the option to do so as an IP [industrial park] or Residential site. Predicated on this understanding I would be interested in allowing the re-zoning of our property to Mixed-Use PUD. This letter from the owners cannot fairly be described as expressing an interest in redevelopment for housing, or an indication that existing uses do not constitute an impediment to residential development. It shows that the landowner wants to continue his existing business there, and is thinking of intensifying the non-residential use. Proper assessment of the Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1) factors, with an appropriately realistic eye, would not consider this site as meeting the need for 459 units of housing in the next eight years. 8. The Valley Plaza site is a 7.81-acre commercial center with multiple buildings and associated surface parking on seven parcels. While the owners had expressed earlier interest in high density residential development on a portion of the site,they ran into community and governmental opposition, and scaled back their plans. But under the scaled back plans, not all of the parcels will be developed. It is surprising to see the Housing Element continue to list all seven parcels, when the City Council itself has been so clear that it wants a portion of the site to remain retail/restaurant,and the owners themselves have been so clear that they will do so. The parcels with Sunshine Saloon, True Value Hardware, and the Jack and the Box, along with the other retail buildings on parcels APN 946-3295-00900, -01100, 01200,and-01300 are planned to remain. They will not be redeveloped to provide 14 units of above moderate, and 29 units of moderate, income housing. The revisions to the draft also include some additional text and data about how sites with existing uses have been redeveloped in the neighboring cities of Dublin and Livermore. (Pleasanton itself has few examples of this occurring, given community opposition to new housing). This kind of broad market information does not provide substantial evidence that nonvacant sites listed as meeting the need for lower income housing are"likely"to be redeveloped for residential uses as a result of rezoning(or maintaining the existing zoning permitting residential construction). See also HCD Site Inventory Guidebook(May 2020)at pp. 27-28 ("[N]onvacant sites with differing existing uses and lacking in common ownership, whether contiguous or located in the same general area,may not rely on a generalized analysis. While the sites may be located in an area with common economic issues, individual owners may not wish to sell their property or redevelop their site with residential uses."). Pleasanton's own experience proves that merely rezoning a property does not make it likely that the existing use will cease: Inklings, Kaiser, the AT&T network station at 120 Ray Street, and the True Value parking lot were all rezoned in prior Housing Elements, and the existing uses continue over eight years later. And merely pointing to the fact of successful redevelopment of a site in"downtown" Dublin doesn't provide evidence that a site like Inklings or True Value Hardware will redevelop in downtown Pleasanton: the character of the two cities is very different(no one with the