Does the Housing Accountability Act apply?
Alright, you’re here to figure out if the Housing Accountability Act can be used to get more housing where you live. Here’s a quick guide to help you figure that out. You don’t have to nail all of this before reaching out to CaRLA about a possible case, but knowing what’s up can help you find these cases where you wouldn’t have otherwise. First, some part of your local government (a planning commission, the city council, the zoning adjustment board, or something else) has to Deny a new housing project Approve a new housing project, but with fewer units than the original application Approve a new housing project, but in a way that renders it financially infeasible to be built Stall out the approval of the relevant permits for a new project with housing for longer than 180 days If any of those things are true, cool, let’s move on. Second, the project with new housing has to already fit into what’s called the “general plan and zoning standards” for the city. That’s a weird phrase, but it means that the city has to have pre-written, objective standards for what housing, what kind of housing, and where housing is allowed. […]
Los Altos – 40 North Main St.
In late 2018, a developer in Los Altos took a discretionary project that had been denied by the Los Altos City Council and reworked it to qualify for ministerial approval under SB 35. The project, which had initially been entirely office space was converted to a mixed-use development with multiple on-site below-market-rate units. The developer submitted an application for ministerial approval to the Los Altos Planning Department in November of 2018 and in December of 2018 the Planning Department informed the developer that the project did not qualify for ministerial approval under SB 35. They alleged that the project did not comply with parking egress standards and that the project should be subject to a 50% affordability threshold rather than a 10% affordability threshold. The developer disagreed with this assessment and contended that neither of these points rendered the project ineligible for streamlining. In particular the developer pointed out that the city failed to submit the mandatory annual housing production report required by state law automatically setting the SB 35 streamlining threshold at 10%.The Planning Department still maintains that the project violates design standards related to parking but they concede that the 10% threshold is the correct one. The Planning […]
Overview of the Housing Accountability Act
Text of the Housing Accountability Act Article about the HAA by Andrew Junius, a land-use attorney in San Francisco. Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, a 2011 case that decided the HAA also applies to market-rate housing.
Respondents’ … Notice of Demurrer Hearing and of Demurrer to Verified Petition
This is what it sounds like, a short document announcing that the City is filing a Demurrer.
Respondents’ … Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Demurrer
Here the City of Sonoma is asking the Judge to “Notice” aka look at, the exhibits they include. The exhibits are the legislative record of the 1990 amendments to the HAA. When the HAA was initially passed in 1982, it was very simple, it was just section (j). It applied to all proposed housing, and just said, ‘cities, you have to follow your own zoning.’ In 1990, affordable housing developers added sections that apply to subsidized housing. These sections go farther than just requiring cities to follow their own zoning, they also describe circumstances where subsidized housing must be approved even if it doesn’t comply with local zoning. The City of Sonoma is including this because they think it shows that the HAA is a law that is supposed to apply to subsidized housing. In this case however, we are not using any of the sections that were added in 1990. We are using section (j), the original 1982 section that applies to all housing proposals, including market rate.
Respondents City of Sonoma & Sonoma City Council Memo in Support of Demurrer
Here the City of Sonoma tries to convince the court (aka the judge) that the city shouldn’t even have to answer our Petition, because our Petition doesn’t successfully describe a failure on the city’s part to follow the law. See page 6, “Standard of Review”.
Sonoma – 149 Fourth St
In late 2016, a homebuilder began the arduous journey to construct three homes on vacant lots in Sonoma. Each HAA-compliant project was submitted separately, though the City of Sonoma processed all three as a group. This included producing three CEQA reports, which each included special attention to the other projects in the group; the City of Sonoma performed one overarching CEQA study in three comprehensively similar stages as if all three projects were one submission. When the projects finally had their hearings at the Planning Commission, the city recognized that the CEQA studies showed no impact and adopted the reports as such. The study included an analysis of each project individually and with all three projects as a group. Opponents appealed and at the project’s final City Council hearing, the City Council of Sonoma upheld the appeal. They claimed that all three projects should have been submitted and reviewed as one three-home project and as such the CEQA studies were inadequate, resulting in a final denial of all three projects. Not content to stop at CEQA, the City Council made further findings that the projects–despite the Planning Commission’s previous statements to the contrary–did not adhere to subjective standards of aesthetics. […]
Dublin – Ashton at Dublin Station
On January 9, 2018, CaRLA gave testimony at a meeting of the Dublin City Council describing in detail the ways that a denial of 220 homes at Dublin BART would bring about a lawsuit against the city. Having heard this and given it consideration, Mayor Haubert said into the public record that the city should “take our chances with a lawsuit”. Ashton at Dublin Station has a long history, starting out in 2002 with the East Dublin Specific Plan’s approval. It took nearly 20 years, but the city finally voted to deny the project. In the process they transgressed so much more than just the Housing Accountability Act; the developer of the project filed separately with numerous claims of discrimination against protected classes in their public testimony. Not only are they violating the HAA, they’re violating the Fair Housing Act, a 15 year old development agreement, the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, the Fair Housing and Employment Act, and others. This project is also CaRLA’s first affordable housing project. Ashton at Dublin Station includes 33 affordable homes, for 15% of the total project, as is required by Dublin’s zoning for the site. Affordable housing is a rare bird in […]
Berkeley – 1310 Haskell St
On March 10, 2016 Berkeley Zoning Board approved a zoning and general plan compliant proposal to tear down an existing single family house and build three single family houses in its stead. The approval was appealed to the Berkeley City Council, who subsequently denied it in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. CaRLA stepped up to assist Cristan in fighting back. 1310 Haskell St was CaRLA’s first Berkeley case, and first time providing aid to a small homeowner. Cristan was seeking to add two additional units to a lot containing one in a neighborhood of apartment buildings, duplexes, and two story single family homes. How it ended In order to reverse California’s housing shortage, we need cities to approve housing developments even over local NIMBY opposition. In our Berkeley lawsuit, we challenged the city’s disapproval of a three- unit development on a small parcel of land—exactly the type of “missing middle” development we need to see more of. In this case, the neighbors were opposed to changes that might make their single-family neighborhood more affordable, so they appealed the project approval to the City Council. The Council disapproved the project despite its compliance with all city regulations, and without even […]
Lafayette – 3233 Deer Hill Road
In 2011, 315 apartments were proposed at 3233 Deer Hill Road. Given the public’s dissatisfaction with the application… Given that the Circulation Commission and Design Review Commission have both indicated that they cannot support the project and have requested a significantly scaled-down alternative… Given that the Developer has indicated that, if the project is denied, it will file a lawsuit against the City… And given the risks to the City presented by that potential lawsuit, and particularly those associated with California’s Housing Accountability Act, which limits the ability of cities to deny an affordable housing development proposals unless that proposal is inconsistent with both the General Plan land use designation and zoning ordinance that existed at the time the application was deemed complete… About four weeks ago the City Council directed staff to participate in conversations with the developer to determine if there was an alternative plan that would be acceptable to all parties — the developer, community members, and the city. Before you tonight is an introduction of such an alternative: September 12th, 2015 The City of Lafayette approved 44 Single Family Homes, costing at least $1.2 million each. Section 65589.5(j) of the Housing Accountability Act states that when a proposed […]
San Mateo – 4 W. Santa Inez
In 2017, a modest housing project was proposed for 4 West Santa Inez Avenue in the city of San Mateo that would add 10 units to the Bay Area’s already scarce housing supply. On February 5, 2018, San Mateo City Council voted to deny the development, despite the fact that had been found compliant with all zoning and general plan standards by both staff and the Planning Commission. In their search for a reason to justify their denial, the City Council turned to San Mateo’s Multi-family Design Guidelines. These guidelines included a “design objective” to: Avoid changes in building height greater than one story from adjacent structures. If changes are greater, stepback upper floors to ease the transition. The City Council denied the project by concluding that it failed to comply with this standard, contrary to the conclusions of its own staff and Planning Commission. The HAA puts limits on cities’ powers to deny projects that comply with all “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards . . . .” The HAA does not allow for projects to be disapproved based on non-compliance with non-objective standards. Cities can condition approvals to ensure compliance, […]
Sausalito – 448 Sausalito Blvd
How it ended The main purpose of the HAA is to prevent cities from denying housing where it is allowed under the city’s own rules. It may seem obvious that if housing is “allowed” to be developed on a property, cities should not deny it. Unfortunately California cities routinely deny housing in these circumstances for no good reason. In Sausalito, the City Council denied a single-family home development simply because it was “out of scale” with the surrounding community of other single-family homes. CaRLA sued Sausalito under the HAA to make sure they follow their own rules on housing. Realizing that they had little or no legal case, the city settled and agreed to rehear the project, and they approved it on rehearing.
Letter to Lafayette City Council opposing the approval of 44 single family homes
This is the beginning of the lawsuit. It’s a letter from the petitioners, in this case Sonja Trauss & the SF Bay Area Renters Federation, to a superior court judge saying that the respondent, in this case the City of Lafayette, has broken state law and asking the judge to undo what the city has done.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2