10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

DISCUSSION The Court's Order On March 12, 2010, Judge Roesch issued his decision (a copy of which is attached), 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 (521 units) 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. Actions the Order Directs the City to Take Once the Court's decision is final, it will require the City to take certain actions to comply, and prevents the City from certain other actions, as follows: 1. Cease and desist from enforcing /implementing Cap; remove Cap references from the General Plan. While to date the City has never actually "enforced" the Cap, insofar as the City currently has nearly 3,000 units remaining before the Cap is exhausted, Urban Habitat and the Attorney General produced evidence from developers that they have found the Cap to present a disincentive to proposing and applying for residential development projects. Urban Habitat and the Attorney General have also argued that the Cap will preclude the City from accommodating its RHNA in its updated Housing Element for the next (Fourth) Planning Period. Specifically, their argument has been that even if the Page 3 of 6