In general, California law requires a party challenging certain zoning and land use decisions to first give notice of the challenge to the city, and to then file a lawsuit within 90 days of the city’s zoning or land use approval.[1] However, on June 20, 2008, the California Court of Appeal substantially revised this requirement, holding that, if such challenge relates to a conflict in State or local law, the 90-day deadline does not apply. The case, Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton,[2] is significant for cities and public agencies facing potentially-late claims, and to businesses and community organizations contemplating claims which might have missed the 90-day deadline.
The facts in Urban Habitat Program relate to the City of Pleasanton’s obligations under California’s Housing Element Law,[3] which required the City to “make adequate provision for the housing needs of all income groups, including the [City’s] share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation.” Local legislation made it impossible for the City to meet its share of Regional Housing Needs Allocation, due to a voter-approved “Housing Cap” initiative and a City “Growth Management Ordinance.”
Urban Habitat Program (“UHP”) filed a complaint against the City alleging that the Housing Cap initiative and Growth Management Ordinance conflicted with the City’s obligations under the Housing Element Law. The trial court noted that Government Code Section 65009 required UHP to notify the City of the violation and to file its lawsuit within 90 days of the date the action or approval was made. Since UHP failed to notify the City of the deficiencies until after the 90-day deadline, the trial court held that UHP’s lawsuit was barred.
However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that UHP’s claims did not challenge a specific act or decision by the City, thereby removing those claims from Government Code Section 65009’s 90-day filing deadline. Rather, the Court of Appeal held that the claims were a plea to remedy deficiencies resulting from conflicting laws brought to light by UHP’s claims. The court cited Fontana Redevelopment Agency v. Torres,[4] which states that even when an unlawful government action may be immune from attack, it may be challenged under new factual circumstances. In this case, the court agreed with UHP that the City’s Housing Cap law conflicted with the City’s obligation under State law and its claims thus alleged new issues beyond the City’s mere act of approval. Thus, the court permitted UHP’s case against City to proceed on the claims outside the scope of Government Code Section 65009.
Accordingly, local planning and land use officials should take note that certain lawsuits may be brought against zoning and development laws that conflict with each other, even if it seems that the 90-day statute of limitations would bar legal action. To determine whether a claim is time-barred, officials must not only consider whether the claim challenges a specific land use or zoning-related action, but must also consider whether the claim challenges unexpected discrepancies in the law. Businesses, community groups, and public activists who wish to challenge a city’s land use or zoning decision should likewise consider framing their claims in terms of challenging legal discrepancies, in addition to challenging particular city actions.
For more information regarding land use and zoning issues, including the implications of Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, please contact Matthew Gorman at (707) 542-4833 or mgorman@agclawfirm.com.
[1] Cal. Gov’t Code § 65009.
[2] (June 20, 2008) 2008 DJDAR 1171.
[3] Gov’t Code § 65580.
[4] (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 902.
