01 - Laserfiche WebLink

• The removal of programs completed during the previous planning period, such as Program 9.7 requiring the city to adopt development standards and design guidelines to facilitate the development of high-density multi-family residential projects. • The implementation of changes required by state law or court decisions. In accordance with SB 812, policies and programs were adjusted to encourage the retention of existing housing and the expansion of the overall housing supply for disabled residents. • The implementation of changes recommended by the Housing or Planning Commissions, including a minor revision to Program 14.4 to allow for the use of a density bonus in the development of apartment complexes to encourage the retention of affordable units over extended time periods. He then discussed the Background Report to the Housing Element, which describes the current status of housing and reviews the city's progress in meeting the objectives of the previous Housing Element. The Background Report contains demographic information, identifies constraints to the housing supply, and provides the analysis to demonstrate the city's capacity to meet its assigned affordable housing obligation. Staff believes that the Background Report, which was updated relative to current census data and relevant legal changes, meets the requirements set forth by the State. Mr. Weinstein advised that on August 13, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council authorize the Draft Housing Element to be submitted to HCD with the following change: lower the proposed density of the CM Capital 2 site within the Site Inventory (Appendix B) from a minimum density of 30 units per acre to 12.5 units per acre. The primary impact of the recommended down-zoning would be to lower the city's very low and low income housing inventory by 200 units while increasing the capacity of above moderate income housing by 84 units. He then advised that on August 21, 2014, the Economic Vitality Committee held a work session that yielded two predominant points. 1) There is a community obligation to provide housing and housing should not be considered a negative issue; and 2) The shortage of housing is one of the greatest long- term threats to the future economic vitality of Pleasanton. The Committee therefore recommended that the City Council add a new Policy regarding the relationship between the Housing Element and the Economic Development Strategic Plan and include a new Program to ensure the City assesses the dynamic nature of workforce housing needs within the City and then proactively integrate this assessment into efforts that create more workforce housing. Mr. Weinstein reiterated that the Housing Element is governed by a regional housing needs process underwhich the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) uses state estimates of regional housing need to assign a housing unit goal, or RHNA, to each city or unincorporated area in the region. Cities and counties are then expected to update their Housing Elements to ensure there are sufficient sites zoned for residential uses and then to accommodate the RHNA for all income categories. Again, the state does not require cities to build housing to meet RHNA but to ensure that adequate land is zoned to meet these requirements. Mayor Thorne suggested there is a widespread misconception that providing zoning for the required number of units fulfills the entirety of the city's obligation. He clarified and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the city is still obligated to issue building permits for new units, although the city's Growth Management Ordinance does limit this to a prorated portion of the total RHNA allocation on an annual basis. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked staff to explain for the public why, with an annual Growth Management allocation of 230 units, they may be seeing a level of development that would seem to exceed this. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 17 September 2,2014