My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2023
>
060623
>
SUPPLEMENTAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2023 1:25:40 PM
Creation date
6/6/2023 12:07:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/6/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
130
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r <br /> Farella Pleasanton City Council <br /> Braun+Martel June 1, 2023 <br /> Page 8 <br /> capacities greater than the minimum density. This is insufficient: it addresses none of the <br /> factors in the statute. To comply with state law, the"realistic capacity"numbers must be <br /> adjusted downward to the minimum. This will reduce the lower income capacity by 147 units, <br /> and will reduce the above moderate income capacity by 30 units, back to what was approved in <br /> the draft adopted in January. <br /> C. Conclusion <br /> The revised version does not address the legal flaws of the draft adopted by Pleasanton in <br /> January, which HCD found does not comply with state law. While it corrects some of the issues, <br /> many remain, and the attempt to avoid finding new sites by increasing the unit count of some <br /> sites on paper fails to address the real problem. Pleasanton does not have enough realistic sites <br /> where it is legal to build housing, particularly the kind of high density apartments that are more <br /> affordable to those with lower incomes. <br /> The solution is to rezone more sites. There are owners out there who are interested in <br /> seeing enough housing built to meet the needs of the community. The draft report states that <br /> Oracle is interested in housing on more than the 3 acres that are to be rezoned;the City should <br /> consider rezoning more there. The owners of Valley Plaza have shown that they are willing to <br /> consider higher density on the parcels away from the street—the City should increase the <br /> densities that could be built there. The City could allow higher densities at Stoneridge. <br /> The City shouldn't keep trying for the smallest buffer possible,which exposes the City to <br /> a lawsuit to invalidate the Housing Element if it includes a single invalid site, and to the risk of <br /> builder's remedy projects until a compliant Housing Element is certified. Instead, Pleasanton <br /> should make it legal to build more housing,to help address the statewide affordability crisis, and <br /> its fair share of the regional need at all levels of affordability. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> Thomas B. Mayhe <br /> Charles J. Higley <br /> 3661516181632.1 <br /> Cc: Ellen Clark,Community Development Director; eclark @citLofpleasantonca. ov <br /> Megan Campbell, Associate Planner; mcampbeliCacityfpleasantonca.gov <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.