AB 602 - An Act to Amend Sections 65009, 65589.3, and 65755 of the Government Code, Relating to Land Use.

Land use and planning: cause of actions: time limitations. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires an action or proceeding against local zoning and planning decisions of a legislative body to be commenced and the legislative body to be served within a year of accrual of the cause of action if it meets certain requirements. Where the action or proceeding is brought in support of or to encourage or facilitate the development of housing that… More
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires an action or proceeding against local zoning and planning decisions of a legislative body to be commenced and the legislative body to be served within a year of accrual of the cause of action if it meets certain requirements. Where the action or proceeding is brought in support of or to encourage or facilitate the development of housing that would increase the community’s supply of affordable housing, a cause of action accrues 60 days after notice is filed or the legislative body takes a final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first.

This bill would authorize the notice to be filed any time within 5 years after a specified action pursuant to existing law. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that its provisions modify a specified court opinion. The bill would also provide that in that specified action or proceeding, no remedy pursuant to specified provisions of law abrogate, impair, or otherwise interfere with the full exercise of the rights and protections granted to a tentative map application or a developer, as prescribed.

Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption, in any action filed on or after January 1, 1991, taken to challenge the validity of a housing element, of the validity of a housing element or amendment if the Department of Housing and Community Development has found that the element or amendment substantially complies with specified provisions of existing law.

This bill would provide that in any action brought against a city, county, or city and county to challenge the adequacy of a housing element, if a court finds that the adopted housing element or amended housing element for the current planning period substantially complies with specified provisions, the element or amendment be deemed to satisfy any condition of a state-administered housing grant program requiring a department finding of housing element compliance. Hide
 
Status:
This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 24, 2010.

voted YES: 27 voted NO: 5
7 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 65009, 65589.3, and 65755 of the Government Code, Relating to Land Use.

AB 602 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires an action or proceeding against local zoning and planning decisions of a legislative body to be commenced and the legislative body to be served within a year of accrual of the cause of action if it meets certain requirements. Where the action or proceeding is brought in support of or to encourage or facilitate the development of housing that would increase the community’s supply of affordable housing, a cause of action accrues 60 days after notice is filed or the legislative body takes a final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first.

This bill would authorize the notice to be filed any time within 5 years after a specified action pursuant to existing law. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that its provisions modify a specified court opinion. The bill would also provide that in that specified action or proceeding, no remedy pursuant to specified provisions of law abrogate, impair, or otherwise interfere with the full exercise of the rights and protections granted to a tentative map application or a developer, as prescribed.

Existing law establishes a rebuttable… More
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires an action or proceeding against local zoning and planning decisions of a legislative body to be commenced and the legislative body to be served within a year of accrual of the cause of action if it meets certain requirements. Where the action or proceeding is brought in support of or to encourage or facilitate the development of housing that would increase the community’s supply of affordable housing, a cause of action accrues 60 days after notice is filed or the legislative body takes a final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first.

This bill would authorize the notice to be filed any time within 5 years after a specified action pursuant to existing law. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that its provisions modify a specified court opinion. The bill would also provide that in that specified action or proceeding, no remedy pursuant to specified provisions of law abrogate, impair, or otherwise interfere with the full exercise of the rights and protections granted to a tentative map application or a developer, as prescribed.

Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption, in any action filed on or after January 1, 1991, taken to challenge the validity of a housing element, of the validity of a housing element or amendment if the Department of Housing and Community Development has found that the element or amendment substantially complies with specified provisions of existing law.

This bill would provide that in any action brought against a city, county, or city and county to challenge the adequacy of a housing element, if a court finds that the adopted housing element or amended housing element for the current planning period substantially complies with specified provisions, the element or amendment be deemed to satisfy any condition of a state-administered housing grant program requiring a department finding of housing element compliance. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 65009, 65589.3, and 65755 of the Government Code, Relating to Land Use.
Author(s)
Mike Feuer
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Land use and planning: cause of actions: time limitations
Major Actions
Introduced2/25/2009
Referred to Committee
Passed Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection3/31/2009
Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations4/22/2009
Passed Assembly5/04/2009
Passed Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing6/29/2010
Passed Senate8/24/2010
Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary8/25/2010
Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary8/25/2010
Failed passage in Assembly Committee on Local Government8/26/2010
Passed Assembly Committee on Local Government8/26/2010
Passed Assembly Committee on Local Government8/30/2010
Passed Assembly8/30/2010
Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/13/2010
Vetoed by Governor9/30/2010
Vetoed by Governor9/30/2010
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteAssembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer ProtectionDo pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations with recommendation: To Consent Calendar.3/31/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection
11 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass, to Consent Calendar.4/22/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
16 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblyAB 602 PRICE Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session5/04/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
79 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on Transportation and HousingDo pass.6/29/2010This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing
6 voted YES 3 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
currently selectedSenateAssembly 3rd Reading AB602 Feuer By Steinberg8/24/2010This bill PASSED the Senate
27 voted YES 5 voted NO 7 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciarySenate amendments be concurred in.8/25/2010This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
6 voted YES 1 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryBe referred to Committee on Local Government.8/25/2010This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
6 voted YES 1 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Local GovernmentSenate amendments be concurred in.8/26/2010This motion DID NOT PASS the Assembly Committee on Local Government
3 voted YES 2 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Local GovernmentSet first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.8/26/2010This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Local Government
9 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Local GovernmentSenate amendments be concurred in.8/30/2010This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Local Government
5 voted YES 1 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblyAB 602 Feuer Concurrence in Senate Amendments8/30/2010This bill PASSED the Assembly
53 voted YES 20 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced2/25/2009
2/25/2009Read first time. To print.
2/26/2009From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.
3/16/2009Referred to Com. on B. & P.
3/25/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.
3/26/2009Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
select this voteVote3/31/2009Do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations with recommendation: To Consent Calendar.
3/31/2009From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (March 31).
select this voteVote4/22/2009Do pass, to Consent Calendar.
4/23/2009From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (April 22).
4/27/2009Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
5/04/2009Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1241.)
5/04/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage5/04/2009AB 602 PRICE Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session
5/14/2009Referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
6/18/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
6/22/2009Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
6/25/2009Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
7/07/2009Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
8/27/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
2/04/2010Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.
6/21/2010From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H.
select this voteVote6/29/2010Do pass.
6/30/2010From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (June 29).
7/01/2010Read second time. To third reading.
8/20/2010Read third time, amended. To second reading.
8/23/2010Read second time. To third reading.
8/24/2010Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 27. Noes 5. Page 4822.)
8/24/2010In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 26 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage8/24/2010Assembly 3rd Reading AB602 Feuer By Steinberg
8/25/2010Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and L. GOV. pursuant to Asssembly Rule 77.2. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 6690.)
select this voteVote8/25/2010Senate amendments be concurred in.
select this voteVote8/25/2010Be referred to Committee on Local Government.
8/26/2010From committee: With recommendation: That Senate amendments be concurred in, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Re-referred. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (August 25). Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 6756.) In committee: Set first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
select this voteVote8/26/2010Senate amendments be concurred in.
select this voteVote8/26/2010Set first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
8/27/2010Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 6774.)
8/30/2010From committee: With recommendation: That Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (August 30). Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 53. Noes 20. Page 6862.)
select this voteVote8/30/2010Senate amendments be concurred in.
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage8/30/2010AB 602 Feuer Concurrence in Senate Amendments
9/13/2010Enrolled and to the Governor at 5 p.m.
Vetoed9/30/2010Vetoed by Governor.

Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

supported this bill

18 times as much
$44,699
$345,800
$473,136
$0
$44,390
$908,025
$50,077
$50,077

opposed this bill

Pro-business organizations [About]
Municipal & county government organizations (split) [About]
6 Organizations Supported and 3 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend Sections 65009, 65589.3, and 65755 of the Government Code, Relating to Land Use.: Assembly 3rd Reading AB602 Feuer By Steinberg

6 organizations supported this bill

California Association of Realtors
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
City of Oakland
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
National Association of Home Builders
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
Sierra Club California
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.

3 organizations opposed this bill

American Planning Association
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
California State Association of Counties
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
Civil Justice Association of California
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (2010, June 25). Bill Analysis AB 602 6-25-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Leg Info.

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2010.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Sam AanestadRCA-4$13,700$0No
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$16,426$0Yes
Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$22,100$1,500Yes
Ron CalderonDCA-30$50,280$2,750Yes
Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$9,900$0Yes
Dave CogdillRCA-14$33,150$1,200No
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$25,100$0Yes
Lou CorreaDCA-34$51,081$4,896Yes
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$19,950$0Yes
Jeff DenhamRCA-12$3,500$1,000Not Voting
Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Yes
Bob DuttonRCA-31$38,479$4,600Yes
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$29,025$0Yes
Dean FlorezDCA-16$2,000$0Yes
Loni HancockDCA-9$11,550$0Yes
Tom HarmanRCA-35$35,200$3,283Not Voting
Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$3,500$1,000No
Bob HuffRCA-29$38,390$0No
Christine KehoeDCA-39$16,100$0Yes
Mark LenoDCA-3$29,800$0Yes
Carol LiuDCA-21$20,200$0Yes
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$14,100$0Yes
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$34,650$4,775Yes
Jenny OropezaDCA-28$1,000$0Not Voting
Alex PadillaDCA-20$27,133$6,747Yes
Fran PavleyDCA-23$18,450$0Yes
Curren PriceDCA-26$29,333$0Yes
Gloria RomeroDCA-24$0$0Yes
George RunnerRCA-17$35,250$1,000No
Joe SimitianDCA-11$22,900$2,000Not Voting
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$52,622$500Yes
Tony StricklandRCA-19$54,750$7,200Not Voting
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$44,900$0Not Voting
Pat WigginsDCA-2$250$0Not Voting
Lois WolkDCA-5$16,928$0Yes
Rod WrightDCA-25$24,200$2,527Yes
Mark WylandRCA-38$26,600$1,500Yes
Leland YeeDCA-8$35,529$3,600Yes

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Sam AanestadRCA-4$13,700$0No
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$16,426$0Yes
Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$22,100$1,500Yes
Ron CalderonDCA-30$50,280$2,750Yes
Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$9,900$0Yes
Dave CogdillRCA-14$33,150$1,200No
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$25,100$0Yes
Lou CorreaDCA-34$51,081$4,896Yes
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$19,950$0Yes
Jeff DenhamRCA-12$3,500$1,000Not Voting
Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Yes
Bob DuttonRCA-31$38,479$4,600Yes
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$29,025$0Yes
Dean FlorezDCA-16$2,000$0Yes
Loni HancockDCA-9$11,550$0Yes
Tom HarmanRCA-35$35,200$3,283Not Voting
Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$3,500$1,000No
Bob HuffRCA-29$38,390$0No
Christine KehoeDCA-39$16,100$0Yes
Mark LenoDCA-3$29,800$0Yes
Carol LiuDCA-21$20,200$0Yes
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$14,100$0Yes
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$34,650$4,775Yes
Jenny OropezaDCA-28$1,000$0Not Voting
Alex PadillaDCA-20$27,133$6,747Yes
Fran PavleyDCA-23$18,450$0Yes
Curren PriceDCA-26$29,333$0Yes
Gloria RomeroDCA-24$0$0Yes
George RunnerRCA-17$35,250$1,000No
Joe SimitianDCA-11$22,900$2,000Not Voting
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$52,622$500Yes
Tony StricklandRCA-19$54,750$7,200Not Voting
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$44,900$0Not Voting
Pat WigginsDCA-2$250$0Not Voting
Lois WolkDCA-5$16,928$0Yes
Rod WrightDCA-25$24,200$2,527Yes
Mark WylandRCA-38$26,600$1,500Yes
Leland YeeDCA-8$35,529$3,600Yes

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
Builders associations$473,136
Real estate$345,800
Health & welfare policy$44,699
Environmental policy$44,390
Municipal & county government organizations$13,650
General business associations$0

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Pro-business organizations$50,077
Municipal & county government organizations$13,650
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range