The rezoning described in Action 5.4 was adopted by the City Council concurrently with the Housing Element in December 2022.

The City has been heavily engaged in Housing Element commitments on a number of fronts.  Per the approved Housing Element, the City of Piedmont established a timeline to accomplish rezoning by March of 2024.  The City has since satisfied HCD rezoning requirements.  Piedmont’s Housing Element is currently in compliance with Housing Element Law.  

With reference to the Housing Accountability Act, in particular, the City hosted a Housing Legislation Primer on August 5th to educate the community and interested parties on changes to the legislative landscape.  Presentation materials can be found at https://www.piedmontishome.org/event/city-council-meeting-3-f927z-dsnb6-8kst9-acfpy-n5sze-8e9ah.   

Pleasanton Housing Element Community Meeting Notes

Talked about goals, “Meeting RHNA” is goal 1.

Still shows BART property as prior zoning.

Ken Benhamou: owns SKS Auto. Old Santa Rita Road. Only 2 areas for automotive, and other area is at max occupancy. Where will displaced automotive businesses go to? Does this require general plan amendments? Rezoning for automotive repairs should occur at the same time.

Response: Will allow nonconforming businesses to continue. Yes requires General Plan amendment.

Jill Buck: How does Housing Element interface with Climate Action Plan. We “export brilliant kids every year”, “fan of workforce housing and affordable housing.” Is there something that prevents housing to be built before the climate action plan is fully implemented?

Becky Dennis: Pretty good draft. Wants more explicit linkage between CAP and HE as well. Idea fo discounts for rentals if they have no personal car (i.e. parking cash out)

Response: Nothing that prevents housing persay. Yes they are related, living where you work, etc.

City Contact Megan Campbell

02/08/2022 Pleasanton City Council Housing Elements Sites Inventory Update Continued: EIR

​

1. Public comment

    a. Kendra Mayott, Pleasanton resident: Concerned about Donlon Elementary site. We’ve been encouraged to drop off + pick up students @ the back of the school where the site is, so we should keep that site open for that. Also, there’s a lot of traffic around there, so even more housing will not help that. Also, if housing does end up going there, I would really hope it’s single-story homes. All the homes around there are single-story homes + this was a big reason why we moved here. In general, I would love more greenspace. If this site becomes housing, we should create more greenspace elsewhere.

    b. Ahmad Sheikholeslami, Assistant Superintendent of Student Services for Pleasanton Unified School District: Clarifying comments: the District has placed three properties for consideration because we want a range of properties available for housing options + to better address our students + staff. Right now, enrollment is falling for certain schools. We have areas where we can’t have a school even though the public wants one because we wouldn’t have enough student enrollment. By having these sites up for consideration, it allows the District to work with the City to tackle these complex issues together with a wider range of options. Clarifying on Donlon: we intend to keep the school + an appropriate size field. Having these on the HE list would help us address things like facilities maintenance, etc.

        i. Karla Brown: You are planning to move the Tri Elementary + preschool to another location? Wouldn’t that require a big lot?

            1. AS: Correct, but we are in the middle of transformational change with our preschools + educational programs anyways, so this will be part of a holistic, transformational process

        ii. Dan Sodergren: Can we do sites 25 + 26 first because Julie Testa + Jack Balch will leave the meeting for those sites.

    c. Joseph, Pleasanton resident: I live across the ? property + just found out it’s been listed for 250 homes. That’s way too small a property for that number of homes + there’s too much traffic already. There are also a lot of tax + environmental hurdles, so I’m strongly opposed to this. I also found shocking the number of high density, large projects that are being done in the City. The City should do more outreach instead of notifications.

    d. Linda Randes, Pleasanton resident: I live right across the Black Avenue site + there’s so much traffic there already. It should also be mentioned there are two elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, + a post office there – this should’ve been mentioned in the feasibility study because there’s so much traffic. When there are swim meets, there is also so much traffic. Let’s take this site off or @ least look @ what can be done about the feasibility of this site.

    e. Lisa Denton, Pleasanton resident: Strongly oppose Donlon site. Donlon Elementary is one of the only schools in the district that does not have access to any greenspace. This is a physical education issue. Donlon students currently run the mile on the blacktop instead of a field. Previous rep from the district mentioned they’d leave some field space, I’m curious how much will be left? And agree with Kendra Mayott that if there is housing there, it should be single-story homes.

    f. Jim Summers, President of the Vacella Group (spelling?): Representing the Merritt site, we are very glad the City has kept our site on the list. Requesting the Council keep the site on the list so we can adequately look into this property during the study process.

    g. Christine Bourg, Pleasanton resident: I’m a former teacher @ PUSD + now retired, and I am very concerned about the District site. I know this site well + all the major administrative, facilities, etc. sites are on this property. I don’t think this should be housing. It would be a huge cost to relocate everything. Also, more housing (200-250 units) will add so much traffic, which will cause environmental pollution by dangerous cars. Prop 35 allows developers to build large buildings on sites like this if it is to be opened to housing development. Also, housing will be incompatible next to the nice historic area next to this site. Please take this site off the list.

    h. Veena, Pleasanton resident: General question regarding the District’s rep’s comments earlier: I’m wondering what happens to the school with these HE, especially regarding the Donlon site? How are we going to fit our students into these schools? We have schools in that area that will be impacted.

    i. Aditi Nair, Pleasanton resident: Want to respond to Ahmad Sheikholeslami’s comment: he’s absolutely right about Donlon being overcrowded + impacted. But the other thing he said was that more housing will be good for falling enrollment, which is wrong. We have young families moving into that area right now, so I’m not sure how the District is getting its numbers.

    j. Joe Chillinsky, Pleasanton resident: Commenting specifically on the medium-density sites: the current proposal increases the definitions of low- + medium-density. I would like for the City to restudy + reclassify these properties by density type. It doesn’t make sense for some of these “medium-density sites” to be classified as such as they are much higher density than they should be classified.

    k. Brian Casey, Pleasanton resident: Thank you to the City for doing this work. You’re not going to please everyone, but you’re doing a good job about making sure this process is methodical + open. My concerns are with traffic + also with the low number of housing applicants – are you going to be able to fill all these new units you are proposing? How are you also going to consider the folks who live here + want to raise their families here + then their families here, etc.?

2. Council staff presentation

    a. KB: Want to clarify to the public that we’re only deciding which sites should be moved forward to CEQA review, that’s it. We’re not making architectural or developmental decisions. We’re not finalizing a site list.

    b. Ellen Clark: As a reminder, the City needs to accommodate a minimum of 3,143 new housing units @ various affordability levels through identification of additional sites for rezoning. We are building in a 50% buffer at this moment, but the final sites inventory will have a smaller buffer.

        i. KB: For the public: can you tell us why we only have 3k units listed here when our RHNA is 6k? Also, what is CEQA?

        ii. EC: We already have existing properties that can help fulfill the 6k number through infill + also we have some properties from this cycle that we intend to carry over for the next cycle. CEQA is the environmental report on how sites/projects will affect the environment.

    c. EC: State is clear that the inventory needs to be realistic. Consultants have told us we need to incorporate “safe harbor” assumptions – we will be developing @ the lowest end of the safe harbor density ranges. “Default density” is @ least 30 du/ac for lower income, 20-29 du/ac for moderate, + no minimum or maximum for above moderate.

    d. EC: Planning Commission has recommended 23/29 potential sites for CEQA review. We had 14 public commentators @ that meeting + many comments with concerns over the Donlon site.

    e. EC: Format of tonight’s hearing should be site 25 (PUSD-District) first, site 26 (St. Augustine) second, + then the remaining sites (sites 1-24, 27-29)

3. Council discussion

    a. Julie Testa: I want to share comments based on the staff presentation before I go into exile: isn’t using density assumptions already creating a buffer? Why are we adding another 50% buffer to that? Which of our 29 sites are vulnerable to SB 35 + density bonuses? Because some of our sites will then again be subject to additional density.

        i. DS: My recommendation is we do sites 25 + 26 first, then go to the rest of the sites.

        ii. JT: With all due respect, my questions are in general, not site-specific, so I think it’s appropriate that I’m asking now.

        iii. DS: Ok, but this is my recommendation. Up to the Council on how to proceed.

        iv. Jack Balch: Can staff explain no-net-loss? This might lead into Julie Testa’s questions.

        v. DS: Up to the Council on how you want to do it, but again, my recommendation is sites 25 + 26 first.

        vi. Valerie Arkin: I’m fine either way, but I think it would be better to take up general questions first that are not site-specific.

        vii. KB: Me, too

        viii. Kathy Narum: I’m ok with that as well, but it’s a slippery slope. But I hope Dan Sodergren will interject immediately if we end up going down that slippery slope.

        ix. EC: HCD requires us to create an inventory of estimated capacities of all the sites. It needs to be realistic. You are correct, Julie Testa, that having a range inherently creates a buffer. However, I think that’s an inevitable outcome based on the way the state is asking us to look @ the sites. We can only look @ the conservative end of that range. The 50% is an initial buffer. At this early stage of the process, it makes sense to identify sites for more units than we need before we make final decisions on which sites ultimately go through. But Council can make a decision of whether that buffer should be adjusted.

        x. JT: So what’s the HCD recommendation – 10%?

        xi. EC: HCD recommends 25% - 30% buffer for the final inventory. Many cities are looking to go lower than that + Pleasanton will likely be one of them. But again, I would recommend the 50% because we will drop some of these sites/units off as we continue with the process.

        xii. JT: I think it’s prudent to have some buffer, but I think we need to understand that the 50% is actually much more than that because we are building the buffer with other layers. My other question was how you are able to carry over units from the current cycle? You and I had a convo yesterday. Can you tell everyone what the consequences are for carrying those properties over?

        xiii. EC: When you have properties that have carried over twice, the City needs to approve 20% minimum affordable housing by right

        xiv. Brian Dolan: To be clear, we still have objective standards that need to be met, but you just can no longer say “we’re rejecting because we don’t like it”

    b. JT: One of the speakers mentioned the tearing down of buildings. With Cap 2.0, we’re concerned about our carbon footprint. The EIR – will this be captured in that? What will the EIR capture?

        i. EC: EIR is a city-wide document of how the developments will impact the entirety of the city. We haven’t gone into the details yet, but things like building demolition + environmental pollution are in the EIR.

    c. VA: What are the advantages + disadvantages of putting a site through the EIR process?

        i. EC: Putting it through EIR does not tie the City to approval of those sites. We can always knock sites off the list or make changes. But while it’s easy to take sites off the list, it’s much harder to add new sites in. This is why we are recommending the City take on a larger, more expansive list for the EIR.

        ii. VA: So if there’s a site we choose to put forward for an EIR but doesn’t get selected, what is the impact on that site?

        iii. EC: It would probably simplify any developer’s job to get environmental approval for that site if they were to take up a project on that site in the future. And also tying in Jack Balch’s question: because of no-net-loss, we would need to rezone other sites, which will need to go through the EIR process. It would be more time consuming.

        iv. BD: I wouldn’t describe it as “a little bit more work” – some of the bigger additional sites would require their own EIR, which could take many months. CEQA has its own set of requirements, too.

    d. JB: No-net-loss is new for this cycle. My understanding is that if we do take sites that go through the EIR off the final list, it could be difficult for us to add new sites because we would be scrambling. Is that correct?

        i. EC: Correct, the timing would be more challenging

    e. KN: Is no-net-loss another reason why we want the 50% buffer?

        i. EC: Yes

    f. JT: I have another question: back to the 50% buffer with the layers of density on top of it: another factor is that any site that is rezoned as a result of SB 330 cannot ever be rezoned, correct? At this point, I understand we’re not rezoning, only EIR. But our finalized list cannot be rezoned ever right?

        i. EC: SB 330 says you cannot downzone a residential site unless you rezone another non-residential site

    g. KB: Moving on now without Julie Testa + Jack Balch

4. Site 25 (PUSD-District)

    a. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 15-25 du/ac over 10.17 acres, with 204 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

        i. KN: I think this site should be included in the EIR. The density is ok, but I would not go any higher. Question is what would 15-25 du/ac look like? I think consistent appearance with the surrounding neighborhood is a valid point.

            1. EC: Think townhouse – two-stories, tuck under parking with maybe surface parking for guests

            2. BD: On the other side, 25 du/ac – think Civic Center project. It would give us more flexibility on greenspace.

            3. KN: Ok, definitely do not want to go higher than that. Also want to ask: how can we make sure that affordable housing for teachers gets attention? This is something we’ve been talking about for many years now.

        ii. JB: I’m comfortable keeping this site – I’m sure the school district will do its job in providing us with details. I think we should be thinking about higher density in a portion of the site for CEQA purposes. I would be supportive of increasing density if it provides housing for the teacher workforce.

        iii. VA: I’m torn on this one. There are valid traffic impact + cutoff impact concerns re: this site. My preference – understanding the school district’s plan completely to move the facilities on this site – is to not include this site. If the rest of the Council wants to include it, I would support it only if we include workforce housing, mixed use with retail on the ground floor, and downgrade this to 10 du/ac to 102 units. This is right in our downtown, so retail makes sense to me.

        iv. KB: This is a tough site. I have heard the neighbors + public say the #1 issue is infill in sites like these. It’s a challenging site to support, but that site is so accessible to downtown, to schools, to grocery shops, etc. And the school district has talked about relocating out of here for years so they can move to somewhere more suited to running business operations, facilities, etc. I would be supportive, but hoping it would be @ a lower density. The retail component can be discussed later in the process. But let’s figure out the density for CEQA because the range suggested among the Council is big.

        v. JB: I’ll come down from my housing push to the staff recommendation of 204 units if we can move forward

            1. KB: I’m not comfortable with that. I will go up to 150 units.

            2. VA: I am not comfortable with even 150, I’d really want us to do 102 units.

            3. KN: I’m willing to go down from the staff proposal a little bit, but we need to remember what we’re doing here. We need to have a higher density for the EIR. I’m willing to go down to 153 units, but that’s as low as I would go.

            4. VA: You know what, I’ll agree to 150 + some mixed use because this is only the EIR. We should also include workforce housing.

            5. JB: Question for staff: should we propose a number of units or a range?

                a. EC: We would suggest a range. If HCD looks @ this as an exact number, they will think it’s restrictive.

            6. KB: 15 du/ac would be 150 units. I’m willing to put housing elsewhere, but this site is sensitive. Let’s propose 8-20 du/ac.

            7. JB: I’m going to caution on the mixed use element because we already have a lot of empty retail spaces, but I will continue to support workforce/teacher housing

            8. VA: The range proposed is too high. I would like to see the maximum part of the range to go lower.

            9. JB: 150 is already a compromise. I’m open to a friendly amendment, but 150 needs to be the midpoint.

            10. VA: No, I want 150 to be the high end. If we can get there, I’d be supportive.

            11. JB: Let’s see if we have the votes for this without the friendly amendment.

            12. KB: I agree with Jack Balch. This is just an EIR – I know this is one of the hardest sites, but can we come to a compromise here?

            13. JB: I’m already compromising a lot. The point is I would like for this to be workforce housing. If our density is lower + housing units are larger, they will not be affordable for workforce housing.

            14. KN: I’m confused about the commercial piece of this. We added a lot of commercial space near BART five or six years ago + a lot of those spaces are still empty today. I would be very concerned about adding commercial here.

            15. JB: To clarify: my motion is move forward with the 8-20 du/ac, not including commercial, but including the teacher workforce housing

            16. KB: Do we need a range for this? Can we just do 150 units?

                a. EC: We really want to propose a range, but you can propose what Jack Balch said, which is some clusters of denser housing with more single-family housing around.

            17. VA: Can we bring the range down to 8-16 du/ac? And can we add in the commercial element?

            18. JB: Sure, I’ll meet you there on density, but I would strongly prefer an option instead of obligation for commercial. I would not want empty retail space.

            19. VA: Ok, would’ve liked something stronger on the retail component, but fine

            20. Council approves 4-0 to designate this site for EIR, 8-16 du/ac, with a required workforce housing component + optional retail component

5. Site 26 (St. Augustine)

    a. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 2-7 du/ac over 4.15 acres, with 19 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: exclude.

        i. VA: I think we should include this + am fine with the density range

        ii. JT: I also think we should include this. The church there has been asking for years for housing there. The fact they want to use this site is appropriate. I’ll also ask this for this site + every site: is this site eligible for SB 35 density bonuses?

            1. EC: Yes, that is true for this site + every site on this list

        iii. KB: I think we should consider a little higher density – I think we should match the density around the area. It’s in downtown, near a school, near a church, etc. I did not hear any concerns over the site.

        iv. KN: I support including this + would go further to say: this is one of six sites that adjoin single-family houses. I think this makes sense. I agree with Karla Brown that the density should be a little higher, but it’s not worth wringing our hands over this.

        v. Council approves 4-0 to designate this site for EIR, 2-7 du/ac

6. Sites 1-24, 27-29

    a. Site 1 (Lester)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 2 du/ac over 14.8 acres, with 31 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. VA: Where is this property? I’ve heard concerns about this being on a hillside.

                a. EC: Yes, it’s a hilly area + subject to measure PP + QQ requirements. 31 units is the proposal by the property owner, which can meet the measure PP + QQ requirements.

            2. KB: Confirming this property lies outside the city boundaries + requires annexation?

                a. EC: Correct

            3. Council approves 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 2 du/ac

    b. Site 2 (Stoneridge Mall)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 45-75 du/ac over 18 acres, with 810 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JB: Clarification: Simon Properties, the owner of the property, have asked for 485 or so housing units for another residential project. These 810 units are in addition?

                a. EC: Correct, the other housing project is on the northwest side of the property, while the 810 units are on the southeast side

            2. JB: Another question: what is the density on the 485 units? These 810 are @ 45-75 du/ac.

                a. EC: 40 du/ac for the other project, which is already zoned

                b. JB: Considering we have Workday there + traffic, have we failed Stoneridge?

                c. Mike Tassano: Our models and projections as well as talks with the property owner tell us that the southeast side is the fullest + least appealing for additional development. I would recommend the west side, especially given the easier access to transportation.

            3. KN: Given the traffic there, is 810 the highest we are going?

                a. MT: I can’t give that answer. 810 is on the lower end of the range. But the mall is struggling + Workday workers are working from home. My personal opinion is that things will go back to normal, traffic will return, + I would not like to put more than 810 units there.

            4. KN: I heard there were concerns re: the overpass over 680

                a. MT: What I hear is that it’s more about the local Stoneridge and Johnson and not the 680

            5. KN: What does 45-75 du/ac look like?

                a. MT: 75 du/ac would be projects across the freeway in Dublin (five to six story buildings)

            6. VA: We should ask for higher density here. We need to build housing, we’re being forced to. There’s going to be traffic everywhere, not just @ the site. The owner of the property wants higher density. The traffic around this area has been decreasing. With the amount of housing we need to zone for, we should put a lot more of it in here. Instead of 45-75 du/ac, I’d go 50-95/100 du/ac.

            7. KB: What’s the density for the Hacienda BART station?

                a. EC: 35-40 du/ac

                b. BD: Of the projects we have built, none are above 35 du/ac

            8. JT: I also think we should be putting more density, but what we have @ Hacienda is already 35 du/ac, so doubling that seems overwhelming. Is there a reason why we haven’t done a Stoneridge specific plan? We’d all want to keep as much of the mall as possible, but it is a good site for higher density.

                a. EC: It’s been a work plan item for a couple of years. The answer is that there are a lot of moving parts including frequently changing leadership, communications, + other priorities. But we would do that in the future going forward.

            9. JT: Ok, I would like to increase the density here as well because it’s where we can allocate a lot of our units

            10. JB: I’m hobbled by the 485 units already zoned in this area. I’m already thinking it’s 1,200 or 1,300 units in this area. I’ve just heard traffic is an issue. I’m challenged to go greater than that. I’d be very cautious about increasing density for my support.

            11. KN: I thought our traffic engineer said he wouldn’t be comfortable above 810 units. If that’s correct, I’m not sure we should be increasing density + a kick-out by HCD or the EIR. We’ve also heard people say, “do six-story buildings look like Pleasanton?”

            12. KB: Yea, I’m concerned about increasing density here. This site is eligible for additional density bonuses + like Jack Balch said, it’s already 1,200 or 1,300 units here. I’m not comfortable with six-story buildings out there.

            13. VA: I keep hearing the comment that it’s going to impact our schools. Of course it is, everything we’re doing here tonight is going to impact our schools. I’m looking to decrease impact on our existing neighborhoods as much as possible + this is a great opportunity to mitigate that. We’re not going to look like the Pleasanton like we do now. It’s hard, but we’ve got to do it. I would recommend a range of 55-65 du/ac.

            14. JT: We don’t have a Stoneridge specific plan. Is Mike Tassano saying that if in fact there were significant changes, only the conditions pre-pandemic would’ve made this unacceptable?

                a. MT: With the 810 units, 485 units, + the 353,000 square meters of retail, I would be concerned about the 810 units. If the pandemic doesn’t change thing significantly + we go back to the status quo, I think the 810 is going to have a big impact.

            15. KB: Shouldn’t you have the additional impact fees to cover things like additional lanes to the overpass to mitigate traffic?

                a. BD: We would get the impact fees, but they would be nowhere near enough for all those things. If you put burden on the surrounding area, HCD will say no one is going to support that overpass development + this project is not feasible.

            16. JB: I cannot support the motion to increase the density given the traffic impact

            17. KB: 45-75 du/ac is a huge range. I agree with Valerie Arkin that this is a great opportunity, but there are so many units that are going to be on this property – it’s a huge number.

            18. VA: I also want to remind everyone that the property owner + developer is interested in going even higher, so the interest is there. This is a development that could work + it’s the most perfect site in our city for additional density. We’re currently @ 45-75 du/ac + I want to go up from that.

                a. KB: I’ll go 55-75 du/ac

                b. VA: Can we do 60-80 du/ac?

            19. JB: I’m going to keep repeating the traffic impacts – it doesn’t matter what the property owner + developer are interested in. We can step up + increase in the future, but are we damning the northeast to traffic because we think it’s the best site for our community? There are a lot of what ifs. I can do 50-75 du/ac, but we should not have over 75 du/ac in our communities.

            20. KB: Why can’t we have level service F on our overpass?

                a. MT: Our general plan states we have level service F on our freeway ramps

            21. KB: But with Workday + 10X next to each other, the goal is to get people to live near work there

            22. KN: I’m not able to support increasing the density + echoing the concerns over traffic. There’s not going to be public transit there, so there will be cars.

                a. KB: We also have Kaiser zoned there, too

                b. KN: We do, that’s a good point

            23. VA: Amending motion – I’m already compromising a lot – increasing to 50-80 du/ac. I understand the school impacts more than anyone + we need to address those impacts.

            24. Council approves 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 50-80 du/ac

    c. Site 3 (PUSD-Donlon)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 5 du/ac over 5.5 acres, with 28 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JT: Motion to remove this site from the HE entirely. Clearly we discussed the impact of this site on the schools + heard from the community members. We’ve heard so much from the neighborhoods. We allocated money from our school bonds to build additional capacity for our schools. Why are we liquidating more of our school’s land? This is short-sighted + a mistake. Our communities have felt the impact with overcrowded schools. Even the representative from the District tonight admitted it.

            2. VA: I agree + I will also mention we planned to put another school there even before we began to put a bunch of housing there. There is no doubt we will need additional schools. I was very involved @ the state level with school board associations + have had discussions with land use consultants, they have all told me to never sell off school land because you will need it eventually. We’ve made that mistake before. And we’ve got the community members who are against this.

            3. KN: This is one of the sites that joins the single-family neighborhoods together. I want this to stay in the EIR. Why are we keeping one of those sites in + another out? We need to stay consistent. I understand the community members don’t want housing there, but they didn’t want the school there either. We owe it to the community to stay consistent, so I am not going to support the motion.

            4. JB: Community feedback is strong, but the school district has put this forward + asked us to move forward with it. Kathy Narum’s point about consistency with sites joining single-family homes is very valid. I will probably support keeping it on the EIR list, but will not commit to having this on the final list.

            5. KB: We saw this with the ValleyTrails project. We added homes there + the value of that area went up. We aren’t talking about multi-story buildings here, they are single family homes. People want to move here + this is infill. And if the school district wants to put this forward for EIR, then I will support them.

            6. Council votes 2-3 to remove this site from EIR. The motion fails.

            7. JB: I motion to add this to the EIR as is

            8. VA: Everyone who lives there tells me they would rather live with the school there than the homes, even if both options increase traffic. We really need this site preserved for a future school or school expansion of Donlon.

            9. KB: I agree that the school district needs to tell us about their plans, but I support this for EIR

            10. Council votes 3-2 to designate this site for EIR, 5 du/ac

    d. Sites 4, 5, 7, 8 (Owens Drive, Laborers Council, Hacienda Terrace, Muslim Community Center)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking for site 4 are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 2.36 acres, with 71 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

        ii. EC: The two questions we’re asking for site 5 are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 1.36 acres, with 41 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

        iii. EC: The two questions we’re asking for site 7 are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 2 acres, with 60 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

        iv. EC: The two questions we’re asking for site 8 are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 15-25 du/ac over 5 acres, with 75 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JT: How many sites are eligible for SB 35?

                a. EC: All of them

            2. VA: Motion made to approve these sites as are

            3. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, with their respective proposed densities

    e. Site 6 (Signature Center)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 11 acres, with 330 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include. Will note that there is a building on this site that we need to demolish, so it’s a smaller site for this number of units.

            1. VA: It’s a good site – fairly close to retail + freeway. I would like to increase density to 35-45 du/ac.

            2. JB: Did I not just hear staff say this is the max this site could handle?

                a. VA: Yea, but the Council has discretion. This is my suggestion.

                b. EC: We need to be realistic here. We would need to demolish a building + the building height would be taller. The property owner would actually like this less dense than proposed.

                c. JB: I’ll move with staff recommendation

            3. VA: From a process standpoint, what happens if we end up taking off too many sites or not increasing the densities enough? What do we do @ the end?

                a. EC: Jennifer Hagen is taking notes on our numbers. The Council can then circle back on sites we’ve visited if we don’t hit our numbers.

            4. KB: I’m concerned this development is nowhere near a park or a BART. It’s high density + in a parking lot. I’m challenged with this site because it doesn’t feel like Pleasanton. We need the developer to know there needs to be greenspace here.

            5. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 35-45 du/ac

    f. Site 9 (Metro 480)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 45-75 du/ac over 5 acres, with 225 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. VA: I think we can have more density here, too. But with Ellen Clark’s statement that we can always revisit sites, I’m going to motion we just keep as is right now.

            2. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 45-75 du/ac

    g. Site 10 (Valley Care)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 6.12 acres, with 108 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: exclude. The property owner would not like to move forward with this site.

            1. JB: So with the no-net-loss, would it be possible to move forward over the objections of the property owner? To be clear, I support excluding this site off the list – this is more of a process question.

                a. EC: HCD will not see this as feasible if you are overruling the property owner

                b. JB: Ok, motion to remove this site

            2. Council votes 5-0 to remove this site from EIR

    h. Site 11 (Old Santa Rita)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-60 du/ac over 21.85 acres, with 655 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. VA: I think this is another site for higher density. Does staff disagree?

                a. EC: No, that makes sense. But the challenge with this site is there are obstacles on the property that HCD could plausibly challenge for feasibility of development, especially when you consider fire danger.

            2. JB: I have a challenge with what we do with the businesses around here. Where will our automotive + industrial businesses relocate? I also have a challenge with the number of units we’re proposing for our HE that are in this area. A lot of our other sites are in this area + we already have a lot of traffic in this area.

            3. KN: I also have discomfort with where we relocate the businesses. The other discomfort I have is if this is a high density area with a lot of homes, how are they going to coexist next to these automotive + industrial businesses that are loud + open early?

            4. KB: This area is due for improvement; it’s tired + old + we need to invest here. We have business districts + we have BART, we need to make this area feel included. It meets a lot of our requirements for good site location. But there are a lot of cars here.

            5. JT: State is just forcing us to build housing + they don’t care. The state’s telling us we don’t have a choice, so this is as good a location as any.

            6. VA: Motion that we accept staff’s recommendation

            7. JB: I support it to go to EIR, but I would still like to emphasize the businesses there + would not be certain about including it in the final list @ the end

            8. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 30-60 du/ac

    i. Site 12 (Pimlico North)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-60 du/ac over 2.12 acres, with 64 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JT: Motion to accept staff’s recommendation

            2. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 30-60 du/ac

    j. Site 13 (Pimlico South)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 15-25 du/ac over 1.99 acres, with 40 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: exclude. This is right south of site 13, but the density is lower because it is adjacent to residential homes.

            1. JB: Again, we need to think about consistency; we are either all in or all out. The St. Augustine site is in + the Donlon site are in. All three of these are adjacent to single family homes. This one should be in, too.

            2. KN: Agree with Jack Balch, I’d make the same point. I vouch we include this.

            3. VA: I don’t agree with the consistency issue. We have the discretion to remove or keep. As long as we get to a reasonable buffer, we’re doing what we’re supposed to do + that’s why we have these discussions. This is a big retail hub that is an amenity to an existing neighborhood next to it. I’d support staff + PC’s recommendation to exclude.

            4. JT: Is this a potential SB 35 site? What are we doing to our community?

                a. EC: Yes

            5. KB: I would not want to wipe out all of the retail in that area. I would support excluding.

                a. JB: So we support keeping retail in, but taking commercial + industrial out? Is that what we’re saying?

                b. KB: I disagree with the consistency premise. But I think this is also a different case from the previous site.

                c. JB: Why don’t we do mixed housing then?

                d. KB: That’s always a potential if someone wants to take that up

            6. VA: Motion to accept staff + PC’s recommendation to exclude the south side

            7. Council votes 3-2 to exclude this site from EIR

    k. Site 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 15-25 du/ac over 2.85 acres, with 57 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include. We’ve also received notice from the Archdiocese of interest in this location.

            1. JB: This is a higher density than the neighborhoods around it. I think we should be consistent.

            2. KB: Aren’t there more duplexes in that area?

                a. EC: Yes, there are more higher density units in that area

                b. JH: The surrounding areas are around 9-12 du/ac

            3. VA: I’m not opposed to this sight, but I will echo what Jack Balch said about the density being higher than its surroundings. I’m concerned about that.

            4. KN: I’m supportive of this site, but I understand Jack Balch + Valerie Arkin’s concerns about density. Maybe we go with 12-18 du/ac or 10-15 du/ac?

            5. JT: I would be agreeable to the reduction in density to make it more consistent with the surrounding areas

            6. KN: Motion to move forward with this site with a reduction in density to 12-18 du/ac

            7. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 12-18 du/ac

    l. Site 15 (Rheem Drive)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 8-14 du/ac over 9.77 acres, with 108 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. KN: I have the same challenge with this site as I did with Old Santa Rita: where are the businesses in that area going? However, I support moving this to EIR, I think it’s a good site + consistent with the areas down the street. Motion to take it up.

            2. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 8-14 du/ac

    m. Site 16 (Tri-Valley Inn)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 15-25 du/ac over 2.47 acres, with 50 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. KB: There’s a restaurant in the front, so it’s more than just the Tri-Valley Inn

                a. EC: Correct

            2. KB: How many units will there be for rent? Folks in the area don’t want a big towering building looking over the fence @ them. @ the density staff is proposing, what are we looking @?

                a. EC: Townhouses

            3. VA: Is that going to be a reasonable density estimate + will it be compatible given the neighborhood doesn’t want it that dense?

                a. EC: Up to the Council if we want to make this a smaller scale project

            4. KN: Most of the houses in that area are single story. I am not comfortable with 15-25 du/ac when we acknowledge there will be some three-story buildings. Again, we need to stay consistent. What is the acceptable range for buildings two-story or less?

                a. EC: To bump up unit size, developers would want that third story. There will be design standards we will be developing for this + other sites that will guide things like building height.

                b. KN: I’m just very uncomfortable with the three stories. Didn’t we have limits for this in the Downtown specific plan?

                c. EC: We did height limit + not stories limit in the Downtown specific plan, but your concern is understandable

                d. KN: When will the design standards be ready?

                e. EC: After the HE

                f. KB: We absolutely need to respect the neighbors there + their demand for privacy

            5. JT: What is the density on the apartment units around there?

                a. BD: They are around 20-25 du/ac

            6. JT: I will echo that we want to be respectful to the other neighbors, but I think it’s a good site

                a. BD: We can accomplish quite a bit with the standards we will be adopting, paying particular attention to the smaller sites that have residential adjacency. You can also always knock down the density. We’ve done this before with site-specific restrictions. I’m not sure HCD will let us do that this time, but if we tailor the design standards carefully, we can make sure they work for this site specifically.

                b. EC: We can definitely tailor those standards + incorporate a buffer for this site

            7. KN: Motion to include @ staff recommendation even though I’m not very comfortable with the density

            8. VA: I agree with Kathy Narum that I’ll do this for the EIR, but not sure if I can accept three stories for final list

            9. KB: I will absolutely not accept three stories for the final list – they will either need to downsize this for two stories or build less units

            10. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 15-25 du/ac

    n. Site 17 (Mission Plaza)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 2.22 acres, with 67 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: exclude.

            1. KB: Did the property owner also want to remove this site?

                a. EC: Between this site + the next site (Valley Plaza), the owner wanted this one out + Valley Plaza included

            2. KN: If I recall correctly, the owner wanted Valley Plaza also rezoned for mixed use

                a. EC: Correct

            3. KN: Motion to remove this site

            4. Council votes 5-0 to exclude this site from EIR

    o. Site 18 (Valley Plaza)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 7.33 acres, with 220 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: exclude.

            1. KB: Did we get correspondence from surrounding businesses to get this property rezoned?

                a. EC: Yes, most of them want this site rezoned

            2. JB: I have the same problem here with the Old Santa Rita site with the commercial + industrial businesses. I think we should have some kind of mixed use to give us more flexibility, especially given we’ve communicated with the property owner + surrounding property/business owners. However, I think we should either restrict billable acres or density.

                a. EC: My recommendation is to knock off around 25% - 30% off the total acreage. If you are thinking of reducing density, this site would no longer be considered low-income units.

                b. JB: That makes sense, then my motion is to move forward with this site, but make it 5.5 acres instead of 7.33 acres

            3. VA: If the Planning Commission + staff want this excluded, why do the businesses here want to move forward?

                a. EC: There were public comments expressing concern over the the businesses @ the PC meeting

            4. VA: I would advocate for this to be excluded. I understand what Jack Balch is saying, but I don’t think we have a plan for this site right now. The public comments also tell us the public wants this to stay as a public amenity.

            5. JB: Well then how do we retain the retail + listen to the business owners? I’m headed towards finding that solution + would like to @ least include this for EIR.

            6. JT: I’d like to exclude. I think we have plenty of buffer + we don’t need it. I think the community was very clear to keep this off the list.

            7. KN: I’d support leaving it on the list. I would want to see that it made it through some kind of restrictions to preserve the bulk of the retail, but I would like to keep this for now. Maybe we come back @ the end + see if we want to take this off if we meet our numbers, but for now I think we should keep it. This is a tougher one for me.

            8. JB: Point of clarification: we are proposing 5.5 acres instead of 7.33, with 30-40 du/ac kept understanding that we are using the lower end of the density range

            9. KB: I would support keeping this on + seeing if it would be a viable project. I like retaining that mixed use feel + think it will flow with Mission Plaza.

            10. VA: I understand what everyone’s saying + am struggling with this one a bit, but I really think we should take it off. The 5.5 recommendation is certainly better than 7.33. I’ll go along with it unhappily for EIR only, but still really would prefer we take it off.

            11. KB: You have horizontal mixed use, so you would still retain the critical retail

            12. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 30-40 du/ac, with a reduction in acreage from 7.33 acres → 5.5 acres

    p. Site 19 (Black Avenue)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 15-25 du/ac over 2.59 acres, with 52 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JB: This site is not surrounded by residential. Right now, this is the only school that people have to drive their kids to. Traffic aside, people could walk to every school in their child’s life + retail if they lived @ this site. Traffic, of course, is the big problem – it is buried in our community, so it does not have the transit element. But I really hope we think about density.

                a. KB: Are you suggesting a higher density?

                b. JB: I am, but I’ve spoken to staff about this + there’s a lot @ play here. The traffic is a concern. But we could eliminate several trips in daily life with this site that we can’t eliminate with other sites.

            2. KN: I could consider a little higher density here. We had the resident that lived here that spoke against this project because of traffic impact. I would not be surprised if that were the case, but we wouldn’t know until we put it through EIR. So I would like to put this through EIR with a higher density.

            3. VA: It’s great it’s near a school, but we already know there are people who drive their kids to school + people already drive to work, so people are going to have to drive. I’m fine with putting this in for EIR, but I’m not going higher on density. I think it’s high already, but I’m ok with how it is now.

            4. JT: Agree, this density is already high. This already has the buffer + is subject to SB 35 density bonuses.

                a. EC: Density bonuses are from 5% - 50% depending on proportion of affordable housing. You could get a scenario where the density bonus is 100%, but that’s very rare + the project would need to be 100% affordable.

            5. JB: Motion to keep this site in the EIR + to up the density to 30-40 du/ac. Also, everyone’s comments on the ranges are very valid, but I just want to know the impact with the higher densities.

                a. KB: If we go 30-40 du/ac, you’re talking about a four-story building. Will that look unusual to you?

                b. JB: That’s a good point. We are in a non-single-family home area, but that’s a good point.

                c. BD: When you give this 30-40 du/ac range, you’re going to see it @ 30 du/ac

                d. JB: So how do we view the ranges? Should we do 20-30 du/ac?

                e. EC: We do not have a shortfall of the lower income housing units, so I think this is one where you can feel fine keeping the density range down a bit. 20-30 du/ac would give you more units, they just wouldn’t give you low income units.

                f. JB: Let’s do that

            6. VA: I can’t support any higher density than the staff recommendation. I’m concerned about the traffic impacts. It’s not fair to the neighborhoods + roads there.

            7. JB: I had a strong argument. What are you basing your traffic impact concern over? I’ve told you how we’ve eliminated those concerns. I’m going to stay @ 20-30 du/ac.

            8. The motion by Jack Balch for 20-30 du/ac did not get a second + died

            9. VA: Motion for the staff recommendation

            10. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 15-25 du/ac

    q. Site 20 (Boulder Court)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 9.45 acres, with 284 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JB: Like Julie Testa with SB 35, I will continue to harp on the commercial + industrial concern. This site will be affected. This is an underutilized site, yes, but I worry about it. For the EIR though, I’ll move with staff recommendation, but I’m bringing the issue up.

            2. KN: Seconding the concern, but would like to move forward with the EIR

            3. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 30-40 du/ac

    r. Site 21 (Kiewit)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is mixed use 30-40 du/ac (5 acres of high density) + 8-14 du/ac (40 acres of single-family), du/ac over 50.4 acres, with 690 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JB: This is out in east Pleasanton, which is pretty isolated. With all these units + all those cars that come with it, I am very concerned. This is why I’m advocating for an EIR because we need to know what our infrastructure investments should be here, but I am very concerned.

            2. KB: I am also concerned, but we need to do this because the state + ABAG are forcing us to do this

            3. VA: I am also concerned + yes, the state is forcing us to do this. Everyone, please write, call, etc. to your state legislator because no one wants this.

            4. Council votes 5-0 to designate these sites for EIR, 30-40 du/ac (5 acres) + 8-14 du/ac (40 acres)

    s. Site 22 (Merritt)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 2 du/ac over 45.59 acres, with 91 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. KB: That’s an extremely low density that barely dents our RHNA. Why would the Planning Commission want to go through the entire annexation process of LAFCO for 91 units?

                a. EC: There are a couple of constraints with this site including noise impact buffering, owner reservations, community amenities, etc. This density is also consistent with what the general plan states the density for this plan should be. To be fair to the applicant, they did ask for a little higher density with more affordable units, but this is what we think represents a realistic capacity.

                b. KB: And this is for seniors?

                c. EC: Correct + there is very little traffic impact

            2. JB: This project includes improvements to Foothill Road?

                a. EC: Correct

            3. KB: In the past, this project came to a public vote + it was rejected. Is this project changed now in terms of street accessibility?

                a. EC: Yes, the applicant has learned + changed

            4. JT: Are ADUs included in the 91 units?

                a. EC: Not sure if any have been proposed, but the number would not include them anyways

                b. JB: The lots are not that large for ADUs anyways

                c. JT: I remember seeing the lots + they were very large. But my question is going to be with this age-restricted area, are ADUs there going to be age-restricted, too? I would like for those units to count towards our number, so can we please have that for our next discussion?

            5. KN: This project is going to fix a lot of problems for Foothill Road. I am happy to put this on EIR.

            6. KB: I can’t support this. 2 du/ac? This is such low density. I respect the developers’ outreach to that community. But as long as we can cut down on the traffic there, I would certainly like to see higher density there to @ least 15 du/ac. I’m not arguing for packed density, I just want some density here on one of our last plots of open space. And not that it would matter, but there’s no impact on the schools; it’s a senior community, so no impact on the schools + they pay the taxes that help the schools.

            7. VA: I like the project. I think we need to be sensitive with the neighborhoods behind. The previous issues with the previous proposal years ago have been addressed. I like having senior housing + I think having high-end senior housing is a good thing. We already have low-end senior housing, but we should have high-end senior housing.

            8. JB: We approved the Lester site with 2 du/ac, so I’m struggling on why we can’t be consistent here. Would I like to see the density be greater? Yes, but that’s not the project. The goal was to reduce traffic + that has been addressed. It also provides housing for a specific segment.

            9. KB: I’ll vote with the majority on this, but the units in the small lots in the Villages are $1.5 million, so I struggle to see how seniors will afford these large lots.

            10. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 2 du/ac

    t. Site 23 (Sunol Boulevard Area)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 30-40 du/ac over 23.89 acres, with 717 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. JB: I will be consistent with myself + say I’m concerned about giving up sites like this. Similar to Old Santa Rita. Can we restrict the developable area as well + make this mixed use? This is a large site in the south of the City, which is uncommon for housing. If we want to be true to our word about balancing the impact across our communities, we need to move forward with this site in some regards.

            2. VA: Appreciate the comment about spreading impact. I believe we got a letter from the business owner Richard Lumber that is in agreement with this?

                a. EC: Correct + we also received interest from the warehouse owner to go through with this. They do not have objections over density.

                b. JH: I believe the owners would prefer to do one or the other instead of mixed use

                c. VA: Sounds good, I don’t think we need to get into mixed use right now for the EIR

            3. KN: I absolutely agree with the comment about balancing impact. I remember from the Richard Lumber letter that they wanted the mixed use option some day, but perhaps not right now. They are long-standing members of the community + if that’s what they want, I’m happy to help them with that.

            4. KB: There are four owners on the five parcels, so it would be naturally mixed; it can still be parceled out. And there’s a middle school + an elementary school near there, so it will be accessible for groceries, etc. And this was one of the highest graded sites based on our criteria.

            5. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 30-40 du/ac

    u. Site 24 (Sonoma Drive Area)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 15-25 du/ac over 6.51 acres, with 131 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 15-25 du/ac

    v. Site 27 (PUSD-Vineyard)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 2 du/ac over 5 acres, with 10 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include. School district’s recommendation was to increase density on this site to increase value.

            1. .JT: We’re already upzoning 20% of our community. Our schools are already impacted. If the school district said we want to do a land swap with another site, then I would support it. But to continue selling off school land without replacement is irresponsible. I want this off this list.

            2. KN: Is there some kind of documentation or agreement on why this original 10 acre site is only half suitable for development?

                a. BD: There are landfill + environmental issues on this site that violate the Vineyard specific plan. People want a park here + this was the only site that fit the Vineyard specific plan requirements. So the district was ok with giving up five acres for the park if it means higher density on the other five that we’re talking about now.

            3. KN: So we can have this as higher density? The school district wants this rezoned?

                a. EC: The school district wants all 10 acres as housing in an ideal world, but because half is now going to a park, they want to increase density to recoup the value.

            4. VA: I’m concerned about the students in this community. We approved the Donlon site + we are giving away the students’ land. The City tried to find suitable land in the northeast of the City for schools + they couldn’t find any. So why are we continuing to sell off our school land? I agree with Julie Testa – if this was a land swap, then I’m ok. But I’m concerned about giving up the land again. All the school board associations I’ve talked to have said not to give up land. The school district has a say on what they want to do with their land, but we’re responsible for zoning. I’m concerned about this for the students. *Continued to repeat the word “concerned” about six more times*

            5. JB: I’m also concerned for the same reasons Valerie Arkin is concerned. Also, is the park built on a methane site? Is that what the environmental concern was?

                a. BD: No, that’s for another plot of land. We wouldn’t build the park there.

            6. JT: There aren't any choices here. Valerie Arkin is completely right here. We will have no options here if we sell off this land. My understanding was the methane concern wasn’t with this land?

                a. BD: No, it’s not – I just said it wasn’t

            7. JT: One of the reasons why this was not considered a site for the park was because the school district @ the time wasn’t considering boundary changes. It is now. This site is not perfect, but we need it right now.

            8. KB: I support giving the school district more options. If we sell this land + rezone, it could give the school district value + more ability to do what they want. I’m not super excited about 2 du/ac, but if we can increase the density like the school district wants, it should ultimately be their decision. What was the number Kathy Narum was thinking?

                a. KN: 3-5 du/ac – something reasonably compatible

            9. JT: I made an earlier motion to take this off the site

            10. Council votes 2-3 to exclude this site from EIR. The motion fails.

            11. Council votes 3-2 to designate this site for EIR, 3-5 du/ac, with the expectation that five of the whole 10 acres is left for a park

    w. Site 28 (Steelwave)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is mixed use 30 du/ac (8 acres) + 8-14 du/ac (118 acres) over 123.18 acres, with 1,331 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: exclude.

            1. VA: Motion to take up the PC + staff’s recommendation to exclude this site

            2. JB: I would strongly ask we put them into the EIR. I know it shoots the moon on the number of units, but we are going through this exercise to densify the entire rest of our community. I had a lot of consternation on going up or going out; do we build six-story buildings or do we sprawl? Both have consequences. But how do we have any concept of what Amazon will do out there near this property if we don’t do this EIR? What is the traffic impact? Also, I’m not sure the community would like to see higher buildings rather than going outward. I don’t know if a carbon sequestration + other relevant analyses are going to be in the EIR, but we are committing to densifying our communities if we don’t do this EIR. Also, we have a lot of big areas out there that are hundreds of units that we are putting through for EIR. If one of them does not pass the EIR, that’s a ton of units we will need to backfill, so @ the very least, this is an insurance policy.

            3. KB: That area is zoned industrial right now. The developers had asked for a buffer a long time ago + it is a perfect site for industrial uses like Jack Balch has been asking for all night. But it’s a bad site for residential because there is no infrastructure. It’s going to cost $100 million to link that site to El Charro Road. It’s a ton of money + there are environmental challenges. I can’t support this location for anything other than industrial. Also, this site had the lowest score of any site by our criteria. It’s also not a valid site for affordable housing. Our community members there are concerned about the sprawl there.

            4. VA: $100 million is what it costs for a new school, so keep that in mind. Affordable housing sites should also be built near transit, which this is not. There are also environmental concerns. I think there needs to be further thought on this site. Also, we have met the RHNA number we need, so we don’t need this site. I would not be in favor of including this site.

            5. JB: I understand I’m in the minority here + I’m not advocating for this site to be in the final list. But we should do the research into densification + have that info. The $100 million is not what I’m talking about – we should study the traffic impact there regardless.

            6. KN: I would like to see it left in. I’m not advocating for us to rezone the whole thing, but we don’t know what other sites may fall out here down the line. I suggest that we keep things open + we’re eliminating a lot of industrial sites. Are we just going to turn the entire city into housing? That’s not what any of us want. The reason the City’s financial base is so strong is because we have channels to generate revenue even when we have other losses elsewhere.

                a. KB: This is industrial zoning, this is exactly what you want

                b. KN: There is housing there as well

            7. Council votes 3-2 to exclude this site from EIR

    x. Site 29 (Oracle)

        i. EC: The two questions we’re asking are should we move forward with CEQA for this site + if we do, is this the right density? Recommended density is 45-75 du/ac over 3 acres, with 135 units in total. Planning Commission recommendation: include.

            1. Council votes 5-0 to designate this site for EIR, 45-75 du/ac

7. Final RHNA count

    a. BD: I counted 5,004 new units identified for rezoning, 59% buffer above our required RHNA

    b. JH: With the density changes, I got total of 5,030 new units identified for rezoning approved for the EIR, 315 units above our 50% RHNA buffer, + 1,887 units above our general surplus shortfall

    c. EC: I got similar numbers

​

Speakers/Presenters:

- Karla Brown, Pleasanton Mayor

- Dan Sodergren, Pleasanton City Attorney

- Ellen Clark, Pleasanton Director of Community Development

- Julie Testa, Pleasanton City Councilmember

- Jack Balch, Pleasanton City Councilmember

- Valerie Arkin, Pleasanton Vice Mayor

- Kathy Narum, Pleasanton City Councilmember

- Brian Dolan, Interim Pleasanton City Manager

- Mike Tassano, Pleasanton Deputy Director of Community Development, Transportation

- Jennifer Hagen, Pleasanton Associate Planner

02/01/2022 Pleasanton City Council Housing Elements Update

​

1. Opening remarks

    a. Dan Sodergren: Both Councilmembers Jack Balch and Julie Testa live within five miles of properties on the sites list. The FPPC has responded to their conflict of interest inquiries and said that they can remain for the discussion. However, we’re going to discuss sites 25 and 26 separately so they can leave and then include them for the rest of the sites.

        i. Julie Testa: Want to make clear that we are choosing to refrain for the two sites. FPPC did not say we need to refrain.

2. General overview

    a. Ellen Clark: Asking for guidance on including sites for the HE + direction on any density + general assumption on the sites inventory. Also looking for guidance that we can carry into the environmental review as we hope to be done with this by early 2023.

        i. EC: *Gave a brief explanation on the HE process including how it works, what it is, the process from the state → ABAG → Pleasanton, and deadlines*

            1. EC: We’ve already had preliminary report meetings, public input meetings. Time now is to start EIR/CEQA prep and scoping February-April, draft HE and meetings in June, draft EIR/CEQA review period is September-November, HCD revisions meetings are November-December, HCD review #2 is early 2023, and public hearings/adoption is scheduled for March-April 2023. We have shifted our timeline out a little bit because of new public input requirements where we need to give the public sufficient time to review after revisions.

3. Sites inventory

    a. EC: RHNA is 1,750 for very low; 1,008 low; 894 moderate; 2,313 above moderate; 5,965 total

    b. EC: We first looked @ what we already have available with our current zoning. All that together later, there is still a 3,143 unit shortage. This means the City will need to find sites for rezoning to fill that gap.

    c. EC: City staff felt it would be prudent to build in an @ least 50% buffer in the initial list for units. There is flexibility to adjust sites list based on successive inputs during the review process. This is a conservative basis for CEQA review. The # of units we are recommending for the buffer is 4,715.

    d. EC: Density is considered through state mandates + thoughtfulness on a range/flexibility for individual sites

    e. EC: HCD says inventory needs to reflect a realistic estimate of capacity, particularly for high density sites. City’s conservative assumptions: low and medium density sites will develop @ average density within range, while high density sites will develop @ minimum end of range (30 or 45 du/ac).

    f. EC: HCD considers 2-7 du/ac as low density, 8-14 du/ac low/medium density, 15-25 du/ac medium density, and 30+ du/ac high density

        i. EC: All these kinds of densities exist in Pleasanton today

    g. EC: In the last two HE, the City opted to allow a max of 30-40 du/ac as high density. There were discussions with the Planning + Housing Commissions to go above that this time. Couple of reasons for this: we have a larger RHNA, we want to look @ fewer sites, it would encourage less open spaces (e.g. parking lots), it would encourage the production of smaller + more affordable units, it would make projects more financially feasible, etc. Important caveat is that high density is not right for everywhere – this will be particularly relevant during the CEQA analysis. There are ways, though, that we can make these larger, more dense buildings attractive, as we have seen in other cities in the Bay Area.

    h. EC: 29 sites/areas have been identified + assigned a preliminary density range, but they’ve been identified @ all density ranges to accommodate a range of unit types + affordability

        i. EC: 3 very high density sites (Stoneridge shopping center, Metro 580, Oracle); 1 mid-high density site (Metro 580); several sites in low end of high density range

        ii. EC: We’ve divided the sites into 5 areas:

            1. Area A would achieve 1,292 units is NW Pleasanton close to 580 (includes Stoneridge Shopping, which is 810/1,292)

            2. Area B would achieve 1,078 units in north Santa Rita area (includes Old Santa Rita, which is 641/1,078)

            3. Area C would achieve 554 units in central Santa Rita area (includes Mission and Valley Plaza sites, which are 287/554)

            4. Area D would achieve 2,205 units in east Pleasanton (includes SteelWave, which is 1,331/2,205)

            5. Area E would achieve 1,081 units in SE Pleasanton (includes Sunol Boulevard, which is 717/1,081)

            6. If all 29 initial sites were to be retained, it would generate 6,629 units, which is more than our RHNA. 4,109 lower-income units + 2,520 above moderate units.

    i. EC: Sites ranking and scoring were evaluated based on sites criteria approved by City Council + considered transit, location, access to services, community support, property owner support (important for HCD), land use compatibility, feasibility of development, distribution (City Council wanted sites spread out), etc.

    j. EC: Planning Commission was supportive of upping density with existing + new sites, but recommended six sites to be removed from the initial list. These recommendations would remove 1,785 units.

    k. EC: Housing Commission was supportive of including East Pleasanton sites + increasing density, but were concerned about displacement of retail

    l. EC: Community workshop raised concerns over retail displacement, resources, + some of the sites including the SteelWave + PUSD sites

        i. EC: Most concerning sites:

            1. PUSD-Donlon received 8 emails

            2. PUSD-District site received 5 emails

            3. Tri-Valley Inn received 3 emails

            4. Valley and Mission Plazas received 2 emails

            5. Also a lot of concern just in general about development

    m. EC: We are asking the City to affirm the 50% buffer, affirm density ranges, + provide feedback/guidance as we head into the CEQA analysis process

4. Discussion on sites 25 (PUSD-District site) + 26 (St. Augustine)

    a. Karla Brown: Want to say that many, many letters were written by the City to appeal the RHNA number to bring it down, but we were unsuccessful

    b. Public comments:

        i. Steven Dunn, SteelWave + USL representative: Involved in the property for 18 years + invested over 1 million dollars. Would urge the City to control this area by going forward, annexing, + zoning this site so they can control the future of this site. We’re high density, we’ve got community benefits, we’ve got access to resources + services. We would like for this to be an informed decision. Please vote to include this site in the CEQA study.

        ii. Robert Gonella, Pleasanton resident: Asking to affirm the Planning Commission’s recommendations to remove the six sites from the list. There are 75 shops in the area I live in – they provide jobs + services. I’ve heard people say “let’s do mixed use,” but that would displace those businesses. I don’t think high density housing should be replacing retail, which is already in trouble enough. We want to keep the small town feel in Pleasanton.

        iii. Brian Casey, Pleasanton resident: Been living here for 30-40 years. Want the Tri-Valley Inn off the site list. It is currently commercial + we would like the Council to keep it that way. There are already 7 condos/apartment buildings in that area. You’re going to increase the traffic + affect the kids walking to school there. Your constituents back in 2011 when discussing the current cycle said they didn’t want that site on the list + it was taken off. There’s not a lot of acreage there + the density is super high.

        iv. Colleen Hake, Pleasanton resident + parent: Complained about not having enough grass + too much blacktop for PUSD students. I have scientific evidence that access to greenspace for children should guide housing policy. We should not allow the Donlon site to be sold for housing. We should move the fence to have grass for kids.

        v. Aditi Nair, Pleasanton resident + parent: Talking about Donlon field like the previous speaker. Please do not use this site for housing. Our kids have gone through enough through this pandemic. School is where these kids feel normal. Building housing here is outrageous; this is the only school that does not have greenspace. Once this pandemic becomes an endemic, enrollment is going back up + traffic will get worse.

        vi. Joe Chillinsky, Pleasanton resident: Requesting removal of the Tri-Valley Inn from the sites list. The Commission has already removed similar sites before (such as Pimlico South) + can do so again here. Small grocery store would be displaced. It would also inconvenience the single family houses around it + it does not yield a considerable number of units. We’re talking about 50 units here + removal would not do much.

        vii. Andre Pegeron, Pleasanton resident: We are in a housing crisis + a housing affordability crisis. I’m pro-housing, but I will also say that we should preserve the Donlon site for greenspace for kids. But we should push for the max number of units otherwise. I don’t believe any of my kids will be able to live here affordably in the future. People seem to be scared of living next to people because everyone here has been saying “don’t build near me.” And if people are scared of traffic, let’s get people out of cars instead of using housing as a scare tactic. We need a walkable, bikeable Pleasanton.

        viii. John Chwastyk, PUSD representative: PUSD is in the process of examining all facilities. We’re working in conjunction with the HE update. PUSD is also working to update the facilities master plan, which will be completed in May. Another challenge is the imbalance of enrollment among schools. But we need to house the kids that go to those schools. We should include sites 3, 25, + 26 (which includes the PUSD sites) to better serve the students in that area.

        ix. Michelle Tallon, Pleasanton resident: I’ve heard good things tonight about increasing density, but I don’t think the Donlon site should be included. I think it’s ridiculous – Donlon is overcrowded. PUSD is already looking @ redistricting + moving students, this is not ok. 28 new homes on this parcel will only exacerbate this problem. We need the strategic long-range view – housing growth strategy must match school growth strategy. And the greenspace is also an issue. Please remove this site.

        x. Becky Dennis, Pleasanton resident: I really like the Kiewit and Boulder Creek sites because it’s close to the new Amazon site + there is an opportunity for a partnership there. The Lester site is an underutilized site + you can build a high rise there to get more units + preserve some more greenspace on that parcel. Sorry to see Mission Valley and Tri-Valley Inn sites seemingly on the way out – these are already good sites suited for housing. If you go ahead with the SteelWave site, I would strongly discourage the commercial, retail, + industrial parts. It’s a loser for the climate + for housing.

        xi. Guy Houston, Mission + Valley Plaza representative: In the Planning Commission meeting, there was an idea to increase density. We disagree with this. Our vision is for a mixed-use, horizontal project that keeps retail. We request Mission Plaza be removed from the sites list. Regarding Valley Plaza: our people there would like to be included in the upcoming EIR + could be good for housing.

        xii. Jill Buck, worker in Pleasanton: My office is in Valley Plaza, but I want to speak on the EIR for the sites. It seems like there are going to be other opportunities down the line to pull sites out of the list + I would like as many sites included in the EIR right now as possible. We can then use the info to determine which sites we want to pull later. This is keeping the environment in mind.

        xiii. Jocelyn Combs, Pleasanton resident: Second Becky Dennis, Guy Houston, + Jill Buck. I would like to drop the SteelWave site. The site proposal was clunky the last time it was proposed + nothing has really changed. Do we even need to discuss SteelWave if we can meet our RHNA number through infill on the other sites?

        xiv. Jeff Schroeder; Ponderosa Homes, Lester, + Kiewit representative: Kiewit property is one of only 3 low income properties in the City. It also provides community benefits. Lester property would provide a lot of units + would be able to provide attractive housing in low-moderate density.

5. Closing remarks

    a. KB: Given it’s 11 PM, I think we need to table this. Can we do this?

        i. Brian Dolan: In anticipation of this, we have polled our Councilmembers on their availability for next Tuesday + all our available.

        ii. KB: Great, sorry to the people who wanted more tonight, but we need to table the rest of the discussion next week where we will talk about sites 25 + 26 + have our discussions as well as email/written input.

    b. Jack Balch: Would public comment be re-opened in the next meeting or just deliberations?

        i. DS: That would be up to the City Council

    c. KB: I see the rest of this discussion being @ least 2 hours long – it’s a really important topic. I would ask the public to please come back next Tuesday – you will also learn about what goes into the EIR + what does not.

​

Speakers/Presenters:

- Dan Sodergren, Pleasanton City Attorney

- Julie Testa, Pleasanton City Councilmember

- Ellen Clark, Pleasanton Director of Community Development

- Karla Brown, Pleasanton Mayor

- Brian Dolan, Interim Pleasanton City Manager

- Jack Balch, Pleasanton City Councilmember

- Valerie Arkin, Pleasanton Vice Mayor (did not speak)

- Kathy Narum, Pleasanton City Councilmember (did not speak)

The City Council punted the HE agenda item for this meeting to their February 1st meeting. The request was made by Councilmembers Jack Balch and Julie Testa because they had written FPPC advice letters and have not received responses. The Council then voted to move the HE discussion to the next meeting on February 1st.

The hosts went through a general overview of the timeline for Pleasanton and then we were split into breakout rooms. We covered what types of populations needed housing, the physical types of housing that was lacking, and which categories of affordability were needed. 

90 min meeting. General info for 16 stakeholders - all of whom were housing or service providers. Broke out into two groups of 8 to review guided questions. Facilitator was grateful. All providers focused on special needs populations, but were very welcoming of all housing advocacy.

Below are my notes from the meeting:

​

- pleasanton has fallen short in the production of below market units

    - claim they are doing "better" than other cities [Citation Needed]

- 70% of housing in pleasanton is owner occupied

- Q: is there a site inventory? Wasn't discussed during the meeting

- Apartment to condo conversion -> is that an issue?

- Community feedback breakout group that was very basic - difficult to break in. Primarily asking residents about their experiences?

- Brought up the notion of surviovorship bias during a discussion of people impacted by housing.

    - got a little pushback about trying to get residents "lived experience"

- Also mentioned a "missing middle" in pleasnton and their lack of development of multi-family

- Emphasized the 2 BART stations in pleasanton

- One resident in my break out group suggested the Pleasanton was already built out, wanting the market to work itself out, etc. 

I'm Sean McLaughlin and I'm the watchdog for Pleasnton. 

​

Below are my somewhat scattered notes from the meeting. All told, there was a lot of anti-housing rhetoric, but the only thing approved was the latest update to the General plan and the Housing Element. 

​

Heartbreaking public comment about someone leaving the area due to housing issues - I should get their name and see if I can get in touch if they have any good contacts. Isaac Elias (sp?)

Oppose SB6 and AB115

Resolution to complain about "Draconian" measures to end SFZ in the state/ local control

Something about a constituional amendment/ Legislative amendment putting on the ballot saying that local land use are the purview of local municipalities.

Younger male councilperson sounds skeptical - may be an ally. Other councilpeople are less exicted.

Ledge comittee?

City takes issue with additional monitoring from Housing Oversight Comittee

Complaining that money being spent on housing oversight when not enough money for schools… wonder where the money for schools comes from?

Considering an amendment to ban ADUs of a certain height and requiring setbacks.

​