AB 3194: Housing Accountability Act: project approval.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2018-08-28
The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more conditions exist, including that the housing development project or emergency shelter would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. The act also requires a local agency proposing to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, to base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, including if the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
This bill would specify that a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. The bill would authorize a local agency, provided that the local agency has complied with specified provisions, to require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which are consistent with the general plan, and would require the local agency to apply those standards and criteria to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The bill would declare the Legislatures intent that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently.
The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more conditions exist, including that the housing development project or emergency shelter would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. The act also requires a local agency proposing to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, to base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, including if the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
This bill would specify that a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. The bill would authorize a local agency, provided that the local agency has complied with specified provisions, to require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which are consistent with the general plan, and would require the local agency to apply those standards and criteria to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The bill would declare the Legislatures intent that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently.
The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more conditions exist, including that the housing development project or emergency shelter would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. The act also requires a local agency proposing to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, to base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, including if the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
This bill would specify that a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. The bill would authorize a local agency, provided that the local agency has complied with specified provisions, to require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are which is consistent with the general plan, and would require the local agency to apply those standards and criteria to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The bill would declare the Legislatures intent that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently.
The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more conditions exist, including that the housing development project or emergency shelter would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. The act also requires a local agency proposing to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, to base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, including if the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
This bill would specify that a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance, standards and criteria, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. The bill would authorize a local agency, provided that the local agency has complied with specified provisions, to require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are consistent with the general plan, and would require the local agency to apply those standards and criteria to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The bill would declare the Legislatures intent that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently.
The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified findings. Under the act, the local agency may disapprove or condition approval of a housing development project or emergency shelter if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation, as provided. written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more conditions exist, including that the housing development project or emergency shelter would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. The act also requires a local agency proposing to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, to base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, including if the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist.This bill would prohibit a housing development project from being found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning of the project site, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the housing element or by the land use element of the general plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years, as specified.Under the Housing accountability Act, if a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. One of those conditions is that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. Specific adverse impact is defined to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, or 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 bill would specify that a housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. The bill would declare the Legislatures intent regarding these provisions to establish a high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons. that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently.
The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified findings. Under the act, the local agency may disapprove or condition approval of a housing development project or emergency shelter if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation, as provided.
If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist.
This bill would prohibit a housing development project from being found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning of the project site, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the land use or housing element or by the land use element of the general plan. plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years, as specified.
Under the Housing accountability Act, if a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. One of those conditions is that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. Specific adverse impact is defined to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, or 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 bill would declare the Legislatures intent regarding these provisions to establish a high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons.
The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified findings. Under the act, the local agency may disapprove or condition approval of a housing development project or emergency shelter if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation, as provided.
If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist.
This bill would prohibit a housing development project from being found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning of the project site, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the land use or housing element of the general plan.
Under the Housing accountability Act, if a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. One of those conditions is that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. Specific adverse impact is defined to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, or 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 bill would declare the Legislatures intent regarding these provisions to establish a high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons.
This bill would revise that definition to require that the impact also be imminent.The bill would additionally state the Legislatures intent in enacting the bills provisions to supersede the California Court of Appeal decision in Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, as specified.The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified findings. Under the act, the local agency may disapprove or condition approval of a housing development project or emergency shelter if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation, as provided.
If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist.
This bill would prohibit a housing development project from being found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning of the project site, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the land use or housing element of the general plan.
Under the Housing accountability Act, if a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. One of those conditions is that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as specified. Specific adverse impact is defined to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, or 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 bill would revise that definition to require that the impact also be imminent.
The bill would additionally state the Legislatures intent in enacting the bills provisions to supersede the California Court of Appeal decision in Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, as specified.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3)It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A)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.
(B)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.
(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3)It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A)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.
(B)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.
(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3)It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A)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.
(B)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.
(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3)It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A)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.
(B)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.
(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance, standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3)It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)(A)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(i)(A)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 clause, 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.
(ii)(B)There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to clause (i), 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.
(B)It is the intent of the Legislature to establish a very high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons. The Legislature further declares that the conditions necessary to satisfying subparagraph (A) rarely arise. The Legislature further declares that regularly occurring planning issues do not rise to the level of a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety as used in this section.(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall not be found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance, and the project shall not require a rezoning, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the housing element or by the land use element of the general plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years. For purposes of this paragraph, if a conflict exists between the housing element and the land use element, the housing element shall prevail, regardless of whether the housing element was adopted or updated at an earlier date. the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)(A)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(i)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 clause, 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.
(ii)There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to clause (i), 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.
(B)It is the intent of the Legislature to establish a very high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons. The Legislature further declares that the conditions necessary to satisfying subparagraph (A) rarely arise. The Legislature further declares that regularly occurring planning issues do not rise to the level of a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety as used in this section.
(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall not be found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and the project shall not require a rezoning, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the land use or housing element or by the land use element of the general plan. plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years. For purposes of this paragraph, if a conflict exists between the housing element and the land use element, the housing element shall prevail, regardless of whether the housing element was adopted or updated at an earlier date.
(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)(A)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(i)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 clause, a specific, adverse impact means an imminent, 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.
(ii)There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to clause (i), 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.
(B)In amending subparagraph (A) by the act adding this subparagraph, it It is the intent of the Legislature to establish a very high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons. The Legislature further declares that the conditions necessary to satisfying subparagraph (A) rarely arise. The Legislature further declares its intent, in amending subparagraph (A) by the act adding this subparagraph, to supersede the holding and dicta in the decision of Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201 to the extent that the decision suggests that regularly occurring planning issues such as parks, traffic, schools, and air quality do not rise to the level of a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety as used in this section.
(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)(A)For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall not be found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and the project shall not require a rezoning, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the land use or housing element of the general plan.
(B)The Legislature declares its intent in adding this paragraph to supersede the holding and dicta in the decision of Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201 to the extent that the decision declined to apply this subdivision to a proposed housing development on the basis of inconsistency with the existing zoning ordinance, notwithstanding that the project was consistent with the use, density, and intensity allowable on the project site by the general plan.(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B)California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the states 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.
(C)Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the states environmental and climate objectives.
(B)While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C)The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)Californias overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of Californias households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.
(F)Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H)When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.
(I)An additional consequence of the states cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. Californias cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.
(J)Californias housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)The Legislatures intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of Californias communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(b)It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3)The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4)The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5)The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A)This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdictions housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdictions zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B)If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agencys share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C)If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(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 jurisdictions 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 development.
(2)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdictions need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g)This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h)The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)Residential units only.
(B)Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C)Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3)Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4)Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(5)Disapprove the housing development project includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:
(A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
(B)Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i)If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j)(1)(A)When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A)(i)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, clause, a specific, adverse impact means a an imminent, 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.
(B)(ii)There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), clause (i), 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.
(B)In amending subparagraph (A) by the act adding this subparagraph, it is the intent of the Legislature to establish a very high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons. The Legislature further declares that the conditions necessary to satisfying subparagraph (A) rarely arise. The Legislature further declares its intent, in amending subparagraph (A) by the act adding this subparagraph, to supersede the holding and dicta in the decision of Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201 to the extent that the decision suggests that regularly occurring planning issues such as parks, traffic, schools, and air quality rise to the level of a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety as used in this section.
(2)(A)If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B)If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)For purposes of this section, 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.
(4)(A)For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall not be found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and the project shall not require a rezoning, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the land use or housing element of the general plan.
(B)The Legislature declares its intent in adding this paragraph to supersede the holding and dicta in the decision of Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201 to the extent that the decision declined to apply this subdivision to a proposed housing development on the basis of inconsistency with the existing zoning ordinance, notwithstanding that the project was consistent with the use, density, and intensity allowable on the project site by the general plan.
(4)
(5)For purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k)(1)(A)The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, lower density includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B)(i)Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agencys progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 201718 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii)If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C)If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, housing organization means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(l)If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the courts order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
(m)Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n)In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioners points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondents points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2018 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 243, Statutes of 2018. |
| Aug 28, 2018 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Aug 16, 2018 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Aug 13, 2018 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 9, 2018 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 11 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Aug 9, 2018 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Aug 6, 2018 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jul 5, 2018 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Jul 2, 2018 | From Consent Calendar. |
| Jul 2, 2018 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Jun 28, 2018 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 27). |
| Jun 21, 2018 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F. |
| Jun 20, 2018 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 19). |
| Jun 13, 2018 | Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and GOV. & F. |
| Jun 4, 2018 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 31, 2018 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 29, 2018 | Assembly Rule 69(b) suspended. (Ayes 51. Noes 25.) |
| May 14, 2018 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 10, 2018 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (May 9). |
| May 1, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. |
| Apr 30, 2018 | Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 26, 2018 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 25). |
| Apr 17, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D. |
| Apr 16, 2018 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 15, 2018 | Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV. |
| Feb 17, 2018 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 19. |
| Feb 16, 2018 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2018 | AB 3194 DALY Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 9, 2018 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB3194 Daly By Skinner | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 27, 2018 | Do pass and be ordered to the Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| Jun 19, 2018 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Governance and Finance] | Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing |
Passed |
|
| May 31, 2018 | AB 3194 DALY Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 9, 2018 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government |
Passed |
|
| Apr 25, 2018 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government] | Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| American Planning Association | * Support | May 9, 2018 |
| Bay Area Council | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| California Apartment Association | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| California Association of Housing Authorities and Local Housing Finance Agencies | * Support | Jun 19, 2018 |
| California Association Of Winegrape Growers | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| California Building Industry Association | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| California Business Properties Association | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| California Chamber Of Commerce | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| California Construction And Industrial Materials Association | ** Support | May 8, 2018 |
| California Construction And Industry Materials Association | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| California MB | * Support | Jun 19, 2018 |
| California State Association Of Counties | * Support | May 9, 2018 |
| League Of California Cities | ** Against | May 8, 2018 |
| National Federation Of Independent Business | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| Nonprofit Housing Association Northern California | * Support | Jun 19, 2018 |
| Rural County Representatives Of California | * Against Unless Amend | May 9, 2018 |
| San Francisco Housing Coalition | ** Support | Aug 8, 2018 |
| Unknown. | ** Against | Jun 25, 2018 |
| Urban Counties of California | * Against Unless Amend | May 9, 2018 |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 3194
Author:(Daly)
As Amended Ver:July 5, 2018
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: | 70-4 | (May 31, 2018) | SENATE: | 36-0 | (August 9, 2018) |
Original Committee Reference: H. & C.D.
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Specifically, this bill:
States legislative intent that the conditions that would enable a local agency to reject a housing development project due it having a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, arise infrequently.
Provides that a proposed project is not inconsistent with applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the proposed project is consistent with objective general plan standards and criteria but the local agency’s adopted zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
Allows a local agency to require a proposed project to comply with objective standards and criteria of the zoning consistent with the general plan, but requires the standards and criteria to be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the project. Requires the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions that are not in compliance, and explaining the reasons why, pursuant to existing law.
The Senate amendments clarify the intent of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
Background on the HAA. The HAA, also known as the "Anti-Nimby" legislation, was enacted in 1982, and restricts a local agency's ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential projects. The purpose of the HAA is to help ensure that a city or county not reject or make infeasible housing developments, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting that housing need determined pursuant to Housing Element Law without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.
The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments. In 2011 the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (200 Cal.App.4th 1066) held that specified provisions of the HAA apply to all housing projects, not just affordable projects.
In 2017, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, three bills making significant changes to the HAA. Under identical measures, AB 678 (Bocanegra), Chapter 373, Statutes of 2017, and SB 167 (Skinner), Chapter 368, Statutes of 2017, the HAA was strengthened to increase the burden on local jurisdictions when denying a housing project, imposing fines for a violation of the HAA, and expanding judicial remedies for violations of the HAA. AB 1515 (Daly), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2017, changed the standard the court must use in reviewing the denial of a housing development by providing that a project is consistent with local planning and zoning laws if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. This could expand the number of housing developments that are afforded the protections of the HAA. This bill aims to build on AB 1515 and strengthen HAA even further by requiring approval of certain projects that are inconsistent with zoning if the jurisdiction has not brought its zoning ordinance into compliance with the general plan.
General Plan and Housing Element. Every city and county is required to develop a comprehensive, long-term general plan that outlines the community's vision of future development through a series of policy statements and goals. The general plan is the basis for all land use decisions. Zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects can only be approved when they are consistent with the general plan. Each community must also adopt a housing element, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community's projected housing needs. Not only must all land use be consistent with the general plan, the general plan is required to be internally consistent. The land use element of the general plan must not conflict with the housing element.
The distribution of residential, commercial, and industrial and other zones must be based on the pattern of land uses established in the general plan. Zoning maps illustrate how all uses are distributed geographically. Zoning is adopted by ordinance and assigns each piece of property to a zone which describes the rules under which it can be used. A zoning ordinance identifies allowable uses and sets standards, such as minimum lot size, maximum building height, and minimum front yard depth. If a developer proposes a use that is not allowed in that zone, then a rezoning is required. A public hearing is required to rezone and a city council or zone board must deny requests when the proposed zone conflicts with the general plan.
The housing element must include a specific list of adequate sites to accommodate the city or county's housing needs at all income levels. Once the housing element is adopted, sites must be zoned via local ordinance to reflect the density and intensity of the housing element within three years. Because a local government is not required to rezone for three years, there may be a gap between when the housing element and zoning ordinance are consistent.
The general plan is a broad description of the policies and goals of the community's development goals. The housing element, which must be adopted every eight years (five years for some rural cities), is more detailed and includes a description of specific sites to meet the city or county's housing needs for all income levels. Three years after a housing element is adopted, the zoning ordinance must be updated to reflect any changes.
HAA Compliance Provisions. The HAA, in Section 65589.5(j), specifies two different outcomes: a) What happens when a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project when it complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria; or, b) What happens when a local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
For instances in this second category the local agency is required to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance or not in conformity, within 30 (or 60) days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete if the project contains 150 or fewer, (or more than 150 housing units). Should the agency fail to provide the documentation, the housing project will be deemed consistent, complaint, and in conformity.
When a housing development project site must be rezoned it does not receive the projections of the HAA. This bill would extend the protections of the HAA to housing development projects that are not consistent with zoning if the project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but zoning is not consistent with the general plan. The housing development project would not be required to be rezoned.
Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0003944
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 3194
: 7/5/18
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 13-0, 6/19/18
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Dodd, Gaines, Galgiani, McGuire, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/27/18
AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-4, 5/31/18 - See last page for vote
SOURCE: California Building Industry Association
DIGEST:
This bill makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
Senate Floor Amendments of 7/5/18 make a technical correction.
ANALYSIS: Existing law under the HAA:
- Requires cities and counties, under existing planning and zoning law, to prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element, to guide the future growth of a community. The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, objectives, financial resources and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
- Requires the local jurisdiction, to the extent that it does not have adequate sites within its existing inventory of residentially zoned land, to adopt a program to rezone land at appropriate densities to accommodate the community’s housing need for all income groups.
- Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing project containing units affordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters, or conditioning the approval in a manner that renders the housing project infeasible, unless it makes one of the following findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record:
- The jurisdiction has adopted an updated housing element in substantial compliance with the law, and the jurisdiction met its share of the regional housing need for that income category.
- The project will have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters.
- The denial or imposition of conditions is required to comply with state or federal law.
- The project is located on agricultural or resource preservation land that does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities.
- The jurisdiction has identified sufficient and adequate sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need and the project is inconsistent with both the general plan land use designation and the zoning ordinance.
- Provides that if a locality denies approval or imposes restrictions, design changes, a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of housing development for a very low-, low- or moderate-income households, and the denial of that development or the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial, then the burden of proof shall be on the locality to show that its decision is consistent with its findings disapproving the development.
This bill:
- States legislative intent that the conditions that would enable a local agency to reject a housing development project due it having a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, arise infrequently.
- Provides that a proposed project is not inconsistent with applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the proposed project is consistent with objective general plan standards and criteria but the local agency’s adopted zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
- Allows a local agency to require a proposed project to comply with objective standards and criteria of the zoning consistent with the general plan, but requires the standards and criteria to be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the project. Requires the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions that are not in compliance, and explaining the reasons why, pursuant to existing law.
Background
The purpose of the HAA, also known as the "Anti-NIMBY Act," is to limit the ability of local agencies to reject or make infeasible housing developments without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action. The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce the HAA. In such a case, the local government bears the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the requirements in the HAA, including, if applicable, any findings that the development was not consistent with general plan and zoning standards. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments.
Comments
- Purpose. The author states that under the HAA, when a proposed development complies with objective planning rules, the local government cannot deny the project, or reduce its density, unless it makes a finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot otherwise be mitigated. Unfortunately, some local agencies have required housing projects to obtain re-zonings or variances on a project-by-project basis, even when those projects are consistent with housing densities and other objective standards. Such actions are a way for locals to evade compliance with the HAA, on the grounds that projects are subsequently inconsistent with existing zoning standards. The author states that housing advocates have expressed concern that locals might also seek to block proposed developments by characterizing regularly-occurring scenarios, such as increased class sizes or the absence of a park in a neighborhood, as “un-mitigatable” health and safety concerns. This bill seeks to strengthen the HAA by closing loopholes that undermine the law’s applicability and effectiveness.
- Consistency with general plan and zoning standards. Regardless of whether a housing development is affordable, in order to qualify for the HAA's protections a development must be consistent with the local government's general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time that the application is determined to be complete. Courts tend to give a great deal of deference to local governments in land use cases. A consistency determination is generally upheld unless the court determines the local government has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without evidentiary basis.
- Game changer. AB 1515 (Daly, Chapter 379, Statutes of 2017) requires courts to give less deference to a local government’s consistency determination. It changes the standard of review by providing that a project is consistent if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. Because zoning and planning consistency is a threshold requirement for the HAA, this requirement potentially expands the number of housing developments that are afforded protections under HAA. This bill aims to build on AB 1515 and strengthen HAA even further by requiring approval of certain projects that are inconsistent with zoning if the jurisdiction has not brought its zoning ordinance into compliance with the general plan.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1515 (Daly, 2017) states that a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
California Building Industry Association (source)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Building Industry Association, Professional Women in Building Council
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction and Industry Materials Association
National Federation of Independent Business
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
San Francisco Housing Coalition
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Building Industry Association states that this bill will close loopholes in the Housing Accountability Act to make it more effective. This will have a beneficial impact on the condition of housing and will act as a “housing creator.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-4, 5/31/18
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Dahle, Harper, Obernolte, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Brough, Muratsuchi, Nazarian
8/8/18 9:54:47
**** END ****
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 3194
:
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 13-0, 6/19/18
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Dodd, Gaines, Galgiani, McGuire, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/27/18
AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-4, 5/31/18 - See last page for vote
SOURCE: California Building Industry Association
DIGEST:
This bill makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
ANALYSIS: Existing law under the HAA:
- Requires cities and counties, under existing planning and zoning law, to prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element, to guide the future growth of a community. The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, objectives, financial resources and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
- Requires the local jurisdiction, to the extent that it does not have adequate sites within its existing inventory of residentially zoned land, to adopt a program to rezone land at appropriate densities to accommodate the community’s housing need for all income groups.
- Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing project containing units affordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters, or conditioning the approval in a manner that renders the housing project infeasible, unless it makes one of the following findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record:
- The jurisdiction has adopted an updated housing element in substantial compliance with the law, and the jurisdiction met its share of the regional housing need for that income category.
- The project will have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters.
- The denial or imposition of conditions is required to comply with state or federal law.
- The project is located on agricultural or resource preservation land that does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities.
- The jurisdiction has identified sufficient and adequate sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need and the project is inconsistent with both the general plan land use designation and the zoning ordinance.
- Provides that if a locality denies approval or imposes restrictions, design changes, a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of housing development for a very low-, low- or moderate-income households, and the denial of that development or the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial, then the burden of proof shall be on the locality to show that its decision is consistent with its findings disapproving the development.
This bill:
- States legislative intent that the conditions that would enable a local agency to reject a housing development project due it having a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, arise infrequently.
- Provides that a proposed project is not inconsistent with applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the proposed project is consistent with objective general plan standards and criteria but the local agency’s adopted zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
- Allows a local agency to require a proposed project to comply with objective standards and criteria of the zoning consistent with the general plan, but requires the standards and criteria to be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the project. Requires the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions that are not in compliance, and explaining the reasons why, pursuant to existing law.
Background
The purpose of the HAA, also known as the "Anti-NIMBY Act," is to limit the ability of local agencies to reject or make infeasible housing developments without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action. The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce the HAA. In such a case, the local government bears the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the requirements in the HAA, including, if applicable, any findings that the development was not consistent with general plan and zoning standards. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments.
Comments
- Purpose. The author states that under the HAA, when a proposed development complies with objective planning rules, the local government cannot deny the project, or reduce its density, unless it makes a finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot otherwise be mitigated. Unfortunately, some local agencies have required housing projects to obtain re-zonings or variances on a project-by-project basis, even when those projects are consistent with housing densities and other objective standards. Such actions are a way for locals to evade compliance with the HAA, on the grounds that projects are subsequently inconsistent with existing zoning standards. The author states that housing advocates have expressed concern that locals might also seek to block proposed developments by characterizing regularly-occurring scenarios, such as increased class sizes or the absence of a park in a neighborhood, as “un-mitigatable” health and safety concerns. This bill seeks to strengthen the HAA by closing loopholes that undermine the law’s applicability and effectiveness.
- Consistency with general plan and zoning standards. Regardless of whether a housing development is affordable, in order to qualify for the HAA's protections a development must be consistent with the local government's general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time that the application is determined to be complete. Courts tend to give a great deal of deference to local governments in land use cases. A consistency determination is generally upheld unless the court determines the local government has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without evidentiary basis.
- Game changer. AB 1515 (Daly, Chapter 379, Statutes of 2017) requires courts to give less deference to a local government’s consistency determination. It changes the standard of review by providing that a project is consistent if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. Because zoning and planning consistency is a threshold requirement for the HAA, this requirement potentially expands the number of housing developments that are afforded protections under HAA. This bill aims to build on AB 1515 and strengthen HAA even further by requiring approval of certain projects that are inconsistent with zoning if the jurisdiction has not brought its zoning ordinance into compliance with the general plan.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1515 (Daly, 2017) states that a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
California Building Industry Association (source)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Building Industry Association, Professional Women in Building Council
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction and Industry Materials Association
National Federation of Independent Business
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
San Francisco Housing Coalition
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/28/18)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Building Industry Association states that this bill will close loopholes in the Housing Accountability Act to make it more effective. This will have a beneficial impact on the condition of housing and will act as a “housing creator.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-4, 5/31/18
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Dahle, Harper, Obernolte, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Brough, Muratsuchi, Nazarian
7/3/18 16:19:51
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Mike McGuire, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: | AB 3194 | Hearing Date: | 6/27/18 |
Author: | Daly | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 5/29/18 | Fiscal: | No |
Consultant: | Favorini-Csorba | ||
Housing Accountability Act: project approval
Narrows the circumstances under which a housing project may be denied under the Housing Accountability Act.
Background
Land use planning and permitting. The California Constitution allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that local governments derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development.
Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, including setting maximum densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, and setbacks to preserve privacy. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
State law also specifies timelines for approvals of development projects. Specifically, the 1977 Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits, including new housing. If they don’t, the project is deemed approved. Under the act, public agencies must compile lists of information that applicants must provide and explain the criteria they will use to review permit applications. Public agencies have 30 days to determine whether applications for development projects are complete; failure to act results in an application being "deemed complete." However, local governments may continue to request additional information, potentially extending the time before the application is considered complete, which is the trigger for the approval timeline to commence. This has led to the Permit Streamlining Act to be characterized as a “paper tiger” that rarely results in accelerated development approvals.
Housing Accountability Act. The Legislature has enacted a variety of statutes to facilitate and encourage the provision of housing, particularly affordable housing and housing to support individuals with disabilities or other needs. Among them is the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), enacted in 1982 in response to concerns over a growing not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) rejection of housing development by local governments (SB 2011, Greene). The HAA, also known as the “Anti-NIMBY” legislation, restricts a local agency’s ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential projects. The HAA limits the ability of local governments to reject or render infeasible housing developments based on their density without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action. Specifically, when a proposed development complies with objective general plan and zoning standards, including design review standards, a local agency that intends to disapprove the project, or approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, must make written findings based on substantial evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and that there are no feasible methods to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval of the project.
The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments. However, in 2011 the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (200 Cal.App.4th 1066) held that specified provisions of the HAA apply to all housing projects, not just affordable projects.
In 2017, the Legislature enacted three bills making significant changes to the HAA. Two identical measures, AB 678 (Bocanegra) and SB 167 (Skinner), strengthened the HAA to increase the burden on local jurisdictions when denying a housing project by imposing fines for a violation of the HAA and expanding judicial remedies for violations of the HAA. The Bocanegra and Skinner bills also required cities and counties to explain their reasoning when they consider a housing development to be inconsistent with local planning standards. This explanation is due to the project applicant in writing within 30 to 60 days of the project’s application being found complete. If a city or county fails to do so, the project is deemed to be consistent.
The third bill, AB 1515 (Daly), changed the standard the court must use in reviewing the denial of a housing development by providing that a project is consistent with local planning and zoning laws if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent, instead of deferring to a local government’s interpretation of its own ordinances. AB 1515’s changes are expected to expand the number of housing developments that are afforded the protections of the HAA.
The HAA only applies to a project that is consistent with local planning standards, including the applicable general plan and zoning ordinances; otherwise a local government may deny it. A local government may also deny a project if it finds that there are specific, adverse impacts on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated.
Although local zoning and other development standards must generally be consistent with the applicable general plan, situations can arise where there is an inconsistency. Some of these circumstances are legitimate: with the exception of the City of Los Angeles, charter cities’ zoning and other planning standards are not required by state law to be consistent with their general plan, although approximately ¼ of charter cities have adopted ordinances that require such consistency. In addition, there may be a period between an amendment to portions of a general plan, such as the housing element, and when the local government updates its zoning ordinances to match the general plan.
However, according to developers, some local agencies intentionally maintain inconsistencies to gain an additional measure of control over development. By maintaining low densities or height limits that are inconsistent with the general plan for the express purpose of requiring rezoning, even when projects are consistent with housing density and other objective standards contained in the city or county’s general plan, local governments can ensure that they maintain discretionary approval over projects. Locals sometimes exploit this loophole to evade compliance with the HAA, on the grounds that projects are technically inconsistent with the existing zoning standards. For example, according to a 2018 report by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, of 152 housing projects processed in two of California’s largest jurisdictions over the last three years, the jurisdiction required a rezoning or a variance in 78 cases—yet in only six instances did projects need a general plan amendment.
Developers also argue that some local governments are exploring methods to expand the use of the HAA’s health and safety exemption to apply more frequently to projects in an effort to preserve the ability to deny housing projects. The California Building Industry Association wants the Legislature to curb these practices.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 3194 provides that for purposes of the HAA, a housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
AB 3194 states the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in the HAA, arise infrequently.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “This bill is designed to strengthen the Housing Accountability Act by closing loopholes that undermine the law’s applicability and effectiveness. Under the HAA, when a proposed project complies with objective planning rules, the local government cannot deny the project, or reduce its density, unless it makes a finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot otherwise be mitigated. Unfortunately, some local agencies have required housing projects to obtain re-zonings or variances on a project-by-project basis, even when projects are consistent with housing density and other objective standards. AB 3194 provides that if a proposed housing development is consistent with objective general plan policies, but it is inconsistent with the zoning for the site because the local government has not made the zoning consistent with the general plan, the project cannot be subjected to a re-zoning. However, the local government can still reject the project or require a down-sizing if it makes the necessary health and safety findings. This bill will continue to uphold the intent of the Housing Accountability Act, which is to ensure that more housing gets built in California.”
2. When will it be enough? When the HAA was initially enacted in 1982, it contained three provisions. With the recent amendments in 2017, the current HAA now contains 52 parts as the Legislature has passed laws to respond to the creative ways in which local governments attempt to maintain the ability to deny projects. Time will tell if the most recent amendments significantly change the dynamics of the HAA, but it is unclear whether enforcement through litigation is the best approach: more direct intervention in local decision-making may be needed. In the meantime, local governments face the prospect of continually adapting to the new changes and the litigation environment that they create.
3. Incoming! The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee approved AB 3194 at its June 19th meeting on a vote of 13-0. The Senate Governance and Finance Committee is hearing AB 3194 as the committee of second reference.
4. Related legislation. SB 1333, which the Committee approved at its April 25th hearing on a vote of 4 to 2, requires charter cities’ planning standards to be consistent with the applicable general plan. SB 1333 is currently pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 7-0
Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-1
Assembly Floor: 70-4
Support and Opposition
(6/22/18)
Support: Bay Area Council; California Building Industry Association; California Apartment Association; California Association of Winegrape Growers; California Business Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce; California Construction and Industrial Materials Association; National Federation of Independent Business; Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California; Professional Women in Building Council; San Francisco Housing Action Coalition.
Opposition: Unknown.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/19/2018
Author: | Daly | ||
Version: | 6/20/2018 As Proposed to be Amended | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | No |
Consultant: | Erin Riches | ||
SUBJECT:
DIGEST: This bill makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Under the HAA:
- Requires cities and counties, under existing planning and zoning law, to prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element, to guide the future growth of a community. The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, objectives, financial resources and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
- Requires the local jurisdiction, to the extent that it does not have adequate sites within its existing inventory of residentially zoned land, to adopt a program to rezone land at appropriate densities to accommodate the community’s housing need for all income groups.
- Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing project containing units affordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters, or conditioning the approval in a manner that renders the housing project infeasible, unless it makes one of the following findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record:
- The jurisdiction has adopted an updated housing element in substantial compliance with the law, and the jurisdiction met its share of the regional housing need for that income category.
- The project will have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters.
- The denial or imposition of conditions is required to comply with state or federal law.
- The project is located on agricultural or resource preservation land that does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities.
- The jurisdiction has identified sufficient and adequate sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need and the project is inconsistent with both the general plan land use designation and the zoning ordinance.
- Provides that if a locality denies approval or imposes restrictions, design changes, a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of housing development for a very low-, low- or moderate-income households, and the denial of that development or the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial, then the burden of proof shall be on the locality to show that its decision is consistent with its findings disapproving the development.
This bill:
- States legislative intent that the conditions that would enable a local agency to reject a housing development project due it having a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, arise infrequently.
- Provides that a proposed project is not inconsistent with applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the proposed project is consistent with objective general plan standards and criteria but the local agency’s adopted zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
- Allows a local agency to require a proposed project to comply with objective standards and criteria of the zoning consistent with the general plan, but requires the standards and criteria to be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the project. Requires the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions that are not in compliance, and explaining the reasons why, pursuant to existing law.
COMMENTS
- Purpose. The author states that under the HAA, when a proposed development complies with objective planning rules, the local government cannot deny the project, or reduce its density, unless it makes a finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot otherwise be mitigated. Unfortunately, some local agencies have required housing projects to obtain re-zonings or variances on a project-by-project basis, even when those projects are consistent with housing densities and other objective standards. Such actions are a way for locals to evade compliance with the HAA, on the grounds that projects are subsequently inconsistent with existing zoning standards. The author states that housing advocates have expressed concern that locals might also seek to block proposed developments by characterizing regularly-occurring scenarios, such as increased class sizes or the absence of a park in a neighborhood, as “un-mitigatable” health and safety concerns. This bill seeks to strengthen the HAA by closing loopholes that undermine the law’s applicability and effectiveness.
- HAA. The purpose of the HAA, also known as the "Anti-NIMBY Act," is to limit the ability of local agencies to reject or make infeasible housing developments without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action. The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce the HAA. In such a case, the local government bears the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the requirements in the HAA, including, if applicable, any findings that the development was not consistent with general plan and zoning standards. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments.
- Consistency with general plan and zoning standards. Regardless of whether a housing development is affordable, in order to qualify for the HAA's protections a development must be consistent with the local government's general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time that the application is determined to be complete. Courts tend to give a great deal of deference to local governments in land use cases. A consistency determination is generally upheld unless the court determines the local government has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without evidentiary basis.
- Game changer. AB 1515 (Daly, 2017) requires courts to give less deference to a local government’s consistency determination. It changes the standard of review by providing that a project is consistent if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. Because zoning and planning consistency is a threshold requirement for the HAA, this requirement potentially expands the number of housing developments that are afforded protections under HAA. This bill aims to build on AB 1515 and strengthen HAA even further by requiring approval of certain projects that are inconsistent with zoning if the jurisdiction has not brought its zoning ordinance into compliance with the general plan.
- Amendments remove opposition. The author is amending this bill in this committee to add a provision allowing a local agency to require a proposed project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning consistent with the general plan, as specified (see “This Bill,” #3). The American Planning Association, California Chapter, California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, Rural County Representatives of California, and Urban Counties of California state that these will correct ambiguities that would have resulted in costly litigation for local governments. These organizations state that these amendments remove their opposition to this bill.
- Double-referral. This bill is double-referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
Related Legislation:
AB 1515 (Daly, 2017) — states that a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 70-4
Local Gov: 8-1
H&CD: 7-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 13, 2018.)
SUPPORT:
California Building Industry Association (sponsor)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Building Industry Association, Professional Women in Building Council
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction and Industry Materials Association
National Federation of Independent Business
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
San Francisco Housing Coalition
OPPOSITION:
None received.
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 3194
Author:(Daly)
As Amended Ver:May 29, 2018
Majority vote
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Housing | 7-0 | Chiu, Maienschein, Chau, Choi, Gloria, Limón, Wood |
|
Local Government | 8-1 | Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Caballero, Cooley, Grayson, Lackey, Voepel, Mullin | Waldron |
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Specifically, this bill:
- Add to the findings that it is the intent of the Legislature that conditions that have "a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety" that constitute a reason to deny a housing development project under the HAA arise infrequently.
- Provides that a housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
Background on the HAA. The HAA, also known as the "Anti-Nimby" legislation, was enacted in 1982, and restricts a local agency's ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential projects. The purpose of the HAA is to help ensure that a city or county not reject or make infeasible housing developments, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting that housing need determined pursuant to Housing Element Law without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.
The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments. In 2011 the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (200 Cal.App.4th 1066) held that specified provisions of the HAA apply to all housing projects, not just affordable projects.
In 2017, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, three bills making significant changes to the HAA. Under identical measures, AB 678 (Bocanegra), Chapter 373, Statutes of 2017, and SB 167 (Skinner), Chapter 368, Statutes of 2017, the HAA was strengthened to increase the burden on local jurisdictions when denying a housing project, imposing fines for a violation of the HAA, and expanding judicial remedies for violations of the HAA. AB 1515 (Daly), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2017, changed the standard the court must use in reviewing the denial of a housing development by providing that a project is consistent with local planning and zoning laws if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. This could expand the number of housing developments that are afforded the protections of the HAA.
General Plan and Housing Element. Every city and county is required to develop a comprehensive, long-term general plan that outlines the community's vision of future development through a series of policy statements and goals. The general plan is the basis for all land use decisions. Zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects can only be approved when they are consistent with the general plan. Each community must also adopt a housing element, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community's projected housing needs. Not only must all land use be consistent with the general plan, the general plan is required to be internally consistent. The land use element of the general plan must not conflict with the housing element.
The distribution of residential, commercial, and industrial and other zones must be based on the pattern of land uses established in the general plan. Zoning maps illustrate how all uses are distributed geographically. Zoning is adopted by ordinance and assigns each piece of property to a zone which describes the rules under which it can be used. A zoning ordinance identifies allowable uses and sets standards, such as minimum lot size, maximum building height, and minimum front yard depth. If a developer proposes a use that is not allowed in that zone, then a rezoning is required. A public hearing is required to rezone and a city council or zone board must deny requests when the proposed zone conflicts with the general plan.
The housing element must include a specific list of adequate sites to accommodate the city or county's housing needs at all income levels. Once the housing element is adopted, sites must be zoned via local ordinance to reflect the density and intensity of the housing element within three years. Because a local government is not required to rezone for three years, there may be a gap between when the housing element and zoning ordinance are consistent.
The general plan is a broad description of the policies and goals of the community's development goals. The housing element, which must be adopted every eight years (five years for some rural cities), is more detailed and includes a description of specific sites to meet the city or county's housing needs for all income levels. Three years after a housing element is adopted, the zoning ordinance must be updated to reflect any changes.
HAA Compliance Provisions. The HAA, in Section 65589.5(j), specifies two different outcomes: a) What happens when a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project when it complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria; or, b) What happens when a local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
For instances in this second category the local agency is required to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance or not in conformity, within 30 (or 60) days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete if the project contains 150 or fewer, (or more than 150 housing units). Should the agency fail to provide the documentation, the housing project will be deemed consistent, complaint, and in conformity.
When a housing development project site must be rezoned it does not receive the projections of the HAA. This bill would extend the protections of the HAA to housing development projects that are not consistent with zoning if the project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but zoning is not consistent with the general plan. The housing development project would not be required to be rezoned.
Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0003441
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 3194
Author:(Daly)
As Amended Ver:April 30, 2018
Majority vote
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Housing | 7-0 | Chiu, Maienschein, Chau, Choi, Gloria, Limón, Wood | |
Local Government | 8-1 | Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Caballero, Cooley, Grayson, Lackey, Voepel, Mullin | Waldron |
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Specifically, this bill:
- Declares the intent of the Legislature to establish a very high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a housing project for health or safety reasons, that the conditions for denying a project under the HAA are very rare, and that regularly occurring planning issues do not rise to the level of a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety."
- Provides, for purposes of the HAA, that a housing development shall not be found inconsistent with, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and shall not require the site to be rezoned, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow for the maximum allowable residential use, density and intensity for the site allowable under the housing element or the land use element of the general plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years. Specifies that if a conflict exists between the housing element and the land use element, that the housing element shall prevail, regardless of whether the housing element was adopted or updated at an earlier date.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
Background on the HAA. The HAA, also known as the "Anti-Nimby" legislation, was enacted in 1982, and restricts a local agency's ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential projects. The purpose of the HAA is to help ensure that a city or county not reject or make infeasible housing developments, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting that housing need determined pursuant to Housing Element Law without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.
The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments. In 2011 the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (200 Cal.App.4th 1066) held that specified provisions of the HAA apply to all housing projects, not just affordable projects.
In 2017, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, three bills making significant changes to the HAA. Under identical measures, AB 678 (Bocanegra), Chapter 373, Statutes of 2017, and SB 167 (Skinner), Chapter 368, Statutes of 2017, the HAA was strengthened to increase the burden on local jurisdictions when denying a housing project, imposing fines for a violation of the HAA, and expanding judicial remedies for violations of the HAA. AB 1515 (Daly), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2017, changed the standard the court must use in reviewing the denial of a housing development by providing that a project is consistent with local planning and zoning laws if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. This could expand the number of housing developments that are afforded the protections of the HAA.
This bill would prohibit a local government from disapproving an eligible project or requiring a rezoning of a project site if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the housing element or land use element of the General Plan adopted or updated in the last 10 years. The bill also states the intent of the Legislature to establish a high threshold for local agencies to justify denying or conditioning a project for health and safety reasons and states that those reasons rarely occur, and states that the Legislature declares that regularly occurring planning issues do not meet the health and safety threshold required for denying or conditioning a project.
General Plan and Housing Element. Every city and county is required to develop a comprehensive, long-term general plan that outlines the community's vision of future development through a series of policy statements and goals. The general plan is the basis for all land use decisions. Zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects can only be approved when they are consistent with the general plan. Each community must also adopt a housing element, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community's projected housing needs. Not only must all land use be consistent with the general plan, the general plan is required to be internally consistent. The land use element of the general plan must not conflict with the housing element.
The distribution of residential, commercial, and industrial and other zones must be based on the pattern of land uses established in the general plan. Zoning maps illustrate how all uses are distributed geographically. Zoning is adopted by ordinance and assigns each piece of property to a zone which describes the rules under which it can be used. A zoning ordinance identifies allowable uses and sets standards, such as minimum lot size, maximum building height, and minimum front yard depth. If a developer proposes a use that is not allowed in that zone, then a rezoning is required. A public hearing is required to rezone and a city council or zone board must deny requests when the proposed zone conflicts with the general plan.
The housing element must include a specific list of adequate sites to accommodate the city or county's housing needs at all income levels. Once the housing element is adopted, sites must be zoned via local ordinance to reflect the density and intensity of the housing element within three years. Because a local government is not required to rezone for three years, there may be a gap between when the housing element and zoning ordinance are consistent.
The general plan is a broad description of the policies and goals of the community's development goals. The housing element, which must be adopted every eight years (five years for some rural cities), is more detailed and includes a description of specific sites to meet the city or county's housing needs for all income levels. Three years after a housing element is adopted, the zoning ordinance must be updated to reflect any changes.
HAA Compliance Provisions. The HAA, in subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, specifies two different outcomes: a) What happens when a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project when it complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria; or, b) What happens when a local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
For instances in this second category the local agency is required to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance or not in conformity, within 30 (or 60) days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete if the project contains 150 or fewer, (or more than 150 housing units). Should the agency fail to provide the documentation, the housing project will be deemed consistent, complaint, and in conformity.
This bill adds in language about what cannot be deemed inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, for purposes of the above, thereby making it harder for the local agency to disapprove a housing development project. The bill's language says that "a housing project shall not be found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with the applicable zoning ordinance, and the project shall not require a rezoning, if the existing ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the housing element or by the land use element of the general plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years."
Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002895
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3194 (
Author:Daly) – As Amended Ver:April 30, 2018
SUBJECT: Housing Accountability Act: project approval.
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Specifically, this bill:
- Declares the intent of the Legislature to establish a very high threshold for a local agency
to justify denying or conditioning a housing project for health or safety reasons, that the conditions for denying a project under the HAA are very rare, and that regularly occurring planning issues do not rise to the level of a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety." - Provides, for purposes of the HAA, that a housing development shall not be found inconsistent with, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with the applicable zoning ordinance, and shall not require the site to be rezoned, if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow for the maximum allowable residential use, density and intensity for the site allowable under the housing element or the land use element of the general plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years. Specifies that if a conflict exists between the housing element and the land use element, that the housing element shall prevail, regardless of whether the housing element was adopted or updated at an earlier date.
EXISTING LAW:
- Defines “housing development project” to mean a use consisting of any of the following:
- Residential units only;
- Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or,
- Transitional housing or supportive housing.
- Defines “disapprove the development project” to include any instance in which a local agency either:
- Votes on a proposed housing development project and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance
of a building permit; or, - Fails to comply with the required time period for approval or disapproval required by law.
- Votes on a proposed housing development project and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance
- Defines “lower density” to include any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
- Defines “housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households” as either:
- At least 20% of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower-income households; or,
- 100% of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate-income or middle-income.
- Defines “very low-income” as persons and families whose income does not exceed 50% area median income (AMI).
- Defines “low-income” as persons and families whose income does not exceed 80% AMI.
- Defines “moderate-income” as persons and families whose income does not exceed 120%
of AMI. - Defines “above moderate-income” as persons and families whose income exceeds 120%
of AMI. - Defines “housing organization” as a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the project. A housing organization may only file an action under the HAA to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency.
- Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a proposed housing development project
for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development, unless it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:- The jurisdiction has adopted and revised its housing element as required by law and has met its share of the regional housing need allocation;
- The proposed development project or emergency shelter would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety that cannot be mitigated without rendering the development unaffordable or shelter infeasible;
- The denial of the proposed development project is required to comply with specific state or federal law and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable or shelter infeasible;
- The development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land that does not have adequate water or waste water facilities, or is zoned for agriculture or resource preservation, as specified; and,
- The proposed development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation, as specified, in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
- Provides that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
- 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; and,
- There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to a), above, 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.
- Provides that a change in a zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
- Provides that, for purposes of the HAA, the receipt of a density bonus 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, as specified.
- Requires, if the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision, as specified, the agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, as follows:
- Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units; and,
- Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
- Provides that if the local agency fails to provide the documentation described above in 14), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
- Authorizes the applicant, any person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the proposed development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the HAA.
- Specifies that if a jurisdiction denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by
a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households and is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial, the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body. - Specifies that in any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a jurisdiction to disapprove a project or approve a project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the local government shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the conditions specified in the HAA.
- Provides that the court must issue an order of judgment compelling compliance with the HAA within 60 days, if it finds either of the following:
- The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d) of the HAA, disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by the HAA or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence; or
- The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j) of the HAA, disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by the HAA or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Authorizes the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of the HAA.
- Requires the court, if it finds a violation of the HAA, to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of the HAA.
- Requires, if the court determines that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days, the court to impose fines on a local agency that has violated the HAA.
- Specifies that the fine shall be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete, as specified.
- Requires the local agency to deposit any fine levied into a local housing trust fund. Provides that the local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Local Fund.
- Requires the court, in determining the amount of fine to impose, to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need, as specified, and any prior violations of the HAA.
- Prohibits fines from being paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, as specified. Requires the local agency to commit and expend the money in the housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households.
- Provides that if any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to the above provisions is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
- Requires, if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter, and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment within 60 days, as specified, the court to multiply the fine specified above by a factor of five. Specifies that "bad faith" includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
- Requires a petition to enforce the HAA to be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of:
- The effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project; or,
- The expiration of the time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act.
- Authorizes a party to appeal a trial court's judgment or order to the court of appeal pursuant to specified procedures.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
- Background on the HAA. The HAA, also known as the “Anti-Nimby” legislation, was enacted in 1982, and restricts a local agency’s ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential projects. The purpose of the HAA is to help ensure that a city or county not reject or make infeasible housing developments, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting that housing need determined pursuant to Housing Element Law without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.
The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments. In 2011 the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (200 Cal.App.4th 1066) held that specified provisions of the HAA apply to all housing projects, not just affordable projects.
In 2017, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, three bills making significant changes to the HAA. Under identical measures, AB 678 (Bocanegra), Chapter 373, Statutes of 2017, and SB 167 (Skinner), Chapter 368, Statutes of 2017, the HAA was strengthened to increase the burden on local jurisdictions when denying a housing project, imposing fines for a violation of the HAA, and expanding judicial remedies for violations of the HAA. AB 1515 (Daly), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2017, changed the standard the court must use in reviewing the denial of a housing development by providing that a project is consistent with local planning and zoning laws if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. This could expand the number of housing developments that are afforded the protections of the HAA.
- Bill Summary. This bill would prohibit a local government from disapproving an eligible project or requiring a rezoning of a project site if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the housing element or land use element of the General Plan adopted or updated in the last 10 years. The bill also states the intent of the Legislature to establish a high threshold for local agencies to justify denying or conditioning a project for health and safety reasons and states that those reasons rarely occur, and states that the Legislature declares that regularly occurring planning issues do not meet the health and safety threshold required for denying or conditioning a project.
This bill is sponsored by the California Building Industry Association.
- Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Despite the important improvements made to the HAA in last year’s bill package, it is still too easy for NIMBYs to oppose projects and avoid the HAA: (1) By citing debatable health and safety concerns; and, (2) By local governments changing zoning thereby rendering a project inconsistent. For example, classifying regularly occurring scenarios such as increasing traffic or a shortage of parks in
a neighborhood as unmitigatable health and safety concerns is used as an excuse for rejecting a proposed housing development that complies with objective local planning rules. On the zoning front, according to a recent report by Berkeley Law School, of 152 housing projects processed in two of California’s largest jurisdictions over the last three years, in fully 78 instances the jurisdiction required a rezoning or a variance – yet in only 6 instances did the project need a general plan amendment. Clearly there is more to be done to ensure that the HAA’s protections be extended as intended so we can get about building the housing Californians so desperately need.” - General Plan and Housing Element. Every city and county is required to develop a comprehensive, long-term general plan that outlines the community’s vision of future development through a series of policy statements and goals. The general plan is the basis for all land use decisions. Zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects can only be approved when they are consistent with the general plan. Each community must also adopt a housing element, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community’s projected housing needs. Not only must all land use be consistent with the general plan, the general plan is required to be internally consistent. The land use element of the general plan must not conflict with the housing element.
The distribution of residential, commercial, and industrial and other zones must be based on the pattern of land uses established in the general plan. Zoning maps illustrate how all uses are distributed geographically. Zoning is adopted by ordinance and assigns each piece of property to a zone which describes the rules under which it can be used. A zoning ordinance identifies allowable uses and sets standards, such as minimum lot size, maximum building height, and minimum front yard depth. If a developer proposes a use that is not allowed in that zone, then a rezoning is required. A public hearing is required to rezone and a city council or zone board must deny requests when the proposed zone conflicts with the general plan.
The housing element must include a specific list of adequate sites to accommodate the city or county's housing needs at all income levels. Once the housing element is adopted, sites must be zoned via local ordinance to reflect the density and intensity of the housing element within three years. Because a local government is not required to rezone for three years, there may be a gap between when the housing element and zoning ordinance are consistent.
The general plan is a broad description of the policies and goals of the community's development goals. The housing element, which must be adopted every eight years (five years for some rural cities), is more detailed and includes a description of specific sites to meet the city or county's housing needs for all income levels. Three years after a housing element is adopted, the zoning ordinance must be updated to reflect any changes.
- HAA Compliance Provisions. The HAA, in subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, specifies two different outcomes: a) What happens when a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project when it complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria; or, b) What happens when a local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
For instances in this second category the local agency is required to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance or not in conformity, within 30 (or 60) days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete if the project contains 150 or fewer, (or more than 150 housing units). Should the agency fail to provide the documentation, the housing project will be deemed consistent, complaint, and in conformity.
This bill adds in language about what cannot be deemed inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, for purposes of the above, thereby making it harder for the local agency to disapprove a housing development project. The bill’s language says that “a housing project shall not be found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with the applicable zoning ordinance, and the project shall not require a rezoning, if the existing ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the housing element or by the land use element of the general plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years.”
- Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
- Intent Language. This bill contains language specifying the intent of the Legislature to establish a “very high threshold” for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons, and further declares that “conditions necessary to satisfying [this section of the HAA] rarely arise,” and that “regularly occurring planning issues do not rise to the level of a ‘specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety’.”
- Definitions. The Committee may wish to ask the author to better define what “very high threshold” means, especially in light of existing law that requires a local agency to make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, should the local agency propose to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density. Does “very high threshold” mean a higher evidentiary standard?
- Intent Language. This bill contains language specifying the intent of the Legislature to establish a “very high threshold” for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a project for health or safety reasons, and further declares that “conditions necessary to satisfying [this section of the HAA] rarely arise,” and that “regularly occurring planning issues do not rise to the level of a ‘specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety’.”
Also, the bill uses the term “regularly occurring planning issues” but does not define what that means.
- Disapproval Under the HAA. Should a local agency propose to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, existing law requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings that both of the following conditions exist:
- The housing 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. Existing law defines a “specific, adverse impact” to mean 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; and,
- There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, 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.
- Disapproval Under the HAA. Should a local agency propose to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, existing law requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings that both of the following conditions exist:
The Committee may wish to ask the author for examples that illustrate why the above language is not sufficient.
- Proposed Alternative to Compliance/Conformity Language. The American Planning Association (California Chapter), League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California, in their “Oppose Unless Amended” letter, note that the bill “Represents a major change that would take away the whole purpose of the General Plan being general and would eliminate the long-standing relationship between the General Plan and zoning. This will result in either General Plans that allow high-density development to ‘sprawl’ into areas that do not yet have the requisite infrastructure and services, or will alternatively induce local jurisdictions to remove such flexibility from the General Plan entirely, thereby undermining its function as a long-term planning document.”
They propose the following alternative approach, to address these issues:
Delete lines 5 through 16 on page 12, and replace with:
(4) For purposes of paragraph (2), the density of a housing development project is not inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, or requirement if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified in the local agency’s housing element and is proposed to be developed at a density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element for that site.
- Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill will increase housing supply
by reducing the number of housing projects to be rejected for spurious reasons, and that currently, local governments find loopholes in law to avoid extending the protections
of the HAA to housing projects. Supporters argue that this bill will bring the HAA back
to its original intent – to spur the development of housing. - Arguments in Opposition. Opponents argue that the bill represents a major change that would take away the whole purpose of the General Plan being general and would eliminate the long-standing relationship between the General Plan and zoning. Opponents argue that the bill will allow sprawl into areas that do not yet have the requisite infrastructure and services, or will induce local jurisdictions to remove such flexibility from the General Plan entirely, which will undermine the function of the General Plan.
- Double-referral. This bill was heard in the Housing and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2018, and passed on a 7-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Building Industry Association [SPONSOR]
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
National Federation of Independent Business
Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter (unless amended)
California State Association of Counties (unless amended)
League of California Cities (unless amended)
Rural County Representatives of California (unless amended)
Urban Counties of California (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
David Chiu, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3194 (
Author:Daly) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2018
SUBJECT: Housing Accountability Act: project approval
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Specifically, this bill:
- Declares the intent of the Legislature to establish a very high threshold for a local agency to justify denying or conditioning a housing project for health or safety reasons, that the conditions for denying a project under the HAA are very rare, and that regularly occurring planning issues do not rise to the level of a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety."
- Provides that a housing development shall not be found inconsistent with and not in compliance or not in conformity with the applicable zoning ordinance and shall not require the site to be rezoned, if the zoning ordinance does not allow for the maximum allowable density and intensity for the site allowable under the housing element or the general plan.
EXISTING LAW: Under the HAA:
- Defines “housing development project” to mean a use consisting of any of the following:
- Residential units only.
- Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
- Transitional housing or supportive housing.
- Defines “disapprove the development project” to include any instance in which a local agency either:
- Votes on a proposed housing development project and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit; or
- Fails to comply with the required time period for approval or disapproval required by law.
- Defines “lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
- Defines “housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households” as either:
- At least 20% of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower-income households; or
- 100% of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate-income or middle-income.
- Defines “very low-income” as persons and families whose income does not exceed 50% area median income (AMI).
- Defines “low-income” as persons and families whose income does not exceed 80% AMI.
- Defines “moderate-income” as persons and families whose income does not exceed 120% of AMI.
- Defines “above moderate-income” as persons and families whose income exceeds 120% of AMI.
- Defines “housing organization” as a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the project. A housing organization may only file an action under the HAA to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency.
- Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a proposed housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development, unless it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
- The jurisdiction has adopted and revised its housing element as required by law and has met its share of the regional housing need allocation.
- The proposed development project or emergency shelter would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety that cannot be mitigated without rendering the development unaffordable or shelter infeasible.
- The denial of the proposed development project is required to comply with specific state or federal law and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable or shelter infeasible.
- The development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land that does not have adequate water or waste water facilities, or is zoned for agriculture or resource preservation as specified.
- The proposed development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
- Provides that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
- 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; and
- There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to a), above, 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.
- Provides that a change in a zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
- Provides that, for purposes of the HAA, the receipt of a density bonus 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, as specified.
- Requires, if the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified, the agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
- Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
- Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
- Provides that if the local agency fails to provide the documentation described above in 14), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
- Authorizes the applicant, any person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the proposed development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the HAA.
- Specifies that if a jurisdiction denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households and is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial, the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body.
- Specifies that in any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a jurisdiction to disapprove a project or approve a project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the local government shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the conditions specified in the HAA.
- Provides that the court must issue an order of judgment compelling compliance with the HAA within 60 days, if it finds either of the following:
- The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d) of the HAA, disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by the HAA or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence; or
- The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j) of the HAA, disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by the HAA or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Authorizes the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of the HAA.
- Requires the court, if it finds a violation of the HAA, to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of the HAA.
- Requires, if the court determines that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days, the court to impose fines on a local agency that has violated the HAA.
- Specifies that the fine shall be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete, as specified.
- Requires the local agency to deposit any fine levied into a local housing trust fund. Provides that the local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Local Fund.
- Requires the court, in determining the amount of fine to impose, to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need, as specified, and any prior violations of the HAA.
- Prohibits fines from being paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, as specified. Requires the local agency to commit and expend the money in the housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households.
- Provides that if any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to the above provisions is deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
- Requires, if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter, and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment within 60 days, as specified, the court to multiply the fine specified above by a factor of five. Specifies that "bad faith" includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
- Requires a petition to enforce the HAA to be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of:
- The effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project; or,
- The expiration of the time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act.
- Authorizes a party to appeal a trial court's judgment or order to the court of appeal pursuant to specified procedures.(Govt. Code Section 65589.5)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
The HAA: The purpose of the HAA, also known as the "Anti-NIMBY Act," is to limit the ability of local agencies to reject or make infeasible housing developments without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action. The HAA provides for a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a development project. An applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developments. In 2011 the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (200 Cal.App.4th 1066) held that specified provisions of the HAA apply to all housing projects, not just affordable projects.
In 2017, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, three bills making significant changes to the HAA. Under identical measures AB 678 (Bocanegra), Chapter 373, Statutes of 2017 and SB 167 (Skinner), Chapter 368, Statutes of 2017, increased the burden on local jurisdictions when denying a housing project, imposed fines for a violation of the HAA, and expanded judicial remedies for violations of the HAA. AB 1515 (Daly), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2017, changed the standard the court must use in reviewing the denial of a housing development by providing that a project is consistent with local planning and zoning laws if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find it consistent. This could expand the number of housing developments that are afforded the protections of the HAA.
Standard for denying a project: When a local agency rejects a project that complies with zoning in the general plan, zoning standards, or design review, or requires that it be developed at a lower density for it to be approved, the decision must be based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the development would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health and safety unless the project is developed at a lower density, and there is no way to mitigate the adverse impacts except to reduce the density or disprove the project. A "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective safety standards, polices, or conditions as they exist on the date the application is deemed complete.
This bill would declare that it is the Legislature's intent to establish a "very high threshold" for the conditions to deny a project for health and safety concerns and that these conditions rarely arise. Further, the bill makes findings that "regularly occurring planning issues" do not arise to the level of "specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety." The committee may wish to consider if these terms need further definition and if they could lead to confusion on the part of both developers and cities in implementing the HAA.
Planning mechanisms: Every city and county is required to develop a comprehensive, long-term general plan that outlines the community’s vision of future development through a series of policy statements and goals. The general plan is the basis for all land use decisions. Zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects can only be approved when they are consistent with the general plan. Each community’s must also adopt a housing element, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community’s projected housing needs. Not only must all land use be consistent with the general plan, the general plan is required to be internally consistent. The land use element of the general plan must not conflict with the housing element.
The distribution of residential, commercial, and industrial and other zones must be based on the pattern of land uses established in the general plan. Zoning maps illustrate how all uses are distributed geographically. Zoning is adopted by ordinance and assigns each piece of property to a zone which describes the rules under which it can be used. A zoning ordinance identifies allowable uses and sets standards such as minimum lot size, maximum building height, and minimum front yard depth. If a developer proposes a use that is not allowed in that zone, then a rezoning is required. A public hearing is required to rezone and a city council or zone board must deny requests when the proposed zone conflicts with the general plan.
The housing element must include a specific list of adequate sites to accommodate the city or county's housing needs at all income levels. Once the housing element is adopted, sites must be zoned via local ordinance to reflect the density and intensity of the housing element within three years. Because a local government is not required to rezone for three years, there may be a gap between when the housing element and zoning ordinance are consistent.
According to a UC Berkeley Law School, of 152 housing projects processed in San Jose and San Francisco, over the last three years, in 78 instances the jurisdiction required a rezoning of a zoning variance. Even though in fully 72 instances the project was consistent with the general plan's housing polices and standards.
The HAA is intended to prevent a local government from denying a housing development project unless it is found to be inconsistent, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, or standard, unless it makes specific findings as noted above. This bill would define the maximum density and intensity standard that a housing development must comply with to the density standard in the zoning ordinance, housing element, or the general plan. In addition, a housing development would not be subject to rezoning if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow for the maximum residential use and density as allowable on the site according to the housing element or general plan. As noted above, the general plan is by definition a broad description of the policies and goals of the community's development goals. The housing element, which must be adopted every 8 years (5 years for some rural cities), is more detailed and includes a description of specific sites to meet the city or county's housing needs for all income levels. Three years after a housing element is adopted, the zoning ordinance must be updated to reflect any changes.
Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "the HAA provides that when a project complies with objective local planning rules, the local government cannot deny the project or reduce the density unless it makes a finding, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and there is no other feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact. Despite the important improvements made to the HAA in last year’s bill package, locals can still avoid the HAA by citing questionable health and safety concerns, or by requiring project-by-project re-zonings or zoning variances even where a housing project is consistent with the housing allowed by the general plan, thus rendering housing projects beyond the scope of the HAA’s protections because they are technically ‘inconsistent’ with the zoning for the site. With respect to the health and safety loophole, the danger exists for locals to classify regularly occurring issues, such as increasing traffic or a shortage of parks in a neighborhood, as unmitigatable health and safety concerns that warrant rejecting a proposed housing development that complies with objective local planning rules.
On the zoning front, the concern is evading the HAA entirely through requiring project-by-project re-zonings or zoning variances."
Arguments in support: According to the Bay Area Council, “AB 3194 would strengthen the provisions of the HAA by closing loopholes that undermine the HAA applicability and effectiveness. As with a number of other related bills enacted into law in recent years, AB 3194 would reaffirm the intent of the HAA, but further clarifying the Act's provisions pertaining to health and safety impacts and zoning consistency.”
Arguments in opposition: According to the American Planning Association (APA), "AB 3194 would prohibit a local government from requiring a rezoning of a project site if the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use density, [and] intensity, allocable on the site by the land use or housing element of the General Plan. The General Plan and the land use element were never intended to be as specific as the zoning ordinance – it covers different areas of the city with general categories. This major change would take away the whole purpose of the General Plan being general and would eliminate the long-standing relationship between the General Plan and zoning, forcing the General Plan map to be like the much more specific zoning map. If the Legislature intends to make such a fundamental change to a very general document after it has been approved it should give cities and counties time to update the General plan and land use element to take into account this new, zoning function. However, if the bill is amended to instead allow the developer to use the density specified in the housing element or zoning ordinance for a specific site, whichever is higher, APA would support that change. The housing element is the most detailed element in the General Plan and includes site-specific density information certified by HCD. The zoning is required to be updated within three years to reflect the housing element densities if there are not enough sites zoned at those densities within the jurisdiction. But if that rezoning has not [been] completed, using the more updated housing element densities makes sense."
Committee amendments: A local government is required to identify housing sites in their housing element and update the zoning ordinance within three years to reflect the density and use in the housing element. There may be a gap between when the housing element is adopted and when the zoning ordinance is updated. There may be cases in which the zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum density and intensity allowable in the general plan. As a result the site must be rezoned which means it does not receive the protections provided by the HAA. The committee may wish to allow sites where the zoning ordinance is not consistent with either a housing element or the land use element of the general plan, if it has been updated in the last 10 years, to receive the protections offered by the HAA and not require the site to be rezoned.
Related legislation:
AB 678 (Bocanegra), Chapter 373, Statutes of 2017: Made several changes to the HAA, including increasing the burden on local jurisdictions when denying a housing project, imposing fines for a violation of the HAA, and expanding judicial remedies for violations of the HAA.
SB 167 (Skinner), Chapter 368, Statutes of 2017: Identical to AB 678 (Bocanegra), above.
AB 1515 (Daly), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2017: Provided that, under the HAA, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
AB 2584 (Daly), Chapter 420, 2016: Authorized a "housing organization," as defined, to enforce specified provisions of the HAA.
Double-referred: This bill was also referred to the Committee on Local Government where it will be heard should it pass out of this committee
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Building Industry Association (sponsor)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
National Federation of Independent Business
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Opposition
American Planning Association
California State Association of Counties (unless amended)
Rural County Representatives of California (unless amended)
Urban Counties of California (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
Discussed in Hearing
1MIN
Assembly Floor
1MIN
Senate Floor
4MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing
4MIN
Assembly Floor
21MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government
9MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):