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.