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
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT <br /> This Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue ( "Settlement Agreement ") is entered into <br /> by and among Plaintiffs URBAN HABITAT PROGRAM and SANDRA DE GREGORIO, <br /> Intervenor PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., <br /> ATTORNEY GENERAL and Defendants CITY OF PLEASANTON and CITY COUNCIL OF <br /> PLEASANTON. <br /> 1. RECITALS <br /> This Settlement Agreement is entered into based upon the following facts: <br /> 1.1 On or about June 20, 2006, Plaintiffs sent a letter to the City of Pleasanton <br /> asserting various shortcomings in the City's compliance with affordable <br /> housing laws, and requesting a meeting to resolve the issues identified. A <br /> meeting was held on or about August 22, 2006, but the parties could not <br /> resolve the matter at the time. <br /> 1.2 After further informal discussions proved unsuccessful, on or about <br /> October 17, 2006, Plaintiffs Urban Habitat Program and Sandra De <br /> Gregorio filed an action in Alameda Superior Court known as Urban <br /> Habitat Program, et al. v. City of Pleasanton, et al., Case No. RG 06 <br /> 293831 ( "Urban Habitat Litigation "). The Complaint alleged, among <br /> other things, and the City denies, that the City had failed to complete the <br /> rezoning of sites for affordable housing, that certain City ordinances and <br /> housing practices, including the City's 29,000 -unit "Housing Cap," <br /> conflicted with State law, and that certain acts and omissions of the City <br /> unlawfully discriminated against housing for lower- income households <br /> and against lower- income families with children. The Complaint asserted, <br /> and the City denies, eight causes of action, alleging violations of State <br /> statutes and the State Constitution. <br /> 1.3 On or about May 17, 2007, after a previous demurrer had been sustained <br /> with leave to amend, the Superior Court sustained the City's demurrer to <br /> the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The Court held <br /> that all eight causes of action were time-barred and that three causes of <br /> action were unripe. <br /> 1.4 On or about June 20, 2008, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior <br /> Court, reinstating six of the eight causes of action asserted. Urban Habitat <br /> Program v. City of Pleasanton, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1561 (2008). The <br /> California Supreme Court denied the City's petition for review on or about <br /> October 22, 2008. <br /> 1.5 On remittitur to the Superior Court, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental <br /> and Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory <br /> and Injunctive Relief on or about May 1, 2009. The Second Amended <br /> Complaint included causes of action, which the City contests, for writ of <br /> Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue - Page 1 of 15 2506199.1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.