Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />THOMAS B. MAYHEW <br />CHARLES J. HIGLEY <br /> <br />November 27, 2023 <br />Via Hand Delivery to City Clerk <br />City of Pleasanton <br />123 Main Street <br />P.O. Box 520 <br />Pleasanton CA 94566 <br /> <br /> <br />Re: Sixty-Day Notice Regarding Housing Element Adopted September 19, 2023 <br /> <br /> <br />To the City of Pleasanton: <br />On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (“HAC”), notice is hereby given and filed, <br />pursuant to Government Code section 65009, concerning the September 19, 2023 adoption of the <br />Housing Element for 2023-2031. <br /> <br />HAC plans to bring an action to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the adoption of <br />the Housing Element for 2023-2031 and the findings and other determinations made in support <br />of the adoption of the Housing Element, and to seek a writ of mandate requiring the City to adopt <br />a new Housing Element that complies with state law. The action will also seek declaratory relief <br />that the Housing Element does not substantially comply with the law, and that the City is not <br />entitled to use certain sites to count towards its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) <br />for purposes of the No Net Loss statute. The action will also request an award of costs and <br />attorney’s fees. <br /> <br />This action will be based on the grounds that the Housing Element for 2023-2031, as <br />adopted and revised on September 19, 2023, violates Government Code sections 65583 and <br />65583.2. This includes, without limitation, that the site inventory lists sites with existing uses <br />that create an obstacle to residential development. The City’s methodology did not take these <br />impediments into account and did not engage in a proper consideration of other required <br />statutory factors. With respect to sites claimed to accommodate the lower income categories of <br />the RHNA, the City Council’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence that the <br />existing use was likely to discontinue during the planning period.1 In addition, the City failed to <br /> <br />1 To be clear, HAC is in favor of residential development at the challenged sites generally, <br />including the BART parking lot parcels on Owens Drive in particular. The problem is that, <br />