Legal Alerts

Cap Prevents City from Meeting State-mandated Housing Requirements

In a recent ruling with potentially wide-ranging and immediate impacts on local land use authorities, the Alameda County Superior Court has ordered the City of Pleasanton to rescind its voter-approved housing cap on grounds that the cap violates state law and prevents the City from meeting state-mandated housing requirements.

The decision in Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, Case No. RG06-293831 (March 12, 2010), involved Measure GG, a housing cap passed by the City’s voters in 1996. Measure GG limited the City to approving no more than 29,000 additional housing units. Urban Habitat Program argued that Measure GG conflicted with state law which allows local authorities to make land use decisions within their borders, provided that adequate provision is made for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The court held that, in order to meet these housing goals, cities, counties and other local land use authorities are required to maintain an inventory of land available for residential development and allow that land to be developed to the extent necessary to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In 2003, the City adopted a general plan housing element which admitted that Measure GG prohibited the City from approving the number of housing units needed to comply with the RHNA.

Of note, the California Attorney General intervened in the case in support of Urban Habitat Program. He argued that by lifting the City’s cap on housing construction, it would allow the co-location of housing near the City’s many jobs. Specifically, the Attorney General argued that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would result if housing was provided for some or all of the 40,000 workers that currently commute to and from the City. His arguments echoed the requirements of recently enacted Senate Bill 375, which requires that planning decisions integrate the location of housing with existing and planned transit facilities and job-rich areas, thus reducing greenhouse gases caused by commuters and other traffic. In part, SB 375’s requirements would be implemented through adjustments periodically made to the RHNA.

Ultimately, the Superior Court ruled that Measure GG was void because it was in direct conflict with state law. Further, the court ordered the City to amend its zoning and land use plans to accommodate the unmet RHNA allocation for the 1999-2007 planning period. The court made no express ruling on the Attorney General’s arguments. However, this case promises to be one of many which ties the requirements of SB 375, RHNA allocations and land use decisions to global warming implications.

For more information on how this decision may impact your projects, please contact your Best Best & Krieger attorney, Beth Dorris or an attorney in the firm’s Environmental Law & Natural Resources practice group.

Disclaimer: BB&K e-Bulletins are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué.