|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton’s Planning Commission has rejected an application to demolish two buildings on the corner of West Las Positas Boulevard and Hopyard Road in order to build 146 multi-family residential units.
However, the decision to deny the project wasn’t based so much on the specifics of the project, but more so on the legality behind whether or not the developer could build such a housing development on land based on the planned unit development (PUD) zoning for that area.
“It’s sort of unhelpful, in a certain sense, to have very well seasoned attorneys on both sides, saying opposite things, and asking for five commissioners to sort it out,” Commission Chair Matt Gaidos said during the April 10 meeting.
The True Life Companies — a real estate development company based in Denver, Colorado — first submitted an application for preliminary review back in January 2023.
The proposed development sought 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 7.29-acre project site is currently occupied by general offices including medical offices.
After True Life submitted an application for design review and a vesting tract map last July, the city informed the applicant that the applications were incomplete but even more importantly, staff told True Life that the property’s land use zoning does not permit residential development unless it’s a nursing home or assisted living facility.
“In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject parcel site lot 20 as garden office, which does not permit residential development, except nursing homes and assisted living facilities,” Diego Mora, associate planner, told the commission. “The applications for design review and vesting tentative tract map are inconsistent with relative general plan provisions and the applicable PUD zoning for the site.”
Even though True Life resubmitted its completed applications, staff said they needed to apply for a major planned unit development modification, which would have helped the project move forward.
However, True Life representatives including the company’s executive vice president Aidan Barry, told the commission they do not agree with the city’s stance and said that Pleasanton staff were actually in the wrong.
“I’m disappointed,” Barry said. “Normally at this point in my presentation, I would look you all square in the eyes and thank staff … you and the team that has kind of been reviewing our project. But I can’t do that tonight. We’re in a very awkward position.”
Barry said the project should have been approved pursuant to Senate Bill 330 — which essentially reduces regulatory barriers for new housing developments — and that it would have provided Pleasanton “desperately needed housing.”
“The True Life Companies aims to provide attainable housing so that our children and grandchildren can live and prosper where we do,” Barry said.
He also said he was disappointed in how his company’s legal stance and narrative on why state law is in the developer’s favor with building the project on that land was the last 20 pages of a staff report that is over 250 pages long.
“I don’t think you were able to grasp through that kind of presentation of the staff report exactly the nuances associated with state law that apply to this parcel and what we’re attempting to accomplish,” Barry said.
That’s why he brought Bryan Wenter, a land use attorney for The True Life Companies, to speak on why the company believes the project should have been approved and why it does not require a rezoning because of SB 330.
Wenter was actually involved in authoring SB 330 and said that he disagreed with what staff presented in their report.
“I think it’s incorrect on the facts, it’s incorrect on the law and it’s incorrect on state housing policy,” he said. “What your staff report does not squarely present to you is what your general plan actually says, which is 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.”
Wenter said the city’s General Plan overrules the zoning designation that staff have been referring to as the reason why the project can’t be built there. In plain terms, he said the General Plan cannot defer to zoning in this case.
“The plan controls the zoning,” Wenter said. “The zoning doesn’t control the plan. All by itself, that is incorrect on the law irrespective of State Housing Law.”
He also said that the zoning designation, which does not permit residential development there unless it’s a nursing home or assisted living facility, is inconsistent with the city’s General Plan because nursing homes and assisted living facilities are not residential homes.
Because of these and several other of his arguments, Wenter explained to the commission how the city needed to favor housing by approving the project and how the city could face some legal repercussions if the commission denied it.
“There’s consequences in getting it wrong,” he said. “If a developer has to sue because the project is unlawfully disapproved, and they prevail, you pay for the privilege of your own attorneys and you pay for the privilege of the developers attorneys … In addition, there’s the possibility of $10,000 per unit fines and a five times multiplier.”
But city staff still maintained their recommendation to deny the project and after the commission noted how most of them weren’t privy to make such nuanced legal decisions, they decided to side with city staff.
Commissioner Vivek Mohan mentioned that he thought the proposed development was a good project and had even asked if staff and the developer could come back in a few weeks so they can discuss things further. Staff, however, made it clear that additional time wouldn’t change things.
Commissioner Anurag Jain also pointed out the project fell short in other areas — for example there wasn’t a traffic environmental impact study conducted — which is why, aside from all the legal issues, he couldn’t support the project.
But he, like Mohan, also wanted to see if the city and developers could come back at a later time because of how much the city does desperately need housing in order to meet its state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers.
“We want more housing in this city,” Jain said. “We want it done in the right way and we’re not opposed to housing. In fact, we are running deficit on our RHNA numbers.”
Ultimately, the lack of traffic and environmental analysis coupled with all of the legal jargon and differing perspectives made it so that the commission decided against the project.
“The city may be taking some risk if this project is ultimately denied and litigation takes place, but that is apparently a position that the city is encouraging us to take,” Gaidos said. “My indication would be to go along with staff’s recommendation to deny the project … with the caveat that we could be wrong.”
