10 - Laserfiche WebLink

OVERVIEW In November 2006, Urban Habitat filed litigation against the City claiming that various City policies and ordinances prevent or hinder the development of affordable housing in Pleasanton during what is known under the State Housing Element Law (Government Code section 65583 et seq.) as the "Third Planning Period" ending in 2009. The lawsuit alleged (among other claims): that the City's Housing Cap violates state law in a number of respects, including that the Cap prevented the City from accommodating its regional "fair share" housing numbers "RHNA and sought to have the Cap declared invalid. that the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element, and under the so- called Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code section 65913.1 et seq.), namely, that the City failed to zone sufficient property to accommodate its regional affordable housing obligations. that the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under another General Plan program by failing to amend its Growth Management Ordinance to override the annual housing allocation in order to meet regional housing needs. On March 12, 2010, Superior Court Judge Roesch issued his decision (a copy of which is attached with the April 6, 2010, agenda report), which may be distilled as follows: the Cap conflicts with State law RHNA requirements. the City cured any defects in its Growth Management Ordinance by its recent (October 2009) amendment allowing the Council to override the ordinance to satisfy RHNA requirements. the City failed to carry out a mandatory duty, under Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element and under the Least Cost Zoning Law, to rezone sufficient properties to high density residential (e.g., 30 units /acre) in order to accommodate the remaining housing units required for the Third Planning Period. Although in October 2009, the City Council rezoned properties in the Hacienda Business Park to meet this obligation, the Court agreed with Urban Habitat that this rezoning was "illusory," and did not satisfy Program 19.1 or State law because it did not actually allow development to occur until after completion of the Hacienda PUD amendment process that is anticipated to last at least one year. The Court's order invalidates the Cap in its entirety. It also directs the City to: "cease and desist" from enforcing, administering and /or implementing the Cap. remove references to the Cap from its General Plan. affect sufficient, "non- illusory" rezonings to accommodate the "unmet" RHNA for the Third Planning Period. cease issuing any non residential building and all related permits for construction or development until it brings its General Plan into compliance. Page 2 of 11