20 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

January 13, 2009 Page i Policy- 24: Maintain a maximum housing buildout of 29.000 units V within the Planning Area. Program 24.1; Monitor and zone future residential developments so as not to exceed the maximum housing huildout. Program 24.2: The foregoing Policy 24 and Program 24.1 and this Program 24,2: shall be amended only by a vote of thc people.' The F ousing Cap plays a pivotal role in shaping the General Plan Update and in the City's evaluation of the Project's environmental impacts- 18.1 According to the City, the General Plan Update can plan for only 2.007 residential units bcfont it reaches the limit of 29,000 units set by Mel-lousing Cap. Al buildout, all residential units m the City will support a projected population of 7$200.' Though there is ample space in the City for additional residential development, the City suggests that the Housing Cap limits the City's ability to utilize that space. 13y relying on the Housing Cap as justification for preventing more residential units. thc City i3norcs its obligation to provide for sufficient housing far the region's growing population. "[Nit) Califbmia locality is immune from the legal and practical necessity to expand housing due to inc'easing population pressures,"" State housing law requires that general plan housing cicrncots identify adequate sites to meet the city's "share of the regional homing need:'` Altho ugh the (ieneral Plan update does not include the City's housing element,'" the information preserdcd in the Llpdate must he consistent with thc housing element. As drafted, the General Plan Update does not allow for a sufficient number of housing units to satisfy the City's 2007 -2014 regional housing needs allocation RHNA" The Association of flay Area Governments' ("Ai3AG "l proposed final RI-1NA for Pleasanton through 2014 Is 3.277 writs, which is 1.270 more units than permitted by the Housing C'ap. i Nioreovcr, the City must satisfy this obligation by 2014 and the General Plan Update runs through 2025, V GP a; 2 -36. 1' DEEP; at 5 -3, Table 5-2, fn. 1; see also, Pleasanton Ciry Council Agenda Report (August 21. 2007) at 3. "CP a:2 -17. 11 9loca r Ranch Cu. v_ &r(ami CuenNditpon Land (fir C'mn'rt -11. Cal.Ath 372. 383 (2007)- 1 `l:'al kw Code, ¢ti 65583, 65583 rat( I). The t. ?it 's housing element was conditionally approved by the Department of Housing and Community Lleveloamcnt (HCD1 in 2003; however, the department notified the City on Mandl 23, 2006, chat the City had aoi met the conditions required for approval. (March 23, 2006 letter from call) E. Cre.w•ell to Nelson Fialha Re: Status of the City of Pleasanton's !lousing Element) li(n's letter (races the City's failure to complete Program 19.1 of the housing clement, which requires rezoning to provide for more lousing units. ILd. at I .l The letter concludes that 'The City's proposal to complete the requisite rvones+uptones during the fast or second quarter of 2007 Jilts not demonstrate the necessary l and timely) commitment to meet the adequate sues requirement of hot sin1, element law. Therefore, the City's Housing element remains mil of compliance:' (hi at 2 1 [he Ciry's noncnnipliance with housing element law is the subject of an ongoing Iawsui1.. (Urban 1lohtal Program es a1. v Ciro r f Pfraranson, Alameda Sup.Ct. Case No. R60629383, filed Feb. Ih, 2007). rr Cal h toy. Code, i6530o.5. I'niposerl final Regional Housing Needs AIlocatnm (Revised March 20, 2(011), available at http:'aw u w.abag.ca.gnv `plannfnplousingneeds pdta proposedfinal. pdfl.