HAA Workshop Materials
40 W. Santa Inez Staff Report 1310 Haskell St Staff Report GOV 65589.5 Order approving 1310 Haskell St HAA Workshop Presentation
Permit Streamlining Act
Read the text of the Permit Streamlining Act How the PSA should work (at least for small projects, larger projects have longer timelines): Application filed local agency has 30 days to determine if complete – if no determination -> *deemed complete* Initial environmental study Thirty days after an application for a private project is accepted as complete or deemed complete, the lead agency must complete its initial environmental study, which determines whether to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration. Public Resources Code § 21080.2; 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15102. A lead agency’s failure to make this determination within 30 days after an application is complete or deemed complete does not nullify the agency’s determination to require further environmental review, as CEQA’s time limits are directory, not mandatory; there is no sanction for an agency’s failure to comply with the time limitations for preparing an initial environmental study. Eller Media v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 108 Cal. App. 4th 25, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 324 (2003). The problem here is that many projects are obviously CEQA exempt, yet the directory time limits here give cities cover to delay such projects. A statutory […]
Relevant Court Cases and Legal Actions
Redwood City Residents for Responsible Development vs. Redwood City: Redwood City NIMBYs successfully coerced the City and Developer to reduce a proposed housing development project from an 8-story 91-unit development to a 6-story 68-unit development in downtown Redwood City. Read the staff report here.
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.
Calabasas ADU Ordinance
California has millions of garages. Most single family areas have zoning rules requiring one or two parking covered parking spaces per single-family home. This vast underutilized space has the potential to provide housing for millions of renters in some of the most exclusive areas of California. Recognizing this potential, the California legislature has passed a statewide Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law that ensures garage conversions are possible on the vast majority of single family lots. Calabasas is ignoring this mandate in an effort to preserve it’s covered parking and prevent new housing from taking its place. The local Calabasas zoning rules require that when a garage is converted to an ADU, the property owner must build a new garage to replace the old one. This requirement would make ADU development impossible or infeasible on many lots. Fortunately, state law deals with this exact problem by forbidding local governments from requiring replacement garages. CaRLA filed a lawsuit to hold Calabasas accountable to the requirements of state law. We hope this case will set an example for other cities across California that prioritize roofs for cars ahead of roofs for people. How It Ended A fundamental element of zoning in California is […]
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”.
San Francisco’s ADU Ordinance
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have the potential to provide a rare and valuable source of rental housing in San Francisco’s single-family neighborhoods. The current San Francisco rules, however, make it very difficult for homeowners to add ADUs on single-family properties. Requirements for yard setbacks and open space severely limit the lot area where an ADU can go, and the arduous permit review process discourages homeowners from even attempting to add an ADU. In reviewing the San Francisco ordinance, CaRLA identified two of these limits on ADUs that are in conflict with state law. First, the ordinance subjects ADUs to the city’s discretionary review process which allows virtually anyone to indefinitely delay an ADU application through countless Planning Commission hearings, even though the proposal may be 100% compliant with local zoning. This process is very costly for permit applicants and can take months to navigate. The mere possibility of such burdens is more than enough to discourage most homeowners looking to add an ADU. Second, the San Francisco ordinance only allows ADUs to be added to existing homes; new single-family homes are prohibited from including one. The city’s single-family neighborhoods are primarily composed of small lots where it is much easier […]
SF ADU Petition for Writ of Mandate
CaRLA’s petition to require San Francisco to bring its ADU regulations into compliance with state law
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 […]
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
Categories
CEQA
- Opposition to Depublication: McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena
- Respondents’ Opposition Brief
- PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS’ DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
- Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Petitioner’s Opposition Brief
- Respondents’ … Notice of Demurrer Hearing and of Demurrer to Verified Petition
- Respondents’ … Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Demurrer
- Respondents City of Sonoma & Sonoma City Council Memo in Support of Demurrer
- Meet & Confer Declaration in Support of Demurrer to Verified Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate
- Sonoma – 149 Fourth St
Housing Accountability Act
- La Cañada Flintridge Signed Judgement
- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDATE
- Application to file amicus curiae brief and brief of amicus league of california cities
- [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS CITY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL
- Motion for Judicial Notice
- Application for permission to file amici curiae brief in support of appellants; amici curiae brief of building industry association-bay area, et al
- APPLICATION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY GREATER SAN FRANCISCO, INC. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND PROPOSED BRIEF
- Amici Curiae Brief of Law Professors
- Intervenor’s Reply Brief
- AG’s Motion for Judicial Notice