|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
During Tuesday’s closed-session meeting, the Pleasanton City Council unanimously approved a settlement agreement with the Housing Action Coalition, an affordable housing advocacy nonprofit, which stipulates the city will consider rezoning three additional commercial properties for residential use as part of the city’s sixth housing element.
According to City Attorney Dan Sodergren, the council approved the agreement to “resolve threat litigation over the city’s certified Housing Element”.
This decision comes almost two years after the city adopted its Housing Element, which is a state-mandated document outlining how the city plans to build housing for various levels of income.
Back in January 2023, the City Council adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element, which was later certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in September 2023 after the city made additional state-required revisions.
During Housing Element cycles, cities deliberate over which occupied and vacant sites to zone for residential housing in order to meet the city’s assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) counts for new residential units within designated affordability categories.
Pleasanton’s assigned RHNA tally for its sixth cycle is 5,965 new units — 2,758 of which are targeted toward lower-income households.
The city had originally rezoned 19 sites for housing and, according to a June 17 press release, it had been doing well in approving various housing projects.
“Since certification of the Housing Element, Pleasanton has approved over 780 new residential units, with several projects now under construction,” according to the press release.
However, right after the state certified the city’s document, the Housing Action Coalition sent a letter to the city which, in part, sought a “writ of mandate requiring the city to adopt a new Housing Element that complies with state law”.
According to the Nov. 27, 2023 letter from the coalition, it believed the Housing Element did not comply with the law and did not believe the city is entitled to “use certain sites to count towards its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for purposes of the No Net Loss statute”.
“This action will be based on the grounds that the Housing Element for 2023-2031 … violates Government Code sections 65583 and 65583.2,” the letter further states. “This includes, without limitation, that the site inventory lists sites with existing uses that create an obstacle to residential development. The city’s methodology did not take these impediments into account and did not engage in a proper consideration of other required statutory factors.”
The letter also stated that the council’s findings regarding the sites which claimed to accommodate lower income categories of the RHNA were not supported by “substantial evidence that the existing use was likely to discontinue during the planning period”.
Now, thanks to the settlement agreement, the City Council will have to consider rezoning three additional sites to include in its Housing Element document.
City communications manager Heather Tiernan told the Weekly those sites are: Hacienda West, which is located at 3825/3875 Hopyard Road.; Metro 580, which is located at 4515 Rosewood Drive; and the Inglewood Site, which is located at 5960 Inglewood Drive. The council will consider rezoning these sites at a future date following environmental and other reviews, according to the city.
According to the June 17 press release, while the city doesn’t agree with the housing coalition’s view of the Housing Element’s adequacy it believes the agreement “reflects the City’s commitment to finding solutions and avoiding unnecessary legal disputes”.
“Pleasanton’s Housing Element is a living strategy that we’re actively implementing,” City Manager Gerry Beaudin stated in the press release. “While we’ve already seen a number of residential projects move forward, this is about looking ahead and planning responsibly to meet our community’s evolving housing needs, while preserving the thoughtful approach to growth that defines Pleasanton.”
Gee whiz, two-thirds of these projects are in the Donlon neighborhood, and there already are two other projects in the same area. Is anyone in the city talking with PUSD about how to educate these new residents? Provide water? Overuse of very few roads? What about other parts of town carrying their fair share?
Donlon is already impacted without any development. Kids living in the Donlon neighborhood for the past several years have been bused to Harvest Park, or driven by their parents to Harvest Park. The other two schools in this same neighborhood are Lydiksen and Foothill.
Donlon is an elementary school. Grades K through 5. Harvest Park is a middle school, grades 6 through 8. Foothill is a high school, grades 9 through 12. Lydiksen is the only other elementary school in your comparison.
@Frustrated Voter. There is adequate water supply to cover any future development under consideration or construction. A closer look at city affairs could alleviate your frustration on that issue. The only major new roadway under examination is on the east side of town, where El Charro and Busch Roads are being looked at for extension to service new developments near Stanley Blvd. and Valley Avenue. Three large projects are under discussion and in various stages of the planning process.
And to help further ease your angst, Pleasanton’s population has shrunk from 80,000 to around 76,000. That’s a reduction of 4,000 residents. We are a terrific city, but we are also an expensive city. All that has been well documented and publicized in both print and digital news outlets as well as local TV coverage.
If you distrust media reports (some folks do) logging into the city website and/or attending city council meetings can also help your understanding the issues facing the city and its residents.