Mountain View City Council
February 11, 2025

Oct 9, 2024
MountainViewCityCouncil500CastroSt.MountainView,CA94041 Re:Builder’sRemedyProjectsinMountainView
Byemail: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected] DearMountainViewCityCouncilandCitySta,
TheCaliforniaHousingDefenseFund(“CalHDF”)submitsthislettertorequestthattheCouncilandcitysta complywithitsobligationstoprocessproposedbuilder’sremedyprojectsunderallrelevantstateandfederallaws.

AccordingtotheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment’sAugust2024report,theCityisprocessinganumberofbuilder’sremedyapplications:
● 294-296TyrellaAvenue-7-story,85-unitapartmentbuilding● 1500N.ShorelineBoulevard-1,914unitprojectineightbuildings,each9-15stories● 1920GamelWay-six-story,216-unitcondominiumproject● 2645–2655FayetteDrive-7-story,70-unitapartmentbuilding● 901,913,and987NorthRengstorAvenue-15-story,455-unitapartmentdevelopment TheCityisrequiringtheseprojectstocomplywithnumerousaspectsofitsmunicipalcodethattogetherrendertheprojectsinfeasible.TheCity’sactionsareaviolationoftheHousingAccountabilityAct(“HAA”).Separately,theCity’scontinuedimpositionoffeesinlieuofadedicationofparklandisinviolationoftheconstitutionalprohibitiononexactionsinexcessoftheimpactsofproposeddevelopment. 360GrandAve#323,Oakland94610www.calhdf.org

I. TheCityCannotRequireBuilder’sRemedyProjectsToComplywithZoningandGeneralPlanStandards Densityandheightstandardsarenottheonlydevelopmentstandardsthatprecludehousingdevelopment.TheHAArequiresthat(emphasisadded)“Alocalagencyshallnotdisapproveahousingdevelopmentproject,includingfarmworkerhousingasdeinedinsubdivision(h)ofSection50199.7oftheHealthandSafetyCode,forverylow,low-,ormoderate-incomehouseholds,oranemergencyshelter,orconditionapprovalinamannerthatrendersthehousingdevelopmentprojectinfeasiblefordevelopmentfortheuseofverylow,low-,ormoderate-incomehouseholds,oranemergencyshelter,includingthroughtheuseofdesignreviewstandards,unlessitmakeswrittenindings,baseduponapreponderanceoftheevidenceintherecord,astooneofthefollowing…” (Gov.Code,65589.5,subd.(d).) Basedonourenforcementwork,theCityhassomeofthehighestparkfeesinthestate.Infact,theCityitselfhascometotheconclusionthattheyareabarriertohousing.FromtheCity’sHousingElement,AppendixD,“TheeconomicanalysisthattheCityconductedaspartofthisHousingElementUpdate(seeAppendixH)foundthatMountainView’sparkdedicationrequirementshaveamoderatetomajorimpactondevelopmentcostsforrowhousesandamajorimpactondevelopmentcostsformultifamilydevelopment.” GiventhestaggeringlandcostsintheCity,andthefactthattheprojectsmustprovide20%low-incomehousing,alsorequiringmorethan$70,000inparksfeesperunitisaclearviolationofstatelaw.(SeeGov.Code,65589.5,subd.(d).) TheCity’sviewisthatitcanapplyany/allprovisionsofitscodetotheseprojects,providedthattheydonotpertainspeciicallytodensity,basedonitsreadingofGovernmentCode,Section65589.5,subdivisions(f)(1)and(f)(3).Thisisincorrect.Subdivision(f)(1)allowscitiestoapplydevelopmentstandardstohousingdevelopmentsifthosestandardsare“appropriateto,andconsistentwith,meetingthejurisdiction’sshareoftheregionalhousingneed”andthatthesestandardsmustbe“appliedtofacilitateandaccommodatedevelopmentatthedensitypermittedonthesiteandproposedbythedevelopment.”Builder’sremedyprojectsonlyarisewhenaCityhasfailedtoadequatelyplanforitsshareofhousingproductionrequiredunderitsRegionalHousingNeedsAllocation(“RHNA”).Inthissituation,noneofajurisdiction’sdevelopmentstandardsareconsistentwithmeetinghousingproductiongoals,becausethatjurisdictionhasfailedtoproduceaplantojustifyitspoliciesatall.Andagain,theCityherehasadmittedthatthestandardinquestionisamajorfactorinmakinghousingdevelopmentinfeasible.ThereissimplynowaythatrequiringadedicationofparklandfromnewhousingdevelopmentisconsistentwithmeetingtheCity’sRHNAgoals.

Theparklanddedicationrequirementisalsonotcoveredbysubdivision(f)(3).Thatprovisionallowscitiestoapply“feesandotherexactionsauthorizedbystatelaw.” Theparkland 2of5
dedicationrequirementisnotanexaction,becauseifitwereitwouldbeprohibitedunderstatelaw.TheMitigationFeeActallowsformunicipalitiestoimposemonetaryexactionsondevelopmentprojects,butrequiresthatcertainproceduresarefollowed.Critically,municipalitiesmustestablishthatexactionsarerelatedto(Gov.Code,§66001,subd.(b))andproportionatewith(Gov.Code,§66005,subd.(a))identiiedimpactsofthenewdevelopment.Citiesnormallyestablishthisrelationshipthroughanexusstudy.Heretheparklanddedicationrequirementisagenerallyapplicablezoningrequirement,notanexaction.WhileothercitieshaveenactedsimilarpoliciesundertheMitigationFeeAct,MountainViewdidnotconductanexusstudyorotherwiseestablishthededicationrequirementasmitigatingtheimpactsoftheproposeddevelopment.Lastly,thededicationrequirement,evenifviewedasanexaction,isnotauthorizedbylawbecauseitviolatestheU.S.Constitution.(SeeSectionII,infra.) Inaccordancewithgeneralinterpretiveprovisionsforstatutes,andduetostatutoryconstructionrules(CodeCiv.Proc.,§1859),suchgeneralprotectionsof(f)(1)and(f)(3)donotoverruletheparticularprovisionsofGovernmentCode,Section65589.5,subdivision(d).TheCitymaynotconditionapprovaltorequiretheprojectstoadheretothesevariouscodesectionswithoutmakinghealthandsafetyindingsasrequiredbytheHAA.(Id.atsubd.(d)(2).)Finally,thelegislatureclearlyestablishesthatitisthepolicyoftheStatethattheHousingAccountabilityActshallbe“interpretedandimplementedinamannertoaordthefullestpossibleweighttotheinterestof,andtheapprovalandprovisionof,housing.”(Id.at(a)(2)(L).)AllowingcitiestoapplyconditionsofapprovalthatrenderaordablehousingdevelopmentsinfeasiblethroughstrainedinterpretationsisclearlyagainstthepolicyoftheStateofCalifornia.(SeeCaliforniaRentersLegalAdvocacy&EducationFundv.CityofSanMateo(2021)68Cal.App.5th820,854.) Giventhattheseconditionshaveatremendouslyadverseimpactonprojectviability,iftheCityinsistsonapplyingthesevariousconditionsontheproposedbuilder’sremedyprojects,thestatelaw(id.atsubd.(i))statesclearlythatitwillbeartheburdenofproofincourt(emphasisadded):
“Ifanycity,county,orcityandcountydeniesapprovalorimposesconditions,includingdesignchanges,lowerdensity,orareductionofthepercentageofalotthatmaybeoccupiedbyabuildingorstructureundertheapplicableplanningandzoninginforceatthetimethehousingdevelopmentproject’sapplicationiscomplete,thathaveasubstantialadverseeectontheviabilityoraordabilityofahousingdevelopmentforverylow,low-,ormoderate-incomehouseholds,andthedenialofthedevelopmentortheimpositionofconditionsonthedevelopmentisthesubjectofacourtactionwhichchallengesthedenialortheimpositionofconditions,thentheburdenofproofshallbeonthelocallegislativebodytoshowthatitsdecisionisconsistentwiththeindingsasdescribedinsubdivision(d),andthattheindingsare 3of5
supportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceintherecord,andwiththerequirementsofsubdivision(o).” II. TheParklandDedicationRequirementisaPerSeRegulatoryTakingUndertheFifthAmendmentoftheUSConstitution,andIn-lieuFeeisanUnconstitutionalCondition TheFifthAmendmentoftheConstitutionprohibitsgovernmentsfromtakingprivatepropertywithoutjustcompensation. TheFifthAmendmenthasbeeninterpretedbytheU.S.SupremeCourttoprohibitzoningandlanduse regulationsthateectivelydepriveanownerofprotectedpropertyrights.(SeePennCentralTransportationCo.v.NewYorkCity(1978)438U.S.104.) Perhapsthemostclearcutregulatorytakingoccurswhenalanduseregulationallowsforapermanentphysical occupationofprivateproperty.(Lorettov.TeleprompterManhattanCatvCorp.(1982)458U.S.419.)ThereisperhapsnomoreobviousexampleofaviolationoftheregulatorytakingdoctrinethanthepolicyenactedbyMountainViewhere.TheCityrequires,throughzoningregulation,thatpropertyownersdeedtheirprivatepropertyovertotheCitywithoutjustcompensation,forpublicuseasapark.Thefactthatthisdedicationisonlyrequiredasaconditionofapprovalforresidentialdevelopmentdoesnotallowittoescapeconstitutionalscrutiny.TheSupremeCourthaslongheldthatregulatoryconditionsondevelopmentapprovalsthatwouldotherwiseconstitutetakingsmustbereasonablyrelatedtomitigatingimpactsofthatdevelopment,androughlyproportionaltothoseimpacts.(Nollanv.CaliforniaCoastalComm'n(1987)483U.S.825(Nollan);Dolanv.CityofTigard(1994)512U.S.374(Dolan).)TheCityhasestablishednosuchrelationshipbecauseitcannot.Adesiretoacquireanddevelopparklandisnotanimpactofnewdevelopmenttobemitigated,andevenifitwere,the$70,000perunitfeeiswildlyoutofproportiontoanypurportedimpact.TheCityisfreetoacquirepropertyfornewparksbyacquiringpropertyontheprivatemarket,orbyuseofeminentdomainpowersprovidingjustcompensationtopropertyowners,butitcannotsimplyenactaregulationrequiringthatdevelopersgivelandtotheCitywithoutjustcompensation.

TheCityperhapsenactedtheparklanddedicationpolicyunderthemistakenimpressionthatitisrenderedlegalbyallowingdeveloperstopayafeein-lieuofdedicatinglandforparks.PriorCaliforniacaselawhadindicatedthatlegislativelyenactedfeesarenotsubjecttoconstitutionaltakingslimits.(SanRemoHotelv.CityandCountyofSanFrancisco(2002)27Cal.4th643,668.)Recently,theU.S.SupremeCourtdecidedthatthisisdeinitelynotthecase.(Sheetzv.Cnty.ofElDorado(2024)601U.S.267.)InSheetz,theCaliforniaCourtofAppealhadruledthatatraficimpactfeewasnotsubjecttotherequirementsofNollanandDolan,becauseitwasalegislativelyenactedexaction,followingtheSanRemoHoteldecision.(Sheetzv.CountyofElDorado(2022)84Cal.App.5th394,407.)TheU.S.SupremeCourtoverturnedthisruling,indingthatfeesimposedaslegislativeenactmentsaresubjecttoNollanandDolan.(Sheetz,601U.S.at280.)AftertheSheetzdecision,thereisnoquestionthattheNollanandDolanstandardsapplytotheparklanddedicationandin-lieufee 4of5
requirementsatissueforthesedevelopments.BecausetheCityhasnotestablishedanynexusbetweennewdevelopmentandtheneedtoacquireanddevelopparkland,northatthe$70,000feeisproportionatetoanyimpactsofnewhousingonparkland,theCityisprohibitedfromapplyingthispolicytonewhousingdevelopmentincludingtheiveproposalscurrentlyunderconsideration. ⬢⬢⬢
Asyouarewellaware,Californiaremainsinthethroesofastatewidecrisis-levelhousingshortage.Ifwedonotallowsuficienthousingdevelopment,moreandmoreCalifornianswillbecomeandremainhomeless.CalHDFurgestheCitytoapprovethesebuilder’sremedyprojectswithoutimposingtheconditions,asisrequiredbystateandfederal law. IftheCitydeclinestoheedtheaboveguidanceandimposestheparkdedicationrequirementsontheseoranyotherhousingdevelopments,CalHDFispreparedtobringlegalactiontoinvalidatetheseconditionsandthecitywidepolicy.

CalHDFisa501(c)3non-proitcorporationwhosemissionincludesadvocatingforincreasedaccesstohousingforCaliforniansatallincomelevels,includinglow-incomehouseholds.YoumaylearnmoreaboutCalHDFatwww.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
DylanCaseyCalHDFExecutiveDirector
JamesM.LloydCalHDFDirectorofPlanningandInvestigations
5of5