My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
100510
>
14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2010 2:46:54 PM
Creation date
9/29/2010 2:46:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/5/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
BACKGROUND <br /> In November 2006, Urban Habitat filed a lawsuit against the City claiming that various <br /> City policies and ordinances prevent or hinder the development of affordable housing in <br /> Pleasanton during what is known under the State Housing Element Law (Government <br /> Code section 65583 et seq.) as the "Third Planning Period" ending in 2009. The <br /> Petitioners' complaint, which was amended in 2009 to assert similar claims arising in <br /> connection with the City's housing requirements for the Fourth Planning Period, and <br /> which the State Attorney General then joined, alleged (among other claims): <br /> • That the City's Housing Cap violates state law in a number of respects, including <br /> that the Cap prevented the City from accommodating its regional "fair share" <br /> housing needs assessment numbers ( "RHNA "), and sought to have the Cap <br /> declared invalid. <br /> • That the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under Program 19.1 of the 2003 <br /> Housing Element, and under the so- called Least Cost Zoning Law (Government <br /> Code section 65913.1 et seq.), namely, that the City failed to zone sufficient <br /> property to accommodate its regional affordable housing obligations. <br /> • That the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under another General Plan <br /> program by failing to amend its Growth Management Ordinance to override the <br /> annual housing allocation in order to meet regional housing needs. <br /> In addition, the Attorney General filed a separate lawsuit in 2009 challenging the City's <br /> 2009 General Plan update. That lawsuit asserted claims that the General Plan update <br /> Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was inadequate under the California Environmental <br /> Quality Act (CEQA), and that the update itself violated State law in several respects. The <br /> Attomey General and the City agreed to suspend litigation on the General Plan lawsuit <br /> pending the outcome of the Urban Habitat litigation. <br /> On March 12, 2010, the Court issued a decision in the Urban Habitat matter which may <br /> be distilled as follows: <br /> • The Cap conflicts with State law RHNA requirements. <br /> • The City cured any defects in its Growth Management Ordinance by its recent <br /> (October 2009) amendment allowing the Council to override the ordinance to <br /> satisfy RHNA requirements. <br /> • The City failed to carry out a mandatory duty, under Program 19.1 of the 2003 <br /> Housing Element and under the Least Cost Zoning Law, to rezone sufficient <br /> properties to high density residential (e.g., 30 units/acre) in order to accommodate <br /> the remaining housing units required for the Third Planning Period. Although in <br /> October 2009, the City Council rezoned properties in the Hacienda Business Park <br /> to meet this obligation, the Court agreed with Urban Habitat that this rezoning was <br /> "illusory," and did not satisfy Program 19.1 or State law because it did not actually <br /> allow development to occur until after completion of the Hacienda PUD <br /> amendment process that is anticipated to last at least one year. <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.