11Public Comment
From: Lee, Andrew <ALee@allenmatkins.com>
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 3:04 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Theresa Bass; City Attorney; Robert Fabela; Leonie Mulvihill; Ted White; Devine,
William
Subject: Agenda Item No. 11: Objection to Denial of Holden Senior Living Facility (No.
DEV2019-00172)
Attachments: City's Compliance with Housing Accountability Act.pdf
Dear Ms. Bass:
Please distribute our objection letter, sent on behalf of Alliance Realty Partners, LLC, to all members of the
City Council ahead of the Council's August 10, 2021, meeting.
Thank you,
Andrew Lee Esq.
Associate
Allem MaUk.ins Il....eck. Gamble Mallory & Natsis Il....11....f::�
1900 Main :;tireet, l::::�lr..:or, Ilirvine, CSA 92614...'C 21
(949) 8,5; 1 ',"l484 (direct)
(949) ','K53 83,1,,"4 (fax)
glee allenmatkins.com
Allen S
...M..
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying
attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is
strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
Allen Matkins
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
August 6, 2021
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
E-mail: publiccomment@anaheim.net
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
1900 Main Street, 5b Floor I Irvine, CA 92614-7321
Telephone: 949.553.1313 1 Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
William R Devine and Andrew Lee
Direct Dial: 949 8515412 File Number: 372942.00014/4833-3471-6148
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Faessel
Councilmember Jose Diaz
Councilmember Jordan Brandman
Councilmember Jose F. Moreno
Councilmember Avelino Valencia
Councilmember Trevor O'Neil
Re: The Housing Accountability Act Precludes the City From Denying the
Holden Senior Living Facility (Project No. DEV2019-00172)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This firm represents Alliance Realty Partners, LLC ("Alliance"), the applicant of the Holden
Senior Living Facility ("Project") at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. We oppose the City's denial of the
Project on the grounds that such denial would constitute a clear violation of the state Housing
Accountability Act ("HAA," Government Code, § 65589.50)), which violation would immediately
expose the City to state -law penalties under the HAA.
This letter sets forth detailed analysis and legal citations explaining: (1) the HAA'S
applicability to the Project, (2) the absence of any substantial evidence in the administrative record
that would enable the City to deny the Project in a manner consistent with the HAA, and (3) the
state -law penalties to which the City would be exposed if it denies the Project.
Alliance respectfully requests that the City carefully consider the mandates of the HAA
before finalizing its decision on the Project and, as such, requests that the City Council approve a
motion for reconsideration and/or approve Alliance's request for rehearing/reconsideration.
1. The HAA Applies to the Project.
The HAA, also known as the "Anti -NIMBY law," has existed since 1982 and has been
significantly strengthened in recent years by pro -development housing legislation as well as
increased enforcement by HCD. (Honchariw v. County ofStanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1066,
1068, 1074.) To address statewide housing shortages, the HAA promotes the approval of housing
Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 2
projects by limiting the discretion cities have to deny or impose density -reducing conditions on
projects that are protected by the HAA. (Government Code, § 65589.5(a)(1), (2)(K), 0);
Honchariw, supra, 200 Cal.AppAth 1066, 1074, 1076; Housing Accountability Act Technical
Assistance Advisory ["Technical Advisory"] (2020), pp. 1-2 [enclosed as Attachment 1].)
The HAA applies to any housing project that satisfies two statutory criteria:
1. The project meets the HAA's definition of "housing development project"; and
2. The project complies with applicable, "objective" general plan, zoning, and design
standards and criteria.
(Government Code, § 65589.50).) Here, the Project satisfies both qualifying criteria, which triggers
the protection of the HAA.
A. The Project constitutes a "housing development project."
A housing project constitutes a "housing development project" under the HAA if the project
falls into any one of three development categories set forth in the HAA's definitions:
(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.
(Government Code, § 65589.5(h)(2), emphasis added.) Of these development categories, the
Project falls into categories "(B)" and "(C)" and, if not "(B)," then category "(A)."
Specifically, the Project falls into the HAA's development categories as follows:
• (B) Mixed-use development. The Project is a mixed-use development because it
includes both residential uses (94 assisted -living units and 24 memory -care units,
each unit containing a separate living quarters) and nonresidential uses
(administrative office, bistro, beauty salon, theater, common areas/amenities), in
which 98 percent of the square footage is devoted to the Project's residential uses.
• (A) Residential units only. If the Project were not a mixed-use development (it is a
mixed-use development), it would then qualify as "residential units only." All of the
Project's 118 units contain separate living quarters, and all of the assisted -living units
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 3
contain kitchenettes. The Project's primary use is residential, and all of the Project's
other uses are ancillary residential uses/amenities intended for its elderly residents.
• (C) Supportive housing. The Project's memory -care units also provide supportive
housing. "Supportive housing" is defined as "housing with no limit on length ofstay,
that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to a[] service that assists
the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing ... and maximizing his or
her ability to live." (Government Code, § 65582(g).) "Target population" includes
individuals, such as "elderly persons," who are eligible for services provided under
the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act ("Lanterman Act")
(Government Code, § 65582(i)), which includes individuals with "disabling
conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment
similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability." (Welfare and
Institutions Code, § 4512.) The Project's memory -care units will provide unlimited -
stay housing and services to individuals suffering dementia and Alzheimer's disease,
who would qualify for services under the Lanterman Act.
Whether a senior living facility constitutes a "housing development project" under the HAA
was the very recent focus and ruling of a County of Ventura trial court decision, captioned Yes in
My Back Yard v. City of Simi Valley ("YIMBY') (May 17, 2021) Case No. 56-2020-00539590.
(Enclosed as Attachment 2 [court's statement of decision].)
The YIAMY case involved a two-story, 108 -unit senior living facility (68 assisted -living
units and 40 memory -care units) with communal amenities including a beauty salon. (YIMBY, pp.
2, 7.) The senior facility in the YIMBYcase was similar in every land -use respect to the Project,
except that none of that facility's units contained kitchenettes (all of the Project's assisted -living
units contain kitchenettes). In denying approval of the senior facility, the City of Simi Valley took
the position that such facility did not constitute a "housing development project" under the HAA
because the its units lacked kitchens/kitchenettes, which the city claimed, citing various regulations
beyond the HAA, meant that such facility had no "residential units" or "uses" under the HAA.
(YIMBY, p. 3.)
The YIMBY court disagreed with the city, holding that the facility was a "housing
development project" under the mixed-use development category because the facility clearly
included residential and nonresidential uses. (YIMBY, pp. 5-7.) The court was unpersuaded by the
city's contention that the facility lacked a residential use due to the lack of private kitchens, which
the court stated had no support under the HAA. (Id., p. 6.) The court emphasized the HAA's edict
that it be implemented "in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the
approval and provision of, housing." (Ibid., quoting Government Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(L); see
also Technical Advisory, p. 2.)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 4
Importantly, it should be emphasized that Simi Valley's "kitchen defense" in YIMBY would
have no application to the Project, as all of the Project's assisted -living units contain kitchenettes.
As confirmed by the YIMBY decision, the Project constitutes a mixed-use "housing
development project" under the explicit terms of the HAA.
B. The Project complies with applicable, "objective" General Plan, Zoning Code,
and design standards and criteria.
The HAA's second requirement is that the "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 application was deemed complete." (Government
Code, § 65589.50)(1), emphasis added.) The HAA also provides two clarifying provisions that
further strengthen its pro -housing purpose:
• "Objective" definition. The HAA states that "objective" standards and criteria
involve "no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly
verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
criterion." (Government Code, § 65589.5(h)(8).)
• Deemed compliance. The HAA also establishes a procedure that deems a project
compliant as a matter of law where a city does not timely inform an applicant of a
perceived project inconsistency but nevertheless allows the applicant to unwittingly
proceed with the application. Specifically, the HAA states that where a city
considers a housing project to be non-compliant with objective standards and
criteria, the city must "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 [non-compliant]," which must be provided within 30
days of the project's application being complete for projects (like the Project)
containing 150 units or fewer. (Government Code, § 65589.50)(2)(A).) Where
documentation is not timely provided, the project is "deemed" compliant by
operation of law. (Government Code, § 65589.50)(2)(B).)
On at least two grounds, the Project is conclusively compliant with the City's applicable,
"objective" standards and criteria:
• The Project is deemed compliant. The City determined the Project's application,
including application for parking variance, to be complete on April 7, 2021. And the
City never informed Alliance within 30 days that the Project, as set forth in its
application, would be non-compliant with any "objective" General Plan, Zoning
Code, or other design standard or criteria. For over a year and half, Alliance has
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 5
processed the Project's application with the understanding that the City concurred in
the Project's compliance with applicable standards and criteria. As such, the Project
is "deemed" compliant under the HAA. (Government Code, § 65589.50)(2)(B).)
• The City admitted the Project's compliance. Both the City's staff and Planning
Commission have admitted the Project's compliance with applicable, "objective"
standards and criteria. Each staff report has detailed at great length and with point -
by -point analyses (in response to appellants' objections) all the areas of the Project's
compliance with applicable standards and criteria. (See Staff Report of July 20,
2021, pp. 4, 7-11; Staff Report of May 24, 2021, pp. 3-4, 6-8.) The Planning
Commission further reinforced these Project -compliance admissions by adopting a
resolution setting forth each fact in support of the Project' compliance. (Resolution
No. PC2021-020.)
Additionally, at the July 20 public hearing, the majority of councilmembers even
acknowledged the Project's consistency with applicable, "objective" standards and
criteria. As discussed in the next section, in voting down the Project,
councilmembers relied exclusively on subjective notions about the Project's potential
incompatibility with surrounding uses due to its character and massing.
All of the City's Project -compliance statements and findings constitute substantial
evidence of the Project's compliance, which easily satisfy the HAA's uniquely low -
threshold for finding compliance, requiring only that "substantial evidence [] would
allow a reasonable person to conclude that the [] project ... is consistent."
(Government Code, § 65589.5(f)(4); Technical Advisory, p. 11.)
There is simply no refuting that the Project (1) constitutes a "housing development project"
under the HAA and (2) complies with the City's applicable, "objective" standards and criteria. As
such, the Project is protected by the HAA.
2. No Substantial Evidence in the Record Enables the City to Adopt Findings Mandated
by the HAA for Denial of the Project.
Where a housing project (like the Project) is protected by the HAA, a city cannot deny the
project or condition its approval at a lower -than -proposed density unless the city adopts two
"written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record." (Government Code,
§ 65589.50)(1), emphasis added.) A preponderance of the evidence means that the findings must
be "more likely to be true than not true" based on everything in the record, which is a significantly
more demanding standard than merely requiring support by substantial evidence, as a weighing of
the evidence is needed. (See Environmental Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. (2015) 235
Cal.App.4th 307, 322; Technical Advisory, p. 13.)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 6
The HAA's two mandatory written findings are:
1. Finding of a health -and -safety impact. "The housing development project would
have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety" unless denied or
made less dense. (Government Code, § 65589.50)(1)(A), emphasis added.)
Importantly, a "specific, adverse impact" must be 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." (Ibid., emphasis added.)
The health -and -safety finding requires a rigorous evidentiary showing. First, the
purported impact must have a quantitative effect, i.e., can be measured with
numerical data and values and not just conceptually described. (Technical Advisory,
p. 13.) Second, the purported impact must violate an "objective" health -and -safety
standard, which means (as discussed above) the standard must be "an external and
uniform benchmark or criterion" that is "uniformly verifiable"; "personal or
subjective judgment [of] a public official" will not suffice. (Government Code, §
65589.5(h)(8).)
2. Finding of no feasible alternative. "There is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the adverse impact" except to disapprove the project or condition it
at lower -than -proposed density. (Government Code, § 65589.50)(1)(B), emphasis
added.) The HAA further defines "feasible" as meaning "capable of being
accomplished ... within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Government Code, §
65589.5(h)(1).)
By design, these findings are notoriously difficult to support, as the California Legislature
specifically declared: "It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety ... arise infrequently." (Government
Code, § 65589.5(a)(3), emphasis added.)
Here, the record contains no substantial evidence — let alone a preponderance of the
evidence — to support either of the HAA's mandatory denial findings. Just the opposite, the
evidence weighs heavily against the City's ability to make the denial findings.
First, all substantial evidence in the record, including all findings about the Project that the
City has made to date, show the complete absence of any health -and -safety impact:
• Staff reports. In the reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council, the City's staff explained that, based on their independent review and
analysis, the Project would not pose any health -and -safety impact. For example, in
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 7
the City Council staff report, staff noted opponents' "concerns regarding
incompatibility of the proposed use, potential traffic and parking impacts, increased
noise, lights and odor, slope stability, size and height of the proposed building, view
impacts, and decreased property values." (Staff Report of July 20, p. 6.) The staff
report then responded to each concern, explaining why the Project had no health -
and -safety impact. (Id., pp. 7-11.) The following statements by staff are illustrative
(all emphasis added):
"Based on the information provided from the Fire Department, the
Project meets required CUP findings, including the finding that the
Project will not be detrimental to the public health and safety." (p. 7.)
"[T]he Project meets or exceeds all development standards of the RH-3
and SC Overlay including building setbacks and building height." (p-
8.)
"Based on the established thresholds of significance, the proposed
project would not result in significant traffic impacts nor impose an
undue burden upon the City's streets." (p. 8.)
"The proposed Project meets the development standards of the "SC"
Overlay Zone for residential zoning requirements and Specimen Trees
and is consistent with the zone." (p. 9.)
"Both proposed and existing slopes impacted by the proposed project
were addressed in the report for stability and long-term performance of
the project." (p. 9.)
"The height of the proposed project is as high as single-family homes
that could be developed on this property, or of the single-family homes
surrounding the site, and does not exceed the height permitted in this
zone." (p. 10.)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 8
"[T]he Project would comply with the City noise standards ... The
analysis determined that the noise produced from the [Project's]
generator would also not exceed the City noise standards." (p. 10.)
"[T]he proposed tree removal complies with applicable City
requirements." (p. 11.)
"Staff has reviewed information provided by the Appellants and does
not believe any information supports a reversal of the Planning
Commission's approval of the project." (p. 11.)
• Planning Commission resolution. In approving the Project, the Planning
Commission made multiple factual and legal findings, attesting that the Project had
no health -and -safety impact. (Resolution No. 2021-020.) The Planning Commission
also found that no other substantial evidence "negate[d]" its findings about the
Project. (Id., p. 4.) Specifically, the Planning Commission found (all emphasis
added):
"[T]he Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of
all evidence and reports offered at said hearing ... does find and
determine the following facts[:]" (p. 2.)
"The request to permit the Proposed Project would not adversely
affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of
the area ... In addition, the conditions of approval contained herein
will mitigate potential impacts to surrounding residential
properties." (p. 2.)
"The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full
development of the Proposed Project in a manner not detrimental to
either the particular area nor to the health and safety." (p.2.)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 9
"As designed, the project's design and site layout account for the
proximity to the surrounding single family residential properties by
providing landscaping and structural setbacks that far exceeds the
minimum required setbacks, and the Proposed Project also complies
with all other required development standards applicable to the
site." (p. 2.)
"The traffic generated by the Proposed Project would not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated
by the Proposed Project will not exceed the anticipated volumes of
traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be
provided to accommodate the future uses." (p. 3.)
"The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental
to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim
because the Proposed Project, with conditions of approval contained
herein, would operate in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding area." (p. 3.)
"There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that
negate the findings made in this Resolution." (p. 4.)
• Fire Department memorandum. On the issue most pertinent to a health -and -safety
concern, i.e., fire safety, the City Fire Department issued a memorandum detailing
the lack of any health -and -safety impact. (Fire & Rescue Department Letter of July
5, 2021.) The Fire Marshal's statements are unequivocal:
"I would like to assure you our staff did receive the opportunity to
review the general proposal, and found no critical failure points that
would prevent the project from proceeding with the appropriate
approval process." (p. 1.)
OEM
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 10
Per 2019 California Fire Code, senior care facilities require stringent
protection measures due to the nature of the occupancy, and the
developer will be required to meet all minimum codes and standards
prior to obtaining building permits. In addition, the occupancy is
subject to annual life safety inspections to ensure adequate
maintenance of the structure. To date the project has indicated
compliance with all codes and standards as adopted. (p. 1.)
"[S]taff reference evacuation zones for the Canyon 1, Canyon 2, and
Freeway Complex Fires to determine any potential negative impacts to
the city's "Know Your Way" evacuation campaign ... While past
incidents are not a perfect predictor of future wildfire elements, should
a similar event occur in future the addition of a senior living facility
in this location would not negatively affect our response. (p. 1.)
All of the above fact -based statements and findings by City officials constitute substantial evidence
in the record. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 918, 932-934
[planning commission's findings were substantial evidence]; Ocean View Estates Homeowners
Ass'n v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, 400 [staff memorandum was
substantial evidence].) These statements and findings show that the Project will not have a health -
and -safety impact, and this evidence preponderates in the record. (Technical Advisory, p. 13.)
Second, the City's draft denial resolution fails to include even one finding that establishes a
"specific, adverse impact" to the public health and safety. The draft resolution sets forth three
purported findings, and each fails to either show a "quantifiable," "unavoidable" impact or fails to
show the violation of an "objective" health -and -safety standard:
1. Incompatibility finding. The draft resolution claims that the Project "would
adversely affect" and be "incompatible with the adjoining single-family residential
land uses" because the Project would: (1) "adversely affect the privacy enjoyed by []
adjacent residences"; (2) increase density "well beyond the expectations of the
surrounding single-family neighbors; and (3) be unsuited to the "size and shape of
the Property." (Draft Resolution, p. 2, emphasis added.)
These statements suffer from multiple defects: (1) they show no "quantifiable"
impact measurable by hard data (Technical Advisory, p. 13); (2) they show no
violation of an "objective" health -and -safety standard (only subjective
"expectations"), nor cite to any standard in the General Plan, Zoning Code, or other
regulatory document that is purportedly violated; and (3) they provide no factual
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 11
foundation, even though they inexplicably conflict with all of the fact -based findings
that the City's staff and Planning Commission previously made. This so-called
finding is simply overwhelmed by the weight of the City's previous findings/
evidence, which preponderate on the record.
2. Parking finding. The draft resolution claims that the Project "will result in a
significant impact to the on -street parking available on public streets [] in the
surrounding residential neighborhood," " fiJf parking spaces are unavailable on site."
(Draft Resolution, p. 2, emphasis added.) This is a big and unsupported if.
As a threshold matter, this parking statement lacks factual foundation. While the
draft resolution claims to be "supported by substantial evidence in the record,
including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff
report and all materials in the project files" (Draft Resolution, p. 3), in reality, the
only basis for this parking statement are the unsubstantiated testimonials of local
opponents. The City's staff presentations, reports, and other materials unanimously
support the fact -based conclusion that no parking impact would result from granting
a parking variance. (Staff Report of May 24, pp. 4, 6, 8; Staff Report of July 20, pp.
4-5; PC Resolution No. 2021-020. pp. 2-3; Linscott Law & Greenspan Parking
Demand Analysis.) The entire weight of the evidence shows no parking impact.
Further, critically, the parking finding fails to show any "unavoidable" impact.
(Government Code, § 65589.50)(1)(A).) This is particularly significant given the
City's previous findings that "a number of parking management measures, including
a resident transportation program, an employee incentive program for utilizing
carpool and alternative transit, and a visitor program during major holidays" would
be implemented to avoid any impact. (Staff Report of July 20, p. 5.) And to
absolutely ensure no parking impact, the City imposed Condition No. 62:
Ongoing during project operations, all vehicles associated with the facility shall be
parked on-site, and be prohibited from parking on public and private streets in the
vicinity, including the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Should vehicle
associated with the facility be found be parking on public streets, the applicant may
be required to meet with the City of Anaheim to discuss corrective measures. This
does not preclude the operator from securing an off-site parking arrangement to
accommodate special event/holiday visitors as specified in the parking study on
file with the Planning Services Division.
The draft resolution and nothing in the record demonstrate why this condition would
be ineffective. There is simply no evidence in the record to show a "specific,
adverse impact" related to parking, and all substantial evidence shows the contrary.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 12
3. Fire -safety finding. The draft resolution claims that the Project would have health -
and -safety impacts "due to its size and capacity and location adjacent to a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone" and because in an evacuation scenario the Project's
residents and staff will evacuate "concurrently with all other area residents and
emergency responders." (Draft Resolution, p. 2.)
Again, no substantial evidence in the record supports this fire finding. The exclusive
basis for any fire concern are the biased arguments, speculation, and unsubstantiated
opinion of local opponents, which does not constitute substantial evidence. The
actual substantial evidence in the record, which includes the City Fire Marshal's
expert analysis (see discussion above), establishes that the Project would have no
health -and -safety impacts regarding fire or emergency -evacuation due to the
Project's physical design and state -mandated compliance with stringent emergency
preparedness/evacuation standards.
And apart from lacking any substantial evidence, the City's proposed fire -safety
finding again fails to show a "quantifiable" impact that would violate any "objective"
health -and -safety standard. In contrast, because of the Project's state -licensing
requirements as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE"), the Project
must comply with strict emergency -preparedness standards in order to obtain and
maintain a valid RCFE license. (Health and Safety Code, § 1569.695.) Per state
law, RCFEs must maintain an emergency plan that, among other things, includes:
detailed evacuation procedures, which require capabilities of implementing
evacuations informed by real-time access to emergency route information (which
would prevent "concurrent[]" evacuations); immediate access to transport vehicles;
preselection of at least two shelter locations capable of receiving evacuees;
procedures for communicating with residents, families, and healthcare providers to
coordinate emergency activities/responses; regular training for employees in how to
respond to emergencies; and resource provision for facility self-reliance for at least
72 hours in the event of a shelter -in-place strategy. (Ibid.) The draft resolution
completely fails to show how the Project either fails to meet these state -licensing
requirements or why the Project's compliance with these standards will not
"satisfactorily" avoid an objective heath -and -safety impact. Like the other purported
findings, the fire -safety finding fails to satisfy the HAA.
Lastly, for each of the draft resolution's purported impact findings, no substantial evidence
in the record shows that there is a lack of a "feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid" the
alleged impact. (Government Code, § 65589.50)(1)(B).) For example, no substantial evidence
shows that Condition No. 62 would be inadequate to avoid a parking impact, and no substantial
evidence shows that the Project's compliance with the state's RCFE licensing requirements is either
infeasible or unsatisfactory to avoid an emergency -evacuation impact.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 13
In short, the record provides no basis for the City to make either of the HAA's two
mandatory denial findings. The overwhelming "preponderance of the evidence on the record"
shows that the Project will have no health -and -safety impact. Thus, the City must not deny the
Project, or else it will violate the HAA.
3. The City Will Incur Severe State -Law Penalties if it Violates the HAA.
If the City denies the Project in violation of the HAA, the City will be exposed to potentially
severe penalties.
Under the HAA, the project applicant, individuals eligible to live in the proposed project,
and housing organizations all have standing to sue a city for impermissibly denying or conditioning
a project. (Government Code, § 65589.5(k)(1)(A); Technical Advisory, pp. 15-16.) If a court finds
that a city violated the HAA, the court must issue an order compelling the city to comply with the
HAA within 60 days. (Ibid.) The court must also "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. (Id.; see Government Code,
§ 65589.5(k)(2); Technical Advisory, p. 16.)
If the city fails to comply with the initial order within 60 days, the "court shall impose fines"
of at least $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application
was deemed complete and take further action to ensure the city complies with the HAA.
(Government Code, § 65589.5(k)(1)(B), (C); Technical Advisory, p. 17.) And if the court finds a
city acted in "bad faith" in illegally disapproving the project or reducing its density, the court must
multiply the fine by a factor of five. (Government Code, § 65589.5(1).) After the trial court enters
its order, a local government must post a bond, in an amount determined by the trial court, to the
benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (Government Code, § 65589.5(m).)
A recent bond determination in another trial court case in Santa Clara County, captioned 40
Main Street Offices, LLC v. City of Los Altos (2020) Case No. 19CV349845, is informative. In 40
Main Street, the trial court concluded that Los Altos violated the HAA, State Density Bonus Law,
and SB 35 and ordered Los Altos to "rescind its decision to deny and instead approve and permit
the project at the requested density." (Order Granting Petitioners for Writ of Mandate (Apr. 2020).)
Rather than rescind, Los Altos appealed the order, but did not ask the court to set a bond or reach an
agreement with the petitioner regarding the bond amount. After receiving petitioner's motion to set
a bond on appeal, the court ordered Los Altos to post a $7 million bond within ten days. (Order
Setting Amount of Bond on Appeal (Sept. 2020).)
Unlike an action under CEQA or the Planning and Zoning Law, an action in violation of the
HAA can result in court orders that direct a city to approve a project or that result in significant
monetary penalties, which can require the posting of large bonds to proceed with an appeal.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harry S. Sidhu
August 6, 2021
Page 14
Finally, the City's violation of the HAA could also invite a lawsuit by the AG's Office.
Under AB 72, if HCD found that the City violated the HAA by denying the Project, HCD would
have to notify the City of the violation and could refer the violation to the AG's Office for legal
action by the state (Government Code, § 655850)(1); Technical Advisory, p. 15), which could
result in an AG's lawsuit against the City. (Government Code, § 65585(n).)
4. Conclusion.
The HAA exists in its current form because "California's 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 [the HAA]." (Government Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(J).) The
Legislature expressly stated that in strengthening the HAA, its intent "was to significantly increase
the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's
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."
(Government Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(K), emphasis added.)
The analysis in this letter details (1) how the City's denial of the Project would violate the
HAA and (2) the likely penalties that would be a consequence of that violation. While the City may
not like state law, the City must follow it.
In light of the above considerations, we respectfully request that the City either (1) make and
approve its own motion to reconsider approval of the Project or (2) approve a request by Alliance
for a rehearing regarding the Project.
Very truly yours,
William R. Devine and Andrew Lee
WRD:slp
cc: Theresa Bass, City Clerk
Robert Fabela, City Attorney
Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney
Ted White, Planning Director
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. EI Camino Avenue, Suite 500 ° °•.,n
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcc
September 15, 2020
MEMORANDUM FOR: Planning Directors and Interested Parties
FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Divisio Housi olicy Development
SUBJECT: Housing Accou ility Act Technical Assistance
Advisory (Government Code Section 65589.5)
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, establishes
limitations to a local government's ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make
infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing
that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to
meeting housing need. The Legislature first enacted the HAA in 1982 and recently
amended the HAA to expand and strengthen its provisions as part of the overall
recognition of the critically low volumes of housing stock in California. In amending the
HAA, the Legislature made repeated findings that the lack of housing and the lack of
affordable housing, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental,
and social quality of life in California. This Technical Assistance Advisory provides
guidance on implementation of the HAA, including the following amendments.
Chanter 368. Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 167). Chanter 373. Statutes of 2017
(Assembly Bill 678) - Strengthens the HAA by increasing the documentation necessary
and the standard of proof required for a local agency to legally defend its denial of low -
to -moderate -income housing development projects, and requiring courts to impose a
fine of $10,000 or more per unit on local agencies that fail to legally defend their
rejection of an affordable housing development project.
Chapter 378, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill 1515) — Establishes a reasonable person
standard for determining conformance with local land use requirements.
Chapter 243, Statutes of 2018 (Assembly Bill 3194) -Expands the meaning of zoning
consistency to include projects that are consistent with general plan designations but
not zoning designation on a site if that zone is inconsistent with the general plan.
Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) - Defined previously undefined terms
such as objective standards and complete application and set forth vesting rights for
projects that use a new pre -application process. Most of these provisions sunset on
January 1, 2025, unless extended by the Legislature and Governor.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information or technical assistance,
please contact the Division of Housing Policy Development at (916) 263-2911.
F -111a la►•aa.IEli
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
What is the Housing Accountability Act?...............................................................................1
Why Do We Need the Housing Accountability Act?..............................................................2
Housing Accountability Act Decision Matrix.........................................................................4
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act...............................................................5
Housing Development Project Qualifications....................................................................... 5
Housing Development Project Definition......................................................................... 6
Housing for Very Low, Low-, or Moderate -Income Households ...................................... 6
Housing Developments Applying for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4............................................................ 6
Applicability of Local Standards........................................................................................... 7
Objective Development Standards, Conditions, Policies, Fees, and Exactions .............. 7
Determination of Application Completeness................................................................... 8
Triggers for a Disapproval of a Housing Development Project ........................................ 9
Imposition of Development Conditions.......................................................................... 10
Housing Accountability Act Provisions That Apply to All Housing Projects ........................ 11
Determination of Consistency with Applicable Plans, Standards, or Other Similar
Provision Based on the Reasonable Person Standard .................................................
11
Applicability of Density Bonus Law...............................................................................
11
General Plan and Zoning Consistency Standard..........................................................
11
Written Notification of Inconsistency.............................................................................
12
Denial of a Housing Project that is Consistent with Applicable Plans, Standards, or
Other Similar Provisions Based on the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard.......
13
Provisions Related to Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low-, or Moderate -Income
Household, Emergency Shelters, and Farmworker Housing ..............................................
14
Denial or Conditioning of Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or Moderate -Income
Households, Including Farmworker Housing, or Emergency Shelters ..........................
14
Violations of Housing Accountability Act............................................................................
15
Eligible Plaintiffs and Petitioners...................................................................................
16
"Housing organizations"................................................................................................
16
Remedies......................................................................................................................
16
/\aWITS] 21Y11Akg1Is
Table of Contents
Appeals.........................................................................................................................
16
Failure to Comply with Court Order...............................................................................
17
APPENDIX A: Frequently Asked Questions.........................................................................18
What types of housing development project applications are subject to the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA)?..................................................................................................
18
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to charter cities? .............................................
18
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to housing development projects in coastal
zones?................................................................................................................................
18
Are housing developments still subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
if they qualify for the protections under the Housing Accountability Act? ...........................
18
Does the California Department of Housing and Community Development have
enforcement authority for the Housing Accountability Act? ................................................
18
If approval of a housing development project triggers the No -Net Loss Law, may a local
government disapprove the project?..................................................................................
18
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to a residential development project on an
historicproperty?................................................................................................................
18
Under the Housing Accountability Act, is the retail/commercial component of a mixed-use
project subject to review when the housing component must be approved? ......................
19
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to subdivision maps and other discretionary land
useapplications?................................................................................................................
19
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to applications for individual single-family
residences or individual Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)?..............................................
19
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to an application that includes both a single-
family residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit?............................................................
19
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to an application for a duplex? .......................
19
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to market -rate housing developments? ..........
19
Under the Housing Accountability Act, if a housing development project is consistent with
local planning rules, can it be denied or conditioned on a density reduction? ....................
20
Under the Housing Accountability Act, can a housing development project affordable to
very low-, low-, or moderate -income households (including farmworker housing) or
emergency shelter that is inconsistent with local planning requirements be denied or
conditioned in a manner that renders it infeasible for the use proposed? ..........................
20
Is there a definition for "specific, adverse impact" upon public health and safety? .............
20
APPENDIX B: Definitions.......................................................................................................21
Appendix C: Preliminary Application (Senate Bill 330, Statutes of 2019) ..........................
23
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
F-111 aWITS] MINA A01Is
Table of Contents
Benefits of a Preliminary Application.................................................................................. 23
Contents of a Preliminary Application................................................................................. 24
Timing Provisions from Filing of a Preliminary Application to Determination of Consistency
with Applicable Standards under the Housing Accountability Act ....................................... 26
Step 1: Preliminary Application Submittal GC 65941.1 ................................................. 26
Step 2: Full Application Submittal................................................................................. 26
Step I Determination of Application Completeness GC 65943 .................................... 26
Step 4: Application Consistency with Standards (HAA) GC 65589.5 ............................ 26
Step 5: Other Entitlement Process Requirements Pursuant to SB 330 ......................... 27
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020) ....................................................28
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
F-111 aWITS] MINA A01Is
What is the Housing Accountability Act?
What is the Housing Accountability Act?
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5), establishes the
state's overarching policy that a local government may not deny, reduce the density of, or make
infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are
consistent with objective local development standards. Before doing any of those things, local
governments must make specified written findings based upon a preponderance of the
evidence that a specific, adverse health or safety impact exists. Legislative intent language
indicates that the conditions that would give rise to such a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health and safety would occur infrequently.
Subdivision (d) of the HAA describes requirements applicable to housing development projects
that include units affordable to very- low, low- and moderate -income households (including
transitional and supportive housing) as well as emergency shelters and farmworker housing.
Subdivision (j) describes requirements applicable to all housing development projects, including
both market -rate and affordable housing developments. Subdivisions (k), (1), and (m) expand
the potential consequences for violations of the HAA. In 2017, the Legislature also granted the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) authority to refer HAA
violations to the Office of the Attorney General in Government Code section 65585.
The HAA was originally enacted in 1982 to address local opposition to growth and change.
Communities resisted new housing, especially affordable housing, and, consequently, multiple
levels of discretionary review often prevented or delayed development. As a result, developers
had difficulty ascertaining the type, quantity, and location where development would be
approved. The HAA was intended to overcome the lack of certainty developers experienced by
limiting local governments' ability to deny, make infeasible, or reduce the density of housing
development projects.
Recognizing that the HAA was falling short of its intended goal, in 2017, 2018, and again in
2019, the Legislature amended the HAA no less than seven times to expand and strengthen its
provisions. Key restrictions on local governments' ability to take action against housing
development projects are set out in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivisions (d) and (j).
The law was amended by Chapter 368 Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 167), Chapter 373 Statutes
of 2017 (Assembly Bill 678) and Chapter 378 Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill 1515), as part of
the California 2017 Housing Package. The law was further amended by Chapter 243, Statutes
of 2018 (Assembly Bill 3194) and Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019 (Senate Bill 330).
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 1
ATTACHMENT
Why Do We Need the Housing Accountability Act?
Why Do We Need the Housing Accountability Act?
The Housing Accountability Act has been in effect since 1982. Since that time, California's
housing supply has not kept up with population and job growth, and the affordability crisis has
grown significantly due to an undersupply of housing, which compounds inequality and limits
economic and social mobility. Housing is a fundamental component of a healthy, equitable
community. Lack of adequate housing hurts millions of Californians, stifles economic
opportunities for workers and businesses, worsens poverty and homelessness, and undermines
the state's environmental and climate goals and compounds the racial equity gaps faced by
many communities across the state.
The legislative intent of the HAA was to limit local governments' ability to deny, make infeasible,
or reduce the density of housing development projects. After determining that implementation of
the HAA was not meeting the intent of the statute, the Legislature has amended the HAA to
expand its provisions, strengthening the law to meaningfully and effectively curb the capacity of
local governments to deny, reduce the density or render housing development projects
infeasible.
Legislative Housing Accountability Act Interpretation Guidance
"It is the policy of the state that this section (HAA) 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." Government Code Section 65589.5 (a)(2)(L)
The following are findings and declarations found in the HAA pursuant to Government Code
sections 65589.5(a):
• The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the
economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
• California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the
state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local
governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and
require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 state's environmental and climate objectives.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Why Do We Need the Housing Accountability Act?
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• California's 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 California's households are able to afford the cost of housing in
their local regions.
• Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement
opportunities for many Californians.
• 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.
• 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.
• An additional consequence of the state's 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. California's cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national
but international environmental consequences.
• California's 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.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
7
O O
Q L
U
cn� U
O
Q
cn
Q O
O l
O
-0 O
CO
O
O
U
cCL
CL
c0 cu
cu
U
(0 (B
L O
0 L
O
cn
W
2
Q� L_
� cr
O a).
cn C -0
C (B
O O
Q -0
E cn
U •c
O
o
acn
i o
3 U
cnc
W cn
-0
~ cu
CU
O Q C
Q
U
cn
\- O
O
o yam+ O
cn
O
-0 Q O
cn EO
O Q
C
O
E
0-
0 O
O
O
0)
C
cn
Z)
0
cu
0
0
C
W
W
^n
W
U
O
0
0-
0 O
0
El
Z
VJ
W
O i
N
vi
-2-c-
0
2-c-O U
N U
� 2
N
0 0)
N N
ON
� cv
7 L
�:0
0
L
0-5
Oton
i 0
�
> ^ n
^O C
W O
.0
O
cu
}�— O
2 a)
(Q cu
O N
0 -0
O
2 E
} o
O m
O
0 cu
N -0
m0
Q
cu
m
cuLU
L
Q
� U
O -0
(B
O -0
> L
CU
0-0
cu
O to
-r-
-0 -0
C
cn cB
0 �
O O
U •—
•O �
L
Q
ci N
O
U)
W
2 �Q
L
N N N
2
E
U � �
O cu
Q�
a) CU
O Q OU
(L) 0 U
+' o �
L
0
z
w
Z O N U
E U
> 2 O
F
Q
-0 O.S
0 O U�
��co
Q
E cu
6)E
cn L
L >
a�
0-0
O
W
0 0
fn O cu
O O =
o p� cB �
ZQ0��
N E �—
H 070 OQO
F
N 0.O O M
W O —0 N
0
E 2 O) Q� O>
N 2 >,O L N
-L-f 70 ^�U 0
L WL Q
-0 0 m Q
y
0 L
0 � a Co O
'iO Q
�Q N0 L SUN= N
O
Q V Q -0N N
O Q�g
z 2 cn U 0-0 `� 2 O) +� N �l
�+ E U� N N + 0� O=
0 O 0- (D +�+-0 2 Co
�
�'� E� �m 70 -0M=0 v�
0) '� cu v0i 0 — c 0, U o O
L L O Q
0 >= Q a) L U" 0 Oi
0 cB-0}; 0 0 -0 �.a)m o>
U_ CU CU (n
cn a) `� Q 0.— 0 L Ea)
0 X W ^, .— L O L U in -2'Fn U
O O U Qa— N O O
N cn (Q
O L •— Q , O
D N (Q
EOO cB(nO (n CU cn�'in.�( Ou
O Q��o a3 (D �� o� 0CU0(n �: o
E -0N NO (Q T 0— O N O
N>
O) 2 — N
con = Q O O U', N— = Coa) O Co(Q (Q O
O 0 0 --o O N O
�E Q CQ� -� 0 .��0)Q� N
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
The HAA sets out restrictions on local governments' ability to take action against housing
development projects in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivisions (d) and (j).
Subdivision (d) describes requirements applicable to housing development projects that include
units affordable to very -low, low-, and moderate -income households (including transitional and
supportive housing) as well as emergency shelters and farmworker housing. Subdivision (j)
describes requirements applicable to all housing development projects, including both market -
rate and affordable housing developments'. In sum, the HAA significantly limits the ability of a
local government to deny an affordable or market -rate housing project that is consistent with
planning and zoning requirements. This table describes the various component parts of the
HAA for ease of reference.
Topic
Subdivisions of Government
Code Section 65589.5
Declarations and legislative intent
(a), (b), (c)
Provisions for housing affordable to very low, low-, or
moderate -income households, or an emergency shelter
(d), (i)
Applicability of the statute to coastal zones, local laws,
and charter cities
(e), (f), (g)
Definitions
(h)
Provisions relating to all housing developments
(j)
Consequences for violation
(k), (1), (m), (n)
Vesting rights for pre -applications (SB 330)
(o)
The following is an overview of key provisions of the HAA focusing on project qualifications,
applicability of local standards, provisions that relate to all housing projects, provisions that
relate just to housing affordable to lower- and moderate -income households and emergency
shelters, and consequences for violation of the HAA. Appendix A includes a list of definitions of
terms referenced throughout the HAA and Appendix B includes information related to the
Preliminary Application Process pursuant to Senate Bill 330.
Housing Development Project Qualifications
In order for a development to qualify for the protections under the HAA it must meet the
definition of a "housing development project". Furthermore, for a project to qualify for the
affordable housing protections, it must also meet the definition of "Housing for very low-, low-,
or moderate -income households".
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1066, 1072-1073
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory b
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Housing Development Project Definition
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (h)(2).
A "housing development project" means a use consisting of residential units only, mixed use
developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the
square footage designated for residential use, or transitional or supportive housing. Because
the term "units" is plural, a development must consist of more than one unit to qualify under the
HAA. The development can consist of attached or detached units and may occupy more than
one parcel, so long as the development is included in the same development application.
Housing for Very Low, Low-, or Moderate -Income Households
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (h)(3).
In order to qualify as a housing development affordable to lower- or moderate- income
households, the project must meet one of the following two criteria:
• At least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households.
Lower-income households are those persons and families whose income does not exceed
that specified by Health and Safety Code, § 50079.5, 80 percent of area median income.
100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income,
or persons and families of middle income. Moderate -income households are those persons
and families whose incomes are 80 percent to 120 percent of area median income (Health
and Safety Code, § 50093.) Middle-income households are those persons and families
whose income does not exceed 150 percent of area median income (Gov. Code, § 65008
subd. (c).)
In addition, the rental or sales prices of that housing cannot exceed the following standards:
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.
Housing Developments Applying for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4.
To facilitate and expedite the construction of housing, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017 (SB 35,
Wiener) established the availability of a Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for
developments in localities that have not yet made sufficient progress towards their allocation of
the regional housing need (RHNA). Recent amendments to the law clarified that projects
utilizing the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process qualify for the protections under the HAA
(Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (g)(2).)
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Applicability of Local Standards
In addition to limiting the conditions for which a housing development project can be denied, the
HAA also sets parameters around aspects of the approval process. Specifically, it defines:
• The type of development standards, conditions, and policies with which a housing
development or emergency shelter can be required to comply
• Parameters for fees and exactions that can be imposed
• Standards that can be applied once an application is deemed complete
• Actions by a local government that would constitute a denial of a project or impose
development conditions
These requirements are intended to provide developers with greater transparency and clarity in
the entitlement process.
Objective Development Standards, Conditions, Policies, Fees, and Exactions
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (f)
Local governments are not prohibited from requiring a housing development project or
emergency shelter to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards,
conditions, and policies (subject to the vesting provisions of the HAA and other applicable
laws). However, those standards, conditions, and policies must meet the following criteria:
Be appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the local government's share of the RHNA
or meeting the local government's need for emergency shelters as identified in the housing
element of the general plan.
• Be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site
and proposed by the development or to facilitate and accommodate the development of the
emergency shelter project.
Meet the definition of "objective". Objective standards are those that involve no personal or
subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an
external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
development applicant or proponent and the public official.
The intent of these provisions of the HAA is that developers are given certainty in what
standards, conditions, and policies apply to their project and how those standards can be met.
Local governments that deny a project due to a failure to meet subjective standards (those
standards that are not objective as defined) could be in violation of the HAA. In addition,
objective standards that do apply should make it feasible for a developer to build to the density
allowed by the zoning and not constrain a local government's ability to achieve its RHNA
housing targets.
Nothing in the statute generally prohibits a local government 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. However, the HAA does
impose limitations on the fees and exactions that can be imposed on a specific housing
development project once a preliminary application is submitted (see Appendix C).
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Determination of Application Completeness
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivisions (d)(5), (h)(5) and (9), and 0)(1).
The process of submitting an application for a housing development project can be iterative. For
example, applications that are missing information cannot be fully evaluated by a local
government for compliance with local objective standards. Therefore, an application is not
typically processed until it is "determined to be complete". The HAA currently uses two terms
related to completeness, "deemed complete" and "determined to be complete."
Deemed Complete: For the purposes of the HAA, until January 1, 2025, "deemed complete"
means the date on which a preliminary application was submitted under the provisions of
Government Code section 65941.1. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to
provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing
the full information required by the local government for a housing development application.
Submittal of this information allows a housing developer to "freeze" the applicable standards for
their project while they assemble the rest of the material necessary for a full application
submittal. This ensures development requirements do not change during this time, potentially
adding costs to a project. No affirmative determination by a local government regarding the
completeness of a preliminary application is required. (See Appendix C).
The term "deemed complete" triggers the "freeze date" for applicable development standards,
criteria, or condition that can be applied to a project. Changes to the zoning ordinance, general
plan land use designation, standards, and criteria, subdivision ordinance, and design review
standards, made subsequent to the date the housing development project preliminary
application was "deemed complete", cannot be applied to a housing development project or
used to disapprove or condition approval of the project.
However, if the developer does not submit a preliminary application, the standards that must be
applied are those that are in effect when the project is determined to be complete under the
Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code § 65943).
Determined to be complete: Until January 1, 2025, the full application is "determined to be
complete" when it is found to be complete under the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §
65943). This phrase triggers the timing provisions for the local government to provide written
documentation of inconsistency with any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard,
requirement, or other similar provision (see page 10 below for inconsistency determinations).
Completeness Determination of Development Application
Government Code section 65943 states that local governments have 30 days after an
application for a housing development project is submitted to inform the applicant whether or
not the application is complete. If the local government does not inform the applicant of any
deficiencies within that 30 -day period, the application will be "deemed complete", even if it is
deficient.
If the application is determined to be incomplete, the local government shall provide the
applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete pursuant to the local
government's submittal requirement checklist. Information not included in the initial list of
deficiencies in the application cannot be requested in subsequent reviews of the application.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
A development applicant who submitted a preliminary application has 90 days to complete the
application after receiving notice that the application is incomplete, or the preliminary
application will expire. Each time an applicant resubmits new information, a local government
has 30 calendar days to review the submittal materials and to identify deficiencies in the
application.
Please note, Government Code section 65943 is triggered by an application submitted with all
of the requirements on lists compiled by the local government and available when the
application was submitted that specifies in detail the information that will be required from any
applicant for a development project pursuant to Government Code section 65940. This is not
the "preliminary application" referenced in Government Code section 65941.1.
Triggers for a Disapproval of a Housing Development Project
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivisions (h)(6)
The HAA does not prohibit a local government from exercising its authority to disapprove a
housing development project, but rather provides limitations and conditions for exercising that
authority. The HAA defines disapproval as when the local government takes one of the
following actions:
Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is
disapproved. This includes denial of other required land use approvals or entitlements
necessary for the issuance of a building permit. Examples include, but are not limited to,
denial of the development application, tentative or final maps, use permits, or design review.
If the project is using the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, disapproval of the
application would trigger the provisions of the HAA.
• Fails to comply with decision time periods for approval or disapproval of a development
application2. Until 2025, the following timeframes apply.
0 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report (prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act) by the lead agency for a housing development
project.
0 60 days after certification of an environmental impact report (prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act) by the lead agency for a housing development
project where at least 49 percent of the units in the development project are affordable to
very low or low-income household s3, and where rents for the lower income units are set
at an affordable rent4 for at least 30 years and owner -occupied units are available at an
affordable housing costs, among other conditions (see Gov Code § 65950).
0 60 days from the date of adoption by the lead agency of a negative declaration.
0 60 days from the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act.
2 Timeframes are pursuant to Government Code section 65950
3 As defined by Health and Safety Code sections 50105 and 50079.5
4 Pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code
5 Pursuant to Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Imposition of Development Conditions
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivisions. (d), (h)(7), and (i)
Like the ability to deny a project, the HAA does not prohibit a local government from exercising
its authority to condition the approval of a project, but rather provides limitations and conditions
for the application of certain conditions. Specifically, the HAA limits the application of conditions
that lower the residential density of the project, and, for housing affordable to lower- and
moderate -income households and emergency shelters, conditions that would have a
substantial adverse impact on the viability or affordability of providing those units unless specific
findings are made and supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record'.
For purposes of the HAA, "lower density" includes any conditions that have the same effect or
impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. This could include a condition that
directly lowers the overall number of units proposed (e.g., the development proposes 50 units,
but the local government approves only 45 units). It could also include indirect conditions that
result in a lower density (e.g., a development proposes 50 units at 800 square feet per unit but
the local government conditions the approval on the provision of 850 square feet per unit,
resulting in the project having to provide fewer units to accommodate the increase in square
footage). Another example would be a reduction in building height that would result in the
project being able to provide fewer units than originally proposed.
Local governments must also consider if imposed conditions of approval would have an
adverse effect on a project's ability to provide housing for very low-, low-, or moderate -Income
households at the affordability levels proposed in the housing development project. This
includes provisions that would render the project for very low-, low-, or moderate -income
households infeasible or would have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability
of the proposed housing. For example, project approval for an affordable housing development
might be conditioned on the need to use specific materials that significantly increase the cost of
the project. This additional cost could either render the project financially infeasible altogether
or require substantial changes to the affordability mix of the units where fewer very low-income
units could be provided. In these cases, it is possible that the conditions would violate the HAA.
Conditions that should be analyzed for their effect on density and project feasibility (for
affordable projects) include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Design changes
• Conditions that directly or indirectly lower density
Reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under
the applicable planning and zoning.
6 See Pagel3 for more information on the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 10
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Housing Accountability Act Provisions That Apply to All Housing Projects
The following provisions apply to all housing development projects regardless of affordability
Determination of Consistency with Applicable Plans, Standards, or Other Similar
Provision Based on the Reasonable Person Standard
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (f)(4)
A key component of the HAA is the determination as to whether or not the proposed housing
development project is consistent, compliant and in conformity with all applicable plans,
programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, and other similar provisions.
Traditionally, this determination is made by local government, which is given significant
deference to interpret its own plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements,
and other similar provisions. In most planning and zoning matters, courts traditionally uphold an
agency's determination if there is "substantial evidence" to support that determination. If
substantial evidence supports the agency's decision, an agency can reach a conclusion that a
development project is inconsistent with applicable provisions, even if there is evidence to the
contrary.
Departing from these traditional rules, the HAA sets forth its own standard for determining
consistency with local government rules for housing development projects and emergency
shelters. A housing development project or emergency shelter is 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 could allow a reasonable person to
conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant,
or in conformity with applicable standards and requirements. The intent of this provision is to
provide an objective standard and increase the likelihood of housing development projects
being found consistent, compliant and in conformity.
Applicability of Density Bonus Law
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision 0)(3)
The receipt of a density bonus pursuant to Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915)
does 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. Receipt of a density bonus can
include a bonus in number of units, incentives, concessions, or waivers to development
standards allowed under Density Bonus Law.'
General Plan and Zoning Consistency Standard
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision 0)(4)
For various reasons, there is at times inconsistency between standards in a general plan and
zoning standards. For example, a local government may have amended the general plan, but
Please note pursuant to Government Code § 65915, subd. (f) a receipt of a density bonus does not require an
increase in density. An applicant can elect to ask for just the concessions, incentives, and waivers that the project
qualifies for under State Density Bonus Law.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 11
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
has not yet amended all of its municipal ordinances to assure vertical consistency$.
Recognizing this, the HAA clarifies that if the zoning standards and criteria are inconsistent with
applicable, objective general plan standards, but the development project is consistent with the
applicable objective general plan standards for the site, then the housing development project
cannot be found inconsistent with the standards and criteria of the zoning. Further, if such an
inconsistency exists, the local agency may not require rezoning prior to housing development
project approval.
However, the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply
with the objective standards and criteria contained elsewhere in the zoning code that are
consistent with the general plan designation. For example, if a site has a general plan land use
designation of high density residential, but the site is zoned industrial, then a local government
can require the project to comply with objective development standards in zoning districts that
are consistent with the high density residential designation, such as a multifamily high density
residential zone.
However, under the HAA, the standards and criteria determined to apply to the project must
facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed the general plan on the project
site and as proposed by the housing development project.
Written Notification of Inconsistency
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision 0)(2)
If a local government considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent,
non-compliant, or not in conformity with any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance,
standard, requirement, or other similar provision, the local government must provide written
notification and documentation of the inconsistency, noncompliance, or inconformity. This
requirement applies to all housing development projects, regardless of affordability level. The
documentation must:
Identify the specific provision or provisions and provide an explanation of the reason or
reasons why the local agency considers the housing development to be inconsistent, non-
compliant, or non-conformant with identified provisions.
Be provided to the applicant within 30 days of a project application being deemed complete
for projects containing 150 or fewer housing units.
Be provided to the applicant within 60 days of a project application being deemed complete
for projects containing over 150 units.
Consequence for Failure to Provide Written Documentation
If the local government fails to provide the written documentation within the required timeframe,
the housing development project is deemed consistent, compliant and in conformity with
applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, or other similar
provisions.
8 Pursuant to Government Code § 65860, city and county, including a charter city, zoning ordinances must be
consistent with the adopted general plan. This is known as vertical consistency.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 12
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Denial of a Housing Project that is Consistent with Applicable Plans, Standards, or Other
Similar Provisions Based on the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision 0)(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 application was deemed 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:
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.
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. Pursuant to
Government Code section 65589.5 (a)(3) it is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions
that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently.
An example of a condition that does not constitute a specific, adverse impact would be criteria
that requires a project to conform with "neighborhood character". Such a standard is not
quantifiable and therefore would not meet the conditions set forth under the HAA.
• There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact, 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. 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.
Preponderance of the Evidence Standard
In most actions, a local government is tasked with making findings or determinations based on
"substantial evidence." Under the substantial evidence standard, local government is merely
required to find reasonable, adequate evidence in support of their findings, even if the same or
even more evidence supports a finding to the contrary.
Findings or determinations based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard require that
local governments weigh the evidence and conclude that the evidence on one side outweighs,
preponderates over, is more than the evidence on the other side, not necessarily in the number
or quantity, but in its convincing force upon those to whom it is addressed9. Evidence that is
substantial, but not a preponderance of the evidence, does not meet this standard.
s People v. Miller (1916) 171 Cal. 649, 652. Harris v. Oaks Shopping Center (1999) 70 Cal.AppAth 206, 209
("`Preponderance of the evidence' means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it.").
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 13
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Provisions Related to Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low-, or Moderate -Income
Household, Emergency Shelters, and Farmworker Housing
State Policy on Housing Project Approval
"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 (RHNA) without a thorough analysis of the economic, social,
and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d)" Government
Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (b).
The HAA provides additional protections for projects that contain housing affordable to very
low-, low- or moderate -income households, including farmworker housing, or emergency
shelters. State policy prohibits local governments from rejecting or otherwise making infeasible
these types of housing development projects, including emergency shelters, without making
specific findings.
Denial or Conditioning of Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or Moderate -Income
Households, Including Farmworker Housing, or Emergency Shelters
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (d) and (i)
The HAA specifies findings that local governments must make, in addition to those in the
previous section, if they wish to deny a housing development affordable to very low-, low-, or
moderate -income housing (including farmworker housing) or emergency shelters. These
requirements also apply when a local government wishes to condition such a project in a way
that it would that render it infeasible or would have a substantial adverse effect on the viability
or affordability of a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate -income
households. In addition to the findings, described above, that apply to all housing development
projects, a local government must also make specific findings based upon the preponderance
of the evidence of one of the following:
(1) The local government has an adopted housing element in substantial compliance with
California's Housing Element Law, contained in Article 10.6 of Government Code, and has
met or exceeded development of its share of the RHNA in all income categories proposed in
the housing development project. In the case of an emergency shelter, the local government
shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelters as identified in the housing
element. This requirement to meet or exceed its RHNA is in relationship to units built in the
local government, not zoning. A local government's housing element Annual Progress
Report pursuant to Government Code section 65400 can be used to demonstrate progress
towards RHNA goals.
(2) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health
or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering
the housing development project unaffordable or financially infeasible. Specific to housing
development projects affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate -income housing (including
farmworker housing) or emergency shelters, specific, adverse impacts do not include
inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or eligibility to
claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
(3) Denial of the housing development project or the imposition of conditions is required to
comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
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 is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource
preservation that is either: (a) surrounded on two sides by land being used for agriculture or
resource preservation; or (b) does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve
the housing development project.
(5) The housing development project meets both the following conditions:
Is inconsistent with both the local government's zoning ordinance and the 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. This means this finding cannot be used in situations
where the project is inconsistent with one (e.g., the general plan designation), but is
consistent with the other (e.g., zoning ordinance).
• The local government has an adopted housing element in substantial compliance with
housing element Law.
Finding (5) cannot be used when any of the following occur:
o The housing development project is proposed for a site identified as suitable or available
for very low-, low-, or moderate -income households within a housing element and the
project is consistent with the specified density identified in the housing element.
o The local government has failed to identify sufficient adequate sites in its inventory of
available sites to accommodate its RNHA, and the housing development project is
proposed on a site identified in any element of its general plan for residential use or in a
commercial zone where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted.
o The local government has failed to identify a zone(s) where emergency shelters are
allowed without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, or has identified such
zone(s) but has failed to demonstrate that they have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the need for emergency shelter(s), and the proposed emergency shelter is for a site
designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily
residential uses.
Any of these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. For details, see
"Preponderance of the evidence standard" on page 12 for further information.
Violations of Housing Accountability Act
The courts are the primary authority that enforces the HAA. Actions can be brought by eligible
plaintiffs and petitioners to the court for potential violations of the law. Similarly, HCD under
Government Code section 65585 (j), can find that a local government has taken an action in
violation of the HAA. In that case, after notifying a local government of the violation, HCD would
refer the violation to the Office of the Attorney General who could file a petition against a local
government in the Superior Court.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Eligible Plaintiffs and Petitioners
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A) and (k)(2)
The applicant, a person eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or
emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring action to enforce the HAA. A housing
organization, however, may only file an action to challenge the disapproval of the housing
development project and must have filed written or oral comments with the local government
prior to its action on the housing development project.
"Housing organizations" means a trade or industry group 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. A housing organization
is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs when prevailing in an action. Labor unions,
building associations, multifamily apartment management companies, and legal aid societies
are examples of housing organizations.
Remedies
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)
If the plaintiff or petitioner prevails, the court must issue an order compelling compliance with
the HAA within 60 days. The court's order would at a minimum require the local agency to take
action on the housing development project or emergency shelter during that time period. The
court is further empowered to issue an order or judgment that actually directs the local
government 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. "Bad faith" includes, but is
not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit.
If the plaintiff or petitioner prevails, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs of
the suit to the plaintiff or petitioner for both affordable and market -rate housing development
projects,10 except in the "extraordinary circumstances" in which the court finds that awarding
fees would not further the purposes of the HAA.
Local Agency Appeal Bond
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (m)
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. In this provision, the Legislature has waived, to some degree, the immunity
from damages that normally extends to local agencies, recognizing that the project applicant
incurs costs due to the delay of its project when a local agency appeals. (Contrast Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd. (m), with Code Civ. Proc., § 995.220, subd. (b) [local public entities do not have
to post bonds].)
10 / Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2013) 218 Cal.AppAth 1019, 1023-1024, which ruled to the contrary, was
superseded by statutory changes in Senate Bill 167 (Stats. 2017, ch. 368, § 1), Assembly Bill 678 (Stats. 2017,
ch. 373, § 1), and Senate Bill 330 (Stats. 2019, ch. 654, § 3).
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 16
ATTACHMENT
Key Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act
Failure to Comply with Court Order
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(13)(i), (k)(1)(C), and (1)
If the local government fails to comply with the order or judgment within 60 days of issuance,
the court must impose a fine on the local government. The minimum fine that may be imposed
is $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project as proposed on the date the
application was deemed complete. Please note, the use of the term "deemed complete" in this
instance has the same meaning as "determined to be complete" as referenced on page 7. The
monies are to be deposited into the State's Building Homes and Jobs fund or the Housing
Rehabilitation Loan fund. In calculating the amount of the fine in excess of the minimum, the
court is directed to consider the following factors:
The local government's progress in meeting its RHNA and any previous violations of the
HAA.
Whether the local government acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally
approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of the HAA. If the court
finds that the local government acted in bad faith, the total amount of the fine must be
multiplied by five.
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 an order to approve the housing development project.
Court -Imposed Fines
Court -imposed fines begin at $10,000 per housing unit and could be much higher. If the court
determines the local government acted in bad faith, the fine is multiplied by five. This equates to
a minimum fine of $50,000 per unit.
Bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without
merit. For example, in a recent Los Altos Superior Court order, the court issued an order
directing the local agency to approve the housing development project and found that the local
agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved the housing development because its denial was
entirely without merit. The city's denial letter did not reflect that the city made a benign error in
the course of attempting, in good faith, to follow the law by explaining to the developer how the
project conflicted with objective standards that existed at the time of application; instead, the
city denied the application with a facially deficient letter, employed strained interpretations of
statute and local standards, and adopted a resolution enumerating insufficient reasons for its
denial". Bad faith can be demonstrated through both substantive decisions and procedural
actions. In the Los Altos case, the court found that demanding an administrative appeal with
less than a days' notice revealed bad faith. Repeated, undue delay may likewise reveal bad
faith.
" Order Granting Consolidated Petitions for Writ of Mandate, 40 Main Street Offices, LLC v. City of Los Altos et al.
(Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 19CV349845, April 27, 2020), p. 38
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 17
ATTACHMENT
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions
APPENDIX A: Frequently Asked Questions
What types of housing development project applications are subject to the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA)?
The HAA applies to both market rate and affordable housing development projects. (Honchariw
v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1066, 1073.) It applies to housing development
projects that consist of residential units and mixed-use developments when two-thirds or more
of the square footage is designated for residential use. It also applies to transitional housing,
supportive housing, farmworker housing, and emergency shelters. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5,
subds. (d) and (h)(2).)
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to charter cities?
Yes, the HAA applies to charter cities (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (g).)
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to housing development projects in coastal
zones?
Yes. However, local governments must still comply with the California Coastal Act of 1976
(Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code) (Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd. (e).)
Are housing developments still subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) if they qualify for the protections under the Housing Accountability Act?
Yes. Jurisdictions are still required to comply with CEQA (Division 13 (commencing with Section
21000) of the Public Resources Code) as applicable to the project. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5,
subd. (e).)
Does the California Department of Housing and Community Development have
enforcement authority for the Housing Accountability Act?
Yes. HCD has authority to find that a local government's actions do not substantially comply
with the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j)(1).) In such a case, HCD may notify the California
State Attorney General's Office that a local government has taken action in violation of the
HAA.
If approval of a housing development project triggers the No -Net Loss Law, may a local
government disapprove the project?
No. Triggering a required action under the No -Net Loss Law is not a valid basis to disapprove a
housing development project. (Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (c)(2).) The only valid reasons for
disapproving a housing development project are defined in the HAA under subdivisions (d) and
(j). Subdivision (j) contains requirements that apply to all housing development projects;
subdivision (d) contains additional requirements for housing development projects for very low-,
low- or moderate -income households or emergency shelters.
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to a residential development project on an
historic property?
Yes. The HAA does not limit the applicability of its provisions based on individual site
characteristics or criteria. The local government may apply objective, quantifiable, written
development standards, conditions, and policies related to historic preservation to the housing
development project, so long as they were in effect when the application was deemed
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions
complete 12. The standards should be appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the local
government's regional housing need and facilitate development at the permitted density. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(1).) However, it should be noted that compliance with historic
preservation laws may otherwise constrain the approval of a housing development.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, is the retail/commercial component of a mixed-
use project subject to review when the housing component must be approved?
Yes. The local government may apply objective, quantifiable, written development standards,
conditions and policies to the entirety of the mixed-use project, so long as they were in effect
when the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(1).)
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to subdivision maps and other discretionary
land use applications?
Yes. The HAA applies to denials of subdivision maps and other discretionary land use
approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit (Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd (h)(6).)
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to applications for individual single-family
residences or individual Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)?
No. A "housing development project" means a use consisting of residential units only, mixed
use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of
the square footage designated for residential use, or transitional or supportive housing.
Because the term "units" is plural, a development has to consist of more than one unit to qualify
under the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).).
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to an application that includes both a single-
family residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit?
Yes. Since an application for both a single-family residence and an ADU includes more than
one residential unit, the HAA applies (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).)
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to an application for a duplex?
Yes. Since an application for a duplex includes more than one residential unit, the HAA applies.
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).)
Does the Housing Accountability Act apply to market -rate housing developments?
Yes. Market -rate housing developments are subject to the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd.
(h)(2).) In Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1066, the court found the
definition of "housing development project" was not limited to projects involving affordable
housing and extended to market -rate projects. Market -rate housing development projects are
subject to the requirements of paragraph (j) (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).)
12 For purposes of determination of whether a site is historic, "deemed complete" is used with reference to
Government Code §65940. See Government Code § 65913.10.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 19
ATTACHMENT
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions
Under the Housing Accountability Act, if a housing development project is consistent
with local planning rules, can it be denied or conditioned on a density reduction?
Yes. However, a local government may deny a housing development that is consistent with
local planning rules, or condition it on reduction in density, only under very specific
circumstances. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. 0)(1)(A), (B).) The local government must make
written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence that both:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public
health or safety unless disapproved or approved at a lower density; and
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact.
(See definition of and specific requirements for finding of "specific, adverse impact" discussed
below.)
Under the Housing Accountability Act, can a housing development project affordable to
very low-, low-, or moderate -income households (including farmworker housing) or
emergency shelter that is inconsistent with local planning requirements be denied or
conditioned in a manner that renders it infeasible for the use proposed?
Yes, but only under specific circumstances. The local government must make written findings
based on a preponderance of the evidence as to specific criteria. However, inconsistency with
zoning does not justify denial or conditioning if the project is consistent with the general plan.
(See Page 11 for more details). See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(1)-(5).)
Is there a definition for "specific, adverse impact" upon public health and safety?
Yes. The HAA provides that 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 is not
such a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds.
(d)(2) and (j)(1)(A).)
The HAA considers that such impacts would be rare: "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." (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).)
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix B: Definitions
Appendix B: Definitions
Area median income means area median income as periodically established by the HCD
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. (Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd. (h)(4).)
Bad faith includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without
merit. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (1).) This definition arises in the context of the action a local
government takes when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or
emergency shelter in violation of the HAA.
Deemed complete means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant
to Government Code section 65941.1 (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(5).) However, in
Government Code section 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i) deemed complete has the same meaning as
"Determined to be Complete".
Determined to be complete means that the applicant has submitted a complete application
pursuant to Government Code section 65943 (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).)
Disapprove the housing development project means a local government either 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,
or fails to comply with specified timeframes in the Permit Streamlining Act. (Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd. (h)(5).)
Farmworker housing means housing in which at least 50 percent of the units are available to,
and occupied by, farmworkers and their households.
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.
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(1).)
Housing development project means a use consisting of any of the following: (1)
development projects with only residential units, (2) mixed-use developments consisting of
residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for
residential use, (3) transitional or supportive housing.
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. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(2).) This definition is relevant to
the individuals or entities that have standing to bring an HAA enforcement action against a local
agency.
Housing for very low-, low-, or moderate -income households means that either:
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
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix B: Definitions
One hundred (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. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3).)
Lower density (as used in the sense of "to lower density") means a reduction in the units built
per acre. It includes conditions that directly lower density and conditions that effectively do so
via indirect means. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(7).)
Mixed use means a development consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least
two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd.
(h)(2)(B).)
Objective means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being
uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available
and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2)(B).)
Regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) means the share of the regional housing needs
assigned to each jurisdiction by income category pursuant to Government Code section 65584
though 65584.6.
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. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(2), (j)(1)(A).) This definition
is relevant to the written findings that a local agency must make when it disapproves or imposes
conditions on a housing development project or an emergency shelter that conforms with all
objective standards. It is the express intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would give
rise to a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety occur infrequently. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).)
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix C: Preliminary Application (Senate Bill 330, Statutes of 2019)
Appendix C: Preliminary Application (Senate Bill 330, Statutes of 2019)
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019 (SB 330)) strengthens
protections for housing development projects under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA),
Planning and Zoning Law, and the Permit Streamlining Act. The provisions set forth under SB
330 sunset in 2025.
Among other provisions, to increase transparency and certainty early in the development
application process, SB 330 allows a housing developer the option of submitting a "preliminary
application" for any housing development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a
developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development
before providing the complete information required by the local government. Upon submittal of
an application and a payment of the permit processing fee, a housing developer is allowed to
"freeze" the applicable standards to their project early while they assemble the rest of the
material necessary for a full application submittal. This ensures development requirements do
not change during this time, adding costs to a project due to potential redesigns due to
changing local standards.
Benefits of a Preliminary Application
Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (o)
The primary benefit of a preliminary application is that a housing development project is subject
only to the ordinances, policies, standard, or any other measure (standards) adopted and in
effect when a preliminary application was submitted. "Ordinances, policies, and standards"
includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and
criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and
policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development
impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other
exactions.
However, there are some circumstances where the housing development project can be
subjected to a standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application is filed:
• In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, an increase resulting from an
automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is
referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction.
• A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that the standard is necessary to
mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no
feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
• The standard is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code).
• The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and a -half
years following the date that the project received final approval. "Final approval" means that
the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply
for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met:
o The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods,
or statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition,
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix C: Preliminary Application (Senate Bill 330, Statutes of 2019)
request for reconsideration, or legal challenge have been filed. If a challenge is filed, that
challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project.
The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application
pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of
construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the
receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision. "Square
footage of construction" means the building area, as defined by the California Building
Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). However, a local
government is not prevented from applying the standards in effect at the time of the
preliminary application submittal.
• Once a residential project is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, loca
governments are not limited in the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and
standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as
ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term
renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing.
Contents of a Preliminary Application
Government Code, § 65941.1
Each local government shall compile a checklist and application form that applicants for
housing development projects may use for submittal of a preliminary application. However,
HCD has adopted a standardized form that may be used to submit a preliminary application if a
local agency has not developed its own application form. The preliminary application form can
be found on HCD's website.
The following are the items that are contained in the application form. Local government
checklists or forms cannot require or request any information beyond these 17 items.
The specific location, including parcel numbers, a legal description, and site address, if
applicable.
2. The existing uses on the project site and identification of major physical alterations to the
property on which the project is to be located.
3. A site plan showing the location on the property, elevations showing design, color, and
material, and the massing, height, and approximate square footage, of each building that is
to be occupied.
4. The proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential
development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance.
5. The proposed number of parking spaces.
6. Any proposed point sources of air or water pollutants.
7. Any species of special concern known to occur on the property.
8. Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following:
• A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178.
• Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW
2 (June 21, 1993).
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix C: Preliminary Application (Senate Bill 330, Statutes of 2019)
• A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste
site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section
25356 of the Health and Safety Code.
• A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood
(100 -year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any
official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
• A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official
maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable
seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards
Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with
Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building
department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
• A stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement
pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
9. Any historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property.
10. The number of proposed below market rate units and their affordability levels.
11. The number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions
requested pursuant to Section 65915.
12. Whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel
map, a tentative map, or a condominium map, are being requested.
13. The applicant's contact information and, if the applicant does not own the property, consent
from the property owner to submit the application.
14. For a housing development project proposed to be located within the coastal zone, whether
any portion of the property contains any of the following:
• Wetlands, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13577 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations.
• Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30240 of the Public
Resources Code.
• A tsunami run-up zone.
• Use of the site for public access to or along the coast.
15. The number of existing residential units on the project site that will be demolished and
whether each existing unit is occupied or unoccupied.
16.A site map showing a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed
alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of
the Fish and Game Code and an aerial site photograph showing existing site conditions of
environmental site features that would be subject to regulations by a public agency,
including creeks and wetlands.
17. The location of any recorded public easement, such as easements for storm drains, water
lines, and other public rights of way.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix C: Preliminary Application (Senate Bill 330, Statutes of 2019)
Timing Provisions from Filing of a Preliminary Application to Determination of
Consistency with Applicable Standards under the Housing Accountability Act
Step 1: Preliminary Application Submittal GC 65941.1
• Applicant submits preliminary application form.
• Applicant pays permit processing fees.
• No affirmative determination by local government regarding the completeness of a
preliminary application is required.
Step 2: Full Application Submittal
• Applicant submits full application within 180 days of preliminary application submittal.
• Application contains all information required by the local government application checklist
pursuant to Government Code Sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.513
Step 3: Determination of Application Completeness GC 65943
• Local government has 30 days to determine application completeness and provide in writing
both the determination of whether the application is complete and, when applicable, a list of
items that were not complete. This list is based on the agency's submittal requirement
checklist. If written notice is not provided within 30 days, the application is deemed
complete.
• An applicant that has submitted a preliminary application has 90 days to correct deficiencies
and submit the material needed to complete the application14
• Upon resubmittal, local government has 30 days to evaluate. Evaluation is based on
previous stated items and the supplemented or amended materials. If still not correct, the
local agency must specify those parts of the application that were incomplete and indicate
the specific information needed to complete the application.
• Upon a third determination of an incomplete application, an appeals process must be
provided.
Step 4: Application Consistency with Standards (HAA) GC 65589.5
• Identify the specific provision or provisions and provide an explanation of the reason or
reasons why the local agency considers the housing development to be inconsistent, non-
compliant, or non-conformant with identified provisions.
13 Government Codes § 65940, 65941, and 65941.5 require, among other things, a local government to compile
one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a
development project. Copies of the information shall be made available to all applicants for development projects
and to any person who requests the information.
14 The statute is silent on applications that did not use the preliminary application process. There is no statutory
timeline for resubmittal in those instances.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 26
ATTACHMENT
Appendix C: Preliminary Application (Senate Bill 330, Statutes of 2019)
• 30 days of a project application being deemed complete for projects containing 150 or fewer
housing units.
60 days of a project application being deemed complete for projects containing over 150
units.
Step 5: Other Entitlement Process Requirements Pursuant to SB 330
Pursuant to Government Code section 65905.5, if a proposed housing development project
complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, the local
government can conduct a maximum of five hearings, including hearing continuances, in
connection with the approval of the project. Compliance with applicable, objective general
plan and zoning standards has the same meaning and provisions as in the HAA, including
circumstances when there is inconsistency between the general plan and zoning.
A "hearing" includes any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the local
government with respect to the housing development project, whether by the legislative
body of the city or county, the planning agency, or any other agency, department, board,
commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any
committee or subcommittee thereof. A "hearing" does not include a hearing to review a
legislative approval required for a proposed housing development project, including, but not
limited to, a general plan amendment, a specific plan adoption or amendment, or a zoning
amendment, or any hearing arising from a timely appeal of the approval or disapproval of a
legislative approval.
However, it should be noted nothing in this requirement supersedes, limits, or otherwise
modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to CEQA.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65950, a local government must make a final decision
on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report
(or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environment report for
an affordable housing project).
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 27
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58]
DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66301]
CHAPTER 3. Local Planning [65100 - 65763]
ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements [65580 - 65589.11]
65589.5.
(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
state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments
that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high
fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.
(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 state's 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) California's 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
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
capita. Only one-half of California's 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.
(1) An additional consequence of the state's 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. California's cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but
international environmental consequences.
(J) California's 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 Legislature's 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 California's 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 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 governments should encourage, to the maximum extent
practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
(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 local government 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
local government 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 local government 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 local government shall be calculated consistently
with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by HCD pursuant to Section 65400. In the
case of an emergency shelter, the local government 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. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact
upon the public health or safety:
(A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.
(B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code.
(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.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
(5) The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the local
government'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, and
the local government 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 local
government's housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing
element, even though it is inconsistent with both the local government's 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
local government's 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 agency's 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).
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
(f) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in 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 local government's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.
However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and
accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the
development.
(2) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in 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 local
government's 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) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to 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
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
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 HCD
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) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2025, "deemed complete" means that the
applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1.
(6) "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.
(7) "Lower density" includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of
the project to provide housing.
(8) Until January 1, 2025, "objective" means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a
public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark
or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the
public official.
(9) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2025, "determined to be complete" means
that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.
(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 housing
development project's the application is 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 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, and with the requirements of
subdivision (o).
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
(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 application was deemed 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
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed
by the proposed housing development project.
(k) (1) (A) (i) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing
development project 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 any of the
following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii):
(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.
(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.
(III) (ia) Subject to sub -subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required
or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or
standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted.
(ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2025.
(ii) If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause(i) is met, 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 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 this section.
(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 2017-18 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 agency's 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
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
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 2017-18 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
attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
(I) 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 court's 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
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
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 court's
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 petitioner's points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent's
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) (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing
development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted
and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by
subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to
ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted
pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances:
(A) In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an
automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is
referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction.
(B) A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing
development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a
preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
adverse impact.
(C) Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other
measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to
avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality
Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(D) The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half
years following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this
subparagraph, "final approval" means that the housing development project has received all
necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and
either of the following is met:
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act Statute (2020)
(i) The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or
statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request for
reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed.
(ii) If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing
development project.
(E) The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application
pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of
construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the
receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision. For purposes of
this subdivision, "square footage of construction" means the building area, as defined by the
California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
(3) This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or
square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary
application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards
adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, "ordinances, policies, and standards" includes general
plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision
standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local
agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees,
capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions.
(5) This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions
imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development
project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section.
(6) This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require
mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code).
(7) With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is
complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit
the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and
occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection,
rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for
owners of rental housing.
(8) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2025.
(p) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
ATTACHMENT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VENTURA
SUPERIOR COURT
FILED
MAY 17 2021
MICIIAI D. PLANET
Exe #'face •and Clerk
$ Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
YES IN MY BACK YARD,
V.
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY,
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 56-2020-00539590-CU-WM-VTA
TENTATIVE DECISION
HON. MARK S. BORRELL
DEPT. 40
Before the court are two petitions that raise the same issue: Is the project known as
Melrose West Senior Living Community, a senior assisted living facility in Simi Valley, a
"housing development project" within the meaning of the Housing Accountability Act
("HAA").1 Petitioners say it is; the respondent city says it's not. The court conducted a
single hearing on both petitions and, therefore, renders a joint tentative decision'. This
tentative decision shall also constitute the proposed statement of decision.
' See Government Code, section 65580, et seq. All references are to the Government
Code unless indicated otherwise.
' The other case is JM Squared Development v. City of Simi Valley, Case No. 56-2020-
00539593-CU-WM-VTA
Tentative Decision
ATTACHMENT
1 11 Backl4round
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner JM Squared Development, LLC ("JM") is the developer of the subject
project. Petitioner Yes In My Back Yard ("YIMBY") is a nonprofit corporation and a
"housing organization" within the meaning of the HAA.2
The project site is 19,2 acres in Simi Valley. (AR 03, 04, 22.) The development
would occupy 1.6 acres and would include a two-story structure with 40 memory care
units and 68 assisted living units. (AR 22, 913.) The proposed residential units would
include sleeping areas, living areas, bathrooms, and closets. (AR 1239, 1244.) They
would not include kitchens or kitchenettes; meals would be taken in a common area. (AR
665.) In addition to the living spaces, the development would include a game room,
lounges, a gym, a media room, and a multi-purpose room. Originally, the project was
intended to also have cottages for seniors, but during the application process the cottages
were removed from the plans. It is conceded that the project is in a medium residential
zone and, therefore, requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as the project exceeds the
density for such zone.
JM submitted an application for a CUP on March 1, 2018 to respondent, the City of
Simi Valley ("City"). Staff for the City Planning Commission initially recommended
approving the project (AR 913-946), but after a public hearing the Planning Commission
denied the application. Three reasons were stated for the denial. First, the proposed
development would not blend in with the natural environment due to the large scale of the
proposed building. Second, the proposed development would not be consistent with the
General Plan regarding housing type and scale. Finally, the proposed development would
2 As relevant here, a " `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." (Gov. Code, S
65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(ii)(C)(2).)
-2-
ve Decision A l l AGNMtN 1 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not comport with local standards for "aesthetics, character, scale, and view protection."
(AR 1123-1134.)
JM appealed the denial of the CUP application to the City Council. It argued that
the project fell within the provisions of the HAA and that the findings required by the act
had not been made. In response, City Council staff reported to the council that the
project was not a "housing development project" ("HDP") within the meaning of the
HAA and, therefore, the act did not apply. (AR1349-1350.) The City Council voted to
uphold the Planning Commission's denial (AR 1682-1689), finding further that there was
a safety concern due to the narrow access road to the project. (AR 1683).
JM and YIMBY now petition for an administrative writ of mandate directing the
City reverse the denial of the CUP application and, further, compelling the City to
approve the project. The City opposes these requests, asserting that the application was
properly denied.
Standard of Review
The question presented to the court is a legal one. The core facts are not in dispute.
What is contested is whether those undisputed facts show the project is an HDP under the
HAA. For this reason, the standard of review is independent judgment.
Whether an agency has proceeded in the manner required by law is a legal issue
subject to independent review where that determination rests on undisputed facts. As
stated in POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.AppAth 681, 712-713:
Our choice between independent and substantial evidence review is guided
by the California Supreme Court's statement that "a reviewing court must
adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the alleged defect, depending on whether the
claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts."
(Vineyard Area, supra, 40 CalAth at p. 435, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d
709.) Thus, when plaintiff$' CEQA claim is predominantly one of procedure,
we will conduct an codependent review. When plaintiffs' CEQA claim disputes
the factual findings made by ARB we will review the record to detennine
whether the challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence.
When a local agency disapproves a project subject to the HAA without making the
required findings, that entity has not proceeded in the manner required by law.
(Honchariw v County ofStanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1066, 1072.) That is
-3 -
ve Decision ATTACHMENT 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
precisely the issue here..
In reviewing an administrative decision under the independent judgment
standard, the court is not bound by the legal determinations made by the respondent
agency, but it must give appropriate consideration to an administrative agency's
expertise underlying its interpretation of an applicable statute. (Building Industry
Assn. of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2004) 124
Cal.App.4th 866, 879.)
Discussion
The HAA "was designed to limit 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....' "
(Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927, 938,
quoting § 65589.5, subd. (b).) "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." (Id., at pp. 938-939; also see §
65589.5, subd. (j).) If petitioners establish that the HAA applies to this project, then
the burden is on the City to show that its decision to disapprove the project
conformed to the requirements of the act. (See § 65589.6.)
Here, the principal dispute is whether the project is an HDP within the meaning of
the HAA. The act defines an HDP as "a use consisting of one or more of three defined
categories. (§ 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).) Under the first of those categories, a project is
deemed to be an HDP if it consists of "[r]esidential units only." (Id., subd. (h)(2)(A).)
The second category of HDP is "[m]ixed-use developments consisting of residential and
nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential
-4-
Tentative Decision ATTACHMENT 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
use." (Id., subd. (h)(2)(B).) The final category of use constituting an HDP is
"[t]ransitional housing or supportive housing." (Id., subd. (h)(2)(C).)
Petitioners contend this project is an HDP under any of these definitions. The City
says none of these definitions apply. Because the court concludes that the project would
be "a use consisting of. . . [m]ixed-use developments consisting of residential and
nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential
use," it limits its analysis solely to that definition.
The City argues in its opposition brief that the project does not involve a
"residential unit" — a phrase found in the first of the three definitions of HDP. (See §
65589.5, subd. (h)(2)(A), emphasis added.) The City does not, however, clearly address
whether the project would consist of a mixed-use including "residential ... uses" — a
distinct element of the second definition. (Id., subd. (h)(2)(B), emphasis added.) Rather,
the City seems to confound these concepts — residential unit and residential use — but, to
the court, there seems no justification to do so. When the Legislature uses distinct terms
with a subdivision, it must be inferred that distinct meanings were intended absent a
compelling reason to conclude otherwise. (See People v. Santos (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th
467, 473.) Here, no such reason has been demonstrated.
The HAA does not define a "residential use." It does, however, expressly define
several other terms. This implies this phrase was not intended to have a technical
meaning. Nor is a technical meaning implied by the manner in which this phrase is used
in the act. Therefore, the court focuses on the meaning of the phrase in ordinary speech.
The common meaning of "residential use" is not difficult to grasp: a "residential
use" is where one uses a location as a residence. The focus of the definition centers how
the place is used and not the characteristics of the place.
This begs the question: what is a "residence"? Generally, a residence as a place
where someone actually lives. (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
/residence ["the place where one actually lives as distinguished from one's domicile or a
place of temporary sojourn"]; Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ["The place where
-5-
Tentative Decision ATTACHMENT 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
one actually lives, as distinguished from a domicile"].) A "residence" is in contrast to a
"domicile." "A person can have two places of residence, such as one in the city and one
in the country, but only one domicile." (https://Iegal-dictionM.thefreedictionary.com
/Residence.) A "domicile" is one's permanent home. (See https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/domicile ["a person's fixed, permanent, and principal home for
legal purposes"]; Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ["a person's true, fixed,
principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even
though currently residing elsewhere"].) On the other hand, "residence" implies something
more permanent that, for example, visiting with friends or staying for a short time in a
hotel. (See https://www.definitions.net/definition/residencc ["any address at which you
dwell more than temporarily"].)
The City contends that the project would not consist of "residential uses." This
contention, however, stands in conflict with the City Planner's testimony. The City
Planner described this project as a "residential care facility" (AR 169 1) with a "residential
use" (AR 1699). Nevertheless, the City argues that the living units of this project do not
involve "residential uses" because the units would not include kitchens or kitchenettes.
But this limitation is not supported by anything identifiable in the provisions of the HAA
or from the common understanding of the terms involved. Perhaps because of this, the
City attempts to support its position with sources of information unrelated to the HAA.
The attempt is unpersuasive. No showing has been made that the Legislature intended
these more restrictive meanings to be used to construe the act. (See § 65589.5, subd.
(a)(2)(L) ["It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a
manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and
provision of, housing"].)
The City also asserts that its position is supported by bills not passed by the
Legislature. But the Legislature does not make law when it does not enact a bill. The
courts apply the laws that are passed, not the ones that aren't. Nor are unpassed bills
particularly helpful in understanding what the Legislature intended when it passed a
-6-
entative I
ATTACHMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
different bill at a prior time. (See Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing & Wellness
Centre, LLC (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 102, 133 [courts "do not consider unsuccessful
subsequent bills to be helpful in determining the Legislature's earlier intent "].)
The evidence shows that the intended residents of the project would use the living
units as their residences. That is, this would be the place where residents would actually
live — more than in a transitory sense and not quite as permanently as a legal domicile.
Thus, the project does include a component of "residential use." It also includes a
component of "non-residential use," consisting of administrative offices and, among other
things, a hair salon and a gym. The space devoted to residential use is considerably more
than two-thirds of the total area. Therefore, this project is an HDP within the meaning of
subdivision (h)(2)(B) of section 65589.5 because it would consist of "[m]ixed-use
developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of
the square footage designated for residential use."
Because the project is an HDP, the HAA applied to the review of JM's application
for a CUP. This finding shifts the burden to the City to establish that its decision to
disapprove the project "conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5."
(§ 65589.6.) Among other things, section 65589.5 requires a local agency that
disapproves a project to make certain findings "[w]hen 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
application was deemed complete." (§ 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).) In that instance, the agency
must make "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.
Tentative Decision
ATTACHMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(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.
(§ 65589.5, subd. 0)(1).)
The three reasons given by the City's Planning Commission for denial of the CUP
application, and later adopted by the City Council, were predicated on subjective factors
such as whether the project would blend in with the surroundings or comport with local
standards for things like aesthetics, character and scale. The City continues to argue that
these findings exempt this project from the HAA. The court disagrees. The 1999
amendments to subdivision (j) of section 65589.5 were "intended to strengthen the law by
taking away an agency's ability to use what might be called a `subjective' development
`policy' (for example, `suitability') to exempt a proposed housing development project
from the reach of subdivision (j)." (Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200
Cal.App.4th 1066, 1076.) Therefore, the court finds that the City had to make the findings
required by subdivision (j) of section 65589.5 to disapprove the project. The court further
finds that the City did not make those findings.
Arguably, the City Council, on the appeal of the denial of the CUP application,
made a finding consistent with section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(1)(A), concerning "a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety." The City Council found that
the 40 -foot wide Cochran Street road size presented a difficulty of turnaround for large
vehicles and area congestion during emergency situations, all of which posed potential
safety concerns. (AR 1682-83.) But, at best, this only represents half of what the HAA
required the City to find. The City did not snake the finding required by section 65589.5,
subd. (j)(1)(B), that there "is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid [these]
adverse impacts" other than disapproving the project. Therefore, the City has not
demonstrated that the disapproval of the project "conformed to all of the conditions
specified in Section 65589.5." (§ 65589.6, emphasis added.)
Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to a remedy. The nature of that remedy is the
-8-
Tentative Decision
/_11 aWITS] :1AIA01M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
next point of dispute between the parties.
When a local agency disapproves a project without making the findings required by
section 65589.5, the court shall issue an order compelling one of two possible forms of
relief. (See section 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A).) Which of those two forms of relief the
court must order depends on whether "the court finds that the local agency acted in bad
faith when it disapproved ... the housing development ... in violation of [section
65589.5]." When a local agency disapproves a project in bad faith the court may order the
agency to approve the project. Therefore, the court addresses that issue first.
The HAA does not define "bad faith." Perhaps "bad faith" is a term that, as
frequently as it is used but as seldom as it is defined, has an "I know it when I see it"
quality.' Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), citing Comment (d) to the Restatement
(Second) of Contracts section 205, gives several examples of "bad faith" in the law of
contracts and that, by rough analogy, provides some guidance in this context: "evasion of
the spirit of the [act], lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect
[compliance with the act], abuse of a power [granted by the act]." Synthesizing these
concepts here, it would appear that a local agency acts in "bad faith" under the HAA when
it disapproves a project as a result of either an inexcusable indifference to the
requirements of section 65589.5 or a willful failure to comply.
Here, neither an inexcusable indifference nor a willful failure to follow the
requirements of the HAA has been established. Although the court has not embraced the
City's argument that the HAA does not apply, it has not been persuaded that those
argument are either pretextual or manifestly unreasonable. Neither side has directed the
court to statutory or case law that provides clear guidance as to the applicability of the
HAA to this set of facts. The answer to that question is one of statutory interpretation
based on analysis and analogy, and, importantly, one where reasonable legal minds may
differ. The City has not acted in bad faith.
3 A phrase given legal significance by Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
378 U.S. 184, 197, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 12 L.Ed.2d 793.
N
Tentative Decision
ATTACHMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Therefore, the remedy petitioners are entitled to is a "judgment compelling
compliance with [section 65589.5] within 60 days." (Section 65589.5, subd.
(k)(1)(A)(ii).) That relief is granted. In addition, the court shall retain jurisdiction to
ensure that its judgment is carried out. (Ibid.)
This tentative decision is the court's proposed statement of decision and shall
become the court's final statement of decision unless, within 10 days after announcement
or service of the tentative decision (plus five days for service by mail), a party specifies
those principal controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of
decision or makes proposals not included in the tentative decision. (See Code Civ. Proc.
§ 632; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590, subd. (c).) If no such request/proposal is made
within the specified time (see Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590, subd. (d)), counsel for
petitioners is to prepare, serve and submit a proposed judgment within 20 days of the
service of this tentative decision.
The clerk is directed to serve this tentative decision upon the parties.
Dated: May _7 , 2021 L�
MAIK S. BORRELL
JUDGE OF THE SUPRIOR COURT
-10-
Tentative Decision ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
CCP § 1012,1013a (1), (3) & (4)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF VENTURA )
Case Nos: 56-2020-00539590-CU-WM-VTA
Case Title: Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Simi
I am employed in the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and
not a party to the above -entitled action. My business address is 800 Victoria Avenue, Ventura,
CA 93009. On the date set forth below, I served the within:
TENTATIVE DECISION
on the following named parties:
Ryan Patterson
Emily L. Brough
ZACKS FREEDMAN & PATTERSON PC
235 Montgomery Street #400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attorneys for Petitioner
Lonnie J. Eldridge, City Attorney
Dion J. O'Connell, Asst. City Attorney
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Attorneys for Respondent
® BY MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Ventura, California. I am
readily familiar with the court's practice for collection and processing of mail. It is deposited
with the U.S. Postal Service on the dated listed below.
❑ BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document(s) to be sent via facsimile to the interested party
at the facsimile number set forth above from telephone number (805)
❑ BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused said document(s) to be sent via email to the interested
parties at the email addresses set for above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document is
executed on May 17, 2021, at Ventura, California.
By: _
�set 1-1. Alarcot , Clerk
Proof of Service ATTACHMENT 2