RES 90196 - Laserfiche WebLink

The City has designed its Growth Management Program (GMP) to encourage the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community. The success of this technique can be measured by the City's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. From 1986 to 1990, for example, the GMP resulted in over 67% of total units which were affordable to lower and moderate income households (5). The rate of 0 to 650 units per year established by the GMP is lower than market demand because of infrastructure limitations, but allows for more units than specified in ABAG's residential housing need allocations. Pleasanton requires payment of numerous fees as a condition of development approval. All fees are tied to the City's costs of providing necessary services, such as plan checking fees, or improvements, such as roadway widening. The City waives certain fees, such as the low income housing fee imposed by the Growth Management Program, to certain projects which fulfill specific City policies, such as the provision of lower income housing. The City also exacts physical improvements from developers, such as streets, as allowed under municipal regulatory power and the Subdivision Map Act (11). City fees are reviewed and adjusted periodically while exactions are established on a case by case basis depending on the on-site and off-site improvements required by individual projects. Market constraints include the cost of land and improvements, construction costs, interest rates, profit, property taxes and the wide range of factors which determine consumer preferences in the housing market. Most of these factors are beyond the control of local governments, although occasionally the cost of land and interest rates can be reduced in order to encourage affordable housing production. An example of this is the City of Pleasanton's recent actions to donate a portion of its current corporation yard to eliminate land costs; issue housing revenue bonds to reduce financing costs; and contribute to planning and design studies to reduce predevelopment costs on a ten acre parcel for 200 units of senior citizens housing. Other factors do not appear to pose much of a constraint to the production of housing in Pleasanton for the foreseeable future, as indicated by the large number of units recently approved for development over the next several years. A detailed analysis of constraints upon the maintenance, improvement and development of housing is contained in the Supplement to the Housing Element (2). Given the opportunities and constraints to the production of housing discussed throughout this element, it is estimated that at least 3,547 new housing units could be constructed over the period 1988 through 1995. The distribution of these units according to type, density, price and tenure are guided by the housing policies described later in this element. A negligible number of units are estimated for demolition, rehabilitation or conservation during that period. IV-14