Mountain View City Council
February 11, 2025

Nov 12, 2024
MountainViewZoningAdministrator500CastroSt.MountainView,CA94041 Re:ProposedHousingDevelopmentProjectat294-296TyrellaAve Byemail: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected] DearMountainViewZoningAdministratorandCitySta,
TheCaliforniaHousingDefenseFund(“CalHDF”)submitsthislettertorequestthattheZoningAdministratorandcitystacomplywiththeirobligationstoprocesstheproposed7-story,85-unitcondominiumbuildingat294-296TyrellaAvenueunderallrelevantstateandfederallaws.

TheCityisrequiringthisproject,andothersitisconsidering,tocomplywithnumerousaspectsofitsmunicipalcodethattogethermayrendertheprojectinfeasible.TheCity’sactionsareaviolationoftheHousingAccountabilityAct(“HAA”).Separately,theCity’scontinuedimpositionoffeesinlieuofadedicationofparklandisinviolationoftheconstitutionalprohibitiononexactionsinexcessoftheimpactsofproposeddevelopment.

I. TheCityCannotRequireBuilder’sRemedyProjectsToComplywithZoningandGeneralPlanStandards Densityandheightstandardsarenottheonlydevelopmentstandardsthatprecludehousingdevelopment.TheHAArequiresthat(emphasisadded)“Alocalagencyshallnotdisapproveahousingdevelopmentproject,includingfarmworkerhousingasdeinedinsubdivision(h)ofSection50199.7oftheHealthandSafetyCode,forverylow,low-,ormoderate-incomehouseholds,oranemergencyshelter,orconditionapprovalinamannerthatrendersthehousingdevelopmentprojectinfeasiblefordevelopmentfortheuseofverylow,low-,ormoderate-incomehouseholds,oranemergencyshelter,includingthroughtheuseof 360GrandAve#323,Oakland94610www.calhdf.org

designreviewstandards,unlessitmakeswrittenindings,baseduponapreponderanceoftheevidenceintherecord,astooneofthefollowing…”(Gov.Code,65589.5,subd.(d).)Basedonourenforcementwork,theCityhassomeofthehighestparkfeesinthestate.Infact,theCityitselfhascometotheconclusionthattheyareabarriertohousing.FromtheCity’sHousingElement,AppendixD,“TheeconomicanalysisthattheCityconductedaspartofthisHousingElementUpdate(seeAppendixH)foundthatMountainView’sparkdedicationrequirementshaveamoderatetomajorimpactondevelopmentcostsforrowhousesandamajorimpactondevelopmentcostsformultifamilydevelopment.”Thetransportationimpactfeealsoharmsprojectviability,asdoesimpositionoftheCity’sbelow-markethousingregulations.

GiventhestaggeringlandcostsintheCity,andthefactthattheprojectmustprovide20%low-incomehousing(directlymitigatingtheCity’sshortageoflower-incomehousing),alsorequiring$67,800inparksfeesperunitisaclearviolationofstatelaw.(SeeGov.Code,65589.5,subd.(d).)Evenata“discounted”rateof$54,240,theseparksfeesarecompletelyuneconomical.

TheCity’sviewisthatitcanapplyany/allprovisionsofitscodetothisproject,providedthattheydonotpertainspeciicallytodensity,basedonitsreadingofGovernmentCode,Section65589.5,subdivisions(f)(1)and(f)(3).Thisisincorrect.Subdivision(f)(1)allowscitiestoapplydevelopmentstandardstohousingdevelopmentsifthosestandardsare“appropriateto,andconsistentwith,meetingthejurisdiction’sshareoftheregionalhousingneed”andthestandardsare“appliedtofacilitateandaccommodatedevelopmentatthedensitypermittedonthesiteandproposedbythedevelopment.”Theparklanddedicationrequirementisalsonotcoveredbysubdivision(f)(3).Thatprovisionallowscitiestoapply“feesandotherexactionsauthorizedbystatelaw.” Additionally,theCitymaynotapplyaordablehousingregulationstotheprojectbeyondwhatisrequiredbytheHAA.TheHAArequiresthattoqualifyasabuilder’sremedyproject,theprojectmustprovide20%ofunitsaslow-incomehousingandprovidedsuch20%aordablehousingisprovided,theprojectneednotcomplywithzoning.(Gov.Code,§ 65589.5,subd.(d).)TheCity’sattemptstodictateunitmixandtenure(i.e.rentalvs.condo),aswellastoconditionapprovalontheCity’sacceptanceofaBMRagreement,areplainlydisallowedbytheHAA.Similarly,iftheapplicantwishestochangetheprojectfromacondominiumdevelopmenttoarentalproperty,orviceversa,theCitymaynotdictateachangeinaordabilityterms,providedthat20%ofunitsremainaordabletolow-incomehouseholds.

Builder’sremedyprojectsonlyarisewhenaCityhasfailedtoadequatelyplanforitsshareofhousingproductionrequiredunderitsRegionalHousingNeedsAllocation(“RHNA”).Inthissituation,noneofajurisdiction’sdevelopmentstandardsareconsistentwithmeetinghousingproductiongoals,becausethatjurisdictionhasfailedtoproduceaplantojustifyits 2of5
policiesatall.Andagain,theCityherehasadmitted(initsHousingElement)thatthestandardinquestionisamajorfactorinmakinghousingdevelopmentinfeasible.ThereissimplynowaythatrequiringadedicationofparklandfromnewhousingdevelopmentorimposingtransportationimpactfeesisconsistentwithmeetingtheCity’sRHNAgoals.

Furthermore,inaccordancewithgeneralinterpretiveprovisionsforstatutes,andduetostatutoryconstructionrules(CodeCiv.Proc.,§1859),suchgeneralprotectionsof(f)(1)and(f)(3)donotoverruletheparticularprovisionsofGovernmentCode,Section65589.5,subdivision(d).TheCitymaynotconditionapprovaltorequiretheprojecttoadheretothesevariouscodesectionswithoutmakinghealthandsafetyindingsasrequiredbytheHAA.(Id.atsubd.(d)(2).)Finally,thelegislatureclearlyestablishesthatitisthepolicyoftheStatethattheHAAshallbe“interpretedandimplementedinamannertoaordthefullestpossibleweighttotheinterestof,andtheapprovalandprovisionof,housing.”(Id.at(a)(2)(L).)AllowingcitiestoapplyconditionsofapprovalthatrenderaordablehousingdevelopmentsinfeasiblethroughstrainedinterpretationsisclearlyagainstthepolicyoftheStateofCalifornia.(SeeCaliforniaRentersLegalAdvocacy&EducationFundv.CityofSanMateo(2021)68Cal.App.5th820,854.) TheCityalsomaynotdisapprovetheprojectbasedonthetreeremovalpermitordemolitionpermit,asthiswouldconstituteadenialundertheHAA.(See,e.g.,SanFranciscoBayAreaRentersFederationv.CityofBerkeleyetal.,SuperiorCourtofAlamedaCounty,CaseNo.RG16834448,StipulatedOrderiledJuly21,2017[seeattached][rulingthattheCityofBerkeleycouldnotdenyanancillarydemolitionpermitinordertostopahousingdevelopmentproject].) Giventhattheseconditions,inaggregate,haveatremendouslyadverseimpactonprojectviability,iftheCityinsistsonapplyingtheseconditionsontheproposedbuilder’sremedyproject,thestatelaw(id.atsubd.(i))statesclearlythatitwillbeartheburdenofproofincourt(emphasisadded):
“Ifanycity,county,orcityandcountydeniesapprovalorimposesconditions,includingdesignchanges,lowerdensity,orareductionofthepercentageofalotthatmaybeoccupiedbyabuildingorstructureundertheapplicableplanningandzoninginforceatthetimethehousingdevelopmentproject’sapplicationiscomplete,thathaveasubstantialadverseeectontheviabilityoraordabilityofahousingdevelopmentforverylow,low-,ormoderate-incomehouseholds,andthedenialofthedevelopmentortheimpositionofconditionsonthedevelopmentisthesubjectofacourtactionwhichchallengesthedenialortheimpositionofconditions,thentheburdenofproofshallbeonthelocallegislativebodytoshowthatitsdecisionisconsistentwiththeindingsasdescribedinsubdivision(d),andthattheindingsaresupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceintherecord,andwiththerequirementsofsubdivision(o).” 3of5
II. TheParklandDedicationRequirementisaPerSeRegulatoryTakingUndertheFifthAmendmentoftheUSConstitution,andtheIn-lieuFeeisanUnconstitutionalCondition TheFifthAmendmentoftheConstitutionprohibitsgovernmentsfromtakingprivatepropertywithoutjustcompensation.TheFifthAmendmenthasbeeninterpretedbytheU.S.SupremeCourttoprohibitzoningandlanduseregulationsthateectivelydepriveanownerofprotectedpropertyrights.(SeePennCentralTransportationCo.v.NewYorkCity(1978)438U.S.104.)Perhapsthemostclearcutregulatorytakingoccurswhenalanduseregulationallowsforapermanentphysicaloccupationofprivateproperty.(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$67,800perunitfee(or$54,240,ifdiscounted)iswildlyoutofproportiontoanypurportedimpact.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.(Id.at407.)TheU.S.SupremeCourtoverturnedthisruling,indingthatfeesimposedaslegislativeenactmentsaresubjecttoNollanandDolan.(Id.at280.)AftertheSheetzdecision,thereisnoquestionthattheNollanandDolanstandardsapplytotheparklanddedicationandin-lieufeerequirementsatissueforthisdevelopment.BecausetheCityhasnotestablishedanynexusbetweennewdevelopmentandtheneedtoacquireanddevelopparkland,northatthe$67,800feeisproportionatetoanyimpactsofnewhousingon 4of5
parkland,theCityisprohibitedfromapplyingthispolicytonewhousingdevelopmentincludingthecurrentproposalbeforeyou. ⬢⬢⬢
Asyouarewellaware,Californiaremainsinthethroesofastatewidecrisis-levelhousingshortage.Ifwedonotallowsuficienthousingdevelopment,moreandmoreCalifornianswillbecomeandremainhomeless.CalHDFurgestheCitytoapprovethisbuilder’sremedyprojectwithoutimposingtheaforementionedconditions,asisrequiredbystateandfederallaw.IftheCitydeclinestoheedtheaboveguidanceandimposestheparkdedicationrequirementsonthisoranyotherhousingdevelopments,CalHDFispreparedtobringlegalactiontoinvalidatetheseconditionsandthecitywidepolicy.

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

Sincerely,
DylanCaseyCalHDFExecutiveDirector
JamesM.LloydCalHDFDirectorofPlanningandInvestigations
5of5