Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton

164 Cal. App. 4th 1561, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 300 (2008)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton

California Court of Appeal
164 Cal. App. 4th 1561, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 300 (2008)

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership