Los Altos – 40 North Main St.
In late 2018, a developer in Los Altos took a discretionary project that had been denied by the Los Altos City Council and reworked it to qualify for ministerial approval under SB 35. The project, which had initially been entirely office space was converted to a mixed-use development with multiple on-site below-market-rate units. The developer submitted an application for ministerial approval to the Los Altos Planning Department in November of 2018 and in December of 2018 the Planning Department informed the developer that the project did not qualify for ministerial approval under SB 35. They alleged that the project did not comply with parking egress standards and that the project should be subject to a 50% affordability threshold rather than a 10% affordability threshold. The developer disagreed with this assessment and contended that neither of these points rendered the project ineligible for streamlining. In particular the developer pointed out that the city failed to submit the mandatory annual housing production report required by state law automatically setting the SB 35 streamlining threshold at 10%.The Planning Department still maintains that the project violates design standards related to parking but they concede that the 10% threshold is the correct one. The Planning […]
Calabasas ADU Ordinance
California has millions of garages. Most single family areas have zoning rules requiring one or two parking covered parking spaces per single-family home. This vast underutilized space has the potential to provide housing for millions of renters in some of the most exclusive areas of California. Recognizing this potential, the California legislature has passed a statewide Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law that ensures garage conversions are possible on the vast majority of single family lots. Calabasas is ignoring this mandate in an effort to preserve it’s covered parking and prevent new housing from taking its place. The local Calabasas zoning rules require that when a garage is converted to an ADU, the property owner must build a new garage to replace the old one. This requirement would make ADU development impossible or infeasible on many lots. Fortunately, state law deals with this exact problem by forbidding local governments from requiring replacement garages. CaRLA filed a lawsuit to hold Calabasas accountable to the requirements of state law. We hope this case will set an example for other cities across California that prioritize roofs for cars ahead of roofs for people. How It Ended A fundamental element of zoning in California is […]
San Francisco’s ADU Ordinance
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have the potential to provide a rare and valuable source of rental housing in San Francisco’s single-family neighborhoods. The current San Francisco rules, however, make it very difficult for homeowners to add ADUs on single-family properties. Requirements for yard setbacks and open space severely limit the lot area where an ADU can go, and the arduous permit review process discourages homeowners from even attempting to add an ADU. In reviewing the San Francisco ordinance, CaRLA identified two of these limits on ADUs that are in conflict with state law. First, the ordinance subjects ADUs to the city’s discretionary review process which allows virtually anyone to indefinitely delay an ADU application through countless Planning Commission hearings, even though the proposal may be 100% compliant with local zoning. This process is very costly for permit applicants and can take months to navigate. The mere possibility of such burdens is more than enough to discourage most homeowners looking to add an ADU. Second, the San Francisco ordinance only allows ADUs to be added to existing homes; new single-family homes are prohibited from including one. The city’s single-family neighborhoods are primarily composed of small lots where it is much easier […]
Sonoma – 149 Fourth St
In late 2016, a homebuilder began the arduous journey to construct three homes on vacant lots in Sonoma. Each HAA-compliant project was submitted separately, though the City of Sonoma processed all three as a group. This included producing three CEQA reports, which each included special attention to the other projects in the group; the City of Sonoma performed one overarching CEQA study in three comprehensively similar stages as if all three projects were one submission. When the projects finally had their hearings at the Planning Commission, the city recognized that the CEQA studies showed no impact and adopted the reports as such. The study included an analysis of each project individually and with all three projects as a group. Opponents appealed and at the project’s final City Council hearing, the City Council of Sonoma upheld the appeal. They claimed that all three projects should have been submitted and reviewed as one three-home project and as such the CEQA studies were inadequate, resulting in a final denial of all three projects. Not content to stop at CEQA, the City Council made further findings that the projects–despite the Planning Commission’s previous statements to the contrary–did not adhere to subjective standards of aesthetics. […]
Dublin – Ashton at Dublin Station
On January 9, 2018, CaRLA gave testimony at a meeting of the Dublin City Council describing in detail the ways that a denial of 220 homes at Dublin BART would bring about a lawsuit against the city. Having heard this and given it consideration, Mayor Haubert said into the public record that the city should “take our chances with a lawsuit”. Ashton at Dublin Station has a long history, starting out in 2002 with the East Dublin Specific Plan’s approval. It took nearly 20 years, but the city finally voted to deny the project. In the process they transgressed so much more than just the Housing Accountability Act; the developer of the project filed separately with numerous claims of discrimination against protected classes in their public testimony. Not only are they violating the HAA, they’re violating the Fair Housing Act, a 15 year old development agreement, the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, the Fair Housing and Employment Act, and others. This project is also CaRLA’s first affordable housing project. Ashton at Dublin Station includes 33 affordable homes, for 15% of the total project, as is required by Dublin’s zoning for the site. Affordable housing is a rare bird in […]
Berkeley – 1310 Haskell St
On March 10, 2016 Berkeley Zoning Board approved a zoning and general plan compliant proposal to tear down an existing single family house and build three single family houses in its stead. The approval was appealed to the Berkeley City Council, who subsequently denied it in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. CaRLA stepped up to assist Cristan in fighting back. 1310 Haskell St was CaRLA’s first Berkeley case, and first time providing aid to a small homeowner. Cristan was seeking to add two additional units to a lot containing one in a neighborhood of apartment buildings, duplexes, and two story single family homes. How it ended In order to reverse California’s housing shortage, we need cities to approve housing developments even over local NIMBY opposition. In our Berkeley lawsuit, we challenged the city’s disapproval of a three- unit development on a small parcel of land—exactly the type of “missing middle” development we need to see more of. In this case, the neighbors were opposed to changes that might make their single-family neighborhood more affordable, so they appealed the project approval to the City Council. The Council disapproved the project despite its compliance with all city regulations, and without even […]
Lafayette – 3233 Deer Hill Road
In 2011, 315 apartments were proposed at 3233 Deer Hill Road. Given the public’s dissatisfaction with the application… Given that the Circulation Commission and Design Review Commission have both indicated that they cannot support the project and have requested a significantly scaled-down alternative… Given that the Developer has indicated that, if the project is denied, it will file a lawsuit against the City… And given the risks to the City presented by that potential lawsuit, and particularly those associated with California’s Housing Accountability Act, which limits the ability of cities to deny an affordable housing development proposals unless that proposal is inconsistent with both the General Plan land use designation and zoning ordinance that existed at the time the application was deemed complete… About four weeks ago the City Council directed staff to participate in conversations with the developer to determine if there was an alternative plan that would be acceptable to all parties — the developer, community members, and the city. Before you tonight is an introduction of such an alternative: September 12th, 2015 The City of Lafayette approved 44 Single Family Homes, costing at least $1.2 million each. Section 65589.5(j) of the Housing Accountability Act states that when a proposed […]
San Mateo – 4 W. Santa Inez
In 2017, a modest housing project was proposed for 4 West Santa Inez Avenue in the city of San Mateo that would add 10 units to the Bay Area’s already scarce housing supply. On February 5, 2018, San Mateo City Council voted to deny the development, despite the fact that had been found compliant with all zoning and general plan standards by both staff and the Planning Commission. In their search for a reason to justify their denial, the City Council turned to San Mateo’s Multi-family Design Guidelines. These guidelines included a “design objective” to: Avoid changes in building height greater than one story from adjacent structures. If changes are greater, stepback upper floors to ease the transition. The City Council denied the project by concluding that it failed to comply with this standard, contrary to the conclusions of its own staff and Planning Commission. The HAA puts limits on cities’ powers to deny projects that comply with all “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards . . . .” The HAA does not allow for projects to be disapproved based on non-compliance with non-objective standards. Cities can condition approvals to ensure compliance, […]
Sausalito – 448 Sausalito Blvd
How it ended The main purpose of the HAA is to prevent cities from denying housing where it is allowed under the city’s own rules. It may seem obvious that if housing is “allowed” to be developed on a property, cities should not deny it. Unfortunately California cities routinely deny housing in these circumstances for no good reason. In Sausalito, the City Council denied a single-family home development simply because it was “out of scale” with the surrounding community of other single-family homes. CaRLA sued Sausalito under the HAA to make sure they follow their own rules on housing. Realizing that they had little or no legal case, the city settled and agreed to rehear the project, and they approved it on rehearing.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
Categories
San Mateo
- APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP AND THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS, AND PROPOSED BRIEF
- Application to file amicus curiae brief and brief of amicus league of california cities
- [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS CITY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL
- Motion for Judicial Notice
- Application for permission to file amici curiae brief in support of appellants; amici curiae brief of building industry association-bay area, et al
- APPLICATION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY GREATER SAN FRANCISCO, INC. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND PROPOSED BRIEF
- Amici Curiae Brief of Law Professors
- Intervenor’s Reply Brief
- AG’s Motion for Judicial Notice
- Appellant’s Reply Brief