|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton Planning Commission will be reviewing a housing development application on Wednesday to demolish two commercial buildings on West Las Positas Boulevard and build 146 multi-family residential units.
City staff is recommending that the commission deny the application because the only residential developments allowed in the proposed development site are nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
“The applications for design review and vesting tentative tract map are inconsistent with relative general plan provisions and the applicable (Planned Unit Development) zoning for the site, as the applications propose general residential development where nursing homes/assisted living facilities are the only types of residential uses allowed,” Diego Mora, associate planner, states in his April 10 staff report.
According to Mora, Kelley Rutchena of The True Life Companies — a real estate development company based in Denver, Colorado — submitted an application for preliminary review back in January 2023.
The proposed development seeks to convert two commercial buildings located at 5976 and 5994 West Las Positas Blvd. into 146 multi-family residential units which includes 38 accessory dwelling units. The units would be a mix of flats — which are typically more expensive than apartments — and townhomes.
The roughly 7.29-acre project site is currently occupied by offices, including medical offices. According to the staff report, site improvements would also be made.
Rutchena submitted applications for the design review and a vesting tract map on July 24, 2023 but in August city staff notified the applicant that the applications were incomplete.
Staff also sent a courtesy letter two days later to inform the applicant that the Hacienda planned unit development designates that area as a garden office, which does not permit residential development there unless it’s a nursing home or assisted living facility. The courtesy letter told the applicant that the only exception to this would have been if the applicant would have submitted an application for a major planned unit development modification to allow the residential development to be built there.
But since August, the applicant has resubmitted the complete applications but did not apply for the major planned unit development modification. Staff sent a second courtesy letter reminding the applicant that although the applications were complete, the modification was still required for the project to move forward.
In January, staff notified the applicant that their application did not conform with city standards because “the proposed project is inconsistent with the zoning of the parcel.” Staff also sent a third letter urging the applicant to apply for the modification.
“The courtesy letter also outlined a viable path forward for obtaining such a major (planned unit development) modification, including providing the applicant with sample standards that could be adopted via the major (planned unit development) modification process and applied to the project,” Mora stated in his staff report.
However, according to the report, the applicant’s legal counsel has sent the city numerous letters stating that based on a provision found in Senate Bill 330 — which essentially reduces regulatory barriers for new housing developments — the project does not require a rezoning.
The applicant’s argument is that according to a section in the bill, “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.”
Mora stated the legal counsel seems to be taking the position that because the project is consistent with the city’s Mixed Use General Plan land use designation, then the zoning exception applies and the applicant doesn’t have to apply for the major modification.
But staff disagrees because the actual question at hand is whether the existing zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan — not whether the project itself is consistent with the General Plan.
“The existing zoning for the subject parcel is clearly consistent with the General Plan,” Mora states in his report. “Staff further disagrees with the assertion that the General Plan permits residential development of the type proposed, since the General Plan defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development.”
The Planning Commission meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. Wednesday (April 10). The full agenda can be accessed here.
