California Housing Accountability Act

Last updated

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a California state law designed to promote infill development by speeding housing approvals. The Act was passed in 1982 in recognition that "the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem," and has also been referred to as "the anti-NIMBY law." [1] [2] It empowers the State of California to limit the ability of local government to restrict the development of new housing, and legalizes the Builder's remedy process to ameliorate violations of the law by local governments. [3] The Act was strengthened by subsequent amendments in 2017 and 2024.

Contents

Purpose and procedural mandates

The Act applies to housing applications to local agencies within the State of California that meet the following criteria: [4]

If an application meets these criteria, the relevant city council or planning commission must vote to approve the application and provide necessary permits within 90 to 180 days, with the shorter deadline for projects that include affordable housing and/or government funding. If the city votes to decline the application it must make a written finding specifying the section of the HAA the application violates. The city is also forbidden from proposing modifications that would reduce the number of units to be developed, or passing zoning rules that would retroactively make the application non compliant.

In particular, the "objective general plan and zoning standards" rule prohibits a city from rejecting projects for arbitrary reasons like "it does not fit with the neighborhood character," unless "neighborhood character" has been defined previously in the design guidelines or zoning code in some objective way, such as "all buildings on the block must be painted tan or gray, and have a Spanish tile roof."

The act is enforced by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Amendments to the HAA

2017 amendments

The California State Legislature passed several amendments, in 2016 and 2017, which modified the HAA to update its findings about the state housing shortage, and to strengthen its enforcement powers. The amended Act mandates that judges award attorneys fees to successful petitioners under the Act. In addition, judges would have the power to fine cities found in violation of the HAA. SB 167 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 29, 2017. [5] [6]

2024 amendments

The Legislature passed several amendments in 2024, including AB 1893, to modify and streamline the HAA for Builder's Remedy projects. AB 1893 ends the "free-for-all" approach to Builder's Remedy, instead applying site restrictions, density limits, certain objective local standards and other mandated requirements to new projects after January 1, 2025. In turn, AB 1893 eases certain affordability requirements and offers more explicit legal protections for Builder's Remedy projects against opponents' tactics, and establishes the Builder's Remedy as a consequence of local governments violating existing state housing law when interfering with otherwise legal housing projects. Previously-approved Builders' Remedy projects are allowed to stand or to convert to AB 1893 standards. AB 1886 was also passed by the Legislature in order to foreclose several legal arguments used in state court by opponents of Builder's Remedy projects. AB 1893 and AB 1886 were both signed into law by Gavin Newsom on September 19, 2024. [7] [8] [9]

Litigation involving the HAA

A number of lawsuits have been filed in recent years alleging violations of the HAA. The cases have helped establish conditions where the HAA does and does not apply.

Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland 1993

WPN, a developer, wanted to build a project in the Oakland Hills. The City of Oakland completed an environmental impact report, which certified several different options: one with 63 units, one with 45 homes, and one with 36 homes on wider lots. A number of nearby residents were vehemently opposed to the project. In 1991, the City approved the option with 45 homes. In particular, the City found that the HAA prevented them from asking the developer to reduce the number of units on the lot. A neighborhood homeowners association sued the city. The judge ruled in favor of the city, confirming their judgment that they could not legally ask the developer to reduce the number of units. [10]

Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus 2011

Nicholas Honchariw, a developer, wanted to build 8 market-rate homes on a plot of 33 acres in Stanislaus County. The county initially rejected the application, arguing that the plot did not meet the county's requirement that every subdivision have a public water connection. [11] The developer filed a lawsuit, arguing that some of the units had public water connections, and that he planned to create the necessary connections for the other units. In November 2011, an appeals court ruled in the developer's favor, saying the County's logic to deny subdivisions was circular: subdivisions could not be found in violation of the county ordinance until they had been created, and this could not be used as a valid reason to deny the subdivision approvals. The ruling also set a precedent that the HAA also applies to 100% market rate developments. [12]

Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos 2017

In September 2016 the city of Los Gatos voted 3-2 to reject an application to develop the North 40, a plot of land then mostly orchard. [13] Council members who voted 'No' stated that the proposal did not fit with the city's Specific Plan. The developers sued, arguing that the city's rejection violated the HAA. In June 2017, a judge of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County ordered the city to reconsider the developer's proposal in accordance with the objective standards mandated by the HAA. [14] [15] In August 2017, the City Council voted to approve the project. [16] [15]

SFBARF v. City of Berkeley 2017

In April 2015, a developer submitted an application to tear down a dilapidated building at 1310 Haskell Street in Berkeley, and replace it with three two-story homes. In July 2016, the Berkeley City Council voted 5-0 (with 4 abstentions) to deny the proposal. The city was sued by the SF Bay Area Renters Federation, who argued that denying the application violated the HAA. In October 2016, the city settled the lawsuit by agreeing to reconsider the proposal. [3]

In July 2017, the judge ruled in favor of SFBARF. [17] In September 2017, the Berkeley City Council voted to approve the project and settle the lawsuit. [18] [19]

CaRLA v. City of San Mateo 2021

In 2015, a developer submitted an application to build a four-story, ten-unit multifamily residential building in San Mateo, California. The Planning Commission determined that the application was consistent with the city's general plan and design guidelines, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the plan. As some residents opposed the project, the Planning Commission denied the project on October 10, 2017 on grounds that design guidelines required a "transition or step in height" between the two-story adjacent building and the four stories in the project proposal. After the City Council denied the appeal, appellants went to court on grounds that the denial violated the HAA.

The trial court denied the petition, finding that the design guidelines were objective standards for the purposes of the HAA. The trial court further concluded that portions of the HAA violated the Constitution of California.

The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court ruling, finding that the design guidelines around height were not objective for the purposes of the HAA. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of the HAA. The City of San Mateo settled with appellants, agreeing not to appeal the ruling, and to pay $450,000 in attorney fees to California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund. [20] [21] [22] [23]

The San Mateo City Council reconsidered the project on February 7, 2022. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NIMBY</span> Opposition to nearby development projects

NIMBY, an acronym for the phrase "not in my back yard", is a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed real estate development and infrastructure developments in their local area, as well as support for strict land use regulations. It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away. The residents are often called nimbys, and their viewpoint is called nimbyism. The opposite movement is known as YIMBY for "yes in my back yard".

Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is municipal and county planning ordinances that require or provide incentives when a given percentage of units in a new housing development be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. Such housing is known as inclusionary housing. The term inclusionary zoning indicates that these ordinances seek to counter exclusionary zoning practices, which exclude low-cost housing from a municipality through the zoning code. Non-profit affordable housing developers build 100% of their units as affordable, but need significant taxpayer subsidies for this model to work. Inclusionary zoning allows municipalities to have new affordable housing constructed without taxpayer subsidies. In order to encourage for-profit developers to build projects that include affordable units, cities often allow developers to build more total units than their zoning laws currently allow so that there will be enough profit generating market-rate units to offset the losses from the below market-rate units and still allow the project to be financially feasible. Inclusionary zoning can be mandatory or voluntary, though the great majority of units have been built as a result of mandatory programmes. There are variations among the set-aside requirements, affordability levels, and length of time the unit is deed-restricted as affordable housing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Environmental Quality Act</span> California law requiring environmental concerns be considered during land development

The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute passed in 1970 and signed in to law by then-governor Ronald Reagan, shortly after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and, in a departure from NEPA, adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local (public) agency's decision making process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act</span> United States federal law

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  106–274 (text)(PDF), codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law that protects individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws. RLUIPA was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no written vote was taken. The S. 2869 legislation was enacted into law by the 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton on September 22, 2000.

The YIMBY movement is a pro-housing movement that focuses on encouraging new housing, opposing density limits, and supporting public transportation. It stands in opposition to NIMBY tendencies, which generally oppose most forms of urban development in order to maintain the status quo.

The Mount Laurel doctrine is a significant judicial doctrine of the New Jersey State Constitution. The doctrine requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Coastal Commission</span> State agency regulating coastal land use

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is a state agency within the California Natural Resources Agency with quasi-judicial control of land and public access along the state's 1,100 miles (1,800 km) of coastline. Its mission as defined in the California Coastal Act is "to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secondary suite</span> Dwelling on a property separated from the main home

Secondary suites (also known as accessory dwelling units (ADU), in-law apartments, granny flats, granny annexes or garden suites) are self-contained apartments, cottages, or small residential units, that are located on a property that has a separate main, single-family home, duplex, or other residential unit. In some cases, the ADU or in-law is attached to the principal dwelling or is an entirely separate unit, located above a garage, across a carport, or in the backyard on the same property. Reasons for wanting to add a secondary suite to a property may be to receive additional income, provide social and personal support to a family member, or obtain greater security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vallco Shopping Mall</span> Shopping mall in California, U.S.

Vallco Shopping Mall is a mostly-demolished dead mall located in Cupertino, California, United States. Originally built as a single-story shopping mall in 1976 with a lower level added in 1988 and a third-level movie theater added in 2007, it was anchored for most of its existence by Macy's, Sears, and J.C. Penney. As of August 2022, the mall is owned by Sand Hill Property Co. and is almost entirely vacant, with Cupertino Ice Center, Bowlmor Lanes, and Benihana as the only remaining tenants, all in the section to the east of Wolfe Road. The larger western portion of the main mall structure was demolished in August 2019 and the pedestrian overpass was demolished in March 2020; plans for the site include a mixed-use development consisting of office space, housing, and retail.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zoning in the United States</span> Provision in urban planning in the United States

Zoning is a law that divides a jurisdiction's land into districts, or zones, and limits how land in each district can be used. In the United States, zoning includes various land use laws enforced through the police power rights of state governments and local governments to exercise authority over privately owned real property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Wiener</span> American politician (born 1970)

Scott Wiener is an American politician who has served in the California State Senate since 2016. A Democrat, he represents the 11th district, encompassing San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County.

The Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act ("Costa–Hawkins") is a California state law enacted in 1995, placing limits on municipal rent control ordinances. Costa–Hawkins preempts the field in two major ways. First, it prohibits cities from establishing rent control over certain kinds of residential units, such as single-family dwellings, condominiums, and newly constructed apartment units. Second, it prohibits "vacancy control", also called "strict" rent control. The legislation was sponsored by Democratic Senator Jim Costa and Republican Assemblymember Phil Hawkins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Torre de Manila</span> Residential in Manila, Philippines

The Torre de Manila is a high-rise residential building built by DMCI Homes in Ermita, Manila, Philippines. The building has been controversial due to its proximity to the Rizal Monument, and has been publicly known as "a national photobomber" and "a national disgrace to Rizal".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">San Francisco housing shortage</span> Housing affordability crisis

Starting in the 1990s, the city of San Francisco and the surrounding San Francisco Bay Area have faced a serious housing shortage. The Bay Area's housing shortage is part of the broader California housing shortage.

The San Francisco Bay Area Renters' Federation (SFBARF) is a political advocacy group formed in response to the present-day San Francisco housing shortage. SFBARF advocates for more housing development, and fewer zoning restrictions on the production of housing. It is one of several formed YIMBY groups in the San Francisco Bay Area.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jesse Arreguín</span> American politician (born 1984)

Jesse Arreguín is an American politician serving as mayor of Berkeley, California. He served on the Berkeley Housing Commission and Rent Stabilization Board from 2004 to 2009 and represented District 4 on the Berkeley City Council from 2009 to 2016. He is the first Latino elected Berkeley's mayor and one of the youngest mayors in the San Francisco Bay Area. Mayor Arreguín is the president of the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area's regional planning agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California housing shortage</span> Extended and increasing shortage since 1970

Since about 1970, California has been experiencing an extended and increasing housing shortage, such that by 2018, California ranked 49th among the states of the U.S. in terms of housing units per resident. This shortage has been estimated to be 3-4 million housing units as of 2017. As of 2018, experts said that California needs to double its current rate of housing production to keep up with expected population growth and prevent prices from further increasing, and needs to quadruple the current rate of housing production over the next seven years in order for prices and rents to decline.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Senate Bill 35 (2017)</span> Affordable housing streamlining law

California Senate Bill 35 is a statute streamlining housing construction in California counties and cities that fail to build enough housing to meet state mandated housing construction requirements. The bill was introduced to the California State Assembly by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-SF) on December 15, 2016. SB 35 aims to address the California housing shortage by increasing housing supply. The bill was signed into law on September 29, 2017 by Governor Jerry Brown as part of California’s 2017 Housing Package – a set of 15 bills that provide “an injection of new regulatory and financial resources” for cities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Single-family zoning</span> Residential planning classification

Single-family zoning is a type of planning restriction applied to certain residential zones in the United States and Canada in order to restrict development to only allow single-family detached homes. It disallows townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily housing (apartments) from being built on any plot of land with this zoning designation.

The builder's remedy is a legal mechanism in the United States that can be used in certain states to expedite the construction of low or middle income housing when a municipality fails to comply with laws related to housing development. Typically, where a municipality fails to comply with state laws regarding the development of new housing, the builder's remedy either allows a developer to bypass or ignore nearly all of the municipality's zoning laws and begin construction on a development in an expedited manner or provides the developer with a legal remedy that can be enforced in court or through an administrative process. Builder's remedy projects are increasingly common in California, where new state laws have been passed to force local municipalities to approve additional housing to address the ongoing California housing shortage. Massachusetts and New Jersey also employ a form of the builder's remedy as well.

References

  1. ↑ Murphy, Katy (November 12, 2017). "'Homes for human beings': Millennial-driven anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message". San Jose Mercury News . Archived from the original on 2017-11-23. Retrieved 2018-06-14. It has taken Berkeley, Lafayette and now Sausalito to court for alleged violations of the state's 35-year-old "anti-NIMBY (Not In My Backyard)" housing law, the Housing Accountability Act, which requires cities to approve building permits that meet existing zoning rules.
  2. ↑ Dougherty, Conor (April 16, 2016). "In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2016-04-25. Retrieved 2018-07-02. She wrote the petition herself, saying the move violated the California Housing Accountability Act, a 1980s law and "anti-Nimby" statute that limits cities' ability to downsize housing developments.
  3. 1 2 Knobel, Lance (1 March 2017). "Legal action likely after council rejects housing project on Haskell Street".
  4. ↑ "California Government Code section 65589.5". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
  5. ↑ "Bill Text - SB-167 Housing Accountability Act". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
  6. ↑ "Gov. Brown signs bill to help enforce pro-housing law", at California Apartment Association, Sept. 21, 1916. Accessed 2017-11-21.
  7. ↑ "California Legislature Passes Major Reforms for "Builder's Remedy" Projects | Insights | Holland & Knight". www.hklaw.com. Retrieved 2024-10-06.
  8. ↑ "California Modifies Builder's Remedy with AB 1893". natlawreview.com. Retrieved 2024-10-06.
  9. ↑ "Governor Newsom signs bipartisan housing package and launches Prop 1 Homekey+ initiative". Governor of California. 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2024-10-06.
  10. ↑ Phelan, Michael J. "Sequoyah Hills Homowners Assn. v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal. App. 4th 704 - Cal: Court of Appeal". Google Scholar. California Court of Appeals. Retrieved 27 June 2017.
  11. ↑ "Case Study: Honchariw V. County Of Stanislaus - Law360". www.law360.com.
  12. ↑ Franson, Donald R. "Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate Dist. 2011". Google Scholar. California Court of Appeals. Retrieved 19 June 2017.
  13. ↑ Peterson, Judy (2016-09-02). "Los Gatos: Town council rejects proposed North 40 development". The Mercury News.
  14. ↑ Peterson, Judy (2017-06-14). "North 40: Judge orders Los Gatos to reconsider rejected plan for 320 homes". The Mercury News.
  15. 1 2 Kautz, Barbara; Siegel, Kevin (2021-05-21). "New Housing Legislation: Lessons Learned from Recent Litigation". League of California Cities. Retrieved 2022-05-19.
  16. ↑ Peterson, Judy (2017-08-04). "End of an era: North 40 development is approved". The Mercury News.
  17. ↑ Taylor, Tracey (2017-07-25). "Berkeley's bid to stop new housing being built overruled by judge". Berkleyside. Berkeleyside. Retrieved 23 August 2017.
  18. ↑ Taylor, Tracey (2017-09-08). "After long legal dispute, Berkeley approves application to build 3 homes on Haskell Street". Berkleyside. Berkeleyside. Retrieved 2 February 2018.
  19. ↑ Kim, Alicia (2017-12-05). "Housing development on Haskell Street ready for development". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2 February 2018.
  20. ↑ Kendall, Marisa (2021-09-14). "This San Mateo legal ruling has big implications for California's housing crisis". The Mercury News . Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  21. ↑ "San Mateo won't appeal housing ruling". San Mateo Daily Journal . 2021-10-14. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  22. ↑ "San Mateo to pay $450K settlement related to denial of housing project". Climate Online. 2021-10-15. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  23. ↑ California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo,68Cal. App. 5th820(Cal. App.2021-09-10).
  24. ↑ Browning, Corey (2022-02-07). "Condo plans return before San Mateo City Council after costly lawsuit". San Mateo Daily Journal. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.