Rosa Maria Haro and Carlos Ibarra (hereinafter plaintiffs) brought suit against the City of Solana Beach (hereinafter the City) alleging that their actions violated state laws pertaining to affordable housing and land use. The lower court sustained the City’s demurrer because plaintiff’s action was untimely. Plaintiffs appealed arguing that the court based its decision on an inapplicable statute of limitations and thus erred in granting the demurrer.
In 2004, developers proposed a mixed use development at the location of the Solana Beach train station (hereinafter Cedros Crossing project) which included offices, restaurants and other businesses as well as residential units, some of which would be reserved for low income housing. In August 2006 the City adopted its revised housing element (hereinafter Housing Element), a part of the City’s general plan that contains policies to provide for regional housing needs. The two relevant aspects of the Housing Element for plaintiffs’ claims were (1) its identification of nine sites (including the subject site, “Site 8”) as appropriate for residential development, and (2) a plan to encourage mixed-use development, named “Program 1” through meetings with communities and developers, funding programs and increasing developer awareness of the potential for mixed-use development. The State Housing Department approved the Housing Element with several conditions, including a development application for Site 8 that included residential units and successful implementation of Program 1.
After a city council hearing on the Cedros Crossing project, the council voted to redesign the project because it had inconsistencies with local zoning and plan requirements. As a result the project lost funding and could not move forward. On July 3, 2008 plaintiffs notified the City that failure to approve the project was a failure to implement the Housing Element and that they would take legal action if the City did not do so. The City responded by passing a resolution retaining defense counsel for Housing Element cases. On September 2, 2009 plaintiffs filed a complaint with eight causes of action, alleging that by rejecting the initial plan for the Cedros Crossing project the City failed to implement its Housing Element and Project 1, and that they violated various sections of the Government Code (§65589.5; §65913 et seq.; §65590 et. seq.). The City encouraged the court to sustain the demurrer because the plaintiffs’ claims were untimely under both the 90-day and one-year statute of limitations at issue on appeal. Plaintiffs alleged that the City did not satisfy the conditions of approval of the Housing element when they rejected the Cedros Crossing project and additionally showed they would not approve a project at Site 8 that would meet the city’s housing needs, and as a result violated Housing Element law. However, the court did not resolve these issues because plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely.
Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in using the 90-day statute of limitations under section 66499.37 where they should have used the one-year statute of limitations under section 65009(d). The court here concluded that regardless of which statute of limitations is used, the complaint is nevertheless untimely, because the year-long statute of limitations ran out on August 28, 2009, and plaintiffs filed on September 2, 2009. The statute of limitations begins, according to the applicable statute, “60 days after notice is filed or the legislative body takes a final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first.” Plaintiffs conceded that the legislature had taken final action in response to their notice on August 27, 2008. They claim that the 60 days provision modifies both the filing of notice and the final legislative action, but the court refused to interpret the statute this way because it would render an entire phrase of the statute superfluous. The court also sought to effectuate the legislature’s goals of avoiding a premature challenge in court while providing certainty of a cause of action if the administrative body failed to act within 60 days. As a result, the decision of the lower court to sustain the demurrer was affirmed.
Haro v. City of Solana Beach, 2011 WL 1797292 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 5/12/11)
The opinion can be accessed here
