Los Gatos City Council
September 12, 2023

PARTICIPATION IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS
How to participate: The Town of Los Gatos strongly encourages your active participation in the public process, which is the cornerstone of democracy. If you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please follow the participation instructions on page 2 of this agenda. If you wish to speak to an item NOT on the agenda, you may do so during the “Verbal Communications” period, by following the participation instructions on page 2 of this agenda. The time allocated to speakers may change to better facilitate the Town Council meeting.

Effective Proceedings: The purpose of the Town Council meeting is to conduct the business of the community in an effective and efficient manner. For the benefit of the community, the Town of Los Gatos asks that you follow the Town’s meeting guidelines while attending Town Council meetings and treat everyone with respect and dignity. This is done by following meeting guidelines set forth in State law and in the Town Code. Disruptive conduct is not tolerated, including but not limited to:
addressing the Town Council without first being recognized; interrupting speakers, Town Council or Town staff; continuing to speak after the allotted time has expired; failing to relinquish the podium when directed to do so; and repetitiously addressing the same subject.

Deadlines for Public Comment and Presentations are as follows:
 Persons wishing to make an audio/visual presentation on any agenda item must submit the presentation electronically, either in person or via email, to the Clerk’s Office no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting.
 Persons wishing to submit written comments to be included in the materials provided to Town Council must provide the comments as follows:
o For inclusion in any Addendum: by 11:00 a.m. the Monday before the Council meeting o For inclusion in any Desk Item: by 11:00 a.m. on the day of the Council Meeting

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING

COMMISSION

STUDY SESSION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
110 EAST MAIN STREET AND VIA TELECONFERENCE

LOS GATOS, CA
7:00 PM

Town Council Meetings Broadcast Live on KCAT, Channel 15 (on Comcast) on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m.

Rebroadcast of Town Council Meetings on the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m.

Live & Archived Council Meetings can be viewed by going to:
www.LosGatosCA.gov/TownYouTube

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE CLERK DEPARTMENT AT (408) 354-6834. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE TOWN TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING [28 CFR §35.102-35.104]

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION -

STUDY SESSION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
110 EAST MAIN STREET AND VIA TELECONFERENCE
7:00 PM

IMPORTANT NOTICE
This is a hybrid meeting and will be held in-person at the Town Council Chambers at 110 E.

Main Street and virtually through the Zoom webinar application (log-in information provided below). Members of the public may provide public comments for agenda items in-person or virtually through the Zoom webinar by following the instructions listed below. The live stream of the meeting may be viewed on television and/or online at www.LosGatosCA.gov/TownYouTube.

PARTICIPATION
To provide oral comments in real-time during the meeting:
 Zoom webinar: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join: https://losgatoscagov.zoom.us/j/82368611139?pwd=NW1qazZwWjZMQ1Q2VHZwMk5JbmZUdz09 Passcode: 147042 You can also type in 823 6861 1139 in the “Join a Meeting” page on the Zoom website at https://zoom.us/join.
o When the Mayor announces the item for which you wish to speak, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. If you are participating by phone on the Zoom app, press *9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand.
 Join by telephone: Join by Telephone: Dial: USA 877 336 1839 US Toll-free or 636 651 0008 US Toll. Conference code: 686100
o If you are participating by calling in, press #2 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand.
 In-Person: If you wish to speak during the meeting, please complete a “speaker’s card” located on the back of the chamber benches and return it to the Town Clerk. If you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please list the item number. The time allocated to speakers may change to better facilitate the Town Council meeting.

When called to speak, you may be asked to provide your full name and your town/city of residence. This identifying information is optional and not a requirement for participation. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes, or such other time as the Mayor may decide, consistent with the time limit for speakers at a Council meeting.

If you are unable to participate in real-time, you may email to [email protected] the subject line “Public Comment Item #__ ” (insert the item number relevant to your comment). Comments received by 11:00 a.m. the day of the meeting will be reviewed and distributed before the meeting.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
APPROVE REMOTE PARTICIPATION (This item is listed on the agenda in the event there is an emergency circumstance requiring a Council Member or Commissioner to participate remotely under AB 2449 (Government Code 54953)).

RULES OF DECORUM AND CIVILITY
To conduct the business of the community in an effective and efficient manner, please follow the meeting guidelines set forth in the Town Code and State law.

The Town does not tolerate disruptive conduct, which includes but is not limited to:
· Addressing the Town Council or Planning Commission without first being recognized; · Interrupting speakers, Town Council members, Planning Commissioners, or Town staff; · Continuing to speak after the allotted time has expired; · Failing to relinquish the microphone when directed to do so; · Repetitiously addressing the same subject.

Town Policy does not allow speakers to cede their commenting time to another speaker.

VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (As a Special Meeting, members of the public may address the Town Council and Planning Commission only on the agenda items. Unless additional time is authorized by the Mayor, remarks shall be limited to three minutes.) OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the following items.)

1. Receive and Discuss Information Regarding Statewide Housing Laws that Apply to Applications for Housing Development Projects in the Town.

ADJOURNMENT
Writings related to an item on the Town Council meeting agenda distributed to members of the Council within 72 hours of the meeting are available for public inspection at the front desk of the Los Gatos Town Library, located at 100 Villa Avenue, and are also available for review on the official Town of Los Gatos website. Copies of desk items distributed to members of the Council at the meeting are available for review in the Town Council Chambers.

Note: The Town of Los Gatos has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a decision of the Town Council must be brought within 90 days after the decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.

PREPARED BY: Gabrielle Whelan
Town Attorney
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/12/2023
ITEM NO: 1
DATE: September 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Receive and Discuss Information Regarding Statewide Housing Laws that Apply to Applications for Housing Development Projects in the Town RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and discuss information regarding statewide housing laws that apply to applications for housing development projects in the Town.

BACKGROUND:

The Town has received several questions regarding the impacts of State housing laws on the Town. This study session has been scheduled for the Town Council and Planning Commission to provide an opportunity to hear from statewide housing law expert, Barbara Kautz. Ms. Kautz will discuss the statewide housing laws that apply to projects in the Town and answer questions from the community. Barbara Kautz practices housing law with the firm of Goldfarb & Lipman, and before law school, she served as Community Development Director for the City of San Mateo. She has litigated many housing law issues in the State of California.

DISCUSSION:

The discussion will focus on the following State housing laws:
1) Senate Bill 330, which:
a. vests applicants who submit “SB 330 preliminary applications” to zoning standards in existence at the time the preliminary application is deemed submitted;
b. states that SB 330 preliminary applications are “deemed submitted” when the information required per state checklist of 17 items has been provided; and

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Receive and Discuss Information Regarding Statewide Housing Laws DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
c. limits the Town to no more five hearings on the project, including appeals. 2) The “Builder’s Remedy,” which precludes jurisdictions from denying projects based on nonconformity with zoning requirements if that jurisdiction does not have a Housing Element that was adopted in substantial compliance with State law. 3) Density Bonus Law, which authorizes applicants to seek a density bonus and incentives/concessions or waivers of development standards in exchange for providing the requisite percentages of affordable housing.
a. A “density bonus” is a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable density. An applicant need not seek a density bonus in order to request incentives/concessions or waivers in exchange for providing the required percentages of affordable housing units.
b. “Incentives/concessions” are defined as a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission. Examples are reductions in setback and square footage requirements and in the number of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required; approval of mixed-use zoning; or other proposals that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable units (Gov. Code Section 65915(k)). The statute limits a jurisdiction’s ability to deny a requested incentive/concession. A requested incentive/concession may be denied on the following grounds:
i. The requested incentive or concession would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Such a denial must be based on an adopted, objective standard.
ii. The requested incentive or concession would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
iii. The requested incentive or concession is contrary to State or Federal law. c. “Waivers of development standards” are defined as waivers of any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria [State density bonus law]. (Gov. Code Section 65915(e)) The statute limits a jurisdiction’s ability to deny a requested waiver. The permissible grounds for denial of a requested “waiver” is that the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Receive and Discuss Information Regarding Statewide Housing Laws DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
specific adverse impact. The health and safety standard needs to be an adopted, objective standard.
4) The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”):
a. Requires jurisdictions to analyze the environmental impacts of proposed projects, continues to apply to all development proposals. b. In some instances, the California Environmental Quality Act will provide that a project is statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA and no further analysis will be required.

CONCLUSION:

Staff looks forward to this discussion of statewide housing laws.

COORDINATION:

This report was coordinated with the Town Manager’s Office and the Community Development Department.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This study session will have no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, and no further action is required.

Attachment:

1. PowerPoint Presentation

California’s Housing
Laws
Barbara E. Kautz
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP
Town of Los Gatos Joint Town Council and
Planning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1

Presentation Overview
• Introduction: State Housing Policy
• The Builder’s Remedy
• Application and Process: Effect of Preliminary
Applications
• Other Key Laws: Density Bonuses, SB 35, AB 2011,
and Others
• Litigation, HCD, and the Courts
2

State Housing Policy
3

Making It Hard to Deny Housing Projects
“The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to
significantly increase the approval & 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 of, or render infeasible housing development
projects. This intent has not been fulfilled.”
4

The Builder’s Remedy
5

Key Provisions
Applies to “affordable”
projects with:
• 20% of the total units affordable
to lower-income households, or
• 100% of the units affordable to
moderate-income households
6

The Builder’s Remedy Provision
Additional finding to deny “affordable” projects:
• Town meeting RHNA numbers;
• Specific adverse impact to public health and safety;
• Deny to comply with state or federal law;
• Proposed on agricultural land or water/sewer inadequate, OR • Inconsistent with Zoning Ordinance & GP land use
designation; BUT must have a housing element in substantial conformance with state law, and not on a site designated in housing element for lower or moderate income housing.
7

Why Now?
• Enacted in 1982 as part of Housing Accountability
Act; but no published cases
• Many more cities not approved by HCD in sixth
cycle; much harder to be compliant
• Applies when Housing Element is not substantially
compliant with case law
• Publicized by UC Davis law professor; used in
Santa Monica; extensively publicized
8

Application and Process: The
Effect of Preliminary
Applications
9

Preliminary Applications (“SB 330 Applications”)
“Preliminary application” freezes development standards as of date all required info was submitted
• But project must meet these timelines:
• Project application must be filed within 180 days
• Applicant must complete application within 90 days of receiving incomplete letter
• Can change project by up to 20% of square footage or number of units or invoking density bonus and still rely on initial preliminary application
• BUT: Conditions and ordinances may be applied to mitigate environmental impacts
• Can be submitted for ANY housing project.
10

Preliminary Applications & Builder’s Remedy
Issue: Does the preliminary application freeze the
adequacy of the housing element at the time the
application was submitted?
• Not clear if housing element was inadequate when
preliminary application submitted, but adequate when
project reviewed
• Is element adequate when adopted or when HCD certifies? • HCD has opined that adequacy is frozen and HCD certification required.
• But HCD’s determinations are only its opinions, not law. 11

Other Key Processing Provisions
• Formal application subject to Permit Streamlining
Act
• Must review for completeness within 30 days of each
submittal, or “deemed complete”
• Once complete, staff must notify applicant in short
time (30 or 60 days) if there are any
“inconsistencies” – or “deemed consistent” with all
Town standards
• If “deemed consistent,” can probably not be denied for inconsistency
12

Other Key Processing Provisions
• Assumed to be consistent if “substantial evidence
would allow a reasonable person to assume
consistency”
• No rezoning required if general plan is
“inconsistent” with zoning
• Once project shown as suitable for lower or moderate
income housing in housing element, housing element
densities apply even if zoning has not been adopted.
13

CEQA
If project requires
discretionary approval,
CEQA still applies • Many exemptions
require general plan
conformance
• Mitigation measures can
be imposed
• But grounds for denial
unclear
14

Five-Meeting Limit
Project limited to 5 public meetings organized by
Town
• Exceptions:
• Meetings held before application is complete.
• Project not consistent with objective standards.
• Builder’s Remedy projects?
• Projects that require legislative approvals.
• Additional meetings required by CEQA (such as a scoping hearing). • Meetings not conducted by the Town.
15

Other Key Laws:

Density Bonuses, SB 35, “By
Right” Approval, AB 2011
16

Density Bonus Law
• Eligible project: 5% to 100% affordable housing
• Eligible projects entitled to receive:
• A density bonus [20 – 80%, or unlimited];
• 1 – 4 “incentives / concessions” [reduce costs]
• Unlimited waivers of development standards
• Reduced parking requirements.
• Density Bonus project = consistent with Town standards 17

Density Bonus Law
• Inclusionary units can qualify project for density
bonus (Latino Unidos v. County of Napa)
• Example:
• Town requires 10% to 20% lower or moderate
income units in projects with 5 or more units
• All of these projects are eligible for a density bonus (plus parking reductions, one or more concessions,
and unlimited waivers)
18

19 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-

SB 35 Projects (“Streamlined Review Process”)
Qualifying Projects:
• Multifamily residential with 50% lower income in Los Gatos • 2/3 residential square footage
• General plan or zoning allows residential or mixed use • No housing occupied by tenants within last 10 years
• More than 10 units = prevailing wages
• Consistent with objective standards; but can request
density bonus waivers if not
20

SB 35 Projects (“Streamlined Review Process”)
• Consistency review in 60 – 90 days after submittal
• Design review and decision in 90 – 180 Days
• Can only apply standard conditions
21

‘By Right’ Approvals
• No CEQA review
• Only objective design review; may impose
conditions
• Applies to:
• Certain housing element sites designated for lower
income housing if project has 20% lower income units
and no subdivision is needed.
• Certain supportive housing developments.
• Low barrier navigation centers.
• No accelerated timelines
22

Residential Development in Commercial Zones
AB 2011 and SB 6 allow multi-family residential development where it may not have been permitted previously:
• Applies in zones where commercial, retail or parking are principally permitted uses
• AB 2011: SB 35 timelines
• SB 6 allows SB 35 to be used on sites zoned commercial, with only 50% residential
• Effective July 1, 2023
23

Implications for Los Gatos
•Town is required to accept and approve
plans that conform with state law
•Even if inconsistent with Town’s adopted
policies
•Regardless of Town or community
concerns
24

Litigation, HCD, and the Courts
25

HCD and Attorney General Enforcement
• HCD Housing Accountability Unit with at least 25 staff • Broader and broader authority
• Letters of Technical Advice
• Notices of Violation
• Referral to Attorney General
• Attorney General has 12-person strike force that acts independently
26

Active Third-Party Litigants
•Have sued at least 10 SoCal cities and 12 Bay
Area cities (Californians for Homeownership,
YIMBY, California Housing Defense Fund) on
housing elements
•Often join in, or are plaintiffs, in litigation
related to denials of housing development
27

Housing Cases in General
•Courts:
• Generally very pro-housing
• Uphold housing approvals
• Overturn denials
•Town risks:
• Significant attorneys fees exposure
• High defense costs
• Possible damages
28

Thank You!
29

Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/12/2023
ITEM NO: 1

DESK ITEM
DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Receive and Discuss Information Regarding Statewide Housing Laws that Apply to Applications for Housing Development Projects in the Town REMARKS:

Attachment 2 contains public comments received before 11:01 a.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2023.

Attachment Previously Received with the Staff Report:

1. PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment Received with this Desk Item:

2. Public Comments

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:56 AM
To: Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Cc: Wendy Wood <[email protected]>; Laurel Prevetti <[email protected]>; bkautz Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen
Subject: Special Joint Meeting of Town Council and Planning Commission - Agenda Item #1 [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Gabrielle,
Would you please include the atached material in the informa�on package to be distributed to the Town Council, Planning Commission, and make it available on the Town’s website prior to Tuesday’s mee�ng.

The material is directly related to the topics being discussed at the study session, namely the Builder’s Remedy (Gov Code Sec�on 65589.5 (d), recent court ruling regarding the Builder’s Remedy (Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Canada Flintridge – LA Sup. Ct. July 11, 2023) and recently filed li�ga�on regarding a denial of a builder’s remedy applica�on (600 Foothill Owner LP v. City of La Canada Flintridge).

Addi�onally, the No�ce of Viola�on Leter issued by HCD to the City of La Canada Flintridge directly discusses a similar fact patern the Town of Los Gatos is facing regarding “selfcer�fica�on” of the Housing Element and the legal posi�on HCD has taken. The HCD leter is very informa�ve in that it directly addresses housing element compliance and the ves�ng right arising from a Builder’s Remedy.

I would hope that during Ms. Kautz discussion of current li�ga�on, court rulings and HCD, she can directly discuss the atached material, par�cularly the issue of “self-cer�fica�on” of the Town’s Housing Element in an effort of avoid builder’s remedy development applica�ons. The core issue the Town is dealing with is whether the Housing Element adopted by the Town Council on January 30, 2023, substan�ally complies with State Housing Law. All the issues regarding builder’s remedy applica�ons flow directly from this. You have publicly taken the posi�on that the adopted Housing Element does substan�ally comply, which sets the Town up for a poten�al legal challenge similar to the legal challenge the City of La Canada Flintridge is now experiencing. As Ms. Kautz notes in her presenta�on there are substan�al risks to the Town namely, high defense costs, possible damages, and significant atorney fees exposure.

The residents need to be educated as to what this all means.

What makes the Town’s use case so troubling is that on two occasions HCD has clearly stated that the adopted Housing Element does not comply. Worse in HCD’s April 14, 2023, comment leter (copy atached), HCD le� no doubt that the findings pursuant to GC sec�on 65585, sub (f)(2) made by the Town Council are “inadequate to demonstrate compliance with statutory

requirements”. This leaves the Town in a very precarious posi�on which Ms. Kautz is in a perfect posi�on to provide more clarity.

In Ms. Kautz presenta�on she men�ons that HCD’s determina�on are only its opinions, not law.

However, the courts have conveyed a reluctance to disturb HCD’s determina�ons on housing elements as long as some record of evidence allows the court to discern the department’s ra�onale. It appears that only where that ra�onale was both unexplained and inexplicable was the court willing to intervene. This is an area which hopefully Ms. Kautz could discuss as well.

We look forward to a complete, balanced, and open discussion of these issues. Much is riding on this. Hopefully, the addi�onal material will contribute to a construc�ve and educa�onal discussion.

Thank you,
Phil Koen

Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5
Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act
(a)
(1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the 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 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.
(I) An additional consequence of the state's cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California's cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J) California's housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K) The Legislature's intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (b) It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d). (c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is 2 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 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. 3 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

(4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5) The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (A) This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction's housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction'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 jurisdiction'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.
4 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(f)
(1) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction'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 this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction'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.
5 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3) "Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households" means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based. (4) "Area median income" means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years. (5) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, "deemed complete" means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.
(6) "Disapprove the housing development project" includes any instance in which a local agency does any 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. (C) Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (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, 2030, "objective" means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external 6 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

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, 2030, "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 the housing development project's application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderateincome 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).
(j)
(1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(2)
(A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
7 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

(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, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.
(4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(k)
(1)
(A)
(i) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii):
(I) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
8 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

(II) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (III)
(ia) Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted.
(ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. (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) 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 Trust 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 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 Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly 9 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(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.
(l) If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the court's order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes of this section, "bad faith" includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit. (m) Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court's order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of 10 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (n) In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner's points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent's points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. (o)
(1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances:
(A) In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction.
(B) A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
(C) Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(D) The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph:
(i) "Affordable housing project" means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements:
(I) Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. 11 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

(II) All of the units within the development, excluding managers' units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) "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:
(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, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. 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 12 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

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)
(A) This subdivision shall apply to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 before January 1, 2030. (B) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. (p) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.

Ca. Gov. Code § 65589.5
Amended by Stats 2022 ch 651 (AB 2234),s 1, eff. 1/1/2023.

Amended by Stats 2022 ch 632 (SB 1252),s 2, eff. 1/1/2023.

Amended by Stats 2021 ch 360 (AB 1584),s 8, eff. 1/1/2022.

Amended by Stats 2021 ch 161 (SB 8),s 1, eff. 1/1/2022.

Amended by Stats 2020 ch 165 (SB 1030),s 5, eff. 9/25/2020.

Amended by Stats 2019 ch 665 (AB 1743),s 3.1, eff. 1/1/2020.

Amended by Stats 2019 ch 654 (SB 330),s 3, eff. 1/1/2020.

Amended by Stats 2018 ch 243 (AB 3194),s 1, eff. 1/1/2019.

Amended by Stats 2018 ch 92 (SB 1289),s 114, eff. 1/1/2019.

Amended by Stats 2017 ch 378 (AB 1515),s 1.5, eff. 1/1/2018.

Amended by Stats 2017 ch 373 (AB 678),s 1, eff. 1/1/2018.

Amended by Stats 2017 ch 368 (SB 167),s 1, eff. 1/1/2018.

Amended by Stats 2016 ch 420 (AB 2584),s 1, eff. 1/1/2017.

Amended by Stats 2015 ch 349 (AB 1516),s 2, eff. 1/1/2016.

Amended by Stats 2010 ch 610 (AB 2762),s 2, eff. 1/1/2011.

Amended by Stats 2007 ch 633 (SB 2),s 4, eff. 1/1/2008.

Amended by Stats 2006 ch 888 (AB 2511),s 5, eff. 1/1/2007.

Amended by Stats 2005 ch 601 (SB 575),s 1, eff. 1/1/2006 Amended by Stats 2004 ch 724 (AB 2348),s 4, eff. 1/1/2005 Amended by Stats 2003 ch 793 (SB 619), s 3, eff. 1/1/2004.

Amended by Stats 2002 ch 147 (SB 1721), s 1, eff. 1/1/2003.

Amended by Stats 2001 ch 237 (AB 369), s 1, eff. 1/1/2002.

Previously Amended October 10, 1999 (Bill Number: SB 948) (Chapter 968). 13 Section 65589.5 - Housing Accountability Act Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5

California Lawyers Association, Environmental Law
Housing Element Non-Compliance Spurs Builder’s Remedy
Projects
August 31, 2023
CLA CLA eNews Environmental Law Section
Please share:

September 2023
By Justin A. Zucker
In 1969, the Legislature enacted California’s Housing Element Law.[1] Since then, local governments (cities and counties) must periodically adopt a housing element, which is a plan to accommodate their fair share of the “regional housing need” in their community.[2] In a two-step process, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) establishes the amount of housing at varying affordability levels for each locality. First, HCD establishes an amount needed for each region in the state. Second, the regional councils of governments apply a methodology to allocate the regional housing need to local governments.[3] The amount of housing each locality must plan for is known as its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA; pronounced ree-nah).

Housing elements must be updated every eight years, or five years for some rural areas.[4] Housing elements must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and include goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and programs for the preservation and development of housing. [5] California is in its sixth statewide housing element update cycle.

To be compliant, each of the 539 local jurisdictions in California must obtain certification of substantial compliance with its housing element from HCD. This means that HCD has completed its review of the jurisdiction’s adopted housing element and issued a review letter finding the element in compliance with the Housing Element Law.

A local jurisdiction’s failure to adopt a substantially compliant housing element results in several repercussions. One is commonly known as the “builder’s remedy,” which was previously a little-known provision added to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) in 1990.[6] The builder’s remedy removes a jurisdiction’s local control over certain low-income housing development projects, specifically those providing either 20% of the units as lower income (80% area mean income (AMI)) or 100% of the units as moderate income (120% AMI).[7]
A local jurisdiction without a compliant adopted housing element cannot use its general plan and zoning standards to reject builder’s remedy projects. Only if specific findings of adverse impacts to health or safety are found can a local jurisdiction apply local zoning development controls.

Up until the most recent housing element cycle, local jurisdictions have easily achieved compliance.

Starting in 2017, a spate of legislative changes to the Housing Element Law, however, changed that

paradigm. Compliance with the Housing Element Law became no longer a check-the-box exercise, resulting in numerous jurisdictions across the state failing to timely adopt a substantially compliant housing element during the sixth cycle. As of August 24, 2023, of California’s 539 jurisdictions, 198 had not adopted a substantially compliant housing element. Consequently, builder’s remedy projects have popped up across the state, including in the coastal towns of Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, and Claremont, and the ritzy Beverly Hills down south, as well as Mountain View, San Jose, Los Gatos, and San Rafael in the San Francisco Bay Area and Davis and beyond.

A case this summer tested whether a local jurisdiction could achieve certification of substantial compliance of its housing element by other means.[8] Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Canada Flintridge is the first trial court case this author is aware of addressing attempts by local jurisdictions to self-certify their own housing elements. In Californians for Homeownership, the court held the City of La Canada Flintridge failed to timely adopt a housing element and could not self-certify its housing element to avoid penalties like the builder’s remedy, which are intended to incentivize compliance.[9]
A mere 10 days after the Californians for Homeownership decision was published, a developer sued La Canada Flintridge for denying its builder’s remedy application in May 2023.[10] Four days later, a housing advocacy organization sued La Canada Flintridge for denial of the same project. How things play out in La Canada Flintridge and across California with respect to builder’s remedy projects is yet to be seen, but it will certainly be an interesting saga to pay attention to.

Justin A. Zucker is on the Executive Committee of the Environmental Law Section of both the California Lawyer’s Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco. He is an attorney at Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP, where his practice focuses on land use, environmental, and administrative law, concentrating on urban in-fill multi-family and mixed-use development. He is also Vice Chair of the Piedmont Planning Commission and Board Member of the Housing Action Coalition. [1] Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65580, et seq. (West 2023).
[2] Cal. Gov’t Code § 65584.01 (West 2023).
[3] Cal. Gov’t Code § 65584(d) (West 2023).
[4] Cal. Govt’ Code § 65588 (West 2023).
[5] Cal. Gov’t Code § 65583 (West 2023).
[6] S.B. 2011, 1990-1991 Reg., Legis. Sess. (Cal. 1990), now codified as Cal. Gov’t Code § 65589.5(d). [7] Cal. Gov’t Code § 65595.5(d)(5) (West 2023).
[8] Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Canada Flintridge (LA Sup.Ct. July 11, 2023) Case No. 23STCP00699.
[9] Id. at *29.
[10] 600 Foothill Owner LP v. City of La Cañada Flintridge (LA Sup.Ct., filed July 21, 2023) Case No. 23STCP02575.

Related Content

« Thankful for a Remarkable Journey
Just Do the Right Thing »

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.hcd.ca.gov
June 8, 2023
Mark R. Alexander, City Manager
City of La Cañada Flintridge
One Civic Center Drive
La Cañada Flintridge, CA 91011
Dear Mark R. Alexander:

RE: City of La Cañada Flintridge Denial of 600 Foothill Boulevard Housing Project – Notice of Violation
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) writes to notify the City of La Cañada Flintridge (City), and its City Council, that it is in violation of State Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code, § 65589.5). This violation occurred when the City, despite technical assistance from HCD, denied an appeal related to the application of the housing project at 600 Foothill Boulevard (Project). The City did so by adopting Resolution 23-14, which purports to uphold the Planning Division’s incompleteness determination for the Project application, issued on March 1, 2023.

The basis for the City’s denial includes, among other findings:

1. that Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), colloquially referred to as the Builder’s Remedy, does not apply and is not available for the Project; and

2. that the Project did not “vest” as a Builder’s Remedy project as alleged in the Project’s preliminary application because the City’s housing element, adopted on October 4, 2022 (October 4, 2022, Adopted Housing Element), was in compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.).

Based on HCD’s review of pertinent information in the City’s own staff report, these findings are flawed. The City cannot “backdate” its housing element compliance date to an earlier date so as to avoid approving a Builder’s Remedy application. In short, the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element did not substantially comply with State Housing Element Law, regardless of any declaration by the City. Therefore, the Builder’s Remedy applies, and the City’s denial of the Project application based on inconsistency with zoning and land use designation is a violation of the HAA.

Mark R. Alexander, City Manager

HCD further reminds the City that, as of the date of this letter, the City remains out of compliance with Housing Element Law unless and until it completes statutorily required rezoning.

Background
The Project is proposed as an 80-unit mixed-use project where 20 percent of the units (16 units) will be affordable to lower-income households. The residential portion equates to approximately 89 percent of the Project; therefore, the Project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2)(B)). The base density proposed for this Project is approximately 40.5 units per acre before the application of density bonus under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915- 65918). HCD understands the timeline for the Project as follows:
• On November 11, 2022, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1, the Project applicant submitted a preliminary application that was vested on November 14, 2023, after payment of application fees.
• A full application was submitted to the City for the Project on January 13, 2023, and fees were paid on the invoice on January 31, 2023. By submitting this full application within the 180-day period prescribed by Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (d)(1), the applicant established November 14, 2023 (the date it submitted the preliminary application) as the vesting date of the application.
• On February 10, 2023, the City’s planning division issued the first incompleteness letter on this application, which cited information required for the site plan, floor plan, elevation, landscape plans, grading plans, and the density bonus application, among other things. The letter did not comment on density or development standards relating to the Mixed-Use 2 designation. • On March 1, 2023, the City’s planning division issued a second incompleteness letter that further found that the Builder’s Remedy would not apply to the Project, that the Project was therefore inconsistent with the Mixed-Use 2 designation, and that the applicant must submit revised plans and materials based on a density of 12-15 units per acre.
• On March 9, 2023, the applicant appealed this incompleteness letter to the City Council.
• On March 22, 2023, HCD provided a Letter of Technical Assistance to the City to help with decision-making related to this appeal.
• On May 1, 2023, the City Council heard and denied the appeal by adopting Resolution 23-14. The Resolution found the following:
o the Builder’s Remedy under the HAA did not apply and is not available for the Project; and
o the Project did not “vest” as a Builder’s Remedy project as alleged in the Project’s SB 330 Preliminary Application (submitted November 14, 2022) because the City’s October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law, regardless of HCD’s finding to the contrary.

Mark R. Alexander, City Manager

Housing Element Compliance
The City’s determination that the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law is incorrect and unsupported by law. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, a local jurisdiction must first submit a draft housing element to HCD and receive HCD’s findings before formally adopting a revised housing element. If HCD finds the draft element is not substantially compliant, the local jurisdiction must revise the draft to address any findings by HCD (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(1)) or adopt the housing element without changes and include written findings explaining why the local jurisdiction believes that the draft substantially complies (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(2)). Promptly following adoption, the local jurisdiction must submit the adopted housing element to HCD (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (g)) and receive findings on the adopted element from HCD (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (h)). The following represents the record of housing element submittals to HCD and HCD’s formal responses.
• October 6, 2021 – The City submitted the initial draft housing element to HCD. • October 15, 2021 – Due date of 6th cycle housing element per State Housing Element Law.
• December 3, 2021 – Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), HCD found the draft housing element required significant revisions to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.
• October 4, 2022 – The City adopted a housing element that failed to address adequately the findings in HCD’s letter of December 3, 2021. The resolution adopting the housing element made none of the findings required by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (f)(2).
• October 7, 2022 – The City submitted the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element for HCD’s review.
• December 6, 2022 – HCD found the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element required critical revisions to comply with state law, including additional analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of the sites included in its site inventory and policy and programmatic changes pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h).
• February 21, 2023 – The City adopted a housing element which addressed adequately the findings in HCD’s December 6, 2022 letter. As part of this adoption, the City further stated that the City’s housing element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element law as of the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element.
• February 23, 2023 – The City submitted the revised, adopted housing element for HCD’s review.
• April 24, 2023 – HCD found the revised adopted housing element was not in substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b). HCD made this finding because the City adopted the element on February 21, 2023, more than one year past the statutory due date of October 15, 2021. As a result, and pursuant to Government Code section

Mark R. Alexander, City Manager

65588, subdivision (e)(4)(C)(iii), the City must complete required rezones in Program 1 (Adequate Residential Sites to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), Program 4 (Downtown Village Specific Plan), Program 5 (Religious Institution Housing Overlay), and Program 6 (By Right Approval for Projects with 20 percent Affordable Units) prior to being found in substantial compliance.

A local jurisdiction has no authority to determine that its adopted element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.
1 It may, however, provide
reasoning why HCD should make a finding of substantial compliance (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(2)). As stated in HCD’s letter dated March 22, 2023, a local jurisdiction is “in compliance” as of the date of HCD’s letter finding the adopted element in substantial compliance. A local jurisdiction cannot “backdate” compliance to the date of its adoption of a housing element.
2 Moreover, by revising its October 4, 2022 Adopted
Housing Element (in response to HCD’s findings made on December 6, 2022), the City directly contradicted its declaration that that Adopted Housing Element substantially complied with State Housing Element Law. In short, the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element did not substantially comply with State Housing Element Law, regardless of any declaration by the City.

Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
Resolution 23-14 improperly blocks the Project applicant from utilizing protections provided in the HAA. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d), a jurisdiction shall not disapprove a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households3 or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of five findings in subdivision (d).

If HCD does not find a local jurisdiction’s adopted housing element in substantial compliance by the statutory deadline, the jurisdiction cannot use subdivision (d)(5) of Government Code section 65589.5 (inconsistency with zoning and general plan standards) as a basis to deny a qualifying affordable housing project. 1 See “Housing Compliance Memo,” State Department of Housing and Community Development, March 16, 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-andcommunity/memos/HousingElementComplianceMemo03162023.pdf. 2 Ibid. 3 “Housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3)).

Mark R. Alexander, City Manager

Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), allows a local agency to disapprove an affordable housing project that “is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan” if “the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element … that is in substantial compliance….” Here, because the City does not have a substantially compliant housing element, it may not disapprove an affordable housing project for inconsistency with the zoning and land use designation.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (a), the submittal of a complete preliminary application vests the right to develop a housing development project in accordance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when a preliminary application is submitted (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (o)(1)). Therefore, if the preliminary application submittal occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, and the development submittal occurs within the 180-day required period thereafter (Gov. Code, § 65941.1, subd. (d)(1)), the jurisdiction cannot rely upon zoning and land use standards to deny an affordable housing project because the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status was vested, and shall remain, throughout the entitlement process. This rule applies even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance.

As the adopted housing element was not in substantial compliance as of November 14, 2022 (the date of preliminary application submittal), the City cannot use Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), to deny the project.

Yet on March 1, 2023, the City issued an incompleteness letter that found that the Builder’s Remedy would not apply to the Project, that the Project was therefore inconsistent with the land use designation, and that as a result, the applicant must submit revised plans.4 On May 1, 2023, the City Council denied the applicant’s appeal by adopting Resolution 23-14, which found that the Builder’s Remedy did not apply. Although the City Council did not directly vote on or deny a proposed housing development on the site, Resolution 23-14 upheld the planning division’s March 1, 2023 letter, which denied the 80-unit Project as submitted and directed the applicant to submit new site plans and a new project consistent with the Mixed-Use 2 zone density of 12-15 units per acre.

The City’s adoption of Resolution 23-14 therefore effectively denied the Project as proposed in violation of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d) and (h)(6)(A)). 4 The City’s March 1, 2023, letter appears to incorrectly determine the Project application was incomplete because the Project was inconsistent with zoning standards. Inconsistency with local zoning standards is a reason to deny an application in some circumstances, but it is not a basis for deeming an application incomplete. The City’s finding therefore conflicts with the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65943, subd. (a)) and the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65941.1, subd. (d)(1)).

Mark R. Alexander, City Manager

Conclusion
The City violated state law by claiming, without any factual or legal justification, that the Builder’s Remedy did not apply to the Project application (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5)). In addition, pursuant to HCD’s housing element findings letter dated April 24, 2023, the City remains out of compliance with State Housing Element Law. Please note HCD’s review of the May 1, 2023, action to deny the appeal of the March 1, 2023 letter was made in furtherance of, and limited to, a determination of the City’s compliance with State Housing Element Law and the HAA. Accordingly, HCD expresses no opinion as to whether the City has complied with, or is excused from, any other provisions of the Government Code governing review and approval of development applications.

Under Government Code section 65585, HCD must review any action or failure to act that it determines to be inconsistent with either an adopted housing element or Government Code section 65583. HCD must then issue written findings to the local government (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)). Additionally, HCD must notify a local government when that local government takes actions that violate Government Code sections 65589.5 and 65583 and may notify the California Office of the Attorney General (Gov. Code, § 65585, subds. (i)(1) and (j)). By this letter, HCD has done so.

The City has until June 22, 2023, to provide a written response to this Notice. HCD will consider any written response before taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), including, but not limited to, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact [email protected].

Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
cc: David Pai, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice (via email)
Susan Koleda, AICP, Community Development Director (via email)

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.hcd.ca.gov
April 14, 2023
Laurel Prevetti, City Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Laurel Prevetti:

RE: Town of Los Gatos’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the Town of Los Gatos’ (Town) adopted housing element received for review on February 13, 2023. In addition, the Town submitted draft revisions on March 31, 2023. However, these revisions are not considered as part of this review. The Town, in adopting the element, also made findings pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (f)(2). These findings appear intended to explain the reasoning the element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) despite findings made by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in its January 12, 2023 prior review.

However, the Town’s findings are inadequate to demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements, and revisions to the element continue to be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), HCD is reporting the results of its review:
• Local Findings of Substantial Compliance: The Town prepared findings that appear intended to explain the reasoning the element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law despite HCD findings in the prior review. However, these findings do not provide content, reasoning, or response to HCD’s findings that the prior draft element does not substantially comply with State Housing Element Law. For example, HCD’s prior review has various findings regarding an assessment of fair housing and appropriate policies and programs to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). The Town’s findings do not address this essential statutory requirement. Similar issues persist throughout the Town’s findings where statutory requirements are not addressed in any meaningful way or where broad statements of statutory requirements are made but no content, reasoning, or response is provided in regard to these statutory requirements or HCD’s prior findings.

The Town’s findings only appear to make an attempt at meeting statutory requirements related to calculations of realistic residential capacity, suitability of I

Laurel Prevetti, City Manager

sites, and potential for redevelopment on nonvacant sites–narrow issues among many statutory requirements. However, these findings do not address the full extent of statutory requirements and HCD’s prior findings.

Regarding the calculation of realistic residential capacity, the Town appears to be using minimum densities, which is an acceptable approach. However, the element and the findings do not appear to clarify or commit to this approach. The element simply changes the calculations, but there is no explanation that minimum densities are required or programmatic commitment to the minimum densities utilized. For example, for the North Forty Specific Plan, Program D (Additional Housing Capacity) does not commit to minimum densities, and minimum and maximum densities seem to be coterminous, which is generally considered a constraint on development. Also, the element does not make a commitment to require residential uses in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses so the element and findings are not responsive to HCD’s findings regarding the likelihood of residential development.

Regarding suitability of sites and redevelopment potential on nonvacant sites in the planning period, the Town’s findings explain that a few sites are added and simply mention that existing uses do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development in the planning period due to the submittal of property owner interest forms. First, this finding does not address that the use will likely discontinue during the planning period as required by statute. Second, the Town’s finding does not address several other statutory areas of HCD’s findings such as replacement requirements, small sites, appropriate zoning for lowerincome households, infrastructure, and zoning for a variety of housing types.

Third, simply stating a property owner submitted an interest form is not an affirmative demonstration of interest in residential development in the planning period. There is no discussion of the form and methods of gathering the information. Finally, but not exhaustively, many identified sites do not describe owner interest, and there is no other information or reasoning to explain how the Town complies with these requirements despite HCD’s findings.

For these and many other reasons, the Town’s findings do not explain the reasoning as to how the element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law despite HCD’s findings in the prior review. • Adopted Housing Element and HCD’s Findings: The Town’s adopted element essentially contains no revisions to address HCD’s prior findings. The adopted element contains minimal revisions regarding utilizing minimum densities (although not consistently) to calculate residential capacity and adds a few sites but otherwise provides no content to address HCD’s January 12, 2023 review.

For these reasons, HCD will not repeat its findings and refers the Town to HCD’s prior review.

Laurel Prevetti, City Manager

• Revisions Submitted for HCD’s Review: The Town submitted revisions to HCD on March 31, 2023. These revisions have not been considered in this review for various reasons, including the timing of the submittal as well as the importance of responding directly to the Town’s findings pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (f)(2). HCD has considered these revisions as a separate submission and will be reviewed expeditiously, to the extent possible. HCD recognizes the Town’s commitment to address HCD’s findings as noted in Resolution 2023-006 and fully appreciates the opportunity to cooperate with the Town to help the Town meet statutory requirements and substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the Town fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed.

Please be aware that AB 2339, codified in Government Code section 65583 adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient and suitable capacity. Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements. For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planningand-community/ab2339-notice.pdf.

Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the Town should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website, and a link to the revisions must be emailed to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting

Laurel Prevetti, City Manager

requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the Town will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the Town to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

We are committed to assist the Town in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jose Armando Jauregui, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager