03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Jonathan Lowell, Esq. February 15, 2012 Page 2 of 4 "mid-2012,"to implement Housing Element Program 9.7. That Program provides that it will: Adopt Development Standards and Design Guidelines to facilitate the development of high quality multifamily housing and to create more certainty for residential development on Sites 25 through 33 in Appendix B Housing Sites Inventory. These standards are intended to be substantially similar to those developed for the Hacienda TOD (sites 22, 23 and 24), and would provide more certainty for multifamily developers during the PUD review process. Program 9.7 indicates vaguely that"These standards are intended to be substantially similar to those developed for the Hacienda TOD," but does not commit to core standards that will comply with the requirements of the Housing Element Law. It does not address whether, or how, the City will meet the requirement of Gov. Code § 65583.2(h), that half the shortfall of affordable units under the RHNA be accommodated on sites that permit residential-only use. It includes no commitment that the sites will ultimately require "only design review approval without any discretionary review." And it will not be completed for more than seven months past the Settlement Agreement's extended deadline. Judge Roesch (who, as you know, has been assigned to this case for all purposes) ruled in his Order of March 10, 2010 that the adoption of similar General Plan amendments and densities on PUD-zoned sites does not constitute the required rezoning, as it requires "future discretionary approvals": The City Council did, a month and a half before the hearing on the present Petition, pass Pleasanton Ordinance 1998 approving the rezoning of a portion of the land located in the "Hacienda Business Park." However, a careful reading of the ordinance discloses that the status quo was not changed. The ordinance requires that the approval of any development plan for residential development"shall not be granted until the completion of a PUD Major Modification for the entire Hacienda Business Park." . . . The City still has not accommodated the RHNA allocated to it in 2001. The City's enactment of Ordinance 1998 a month and a half before the hearing on this petition may start a process to cure the City's failure in this matter, but is wholly inadequate to be considered a cure. Its requirement of further necessary acts before any development plan can be approved vitiates any actual remedial effect of the Ordinance. (Emphasis added) Finding that the rezoning required by law had not yet occurred, the Court accordingly ordered the City to "implement non-illusory zoning changes sufficient to accommodate the unmet RHNA for the 1999-2007 Planning Period. That is, the zoning and land-use changes need be implemented such that they are without condition or need offuture discretionary approval." (Emphasis added.) We are confident that the Court will find that the mere adoption of General Plan amendments and density standards, with Program 9.7's vague promise of future action, falls equally short of the completion of the rezoning the settlement requires, and is in breach of the requirement to implement those zoning changes by the February 13 date to which the parties stipulated.