101-A - AB 325 Oppose Memo.pdf
May 1, 2013
The Honorable Luis Alejo
State Capitol, Room 2117
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: AB 325 (Alejo). Land use and planning: cause of actions: time.
(As introduced)
Notice of Oppose, Unless Amended
Dear Assembly Member Alejo:
The League of California Cities, the American Planning Association California Chapter, the
California State Association of Counties, and Rural County Representatives of California have
taken a position of oppose, unless amended on AB 325.
While we have discussed the following amendments with your staff and the sponsors, we
would like to formally offer the following amendments which would remove our opposition to
this bill:
• The Pleasanton ruling stays intact for jurisdictions that adopt a housing element— no
changes to Section 65009 (d) for any city or county that adopts a housing element.
• Extend the statute of limitations to 60 days, plus one year after HCD’s findings are sent
to a local government under Section 65585 (h). This would allow third parties to
identify those few agencies whose housing elements are not certified by HCD and
provide adequate time to file suit.
• Delete Section 65589.3 (b).
• Add a new four-year statute of limitations for failure to adopt with a 90-day notification
requirement for locals to respond.
In our opinion, extending the statute of limitations to challenge an adopted housing element is
not advisable for the following reasons:
• HCD Review. Each city and county’s housing element is subjected to an extensive
review process. Housing advocates, other members of the public and local government
staffs participate in this process. HCD testified last year that it reviewed each local
government’s draft housing element three times. By the time HCD produces its final set
of comments, all interested parties have had ample opportunity to provide comments.
The emphasis that AB 325 places on the importance of litigation challenges the
expertise of HCD and the need for this extensive review process.
• Housing, not lawsuits. SB 375 requires the allocation of RHNA to conform to the MPO’s
sustainable communities strategy and imposes strict time limits on cities and counties to
make zoning available to accommodate their RHNA. Allowing lawsuits challenging a
housing element four years after adoption directly contradicts the planning strategy in
SB 375.
The vast majority of jurisdictions are doing the right thing. Almost 90 percent of jurisdictions
dedicated the time, expense, and staff resources in order to have an adopted housing element.
To expand the statute of limitations for jurisdictions that are doing everything that the law asks
of them makes no sense and we believe the legislation should focus on those jurisdictions that
failed to adopt a housing element at all.
While sponsors have stated that HCD can make mistakes and thus a longer statute of
limitations is necessary to ensure that every housing element is adequate, they have also stated
that they do not intend to sue agencies with HCD-certified housing elements. There would be
substantially fewer housing elements to review if the focus was on jurisdictions that failed to
adopt a housing element. Extending the time third parties can sue jurisdictions that followed
the law, made it through the thorough HCD housing element review process, and adopted a
housing element, does not increase compliance or build more affordable housing.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss our concerns and alternative proposal at your
convenience. If you have any questions, please contact any of our representatives below.
Sincerely,
David Snow, AICP
Vice President Policy and Legislation
APA California
dsnow@rwglaw.com
Kirstin Kolpitcke, Lobbyist
League of California Cities
kkolpitcke@cacities.org
Kathy Mannion
Rural County Representatives of California
kmannion@rcrcnet.org
Kiana Buss
CSAC
Associate Legislative Representative
kbuss@counties.org