CCMIN072010 - Laserfiche WebLink

City was assertively managing its land use regulations, was in violation of two different anti- discrimination laws and that these actions and inactions expressed favoritism for certain housing (senior) to the disadvantage and exclusion of housing for families with children. Mr. Brown reviewed the City's response to these claims in 2007, which maintained that most if not all were predicated on the facial invalidity of the City's laws and not any actions of the City. — Counsel also asked the Superior Court to dismiss the case based on statute of limitations of grounds. The Superior Court concurred and dismissed the case in 2007, after which petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court's ruling on six of the eight claims, dismissing two based on the statute of limitations. During that time, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) assigned the City of Pleasanton new housing numbers for the next planning period and the petitioners amended their claim to include the new planning period. The California Attorney General then requested and was granted the ability to intervene in the case and joined the lawsuit. The City again moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds that state law does not recognize the claims, which the court rejected. Councilmember Cook - Kallio arrived and joined the dais. Mr. Brown stated that during the time legal counsel was briefing the case, the Council was presented with the rezonings envisioned by the 2003 Housing Element and Program 19.1. In late 2009, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1998, which accomplished that on three sites at the Hacienda Business Park. Section 5 of that ordinance said that despite these rezonings, the Council would not accept development applications for the sites until the completion of the Hacienda Task Force process, which could take up to or beyond one year. The petitioners claimed that Section 5 rendered any rezoning accomplished to affect Program 19.1 elusory. The hearing was held in December 2009 and on March 12, 2010 the court issued its decision. The court ruled in the City's favor with respect to the GMO and associated claims because the Council had adopted a GMO amendment to allow the Council to override the annual allocation to satisfy state housing obligations. The court ruled against the City on all other claims, stating that the housing cap was inconsistent with and preempted by State law, specifically the Housing Element and Least Cost Zoning laws. With respect to the Hacienda rezonings, the court agreed that Section 5 of Ordinance 1998 effectively rendered the rezonings elusory. The court ordered the City to cease and desist enforcement of the housing cap, remove all references to the cap from the General Plan, and accomplish non - elusory rezonings. The court also revoked the City's authority to issue non - residential permits until it complies with the order. Mr. Brown noted that the issues briefed and resolved by the order did not include the outstanding discrimination claims against the City. It was against this background that the Council directed staff to enter into the negotiation process. Mayor Hosterman said the most important issue to her and Councilmember McGovern throughout this process was the fear of losing local control and asked Mr. Brown to discuss what measures are available to preserve that. Mr. Brown said the clear and resounding direction from the Council has always been to retain local control to the greatest extent possible. He explained that the City's housing cap was unique in that it was a hard cap of 29,000 housing units, with no exceptions recognized, and to his knowledge is the only one of its kind in the State. He stated that growth management is not illegal in California; in fact, it is well recognized and there are other tools with which to accomplish sensible and legal growth management. One of the issues discussed with the petitioners and Attorney General from the outset was how to go about protecting the City's interest in sensible and rational growth while also complying with obligations under State law. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12 July 20, 2010