10 - Laserfiche WebLink

As a point of comparison, Pleasanton's housing units for the last RHNA period were as follows: 1999 -2007 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION FOR PLEASANTON RHNA ALLOCATIONS Household Income Categories Pleasanton Alameda Co. ABAG Region Very Low Income (50% AMI) 729 9,910 47,265 Low Income (80% AMI) 455 5,138 25,095 Moderate Income (120% AMI) 1,239 12,476 60,839 Above Moderate Income 2,636 19,269 97,544 TOTAL 5,059 46,793 230,743 CITY HOUSING ELEMENT State Planning and Zoning law requires each city and county government to regularly update its General Plan Housing Element. (A brief summary of Housing Element law is included as Attachment 5.)The State also mandates that each Housing Element address its share of the regional housing need (RHNA) as outlined above. The due date for cities to submit their Housing Elements for the 2007 -2014 RHNA period was June 30, 2009. Due to the complexities of this litigation, the City has not yet submitted it Housing Element for this period. As required by State Housing Law (Article 10.6 Housing Elements), the Housing Element adopted by the City of Pleasanton in April 2003 included an inventory of residentially designated land (lists and maps) and a summary table (Table IV -19A) comparing total built, approved and potential units with the above regional housing need. It showed then current zoning could not accommodate 871 of the total 5,059 units required by the 1999- 2007 RHNNA. To address this issue, our Housing Element included a Program 19.1 which states: Within one year of adoption of the Housing Element, complete land use studies to identify for conversion as many of the sites identified in Table IV -6 from non- residential to high density residential use as are necessary at appropriate densities (for example, approximately 30 acres at 30 units per acre or 40 acres at 20 units per acre) to meet the City's regional housing needs goal. Follow through with an appropriate modification to the Land Use Element and rezonings as soon as possible, but not later than 2004, so that implementation can occur within the planning period. It should be noted that the City's original Housing Element language did not include the one year time line because staff and the City Council were concerned that the rezonings could not be completed until an update to the General Plan was completed. However, the Department of Housing and Community Development rejected this concern and required inclusion of the one year time line. For various reasons, including work on updating the City General Plan, the rezonings were not completed within the year specified. However in October 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan amendment and a Planned Unit Development for 350 high Page 7 of 11