|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council voted 4-1 last week to rezone portions of Trinity Lutheran Church and Rock Bible Church in order to allow up to 10 residential units to be developed at each site.
While the decision doesn’t necessarily mean each of the churches will have to produce the housing â it just gives them and future developers the option to do so â none of the councilmembers appeared happy about their vote.
But, according to staff, if they didn’t approve the rezoning, the city ran the risk of getting into trouble with the California’s Department of Housing and Community Development, which made these types of rezoning a stipulation to certify the city’s Housing Element three years ago.
“If you pulled each one of the councilmembers up here, there’s not one of us that wants to have to do this,” Councilmember Craig Eicher said. “And I don’t think there’s probably many residents that would want this to happen. But, we’re in a position where we don’t have much choice.”
Three years ago, the city adopted its 2023-31 Housing Element, a document that lists occupied and vacant sites for the city to zone for housing in order to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation counts for new residential units. Pleasanton’s RHNA is 5,965 new units â 2,758 of which are targeted toward lower-income households.
But, after agreeing on the list of 19 sites to rezone under the new Housing Element, the state’s HCD sent the document back to the city to address some key issues and make additional revisions in order for the document to be certified.
One of those revisions included an agreement between the city and the state, which requires the city to implement a program that would rezone two sites to accommodate up to 10 units at each property, according to senior planner Shweta Bonn.Â
“The program was created in specific response to HCD’s comments,” Bonn said during the Sept. 1 meeting.
Community development director Ellen Clark further explained that the reason the city didn’t include these rezoning plans in the original Housing Element is because this specific rezoning item helped satisfy specific state housing laws.
“We’re fulfilling what we committed to do as part of that program and that’s why we’re here before you,” Clark told the council.
Bonn said if the council hadn’t approved the program, it would have possibly jeopardized the city’s certification of its Housing Element.
Staff originally identified five different sites as potential locations to be considered for rezoning. After reaching out and talking to the various property owners, staff ultimately landed on the two church sites, both of which received support for rezoning by the city’s Planning Commission earlier this summer.
According to last week’s presentation, 0.66 acres at the Trinity Lutheran Church, located at 1225 Hopyard Road, will be rezoned for high-density residential. About 0.70 acres of the Rock Bible Church, located at 4100 First St., will similarly be rezoned under the same land-use designation.
The council also approved an ordinance to rezone a portion of each property to “Planned Unit Development-High Density Residential”, which would allow for up to 10 residential units to be developed on each property.
Bonn said staff recommended the two church sites mostly because of the size of the empty space, their proximity to nearby amenities and because the Housing Element encourages housing on religious properties.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, Steve Wright, a treasurer at Trinity Lutheran Church, explained why he and the church were supportive of the rezoning. He said the church used to operate a preschool on site until it closed for financial reasons.
He said the modular classrooms were removed about a year ago, which has left the church wondering what it should do with the empty land. While they don’t have any current plans to develop, he said the rezoning now gives them more options for what to do with the empty space in the future.
However, Wright was the only voice in support of the proposal. Three neighbors who live near the Trinity Lutheran Church said they were opposed to the rezoning mostly because they were concerned with how future developments would fit in with the neighboring community and how they would impact things like traffic.
They said the community surrounding Trinity Lutheran Church, which is mostly a single-family residential area, would be more impacted than the Rock Bible site.
Mayor Jack Balch reiterated staff’s comments that design standards will still need to be established and reviewed for any future project at each site.
“If a project is proposed, they have to come forward and show us how it would be built,” Balch said.
Despite staff reiterating how important it was for the city to implement the program and how it does not guarantee any development will be built at each site, Councilmember Julie Testa maintained her long-held stance against what she called “draconian requirements” from the state.Â
She said she was surprised to see the rezoning program and that the city should have done more to fight against these sorts of stipulations from the state’s many housing laws.
“While we are being pressured by the state, we should be joining with other cities across the state in standing up because âĤ after 200 pieces of legislation, our cities have been set up to fail and it’s only going to get worse,” said Testa, who dissented in the final vote. “We should be fighting for our local control.”
Others on the council echoed similar sentiments and said while the sites at each property are small â and the churches will still be able to operate without any issues â they never wanted to carry out the decision.Â
But they also recognized that they didn’t have much of a choice unless they wanted HCD to de-certify the city’s Housing Element.
“It is an unfortunate series of events with where local control is at,” Balch said.
The Council, except for Julie, didn’t ask the right questions and chose to engage in intellectual laziness instead of contemplating supporting the neighborhood.
The City gained hundreds of units on the East Side with the recent annexation, not contemplated in the Housing Element. As a result, the City could have gone back to the State and requested a Housing Element modification and removed this provision.
Julie alluded to this, but no one, not even Craig Eicher who REPRESENTS this neighborhood, picked up on, or asked questions about this.
Shame on the Council for abdicating their responsibility to the Pleasanton Valley and being intellectually lazy. Shame.
Calling the Council âintellectually lazyâ ignores what city staff actually explained at the meeting. This wasnât simply about whether Pleasanton has added enough housing units somewhere else. Staff explained that this specific rezoning program was created in response to HCDâs comments, became part of Pleasantonâs commitment necessary to obtain Housing Element certification, and that failing to follow through could jeopardize that certification.
Could the city go back to the state and ask for a modification? Perhaps. But asking is very different from HCD agreeing, and I have seen nothing demonstrating that the East Pleasanton units would automatically allow this commitment to be removed.
Once again, Julie Testaâs answer seems to be to fight the state. I share concerns about Sacramento continually eroding local control, but governing also means recognizing the laws and obligations currently in place and protecting the city from unnecessary legal and financial risk.
The other four councilmembers didnât âabdicate their responsibility.â They listened to their professional staff, understood the potential consequences of losing Housing Element certification, and made the responsible decisionâeven though they clearly didnât like it.
If someone has evidence that HCD would have allowed Pleasanton to simply substitute the East Pleasanton units and eliminate this requirement, Iâd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, calling councilmembers âintellectually lazyâ for refusing to gamble the cityâs certified Housing Element is simply unfair.
@South Pleasanton resident – cities and counties request and receive modifications of their Housing Elements all the time. Google is your friend.
The Council was intellectually lazy because it did not ask this BASIC question- is it possible to ask State HCD to allow modifications based on the East Side?
Someone should explain to the Council that they have a different role than their staff and are not supposed to just do whatever staff recommends without asking basic questions.
Asking staff to reach out to State HCD and come back to the next Council meeting with more information would have been the appropriate response. But this would require critical, independent thought, something not on display last Tuesday.
Pleasanton Valley won’t forget. I hope Craig remembers that in 2028.
The article doesn’t mention specifically any survey of Pleasanton Valley sentiment before the action was recommended and approved, only that 3 neighbors were opposed.
Residents of the area with whom I’ve spoken think that a far better idea for any excess land would be an extension of Harvest Park, which is adjoining the park to the East. The Park experiences heavy usage now as younger families are moving in, and at-times can be quite congested. Adding high-density housing to the area would increase congestion even more. It’s a quality-of-life matter.
Council Minutes indicate there are other properties where the 10 units needed for the Housing Element could be built. Senior Planner Shweta Bonn has confirmed to me by email that the rezoning does not preclude extending the park to include the property if acquired by the City.
Does the City have the interest and resources to pursue a park option in lieu of housing?
[This question has been asked of Craig Eicher by email and awaiting a response.]
btw…
a query of Change.org doesn’t show any existing petition for an extension of Harvest Park.
Hello all,
The Bay Area needs a tremendous amount of housing, especially smaller, more attainable homes in the 1,200â1,500 sq. ft. range.
One question we should be asking is: Why is it so expensive to build housing here?
Have we really looked at how much cities charge through various fees, permits, impact fees, inclusionary housing (IZ), water, sewer, school fees, and other costs? In some cases, these additional costs can add up to $200+ per square foot before you even get to the actual construction cost.
All these costs end of the day are paid by the customer, not the builder.
The state clearly recognizes that California’s housing process has become too difficult and expensive. That’s why we’re seeing reforms designed to make housing easier to build. ADUs are a good example. Not long ago, getting city approval for an ADU could feel almost impossible. Today, the process has been significantly streamlined.
I believe the state will continue introducing laws to make it easier and faster to build housing in all places. This is where community feels about, but eventually it will happen. Have your questioned what happens to city when RHNA goals aren’t met. This is a bigger thing, if you know what I am talking. City should welcome all kinds of builders, work with them, expedite the permits and meet RHNA goals. Not meeting them will make city to loose more zoning control.
Don’t blame the state for trying to solve the housing shortage. Look at what cities are doingâor not doingâto create enough housing.
I know many people commute from places like Tracy and Stockton to jobs throughout the Bay Area because they simply can’t find reasonably priced housing closer to where they work.
We need more small, practical, attainable homes. We need more ADUs. We need to make it easier and less expensive to build.
The mantra should be simple:
More homes â more residents â more businesses â more economic activity â more tax revenue.
If we want to solve the Bay Area’s housing problem, we need to stop making housing unnecessarily expensive and difficult to build.
Build more homes. Build smaller homes. Build ADUs. Make the process easier.
@just another resident âGoogle is your friendâ isnât evidence that HCD would have approved the specific modification youâre proposing for Pleasanton.
Yes, Housing Elements can be amended\. The relevant question is whether HCD would have accepted East Pleasanton units as a substitute for the specific program Pleasanton adopted in response to HCD comments and committed to implement. You have provided no evidence that it would.
Staff explained that the program was created to address HCDâs comments and that failing to implement it could jeopardize the cityâs certified Housing Element. Those facts should not be dismissed as mere staff recommendations.
Council members should question staff and weigh the consequences, but calling four council members âintellectually lazyâ for reaching a different conclusion is not an argument. If you have documentation showing HCD would accept this substitution, please provide it. âGoogle is your friendâ does not establish that.
The warning about Craig and 2028 also sounds less like a housing-policy argument than a political threat over a vote you disliked.