FONSECA v.CITY OF GILROY PART II
City's 2002 general plan substantially complied with Housing Element Law, as it then read, where the plan provided an aggregate inventory of what the city identified as vacant sites and sites potentially available for development. Law at the time did not require that the inventory identify specific sites both suitable for residential development and available to meet housing needs. Least Cost Zoning Law does not require that city take action to actually rezone a sufficient supply of adequate sites to meet lower income share of need following revision of general plan's housing element. Substantial evidence supported city's contention that implementation of the plan through rezoning, along with another city program, will have a positive effect on the supply of higher density, lower income housing and will satisfy the regional housing need in all income categories, thus complying with the law.
Comments on FONSECA v.CITY OF GILROY PART II