CaRLA is happy to announce another fresh victory in a string of significant rulings in favor of housing. If you haven’t been following the Huntington Beach saga, it is finally coming to an end, and the series finale has a surprising conclusion.
We were very unhappy with the Orange County Superior Court’s original ruling upholding the denial of 48 ownership homes in Surf City, USA because of potential U-turns, and while we were preparing an appeal, we decided to file a Motion for New Trial and a Motion to Vacate the prior judgement.
Plot twist: the Appellate Decision in CaRLA vs. San Mateo
On Monday, it happened! The court granted our motions, and reversed the prior judgement. In the new order, the court relied primarily on the historic decision handed down by the Court of Appeals in CaRLA’s San Mateo lawsuit. This decision upheld the constitutionality of the Housing Accountability Act, and clarified many of the law’s most important provisions. Our victory in San Mateo laid the foundation for Monday’s victory in Huntington Beach.
In a Proposed Statement of Decision* released yesterday afternoon, the court would vacate the previous ruling and overturn Huntington Beach’s denial of 48 ownership homes. The decision finds that Huntington Beach violated the HAA, and upholds the constitutionality of the law against the city’s claims that it could not be applied to charter cities.
First, the court dismissed any notion that the development failed to comply with the city’s objective development standards. The city council had relied on vague findings about how the project failed to comply with the “goals and policies” of the city’s general plan. The court correctly observed that these types of findings are subjective, and cannot serve as a basis for denial under the HAA. The court went on to find that even if the standards were objective, there was substantial evidence that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the project complied based on city staff’s conclusions that the project did in fact comply. The project was therefore “deemed consistent” with these standards under the HAA.
Finally, the court arrived at the purported health and safety impacts that the city attempted to manufacture as a basis for denial of the project. The city had produced two expert reports, one finding that the project would lead to additional U-turns, and the danger posed by these turns would be significant, and the other finding minor violations of fire safety standards. The court correctly found that these cannot be a basis for denial under the HAA. The traffic impacts were based on no standard of safety, and the supposed fire safety violations could be easily mitigated in the final design. The legislature intended that cities would have a very high bar to establish health and safety findings under the HAA, and the court correctly held Huntington Beach accountable to this high standard.
This has been a long process, but this is another victory for housing and the Housing Accountability Act. Our victories here and in San Mateo show cities that if you make up subjective reasons to deny housing that fits in your own zoning, there are now real consequences. This sends a message that cities cannot wield their housing policy in defiance of state law to keep out newcomers and hoard opportunity within their borders.
The courts have historically been deferential to cities, but the Housing Accountability Act has changed the way courts examine these cases. As an appellate judge stated during the San Mateo case: we’re in a new regime with the HAA and “The HAA is today strong medicine precisely because the Legislature has diagnosed a sick patient.”
We applaud the new decision, which is consistent with the true intent of the HAA: to further the approval and provision of new homes. This ruling will create 48 new ownership homes that wouldn’t have been possible without CaRLA and our San Mateo appeal ruling specifically. There’s no better feeling than making new case law in the first half of the month, then using that law to defend housing in the second half.
It took decades to get us into the housing crisis, and while these small victories won’t solve anything overnight, they will add up over time.
A big thank you to Ken Stahl who represented CaRLA in this lawsuit and our friend Matt Gelfand of Californians for Homeownership who brought a second suit that was argued concomitantly.
*A Proposed Statement of Decision is an intended ruling in which Huntington Beach will be allowed to argue the wording of the ruling, but not the substance, leaving the decision to stand.
Press Release
October 5, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Greg Magofña
greg@calhdf.org, 510-545-3994
CaRLA Secures Another Victory for Housing and the Housing Accountability Act in the Courts of California in New Huntington Beach Ruling
Oakland, CA – In a freshly released Proposed Statement of Decision on Monday, October 4, the Orange County Superior Court reconsidered and vacated a previous ruling on a wrongfully denied housing project in Huntington Beach. This new ruling would overturn Huntington Beach’s denial of 48 ownership homes, ruling in favor of petitioners California Renters Legal Advocacy Fund (CaRLA) and Californians for Homeownership. The order comes just weeks after CaRLA’s historic victory against the City of San Mateo in the California Court of Appeals in a case that clarified many questions around the Housing Accountability Act and affirmed its constitutionality.
“This has been a long process, but this is another victory for housing and the Housing Accountability Act,” says Dylan Casey, CaRLA’s Executive Director. “Our victories here and in San Mateo show cities that if you make up subjective reasons to deny housing that fits in your own zoning, there are now real consequences. This sends a message that cities cannot wield their housing policy in defiance of state law to keep out newcomers and hoard opportunity within their borders.”
“The courts have historically been deferential to cities, but the Housing Accountability Act has changed the way courts examine these cases. We applaud the new decision, which is consistent with the true intent of the HAA: to further the approval and provision of new homes,” says Matt Gelfand, Counsel of Californians for Homeownership. “It took decades to get us into the housing crisis, and while these small victories won’t solve anything overnight, they will add up over time.”
“This ruling will create 48 new ownership homes that wouldn’t have been possible without CaRLA and our San Mateo appeal ruling specifically,” adds Victoria Fierce, CaRLA’s Director of Operations. “There’s no better feeling than making new case law in the first half of the month, then using that law to defend housing in the second half.”
“We’re happy to close our last two open cases with victories within just weeks of each other,” says Greg Magofña, CaRLA Director of Outreach. “Now we have our eye out for other exclusionary cities using illegal housing policies to keep housing prices up and people out.”
CaRLA is a 501c3 nonprofit whose mission is to increase the affordability and accessibility of housing in California by using legal advocacy and education to ensure cities comply with their own zoning ordinances and state housing law.
###