10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 1 THE CITY OF 15 ]5L£ ASAf TON. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT April 6, 2010 City Attorney TITLE: PRESENTATION REGARDING EFFECT OF JUDGE'S ORDER IN URBAN HABITAT V. CITY OF PLEASANTON LITIGATION SUMMARY The Alameda County Court has issued its ruling in the above referenced case challenging the City's Housing Cap (Cap), Growth Management Ordinance and implementation of the 2003 Housing Element. The ruling has invalidated the City's Cap in its entirety, required substantial and substantive revision to the City's General Plan to remove the Cap, ordered the City to rezone properties (at the City's Hacienda Business Park or elsewhere) in compliance with Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element, and broadly suspended the City's non residential permit authority pending compliance with the ruling. The City Council has been discussing with legal counsel in closed session the effect of this decision and what possible responses are available to the City. The purpose of this item on your meeting agenda is to share this information with the citizens of Pleasanton. RECOMMENDATION Hear presentation from City's outside special counsel, Thomas B. Brown of Hanson Bridgett LLP. Listen to comments from interested members of the public. Decide whether or not to hold an additional meeting on this subject to allow for further public input; the April 20, 2010 regular City Council meeting has tentatively been set aside for this purpose. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The City's legal expenses litigating this case since its inception in the fall of 2006 are approximately $500,000. (This reflects only the City's legal expenses paid to its own outside legal counsel. It does not reflect work performed by the City Attorney's Office, nor any staff time or resources expended in providing a defense to the City.) Depending on the City's response to the Superior Court's ruling, potential future legal expenses are conservatively estimated to be $250,000. Although such claims could be disputed factually and legally, the City may also face claims for the Petitioners' and Intervener's legal expenses, which likely will be considerably higher than the City's own legal fees, as two parties are involved. Similarly, their future legal costs will be more, and the City could find itself liable for payment of those, as well.