|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council backed the Planning Commission’s decision to not approve a 146 multi-family unit housing development on West Las Positas Boulevard last week, even after listening to residents who supported the project and the applicant’s attorney who didn’t agree with the city’s legal reasoning for denying it.
While the council members said they thought the overall plans to create more housing at 5976 and 5994 West Las Positas Blvd. were generally good, they also agreed with staff’s reasoning to deny the project, which was that the proposed site location is not zoned for residential housing.
“This is not about the project itself. I think it’s a good location for a project,” Vice Mayor Julie Testa said during the May 21 council meeting. “A project at that location is not at issue; it really is going through the (zoning) process.”
In January 2023, The True Life Companies — a real estate development company based in Denver — submitted its first preliminary application for the development. Diego Mora, associate planner for the city, said the plans for the 7.29-acre project site included demolishing two existing general and medical office buildings in order to construct 146 multi-family residential units which includes 38 accessory dwelling units.Â
The developer then submitted a formal application on July 14 but had then received an incompleteness and courtesy letter from the city in November stating that the application was not compliant with city standards.
The issue was that the property’s land-use zoning does not permit residential development unless it’s a nursing home or assisted living facility.
Mora said that because the application was inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning, the only way the city would have considered moving the proposed project forward is if True Life Companies applied for a major planned unit development (PUD) modification, which would have essentially rezoned the site for residential use.
The company kept receiving letters from the city saying it was not in compliance and suggesting the major rezoning, but according to Bryan Wenter, a land-use attorney for The True Life Companies, they had state housing laws on their side and did not have to go through that rezoning process.
That’s why he said he didn’t agree with the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project on April 10 and why he continued to disagree with the staff’s recommendation to deny the project during the May 21 council meeting.
“In order for disapproval of this project to be lawful, two things must be true. In this case neither one of them is true,” Wenter said. “The first is that … the General Plan is allowed to defer to the zoning for what’s allowed on this site. That’s not allowed under California law. The second is that subsection J4 of the Housing Accountability Act, which prohibits a rezoning under the circumstances set forth in that section, doesn’t apply.”
“Both of those premises are incorrect and both must be true in order for there to be a lawful disapproval tonight,” he added.
He continued to make the argument he made during the April 10 Planning Commission, which was that Senate Bill 330 — which essentially reduces regulatory barriers for new housing developments — along with other state housing bills were enacted so that developers like his client could fast track the housing development process.
He also said that PUD zoning designations do not outweigh the city’s General Plan, which he said states that the mixed use business park land use designation that applies to this property expressly refers to the mixed use land use designation in the General Plan, which does allow residential development at 20 plus units per acre.
According to city staff, in addition to zoning being inconsistent with the General Plan in that location, there is still another reason for their recommendation to deny the project.
“The provision at issue here is a two-part requirement. In order for there to be a zoning exemption, the project has to be compliant with the General Plan, which this project is, but the existing zoning also has to be inconsistent with the General Plan,” city attorney Dan Sodergren told the council. “Here the zoning clearly is consistent with the General Plan.”
“I think the applicant’s attorney is making the argument that because the project’s consistent with the General Plan, the zoning exemption applies without giving emphasis to the second sentence that existing zoning also has to be inconsistent with the General Plan,” Sodergren added.
Councilmember Valerie Arkin also asked Wenter why True Life Companies didn’t just go through the major PUD modification process, which Testa said would have made everything move forward in a more timely manner.
Mayor Karla Brown also asked a similar question and said it would have strengthened the relationship between the city and the developer if they had just gone through the major rezoning process and worked with the city like other developers have rather than trying to use state laws to justify not having to go through that process.
She also said this after Wenter went over reasons the city could lose in court and have to pay attorney fees along with other fees if they denied the application, which he said at the Planning Commission meeting was a possible consequence moving forward.
“It sure seems to make a lot more sense if you want a professional business relationship with the city, to comply with the requests for the major PUD modification rather than quite honestly come up and say, ‘If litigation takes place, you’re going to be responsible; if I prevail, you’re going to be responsible for my legal fees,'” Brown said.
However, Wenter doubled down, saying there are many reasons they didn’t have to apply for the rezoning modification with a key reason being that state laws were enacted as tools for developers so that they wouldn’t have to worry about doing such things.
“If you are a developer and you agree to seek a rezoning … you are conceding that state housing law doesn’t apply and does not protect you,” he said. “Even with indications of cooperation, there’s not a good reason to agree to put those tools to the side and say I’m willing to trust you and go through that process and leave these tools aside.”
Wenter also argued that the handful of residents who spoke during the meeting showed that there was support for the much needed housing in Pleasanton.
Chip Menard, a college student who lives in the Bay Area, was one of the few people who said more housing is needed in Pleasanton so that the younger generations have a chance to stay in the area they grew up in and not have to move elsewhere.
“We need a place to live and if there isn’t enough inventory now and cities such as Pleasanton continue to deny housing projects, then there will be even fewer homes for me and my friends to purchase when we are ready,” Menard said.
But as the council explained, the owner of the proposed site location on West Las Positas Boulevard never responded to the city’s requests when it was going through its Housing Element process, which many on the dais said was unfortunate because again many of them liked the location for housing.
And as Testa said near the end, it comes down to the city’s process. She pointed out that everything the council had heard up until that point — including legal precedent from another similar lawsuit in Southern California — combined with staff’s own and outside legal advice, showed how the city could deny the project without facing any consequences.
“We heard earlier in closed session from a consultant that very definitively disagrees with what the applicant has said,” Testa said. “The lawsuit that we were told about definitively disagrees with what the applicant has said, and our staff’s legal opinion definitively disagrees.”
