Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2017 Item 12, DietrickCOUNCIL MEETING: REC.- ITEM NO.:_ _,.,:#eN, I2 JAN 13 2017 Council Memorandum 11Y CLERK January 12, 2017 TO: City Council FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SUBJECT: Item 12 — Review Appeal of ARC decision (560 Higuera) Staff was requested to provide further explanation as to whether the requirements of the State Housing Accountability Act (the "HAA"), Gov. Code § 65589.5, apply to this project. The HAA applies to all "Housing development projects" which are defined as "...a use consisting of... (A) Residential units only [or] (B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of buildings that are two or more stories." "Neighborhood commercial" as used in this statute means "small-scale general or specialty stores that furnish goods and services primarily to residents of the neighborhood." See § 65589.5(h)(2). The proposed project is a mixed use housing project with limited neighborhood commercial on the ground floor. For projects which do not include affordable housing, subsection 0) of this statute applies. That section states: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Emphasis added) In the case of Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, 200 Cal.App.4" 1066 (2011) the Court determined that an eight lot residential subdivision with no affordable housing was still a housing development project under the HAA and the Board was required to make the necessary findings Item 12 — Review Appeal of ARC decision (560 Higuera) before denying the project. The clear policy and purpose of the HAA is to encourage the development of housing. In enacting this legislation, the legislature set forth very strong findings in regards to satisfying the need for more housing, especially affordable housing. For example, Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(4) states: Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing projects. In the Honchariw case, the Court of Appeals had this to say about the origins, amendments and underlying purpose of the Act: Section 65589.5 was originally enacted in 1982, as part of a statutory scheme to address a critical statewide housing shortage and to facilitate the development of housing adequate for the needs of all economic segments of the population (§ 65580) ... The statute's purpose was "to assure that local governments did not ignore their own housing development policies and general plans when reviewing housing development pmposals. " [Citations] In 1990, in response to growing concerns over lack of "affordable" housing caused in part by local governments' policies limiting approval of affordable housing, leading to discrimination against various social groups, legislation making it more difficult to disapprove housing projects was enacted. Respondents argue that the placing of the original 1982 language into the middle of a statute addressing housing for low-income households transformed the meaning of the language "a proposed housing development project" so that it now means "a proposed housing development project providing housing for very low, low-, or moderate -income households. " Case law addressing that contention has rejected it, as we do. (North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, supra, 234 F.Supp.2d 1053. [§ 65589.56) applies to housing development projects generally, not just to affordable housingl) Subdivision (d) of the statute directs a local agency to make essentially the same findings as those appearing in subdivision 6) when the agency disapproves a "housing development project ... for very low, low-, or moderate income households. " ...Subdivision 6) would thus appear to be duplicative of subdivision (d) if subdivision 6) were to be construed as applying only to the same housing development projects as subdivision (d). As outlined above, section 65589.5 was originally enacted as part of a statutory scheme to.facilitate the development of housing adequate for the needs of "all economic levels" of the pepulation). (underline added) Id at 1074-75. Essentially the same findings for denial are required for any project which falls within the HAA; that is, the necessity to identify specific adverse impacts based on substantial evidence in the record.