10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

BACKGROUND 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. In 2007, the City succeeded in having the lawsuit dismissed at the trial court level on procedural grounds. Urban Habitat appealed that decision, however, and the Court of Appeal reinstated most of the litigation, including that portion that challenges the validity of the Housing Cap. The City thereafter sought review of the Court of Appeal decision by the California Supreme Court; that Court, however, denied the City's petition. While the case was on appeal, the City was assigned its RHNA numbers for the next (Fourth) Planning Period by ABAG, covering 2007 -2014. Thus, following remand to the trial court, Urban Habitat amended its lawsuit to assert claims that the City's Cap prevented the City from accommodating its new RHNA numbers. At that time as well, the California Attorney General contacted the City to indicate the State's interest in joining Urban Habitat's case against the City. The Superior Court granted the Attorney General's application to intervene in the case in early 2009. The City's efforts to dismiss the case prior to trial, based on a variety of substantive and procedural arguments, were unsuccessful. Accordingly, the case was briefed and argued before Judge Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court on December 18, 2009. In 2009 as well, the Attorney General also filed a separate lawsuit challenging the City's decision approving its General Plan update, and certifying the attendant environmental impact report (EIR), based (among other claims) on the continued existence and enforcement of the Cap. Page 2 of 6