Laserfiche WebLink
We have discussed the City's compliance options above. If the City chooses to <br /> continue to litigate, it will be required to address the fact that Urban Habitat has two <br /> claims outstanding against the City that have not been tried or resolved, and that the <br /> Court's March 12 ruling does not address. These are discrimination/fair housing claims <br /> under the Fair Employment and Housing Law (FEHA), and the anti discrimination <br /> statute (Government Code section 65008) within the State Planning Law. Urban <br /> Habitat may assert that the City cannot ask the Court of Appeal to review the March 12 <br /> ruling until those two outstanding claims are resolved. Assuming the correctness of that <br /> assertion, the City may be in a position of being required to comply with the Court's <br /> interim (March 12) ruling for many months, if not a year or more, while Urban Habitat <br /> prosecutes its remaining claims. <br /> Submitted by: Fiscal Review Approve by: <br /> G, c <br /> onathan P. Lowell David Culver Nelsen Fialho <br /> City Attorney Finance Director City Manager <br /> Attachments: <br /> 1. Court Decision of March 12, 2010 <br /> Page 6 of 6 <br />