Ongoing Litigation
Urban Habitat et al. v. City of Pleasanton
(California Court of Appeal, First District)
On June 20, 2008 the Court of Appeal in Urban Habitat et al. v. City of Pleasanton (A118327) reversed the trial court’s dismissal of most of plaintiffs’ claims in this suit attacking the City’s exclusionary zoning practices and its failure to implement its housing element program to rezone sites for affordable housing. The unpublished decision reinstates the claims of Urban Habitat and low-income teacher and mother Sandra De Gregorio challenging long standing exclusionary zoning policies and practices. The City’s housing cap and growth management ordinance prevents it from rezoning enough sites to meet the City’s share of the regional need for very low and low income housing. Even though its Housing Element obligated the City to rezone enough land for 800 units of affordable housing by June 2004, but the City refuses to do so. Since 1999, only 20 units for very-low income families have been built. CAHLP/PILP is co-counsel with Public Advocates and Munger, Tolles & Olson. CRLA, Law Center for Families, Legal Services of Northern Calif., Public Interest Law Firm, Public Counsel, Legal Aid Society of Orange County and the Public Law Center filed an amicus curiae brief on appellants’ behalf. For more information contact Michael Rawson.
Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, et al. v. City of Dublin, et al.
(U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal)
On May 23, 2008, the CAHLP and co-counsel Bay Area Legal Aid won a significant victory from the Court . The case involves a proposal by the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) to dispose of 150 units of public housing in the Arroyo Vista development. Plaintiffs consist of four residents of the property and the tenants' association, who oppose DHA's proposal to sell the property to a developer who will demolish all the units to construct a replacement project which includes smaller units, at substantially higher rents, on half the property (with the other half redeveloped as market rate for-sale homes). In January 2008, plaintiffs moved the U.S. District Court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin DHA's activities to displace and relocate at least 60 families prior to even completing its application for disposition. However, prior to hearing on the motion, the District Court requested further briefing on the issue of whether plaintiffs have a private right of action. In a well reasoned decison, District Court Judge Marilyn Patel holds that plaintiffs have a private right of action to enforce the resident notice and relocation assistance provisions of the public housing disposition statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437p, which proscribes the circumstances under which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may approve or must disapprove applications to dispose of public housing. The decision finds that plaintiffs have a right to receive notification of the disposition prior to any relocation or displacement activity, and this right necessarily includes the right to be told that HUD has approved the application. In this case, DHA has yet to even complete its application, much less receive any approval from HUD, so the reasoning of the decision strongly implies that plaintiffs will prevail upon renewing their motion for preliminary injunction. Contact Deborah Collins (ext. 156) of the CAHLP or Lisa Greif of Bay Area Legal Aid (510-663-4744) for pleadings and further information.
Fontana Redevelopment Agency v. Torres
(Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County; Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2, California; 153 Cal.App.4th 902 (2007))
Low-income residents and an affordable housing organization, Libreria del Pueblo, recently prevailed in their efforts to stop egregious violations of state redevelopment law by the Fontana Redevelopment Agency. Despite a $135 million “debt limit” for its Jurupa Hills project area, Fontana owes $1.3 billion to a private “infrastructure” developer with interest compounding annually at 15.5%. For years, Fontana has diverted millions of dollars to repay this debt – all of the Agency’s share of redevelopment taxes for Jurupa Hills, including at least $53 million from its affordable housing fund, all bond proceeds, and other funds. When it sought to issue another $40 million in bonds to repay the developer, the Court of Appeal properly said no. It refused to validate the Agency’s proposed bond issuance as exceeding its debt limit, and because the Agency failed to comply with its affordable housing obligations. Finally, the Court also refused to validate an agreement between the Agency and the state to purportedly “settle” negative audit findings with respect to Fontana’s failure to comply with its affordable housing obligations. PILP/CAHLP was co-counsel for Appellants Torres, et al., along with Western Center on Law and Poverty; Inland Counties Legal Services; and Briggs Law Corporation.
Wiggins v. Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency
(Superior Court of Los Angeles; Second District Court of Appeals)
This case is a reverse validation action challenging the amendment of a Central Business District (CBD) redevelopment plan and adoption of a City Center plan. The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) has appealed the trial court’s judgment invalidating the City Center plan. We anticipate a favorable outcome based on an appellate decision in a related case involving the CRA’s Central Industrial plan.
Saldaña v. Santa Cruz County
(Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County)
The County of Santa Cruz failed to adopt any revision to their general plan housing element, despite a December 31, 2002 deadline. After numerous demands, CRLA clients filed suit on July 9, 2004. The case has seen a long procedural history including removal to Federal District Court in a bid for delay, remand back to Superior Court, multiple motions for issuance of a Writ of Mandate, partial granting of the motions, and a premature appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals by the County that plaintiffs succeeded in dismissing. Finally, in July 2006, plaintiffs prevailed on their central claim, winning issuance of a writ of mandate that requires the County to adopt an adequate element. After two and a half years of litigation, the County adopted a housing element in November 2006 that would rezone no less than 32 acres of sites in the County to permit by right development of multifamily housing, and a commitment of $15 million of County funds to support affordable housing development on these sites. For the first time in 20 years, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined the County’s housing element substantially complies with state housing element law, conditioned upon planned rezoning by June 2007. Unfortunately, the County has failed to comply with this condition. Petitioners are now pursuing enforcement of the July 2006 writ of mandate.
North State Building Industry Association of Superior California v. County of Sacramento
(3rd Dist. Court Appeal; Superior Court, Sacramento County)
Representing the Sacramento Housing Alliance, Housing California, NPH and lower income tenants, PILP and co-counsel LSNC and WCLP intervened on behalf of the County in defense of the County’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, which required new developments include affordable housing. The trial court granted our Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on the failure of the complaint to state a case for violation of the takings clause and other constitutional and statutory claims. The BIA appealed, and the case was briefed. After briefing the BIA settled the case, preserving the inclusionary zoning ordinance and dismissing its appeal. |
