SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Farella Pleasanton City Council Braun*Martel June 1, 2023 Page 7 slightest knowledge of the character of the two downtowns would compare them). More importantly, as the HCD guidance points out, "individual owners may not wish to sell . . .or redevelop . . ."2 Substantial evidence of likely redevelopment is required by state law. B. The City's Realistic Capacity Estimates Are Unsupported. We also note that the City has departed from the "safe harbor"of using minimum densities to estimate how many units each site will realistically accommodate during the planning period. In its adopted Housing Element in January,the City used the minimum densities to estimate the capacity of sites to meet the RHNA need. No one could argue that the City had not properly analyzed the issue, even if the numbers weren't realistic, because of a Housing Element rule that allows a City to claim lower income RHNA credit at the minimum density even when no one thinks lower income housing will actually be built. See Government Code § 65583.2(c)(1)("the department shall accept the planning agency's calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density"); § 65583.2(c)(3)(B) (30 units per acre deemed "appropriate" for lower income). The revised May 2023 draft proposes a"realistic capacity"number higher than the minimum for nine sites: seven sites claimed to meet the need for 1,189 lower income units, and two more claimed to meet the need for 330 units of above-moderate income housing. Under a new law in 2017, however, a City claiming a realistic capacity higher than the minimum density is required to adjust the number of units based on "typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction." The May 2023 revised draft does not meet the requirements to do so under section 65583.2(c)(1). There is no analysis showing that Pleasanton has`typical densities"of 55 units/acre for a 100%lower income housing development. In fact,there has only been one 100%lower income housing development project proposed in Pleasanton at this density (4884 Harrison, on a tiny 0.37 acre lot, nothing of the scale of the sites on the inventory), and that project obtained City approval only by invoking SB 35 so that the City Council was powerless to stop it. Indeed, even for above moderate incomes, Pleasanton's past opposition and legal prohibition of high density housing projects means that it is simply unable to claim "typical densities"to adjust upward from the minimum density. The revised draft's only discussion of"realistic capacity"takes place in footnote 2 on page B-17, asserting that"strong property owner interest"means that certain sites have realistic 2 The Livermore downtown is arguably more comparable to downtown Pleasanton. But one of the two sites that the revised draft lists as being in downtown Livermore is not actually downtown at all. The site at 3737 First Street is a full mile away from the"downtown"First Street(measured from where the two lane section of First Street ends and becomes four lanes, and the speed limit increases). The use across the street from 3737 First Street is residential;this site was built in a neighborhood that was already residential with some light industrial/commercial. It does not show anything about what would likely happen in /'� Pleasanton's downtown in the next eight years.