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
The Courts order invalidates the Cap in its entirety. It also directs the City to: <br /> • "Cease and desist" from enforcing, administering and /or implementing the Cap. <br /> • Remove references to the Cap from its General Plan. <br /> • Affect sufficient, "non- illusory" rezonings to accommodate the "unmet" RHNA (521 <br /> units) for the Third Planning Period. <br /> • Cease issuing any non - residential building and all related permits for construction <br /> or development until it brings its General Plan into compliance. <br /> To fully inform the public of the Court decision, and solicit complete public involvement, <br /> the City Council held public meetings on April 6 and 20 during which potential responses <br /> to the Court ruling were discussed. While a range of comments were presented to the <br /> Council, many members of the public expressed an interest in resolving all legal matters <br /> as expeditiously as possible. In addition, many members of the public stated their <br /> concern over continued legal appeals /challenges and the expenses stemming from <br /> continuing this legal dispute. In response, and in view of information provided by staff and <br /> legal counsel, the City Council decided to pursue a settlement of the entire lawsuit and <br /> related second lawsuit and through it discussions, five general goals were identified upon <br /> which settlement options were evaluated. The five goals are as follows: <br /> • Retain local control and flexibility to the maximum extent possible relative to the <br /> Hacienda rezonings and development process, including retention of a meaningful role <br /> for the Hacienda Task Force and public input; <br /> • Restore City's non - residential permitting authority as quickly as possible; <br /> . Retain control over the City Housing Element update process to assure it reflects both <br /> State law and the interests of the community; <br /> . Reach a global settlement that addresses the Court's entire March 12, 2010 ruling as <br /> well as other outstanding litigation. <br /> . Minimize financial impacts of the litigation; <br /> To facilitate the negotiations, the City Council appointed Mayor Hosterman and <br /> Councilmember McGovern to serve on a negotiating team, which also included the City <br /> Manager, City Attorney, the City's contract legal counsel and various staff members, for <br /> the purpose of attempting to reach a settlement agreement. Numerous negotiations have <br /> occurred over the past few months which resulted in the Tentative Agreement approved <br /> by the City Council on July 20, 2010, and now the Settlement Agreement (Attachment 1). <br /> The negotiating team has determined that the Settlement Agreement meets the City <br /> Council's settlement goals, and as a result, the Settlement Agreement is being <br /> recommended for approval. <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.