Jump to content

California Housing Accountability Act

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blue Wizard (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 24 August 2017 (Update SFBARF vs. City of Berkeley lawsuit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 colloquially been referred to as "the anti-NIMBY law."[1]

Purpose

The Act applies to housing applications in the State of California that meet the following criteria:[2]

  • Meet a city's "objective general plan and zoning standards," e.g. the local zoning rules. A developer cannot use the HAA to build a 6-story building in an area that is zoned for 3 story buildings.
  • The development would not cause a "significant, adverse impact" to public health, or take water from bordering farms or preserved resources.

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 way, e.g. "all buildings on the block must have a Spanish facade."

Lawsuits over 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

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.[3]

Honchariw vs. County of Stanislaus

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.[4] 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 thus 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. [5]

SFBARF vs. City of Lafayette

In 2013, O'Brien Land Company submitted an application to the City of Lafayette to build 315 housing units on land in Deer Park Hill. More than two years later, the City of Lafayette met with the developer. Following these meetings, the City of Lafayette approved an application to build only 45 housing units on the property. [6]

The SF Bay Area Renters Federation (SFBARF) sued the City of Lafayette, arguing that the reduction in the number of homes on the land violated the terms of the Housing Accountability Act. In April 2017, a judge ruled in favor of the City of Lafayette, saying that since the city had never voted "no" on the initial application, there was no violation of the HAA.[6]

North 40 Development in Los Gatos

In September 2016 the city of Los Gatos voted 3-2 to reject an application for the North 40 plot of land.[7] The Councilmembers that voted no argued that the proposal did not fit with the city's Specific Plan. The developers sued the city, arguing that the city violated the HAA by rejecting the proposal. In June 2017, a judge ordered the city to reconsider the proposal.[8]

SFBARF vs. City of Berkeley

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.[1]

In March 2017, the Berkeley City Council voted to approve the use permit for the new development at 1310 Haskell, but deny a demolition permit necessary to destroy the dilapidated building occupying the lot. SFBARF sued the City of Berkeley a second time, arguing the city violated the spirit of the HAA by denying the demolition permit.[9] The city argues that the HAA applies only to housing approvals, not to ancillary permits like the demolition permit. In July 2017, the judge ruled in favor of SFBARF. [10]

Modifications to the HAA

In June 2017, the California State Senate passed SB 167, which would strengthen the language in the HAA, and require judges to award attorneys fees to successful petitioners under the HAA. In addition, judges would have the power to fine cities found in violation of the HAA.[11] The bill has not been taken up by the California State Assembly.

References

  1. ^ a b Knobel, Lance (1 March 2017). "Legal action likely after council rejects housing project on Haskell Street".
  2. ^ "California Government Code section 65589.5". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ "Case Study: Honchariw V. County Of Stanislaus - Law360". www.law360.com.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ a b Craddick, Judith. "Trauss vs. City of Lafayette" (PDF). Github. Superior Court of Martinez. Retrieved 19 June 2017.
  7. ^ "Los Gatos: Town council rejects proposed North 40 development – The Mercury News".
  8. ^ "Los Gatos: superior court rules against town on North 40".
  9. ^ SFBARF. "Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus, SFBARF vs Berkeley City Council" (PDF). Github. Alameda County Superior Court. Retrieved 19 June 2017.
  10. ^ Taylor, Tracey. "Berkeley's bid to stop new housing being built overruled by judge". Berkleyside. Berkeleyside. Retrieved 23 August 2017.
  11. ^ "Bill Text - SB-167 Housing Accountability Act". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=California_Housing_Accountability_Act&oldid=796946763"