This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Land Use
Housing Element Law

Peninsula Interfaith Action, Urban Habitat Program, Youth United for Community Action v. City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park City Council

Published: Jun. 2, 2012 | Result Date: May 18, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV513882 Settlement –  Equitable Settlement

Court

San Mateo Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Samuel P. Tepperman-Gelfant
(Public Advocates)

Craig D. Castellanet
(Public Interest Law Project)

Richard A. Marcantonio
(Public Advocates)

Michael F. Rawson
(Public Interest Law Project)


Defendant

William L. McClure


Facts

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of Peninsula Interfaith Action, Urban Habitat Programs, and Youth United for Community Action against the City of Menlo Park seeking to compel the City to (1) prepare and adopt an updated housing element to its local general plan and (2) rezone sites to accommodate the City's share of the regional need for affordable housing. California law requires each local government to adopt, and periodically update, as part of its general plan a housing element, which must provide for the rezoning of sufficient sites to accommodate the City's allocated share of the regional need for housing for all income levels.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that the City had not updated its housing element since 1992, including adoption of the most recent revision due June 30, 2009. Plaintiffs further alleged that the City had failed to rezone sites necessary to accommodate 508 units of affordable housing for the planning period that ended in 2007. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate compelling adoption of an adequate housing element within 120 days, rezoning of sites sufficient to accommodate the unmet affordable housing need, and an order enjoining the City from issuing building permits or approving subdivision maps, zoning changes or variances until a legally adequate housing element is adopted.

Result

The parties agreed to a settlement pursuant to which a specific timeline was agreed upon within which the City must update its Housing Element, rezone properties to accommodate the City's assigned share of housing, and among other terms, adopt an incentive program for the development of affordable housing for very low, low and moderate income households.


#111368

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390