CCMIN040610 - Laserfiche WebLink

forward or implement Housing Element Program 34.5, which committed to amending the GMO to account for RHNA. It was further maintained that because of these issues, the General Plan and Housing Element were internally inconsistent and in violation of State law. Further, that the Housing Element was, on its face, inadequate under State law, that failure to accomplish Program 19.1 violated the State's Least Cost Zoning Law, and that the Council's favored approval of certain senior developments over multi family developments violated both the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Government Code Section 65008. The City moved to dismiss the charges in early 2007, arguing that the claims were both time barred and not ripe, meaning that the City had never applied these laws to prevent any affordable housing, and that the plaintiff lacked standing for reasons that cannot be discussed. He noted that at that time, the City had 2,700 to 3,000 housing units remaining before the cap would be exhausted. The Alameda County Superior Court initially sided with the City and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs then brought a first amended complaint. The City made the same motion to dismiss and the Superior Court again sided with the City and without leave to amend. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeals where the case remained until 2008 when the California Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs on 6 of the 8 claims. The Court agreed with the City that 2 of the claims were time barred but resurrected the other 6 and ordered the case back down to the Alameda County Superior Court for resolution. The City took the case to the California Supreme Court who declined, stating they could not find immediate error in the Court of Appeals' ruling. Mr. Brown noted that in this time, the City received its RHNA numbers for the fourth planning period (2007 -2014) and the plaintiffs immediately indicated their intent to amend the complaint to add claims arising from the new planning period. Concurrently, the City was updating its General Plan and the Attorney General became interested in both the housing cap and the lawsuit. The Attorney General indicated an interest in intervening and was granted permission by the court to do so. The City then moved to dismiss both the amended complaint and the Attorney General's complaint, claiming that the substantive claims being brought against the City were not cognizable under the law as it is known. The Superior Court denied the motion and set a trial date for December 2009. Mr. Brown explained that this sort of case is known as a traditional writ of mandate case with the exception of the 2 outstanding discrimination claims. The writ of mandate was brought under an expedited process whereby both parties briefed the issue to the trial court and submitted evidence in the form of declarations and exhibits. The matter was fully briefed and heard in December 2009. Prior to the trial, a determination was made by staff and approved by the Council that, under Program 19.1, rezonings were appropriate for the Hacienda Business Park and could accommodate unmet affordable RHNA numbers for the third planning period. The Council adopted the rezoning of three sites at Hacienda Business Park and amended the GMO, as required by the Housing Element and Program 34.5, in order to create an exception whereby the Council would have the discretion to override the GMO to allow for RHNA requirements. He noted that the same could not be done with the housing cap, as the Council does not have the independent authority to amend or override a voter adopted measure. The petitioners did not feel that the Council's action in accomplishing the rezonings satisfied Program 19.1 as Section 5 of Ordinance No. 1998 deferred the processing of any development application on those 3 sites pending completion of an amendment to the PUD process. The City Council Minutes Page 11 of 22 April 6, 2010