Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton
California Court of Appeal
164 Cal. App. 4th 1561, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 300 (2008)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Under California’s Housing Element Law (Element Law), the City of Pleasanton (Pleasanton) (defendant) was required to adopt a housing element, or development plan, that ensured adequate access to housing for persons in all income groups. To comply with the Element Law, the adopted plan also needed to satisfy the Bay Area Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), which required Pleasanton to build 5,059 new housing units by 2006 with 1,184 being low-income housing. When Pleasanton adopted its development plan in 2003, the plan disclosed that current zoning provisions would prevent Pleasanton from developing the high-density sites needed to fulfill the requirements for low-income housing. The plan stated that necessary rezonings would occur by June 2004. That date kept being pushed back, however, and eventually Pleasanton said that the rezoning would not be complete until December 2007 or later. The California Department of Housing and Community Development deemed Pleasanton out of compliance with the Element Law. Urban Habitat Program (Urban) (plaintiff), a nonprofit organization promoting equal access to housing, and Sandra DeGregorio (plaintiff), a low-income single mother, sued Pleasanton, seeking a declaratory injunction finding Pleasanton in violation of state law and an injunction requiring Pleasanton’s compliance. In addition to Pleasanton’s failure to timely rezone, Urban and DeGregorio claimed that Pleasanton had adopted two local provisions making compliance with the Element Law and RHNA impossible. First, a housing-cap initiative restricted the number of units that could be built. Second, Pleasanton adopted a growth-planning ordinance that limited the number of building permits that could be issued between 2007 and 2009. Urban and DeGregorio alleged that the number of units and permits allowed under the housing cap and growth ordinance was less than the number of units necessary to comply with the Element Law and RHNA. The trial court dismissed the complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds. Urban and De Gregorio appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Haerle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.