CCMIN111501 - Laserfiche WebLink

moderate or above moderate fall below the Housing Element goals, all other approvals would be stopped until sufficient approvals were issued to correct the deficiency. That suggestion, while somewhat draconian, was offered as a place from which to engage in dialogue to find a method to ensure that the City would meet its goals. Almost the entire proposed Housing Element plan is based upon the belief that the newly enacted inclusionary housing ordinance will take care of the housing problems. There is no real evidence that the plan will work. This is especially true since there are no teeth in the ordinance to ensure that the units will be built. He believed little has been done to provide a plan to provide housing with the monies provided by the in-lieu fees. He felt that since the fees do not equate to the actual cost of providing affordable housing, it is anticipated that the builders will opt to pay the fees and leave the problem to the City. As the report is sent to HCD, it is suggested that Council consider the following: 1) communicate to the Housing and Planning Commissions how they are expected to change their processes to allow higher densities and smaller units so affordable housing is possible and encouraged; 2) identify a third party to report to Council annually or semi-annually on progress made in meeting housing goals; and 3) consider appropriate measures to further encourage builders to build rather than pay for affordable housing. Mr. Arkin referred to the voter approved housing cap and asked how the ABAG numbers fit into that? Mr. Iserson indicated that if the City built all the units recommended by ABAG, the number of units would still be under the cap. Mr. Arkin asked what would happen in 2006 if ABAG recommended another 5,000 affordable units? Mr. Iserson responded that he did not know what the ABAG recommendation would be at that time. It was hoped ABAG would take into consideration the City's housing cap and general plan. The job of the Task Fome was to focus on the current period. Mayor Pico did not believe ABAG gave any consideration to local housing caps or general plans. Mr. Swift explained how ABAG reaches its figures and agreed there was no relation between its numbers and local housing caps. Ms. Ayala referred to the number of units approved but not yet built and asked for an explanation of Tables B-1 and B-2 in the staff report. She asked what percentage of those units would have to be low or very low income housing to stay under the housing cap and meet the ABAG goals by 2006. Mr. Swift referred to page 2 of the staff report and the table that indicates that as of 2001, 3,915 units are needed to meet the fair share housing goals; that includes 729 very low, 320 low, 823 moderate and 2,043 above moderate units. If one considers all projects, it would be necessary to build some units at higher than the midpoint range of the General Plan. About 48% would have to be low income or very low income units. Pleasanton City Council Joint Meeting Minutes 2 11/15/01