CCMIN072010 - Laserfiche WebLink

What staff heard, while they have not undertaken that path to date, is that the Council has a range of court- tested options to consider through a participatory community process. Councilmember McGovern shared several questions submitted to her by the community. She asked if Pleasanton is the sole city experiencing this trouble with its Housing Element and housing laws. Mr. Brown said no. In his own informal research, he has assembled a list of approximately thirty different jurisdictions throughout California that have been successfully challenged by housing advocates. He explained that State law has become less and less tolerant of communities asserting their own land use controls to the exclusion of satisfying State law housing obligations. Councilmember McGovern asked why, if the housing cap was legal in 1996, it is not legal today. Mr. Brown said the cap was not legally tested when it was adopted and, even if it had bean, the Housing Element law has evolved in ways that make it unrecognizable from the law that was in effect at that time. He said claims that might have been effectively defeated back then would not be defeated now. Councilmember McGovem asked why the cap cannot be grandfathered. Mr. Brown said that was essentially the argument put forth by the City and it was rejected by both courts. Councilmember McGovem asked if any other states assign housing numbers and zoning obligations to local jurisdictions. Mr. Brown said he has not studied other states closely but his understanding is that there are many. Vice -Mayor Thome said in imposing Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers, one would assume there would be a larger population of low and very-low income citizens in locations like the Tri- Valley. He said RHNA law, its development, and the State's obligations to local jurisdictions under that has been discussed at the regional level a fair amount and It is uncertain whether the necessary infrastructure for this demographic is present. This infrastructure, such as medical and counseling services, is abundantly available in cities such as Oakland. He asked if there is any provision to help fund the infrastructure that may be necessary to assume this population. Mr. Brown said no, the State does what it can but does not do much in the way of assistance. He reminded the Council and public that the obligation is to plan and to zone but not to actually build or subsidize housing, perhaps because the State does not provide the resources to actually realize these obligations. Councilmember McGovern asked if he anticipated any change that would require jurisdictions to build housing. Mr. Brown said it does not appear to be on the immediate horizon but could not predict beyond that. He noted a bill has resurfaced, the Pleasanton Bill, which would recognize an even looser statute of limitations. Assistant City Manager Bocian presented the Tentative Agreement and settlement terms. He stated the City has agreed to amend the General Plan and Housing Element to remove all references to the cap by resolution on October 19, 2010 and the Council will not enforce the cap in the interim period. This process involves a meeting before the Planning Commission and public noticing requirements. To provide some context, Mr. Fialho explained there are approximately 2,000 units left between the City's current housing units and the cap and it is not even remotely possible the cap could be enforced in that time. Relative to the Housing the Element, the City has agreed to submit a Draft Amended Housing Element and supporting environmental documents to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within one year of the settlement date. The HCD will review City Council4ilinutes Page 7 of 12 July 20, 2010