My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
060110
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 4:27:36 PM
Creation date
5/26/2010 4:27:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/1/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Brian Dolan, Director of Community Development provided a background on the City's 1996 <br /> voter approved housing cap, which created a hard limit of 29,000 units and provided a method <br /> for residents to participate in any General Plan amendments that would impact the number of <br /> residential units in the City. Staff has come to learn that Pleasanton stands alone in having a <br /> hard cap and while other jurisdictions may refer to certain growth management measures as a <br /> cap, each allow for a sort of adjustment with which to accommodate for RHNA obligations. <br /> Mr. Dolan provided a background on RHNA, which responds to state law requirements that <br /> each city and county has an obligation to plan for its fair share of the state's housing needs and <br /> to address the needs of various income groups throughout the community. The RHNA <br /> assignment for the fourth planning period (2007 -2014) totaled 214,500 units for the Bay Area, <br /> with 44,939 in Alameda County, and 3,277 of that being assigned to Pleasanton. He noted that <br /> these assessments do not constitute an obligation to build, but merely to plan for and zone to <br /> accommodate. It is also required that each jurisdiction provide an inventory of land that will <br /> facilitate development of and can accommodate low and very low- income units, currently <br /> considered to be at least 30 units per acre. If the City were to implement all 3,277 units, coupled <br /> with the total number of constructed, under construction, and approved units as of January <br /> 2010, the community would ultimately be planned for 30,808 units. <br /> Mr. Dolan reviewed State law relative to the Housing Element and explained that the primary <br /> challenge for most communities is in coming up with an inventory of residential land that is <br /> suitable for development, particularly with the caveat that a portion of that land has to be <br /> envisioned as providing housing for various income groups. In the 2003 Housing Element <br /> update, the City was not able to identify that land at the time of adoption and was 871 units <br /> short. Since that time, the City has attempted to address that shortfall and has rezoned portions <br /> of land near the BART station at Stoneridge Mall and 3 individual sites at the Hacienda <br /> Business Park. <br /> The City was required to prepare a new Housing Element by June 2009, but ongoing litigation <br /> made it very difficult to begin that process. Regardless of which path the Council chooses to <br /> follow in terms of resolving this litigation, the Housing Element update will need to commence <br /> very soon and, due to the heightened awareness of the relative issues, staff envisions that <br /> process can be completed in approximately one year. Staff also believes that this process will <br /> provide excellent opportunity to discuss a new or revised growth management program to <br /> address the situation created by the court's ruling on the existing housing cap. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that in addition to the cap, the City has used a variety of tools to ensure orderly <br /> growth: the normal development review process and standards outlined in the General Plan, the <br /> CEQA process, and the Growth Management Ordinance which was recently amended to make <br /> an exception for RHNA obligations. Currently, the Growth Management Ordinance divides <br /> development applications into 3 categories: 1) affordable housing projects, which have an <br /> annual allotment and can be carried forward into subsequent years; 2) major projects, defined <br /> as projects of 100 units or more; and 3) first come, first served projects for smaller <br /> developments. He noted that none of these measures really come into play unless growth levels <br /> generate interest above the annual cap, a situation the City has not seen for quite some time. In <br /> response to the potential elimination of the housing cap, the City can continue to rely on the <br /> existing Growth Management Ordinance and also consider growth management systems which <br /> rely more specifically on citywide standards for services and infrastructure or which meter <br /> growth based on a project's ability to meet various policy themes adopted within the General <br /> Plan. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 6 of 9 April 20, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.