Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 23 contemplates that in meeting its housing obligations a municipality will need to alter existing land use regulations, including existing limitations in other elements of an adopted general plan." The court found that "inclusion in the revision of a housing element of proposed changes to other land use regula- tions in a general plan was expressly contemplated by the Legislature and permitted on the condition the municipality sets forth a timeline for adoption of such proposed changes." The court pointed to Government Code § 65583, subdivision (c), which requires that a housing element contain: A program which sets forth a schedule of actions during 'the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation... that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objec- tives of the housing element through the administration of land use and develop- ment controls . . . [which, shall, among other things,] [i]nclude an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various ac- tions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Italics added.) (Section 65583(c)(7).) The court found that this language in § 65583 subdivision (c) expressly contemplated that existing land use regulations, including other general plan provisions, would, if left unchanged, prevent municipalities from meeting their allocated housing obligations. Moreover, the court found that the require- ment that the housing element set forth "the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements" directly expressed the Legislature's understanding that, as in the case here, policies adopted in a housing element as a method of providing a defined number of housing units would "almost inevitably create inconsistency with land use limitations set forth in other elements of a general plan." Importantly, noted the court, the Legislature's expression of the understanding that inconsistencies would arise, came within the context of a specific provision that required municipalities to set forth a program, including a timeline, for resolving such inconsistencies. The court further explained: "Although requiring that consistency be achieved, use of the future tense in the statute plainly expresses legislative recognition that inconsistencies will arise and that it may not be possible to resolve them at the time a housing element is adopted or revised." The court found that there was a "clear legislative preference that municipalities promptly adopt housing plans which meet their numerical housing obligations even at the cost of creating temporary inconsistency in general plans." An in- terpretation such as that presented by Aviara—by which other elements of a general plan must be made consistent with the housing element immediately — would, declared the court: "no doubt delay the adoption of revised housing elements," which would be inconsistent with the express language of the Housing Element Law or the Legislature's urgent concern that municipalities provide adequate housing for the state's citizens. The court concluded by finding that the trial court acted properly in requir- ing that the City adopt the timeline required by § 65583, subdivision (c). The trial court was not, as Aviara had argued, required to order that the City vacate its adoption of the revision and wait until the land use elements could be amended before addressing its housing obligations. See also: Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors, 166 Cal. App. 3d 90, 212 Cal. Rptr. 273 (3d Dist. 1985). © 2012 Thomson Reuters 11