10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

City could zone property (at Hacienda or elsewhere) to satisfy its RHNA for the Third Planning Period without violating the Cap, the City cannot do so for the current, Fourth Planning Period since the remaining units under the Cap are just under 3,000 and the City's current RHNA exceeds 3,200. Thus, fairly interpreted, the ruling prevents the City from using the Cap in any planning documents or decisions. It also requires the City to actually amend Policy 24 and Programs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 of the current General Plan to remove the Cap's provisions altogether. To effectuate this, the City will be required, within 120 days of the date the Court signs its formal writ memorializing its March 12 Order, to amend Policy 24 and Programs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 of the current General Plan to remove references to the Cap altogether. Alternatively, although the Court's Order does not explicitly allow this approach, the City could petition the Court to allow it to replace those references with references to a revised Cap that includes an exception allowing the City to accommodate its State RHNA obligations. Pursuant to Government Code section 65759, making such changes to the City's General Plan are exempt from CEQA. However, section 65759 requires a streamlined environmental review process that must occur strictly within the 120 day compliance period. The ruling does not require the City to immediately undertake to prepare or adopt its updated Housing Element for the Fourth Planning Period covering 2007 -2014. 2. Rezonings to accommodate the City's "unmet" 1999 -2007 RHNA. In Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element, the City stated its intention, initially by June 2004, to rezone sufficient properties to high density residential (e.g., 30 units /acre) in order to accommodate the remaining (now 521) housing units required for the Third Planning Period (1999 2007). For a number of reasons, the City did not do so until October 2009, at which time it undertook to rezone three parcels at Hacienda. Again, the Court's March 12 ruling found that that rezoning did not satisfy either Program 19.1 or the Least Cost Zoning Law. The basis for this ruling was Section 5 of the rezoning ordinance (No. 1998), which precluded development under the Hacienda rezoning until after the completion of the amendment of the Hacienda PUD process, which was anticipated to last for at least one year. 2 The Court found (at page 8) the "good cause' provision of Ordinance 1998 to be "illusory," and an 'obvious disincentive to developers." Page 4 of 6