Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/25/2018 Item 1, Small (2)
From:Camille Small <notetocamille@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, July To:Ansolabehere, Jon Cc:James Lopes; Tom Franciskovich; Nick Wilson; Codron, Michael; Johnson, Derek; Dave Congalton; slochamber@slochamber.org Subject:Housing Acountability Act--HAA ! AND https://www.gmhuniversity.com/communities Attachments:Untitled; 7162018 Item 2, Ansolabehere.pdf; B-Kautz-Housing-Pitfalls-and-Problems- CA-Track-AC-2017-Individual.pdf Thank you, Jon Your response should clarify some information. It still remains to be seen if there is ANYONE in the City (STAFF/Commissioners/ COUNCIL) the least bit concerned about what is happening to neighborhoods impacted by the recent BIG dorms in the City. It doesn't appear so to any residents actively involved and speaking out for residents about San Luis Obispo gradually turning over a greater portion of its residential areas into a bedroom and party area for Cal Poly. I would be most interested in how long the city knew they were opening the doors to corporate America (with international funds) investing here. Apparently "the developer", L. Riehl, is essentially their front man (likely being paid to walk these through permit process). Was this source--the actual investment firm-- ever revealed to anyone? Were you or Christine privy to this information? I wouldn't think a small town would invite a company who operates in much larger university cities. Local developers cannot be comfortable with these interlopers. Even the Chamber, supporting local builders, should voice dissent. Is no one at "City Hall" aware of what is happening here? The situation is dire enough to ask for State assistance/intervention (drawing needed attention to the need for building many more dorms on campus) Is it possible those at decision-making levels do not have a clue they are allowing the transformation of this once- sweet, charming town into a bedroom community and party place for Cal Poly. 1 Yes, as one Comissioner so aptly put it, Cal Poly "is here". Excuse me, that is no excuse for sacrificing neighborhoods. We shouldn't have to be impacted nor suffer the degradation. I'm curious if any of you have an idea of how many people have been 'forced' to move because they couldn't stand the negative activity festering in their neighborhoods. We know many. We had young (30-yr. old) friends visit recently. When asked what they thought of the area, they answered, "Pretty Area" and without a pause, added, "We saw a lot of drunk students". I wonder how long those at The City think it will take before the reputation is bad enough that tourists are not drawn to visiting here. Or if they visit, not return. Now decision makers add hundreds more students near our neighborhoods (71 Palomar, 22 Chorro, 790 Foothill) Where will they be roaming? (Yes, they roam looking for parties.) When school begins, you and your colleagues should take a night walk around the Hathway St. area. John Ashbaugh and Derek Johnson can attest to this as they were on the same 'night walk' I went on. It is a nightmare!! Group after group of students roaming, talking loud, yelling, throwing water balloons. John may remember wondering aloud, "Do any regular residents live here?" Well, I knew they HAD, I knew some who were still trying to HOLD ON. NOW, THANKS TO OUR CITY LEADERS THE MESS WE SAW THERE WILL MOVE TO FOOTHILL AND ALL THE BLOCKS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THERE. WHO IS IN CHARGE OF LOOKING OUT FOR RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY? My answer is no one at the City. There is a group of actively involved residents whose information, analysis, testimony, advice and pleas are essentially ignored. With Great Sadness, Camille Small p.s. Isn't SANTA BARBARA fortunate to have a separate ISLA VISTA when we have to have ours right here in our town!! PLEASE look at this site GMH University Housing - Communities GMH University Housing - Communities 2 3 Goodwin, Heather From:Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, July 19, 2018 1:36 PM To:Davidson, Doug; James Lopes Cc:Codron, Michael; Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: Discussion of 790 Foothill application at ARC Attachments:B-Kautz-Housing-Pitfalls-and-Problems-CA-Track-AC-2017-Individual.pdf James, Michael and Doug forwarded me your letter and the e-mail correspondence below. Below are some of my responses to some of the paragraphs in your letter. Michael and his team will respond to the balance. Jon 1. “The Commission cannot require a reduction in density to achieve a smaller scale of project.” Your comment was, I think, in response to my presentation that the project does not comply with the Conservation and Open Space policies on retaining views of, in this case, Bishop Peak. You said that if the ARC did reduce density, it would have to adopt the finding stated in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2). That is, the project "would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety..." etc. My understanding of the Housing Affordability Act is different. I find that Section 65689.5(d) states that a project may not be conditioned for approval "in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households." It does not state in this case that density may not be reduced. The implication is that density can be reduced to above a point where the project is infeasible for the applicant to provide the granted affordable units. I would like to know what you and the City Attorney think about this apparent grant of discretion on density. RESPONSE: The HAA provides numerous different protections. Two pertinent provisions are subsection (d) and subsection (j). Subsection (d) provides protections for housing development projects which include a certain level of affordability. This section does not require the project to comply with objective standards. If the project meets the affordable housing criteria identified in this provision, the protection applies. It should be noted that the protection in this section is broader than that in subsection (j). Specifically, an agency cannot “…condition approval in a manner that render the housing development project infeasible…” unless it makes the specific adverse impact findings. Subsection (j) on the other hand, provides protections for housing developments projects which comply with applicable objective standards. This was the subsection that was referenced in my memo to the ARC and is the section in the HAA that the developer is relying on. Both subsection (d) and (j) can work in tandem but for this project, I believe only (j) applies. Subsection (j)’s protections are slightly less than (d) in that it simply prohibits an agency from denying a housing project or reducing its density unless the agency makes the specific adverse impact findings. Again, this is what was addressed in my memo to the ARC. Attached is an article on housing from a prominent law firm that does a significant amount of work in the housing arena - the HAA discussion starts on page 8. Here is also a link from a real estate law firm that specializes in this: http://www.reubenlaw.com/housing_accountability_act_a_new_hammer_for_developers/ However, the Act provides surprises. It appears to protect the proposed density in another pertinent section - (65589.5(f)(1): "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 . However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the 1 development." (emphasis added) My interpretation is that this section is directed at the City’s obligation to provide its fair share of regional affordable housing. It may impose requirements to meet one or more standards and policies that are related to meeting the City’s share of the regional housing need, if the allowed density is not reduced. This section is not related to the conformity of the project with the General Plan or Zoning in general. A third section is the basis of my request, Section 65589.5(i). To summarize in positive terms, the City may impose conditions, including design changes, lower density, or reduction of the footprint, if doing so will not “have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development…” If it does so, then the burden of proof would be on the City to show how its decision is consistent with the findings in subdivision (d). It is worth it to the community to learn from an applicant through a pro forma whether the reduction of density will lower the number of, in this case, affordable studio units. It is extremely important that the City guard its other land use and quality of life interests, expressed in the General Plan. This section of the statute provides the means to determine what minimum amount of development will provide the proposed affordable units. I proposed that an applicant provide the pro forma to show the “breaking point” in feasibility. Or, the City could use its funds to make this determination, with the applicant’s review. RESPONSE: Subsection (i) is an extension of (d) and provides legislative detail on enforcement of the protections in (d). The applicant is operating under the protections of subsection (j), not (d). Some agencies do require projects which are utilizing the protections of (d) to provide a pro forma or the agency prepares one itself. Which of these sections does the City think is most operative in protecting all of its interests? RESPONSE: See response above. Subsection (j) is the operative section which is the section discussed in my memo to the ARC. -----Original Message----- From: Codron, Michael Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:40 PM To: James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Discussion of 790 Foothill application at ARC I can follow up with you next week. In the meantime, please review the full memo I was quoting from last night for context. Thank you, -Michael -----Original Message----- From: James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:37 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Discussion of 790 Foothill application at ARC Hi Michael, I am very concerned that the discretion of the City be protected as much as practical with regard to the Housing Affordability Act. Please read my attached letter about the staff comments which occurred during the Architectural Review Commission hearing concerning 790 Foothill. Would you please reply or meet with me as soon as convenient to clarify and address my concerns, as to setting the City's boundaries of discretion fairly with the Act and the 2 community? We only have a few days until the Planning Commission hearing, and I think a significant amount of information and analysis needs to be given to the commission before it meets. Thank you. James Lopes, AICP Ph. 805-602-1365 3 City Attorney's Office 990 P aimr Street, Sari Luis ONspo, GSA X93401-3,249 805 781,7140 MEMORANDUM To: Architectural Review Commission Cc: Michael Codron, Director of Community Development Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner From: Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney fi- Date: July 13, 2018 Re: 790 Foothill; ARCH -1186-2017 The City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) considered the above referenced project on May 7, 2018 and is scheduled to re -review the project on July 16, 2018. During the ARC's May 7 hearing, a number of comments and concerns were raised with respect to the interplay between State law, specifically, the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA") and the Density Bonus Law ("DBL"), and the City's Zoning Code and Community Design Guidelines ("CDGs"). The purpose of this memo is to provide some clarity on the legal hierarchy of these land use and planning rules. In short, the City cannot violate State law and it must implement its General Plan, Zoning Code and other planning guidelines, such as the CDGs, consistent with the requirements of State law. Below is a brief discussion on the protections and findings requirements imposed by both the HAA and the DBL. The HAA, Government Code § 65589.5, applies to any "housing development project" which was amended this year to include "[m]ixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use." Government Code § 65589.5(h)(2)(B). The proposed project is a mixed use project where more than two thirds of the project's square footage is devoted to residential use. As such, if the project complies with all applicable objective standards, then certain findings are required in order for the agency to lawfully (1) deny the project; or (2) reduce the project's density. This last year, the State legislature amended the HAA to require that the findings be supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record and the agency bears the burden of proof. By design, the legislature has crafted the findings to be difficult for agencies to make. Specifically, in order to deny a HAA project or reduce density, the agency must find that: "[t]he housing development project would have a specifle adverse iraa���l 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 ... [and] [t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact..." Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1) A "specific, adverse impact" is defined to mean a ".jiYni f ,,�etr� gliargi ficrblc 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." Government Code § 65589.50)(1). Accordingly, the ARC may only lawfully deny the project or reduce its density if it determines the project or the additional density causes a specific adverse impact. Standards such as "compatibility" can be lawfully used to impose design conditions, but cannot be used to deny or reduce density. The reason is because the standard of compatibility is subjective in nature and the HAA requires the specific adverse impact be based on objective health and safety standards. It should be noted that the protections in the HAA and the density bonus provisions in the DBL, discussed below, work in concert with one another. Specifically, Government Code § 65589.50)(3) states that: "...the receipt of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision." In other words, the legislature has determined that the benefits afforded by the DBL do not render the protections in the HAA inapplicable. The DBL, codified in Government Code § 65915, mandates that public agencies provide a density bonus, relax development standards and provide incentives or concessions if a proposed project includes a fixed percentage of affordable housing. The level of the density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions is dependent on the amount of affordable housing provided and the level of affordability. A city cannot require a developer to provide a greater percentage of units or deeper level of affordability in order to qualify for the density bonus prescribed by the statute. See Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Napa, 7 217 Cal. App. 4th 1160 (2013). For this project, the developer is proposing twelve (12) units to be deed restricted for very low-income households which entitles the developer to a thirty five percent (35%) density bonus and up to three (3) incentives or concessions. On top of this, Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1) mandates that "[i]n no case may a city ... apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this [the DBL]." In other words, the DBL law requires a city to relax its development standards in order for the project to physically incorporate the additional units. Similar to the HAA, there are protections for projects using the DBL. Government Code §§ 65915(d)(1)(B) and (d)(3) prevent an agency from denying the density bonus or the incentive or concession or refusing to waive or reduce development standards, unless the agency can make a finding based on substantial evidence that the density units, the incentive or concession or the waiver or reduction in a development standard causes a "specific, adverse impact" upon the public health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible Memorandum re 790 Foothill; ARCH -1186-2017 Page 2 of 3 method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. The definition of "specific, adverse impact" is the same as that in the HAA — i.e. a ".vi miflcant tLuanti lable� 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." This project includes two property development concessions — an eight foot (8') maximum height increase for a portion of the building and increase in the allowable lot coverage for the site from seventy five percent (75%) to ninety percent (90%). The stated purpose of these concessions is to allow for the physical construction of the additional density units. In order to deny these concessions, the City would be required to make the required findings based on the standards as discussed and defined above. Again, to use the example noted above, the City cannot simply deny the concessions based on findings that the increase in lot coverage or the height increase is not "compatible" with the neighborhood. Under State law, the City must identify a specific adverse impact on the public health, safety, or the physical environment that is directly caused by the concession, quantify it, and determine that there is no feasible way to satisfactorily mitigate it or find an alternative. Memorandum re 790 Foothill; ARCH -1186-2017 Page 3 of 3 League of California Cities® 2017 Annual Conference Sacramento Convention Center Housing Housing Housing: Pitfalls and Problems in Reviewing Housing Projects Thursday, September 14, 2017 General Session; 2:45 – 4:00 p.m. Barbara E. Kautz, Goldfarb & Lipman DISCLAIMER: These materials are not offered as or intended to be legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues. Attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials . Copyright © 2017, League of California Cities®. All rights reserved. This paper, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission from the League of California Cities®. For further information, contact the League of California Cities® at 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. Telephone: (916) 658-8200. League of California Cities® 2017 Annual Conference, City Attorneys’ Track Sacramento Convention Center Notes:______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 League of California Cities City Attorneys Department League of California Cities Annual Conference Sacramento, California September 14, 2017 Housing, Housing, Housing: Pitfalls and Problems in Reviewing Housing Projects Presented by: Barbara Kautz Goldfarb & Lipman LLP 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510 836-6336 bkautz@goldfarblipman.com 1 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 I. Introduction This paper was – and is – intended to bring city attorneys’ attention to several lesser- known provisions of California Planning and Zoning Law that may require cities to make certain findings when approving, disapproving, reducing the density of, or attaching conditions to housing projects. The statutes reviewed here include: The so-called ‘no net loss’ provision (Gov’t Code § 658631), which requires that certain findings be made if a housing development is approved at a density lower than that shown in the city’s housing element. ‘By right’ approval provisions for sites rezoned to achieve consistency with the housing element. (§ 65583.2(i).) The Housing Accountability Act (§ 65589.5), which requires that certain findings be made when housing projects are denied, reduced in density, or have conditions attached that make the project infeasible. However, in the current session of the California Legislature, over 130 bills related to housing have been introduced. As has been extensively reported, part of the deal struck by Governor Jerry Brown to ensure the passage of his cap-and-trade bill was his agreement to work with the Legislature to adopt a package of bills intended to provide more funding of housing and require ‘streamlining’ of housing approvals by cities.2 The bills selected as part of the Governor’s housing package would collectively amend all of the statutes reviewed below. (Note that there are no significant changes proposed in either CEQA or density bonus law.) As a consequence, while this paper reviews the current provisions and case law surrounding each of these statutes, below each section is a list of the key bills and the changes that are proposed in current versions of the bills. The Governor, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Reardon have jointly issued a statement that an approved housing package will be presented when the Legislature reconvenes on August 21.3 We hope to be able to explain the final version of these statutes when the League meets in September. 1 Unless otherwise specified, all future references are to the Government Code. 2 See, e.g., Angela Hart, “Climate change talks provide ‘tension’ for housing deal, California lawmaker says,” Sacramento Bee (July 13, 2017); Josie Huang, “CA affordable housing bills benefiting in political dealing over cap and trade,” KPCC (July 13, 2017). 3 Liam Dillon, “Gov. Jerry Brown, California legislative leaders commit to push an affordable housing plan next month, Los Angeles Times (July 17, 2017). 2 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 II. Related Provisions of Housing Element Law. The statutory provisions reviewed in this paper apply to the review of applications for housing projects. However, each of the statutes relates back to the contents of each city’s housing element. The key housing element provisions are these: The City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation. Before a housing element is drafted, the region’s council of governments, or, for areas without a council of governments, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), assigns each city its share of the projected regional housing need for the next five or eight years (the regional housing need allocation, or “RHNA”). (Housing elements in the larger urban areas must be revised every eight years; those in other areas may elect a five- or eight-year period. § 65588(e)(2).) The RHNA is assigned by income category. (§§ 65584 – 65584.09.) Typically approximately 40 percent of the need is for very low income and low income housing (collectively “lower income housing,” for households generally earning 80 percent or less of median income); approximately 20 percent of the need is for moderate income housing, for households earning between 80 and 120 percent of median income; and the remaining 40 percent is for above-moderate income housing.4 If a city’s RHNA totaled 1000 units, the breakdown might be as follows: Lower Income (Very Low and Low) Moderate Income Above Moderate Income TOTAL RHNA 400 units 200 units 400 units 1,000 units Providing Adequate Sites to Meet the RHNA. Each community must demonstrate in its housing element that it has enough sites properly zoned for housing to allow its total RHNA to be built in the next five to eight years. The housing element must contain an inventory of sites that permit housing development. For each site, the inventory must list the number of housing units that can be accommodated on the site, given the zoning and other constraints, and indicate whether the site is suitable for lower income, moderate income, or above moderate income housing. (§ 65583.2.) The statute has specific requirements regarding which sites can “accommodate” the lower income housing need. In particular, certain densities (often called “default densities”) are “deemed appropriate” to accommodate lower income housing. The default densities range from 10 units per acre in rural areas to 20 or 30 units per acre in urban areas. (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(B).) In 4 See, e.g., Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Need Allocation (2014 -2022). “Lower income” is defined by Health & Safety Code § 50079.5; “moderate income” is defined by Health & Safety Code § 50093. 3 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 the above example, if the city’s default density were 20 units per acre, at least 20 developable acres would need to be zoned at that density to accommodate the required 400 lower income units. A city may seek to demonstrate to HCD that a density below the default density could accommodate lower income housing (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(A)), and in a few instances HCD has approved lower default densities.5 However, regardless of the required density, sites must be identified to accommodate the community’s entire RHNA at all income levels. Sites that Must be Rezoned to Provide Adequate Sites. If a city’s inventory of sites shows it does not have enough areas zoned for housing at appropriate densities to meet its RHNA, it s housing element must contain a rezoning program to be accomplished in three years (or a maximum of four years if certain findings can be made). (§§ 65583(c), (f).) In the above example, if the city had only 10 developable acres zoned at 20 units per acre or more, it would need to identify at least another 10 acres which it would promise to rezone within three years. Housing developments proposed on the rezoned sites must be approved ‘by right,’ as explained below. (§ 65583.2(h), (i).) III. ‘No Net Loss’ Provisions. The so-called ‘no net loss’ provisions apply when: (1) a site included in the housing element’s inventory of sites; is (2) either rezoned to a lower residential density; or a project is approved at a lower residential density than shown in the housing element. (§ 65863(b).) At present the provision is inapplicable to charter cities (§ 65803), although this is likely to change (see discussion of SB 166 below). There are no published cases interpreting this provision. “Lower residential density” usually means fewer units than were projected for the site in the city’s housing element. (§ 65863(g)(1).) The provision applies to housing located on any site listed in the city’s housing element, not only to sites designated as suitable for affordable housing. However, if either the city has not adopted a housing element within 90 days of the due date, or the housing element is not in substantial compliance with housing element law within 180 days of the due date, then “lower residential density” is defined as a density less than 80 percent of the maximum residential density permitted on the site. (§ 65863(g)(2).) If the city downzones the site or approves a project at “lower residential density,” it must make two findings: 1. “The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element; and 5 Personal communication. 4 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 2. “The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.” (§ 65863(b).) Even if the remaining sites are not adequate to accommodate the regional need, the city may reduce the density if it identifies “additional, adequate, and available sites” so that there is no net loss of “residential unit capacity.” (§ 65863(c).) Finding the additional sites is solely the city’s responsibility unless an applicant requests “in his or her initial application” a lower density that would result in the remaining housing sites being inadequate. (§ 65863(e).) If a city then downzones a site identified in the housing element, or approves a project at a lower density than shown in the housing element, it would comply with this provision if one of the following is true: Other sites identified in the housing element show that the city’s zoning remains adequate to meet its RHNA; or, the city has approved more units than shown in the housing element on some sites to make up the difference. For instance, if the city described above had identified sites that could accommodate 450 lower income units, but the density of one site was reduced by 20 units, the city would still be able to accommodate 430 lower income units, more than its RHNA of 400 units. Similarly, if the city had approved on another site 20 more units than shown in its housing element – say, through approval of a density bonus – there would be no net loss of capacity. In general, projects receiving density bonuses under Section 65915 are likely to provide extra capacity to make up for projects approved below the housing element density. Other sites zoned for housing, even if not identified in the housing element, show that the city’s zoning remains adequate to meet its RHNA. The city upzones another site to meet its RHNA. As currently in effect, Section 65863 has several ambiguities: Does the city’s zoning need to accommodate the required number of units by income category (400 lower, 200 moderate, 400 above moderate), or only the total RHNA (1000 units)? When density is reduced, the city is required to find that sites are adequate to accommodate the regional need “pursuant to Section 65584.” (§ 65863(b)(2).) Because Section 65584(a)(1) requires that each city’s share be determined for “persons at all income levels” and defines those income 5 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 levels (§ 65583(e)), the better interpretation is that the required number of units must be maintained by income level. Are any changes to the housing element needed if the city identifies a site not shown in the housing element as an “additional, adequate and available site”? Nothing in Section 65863 discusses the need to modify the housing element when a new site is identified. It therefore appears to allow cities to substitute sites for those identified in the housing element without review by HCD. However, one finding required to be made is that the reduction in density is consistent with the housing element. (§ 65864(b)(1).) Projects that substantially reduce density are probably not consistent with the housing element. Cities therefore may wish to have language in their housing elements allowing this type of substitution. If a site needs to be rezoned to maintain adequate site capacity, when does this need to be accomplished? The city may approve the reduction in density if it identifies “adequate and available” sites so that there is no loss of capacity. (§ 65863(c).) This would seem to require that the new sites with the appropriate zoning be identified at the time of project approval; or the replacement site will not be “available” for housing. However, there is no definition regarding what is required for a site to be “adequate and available;” and the language is not consistent with that in the site identification statute (§ 65583.2), which requires a determination of whether a site can “accommodate” housing “during the planning period”6 (§ 65583.2(c).) Practice Tip: Cities should keep a log showing: (1) project approvals and rezonings applicable to all housing element sites; and (2) all residential approvals located on other sites, so that, if approving a project with lower density than shown in the housing element, the city will be able to demonstrate that it can still accommodate its RHNA; or will be aware that it must find another site, either by rezoning or by identifying an alternate, properly zoned site to make up the deficiency. If a site is rezoned or identified, but not in the housing element, it needs to be added to the log of housing element sites and monitored in the same way as housing element sites. SB 166 (Skinner) (Included in Governor’s housing package). As currently drafted, SB 166 would require not only that densities be maintained within each income category, but also that sites be maintained for the actual production of units within that income category. Under SB 166, of a market-rate project is built on a site designated for lower income or moderate income 6 The “planning period” is the time period between the due date for one housing element and the due date of t he next housing element. (§ 65888(f)(1)). 6 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 housing, the city must demonstrate that remaining sites could accommodate the unmet need for lower income or moderate income housing; or zone another site within 180 days. However, the bill provides that the city cannot deny a market-rate project because it does not contain lower income or moderate income units. For example, under SB 166, if the city described above were to review an application for 100 market-rate units on a site designated for lower income housing, it would need to find that adequate sites zoned at 20 units per acre remain for all 400 lower income units (assuming no lower income units had been constructed). Unless the city had designated sites capable of accommodating 500 lower income units in its housing element, it would need to either identify a site not included in the housing element zoned to accommodate 100 units at 20 units per acre; or rezone another site within 180 days to accommodate 100 units at 20 units per acre. Many cities have already approved market-rate projects on sites designated as suitable for lower income housing. If SB 166 as currently drafted becomes law, as soon as another market - rate project is proposed on a lower income site, some of these cities are likely to find that they have a significant rezoning obligation. The bill includes no exemptions for growth management provisions, agricultural preservation, or open space protection policies; and requires rezoning within 180 days regardless of CEQA requirements. As noted above, lower income and moderate income housing account for 60 percent of a community’s total RHNA. In two Bay Area affordable housing studies completed in 2015, the ‘affordability gap’ – the required subsidy per unit to construct lower income and moderate income units – ranged from $213,000 to $281,000 per unit for lower income units and from $123,000 to $187,000 for moderate income units.7 Given that there are insufficient funds to subsidize 60 percent of the state’s total housing need, if passed in its present form, SB 166 could force cities into large-scale rezonings in the face of tremendous public opposition. SB 166 would apply to charter cities. IV. ‘By Right’ Approval for Rezoned Sites. ‘By right’ approval of a housing project is required when a housing development is proposed on: (1) a site included in the housing element’s inventory of sites suitable for lower income housing; that was (2) rezoned after adoption of the housing element under a housing element program to accommodate lower income housing. (§ 65863.2(h).) The provision applies 7 See, e.g., Strategic Economics, City of Belmont: Final Report, Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study (November 2015), p. 48; Keyser Marston Associates, City of Cupertino, Residential Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Nexus Study (March 2015), p. 35. 7 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 to charter cities (§ 65300). There are no published cases interpreting the ‘by right’ provisions as applied to the review of a housing development project.8 If a site must be rezoned to be suitable for lower income housing, the zoning must allow “owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right.” (§ 65863.2(h).) “Use by right” means that the city’s review of a housing project on the site must not include any discretionary approval, such as a use permit, that would constitute a ‘project’ for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) – effectively requiring that any review of the project must be ministerial and based on fixed standards. However: If the project includes a subdivision, the subdivision is “subject to all laws,” including the city’s subdivision ordinance; and The project may be subject to design review, but that design review “shall not constitute a ‘project’ ” under CEQA. (§65583.2(i).) These provisions raise two issues. First, how should design review be structured to meet the ‘by right’ requirements? And second, if the project includes a subdivision, does project approval again become discretionary and subject to CEQA? Design Review Approval. If a housing project consists only of rental housing with no subdivision, the project is exempt from any CEQA review as ‘not a project,’ and only design review approval can be required. In general, communities which have rezoned sites subject to the ‘by right’ provisions have developed detailed design guidelines for review of proposed projects.9 Since the rezoning of the site to make it suitable for lower income housing does not need to be accomplished for three to four years (§ 65583(c)(1)(A), (f)), communities should theoretically have ample time to develop these guidelines; however, as described in the next section, the Housing Accountability Act does not allow an affordable project consistent with the housing element to be denied even if the rezoning has not yet been accomplished. A further issue is what type of public review may be required for compliance with the design guidelines. Some communities are uncomfortable with staff review of compliance and provide for public hearings before the Planning Commission or City Council The statutory language that the design review approval “shall not constitute a project” under CEQA could be interpreted to mean that the design review approval must be ministerial; or could mean that even if the design review approval is discretionary, the legislature has exempted the approval fro m CEQA. In either case nothing prevents a city from allowing public comment on compliance or 8 In Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1180, the Court of Appeal held that the ‘by right’ provision, effective January 1 2005, did not apply to Gilroy’s 2002 housing element. 9 See, e.g., Town of Los Gatos, North 40 Specific Plan (June 17, 2015), pp. 3-19 to 3-30. 8 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 having the decision made by the Commission or Council. The risk to the city is that conducting a public hearing can set up a false expectation among decisionmakers and members of the public who may demand the denial of a project that conforms with the design guidelines, setting up a challenge under the Housing Accountability Act (see below). Subdivision Approval. If the project includes a subdivision, it is “subject to all laws.” Presumably this phrase is intended at least to: 1) allow discretionary approval of the subdivision under the terms of the community’s subdivision ordinance; and 2) subject the subdivision approval to CEQA. It is not clear what other “laws” are being referenced. Given the specific language limiting discretionary planning approvals, it should be assumed that the only permissible planning approval is design review and that that approval is exempt from CEQA; but it is unclear whether the project is now subject to other discretionary permits, such as tree permits or grading permits. CEQA review should have been completed on the site rezoning required by the housing element but could have been completed in a limited, generalized fashion; as a program environmental impact report; or on a site-specific basis. Any additional CEQA review would be limited to a determination under Public Resources Code Section 21166 about whether a supplemental environmental document should be required. Nonetheless, a ‘by right’ project that includes a subdivision is clearly subject to discretionary review of the subdivision and potentially the need for additional CEQA analysis. AB 1397 (Low) (Included in Governor’s housing package). AB 1397 would limit the ‘by right’ provisions to projects containing 20 percent lower income housing. V. The Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act (§ 65589.5; the “HAA”) was originally adopted in 1982 and has been amended 16 times since. Formerly called the Anti-NIMBY Law, it is in part based on the Legislature’s perception that local government bears major responsibility for the state’s high housing costs, finding as follows: “The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. … 9 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 “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.” (§ 65589.5(a)(2), (4)) The HAA restricts cities’ ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible all housing developments, whether affordable or market rate, and places the burden of proof on the city to justify one of these actions. (§ 65589.6.) It is applicable to charter cities. (§ 65589.5(g).) While different provisions apply to affordable and market-rate projects, cities should consider the possible applicability of the HAA whenever any housing project is proposed. Nonetheless, cities retain substantial leverage in reviewing these projects: the city must make all findings required by CEQA; and, regardless of the HAA, projects within the coastal zone must comply with the Coastal Act. This section first reviews the provisions applicable to all housing projects and then the additional provisions applicable to affordable housing projects. Provisions Applicable to All Housing Development Projects. A proposed use qualifies as a “housing development project” under the HAA if it consists of: Residences only; Transitional or supportive housing;10 or Mixed-use projects where the only nonresidential uses are “neighborhood commercial” uses limited to the first floor of buildings that have two or more stories. (§ 65589.5(h)(2).) The HAA applies only when a local agency is considering a “specific construction proposal” and does not include the approval or disapproval of a specific plan or other legislative action. (Chandis Sec. Co. v. City of Dana Point (1996) 52 Cal. App. 4th 475, 486.) But the definition of a “housing development project” does not require that the project contain any affordable housing, and the courts have rejected contentions to the contrary.11 In fact, all of the published cases except one interpreting the HAA have involved market-rate, not affordable, projects. 10 Defined in Section 65582. 11 See Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1077; North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica (N.D. Cal. 2002) 234 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1058. 10 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 Findings Required to Deny or Reduce the Density of a Housing Development Project. Under the HAA, if any housing development project – whether market-rate or affordable – complies with all “applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards,” in effect when the project is deemed complete, but the city disapproves the project or reduces the density, the city must make written findings supported by substantial evidence that both of the following 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.” (§ 65589.5(j).) In evaluating project compliance with the general plan and zoning, cities must apply their development standards and policies “to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development.” (§ 65589.5(f)(1).) Although there is no definition of what constitutes an “objective” general plan or zoning standard, the Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (“Honchariw”), noted that the term “objective” was added in 1999 amendments and was intended to “strengthen the law by taking away an agency’s ability to use what might be called a ‘subjective’ development ‘policy’ (for example, ‘suitability’)” to deny or reduce the density of a housing development project. (Id. at 1076-77.)12 In Honchariw, the Court of Appeal prescribed how findings should be made when a residential project is to be denied or to have its density reduced. The Court ordered the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors to vacate its denial of Honchariw’s vesting tentative map b ecause nothing in the record supported the County’s contention that the project did not comply with 12 The 1999 amendments also added the requirement that a ‘significant adverse impact’ means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards.” (Stats. 1999 ch. 968 §6.) Two earlier cases decided before the adoption of those amendments provide more deference to local agency determinations. See Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal. App. 4th 309, 319; Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201, 1222-23. A recent Superior Court decision (not appealed) found that findings made to deny a housing development were not based on “objective” criteria. See Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, County of Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 16CV300733, Decision and Judgment Granting Writ of Mandamus (June 14, 2017). 11 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 “applicable, objective” standards; in fact, the proposed conditions of approval required compliance with the standards at issue, and the applicant stated he would comply with the conditions. (Id. at 1080-81.) Although the County made findings denying the subdivision under Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, finding that the site was “not physically suitable” for the proposed subdivision, the Court held that this did not relieve the County of making the findings required by the HAA. (Id. at 1079.) The Court ordered the County to reconsider the application, and, if it determined again to deny the project [or reduce its density], to: Determine whether the project complied with “applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria” in effect when the application was deemed complete; Identify the specific standards with which the project failed to comply; or If the project did comply with all objective standards, to make the written findings of a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety” required by Section 65589.5(j), supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Id. at1081- 82.) The lesson is that, if a city intends to d eny or reduce the density of any “housing development project,” it must first identify any specific “applicable, objective” standards with which the project does not comply. If none can be found, the city may deny or reduce the density of the project only if it can find a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety,” as specified in Section 65589.5(j). Otherwise, it cannot deny or reduce the density of the project. The only exception relates to projects in the coastal zone, as discussed below. Affordable Housing Development Projects. In addition to the findings required by Section 65589.5(j) to deny or reduce the density of a project, whenever a city reviews a housing development project for “very low, low-, or moderate-income households” or an emergency shelter, it must make one of five findings contained in Section 65589.5(d) to disapprove the project or “condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible.” “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes: 20 percent of the units available for sale or rent to lower income households at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of median income; 12 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 100 percent of the units available for sale or rent to moderate income households at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of median income; or 100 percent of the units available for sale or rent to middle income households earning up to 150 percent of median income. No standards are included for monthly housing cost for middle income households. (§§ 65589.5(h)(3); 65008(c).) Units affordable to lower income households must be deed-restricted for at least 30 years. (§ 65589.5(h)(4).) If the project is instead affordable to moderate- or middle-income households, the statute prescribes no period of affordability; the first buyer may sell at any price. Findings Required to Deny Affordable Projects and Emergency Shelters. One of five findings must be made to deny an affordable project or emergency shelter or to a dopt a condition rendering the project infeasible. Each of these findings in the statute is lengthy and should be read in its entirety; below is a summary. 1. The city has “met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation” for all of the income categories included in the proposed project, as shown in its housing element annual report required by Section 65400. (§ 65589.5(d)(1).) In the housing element annual report, progress in meeting the regional need is based on building permit issuance. 25 CCR §§ 6200-6203. Therefore, to use this finding to deny a project that includes 20 percent lower income housing and 80 percent above moderate-income housing, the city would need to demonstrate that it had issued building permits at least equal to both the community’s entire above moderate income RHNA and its entire lower income RHNA. 2. The project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety,” and there is no way to mitigate the impact without rendering the project infeasible. A “specific, adverse impact” is a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health and safety policies” as they existed when the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the general plan or zoning is not a “specific adverse impact.” (§ 65589.5(d)(2).) (This is essentially the same finding required by Section 65589.5(j) described above.) 3. The denial or the conditions are required to comply with state or federal law, and there is no feasible way to comply without rendering the project infeasible. (§ 13 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 65589.5(d)(3).) This finding should be used if the project does not comply with the local coastal plan; see discussion below. 4. Either: the site is zoned for agriculture or natural resource use and is surrounded on at least two sides by land actually used for agriculture or natural resource purposes; or water or sewer are inadequate to serve the project. (§ 65589.5(d)(4).) 5. The project is inconsistent with both the general plan and zoning as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. However, this provision cannot be used to deny a project, or adopt a condition making the project infeasible, if any one of the following is true: a. The city has not adopted a housing element in substantial conformance with state law by the due date prescribed in Section 65888. This provision could theoretically require a city to approve an affordable project inconsistent with both the general plan and zoning if its housing element does not conform with state law, or if it has not adopted a housing element when due; or b. The project is located on a site designated for lower or moderate income housing in the housing element and is consistent with the density shown in the housing element; or c. The site inventory contained in the city’s housing element does not provide adequate sites at all income levels. The burden of proof is on the city to demonstrate that the housing element provides adequate sites. Effectively, this provision allows an attack on the adequac y of the sites designated in the community’s housing element long after it was adopted. (§ 65589.5(d)(5).) All of these findings are difficult to make, and no published cases explore the adequacy of a local agency’s findings denying an affordable project. Compliance with CEQA and the Coastal Act. Despite these strict requirements, the HAA provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with … the California Coastal Act of 1976…Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required by [CEQA].” (§ 65589.5(e).) 14 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 While there is no case that decides whether the Coastal Act trumps the HAA, in Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 927, the Court of Appeal in dicta concluded that, based on the language of the HAA and the Court’s reasoning regarding the relationship of state density bonus law to the Coastal Act, the HAA is likely subordinate to the Coastal Act: regardless of the HAA, no housing development project may be approved if it violates the Coastal Act. (See id. at 944 n.9.) The requirement for compliance with CEQA allows thorough and extensive review of any housing development project. In Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 1245, the developer spent six years trying to get a development plan approved, modifying the plan by repeatedly reducing the density and paying for various versions of an EIR that was never certified. He finally sought to have a court order the City to certify the EIR, citing, in part, the HAA. The Court of Appeal held that it could not order the City to certify the EIR; that the City had not unreasonably delayed the project because Schellinger kept modifying it; that the City had always continued to process the EIR; and that the HAA would have no applicability until the EIR was certified. It is not entirely clear how cities should reconcile the HAA and CEQA if a required mitigation measure would make a project infeasible. In Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, the Court of Appeal upheld the City of Oakland’s determination that it was legally infeasible to approve a reduced density alternative because the City could not make the findings required by the HAA to reduce the density: none of the impacts that would be mitigated by the reduced density alternative rose to the level of “specific, adverse impacts on public health or safety.” (See id. at 715-16.) But a city in this situation might be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. Would its refusal to do so justify denial of the project? To be determined. SB 167/AB 678 (Included in Governor’s housing package). These two bills would: Require that all city findings under the HAA be based on a preponderance of the evidence, rather than on the usual substantial evidence test; Prohibit cities from evaluating a project based on zoning or general plan changes made after a project is submitted but before it is deemed complete; Expand the definition of a “housing development project” to include any mixed - use development in which at least two-thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use; 15 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 Clarify that projects are considered to be denied when any entitlement is denied that is necessary to obtain a building permit; Require cities to provide a list to developers of any inconsistencies with development standards within 30 to 60 days after the project is deemed complete; Allow market-rate developers, as well as affordable developers, to receive attorneys’ fees for a violation of the section; Require fines of at least $10,000 per unit if a city ignores a court order to comply with the HAA. AB 1515 (Included in Governor’s housing package). This bill would provide that a housing development project or emergency shelter is “deemed consistent” with community plans “if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project is consistent. This would allow a project proponent to submit evidence into the record of consistency even when a city determines that a project is inconsistent. If a court found the developer’s evidence to be “reasonable,” the project would be found to be consistent, regardless of the city’s determination. VII. Putting It All Together: When Your City May Need to Make Additional Findings. Here are the questions to ask to determine if any housing project may be subject to these statutes: Does the project include housing or involve downzoning or other zoning changes that include residentially zoned sites? If so: is the project or city action located on a site designated for housing in the City’s housing element? o If on a housing element site: was the site rezoned as required by a housing element program after the housing element was adopted? Then a housing development project must be approved ‘by right’ as described in Section 65583.2(i). o If on a housing element site: are the proposed units shown in the project application or possible after rezoning at least equal to the number of units shown in the housing element? 16 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 If not: the findings required by Section 65863 need to be made. If the proposal is inconsistent with the housing element, the project cannot be approved without an amendment to the housing element. If the project is consistent with the housing element, but the remaining sites identified in the housing element are not adequate to accommodate the city’s RHNA, then: If a developer’s initial application showed the reduced density, the developer must find the alternate site. If the developer reduced the density below the housing element projection after submitting the application, or the city requires that the density be reduced, or the city is taking other action to reduce density, the city must find the alternate site. If the project includes housing: Does the project meet the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA? o If a housing development project: does the city plan to deny or reduce the density of the project? If city plans to deny or reduce density: does the project comply with “applicable, objective” general plan and zoning standards? If does not comply: the city may specify the deficiencies and deny the project or reduce the density. If does comply: the project may only be denied, or have its density reduced, if the city can find a “specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety;” unless the project is in the coastal zone, in which case it likely may be denied if it does not comply with the local coastal plan. (Section 65589.5(f).) o If a housing development project: does the project qualify as an affordable project or as an emergency shelter? If affordable or a shelter: does the city plan to disapprove the project or impose a condition that will make the project infeasible 17 990051\1\2175131.3 8/17/2017 for development of affordable housing [probably as asserted by the applicant]: If so: in addition to the analysis and findings required by Section 65589.5(f), the city must make one of the findings required by Section 65589.5(d). VII. Conclusion. Housing advocates are convinced that local planning and zoning regulations and local opposition to housing account for the high cost, slow production, and lack of affordability of housing in much of California. Since projects have not been approved despite the designation of sites in housing elements, advocates are now looking to strengthen developers’ hand when their projects are reviewed by local governments and to enhance enforcement of state law. Bills likely to pass the Legislature will make existing requirements even more onerous. In attempting to comply, cities are buffeted by state demands on one hand and, on the other, by growing community opposition to the more intense infill housing required by housing element law, exacerbated by lack of funding to improve school overcrowding and traffic congestion. Nonetheless, cities need to ensure that the housing called for in their plans and policies can actually be built. City attorneys and managers will need to educate their decision- makers and the public on the demands posed by state law and the increasing limitations on local decision-making in reviewing housing projects.