CCMIN080796 - Laserfiche WebLink

somewhere and a different use on neighboring property. A good deal of work has been done to determine the likely development boundaries of the city during the life of the General Plan and to designate a buildout commensurate with that and an Urban Growth Boundary to accompany it. Ms. Mohr asked if the population of the Bay Area grows and the requirements for fair share housing is increased, Pleasanton may not be able to meet the requirements because of the housing cap and the urban growth boundary. What be the city's exposure to litigation, if any? Mr. Weinberger indicated the fair share obligation and its relation to the General Plan is not a linear question. He believed the ABAG figures are expected projections only and there is no requirement to amend the General Plan to reflect the ABAG figures. The Housing Element must be updated every five years and it is assumed the revised fair share figures will be part of the update and properties redesignated or other actions taken to attain the housing element goals. Ms. Mohr asked if that required voter approval? Mr. Weinberger believed that was a very hypothetical question with many variables. It would be hard to say whether that would be necessary. The Supreme Court in the Napa County litigation paid particular attention to the Housing Element obligations and said that it would not and could not make a determination that there would be some future inability of the County to meet its Housing Element responsibilities. However, if that did occur, it is possible the court could require some modification to the General Plan. Ms. Mohr asked if that were case by case or a comprehensive policy change. Mr. Weinberger indicated that was hard to say, but felt it would be highly unlikely that a particular landowner could force redesignation of a particular piece of property. The obligation for the city would be to assure compliance with all aspects of the planning and zoning codes, including the housing element, and it is unlikely the court would direct the legislative body to accomplish compliance through the designation of a particular piece of property. Ms. Mohr indicated there is the potential for county approved development in the area. If the urban growth boundary had been in place at the time the Ruby Hill proposal came forward and the voters did not approve moving the boundary far enough to include it, there would have been no altemative but to allow Ruby Hill to develop in the county. Mr. Weinberger felt that property owners often approach the county for approval of developments with the expectation that the property will be annexed by the adjoining cities in order to provide services. The requirement to have voter approval before providing services to adjoining development might serve as a deterrent to some of these ex-urban developments. It is also fair to say that in the absence of an affirmative vote to amend the Urban Growth Boundary, Ruby Hill would not have been annexed. 08/07/96 -3-