Loading...
08/10/2021ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2021 The regular meeting of August 10, 2021 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:00 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting was called to order at 4:01 P.M. in person and telephonically, pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-08-21 (superseding the Brown Act related provisions of Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-25-20) in response to COVID-19. The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on August 5, 2021. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Stephen Faessel, Jose Diaz, Jose F. Moreno, and Trevor O'Neil (in person). Council Member Avelino Valencia (via teleconference). [One City Council vacancy] City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City Clerk Theresa Bass ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None CLOSED SESSION: At 4:03 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed to closed session for consideration of the following: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Sialic Contractors Corporation dba Shawnan, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01170500-CU-W M-CJC 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Valenzuela, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et. al., 9th Cir. Case No. 20-55372 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Security National Insurance Co. v. City of Anaheim, USDC Case No. 8:20-cv-00518-JVS (ADSx) At 5:00 P.M., Mayor Sidhu reconvened the Anaheim City Council. INVOCATION: FLAG SALUTE: PRESENTATION: Preacher Jimmy Gaston, State College Boulevard Church of Christ Council Member Avelino Valencia Recognizing Anaheim resident Arielle Barquero, for successfully administering CPR on a drowning infant and saving his life Mayor Sidhu acknowledged Ms. Barquero for her efforts and presented her with a proclamation. City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 2 of 16 Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date): Recognizing September 10 — 19, 2021, as Welcoming Week ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None Prior to hearing public comments, Mayor Sidhu noted there is a vacancy on the City Council as District 2 Council Member Jordan Brandman submitted his resignation last week. City Manager Jim Vanderpool reported that, per Charter Section 503, the vacancy is to be filled by appointment by the City Council. He further explained that Council has 60 days, or until October 4, 2021, to make an appointment to fill the vacant District 2 seat. He advised the appointee must be a qualified elector of District 2 and would complete the current term until the November 2022 General Municipal Election. He advised should no appointment be made within 60 days, the Charter calls for the vacancy to be filled by Special Election. Mr. Vanderpool announced staff plans to bring an agenda item to City Council on August 24, 2021 to seek Council direction on opening an application process for prospective appointees. PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearings): City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of five (5) public comments were received electronically prior to 2:00 P.M. related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Council. [A final total of 5 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix. Andrew Lee, representing Alliance Realty Partners, advised they object to the denial resolution of the Holden Senior Living Facility project as stated in the letter they submitted to the City Council on August 6, 2021. He advised this denial would violate the California Housing Accountability Act (Act) and would expose the City to severe State law penalties. He requested the City Council approve a hearing of the project, direct staff to analyze and report to the City Council regarding the effect of the Act, and reschedule another hearing to reaffirm the Planning Commission's approval of the project and deny the related appeals. He advised if City Council does not approve a rehearing, Alliance Realty Partners formally requests a rehearing. He clarified the California Housing Accountability Act is also known as the Anti-NIMBY law which is designed to strip cities of their discretion to disapprove residential projects and noted the Act applies to mixed -use projects that comply with applicable, objective land -use regulations. He reported the project meets all the criteria for the Act to apply and advised this conclusion is supported by a recent Court decision regarding a senior living facility. Mr. Lee advised in order to deny the project, the City Council must adopt written findings that the project would have a specific adverse health and safety impact and that no feasible method exists to avoid the impact other than to deny the project. He advised evidence supporting a health and safety impact must show a quantifiable impact that violates an objective health and safety standard and must show a preponderance of evidence on the record. He advised the City's denial does not meet these standards and noted the reasoning is all subjective. He reported the City previously produced piles of fact -based evidence showing the project had no health and safety impact, which included the Planning Commission's resolution, staff reports, and the Fire Marshal's memorandum. He noted that evidence contradicts the City's findings is weightier in the record. He advised if the City violates the Act, many groups would have the standing to sue the City, not just Alliance Realty Partners, and would be entitled to attorney fees if successful. Lastly, he submitted a letter from the housing development community supporting the project. Michael Price thanked City Council for supporting the appeal for the Holden Senior Living Facility project and for putting safety above profit. He expressed concern that the project was able to move this far through the process and hoped the breakdown within the Planning Commission process can City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 3 of 16 be fixed. He thanked the hundreds of neighbors for fighting this project daily. He alleged the project was illegally screened out of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and noted the location is a high -risk landslide area and that information was ignored. Rick Pollgreen thanked City Council for supporting the appeal of the Holden Senior Living Facility project. He advised residents who opposed the project are not senior citizen haters but do not believe this is a safe location to build such a facility due to wildfire concerns. He advised the property can go back to being a church with no change to the property footprint and is a win -win for the residents of the neighborhood and the City of Anaheim. Larry Larsen expressed support for Mr. Brandman's resignation. He presented a police report that was filed by Mayor Pro Tem Faessel and suggested the City spent $5,000 to $10,000 on the frivolous police report. He suggested the City recoup those costs from Mayor Pro Tem Faessel and pursue criminal charges for filing a false police report. He advised the police report suggested he made racial slurs and comments in a meeting and stated that was slanderous. He stated the officers ran a thorough background on him, believed the entire City Council is complicit, and encouraged Mayor Sidhu to investigate. Cecil Jordan Corkern, Outreach Homeless Ministries, reported he is updating reports on Disneyland. Mark Richard Daniels inquired when the remainder of the dais was apprised of the emails sent by Mr. Brandman and why it was not investigated sooner. He praised the investigative work of Vern Nelson's reporting that brought this issue to light. He advised Council Member Moreno was the only member of the dais that consistently spoke on the issue. He advised Mr. Nelson has been attacked on other blogs for bringing the issue to light. He expressed support for having Denise Barnes sit in the District 2 seat. Mike Robbins expressed support for Mr. Brandman's resignation. He advised "pay for play" politics has a price and he sees prison in their future. Victoria Michaels expressed support for Mr. Brandman's resignation. She advised there are reports of a successor who is aligned with the Chamber of Commerce. She requested City Council allow the residents of District 2 to elect a new representative. She advised Mr. Brandman was instrumental in the ouster of Mr. Larsen from the Sister City Commission but she believed it was his way of getting votes in District 2. She advised Mr. Larsen does not fit the racist profile but merely stated a fact. She requests the City Council apologize to Mr. Larsen and reinstate him on the Sister City Commission and noted to do otherwise would be to continue the nefarious activities of Mr. Brandman. She inquired why Anaheim sent police to a resident's homes because he might be a threat to the Fourth of July and noted it was an abuse of Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's power. She encouraged the dais to listen to the residents of Anaheim. Bryan Kaye advised the City Council has ignored his multiple petitions for information and alleged the City Council has retaliated against him due to his requests. He noted the remainder of the City Council could have spoken out against the statements of Mr. Brandman. Wes Jones expressed support for Mr. Brandman's resignation. He reported he attended a rally for Disney workers and noted it was well attended and all wore masks. He reported tourists did not wear masks. He proposed a boycott of Disneyland in support of resort workers and Anaheim residents. Karen Ticer Leon reported she sent an email to Council Member Moreno and he has not yet responded. She reported she was an activist with the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA). She City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 4 of 16 expressed concern that Mr. Brandman was bullied into resigning and noted the City Council has better things to do. She encouraged City Council to start working together. Kenneth Batiste expressed support for Mr. Brandman's resignation. He advised Council Members and police officers are held to higher standards. He believed District 6 needs more public housing and noted every single shelter is located in District 5. He encouraged City Council to remember who they serve. He advised transitional housing was needed from the homeless shelters. Rudi Kraus expressed concern regarding COVID-19 mandates and requiring children to wear masks. He expressed concern that the vaccine was making changes to people's DNA. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: City Manager Jim Vanderpool reported today marked a milestone in the City's recovery as the Anaheim Convention Center hosted IME West, its first industry trade show in 17 months, lasting until Thursday and showcasing medical and other advanced manufacturing. He reported public health is front and center at the event with all attendees complying with California guidelines and attesting to being vaccinated or testing negative within 72 hours, a wellness center, and best practices signs throughout the Convention Center. Mr. Vanderpool reported the City, in. partnership with the Anaheim Community Foundation and the Samueli Foundation, launched a cross -sector partnership in April 2021 to meet the most immediate needs of residents affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. He reported that through these efforts, the Community Services Department created the Anaheim Mobile Family Resource Center to host pop- up resource events in neighborhoods to bring services, including vaccinations, to over 2,200. He announced the next round of pop-up events would begin on August 16cn Mr. Vanderpool also reported that the West Community Policing Team partnered with the Starbucks on Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue on July 22 to host a Coffee with a Cop. He noted the City Manager's office and Neighborhood Services were also present to assist and answer questions from the community. CONSENT CALENDAR: At 5:51 P.M., the consent calendar was considered. Council Member Diaz disclosed the City of Orange as his employer and noted that he conferred with the City Attorney and he could participate on the vote of Item No. 08. MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the balance of the consent calendar, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. B105 1. Receive and file minutes of the Senior Citizen Commission meeting of March 18, 2021. D155 2. Approve the Fourth Substantial Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan reallocating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) COVID, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) COVID, and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds in the total amount of $5,920,596 from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; designate the Acting Director of the Community and Economic Development Department to execute all documents related to the administration, management, and implementation of the City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 5 of 16 supplemental CDBG and ESG funding; and authorize to the Acting Director to reallocate funds to eligible activities as deemed necessary to address greatest need. D180 3. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and approve a master agreement with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc., in the amount of $19,223.34 per month, to provide litter cleanup and trash removal services throughout the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District for an initial three month period which may be extended month to month in order to allow services to continue while a new bid is prepared, evaluated, and awarded. D180 4. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and approve a master agreement with OakWest Services, Inc., in the amount of $16,665.87 per month, to provide power washing and scrubbing of sidewalks throughout the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District for an initial three-month period which may be extended month to month in order to allow services to continue while a new bid is prepared, evaluated, and awarded. AGR-13052 5. Approve Cooperative Agreement No. C-1-3227 with the Orange County Transportation Authority for the Senior Mobility Program to fund the City's senior transportation services program for a term of five years, with one optional five-year extension, through Renewed Measure M net sales tax revenue and a 20% City match via in -kind staff time required to administer and manage the transportation program. AGR-13053 6. Approve the Professional Services Agreement for on -call consulting support services for Clean Water Act permit compliance programs with seven consulting companies, each in an AGR-13054 amount not to exceed $400,000 per year, to support the Development Services Section of the AGR-13055 Public Works Department, each for a one year term with four one-year optional renewals; AGR-13056 authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the AGR-13057 agreements, so long as such changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney; and authorize the Director of Public Works to execute each agreement and take the AGR-13058 necessary actions to implement and administer the agreements (EEC Environmental; Fuscoe AGR-13059 Engineering, Inc.; GHD, Inc.; GSI Environmental, Inc.; Recupero and Associates, Inc.; Tetra Tech, Inc.; and Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.). AGR-13060 7. Approve the Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with MagnoliaM 2020, LLC allowing access within the City right-of-way at property located at 227 N. Magnolia Avenue, Tract No. 19019, to connect to the Orange County Sanitation District Trunk Sewer. R100 8. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-075 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE D175 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Property Tax Exchange Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange regarding the Stadium Sliver Reorganization No. RO 21-04 and determining said actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). Item No. 08 Council Member Diaz disclosed that the City of Orange is his employer but he conferred with the City Attorney and could vote on this item. AGR-13061 9. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-076 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Subgrant Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the State of California for the term of April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023 (in the amount of $713,942 for Youth services; includes authorizing the City Manager to execute and administer the agreement and determination that approval of the agreement is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(3), and City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 6 of 16 15378(b)(4) as the proposed agreement constitutes a funding mechanism or fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment and does not, therefore, constitute a "project" pursuant to CEQA). D154 10. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-077 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and conditions of employment for employees represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Police Cadet Unit (effective June 25, 2021 through June 24, 2022). RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2015-173, as amended, for the purpose of modifying rates of compensation for those unrepresented classifications designated as Fire Cadets (effective the pay period beginning December 24, 2021). 11. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-079 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C220 CITY OF ANAHEIM denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020- C250 05144, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00172) (5275 East Nohl Ranch Road). M142 12. ORDINANCE NO. 6512 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 17.28 (Flood Hazard Reduction) of Title 17 (Land Development and Resources) and Chapter 18.28 (Floodplain "FP" Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the identification of flood hazard areas and the reduction of flood hazards and making findings and determinations in connection therewith. Determine that the proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines under Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and is not a "project" as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 13. ORDINANCE NO. 6511 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF M142 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating Chapter 17.10 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to lot line adjustments (introduced at Council meeting of July 20, 2021; Item No. 17). END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: B105 14. District 5 appointment of unscheduled vacancy on the Public Utilities Board for a term ending December 31, 2024. Mayor Pro Tern Faessel nominated Mitchell Lee. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mayor Pro Tern Faessel confirmed Mr. Lee lives in District 5. City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 7 of 16 Public Utilities Board (1 appointment): District 5 appointment: _ Mitchell Lee (December 31, 2024) (unscheduled vacancy of Ernesto Medrano) NOMINATION: Mayor Pro Tern Faessel nominated Mitchell Lee. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. 0148 15. Nominate and appoint a voting delegate and up to two voting alternates to the League of California Cities annual conference, to be held on September 22 — 24, 2021 in Sacramento, California. APPOINTMENT: Council Member O'Neil ALTERNATE: Mayor Pro Tern Faessel ALTERNATE: Council Member Diaz NOMINATION: Mayor Sidhu nominated Council Member O'Neil as the voting delegate and Mayor Pro Tern Faessel and Council Member Diaz as the alternates. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 5 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Moreno). Nominations approved. 16. Update on the City's Response to COVID-19. D 116 Mayor Sidhu expressed disappointment that despite Anaheim making so much progress fighting COVID-19 and trying to reopen the City, cases were again rising. He advised the delta variant was spreading quickly amongst the unvaccinated who were leading the rise in cases and was also having an impact on those who have been vaccinated. He noted this third wave of cases was having a serious impact on those with weakened immune systems, underlying conditions, children, and others who cannot get the vaccine. He advised this was alarming and concerning. Mayor Sidhu reported Anaheim was making great strides in its economic recovery and noted Disneyland is open again. He advised there is renewed activity at the Convention Center and Anaheim is coming back. He pleaded with unvaccinated residents to get vaccinated and to trust the experts that vaccines are safe, effective, and preventing severe illness and death. He advised vaccines are the way out of the crisis. He advised residents can obtain the vaccine at City Hall seven days per week. He thanked residents who have already been vaccinated. Chief Communications Officer Mike Lyster confirmed a rise in cases in Anaheim. He reported Orange County is seeing a case rate of 19, which is a high number and is up from the previous week where the case rate was 12.7. He reported the positivity rate is 8.3% up from 6.9% the previous week. He reported health equity is in line with the county as a whole. He reported 64% of Orange County is fully vaccinated and 74% are partially vaccinated. Mr. Lyster reported the seven-day average case rate is 666 cases per day in Orange County. He advised during the summer peak in July 2020, the average was 893 average daily cases. He noted the peak of 3,500 cases per day was during winter 2020 and early 2021. He explained the notable difference is the availability of the vaccine. City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Lyster reported the case rate in Orange County for those who are not vaccinated is 35 people per 100,000, which is a substantially high case rate. He advised that cases amongst those who are vaccinated are 6.1 per 100,000, which is significantly lower. He advised vaccinations are the most effective tool to get through the current rise in cases. Mr. Lyster reported Anaheim has a case rate of 9.2, which is up slightly from 8 a week prior and a positivity rate of 19.2%, which is up from 13.2% the week prior. He advised Anaheim's fully vaccinated rate is 62%, which is up from 60% a week earlier and the partially vaccinated is 70% up from 68%. He presented case rates across Anaheim zip codes and noted they are all numbers higher than Anaheim would like to see. He reported 92804 and 92808 have both seen a downward trend. Mr. Lyster reported Anaheim had led a concerted effort over the last two weeks to get the word out about vaccines, their effectiveness, and their availability. He presented samples of the various marketing campaign for the pandemic. He referenced the "Ask Your Doctor" campaign and encouraged residents to ask their doctor if there are any concerns regarding the vaccine as there is much misinformation circulating. He encouraged residents to visit reliable sites such as the City's website at Anaheim. net/coronaviru_s, California Health Department, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for additional information regarding COVID-19. He noted vaccine resistance is circulating among a very small part of the population. Mr. Lyster reported Anaheim continues to offer vaccines to the community and in neighborhoods. He referenced a photo from the vaccination clinic from the Ponderosa Family Resource Center that was held in conjunction with Council Member Valencia as well as federal and state representatives. He advised 100 shots were administered with many being administered to 12 and older teenagers who received the Pfizer vaccine. He noted this shows the delta variant has prompted new interest in the vaccine and this was indeed a successful clinic. He reminded residents that vaccines are available seven days per week at City Hall. He reported the City's testing provider, COVID Clinic, is conducting approximately 260 tests and dispensing dozens of vaccinations daily at City Hall. He expected to see a new testing kiosk at Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) next week and expected to see a new testing kiosk in a few weeks at Stoddard Park in the resort area. He reported Brookhurst Community Center recently expanded its hours from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He advised every testing site has the prospect of adding vaccines as well. DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tern Faessel's inquiry, Mr. Lyster advised the best way to help those who are not yet eligible for a vaccine is by vaccinating those who are eligible. He noted that truly is the definition of herd immunity where everyone can get vaccinated to protect those who cannot. He recommended educators and adults continue to get vaccinated on behalf of the children of Anaheim. He advised trials were underway for vaccines for children under 12. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Lyster reported he does not have anything to report on engagement with the school districts. He advised the City is ready to work with its school district partners on whatever needs they have but feel the general overall efforts to vaccinate the community benefit those who attend Anaheim schools and the school districts. He reiterated staff has not had the opportunity to meet with the school districts but stands ready to work with them. Council Member Moreno expressed bewilderment at the reasoning why the City has not met with the school districts. He expressed concern that Anaheim was just sitting in the corner awaiting information. Mr. Lyster believed the school districts were doing a robust job of informing their families and their staff, and noted the efforts of the City complement their efforts. City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 9 of 16 Council Member Moreno advised he would like to see the task force work with all institutions in Anaheim such as schools, community clinics, faith -based organizations, and community non -profits in a more proactive collaborative spirit. He expressed concern that children are getting the delta variant at a higher rate than the original virus. He requested Mr. Lyster and the task force have conversations with the school districts. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Lyster reported a lack of vaccination is not the reason Anaheim is three times higher than the County average and reported Anaheim has plenty of resources available for the community. He confirmed the prior two surges began in Anaheim and Santa Ana but clarified the current surge began in coastal and southeast Orange County. He advised there are some challenges in obtaining the vaccine that is unique to Anaheim. He acknowledged Anaheim's numbers are concerning and are higher than anyone would like to see. He advised there is a small bit of confidence in knowing in some ways Anaheim is doing better in this rise than the previous two surges. Council Member Moreno advised this is factually incorrect and when the virus first spread to Orange County it was in Newport Beach and the coastal cities first and noted Anaheim did not quite feel that crisis the way they did. Mr. Lyster clarified he was referring to the surges. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Lyster reported positivity testing would detect cases. He advised that a high positivity rate could be a reflection of those who are symptomatic and positive being tested or it could be an indicator of more cases to come. He believed Anaheim needed a little more time to determine if the latter was the case. Mr. Lyster clarified he was sharing some of the variables that could lead to a high positivity rate. Council Member Moreno recommended the City work with the business community to continue to support the workers to get vaccinated. He hoped local businesses would continue to pay staff who miss work for a day or two when they are vaccinated as a way to keep the economy and residents healthy. He encouraged Mayor Sidhu to consider having that conversation with the business community and Mayor Sidhu advised he would look into the request. Council Member Valencia recommended reconvening the task force and having a follow-up meeting regarding the rise in COVID rates. Informational item - No action taken. PUBLIC HEARING: F130 17. This is a public hearing regarding a proposed franchise to Torrance Pipeline Company LLC to maintain and operate pipeline for the transportation of hydrocarbon substances across a portion of Jefferson Street for a ten year term. ORDINANCE NO. 6513 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a franchise to Torrance Pipeline Company LLC, to maintain and operate pipelines for oil, gas and other substances in the City of Anaheim. Determine that the proposed Ordinance is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as this franchise is being issued on an existing pipeline. City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 10 of 16 At 6:23 P.M., the City Council addressed Public Hearing Item No. 17. Director of Public Works Rudy Emami reported the item involves an ordinance approving a Franchise to Torrance Pipeline Company LLC. He reported in August 1998, the City granted a Pipeline Franchise to Mobil Oil Corporation by approving Ordinance No. 5639. He advised Mobil Oil installed 319 feet of a single six-inch pipeline within the boundaries of the City. He further advised in October 2008, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 6119 as an amendment to Ordinance No. 5639, which recognized the merger between Exxon and Mobil, doing business as ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (ExxonMobil). He reported in November 2016, the City Council approved an Assignment and Assumption Agreement under Agreement No. 10378, which assigned the Franchise from ExxonMobil to Torrance Pipeline Company LLC (TPC), and all terms of Ordinance Nos. 5639 and 6119 remained in full force and effect. Mr. Emami reported the new 10-year franchise is required to operate since the prior agreement expired and now provides Anaheim with added insurance, bonding, and permitting protection. He reported TPC proposes to continue to operate and maintain this existing pipeline in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines, which provide required regulatory safety measures. He reported the franchise fee would increase from $500 to $700 per year, which was determined as 2% per year since the last increase in 2008 and comparable to other cities along the pipeline's route. He advised staff supports the proposed Ordinance because it is a great improvement over the previous franchise. Mr. Emami reported no construction activities are proposed, nor will such activities be approved as part of this Franchise Agreement. He advised all construction activities require a separate application for a right-of-way construction permit. Mayor Sidhu opened the public hearing. Bryan Kaye reported his father worked for Chevron and Gulf Oil. He expressed support for the item and hoped Anaheim would take care of the company and service their needs. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported no electronic comments were received for the Public Hearing Item No. 17. Mayor Sidhu closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6513 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a franchise to Torrance Pipeline Company LLC, to maintain and operate pipelines for oil, gas and other substances in the City of Anaheim, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. E127 18. This is a public hearing to 1) receive a report on the redistricting process and permissible criteria to be considered to redraw City Council election district boundaries; 2) receive public input on communities of interest and potential district boundaries; and 3) consider the timeline for the redistricting process. At 6:32 P.M., the City Council addressed Public Hearing Item No. 18. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported this was the first public hearing before the City Council regarding redistricting. She advised the public hearing is to provide the City Council and the public with a report on the redistricting process and the criteria for redistricting boundary lines, receive initial public input on district boundaries, and present the timeline for the redistricting process for the City Council to approve. She City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 11 of 16 reported a general overview of the redistricting process was presented at the July 20, 2021 City Council workshop, which included the new requirements pursuant to AB 849 and AB 1276. Dr. Justin Levitt, National Demographics Corporation, reported redistricting is City's first chance to redraw Anaheim's boundaries, incorporating the lessons learned in the last few years since the City adopted district elections. He reported Anaheim is governed by the FAIR MAPS Act, which lists out the criteria the City uses when redrawing City Council districts. He advised the Federal Laws look very similar to four years ago when Anaheim went first went to district elections. He noted equal population remains the first criteria or "one person, one vote" as stated by the Supreme Court; each district has to have substantively the same number of total residents, which includes non -citizens and non -voters. He noted it is everyone counted as part of the 2020 Census count. He advised Anaheim would also need to follow the Federal Voting Rights Act and noted while race cannot be the only or even the predominant factor behind the creation of a district, it must be one of many factors, particularly protected class groups that have historically faced discrimination. He advised even if a group does not make up a majority of the population, they need to be considered as part of the communities of interest. Dr. Levitt advised the FAIR MAPS Act rank orders criteria in the order the City has to prioritize. He advised the prioritization is contiguity, which is the idea that each district has to be one entire piece; undivided neighborhoods and communities of interest; easily identifiable boundaries; and compactness, which is defined as not bypassing a group of people to grab a different group of people. He advised State law explicitly bans consideration of partisanship, which includes political parties or candidates. He explained that after considering all of the rank -ordered criteria, other factors that the courts have recognized over the years as being legitimate factors could be taken into account. He advised this could include things like minimizing the impact on voters who might be switching from one year to a different election year, respecting voters' choices, future population growth, and preserving the core of existing districts. Dr. Levitt reported the first reports of the actual population numbers in the 2020 Census would be available on August 12, 2021 but noted that was not the final data set the City would use for its redistricting. He advised the State requires those numbers be adjusted based on where the prison population originally lived before they went to prison. He advised the revised numbers should be released at the end of September and those would be the final numbers the City has to use. He expects, based on current estimates, that there will have to be some line drawing, particularly concerning District 5 which has grown at a faster rate than other districts within the City. He emphasized that it is not that some districts are losing population and others are gaining, it is that there has been a substantial amount of growth in District 5 more than in other districts. He advised other demographics would be considered such as including age and what languages are spoken at home, to give a broader picture of the demographic story in Anaheim. Dr. Levitt reported Latino and Asian -American voters would need to be reviewed for voting rights purposes and presented a map showing the demographics of those communities in Anaheim. He clarified Asian does not include people from the Middle East who were being counted as non - Hispanic white according to the way the Census calculates those numbers. He reported substantial Latino populations in Districts 3, 4, and 5 as well as the north ends of District 1 and 2. He reported there are Asian communities in west Anaheim, particularly in the west end of District 1, south end of District 2, as well as in District 6. He advised additional socio-economic data was available to view in the story map. Dr. Levitt provided a brief overview of what defines communities of interest or neighborhoods. He explained State law says neighborhoods and communities of interest, which may mean those are two City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 12 of 16 different things. He advised neighborhoods are defined as small units that have a very well defined identity and may include areas that have a shared built history, are geographically bounded by a very small or narrow area abutting a particular park, or areas in a particular school district. He cited the Anaheim Colony as an area that could be considered a neighborhood under State law. He explained communities of interest have a much broader scope and are not only defined by a geographic area but also by cultural, socioeconomic, and other factors. He cited areas impacted by a particular freeway or impacted by some other area in the City such as parts of the City that are in the fire zone, at risk of wildfire damage, and areas that share cultural connections. Dr. Levitt advised four years ago during the districting process a lot of information was received about these kinds of communities and neighborhoods as well. He noted there were areas such as East Anaheim and the Colony that the City did not want to split but comments were also heard about Little Arabia, which was less of a clearly defined neighborhood and more of a cultural nexus centered around the Brookhurst Community Center. Dr. Levitt reported the Election Code states that once a community of interest is identified, it has to follow equal population, the Voting Rights Act, and the City must draw contiguous districts but attention has to be paid to where the communities of interest are located. He advised the City cannot violate the spirit of the law and divide those communities of interest. Dr. Levitt reported a series of tools would be prepared over the upcoming weeks and would be ready to demonstrate by the time the community workshops take place. He explained there would be different tools for different levels of technical skill and interest. He advised the tools include a story map where users would be able to click on different geography, see populations, see the demographics, and give a window into the different communities of Anaheim. He advised there would also be a simple drawing tool, an Excel supplement, and a new community drawing tool. He reported there is a new tool called DistrictR that allows users to paint a neighborhood and define the community area. Lastly, he advised there would be an online redistricting tool that lets users go block by block to draw their districts. He hoped the final map adopted would come from these community maps and be based on the community testimony and feedback received through the tools. Ms. Bass reported there are certain procedural requirements for the redistricting process. She advised State law authorizes the City Council to draw its map. She explained the process could include submission of draft maps from the community and a demographer for City Council review and consideration. She advised the FAIR MAPS Act requires that the City Council meet before adopting a final map of district boundaries for the redistricting process. She reminded City Council at least four public hearings that enable the community members to provide input regarding the composition of the Council districts must be held. She further explained the public hearing process and advised at least one public hearing needs to be held before maps are drawn, at least two of the public hearings after the maps are drawn, and at least one of the public hearings or a public workshop to be held on a Saturday, Sunday, or after 6:00 p.m. on a weekday Monday through Friday. She advised public hearings before the City Council would be held at 6:30 p.m. to allow accessibility and participation of the public. Ms. Bass reported cities are required to wait a minimum of 21 days after the State's official adjusted census data is released before the City can post its first draft maps. She noted it is anticipated that the Census would be published at the end of September 2021. She advised pursuant to the California Elections Code, the process must be completed and the boundary map must be adopted no later than April 17, 2022 to utilize it for the November 2022 General Election. She advised today's public hearing serves as the first public hearing before maps being drawn and to provide for the initial input on the district boundaries. She reported in September, the City Clerk's Office would conduct City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 13 of 16 community meetings throughout the City including a virtual meeting to solicit input, educate the committee on the redistricting process, and provide training on how to use the mapping tools. She advised the second public hearing would be held on October 5, 2021, which would be the second meeting before the maps being drawn. She noted at this public hearing, the City Council would continue to seek public input on factors to consider for district boundaries and staff would report on the public input received from the community during the community redistricting outreach meetings. She further advised the City's mapping tools would be highlighted once more and the public would be encouraged to submit their draft maps using the mapping tools Ms. Bass advised on November 2, 2021, the City Council would conduct its third public hearing to consider draft maps received and it is anticipated at this hearing the City Council may narrow the pool of maps to select a few for final consideration that meet the redistricting criteria. She advised staff is prepared to conduct community outreach meetings during November and December to present the pool of maps selected by the City Council for public review and input. She advised it is proposed the City Council would hold two additional public hearings in January and February 2022, with dates to be determined. She advised at that time, City Council would consider the final maps, receive public testimony on the maps, and recommend a selected map for adoption to meet the April 17, 2022 statutory deadline. She noted this provides an opportunity for additional time, as needed, for City Council to include additional public hearings and still be within the April 17 deadline. Ms. Bass reported the City would provide Spanish translation, as it does at all City Council meetings, but also at each of the community meetings. She advised other applicable languages could be provided by submitting a request to the City Clerk's office at least 72 hours before the scheduled community meeting or public hearing. She advised to increase accessibility and participation in the public hearings and community meetings, public hearings would be held at 6:30 p.m. and Spanish translations would be provided at each of the public hearings. Ms. Bass advised the City Clerk's office is committed to taking steps to have robust and diverse community participation in the process of drawing the district maps for future Council elections. She advised staff is prepared to conduct community meetings throughout the City in September, which would include the City's Demographic Consultant Dr. Levitt and the City's Outreach Consultant Tripepi Smith to engage the community, educate the community in the redistricting process, and seek public input. She advised the meetings would be an informal setting and would be conducive to direct interactions between the public and the technical experts to provide training on how to use the mapping tools, answer any questions, and prepare them for the submittal of their draft maps for City Council consideration to ensure the community is fully informed throughout the process. Ms. Bass reported a dedicated website has been created at htt;:s:Hanaheimredistrictinci.org that would provide the community with all the information related to redistricting, including dates and times of upcoming meetings and public hearings, the public mapping tools, and versions of each proposed map once submitted. She advised staff is committed to pursuing a comprehensive outreach plan through communication strategies, identifying and engaging community groups and interested stakeholders, as well as providing press releases and public announcements. She noted the process would take advantage of the City's social media as well as Anaheim's current communication outlets such as the local cable channel, Andy Anaheim newsletter, the Anaheim magazine, and utility bill inserts. DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tern Faessel's inquiry, Dr. Levitt explained the deviation from the ideal population is calculated by taking the total City population, divide it by six, then subtract the current district population or subtract that from the current district population. City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 14 of 16 Mayor Pro Tern Faessel noticed none of the community meetings are being held in District 5. Ms. Bass explained staff is looking to add additional meetings in District 5 and are looking at different locations. Council Member Moreno suggested Ms. Bass add verbiage to the list that advises District 5 meetings would be scheduled to ensure residents know they have not been forgotten. He would like to add a meeting in District 2 at the Brookhurst Community Center, Tiger Woods Learning Center, or Savanna High School. He recommended translators for other languages be scheduled ahead of time in areas that have a higher concentration of different languages instead of waiting for residents to request that service. He expressed appreciation for the two -month buffer between the last City Council meeting and the deadline so City Council does not feel rushed. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Dr. Levitt clarified the maximum difference between the largest and smallest district could be 10%. He cautioned the data may change but there are approximately 62,000 people per Council district. He explained the way the Ninth Circuit Court has interpreted the Voting Rights Act has been to use the Census count of the population over age 18 with U.S. citizenship. He explained the reason the Voting Rights Act is used is that in terms of total population versus citizen voting -age population there would be gaps between the Latino percentage of the total population and eligible voters or citizen voting -age population simply due to demographics and a district could be drawn that was majority Latino but would have no way of being an effective district by using the total population count. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Ms. Bass reported the community meetings would be audio recorded by the Tripepi Smith team and would be posted to the website. Sydni Overly, Tripepi Smith, reported they would be video recording one of the community workshops and it could be either the post -draft maps or the pre -draft map workshop since the workshops are essentially providing the same information. She confirmed the audio and video would be recorded. Ms. Bass confirmed the videos would not be live -streamed but would be posted on the website after the meeting. Mayor Sidhu opened the public hearing. Wes Jones urged the City Council to be fair with redistricting. He advised he was still unclear on the process and would like the map to be selected by an independent body and then voted on by City Council rather than others coming up with a map. Mike Robbins advised residents fought for equal representation when election districts were drawn four years ago. He expressed concern that City Council has taken campaign contributions from those who may try to buy politicians and manipulate the system. He hoped the Attorney General would step in address some of the issues with the Angel Stadium sale and advised redistricting was supposed to bring equality to the City Council but he does not see it. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that one (1) public comment was received electronically prior to 6:30 P.M. related to Public Hearing Item No. 18. [A final total of 1 public comment was received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix. Mayor Sidhu closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Faessel moved to receive and file the report on the redistricting process and permissible criteria to be considered to redraw City Council election district boundaries and approve the timeline for the redistricting process, seconded by Council Member Diaz. City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 15 of 16 DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno noted it was his preference to have an independent body of judges as was done previously but City Council chose not to go in that direction. He expressed appreciation to staff on how they set this up for public input. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Faessel moved to receive and file the report on the redistricting process and permissible criteria to be considered to redraw City Council election district boundaries and approve the timeline for the redistricting process, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (non -agenda items): None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA REQUESTS: Mayor Sidhu addressed the resignation of former Council Member Jordan Brandman, stated he became aware of the text when they became public, and reported he gave Mr. Brandman time to take responsibility and do what was best for Anaheim before bringing the situation to City Council for potential censure and a request for resignation. Mayor Sidhu thanked Mr. Brandman for his positive contributions to the City during his service and for recognizing the need to step away in the best interest of the City overall. He stated he would adjourn the meeting in memory of Robert Fischle, a 97-year-old Anaheim resident. Mayor Pro Tern Faessel shared Mr. Fischle's background as an Anaheim High School graduate, World War II Army hero, and local resident; thanking Mayor Sidhu for acknowledging him. He reported his attendance at the ribbon -cutting of the El Verano senior facility and living art wall on East Lincoln Avenue, a 54-unit senior facility that has wrap -around services and focuses on those who have been or are near homelessness. He also visited Anaheim Ballet at Pearson Park and acknowledged the great work the Rosenbergs do to serve kids downtown. Council Member Valencia noted he attended the Police Department's National Night Out event and congratulated them on a wonderful event with a record turnout of residents. He thanked the Community Services Department for their collaborative efforts on a community vaccination clinic last Thursday where 100 new vaccinations were administered. With school starting this week, he wished the best of luck to educators and scholars. Council Member Diaz reported he also participated in National Night Out at La Palma Park and stated it was well put together by the Police Department and people enjoyed the event. He offered his thoughts to the students returning to school. Council Member Moreno joined in good wishes to all families returning to school and appreciated the schools' health and safety plans. He thanked Chief Cisneros, the Police Department, the Code Enforcement Division, and the Public Works Department for a neighborhood meeting at Willow Park addressing speeding, parking, and safety at the park and noted he would include the Community Services Department next time. He reported Public Works staff would assess speeding on Loara Street and, depending on the survey results, may petition the neighborhood to consider other speed measures like speed humps. He also thanked the Police Department and Code Enforcement for responding to calls and addressing potential illegally operating group homes. Council Member Moreno thanked Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk -Silva for her efforts to pass AB 978 which provides City Council Minutes of August 10, 2021 Page 16 of 16 rent caps of 3% plus inflation/CPI to a maximum of 5% for residents at the Rancho La Paz mobile home park. He thanked Lupe Ramirez and other residents for their efforts. He acknowledged and thanked his policy aide, Marisol Ramirez, noting she left his office this week after obtaining a full-time position at a local non-profit and introduced his new aide, Rudy Acevedo, an Anaheim High School and UCLA graduate, who would also be working with the school district on a sustainability project at Magnolia High School building urban farms. He thanked Human Resources and City Manager staff for the efficient and smooth process of bringing Mr. Acevedo on board. Given Council Member Brandman's resignation, Council Member Moreno stated he would not be pursuing an investigation regarding Mr. Brandman's texts and behavior, thanked Mr. Brandman for thinking of what's best for himself and the residents of District 2, and looked forward to the process to get representation for District 2's residents. Mayor Sidhu thanked his colleagues and staff for their work and encouraged everyone to remain safe through the hot temperatures and potential fire danger. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:33 P.M., Mayor Sidhu adjourned the City Council meeting in memory of Robert Fischle. Ily submitted, eres Bass, CMC City CI rk Public 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 Allen Matlk.ins II....eclk. Gamble Mallory & Natsis Il....11....f::� 1900 Main ,:.3tireet,l::::�Ioor, Ilirvine, CAA 92614 7321 (949) 8,51...',"1484 (direct) (949) ','K53 83,,"a4 (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. An �'i JJ• VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL August 6, 2021 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 E-mail: publiecomment@anaheim.net Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law 1900 Main. Street, 54 Floor [ Irvine, CA 92614-7321 Telephone: 949.553.1313 j Facsimile: 949.553.8354 m"v.allenmatkins.com William R De -One and Andtvw L" Direct Dial: 949 851 5412 File Number: 372942.00014/4933-3471-6149 Mayor Harry S. Sidhu Mayor Pro Tern Stephen Faessel Councilmember .lose Diaz Councilmember Jordan Brandman Councilmember Jose F. Moreno Councilmember Avelino Valencia Councilmember Trevor O'Neil Rey The Housing Accountability Act Precludes the City From Denying the Holden Senior Liviniz Facility (Proiect 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 u. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4tb 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 Attorneys 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)(l{), %); Honchariw, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th 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 Projeefs 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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys 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 Lantennan Developmental Disabilities Services Act ("Lanterman Act") (Government Code, § 65582(1)), 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 ,flack Yard v. City of Simi Valley ("YIMBY"') (May 17, 2021) Case No. 56-2020-00539590. (Enclosed as Attachment 2 [courfs statement of decision].) The YIMBY 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. (YI OY, pp. 2, 7.) The senior facility in the YIMBY case 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, (Y]MBY, 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. (YIAOY, 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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys 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 YIA BY 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 noncompliant 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, § 65589.56)(2)(A).) Where documentation is not timely provided, the project is "deemed" compliant by operation of law. (Government Code, § 65589.56)(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, toning Code, or other design standard or criteria. For over a year and half, Alliance has Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Nratsis LLP Attorneys 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 noting 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 Projects 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, § 65589.56)(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.AppAth 307, 322; Technical Advisory, p. 13.) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Nratsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Mayor Harry S. Sidhu August 6, 2021 Page 6 The HAA's two mandatory written findings are: I, Finding of a health -and -safety impact. "The housing development project would have a .speci ic, adverse impact upon the public health or safety" unless denied or made less dense. (Government Code, § 65589.56)(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, § 65589.56)(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)(I ).) 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 ir�frequently." (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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Mayor Harry S. Sidhu August C, 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 CLIP findings, including the finding that the Project will not be detrimental to the public health and safety." (p. T ) "[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'v 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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Mayor Harry S. Sidhu August C, 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 AppeIIants 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. (1d., 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 fallowing 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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Mayor Harry S. Sidhu August C, 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 o. f'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 hire 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.) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Nratsis LLP Attorneys 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 he required to meet all minimum codes and standards prior to obtaining building permits. in addition, the occupancy is subject to annual Iife safety inspections to ensure adequate maintenance of the structure. To date the project has indicated compliance with all codes and standards as adapted. (p. I "[S]taffreference 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.AppAth 903, 918, 932-934 [planning commission's findings were substantial evidence]; Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 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: 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 erjoyed by [] adjacent residences"; (2) increase density "we]l 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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys 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 PIanning 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 [j in the surrounding residential neighborhood," "fi]f 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 Iocal 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, § 65589.56)(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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Mayor Harry S. Sidhu August C, 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 'fiery 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 Projecfs 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. (]bid.) The draft resolution completely fails to show how the Project either fails to meet these state-Iicensing requirements or why the Projects 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, § 65589.56)(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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Mayor Harry S. Sidhu August C, 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); TechnicaI 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 ofLos 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 & Nratsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Mayor Harry S. Sidhu August C, 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)(]).) 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 unfeasible 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) mare 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, a4,-Zx�-, William R. Devine and Andrew Lee cc. Theresa Bass, City Clerk Robert Fabela, City Attorney Leome 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. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 , [� (916) 263-2911 1 FAx (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov 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. Chaoter 368. Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 167). Chaoter 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. ATTACHMENT 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.. .... 16 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 ATTACHMENT 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?....................................................................................................... . 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 ATTACHMENT 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 3: 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 ATTACHMENT 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 0) 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 0). 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 ©o 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 2 ATTACHMENT Why ©o 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 3 ATTACHMENT U EL EL M ay cu y.+ RS Cc L cu `J O m N _ ay y + 0" 0 C N C 'ns O N EZ -❑ 0 U ay �- _ 0 U 0 Cu L � [ll ❑ LS zz— ca C � U ay •� _ b w Q C Q Q Ern, .c C ca 0 U QC Ell C . Q CL ry U) W Cl. r E� U) Q} 0 U9 E!y U 0 a) E 0 N � [iy L ❑ 0 U3 L 0 D dco L 0 > Ely of 0 a .0 Q-0 cu � Q C Etif ca r� 0? o0 a� E F 4-- Q ❑ 0 L z cQ RF CN -0 L- 9 Q Ri tly CL ca _0 C Q U) u6 W C EO 'L RS �j C tl} CD L Ely _0 M o Un ay � c C Q Q V .N a) � EZ :3 ay N En .C: C? N I A VJ W � � C C71 +C `3 a)N ❑ Ell �• � E ,Q C3y Ca y.+ (n y.+ En U7 U7 C Ev E6 ❑ aU Ely En U} U 7 _0 = _0 Co -0 C L? CL CU ay � ay E1 C (D Q r/y CU 0' L 0] O a) CU EL M N E� v 0 a=y .d N O U C ❑ Q� U CL �o Q_C {n CD ,W 0Fn N Ell ❑_ U ?i 0 L ❑ N r❑+ iC3 II] E aD �_ ❑ E U7 U) L Ely L 7 4-- Q 0 U V) .r ... UU7 0 Uti ❑ 7 M a) Q7 0- M : Z L "' '" 0 Ell C C 0-a CL> ❑ Q) 0 M = W E C 0) Cl r D fl} C A O L Qy IL C Ell L EL U -00M-0 C ❑ Q q L C Eii Q CL CU C D E to (m tlOy E_ c C ❑ r.+ _E0 2'D [u Q— �0 Z� ❑ CCU �-0 4—L Qll1.0 O 3y im IZ— >, E L) � Qy N� Cno ❑� 0 cM E1 E1y = co C — Q c a0 U)E N 0=Q0 = c� v— E .0 Co _0 CU EvU) ID•—- E — .CL L L �+ do � 0 ❑ U Q7 O . --' C 0 -0 -0 r.+ E � ❑ a) c c -0 E4 a) CL M Z3 �--• ❑ 0 -0 7 +- CD Ely • � 03 Q) U {� n3 U = N a) — Ely �= ❑ En ay 0- 0.- ❑ L C -0 C U3 U7 _ U U > E "� ❑ EL 0 O Ely (U � 7+ 0 = x y , a) {y • — Li i O L U Vy .0 E!y ❑ T3 �UU CL--0 �U �� _���= C D L Qy En [iy — +- Ell EQ `� E ❑ U] 0 Z N EU vy C3 = C ❑y _Q EQ 7 CT-o C Q• L M (_ly L L = ❑ i6 Ell �.+ a) C C `vim E Ely 0 t.} Q C= Q .. U U Q o� oc�cycnL w.-. " a) .(D (a •F EZ U - � dy ti Y � ❑ ❑ a- O � � 0 � cu Q Ea 0) ca 0 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 0). 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 0) 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 0) 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". 1 Honchafiw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Ca1.App.4th 1066, 1072-1073 Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 5 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. It 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). Decent 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 6 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 7 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 8 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. o 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 I Pursuant to Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 9 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 record6. 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. I see Pagel 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. s 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 14 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 0), 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 15 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,11 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].) 13 1 Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2013) 218 Gal.App.4th 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 0). Subdivision 0) 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 18 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 5tanislaus (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 0) (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. (j)(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 0), arise infrequently." (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).) Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 20 ATTACHMENT Appendix 13. 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 21 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 22 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: ❑ 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 23 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, local 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 24 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 stream bed 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 25 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 resubmittai, 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 parks 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 28 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 0), 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 29 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 far the planning period far 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 ATTACHMENT Appendix D: Housing Accountability Act statute (2020) 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: (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 34 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): (1) 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. (11) The local agency, in violation of subdivision 0), 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 35 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. (1) 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.E 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 36 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 courts order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the ❑rder, ❑r 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 0), 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 1.3 (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 37 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 38 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 VENTUP-A SUPERIOR COURT FILE MAY 17 2021 MICHAEL D. PLANET ,Exe ffice and Clerk H li ,,Deputy SUPERIOR COURT' OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA YES IN MY BACK YARD, V. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, COUNTY OF VENTURA Plaintiff, Defendant, Cy5T.9 _� �#���►�i��i31IIF��I3I�3�I��►� ��; � TENTATIVE DECISION HON. MARK S. BORREI,L 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"}.' 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 65590, et seq. All references are to the Government Code unless indicated otherwise. z The other case is JM Squared Development v. City of Simi Valley, Case No. 56-2020- 00539593-CUU-WM-VTA. Tentative Decision ATTACHMENT 2 1 11 Background 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 �7 28 Petitioner JM Squared Development, LLC ("JM") is the developer of the subject project. Petitioner Yes 1n My Back Yard ("YYMBY") is a nonprofit corporation and a "housing organization" within the meaning of the HAA.1 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 roam, 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 ilI Z 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 fled written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project." (Gov. Code, 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(ii)(C)(2).) -2- entative Decision Al IA[;HMkMI 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. (AR1683). TM 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 arc 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 Ca1.4th at 435, 53 Ca1.Rptr.3d $21, 150 P,3d 709.) Thus, when plaintiffs' CEQA claim is predominantly one of procedure, we will conduct an independent review. When plaintiffs' CEQA claim disputes the factual findings made by ARB, we will review the record to determine 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 of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1072.) That is -3- entative 1 sion ATTACHMENT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 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 Sari Diego County v. Mate 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. 0).) 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 Jm]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)(Z)(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 —lout, to the court, there seems no justification to do so. When the Legislature uses distinct terns 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/dictionM /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 14 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 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:Illegal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com /Residence.) A. "domicile" is one's permanent home. (See https://www.merriam- webster.comldictionaryidomicile ["a person's fixed, permanent, and principal home for legal purposes"], Black's Law Dictionary (1 l th 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"].) an 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:llwww.definitions.net/definitioii/residence ["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 1691) 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 parsed, not the ones that aren't. Nor are unpassed bills particularly helpful in understanding what the Legislature intended when it passed a -6- 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 different bill at a prier time. (See Nevarrez v. San Marino Spilled Nursing chi Fellness 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." 0 65589.6.) Among other things, section 65599.5 requires a local agency that disapproves a project to make certain findings "[wjhen 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. 0)(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. .7. 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 U) 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 a)." (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 0) 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 0)(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 make the finding required by section 65589.5, subd. 6)(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 T .S_ t De sion 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 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 (11 th 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. Mere, 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. ' 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. -9- Tentative Decision ATTACHMENT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1a 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)(l)(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_IL 2021 L4i , MN1fIC 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 M 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. 1 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: �_-- - '�141 1-1. Alarcoi , Clerk roof of Service ATTACHMENT 2 Public Comment From: Theresa Bass Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 12:45 PM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Letter of Support - Anaheim Hills Assisted Living Attachments: Anaheim HoldenAssistedLiving-LetterofSupport081021.pdf From: Heaton, Brian@HCD <Brian.Heaton@hcd.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 12:43 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Jose Moreno <JMoreno@anaheim.net>; Avelino Valencia <AValencia@anaheim.net>; Trevor O'Neil <TONeil@anaheim.net> Cc: Ted White <TedWhite@anaheim.net>; Niki J. Wetzel <NWetzel@anaheim.net>; West, Shannan@HCD <Shannan.West@hcd.ca.gov>; MPHiggins@shjlobby.com; Curt@curtpringle.com; Zeshaan Younus <Zeshaan@curtpringle.com>; Theresa Bass <TBass@anaheim.net> Subject: Letter of Support - Anaheim Hills Assisted Living Dear Mayor Sidhu and City Council Members, Attached please find a letter of support for the Anaheim Hills Assisted Living Facility to be considered at tonight's City Council Meeting. Brian Heaton, AICP Senior Housing Policy Specialist, Housing Policy Division Housing and Community Development 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 1 Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: 916.776.7504 1 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. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 ......._....__.... www.hed.ca.gov August 10, 2021 Harry S. Sidhu, Mayor Anaheim City Councilmembers City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: City of Anaheim, Holden Anaheim Hills — Letter of Support Dear Mayor Harry Sidhu and City Councilmembers: The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is aware that the City Council for the City of Anaheim (City) will be further considering an appeal of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project (Project) at its August 10, 2021 public hearing. The purpose of this letter is to provide HCD's support for the Project and urge the City to deny the appeal. HCD understands the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit (CUP 2019-05144) for the Project at its May 24, 2021 public hearing. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval was filed. The City Council held an appeal hearing on July 20, 2021 during which the City Council expressed intention to grant the appeal and deny the Project. To give staff time to prepare findings of denial, the item was continued to the August 10, 2021 City Council meeting. The Project would provide 118 units of housing for seniors who require the care of an assisted living or memory care facility. The Project is proposed on a site in the "RH-3" zone where a now -vacant church building and associated parking lot are already constructed. The "Senior Living Facility — Large" is a permitted use — with a CUP in the "RH-3" zone. The outright denial of a CUP application should be considered an act of last resort, generally applicable when all attempts to condition the project have failed. The proposed Project would provide necessary housing to a substantial number of seniors and to persons with disabilities. The State of California is in a housing crisis, and the provision of housing is a priority of the highest order. HCD encourages the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's approval by denying the appeal and approving the Project. Harry S. Sidhu, Mayor Page 2 Housing Supply for Special Needs Currently there is an inadequate supply and production of homes for persons in protected classes, including housing for seniors. State Housing Element Law contains multiple requirements related to the development of housing for seniors including: • An analysis of special needs populations, including those of the elderly population (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7)); • An analysis and provision of zoning that accommodates a variety of housing types (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)); • An analysis of any potential governmental constraints to the development of housing (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(5)); and • Inclusion of program actions that: o Encourage a variety of housing types (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1)); o Assist in the development of housing (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2)); o Remove governmental constraints (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3)); and o Affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(10)). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assembly Bill (AB) 686 (Chapter 958, Statutes of 2018) amended Government Code section 8899.50 to strengthen California's commitment to fair housing and access to opportunity by mandating that all public agencies must AFFH through their housing and community development programs. Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (a)(1), defines "AFFH" as taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The duty to AFFH extends to all of a public agency's activities and programs relating to housing and community development. Public agencies are required to take meaningful actions to AFFH. The development of senior housing is an important strategy for creating an inclusive community and AFFH. City of Anaheim 5th Cycle (2014-2021) Housing Element The City's housing element states that 18.3% of Anaheim residents are seniors (persons older than 65) and that 34.8% of these seniors have a disability. The housing element includes the following Policy Considerations and Guiding Principle that support the development of housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, particularly when such projects represent an opportunity for infill and redevelopment: (emphasis added) o Policy Consideration 7.0: Housing Availability and Affordability: The demand for housing in Anaheim remains high due to employment opportunities, its strategic location and local amenities. Housing costs in Anaheim and the surrounding region continue to remain higher than what is affordable for many households, especially the lower -income segments of the population. Harry S. Sidhu, Mayor Page 3 Additionally, the need for housing suitable for special needs groups is not always fulfilled by the housing options currently available. Providing policies and programs to increase available housing for all segments of the population will help ensure that current residents and those who work in Anaheim have the opportunity to remain in the City. o Policy Consideration 8.0: Infill and Redevelopment: There are very few areas of undeveloped land remaining in the City and it must rely on Infill and redevelopment sites, some of which are environmentally challenged, to accommodate growth. Policies should allow and encourage creative solutions such as land assemblage and environmental cleanup of "brownfield" sites to maximize the potential in redeveloping areas of Anaheim. o Guiding Principle C: Persons with special housing needs should have access to a variety of housing choices that are integrated within the community. In summary, the Project proposes housing for seniors and persons with disabilities — both of which are protected classes — and the approval of this Project would increase housing supply for these special needs. Approval of the Project would also be consistent with the City's obligation to AFFH, and approval would be consistent with stated policy considerations and a guiding principle in the City's housing element. HCD urges the City to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project. If you have any questions or need technical assistance, contact Brian Heaton, of our staff, at brian.heatonp_hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, 147 llclk Shannan West Land Use and Planning Unit Chief Enclosure CC' Stephen Faessel, Mayor Pro Tempore District 5 Jose Diaz, Councilmember District 1 Jordan Brandman, Councilmember District 2 Jose F. Moreno, Councilmember District 3 Avelino Valencia, Councilmember District 4 Trevor O'Neil, Councilmember District 6 Public Comment From: Julia Gomez <JGomez@aclusocal.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 4:05 PM To: Public Comment Cc: Jazzmin Mercado; Grace Fan; Christina Nguyen; Cynthia Valencia Subject: Aug. 10 Meeting: Public Comment on Agenda Item 18, Redistricting Timeline Attachments: 2021-08-10 - OCAPICA ACLU Letter to Anaheim CC re Item 18.pdf Hello, Attached please find comment from OCAPICA and the ACLU on agenda item 18 regarding the planned redistricting timeline. Thank you. Julia Julia Gomez, Staff Attorney ACLU of Southern California 1313 W 8th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (o) 213.977.5258 aclusocal.org II facebook II twitter II blog II app ACLU SoCal: STAND FOR JUSTICE >> Download our mobile app at mobileiusticeca.orp THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1 AMERIC' N CIVIL LIBERTIES IUNION FOUNDATNN SOillt I0Ell 'C'`alJ1'0170,la. August 10, 2021 Sent Via Email Anaheim City Council City Hall Council Chambers 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., First Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 publiccomment@anaheim.net Re: Public Comment on City Council Redistricting Process Timeline August 10, 2021 Meeting, Agenda Item 18 Dear Members of the City Council: The Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU) write to provide suggestions on the Council's draft redistricting process timeline. OCAPICA is part of the Anaheim Citizens Redistricting Committee and the People's Redistricting Alliance (PRA), two coalitions made up of Anaheim residents and community - based organizations, respectively, working in the region to promote a greater community voice in the redistricting process. The ACLU is also a member of the PRA and aims to provide legal and organizing support to member organizations. We commend the City's decision to move forward with its planning for the 2021-2022 redistricting process, including its plan to hold more than the required number of public hearings and workshops. We request that the Council, however, amend its draft timeline to host the post -map community meetings in January and February of 2022. Currently, the timeline has the Council releasing draft maps in late October 2021 and hosting community meetings in November and December of this year. While we appreciate the Council's efforts to move the process along, we are concerned that hosting post -map community meetings during the same timeframe when the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the California Citizens Redistricting Commission will be hosting the bulk of their post - map hearings may make it difficult for Anaheim residents to engage in the City's redistricting process. We are also concerned that it will be difficult to engage Anaheim residents during the November to December holiday season and to keep them engaged over the holiday break and into early next year when the Council votes on a final map. Instead of hosting post -map hearings this fall, we suggest that the Council: 1) focus on continuing to host pre -map community meetings and hearings until the end of the year; 2) delay the release of draft maps until early January 2022; and 3) host the remainder of post -map community meetings and public hearings in January and February of 2022, extending the process until March or mid -April 2022 if necessary. We appreciate the Council and staffs efforts to plan for the redistricting process and look forward to continuing to work with you on making this process inclusive and transparent. Sincerely, Christina Nguyen Julia A. Gomez Program Supervisor, Policy and Civic Engagement Staff Attorney OCAPICA ACLU SoCal ctnguyen@ocapica.org jgomez@aclusocal.org Public Comment From: Teri Shea Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 1:49 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Canceled event on 7/17/2021 To Whom It May Concern, I am very concerned about the event that was cancelled last weekend, on 7/17/2021. 1 have been a proud Anaheim resident for 23 years, and when I heard the America First Rally was moved to Anaheim after being threatened by violent activists in two other cities, I was especially proud of our wonderful city to not be bullied by threats of violence. As you know, though, it was subsequently cancelled in Anaheim as well. I have 2 concerns about this. 1. Since when do we cave to threats of violence? Isn't this when we send in additional police enforcement to be sure these threats of violence do not materialize? As long as we continue to cave to bullies' threats, our cities will not be safe. The city's response to the cancellation stated our city has "a duty to call out speech that does not reflect our city and its values" (see city announcement below). First, by cancelling an event, we are not calling out any speech. We're simply disallowing the speech from being said. And second, can you please tell me what our city values are? I urge you to please reconsider your position on allowing threats of violence to bully Anaheim. I also urge you to please listen to the message that was delivered that day by the event hosts. There was no hatred or discrimination of groups of people. They simply love America and want our most wonderful country to continue being a refuge for freedom. Thank you for your consideration with this matter. Teresa Shea Anaheim, CA Here's the notice: as PLANNED AMERICA FIRST RALLY CANCELLED A pqanne,d Amenca First roUy at a private venue uri oug ofly is caocoHerl The rify d Analheiiin shared public safOy concerns wth P'to opera rov and those concems are shafed by the operatul As a cftywe respeGl free spaKh Out also haVe @ (JUIV TO call ouT speech MM c5ops not iiefled ouir icity and rVs Values - Mike Lyster (My of A o,1,i0&m Spokesman Public Comment From: Briana Acosta Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 8:54 PM To: Public Comment Subject: 27 July 2021 meeting- Public concern Hello, My name is Briana Acosta and I am a resident of Anaheim. I have several concerns with Palm lane charter school and would like to request an inquiry into the school. There has been a severe onset of bullying that I have personally witnessed as a parent of a student of Palm Lane Charter School and most recently the prom it has engaged in inappropriate conduct with the father of a child, with no recourse. There is no accountability for Palm Lane because it was transitioned to a charter school and as such they are falsifying advertisements, severely under -serving their students, perpetuating inappropriate conduct by both administrators and students and I fear what will happen should this continue without recourse. Thank you. Briana Acosta Public Comment From: Pat D Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:29 PM To: Public Comment; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Subject: Support Affordable Housing As a long time housing first advocate I thought you should know who has died on the streets in the last month all over Orange County. Ten died here in Anaheim!!! The deaths continue at very high numbers and with the Delta variant and still so many COVID deniers, the numbers will continue to grow. These losses are yet one more reason you need to reexamine your shelter model of services (with too few moving into permanent and stable housing) and funnel those resources to a housing first approach. The Housing Element work currently going on is the perfect place to apply those principals. Each of you needs to commit to meeting the affordable housing numbers in our RHNA assignment. Significant monies for building are being provided from state and federal government. You have the land. Please use the monies wisely and as intended for HOUSING! The dollars spent providing outreach and support efforts for the unhoused are collectively NOT working. 10 of these folx died or the streets of Anaheim. We must do better and you have to lead the way!! These are the names of those 39 who died without fixed abode in July 2021 as identified by the OC Coroner. We know there are more. In memorium: Our Brothers and Sisters who died here in Orange County Christopher SMITH died July 1st in Buena Park Richard ESTRADA ARELLANO died July 3rd in Anaheim Marcelo FARIAS VALENCIA July 3rd in Santa Ana Joshua HUEY died July 5th in Huntington Beach Stephen RINEBERG died July 5th in Garden Grove Timothy CLARK died July 7th in Garden Grove Alfredo AGUINALDO died July 8th in Fullerton Tara BEOUGHER died July 8th in Garden Grove Jose RIVERA died July 8th in Santa Ana Charles ARME JR. died July 8th in Orange Daniel ESCOBAR died July 9th in Santa Ana Greggory TILDEN died July 10th in Fountain Valley Derek KEEN died July 11th in Fountain Valley James STALLCUP died July 11th in Anaheim Alicia FUENTES died July 12th in Anaheim Jeffrey GLEASON died July 12th in Costa Mesa Leticia MAHE died July 14th in Garden Grove Troy LOZANO died July 14th in Fullerton Douglas TYLER died July 14th in Newport Beach Joseph PARSAKIS died July 15th in Anaheim Andrew KEISLER died July 16th in Costa Mesa David CHAVEZ SR. died July 16th in Anaheim Enrique LOVATO died July 16th in Anaheim Patricia SMITH died July 17th in Fullerton Dennis MCCULLOCH died July 20th in Santa Ana Jaime GARDUNO RODRIGUEZ died July 23rd in Anaheim Ricardo CORDOVA BARRAGAN died July 25th in Newport Beach Roberto ESPINOZA died July 25th in Fullerton Hunter EVANS died July 26th in Anaheim Steve STRONG died July 26th in Anaheim Moises ZEPEDA died July 27th in Costa Mesa Jamie HOWARD died July 28th in Huntington Beach Jose CASTENION died July 28th in Santa Ana Jorge RODRIGUEZ died July 29th in Anaheim Richard MILLAN died July 30th in Laguna Hills Alexis WHITE died July 30th in Santa Ana Brian BOLES died July 31st in Garden Grove Aaron SPONSELLER died July 31st in Santa Ana Bradly GASTON died July 31st in Santa Ana May they rest in peace. And perpetual light shine upon them. Thank you to St Benizi Church, our neighbors in Fullerton, for hosting this monthly memorial on the 2nd Tuesday of every month. By the way, while you now meet in person, you continue to deny those of us who have asked for an ADA accomodation for our comments to be read aloud or we participate live virtually. You have the capacity to do so and I believe it would increase citizen participation. I urge you to reconsider your approach. Thank you for your time Pat Davis District 1 Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and typos.