BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 602 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Feuer VERSION: 6/21/10 Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: No Hearing date: June 29, 2010 SUBJECT: Statute of limitations on housing element challenges DESCRIPTION: This bill restores the ability of an entity to submit a notice citing deficiencies in a city's or county's housing element at any time during the housing element planning period and then file a challenge within one year if city or county fails to address the deficiencies within 60 days. ANALYSIS: The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities and counties to prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element, to guide the future growth of a community. Following a staggered statutory schedule, cities and counties located within the territory of a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must revise their housing elements every eight years, and cities and counties in rural non-MPO regions must revise their housing elements every five years. These five- and eight-year periods are known as the housing element planning period. Before each revision, each community is assigned its fair share of housing for each income category through the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process. A housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning to meet its share of the RHNA, and ensure that regulatory systems provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews both draft and adopted housing elements to determine whether or not they are in substantial AB 602 (FEUER) Page 2 compliance with the law. The Planning and Zoning Law and the Subdivision Map Act also includes a number of sections governing zoning and entitlements specifically related to housing, including: The Housing Accountability Act, which requires a city or county to make one or more specified findings in order to disapprove a particular housing development. A provision requiring cities and counties, when adopting an ordinance which limits the number of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis, to make findings as to the public health, safety, and welfare benefits that justify reducing the housing opportunities of the region. Density bonus law, which requires cities and counties to grant a developer a density bonus, incentives, and concessions when the developer proposes to include specified percentages of affordable housing within a development. The Least Cost Zoning Law, which requires cities and counties to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to meet housing needs for all income categories and to contribute to producing housing at the lowest possible cost. A requirement that, when determining whether to approve a tentative subdivision map, a city or county shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect as of the date the developer's application is deemed complete. Prior to a recent court decision, it was understood that current law allowed a party to challenge the adequacy of a city's or county's housing element at any time during a planning period, provided that the challenger brought the action "in support of or to encourage or facilitate the development of housing that would increase the community's supply of [affordable] housing." The challenging party was required first to serve the city or county with a notice identifying the deficiencies in the housing element. After 60 days or the date on which the city or county took final action in response to the notice, whichever occurred first, the challenging party had one year to file the action in court. This process and statute of limitations also applied to actions brought pursuant to the housing-related statutes listed above. In 2006 Urban Habitat Program brought suit to challenge the City of Pleasanton's housing policies, including the city's annual cap on housing permits and the city's cap on the aggregate AB 602 (FEUER) Page 3 number of permissible housing units, both of which Urban Habitat claimed were insufficient to allow the city to meet its RHNA obligation. In 2008, the First District California Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision in the case of Urban Habitat v. Pleasanton allowing the case to proceed with respect to some causes of action, but ruling that the challenge to the housing element itself was time-barred. The court stated: Although the statute does not specify the time within which [a deficiency] notice must be given, it is our conclusion that the statute must be interpreted as containing a time limit within which this requirement must be met? In sum, a party bringing a challenge governed by section 65009, subdivision (d), has 90 days from the date a legislative action is taken or approval is given to notify the local land use authority of any claimed deficiencies in such an action or approval. Its claim then accrues 60 days after it gives this notice. In other words, instead of being able to initiate a challenge to a deficient housing element at any time during the planning period, housing advocates and other interested parties may now only initiate such a challenge by submitting a deficiency notice within 90 days of the housing element's adoption. This bill states the intent of the Legislature to modify the portion of the Urban Habitat opinion relating to the housing element statute of limitations and restores the ability of parties bringing a housing element action "in support of or to encourage or facilitate the development of housing that would increase the community's supply of [affordable] housing" to send a 60-day deficiency notice at any time after the adoption, amendment, or revision of a housing element. The bill further provides that after 60 days or the date on which the city or county takes final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first, the challenging party has one year to file the action in court. The bill does not alter the statute of limitations for actions brought under the other housing-related statutes listed above. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, the appellate court simply erred in barring a housing element challenge if the deficiency notice is served more than 90 days after adoption of the element. As indicated in the 1983 Senate AB 602 (FEUER) Page 4 committee and floor analyses for the bill that enacted this language, the law's lack of a deadline for serving such notices was intentional, not an omission. This bill restores the longstanding ability of parties to bring an action to enforce housing element law at all relevant times during the planning period. Unlike a decision related to an individual project, a housing element is a living document meant to guide current and future decisions. Where deficiencies exist, it is important that they be correctable at all times during the planning period. There are also logistical reasons for an ongoing enforcement period for housing elements. The state does not generally enforce housing element law. Enforcement is left to voluntary compliance by local governments with the possibility of citizen enforcement actions, most often by affordable housing advocacy groups. There are not many of these nonprofit organizations in the state, and their resources are spread very thin. They simply do not have the ability to monitor the adoption of all the state's housing elements in real time and immediately file deficiency notices. Moreover, most of these groups are local and faced with the fact that all jurisdictions within a region adopt their housing elements around the same time. The area covered by the Southern California Association of Governments, for instance, includes 200 jurisdictions. As long as housing element law relies on citizen actions for enforcement and the resources of nonprofit citizen groups are limited, effective enforcement requires allowing a meaningful opportunity to raise alleged violations during the time when the housing element is in force. 2.A brief history of the statute . The statutory language interpreted by the court and at issue in this bill was added to statute by AB 998 (Waters), Chapter 1138, Statutes of 1983, a bill sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California Building Industry Association. AB 998 created a short statute of limitations period for land use decisions generally but provided a specific exception to protect the ability to challenge deficient housing elements. The Senate Housing and Land Use Committee and the Senate Third Reading analysis of the bill stated that the bill: Specifies that for challenges in support of low- and moderate-income housing requirements, the petitioner shall notice local government 60 days prior to filing action. The [one-year] statute of limitations then begins on the AB 602 (FEUER) Page 5 first day the legislative body fails to act. In the intervening 25 years prior to the Urban Habitat ruling, housing advocates filed and successfully settled at least ten cases in which the 60-day deficiency notice was sent more than 90 days after adoption of the city's or county's housing element. In none of these cases was the timeliness on the advocates' suit contested. Likewise, six bills amended other portions of this statute during those intervening years, and there was never any controversy surrounding the lack of a deadline for housing advocates to serve a deficiency notice nor any attempt to change the statute in this regard. 3.Current level of housing element compliance . According to HCD's website as of June 7, 2010, only 46 percent of cities and counties have adopted an HCD-approved housing element for the current planning period that began in 2005 for the San Diego region, 2008 for the Southern California, Fresno, Kern, and Sacramento regions, and the summer of 2009 for the remaining areas of the state. 4.Unlocking the private market . The purpose of housing element law is to create opportunities for the private housing market to function. Builders cannot build without access to appropriately zoned land, and current land use plans in many cities and counties in California fail to provide sufficient opportunities to accommodate projected population growth. The San Diego Association of Governments' Regional Comprehensive Plan describes this typical California paradox in the following way: Under current plans and policies, more than 90 percent of [the San Diego region's] remaining vacant land designated for housing is planned for densities of less than one home per acre, and most is in the rural back country areas dependent upon scarce groundwater supplies. And of the remaining vacant land planned for housing in the 18 incorporated cities, only about seven percent is planned for multifamily housing. When taken together, the current land use plans of the 19 local jurisdictions do not accommodate the amount of growth anticipated in our region. SANDAG's population forecast, which reflects the current adopted local land use plans in the region, projects that while population will increase by 37 percent by 2030, housing will grow by just 30 percent. The forecast shows that if local plans are not changed, demand for housing AB 602 (FEUER) Page 6 will continue to outpace the supply, just as it does today. Housing element law addresses this problem directly by requiring cities and counties to zone land at appropriate densities to accommodate the projected housing needs of all income groups and to remove constraints that prevent such sites from being developed at the allowed densities. Cities and counties, however, are not required to build housing because that is the role of private developers. The law holds cities and counties accountable only for that which they control: zoning and land use entitlements. Without the ability to enforce housing element law, the market's ability to meet housing demand may well remain locked up. 5.Key to AB 32/SB 375 implementation . In 2006, the Legislature enacted AB 32 (Nu?ez), Chapter 488, the Global Warming Act of 2006, which requires the Air Resources Board to establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit such that by 2020 California reduces its greenhouse gas emissions to the level they were in 1990. One of the key strategies to achieve the AB 32 mandate is to promote more compact forms of development in California. In 2008, the Legislature enacted SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter 728, which requires the Air Resources Board to provide each major region of the state with greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector and requires the regional transportation plan to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), including a regional land use plan, designed to achieve the targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Regional transportation planning agencies, however, do not have land use powers. To achieve the land use vision laid out in the SCS, cities and counties must alter their general plans and zoning ordinances to allow the types of development the SCS contemplates. These city and county actions are voluntary, however. SB 375 contains no requirement for a city or county to conform its land use plans to the SCS. Because a region's RHNA housing need allocation must be consistent with the SCS, because housing element law requires cities and counties to identify adequately zones sites or rezone land to accommodate lower-income housing, and because density is the proxy for affordability, housing element law is currently the only tool to get cities and counties to increase allowable housing densities needed to achieve the SB 375 regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Without an effective way to enforce housing element law, the only tool AB 602 (FEUER) Page 7 to effectively ensure implementation of SB 375 at the local level is lost. 6.Arguments in opposition . Opponents oppose lengthening statutes of limitations generally. They believe memories fade, witnesses become difficult to locate, and courts are less likely to be fair. Moreover, short statutes of limitations encourage the diligent settling of claims. Previous votes not relevant POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, June 23, 2010) SUPPORT: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (sponsor) Housing California (sponsor) California Association of Realtors California Coalition for Rural Housing City of Oakland Community Housing Improvement Program Sacramento Housing Alliance Self-Help Enterprises Silicon Valley Leadership Group Transform OPPOSED: Civil Justice Association of California