|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
An opportunity to appeal Pleasanton’s current estimated regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) is set be explored by the City Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday night.
Pleasanton, which is currently underway with its latest Housing Element cycle, in September had an estimated RHNA allocation of 4,900 — a 2.3 fold increase since the last cycle, according to a staff report. California cities are required to periodically demonstrate they can accommodate their RHNA allotment.
However, nearly triple the number of units — 5,965 — is now projected for the city compared to the prior Housing Element cycle, according to a draft RHNA methodology submitted last month by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which determines the RHNA of each Bay Area community.
Based on previously expressed concerns about the methodology, staff said there might be a basis to file appeal of Pleasanton’s allocation, adding, “it is important to pursue every available avenue to ensure the city receives a fair and appropriate allocation.”
The new projection — based largely on Plan Bay Area 2050 figures — increases Pleasanton’s estimated RHNA “by a substantial margin, over 1,100 additional units, compared to that reviewed at the conclusion of the (Housing Methodology Committee) process,” staff said.
From the previous cycle, Pleasanton’s very-low and low-income allocations together increased more than 1,600 units, and the above-moderate income category by over 1,700 units.
About 23% of the total allocation of 1,514 units have been produced in the current housing cycle, according to staff. That includes 353 affordable (very-low, low- and moderate-income units)
“In contrast, 1,310 above-moderate (market rate) units have been produced to date, more than twice the RHNA allocation of 553 units,” staff said. “Meeting the RHNA for below- market-rate units, given past production trends and the large increase in these categories, is going to continue to pose a significant challenge.”
After a series of meetings during fall, ABAG adopted its methodology in January. The final methodology report was submitted for review a month ago.
During that time, ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission also released the final draft Plan Bay Area 2050, which staff said reflects “policy changes that modified the modeling of future housing growth in different parts of the region, including a significant increase in projected housing growth in the Tri-Valley.”
Pleasanton and other Tri-Valley cities, as well as multiple agencies in Marin and Contra Costa counties, objected to the proposed methodology, which staff said “appeared to relieve South Bay jurisdictions from addressing their significant jobs-housing imbalances, at the same time placing an undue burden on East and North Bay cities, and small and rural jurisdictions to absorb that demand.”
Although the city may appeal the RHNA allocation, staff said “a very low proportion of appeals are ultimately granted,” and recommended using the most recently published estimate as a working number while the housing element update moves forward, in order to allow sufficient time for completion of the update.
The Housing Methodology Committee is expected to complete its review and approval of the RHNA methodology by the beginning of April, with draft RHNA allocations being issued to local jurisdictions by May.
The final RHNA allocation will be issued in late 2021, giving the city enough time to make any needed changes to the sites inventory or other parts of the documents.
Along with the report, the council will also consider approving two contracts related to the housing element update.
Because of “the extensive changes to state law and the strict deadlines posed by these laws,” the city is considering a $302,001 contract with Lisa Wise Consulting, and a $343,170 contract with First Carbon Solutions. The totals include a 15% contingency for general work under each contract.
Most of the cost for both agreements will be paid by approved Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant funding — $300,000 and $61,755, respectively — with the remaining (up to $283,416) to be paid by the Lower Income Housing Fund, as the city has done during prior housing element updates.
The city also applied for an additional $100,000 in competitive grant funding, which has not yet been approved.
The Pleasanton City Council’s open-session meeting, set to be held virtually via Zoom due to the pandemic, is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday (March 16).
In other business
* The council may consider whether to pursue limiting local contributions and expenditures for local political candidates during a discussion and public hearing set for Tuesday night.
The state’s newly enacted Political Reform Act and Local Contribution Limits restricts an individual’s donations to a candidate running for a county or city elective office at a maximum of $4,900, but local jurisdictions may adopt a contribution limit that is higher or lower.
The city does not have a local contribution limit but did adopt a voluntary campaign expenditure limit in 2008, with the intent of encouraging candidates to engage with voters instead of relying on advertising and mass mailings.
The current limit is one dollar per registered voter plus an inflation adjustment; last year, the limit was $55,325.
No penalties exist for exceeding the limit, the rationale being that “courts have ruled that expenditures do not raise concerns such as corruption or undue influence (which issues are addressed by regulating contributions).”
Additionally, staff said courts have ruled that expenditure limits are “invalid under the First Amendment as it is a direct form of restraint on expression and association.”
However, all 12 candidates for local office last year signed the voluntary pledge, and none exceeded the expenditure limit. No other Tri-Valley city has a campaign expenditure limit either.
“If the council is interested in adjusting the voluntary campaign expenditure limit, it should provide staff direction as to a revised amount for such limit, which would need to remain voluntary and without penalty for the reasons stated above,” staff said.
After reviewing campaign finance disclosure statements from the general election in November, “of the committees required to file pre-election disclosure statements, the largest individual contributions did not exceed the $4,900 cap.”
Staff added, “As no candidate received a contribution which exceeded the state’s $4,900 limit, it is not recommended that the council consider a limit higher than (the state’s limit).”
Federal candidate contribution limits are a maximum of $2,800 per individual donor per election, and staff also noted the city of Dublin set a $500 limit per individual donor per election for a local candidate in 2009.
Should the council express interest in a local contribution limit, staff said they should provide direction on the amount but withhold from trying to restrict how much a candidate may give or loan to their own campaign, “as such limits have not withstood legal challenge.”
Any new contribution limits could be enforced through a contract with the Fair Political Practices Commission.
* The council will also meet in closed session at 6 p.m. before the public meeting starts and review 12 assorted legal items.
The items on the docket include current litigation with the city concerning the death of Jacob Bauer in police custody and the Costco-related challenge by group Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth, as well as claims regarding a 2019 triple-fatal crash and another filed by the Anti-Police Terror Project.
Can the article be updated to include more info about how relatively little extra and low-income housing the cities of Atherton, Portola Valley, Los Gatos, Woodside, and even Menlo Park are being required to supply? These richest lower-peninsula enclaves are being protected while even Palo Alto is expected to add magnitudes more units in their city. Fishy, fishy, fishy…