195 Cal. App. 4th 542
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- City directed Cedros Crossing redesign after finding it inconsistent with zoning and specific plan on Apr 28, 2008.
- Housing Element adopted in 2006-07 identified Site 8 with 131 housing units and 13 affordable units; Program 1 to encourage mixed-use development.
- State Housing Department found Housing Element compliant conditioned on Site 8 proposal and implementation of Program 1.
- July 3, 2008, plaintiffs served a notice of deficiencies alleging non-implementation of Housing Element; August 27, 2008, City adopted Resolution 2008-152 retaining outside counsel.
- City’s August 27, 2008 action was a final action in response to the notice; accrual under 65009(d)(2) begins 60 days after notice or upon final action, whichever first.
- Plaintiffs filed the action on September 2, 2009; trial court sustained demurrer as untimely under 66499.37 and 65009(d), and for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies | Haro and Ibarra rely on §65009(d) for affordable housing actions. | City argues §66499.37 applies (90 days) or §65009(d) (one year) but claims untimely. | Court applied §66499.37 or §65009(d); in any case, action untimely. |
| Accrual date under §65009(d)(2) | Accrual began 60 days after notice or upon final action, depending on interpretation. | Accrual triggered by final action; 60-day rule governs accrual only if no final action. | Final action occurred Aug 27, 2008; accrual date fixed at that time. |
| Timeliness of filing under §65009(d) | Filed Sept 2, 2009, within one year after accrual under §65009(d). | Filed after the one-year window; untimely. | Action untimely under §65009(d) even if applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 33 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2004) (establishes 90-day baseline for planning/zoning challenges)
- Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, 164 Cal.App.4th 1561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses §65009(d) accrual and timetable implications)
- Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, 148 Cal.App.4th 1174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (housing element law and substantial compliance framework)
- Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 22 Cal.App.4th 974 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (judicial review of housing elements; scope limits)
- Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990) (statutory interpretation; avoidance of superfluous language)
- Torrey Hills Community Coalition v. City of San Diego, 186 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation and accrual principles in public-rights actions)