• November 19, 2019 Agenda
Report: https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/WebLink/0/doc/286583/Page1.aspx • November 19, 2019
Minutes: https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/WebLink/0/doc/286847/Page1.aspx • February 18 (Continued to March 3, 2020) Agenda
Report: https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/WebLink/0/doc/287440/Page1.aspx • March 3, 2020 Minutes:
https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/WebLink/0/doc/287960/Page1.aspx
On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following suspension of in-person meetings, and overall disruption and re-prioritization of City work efforts caused by the pandemic and other factors, halted efforts to re-start the EPSP.
Subsequently, in 2021 through 2023, the City undertook the 6th Cycle Housing Element update as a priority work effort. During that process, sites in East Pleasanton were proposed and discussed for housing, including the approximately 50-acre Kiewit site, and the more extensive lands owned by USL/Steelwave to the north of Busch Road. Ultimately, the City Council voted to include only the Kiewit site among the sites to be re-zoned for housing. There was some interest, but not a majority support, for expanding the re-zoning to include the USL/Steelwave properties, since other more central and infill sites were a higher priority for housing.
Land Use and Zoning
City Limits and UGB
Figure 1, above, identifies the applicable boundaries for the area of East Pleasanton under discussion, including location of the City limits (dashed line) and Urban Growth Boundary (solid blue line). As shown, while both properties are outside the City limits, the Arroyo Lago property and the western portion of the adjacent property are within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Kiewit and Amazon properties are within both the Urban Growth Boundary and the City limit; properties to the east of the Amazon property are within the City limit, but outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
General Plan and Zoning
City of Pleasanton
Properties within the City limits and to the south of Busch Road are zoned Industrial General (IG)-40, generally permitting light industrial uses, except for the Kiewit property which, in addition to the IG-40 designation, also has a Housing Element Sites Overlay that allows the residential density assigned in the Housing Element. See Figure 2 below.
The General Plan designates the entire area as East Pleasanton Specific Plan, with a designation that allows a broad range of commercial, residential, public and open space uses, and with such uses to be determined through the adopted Specific Plan.
Figure 2: City of Pleasanton Zoning
Alameda County
Alameda County General Plan land use designation and zoning applies to properties outside the Pleasanton City limits. For the County General Plan, properties within East Pleasanton are within the East County Planning Area (ECAP). The Arroyo Lago site is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR), which allows for residential development at 4.1 to 8 du/acre; other properties to the east are designated Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA), which allows minimal development, with a minimum parcel size of 100 acres and one home allowed per parcel. See Figure 3 below. All subject properties are zoned Agriculture (A) in the County.
Figure 3: Alameda County General Plan Land Use Designations
Changes/Development Since 2020
Since 2020, there has continued to be active development interest in East Pleasanton, and changes in the status of several parcels in the area.
Kiewit Property
As part of the rezoning necessary to address the City’s 5,965 unit RHNA allocation, the City Council voted to include the 50-acre Kiewit property among the 19 sites selected to allow for residential use. The City is currently processing an application for 310 market-rate detached single-family homes (plus 57 ADUs), and 102 affordable apartment units.
Amazon-Property
The 58.5-acre property to the east of the Kiewit site was acquired by Amazon in 2022. A preliminary application was submitted in 2022 for a large sorting/distribution center, but that proposal has since been withdrawn and no alternative proposal has been made.
Steelwave/USL Industrial Application
In addition to the two above-noted projects, there has been interest and development activity in the north part of the planning area. This includes an application in 2023 by USL/Steelwave for annexation and light industrial development on an approximately 21-acre property just south of Arroyo Mocho and west of El Charro, although this application is not currently under active review.
City of Livermore Annexations
In 2024, the City of Livermore approved proposals for annexation and light industrial development of two parcels, known as SMP-39 and 40, located just south of the Livermore City limits, both of which are inside Livermore's Urban Growth Boundary. Annexation of the two properties was recently approved by Alameda County LAFCO. A third parcel, known as
SMP 38, which lies closer to Pleasanton, and is inside the City's Sphere of Influence, but outside the Urban Growth Boundary, is not the subject of an active application, but the City understands there to be interest in future annexation by Livermore.
Arroyo Lago Development Application
The 26.56-acre Arroyo Lago site was originally part of a larger 144.57 acre parcel owned by USL Pleasanton Lakes. In June 2022, Alameda County approved an application to subdivide the parcel, with the division made at the line between the County’s MDR and LPA land use designations, as described above.
In early 2022, 330 Land Company, with the authorization of USL Pleasanton Lakes, submitted a Preliminary Application pursuant to SB330 to Alameda County for a single-family residential development. In August 2022, 330 Land Company submitted a formal development plan and Vesting Tentative Map application to the County for the project. The County has referred each submittal to the City for review and comment, and in each instance the City has provided comprehensive comments.
Residential Development: The proposed development includes 194 detached single-family homes and 49 ADUs, a 0.7 acre park, and walking trails. The 194-unit project reflects a density of approximately 7.3 dwelling units/acre.
The homes would be located on lots between 3,000 square feet (50’ x 70’ lots) and 4,000 square feet (50’ x 80’ lots). Plans for homes on the 50' x 70' lots range from approximately 2,541 to 2,883 square feet, and for the 50' x 80' lots, from approximately 2,991 to 3,398 square feet. All homes would have 4-5 bedrooms, depending on the model and options selected by the homebuyer. Generally, development on each of the lots would be subject to the County R- 1 zoning district standards, which includes front yard setbacks of 10 feet (18 feet to garage), rear setbacks of 8 to 10 feet, and 5-foot side-yard setbacks. The overall site layout is shown in Figure 4 below.
Access to the property would be via Busch Road, a City-owned street, which the City would require to be improved to City standards. Internal streets other than private drive aisles are proposed to be public streets maintained by the County.
Figure 4: Arroyo Lago, Overall Site Plan
Utilities: The project would not be able to connect to City utilities without annexation or approval of an Out of Area Service agreement; therefore, the project proposes to address these needs independently, as follows:
• Water Supply: The project proposes to separately contract with the California Water Services Company (CalWater) to provide domestic water supply. Water services would be provided by a connection to the northeast corner of the site, and the supply would come from an 8” water line extending to the east and north along the El Charro alignment, to a water storage facility located between Lake I and Cope Lake. A second water supply line is proposed to extend from the southwest corner of the site, toward Valley Avenue and then connect with the Zone 7 Vineyard pipeline.
• Sanitary Sewer and Treated Wastewater Storage and Disposal: Wastewater is proposed to be treated by an off-site sewer treatment plan; wastewater would flow via an 8” sewer line under Busch Road, and then to an approximately 1-acre treatment plant adjacent (west of) to El Charro Road. Treated water would be stored in a 2.5 acre recycled water storage facility, also located west of El Charro Road, comprising a 900,000 cubic feet of storage at a depth of 10-15 feet. Approximately 8.5 acres of agricultural irrigation recycled water spray fields would be developed west of El Charro Road, with water piped via underground pipes, and then sprayed onto the fields via a series of above-ground vertical spray heads. The facility would be subject to permitting and regulation by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Figure 5, below, shows the project’s various proposed off-site improvements, as of December, 2023.
Figure 5: Arroyo Lago - Offsite Utilities Plan
Note: A second option for the off-site utilities, with a modified location for the bioretention area further to the south is also proposed, but is not depicted here.
Excerpts from the project plans as submitted to Alameda County are included in Attachment 2.
A complete set of plans can be reviewed on Alameda County’s website, noting that some components of these plans have been updated from the original application: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/Arroyo- Lago_plans-8-17-22-1-19-23-updates.pdf
CEQA Review
Alameda County has required an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared for the project.
A Notice of Preparation was issued on May 12, 2023 and circulated for public review for 30 days through June 12, and subsequently extended to June 23, 2023. The City provided comments during this period, identifying a range of concerns and requests for analysis, including but not limited to evaluation of water supply and water quality (PFAS); the proposed wastewater treatment facility, public services and emergency services response times; noise impacts from the adjacent City OSC and Police and Fire training facilities; traffic impacts (VMT and Level of Service); odor impacts; growth-inducing impacts; and cumulative impacts.
The Draft EIR was not released as of the time of this agenda report, but is expected to be published within the next several weeks. Once published, the DEIR will be circulated for a 45- day public review period, after which the County will prepare a Final EIR including response to comments received (City staff will provide comments on the DEIR). While no schedule of public hearings has been set, based on the EIR schedule the project could be considered by the Alameda County Planning Commission, and if appealed, to the County Board of Supervisors, in late 2024 or early 2025.
Senior Residential Development Application
On June 4, 2024, USL Pleasanton Lakes submitted a Preliminary Application to Alameda County, pursuant to SB330 and Government Code Section 65589.5 (Housing Accountability Act or HAA), for a project comprising 569 senior/age-restricted units, on a 61.6-acre portion of the larger 118.4-acre property located directly east of Arroyo Lago.
The units would include 357 single-family residences (detached and duet units) and 212 multi- family independent and/or assisted living units. Among the units, 455 would be market-rate units, and 114 units would be for low-income households. The development would be mostly located in the portion of the site west of El Charro, with a cluster of approximately 40 single- family units on the east side of the road. Other amenities include a clubhouse for residents, and open space and activity areas (e.g., pool, bocce court) on a 6.5-acre portion of the site.
Project plans, submitted as part of the June 4 application to the County, are available as Attachment 3.
Builders Remedy
The Senior Residential application has been submitted under the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code 65589.5, also known as the “Builders Remedy.” This application was possible because Alameda County remains in the process of updating its 6th Cycle Housing Element, and the update has neither been adopted by the County, nor certified by State HCD. As such, the County does not have a housing element in substantial
compliance with state law.
The Builders Remedy gained prominence during the 6th Cycle, as numerous jurisdictions fell out of compliance due to delays adopting and/or achieving Housing Element certification.
Builders Remedy applications seek to take advantage of one of the five findings specified in Government Code Section 65589.5 that are grounds for local agencies to deny “eligible projects.” Eligible projects include those with at least 20% of total units available to lower- income households, or 100% of units available to moderate-income households. Among the findings for denial in Section 65589.5 is Finding 5: “The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element.
However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law.” (emphasis added)
Recent court cases have upheld interpretations of Section 58889.5 to mean that if a jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the zoning or the general plan. As described above, the 61.6-acre site is designated in the County General Plan as Agriculture (A), which does not permit residential development other than at extremely low densities. The letter submitted with the June 4 application, providing the applicant’s justification for submittal under the Builder’s Remedy, is included as Attachment 4.
As outlined below, the project proposes that 20% of its units would be for lower-income households, which would meet the eligibility threshold under the HAA. Under SB330, the applicant has 180 days to submit a formal application to take advantage of the vesting provided by the Preliminary Application (i.e., six months, in late December 2024). It is noted that use of the Builders Remedy does not exempt a project from CEQA compliance, and some form of environmental review would be required prior to project approval. Staff notes that the project is a recent submittal, and as such the County has yet to provide any comments or make any determinations with respect to the application.
DISCUSSION
These two recent applications pose a series of important questions and considerations for the City, with the core question being whether the projects should ultimately be annexed and developed within the city of Pleasanton. While the developer has indicated its serious intent to develop, and has advanced the two applications with the presumption that they can be approved and developed in Alameda County, both staff and the developer agree that annexation could be an appropriate path or outcome – with the important caveat that appropriate terms and conditions around such annexation can be agreed between the developer, the City, and the County around annexation.
Following is a discussion and outline of possible next steps. These support the aim of engaging with USL/Steelwave to complete additional analysis of the two proposals, and begin discussion around the terms of annexation, with the goal that this further study and collaboration will result in additional information, and potentially development of a draft framework agreement between the City and the applicant, and possibly the County, around annexation.
Arroyo Lago
The Arroyo Lago project has been proposed on a site that is designated in the Alameda County General Plan for residential development. As the City Council is aware, local agencies have limited bases on which to deny residential projects consistent with the General Plan. The County would be required to make specific findings of non-compliance with applicable development standards and/or identify legitimate public health and safety concerns in order to deny the application. The City has received no indication from the County that there is a basis for denial of the project, alhough ultimately it would be a decision of the County’s approving body, whether to approve or deny the application based on its independent judgment and analysis.
In its various comment letters to the County, the City has expressed numerous concerns about the project as currently proposed: many of these concerns stem from the way in which the project would be provided with utilities and services, particularly the privately operated wastewater treatment facility and spray fields, and potential impacts on City streets and services. The project would be located outside of Pleasanton, and as a result would not pay property taxes to Pleasanton, would not contribute City impact fees, would not elect or be represented by Pleasanton City Councilmembers, and would not be subject to City codes and policies. Fundamentally, from a planning and administrative perspective, creating a new, urbanized neighborhood in the unincorporated County, immediately adjacent to the City limit, makes little sense.
Senior Residential Development
As an SB330 preliminary application, plans are not developed in enough detail to understand all aspects of the project: for example, the application does not address planned utilities, provide development standards, or address other critical areas. Nonetheless, it provokes many of the same questions and concerns as the Arroyo Lago development, including impacts to City facilities and services, traffic mitigation, fiscal impacts, etc.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
As has been discussed in conjunction with the recent Merritt project review, annexation of County land requires the City to negotiate with the County regarding apportionment of the RHNA allocation. The Arroyo Lago property has had a long-standing residential land use designation in Alameda County, and has been included in the County's Housing Element sites inventory for several cycles, including the County's Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element.
With respect to the Senior Residential project, in a recent discussion with County staff, the City has learned the County is considering inclusion of the Senior Residential site in its 6th Cycle inventory; this was not the case until the recent SB330 application was submitted.
It is unknown whether the City will be able to negotiate a positive contribution of RHNA from either the Arroyo Lago or Senior Residential site, but as discussed below, that will be a necessary part of discussion with the applicant and the County if annexation proceeds.
Conclusions and Next Steps
The two adjacent applications highlight an overarching concern that development in East Pleasanton appears to be occurring in a piecemeal, uncoordinated manner, and without the benefit of a comprehensive vision or strategy to manage this growth or its impacts. Engaging the property owner to more holistically consider how the two projects will interface to most efficiently coordinate and plan for utilities and services, interface with properties within the City
limits (including those yet to be developed), would be of substantial benefit, absent a specific plan being in place.
Staff believes that annexation is likely to deliver the most beneficial outcomes in terms of ensuring these two projects are a benefit, rather than a detriment to the City. Given the potential that one or both projects can and will be approved by the County, working with the developer to negotiate terms that deliver the best possible outcomes in terms of mitigating impacts, contributing to Pleasanton's financial well-being, and exerting the maximum degree of control over the immediate development of the projects and their long-term operation, would be positive. However, staff recognizes the need to further explore the pros and cons of annexation to ensure the City Council will have the benefit of that additional information before it can make any formal decision on how to proceed.
Therefore, staff is requesting direction from the City Council whether to engage more actively with USL/Steelwave to advance discussion of the potential annexation of the two projects.
Such engagement would not presume any future decision or action on the part of the City Council concerning annexation, and instead be intended to allow staff to work with the developer to further analyze the two projects, understand the practical and policy considerations around annexation, provide necessary technical analysis, and begin to discuss a framework agreement of terms for City Council consideration, which if acceptable to the City and the developer could form the basis for a future Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement. The applicant has expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with the City on such a process while making it clear their intent to continue to pursue entitlements with Alameda County.
Topics and analyses that would be part of the discussion are likely to include:
• A Fiscal/Economic Analysis of the relative costs and benefits of the projects being developed in the City, versus the County.
• Analysis and strategy to ensure coordinated planning of infrastructure and utilities, to ensure adequate capacity exists and any needed system upgrades associated with the development are funded, including potential cost sharing among the projects. This would include evaluation of utilities such as water and wastewater, and further evaluation of El Charro Road becoming a future public street connection, as well as consideration of improvements to Busch Road and other streets that would serve the projects. Note that there is an opportunity to consider utilities and infrastructure planning more broadly between other current projects (e.g. the Kiewit development), and prospective future projects, such as the development of the Amazon parcel.
• Expectations regarding payment of City Impact Fees, particularly in light of pending fee updates.
• Approaches to addressing affordable housing as part of the two projects. The Arroyo Lago project proposes to include 49 deed-restricted ADUs (just over 20% of the market rate units). The Senior Residential project includes 20% low-income units, consistent with the requirements for an "eligible project" under the HAA.
• Evaluation of the projects’ consistency with City design standards, and potential design
refinements that may help the project more closely align with City standards. It is noted the applicant has indicated they are unwilling to make wholesale changes to the Arroyo Lago project in terms of overall density/number of units, product type/unit sizes and similar amendments, and so any adjustments agreed to are likely to be modest. The Senior Residential project design is not as fully developed, and so there may be more opportunities to shape its design; however, per SB330 a change of more than 20% in the unit count or square footage of the project would necessitate a new preliminary application, which the applicant is unlikely to support.
• Phasing/timing of development.
• Opportunities/strategies to integrate the two projects into future efforts to advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, as specified in the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan.
Included among next steps would be to negotiate agreements about the scope of additional technical analysis to be completed, and any necessary reimbursement agreements for outside professional services costs (e.g., technical peer review) needed to support the process. In staff's view, the costs to evaluate and review these proposals should be borne by USL/Steelwave, and the applicant has indicated their general support for this approach.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Annexing and developing these two properties within Pleasanton, if that is the ultimate outcome of the process, is supportive of sustainability goals. Compared to the projects being developed in the unincorporated County, development within Pleasanton would allow the projects to connect to existing utilities, better mitigate their service impacts, and allow for key public services to be provided in closer proximity to the projects' residents.
OUTREACH
While public notice is not required, a courtesy notice of this meeting was sent to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the two properties, to all properties within the Village and Ironwood, and to Alameda County.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs - Strategy 9 to "Advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan", where possible, by helping to assert the City's interests and desires with respect to the two properties, including in the context of the broader East Pleasanton area.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact of the City Council's action. As noted, the City will seek a reimbursement agreement with the developer for any outside professional services needed to help with project analysis or preparation/review of technical studies.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Ellen Clark, Director of
Community Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. EPSP Areas
2. Arroyo Lago Plans 8-17-22 to 1-19-23 Updates
3. Architectural and Civil Plans APN 946-4634-002
4. Cover Letter APN 946-4634-002
ATTACHMENT 1
East Pleasanton Specific Plan Area
Architecture + Planning
The Leamington Building
1814 Franklin Street
Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
ATTACHMENT 2
A/C
PAD
Optional Covered Outdoor
Room
Optional Covered Outdoor
Room Optional Covered Outdoor
Room
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
PRODUCT TYPE
Min. Lot Size
TRADITIONAL
50 X 80
Min. Front Setback to Structure
Min. Front Setback to Garage
Min. Rear Setback to Living
Min. Rear Setback to Covered
Outdoor Patio
Max. Lot Coverage
Max. Coverage S.F.
4,000 S.F.
10'
18'
8'
5'
60%
2,400 S.F.
A
B
C
D
E
THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS PER THE
REGULATIONS BELOW
A
B
D
A
B
D
A
B
D
C
C
C
Min. Side Setback to Structure
E
5'
E E E E E
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
330 LAND COMPANY, LLC
#
ARROYO LAGO - 50X80 LOTS
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA 2020-1091
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
AUGUST 17, 2022 A0.1DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
0 4 8 12
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD Optional Covered Outdoor
Patio
Optional Covered Outdoor
Patio
Optional Covered Outdoor
Patio
Opt. Expanded Porch
Where 10' Side Yard
Condition Occurs
A
B
PRODUCT TYPE
Min. Lot Size
COTTAGE
50 X 70
Min. Front Setback to Structure
Min. Front Setback to Garage
Min. Rear Setback to Living
Max. Lot Coverage
Max. Coverage S.F.
3,500 S.F.
10'
18'
10'
5'
60%
2,100 S.F.
A
B
C
D
E
THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS PER THE
REGULATIONS BELOW
D
A
B
D
A
B
D
Min. Rear Setback to Opt.
Covered Outdoor Patio
C
C
C
5'Min. Side Setback to Structure
E
E E E E E
E
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com #
ARROYO LAGO - 50X70 LOTS
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA 2020-1091
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
AUGUST 17, 2022
330 LAND COMPANY, LLC
A0.2DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
0 4 8 12
ARROYO LAGO PLEAS ANTON, CAL IFORNIA
AUGUST 20 22
0 30’ 60’ 120’
CONCEPT PLAN
L-1
2 3
4 5
3 1
Park Enlargement see next page
Ornamental Fence at T rail Edge
Street T rees
Monument Sign
Hydroseed
1 4 4 4
2 5
3 TREES
Crape Myrtle Chinese Pistache Native Oak Species Littleleaf Linden Chinese Elm
ARROYO LAGO PLEAS ANTON, CAL IFORNIA
AUGUST 20 22
0 8’ 16’ 32’
PARK ENLARGEMENT PLAN
L-2
2 4
3 3
5 6
5 1
1 1
Accent Paving
Entry Plaza
Bermed Lawn
Center Picnic Plaza with
Shade Structure
1 2
6 6
3 3
4 4
5 Garden with Decomposed
Granite Path
Natural Play T ot Lot
ARROYO LAGO PLEAS ANTON, CAL IFORNIA
AUGUST 20 22
PLANT AND MATERIAL PALETTE
Backless Bench
Backed Bench
Picnic Table and Chairs
MATERIALS PALETTE
PAVING
Accent Paving at Crossing
Decomposed Granite
FENCING
Ornamental FencingConcrete
Play Border
L-3
TREES
SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVERS SITE FURNISHINGS
Feather Reed Grass
Crape Myrtle Chinese Pistache Native Oak Species
Striped Coprosma
Mexican Daisy
Littleleaf Linden
Atlas Fescue Lavender
Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush Pink Cloud Muhly Grass Mexican Bush SageRosemary Chinese Elm
X
X
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA
BUSCH ROAD
EL CHARRO ROAD
CITY LIMIT LINE
BUSCH ROAD
F:\3435\ACAD\TM\C5.1.DWG
JOB NO.: 3435-000
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
OFFSITE UTILITY PLAN -
SANITARY SEWER & WATER
ARROYO LAGO
ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: AUGUST 2022
6004002000 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
C5.1
10 LEGEND
SEE CONTINUATION TO CAL
WATER WELL ON RIGHT
CAL WATER WELL
(SOUTH OF BUSCH ROAD)
BUSCH ROAD
EL CHARRO ROAD
VALLEY AVE
BOULDER ST
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
ARROYO
LAGO
PROJECT
SITE
MOHR AVE
STONERIDGE DRIVE
F:\3435\ACAD\EXHIBITS\PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS EXHIBIT.DWG JOB NO.: 3435-000
PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS
EXHIBIT
ARROYO LAGO
ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JANUARY 2023
1,5001,0005000 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
LEGEND
Cover Sheet .................................................................................................CS Civil
Existing Boundary and Easements ................................................................C1 Architecture
Concept Site Study
.....................................................................................SP1 Community Clubhouse/Restaurant
Perspective View
..........................................................................................A1 Elevations ....................................................................................................A2 Perspective Front and Rear Views .................................................................A3 Senior Independent and/or Assisted Living
Perspective View
..........................................................................................A4 Elevations ....................................................................................................A5 Perspective Front and Rear Views .................................................................A6 Senior Single Family Homes
Perspective Views
........................................................................................A7 Senior Housing Type 1: Duet Cluster - Elevations ..........................................A8 Senior Housing Type 1: Duet Cluster - Perspective Front and Rear Views .......A9 Senior Housing Type 2: SFD - Elevations ....................................................A10 Senior Housing Type 2: SFD - Perspective Front and Rear Views .................A11 Senior Housing Type 3: SFD - Elevations ....................................................A12 Senior Housing Type 3: SFD - Perspective Front and Rear Views .................A13
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
Alameda County, California
This is a new community of senior housing that includes a Community Clubhouse/Restaurant, Recreation Area, Senior Independent and/or Assisted Living, and Senior Single Family homes. The project in- cludes 20% affordable units.
All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old
Sheet Index
Project Description
Project Team:
May 31, 2024
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO Architect: WHA Architects
5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375
San Ramon, CA 94582
Contact: Robert Lee
925.463.1700
Civil Engineer:CBG
2633 Camino Ramon, #350
San Ramon, CA 94583
Contact: Lee Rosenblatt
925.866.0322
CS
ATTACHMENT 3
BUSCH ROAD
PARCEL B
PM 11230
APN 946-4634-002
EL CHARRO ROAD
26 23
11 10
13 25
LEGENDLEGAL DESCRIPTION: NONPLOTTABLE EASEMENTS:
3 5
6 7
8 9
12 C1SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA
0 100 200 400
14 15
16 17
18 21
22 EXISTING BOUNDARY & EASEMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24 0 75 150 300
SP1
CONCEPT SITE STUDY
1 2
4 5
6 79 8
10 10
10 10
13 12
11 14
3 Community Clubhouse/Restaurant & Recreation Area
Pool
Pool House
Bocce Ball Court
Garden
Amphitheater
Pickle Ball & Tennis Courts
Dog Park
Walking Trail
Trail Node
Senior Housing Type 1: Duet Cluster
Senior Housing Type 2: 48' x 85' Lot Size
Senior Housing Type 3: 50' x 90' Lot Size
Senior Independent and/or Assisted LivingSenior Housing Type 1:
Duet Cluster
Lot Size: 41'x68'
±130 Lots Total
Senior Housing Type 2:
48'x85' Typ. Lot Size
±117 Lots Total
Senior Housing Type 3:
50'x90' Typ. Lot Size
±110 Lots Total
Senior Independent and/or Assisted Living
4 Story Bldgs.
± 3.9 acre
Est.: ±212 Units
Density: ± 54.4 Du/Ac.
Community Clubhouse/Restaurant
& Recreation Area
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
Qualified Senior Housing
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A1
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE/RESTAURANT
VIEW 1
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
N.T .S.
2 1
4 3
5
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A2
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
0 4 8 16
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE/RESTAURANT
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7643 Pussywillow
Metal Roofing:
Taylor Metal, Black or similar
Insulated Vinyl Windows:
Milgard (Black or similar)
Cedar Wood Siding: Olympic
Cedar Naturaltone Transparent Stain per
Manufacturer’s Specifications or similar
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7069 Iron Ore
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7008 Alabaster
E FA B C D
Exterior Colors:
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
ELEVATIONS
REAR
FRONTLEFT
RIGHT
N.T .S.
73 6 2 54
1 C FED B
A
Exterior Materials:
Community Clubhouse/Restaurant
Roof: Metal
Stucco: Lightlace Finish
Windows: Insulated Vinyl
Siding: Wood Cedar
Siding: Metal Panels
Entry Door: Storefront
Metal Awning
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ±25'
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A3
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE/RESTAURANT
FRONT
REAR
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
PERSPECTIVES
N.T .S.
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A4
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
SENIOR INDEPENDENT
AND/OR ASSISTED LIVING
VIEW 2
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
N.T .S.
2 1
5 4
3
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A5
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24 0 8 16 32
FRONT
REAR
LEFT RIGHT
Insulated Vinyl Windows:
Milgard (Black or similar)
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 6223 Still Water
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7060 Attitude Gray
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7034 Status Bronze
Metal & Panels: Sherwin Williams
SW 7674 Peppercorn or similar
E FA B C D
Exterior Colors:
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7008 Alabaster
ELEVATIONS
SENIOR INDEPENDENT
AND/OR ASSISTED LIVING N.T .S.
F
E
B
C
A
D
Exterior Materials:
Independent Living Apartments
Stucco: Lightlace Finish
Windows: Insulated Vinyl
Siding: Fiber Cement
Siding: Metal Panels
Entry Door: Storefront
Metal Awning
Metal Railing
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 51 4 7 2 36
±52'
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A6
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24 FRONT
REAR
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
PERSPECTIVES
SENIOR INDEPENDENT
AND/OR ASSISTED LIVING N.T .S.
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A7
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
SENIOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Senior Housing Type 3: Single Family Detached
50' x 90' Lot Size
VIEW 3
Senior Housing Type 2: Single Family Detached
48' x 85' Lot Size
VIEW 4
Senior Housing Type 1: Duet Cluster
48' x 68' Lot Size
VIEW 5
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
N.T .S.
2 1
5 4
3 All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A8
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
0 4 8 16
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24 REAR
FRONTLEFT
RIGHT
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
ELEVATIONS
Senior Housing Type 1: Duet Cluster
48' x 68' Lot Size
SENIOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old N.T .S.
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7746 Rushing River
Concrete Tile Roofing:
Eagle, 4687 Bel Air, Brown
Gray Range or similar
Manufactured Stone Veneer:
Eldorado, Ridgetop 18, Granite
Spire or similar
Insulated Vinyl Windows:
Milgard (White or similar)
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7675 Sealskin
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 6179 Artichoke
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 6061 Tanbark
E F GA B C D
Exterior Colors:
D
C
E
FA
B
G
Exterior Materials:
Craftsman
Roof: Concrete Shake Tile
Windows: Insulated Vinyl
Stucco: Lightlace Finish
Siding: Fiber Cement B&B
Entry Door: Fiberglass
Garage Door: Metal Sectional Roll-Up
(Carriage Style Door)
Corbel: Decorative Foam
Manufactured Stone Brick
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
457 832 1 6
±22'
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A9
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
REAR FRONT
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
PERSPECTIVES
Senior Housing Type 1: Duet Cluster
48' x 68' Lot Size
SENIOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old N.T .S.
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A10
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
0 4 8 16
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24 Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
Senior Housing Type 2: Single Family Detached
48' x 85' Lot Size
ELEVATIONS
SENIOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old
REAR
FRONTLEFT
RIGHT
N.T .S.
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 0032 Needlepoint Navy
Concrete Tile Roofing:
Eagle, 4697 Bel Air, Slate
Range or similar
Manufactured Stone Veneer:
Eldorado, Ridgetop 18, Granite
Spire or similar
Insulated Vinyl Windows:
Milgard (White or similar)
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7069 Urban Bronze
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 6992 Inkwell
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7058 Magnetic Gray
E F GA B C D
Exterior Colors:
D
CB
G
A
E
F
Exterior Materials:
Traditional
Roof: Concrete Shake Tile
Windows: Insulated Vinyl
Siding: Fiber Cement
Siding: Fiber Cement B&B
Entry Door: Fiberglass
Garage Door: Metal Sectional Roll-Up
(Carriage Style Door)
Manufactured Stone Veneer
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 4 57 3216
±20'
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A11
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
REAR FRONT
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
PERSPECTIVES
Senior Housing Type 2: Single Family Detached
48' x 85' Lot Size
SENIOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old N.T .S.
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A12
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
0 4 8 16
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24 REAR
FRONTLEFT
RIGHT
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
ELEVATIONS
Senior Housing Type 3: Single Family Detached
50' x 90' Lot Size
SENIOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old N.T .S.
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 9180 Aged White
Concrete Tile Roofing:
Eagle, 4595 Bel Air, Dark
Charcoal or similar
Manufactured Brick Veneer:
Eldorado, Tundra Brick, Ironside
or similar
Insulated Vinyl Windows:
Milgard (Black or similar)
Paint: Sherwin Williams
SW 7580 Carnelian
EA B C D
C
A
E
D
B
45 73 8 216
Exterior Materials:
Farmhouse
Roof: Concrete Shake Tile
Windows: Insulated Vinyl
Siding: Fiber Cement B&B
Entry Door: Fiberglass
Garage Door: Metal Sectional Roll-Up
(Carriage Style Door)
Manufactured Brick Veneer
Exterior Colors:
Corbel: Decorative Foam
Decorative Foam Belly Band
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
±20'
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO A13
SENIOR EAST COUNTY LAKES
ALAMEDA COUNTY , CA
© 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023206 | 05-31-24
PERSPECTIVES
REAR FRONT
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials And Application May Vary.
Senior Housing Type 3: Single Family Detached
50' x 90' Lot Size
SENIOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
All Qualified Senior Housing | 55+ Year Old N.T .S.
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Kevin J. Ashe
+1 415-743-6972
[email protected]
June 4, 2024
Via Email
Albert Lopez
P
lanning Director
Planning Department
2 24 W. Winton Avenue, Rm 111
Hayward, CA 94544
Re: Submittal of SB 330 Preliminary Application for “Builder’s Remedy” Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946-4634-002
Dear Mr. Lopez and County Planning Department Staff:
Our firm represents USL Pleasanton Lakes L.P. (“Owner” and “Applicant”), owner of approximately 118.4 acres of vacant land located at Busch Road (APN 946-4634-002) (the “Property”) in the County of Alameda (the “County”). Applicant hereby submits a preliminary a
pplication pursuant to Senate Bill (“SB”) 330 to develop a 61.6-acre southwestern portion of the Property with qualified s enior housing (age restricted for 55 y ears and older) of the following product types: 357 single-family residences and duet homes and 212 multifamily independent and/or assisted living units (the “Project”).1
I. Project Description
As explained above, Applicant is proposing to develop a 61.6-acre southwestern portion of the Property2 into a senior housing development project consisting of 357 single-family residences and duet homes and 212 multifamily senior independent and/or assisted living units. The single- family and duet homes will require a tract map and a parcel map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act to independently subdivide, and the 212 multifamily senior independent and/or assisted living units will be located in a 208,000 sq. ft. apartment building to the north-central portion of the Property. Of the 569 total units, twenty percent (20%) will be dedicated to low-income (“ LI”)
residents. The
Project will also include approximately 1,822 parking spaces, 1 Gov. Code § 65589.5.
2 The eastern portions of the Property are not proposed for development at this time.
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia Portland | Richmond | San Francisco | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach ATTACHMENT 4
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024
and an internal circulation system to accommodate bike and vehicular travel as well as ingress and egress to the Property. The Project will include a 6,000 sq. ft. clubhouse amenity space for residents to congregate and dine, as well as an open space courtyard and activity space for outdoor recreational uses (e.g., potentially an amphitheater, bocce ball court, pool and pool house) on a
6.5-acre portion of the site. The senior residential housing architecture style consists of contemporary and traditional character. The higher density independent/assisted living and the senior clubhouse/restaurant will be designed in a contemporary form, while the single-family and duets are more traditional architecture style to provide two very distinct styling for the senior housing market. Applicant’s goal is to develop an aesthetically appealing and charming community where senior residents can enjoy all the amenities and social value the Project has to offer.
II. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, or “SB 330,” created important new protections for housing developments:
• Preliminary Application - SB 330 specifies, as of effective January 1, 2020, an application is “deemed complete” if a qualifying “preliminary application” has been submitted.3 Accordingly, a project shall be deemed to have submitted a qualifying preliminary application upon providing the local agency with all information specified in Gov. Code § 65941.1(a).
• Vested Rights - With the submission of the preliminary application, the Project will be deemed complete.4 As such, the Project will have vested rights to develop in accordance with the regulations, policies and fees applicable to the Project in effect upon this “deemed complete” date.
• Completeness Review Limitations – Once an applicant submits a formal application within 180 days of the preliminary application, the County must provide Applicant with an “exhaustive list of items that were not complete” within 30 days. After that, no further requests can be made for items not on the initial list of deficiencies.5 • Hearing Limit - In addition, SB 330 limits the total number of hearings that can be held on the Modified Project to five (5). Gov. Code § 65905.5(b) defines a “hearing” to include “any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the local agency with respect to the housing development project,” whether by the legislative body of the local agency, the planning agency or any other agency thereof.
Applicant hereby submits an SB 330 preliminary application using the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) prescribed form, which is attached hereto. 3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).
4 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).
5 Gov. Code § 65943.
#503315009_v1
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024
Applicant intends to submit a formal land use application within 180 days of this preliminary application.6
III. The HAA “Builder’s Remedy”
In enacting the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5 et seq.), our Legislature declared that a lack of housing “is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.”7 Under the HAA, a local agency cannot deny a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income household, unless it makes one of five stringent findings in Gov. Code § 65589.5, subdivision (d).8 One such finding under subdivision (d)(5) is:
“The housing development project … is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article.”
Critical to this determination is a substantially-compliant housing element. Without one, a jurisdiction cannot deny a project that conflicts with the local agency’s applicable development standards under its General Plan or Zoning Code. This is colloquially known as the “Builder's Remedy.”
Here, the Project is a “housing development project” as defined in the HAA because it is a development consisting of residential and residential amenities uses with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.”9 Moreover, the Project has committed to providing 20 percent low-income dwelling units.
IV. The Project Has Vested to the Current Status of the County’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element
By submitting an SB 330 preliminary application with the information required by Government Code Section 65941.1, Applicant has obtained a vested right to develop the Project in accordance with the applicable policies, ordinances, and standards in effect when the preliminary application is submitted.10 HCD has confirmed on multiple occasions that such vested rights include a right to proceed under the 6 Gov. Code § 65941.1(d)(1).
7 Gov. Code § 65589.5(a).
8 For purposes of the HAA, housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households is defined as having at least 20 percent of units set aside for low-income residents or 100% of units set aside for moderate- or middle- income residents.
9 § 65589.5(h)(2).
10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(1).
#503315009_v1
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024
Housing Element compliance status in effect at the time of preliminary application submittal.11 In guidance materials issued to local agencies, HCD has confirmed that:
“When a preliminary application “submittal occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status . . . remain throughout the entitlement process even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process.”12
This principle was also recently confirmed in the first builder’s remedy trial court decision in Los Angeles Superior Court, in the case of California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge et. al.13
Here, on January 4, 2024, HCD found that the County’s December 21, 2023 draft housing element did not substantially comply with state housing element law.14 Applicant understands that the County recently submitted a revised draft of its Housing Element to HCD on May 10, 2024. As of today’s date, HCD has not certified the County’s Housing Element as being in substantial compliance with state housing element law. Per the County’s website, if HCD certifies the County’s revised draft housing element, “CDA staff and consultant team will finalize Housing Element. Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors will hold public hearings for adoption.”15 If HCD does not certify the draft Housing Element, CDA staff and consultant team will revise the second draft of the Housing Element to address HCD's comments as needed; give public notice of second comment period on Housing Element; and submit third Housing Element draft to HCD for review.16
Thus, as of today’s date, the County has not adopted a Housing Element that substantially complies with state housing element law. Accordingly, the Project is entitled to (and has vested) to processing under the HAA’s Builder’s Remedy.
V. State Density Bonus Law
Under State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”),17 20% LI projects are entitled to a 35% density bonus, two (2) incentive/concession from developments standards, and unlimited waivers from development standards that physically preclude development of the project at the density sought. 11 See HCD, 3030 Nebraska Avenue, Santa Monica – Letter of Technical Assistance (Oct. 5, 2022), at 2, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/santa-monica-TA-100522.pdf 12 3030 Nebraska Avenue – Letter of Technical Assistance, at 2. 13 Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP02614, Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief (Mar. 4, 2024).
14 https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/housing-
element/documents/AlamedaCountyInitialDraftHousingElementLetter1_4_2024.pdf 15Alameda County Housing Element Update 2023-203, (accessed on June 3, 2024), available at https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/housing-element/housing-element.htm 16 Id.
17 § 65913.16(j)(1)(C).
#503315009_v1
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024
However, because the Project is entitled to protections under the Builder’s Remedy, it technically does not need a density bonus to accommodate its proposed density (9.2 du/ac), or waivers from inconsistent development standards in the County’s General Plan or Zoning Code.
However, Applicant reserves the right to request such a density bonus, incentives, or waivers to the extent such becomes necessary during the County’s processing and review of the Project.
VI. CEQA
Although HAA-covered projects are not automatically exempt from CEQA, the limited discretion agencies have in reviewing such projects has implications on the CEQA process. As one leading treatise states: “[w]hen the discretion a lead agency may exercise in granting an approval for a project is confined, CEQA review for that approval may be limited to match the scope of that discretion.”18 This legal principle was affirmed in Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700 (“Tiburon”), in which the court noted:
“CEQA ... recognizes that an agency’s discretion is limited by its own legal obligations.
Accordingly, where a legal obligation limits an agency’s discretion, the scope of environmental review likewise is limited. This is also consistent with CEQA’s requirement that an agency exercise its discretionary powers in a manner ‘consistent with express or implied limitations provided by other laws.”19 Applicant welcomes the opportunity to discuss (or present) potential CEQA pathways for the County’s consideration. Regardless of the scope of CEQA review for this Project, the County should ensure that environmental review is confined to those issues over which it possesses discretionary authority – specifically, potential public health and safety impacts.20 VII. Conclusion
Applicant looks forward to collaborating with County Planning staff to ensure this much-needed housing Project comes to fruition. Should any questions arise as the process proceeds, please do hesitate to reach out to discuss this project further.
18 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2023) § 12.8 19 See, Tiburon, 78 Cal.App.5th at 732-33 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added); see also San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924, 938 (“Where an agency has no authority to modify a project based on the analysis contained in the EIR, there is no basis for requiring the agency to prepare the EIR.”).
20 HAA, subdivision (d)(5) provides that local agencies cannot deny or render infeasible affordable housing development projects unless they make one of five enumerated findings, one of which is that “housing development … would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code 65589.5(d)(2).) #503315009_v1
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Kevin J. Ashe
Tamsen Plume
#503315009_v1