CCMIN040610 - Laserfiche WebLink

ordinance said that to accomplish that amendment process, a task force would be appointed and would most likely last 1 year. Urban Habitat stated in its brief that the City did not satisfy Program 19.1 and Section 5 applied a condition that was inconsistent with both Program 19.1 and the underlying requirements of the State's Housing Element and Least Cost Zoning laws. The City learned on March 12, 2010 that the court ruled against the City on all but one claim, holding that the housing cap was inconsistent and in conflict with State law and that State law trumps local law under preemption principles. The court also ruled that Section 5 of Ordinance No. 1998 prevented satisfactory compliance with Program 19.1 and State law by creating an impediment to the immediate development that is inherent in State law. The court held that the good cause clause in this section was essentially elusory and that requiring a developer to come to the Council in search of a good cause exemption was overly onerous and an impediment to the purposes of State law. The only point on which the City prevailed was that, by virtue of the amendment made last fall, the GMO satisfied State law. The court ordered that the City accomplish the rezonings required to satisfy the unmet RHNA for the third planning period without preconditions or the exercise of discretion, but did allow the City the discretion to accomplish that rezoning anywhere it deems appropriate. Mr. Brown noted there is outstanding dispute as to what that means, but the City's position is that the City is only limited in that it can no longer require the amendment of the PUD process and the rezoning does not have to be by right. With respect to the housing cap, the court ordered the City to cease and desist with enforcement of the cap. He noted this is not immediately relevant as the cap has never been enforced. What is immediately relevant is that the City was ordered to remove land use sections of the General Plan, specifically Policy 24 and implementing programs, which require that the cap be enforced in such a way that zoning and planning cannot occur in manner that would be inconsistent with the cap. Lastly, the court ordered that the City's non residential permit authority be suspended until the City comes into full compliance with the order. Mr. Brown explained that he has met with the Council and staff at length regarding the City's options, which are to continue litigation, to comply with the order, or to negotiate a settlement that would honor the City's commitment to an inclusive and transparent public process and identify a growth management strategy that makes sense to both the public and plaintiffs. He noted that continued litigation is both costly and problematic. Mayor Hosterman asked Mr. Brown to explain the potential for other strategies and measures the Council can employ in order to safeguard the development of the community. Mr. Brown said many cities have adopted growth management strategies based on the given city's ability to provide public services and infrastructure. These strategies have been tested and upheld in court and both the Attorney General's Office and Urban Habitat candidly acknowledge the City has many other options if the cap is overturned. He said that unlike any other city in the state, Pleasanton has what is known as a hard cap, which allows for no exception and will inevitably conflict with state RHNA obligations. Mayor Hosterman said there is clearly public confusion over the State's overriding interest and she stressed that it is not the City's job to build houses, but that the State is forcing a rezoning to allow for housing to be built in the future. Mr. Brown confirmed that all State laws on affordable housing are very clear in that local government has no obligation to use any public resources to construct housing. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 22 April 6, 2010