News


General Plan delayed again by housing cap dispute

Atty. Gen. Brown, lawsuit contend cap blocks affordable units

Community and city leaders started updating the Pleasanton General Plan in 2003, a hoped-for three year process that is just now nearing completion and waiting for final approval by the Planning Commission and City Council within the next few weeks.

But now everyone may have to wait a bit longer.

Brian Dolan, Pleasanton's Community Development Director, told a Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce group yesterday that concerns by State Atty. General Jerry Brown over the plan and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report have thrown wrinkles in the city's hopes of finally approving the new General Plan shortly.

In his letter to Janice Stern, the city's principal planner, Brown questioned parts of the EIR and the draft General Plan, itself.

Of particular concern to Brown is the city's continued imposition of a 29,000-unit housing cap, a measure approved by voters when the last General Plan was adopted in 1996.

At the time, with plenty of vacant land available to zone for apartments and home construction, the limit wasn't a problem for state housing authorities. Today, however, with the city nearing buildout under the 29,000-unit limit, there are less than 1,500 residential units left to build.

Since then, new housing numbers imposed by the state and the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) also have raised the zoning requirements for more housing, particularly affordable housing for low-to-moderate income families, as the state's population has grown. The state doesn't require that homes be built to accommodate those numbers, only that sufficient land be designated so that the housing can be constructed if developers have an interest in building them and market conditions justify the investment.

"By relying on the Housing Cap as justification for preventing more residential units," Brown states in his letter, "the city ignores its obligation to provide for sufficient housing for the region's growing population. No California locality is immune from the legal and practical necessity to expand housing due to increasing population pressures."

Brown's letter comes as the city is engaged in a lawsuit filed by public advocacy group Urban Habitat and Sandra De Gregorio, a low-income Latina mother and Pleasanton resident. The suit, filed in 2006 and heading to court again on April 8, states that Pleasanton is "an affluent regional job center that has imposed rigid growth control policies that block residential development, particularly the development of affordable family housing."

The suit is being heard in Alameda County Superior Court with a long list of demurrers, continuances and objections already heard by Judge Frank Roesch. The state Court of Appeal recently rejected Pleasanton's plea to dismiss the lower court case. City Atty. Michael Roush and outside counsel Thomas B. Brown are preparing for a case management conference on April 8.

The Urban Habitat suit challenges Pleasanton's policies and practices that it claims exclude housing for low-income families. It focuses in particular on the city's failure to implement a program in its Housing Element that committed the city to rezone 30-40 acres of commercial land for high-density affordable housing, and the city's Housing Cap.

In its suit against Pleasanton, the public housing advocacy group claimed that it served a 14-page demand letter on the city in 2006 and, in August of that year, met with city officials, inviting the city to propose "a concrete and meaningful proposal for addressing the issues raised in the letter."

But, according to Richard Marcantonio, managing attorney for the organization, city officials failed to respond to this invitation and so the plaintiffs moved ahead with the suit.

In a closed-door session two weeks ago with Roush and City Manager Nelson Fialho, the City Council agreed to contest Urban Habitat's suit that seeks to overturn the city's housing cap.

Pleasanton and the city of Davis are the only two cities in California with housing caps although others are interested in adopting their own, so the case is expected to draw widespread attention throughout the state. Cities also use various other means of constraining growth, such as limiting the number of residential building permits that can be issued each year. These restrictions have not been challenged by the attorney general or organizations such as Urban Habitat.

City Manager Fialho said that Brown's objections to the housing cap and his concerns that the General Plan's EIR might not meet other provisions in new state legislative actions could delay final approval of the General Plan update. Those new measures include legislation that requires California cities and counties to impose strict regulations for climate protection rules on greenhouse gas emissions and another requirement that high density housing must be built along transportation corridors, such as BART, whenever possible.

"We are working with the attorney general's office on these issues to work out a solution that is suitable to both the city of Pleasanton and the state," Fialho said.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Angela
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 12, 2009 at 9:21 am

If you watched the School Board meeting the other night you learned that 25 to 35% of our housing units are part of multi-unit (read Apartment) complexes. (Sidebar – If I was campaigning for a new tax, I would know exactly how many people I was proposing to impose it on, as well as how many student beneficiaries lived in non-single family home units since this will clearly become an issue and common knowledge during the campaigning process. My guess is that they actually do know this, but haven't wanted to say in a public forum because the information would further erode any perception of support they may have generated.) I initially thought this was not possible, but then took the time to do some exploring and discovered that there is a substantial amount of rental inventory tucked into pockets throughout the city. If you have any doubt about this, spend a few moments driving into each complex on Vineyard between First Street and Bernal. I think we have more than filled our obligation (if we in fact have one) to supply affordable housing.

Various lobbies and liberal politicians have been trying to turn Piedmont into West Oakland, Pleasanton into Stockton, Walnut Creek into Pittsburgh, etc for years. At some point we need to decide if we want to become a Socialist nation or continue to allow people to work for the things they want. And that includes living in a nice area.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wrong Generation
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 12, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Jeb,

"Pat" Brown was Jerry's governor dad. Kinda like the Bush's, except democrats.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 12, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Angela,

The Board should take a look at structuring a parcel tax based upon square footage instead of a flat rate per parcel. Multi-family units like apartments would be taxed more fairly and the extra cost would be passed on in rent to renters. Dr. Casey stated at one of the community forums that such a tax is perceived as "more fair" and tends to generate more in revenue than the flat tax. If the Board really wants a parcel tax to pass, they'd look at ways of making it "more fair".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jeb Bing
editor of the Pleasanton Weekly
on Feb 13, 2009 at 8:43 am

Jeb Bing is a registered user.

To Wrong Generation: Ooops. I had the dad in mind as I was reviewing "Jerry" Brown's letter. You're right. "Pat" Brown was quite a different kind of governor like, as you said, the difference between father and son Bush. Thanks for the heads-up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 13, 2009 at 9:50 am

To those who are older Californians can remember Governor "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown. He is the same moron at 72 as he was in his 30's.
His action is purely polical because he wants to run for Governor again. Wake up people. Stop the liberals dictating our future in Pleasanton.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 22 comments | 2,049 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,375 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,134 views