CITY OF SAN RAMON
POLICY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
WE PROVIDE EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF QUALITY
PUBLIC SERVICES THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO THOSE
WHO LIVE AND WORK IN SAN RAMON.
Sridhar Verose, Chair • Marisol Rubio, Vice Chair
City Hall - Large Conference Room, Second Floor
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
Regular Meeting
4:00 PM
February 22, 2023
Agenda Questions: Please call the City Manager's Office at (925) 973-2530 Documents received after publication of this Agenda and considered by the Policy Committee in its deliberation will be available for inspection in the City Manager’s office at 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon during normal business hours and in the red binder at the Policy Committee Meeting.
ATTENDEE CONDUCT
There will be zero tolerance for any person addressing the Committee making profane, offensive and disruptive remarks, or engaging in loud, boisterous, or other disorderly conduct, that disrupts the orderly conduct of the public meeting. Specifically, it is important for all speakers to adhere to the following guidelines for participation in this meeting:
a. No profanity or obscenity
b. Refrain from personal threats or attacks.
c. Refrain from hateful epithets and demeaning language based on any person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or disability. d. Respect all people that are present.
At the discretion of the Committee Chair, a speaker may forfeit speaking time for any of the following reasons:
a. Exceeding the allotted time to speak;
b. Yelling, screaming, or other behavior that renders this Committee unable to continue the meeting;
c. Excessive profanity or slander; Specific threats or “fighting words” that incite violence; or
d. Speech that is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Policy Committee or the specific agenda item in which you are speaking.
2 Policy Committee Meeting – February 22, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public are encouraged to address the Policy Committee on any item not already included in tonight’s agenda. Comments should not exceed three (3) minutes. No Committee action can be taken at this meeting on issues raised during Public comment.
Written comments submitted were provided to the Committee prior to the start of this meeting and made a part of the public record. Written public comment will no longer be read aloud during the meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 Policy Committee - Regular Meeting - Jan 25, 2023 4:00 PM
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Policy Discussion: General Plan/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
6. POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify that the attached Policy Committee Meeting Agenda was posted 72 hours before the noted meeting. To make a request for disability-related accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office 48 hours in advance of the meeting at 925-973-2539 or [email protected].
Dated: February 17, 2023
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON POLICY COMMITTEE
January 25, 2023
ATTENDEE CONDUCT
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chair Verose at 4:07 PM.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sridhar Verose Chair Present
Marisol Rubio Vice Chair Present
Also in attendance Steven Spedowfski Interim City Manager, Robin Bartlett Public Works Division Manager, Kerry Parker, Public Works Program Manager, Karen McHenry-Smith Executive Assistant.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was provided by Country Code 886- Taiwan.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 Policy Committee - Rescheduled Meeting - Nov 21, 2022 4:00 PM RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sridhar Verose, Chair
SECONDER: Marisol Rubio, Vice Chair
AYES: Verose, Rubio
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Proposal of Non-Exclusive Commercial Recycling Transporter Permit and Notification to Non-Exclusive Haulers that Commercial Waste Services Will be Provided by an Exclusive Franchise
Recommendation: Accept the Staff Report and Provide Recommendations to Staff.
Ms. Parker introduced the item and provided background information.
Public comment was provided by Country Code 866-Taiwan.
The Committee provided feedback and comments.
The Committee accepted the report and directed staff to proceed with issuance of
3.1 Packet Pg. 3
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 25, 2023 4:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES) 2 Policy Committee Meeting – January 25, 2023
Non-Exclusive Commercial Recycling Transporter Permits.
RESULT: REPORT RECEIVED
6. POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM by Chair Verose.
3.1 Packet Pg. 4
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 25, 2023 4:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES) AGENDA #5.1
POLICY COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 22, 2023
TO: Policy Committee/City Manager
FROM: Martin Lysons, City Attorney
By: Martin Lysons, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Policy Discussion: General Plan/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the Planning Commission meeting on November 1, 2022, Commissioner Wallis requested staff to bring the following to a future Planning Commission agenda:
First, whether under the Municipal Code, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, an application to construct residential housing subject to the California Housing Accountability Act requires the decision of whether such an application is consistent with “an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement or other similar provision” of the City of San Ramon, including the City’s General Plan, any Community Plan, any Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, any design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulation, requirements and policies of the City of San Ramon be made by the Planning Commission, rather than by city Staff, and to decide and write, if necessary, the appropriate notice for a residential housing project specified in California Government Code § 65589.5 sub-paragraph (j)(2)(A).
Second, if at such meeting the Planning Commission does decide that it is the appropriate City body to make the aforementioned decision, that the Planning Commission take, if considered reasonable and necessary, steps to submit this issue to a final decision by the San Ramon City Council.
On January 17, 2023, staff, the City Attorney, and outside counsel conducted a presentation in response to Commissioner Wallis’s request. To facilitate the discussion, staff enlisted the services of Eric Phillips and Thomas Brown, land use attorneys with the law firm of Burke, Williams, & Sorenson, LLP. Both attorneys have extensive experience in Municipal Law, have represented cities throughout California, and have particular expertise in the Housing Accountability Act and SB 330 compliance. They prepared a report for the Commission’s consideration (the “Consultants’ Report”), included here for the Committee’s reference as Attachment A.
5.1 Packet Pg. 5
AGENDA #5.1
Also included herewith (Attachment B) is a memorandum from Commissioner Wallis to Martin Lysons, dated October 25, 2022 (“Wallis Memorandum 1”). Wallis Memorandum 1 summarizes Commissioner Wallis’s rationale for giving the Planning Commission responsibility for making the initial evaluation of the project’s consistency with applicable plans, programs, policies and standards. A second memorandum from Commissioner Wallis (“Wallis Memorandum 2”), submitted in response to the Consultants’ Report and dated January 17, 2023, is included herewith as Attachment C.
Under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5, or the “HAA”), if the City considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent with applicable plans, programs, policies and standards, the City must provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the inconsistencies and an explanation of the reason it considers the project to be inconsistent within 30 or 60 days, depending on the size of the project. For purposes of this Staff Report, this notice is referred to as the “Compliance Determination.” At the Planning Commission meeting of January 17, the presenters advised the Commission that, for reasons discussed below, it is most appropriate for staff to provide the Compliance Determination on behalf of the City. They also reported that no other city, to their knowledge, placed this responsibility in the hands of their Planning Commission. The recommendation from the legal experts was for the City to continue making Compliance Determinations at staff level, with the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council, as appropriate, acting as the final decision-maker on the application.
The Commission directed staff to bring the matter to the Policy Committee. The Commission recommended that the Committee refer the matter to the full Council for consideration of a new policy placing the responsibility for Compliance Determinations on the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive the report. Give direction to staff to maintain the current practice of making Compliance Determinations at staff level.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Housing Accountability Act and SB 330
On January 1, 2022, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, also known as SB 330, went into effect.
Subsequently, SB 8 extended the provisions of SB 330 to make them effective until January 1, 2030. Among other requirements to facilitate housing construction, SB 330 strengthened the Housing Accountability Act, which limits the City’s discretion with respect to denying housing development projects.
Under the HAA, once the City deems a residential (or mixed use) application complete, the City must provide a written statement to the applicant as to whether the proposed project complies with the objective standards in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other standards (i.e., it must provide a “Compliance Determination”). The term “objective” is key here: it means that there is
5.1 Packet Pg. 6
AGENDA #5.1
no room for “personal or subjective judgment by a public official,” and that the standards are “uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official.” The basis for determining whether a standard is “objective” or “subjective” is discussed in further detail below.
The City must make the Compliance Determination within 30 days of application completion (if the project contains 150 or fewer units) or 60 days (if the project contains more than 150 units).
If the City does not provide a written Compliance Determination outlining which objective standards, if any, are not in compliance before the applicable 30- or 60-day deadline, the project is deemed to comply with the City’s standards as a matter of law.
The HAA is silent as to who in the City should make the Compliance Determination. However, the constraints and limitations that the HAA and SB 330 place on the City’s approval process dictate that staff, not the Planning Commission, should issue the Compliance Determination. As outlined below, the City’s Municipal Code currently places the authority to make the Compliance Determination with City staff. Changing City policy to instead authorize the Planning Commission to issue the Compliance Determination exposes the City unnecessarily to potential litigation and puts additional burden on staff to hold a public meeting within 30 days of completion of the application. Such a policy would also have the potential to create confusion and anger among the public by holding a public hearing to evaluate a Compliance Determination, thereby implying that the Planning Commission has discretion over residential projects that the HAA and SB 330 limit.
For these reasons and others, all of the leading law firms that represent cities in California (Meyers Nave; Burke, Williams & Sorensen; Best, Best & Krieger; Jarvis Fay; among others) strongly recommend against changing City protocols to require the Planning Commission make the Compliance Determination on behalf of the City.
Please refer to Attachment A for a more detailed discussion of the HAA and SB 330.
The San Ramon Municipal Code
Under the San Ramon Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff are tasked with performing the initial application review. (Muni Code § D6-18.) First, the Department is required to evaluate applications for completeness and accuracy before accepting the application for processing. (Muni Code § D6-18.A.) After the application is complete, Department staff collect information from the applicant necessary to perform an environmental assessment and review the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Muni Code §§ D6-18.A.5, D6-19.) Next, “[t]he Department shall review all discretionary applications filed in compliance with this Division to determine whether they comply and are consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan.” (Muni Code § D6-20.A.) Finally, the Department issues a staff report with its evaluation and recommendation to the approval body (either the Zoning Administrator (ZA), the Planning Commission, or the City Council). (Muni Code § D6-20.B.)
5.1 Packet Pg. 7
AGENDA #5.1
The Zoning Administrator (ZA) makes the determination as to whether a proposed use is allowable on a specific parcel under that parcel’s zoning and General Plan designations, and other applicable standards. (See Muni Code § D2-3 - Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements.) The Code lists allowable land uses for each zoning designation in Tables 2-1, 2- 6, 2-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, and 2-15. (Muni Code § D2-3.A.1.) For example, allowable uses for Mixed-Use zoning are listed in Table 2-6, which is in Muni Code § D2-13.
Section D2-3.A.2 provides that “a land use that is not listed in Tables 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2- 14, and 2-15, and is determined by the Zoning Administrator to not be included in Division D8 (Glossary) under the definition of a listed land use, is not allowed within the City, except as otherwise provided in Subsection A.3, or Section D2-4. In other words, the ZA is responsible for making the compliance determination for proposed uses that are listed in the tables. The ZA must also interpret the Municipal Code to determine whether a use that is not listed in the tables fits the definition in the Glossary.
Further, the Zoning Administrator has the authority to determine whether a proposed use may be allowable under the parcel’s zoning and General Plan designations even if the use is neither listed in the Tables nor included in the Glossary definition of the listed land use. (Municipal Code § D2-3.A.2.) Criteria for making this determination include a ZA determination of whether the proposed use “will be consistent with the purposes of the applicable zone” (Municipal Code § D2-3.A.3.a.2) and whether the proposed use “will be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan” (Municipal Code § D2-3.A.3.a.3).
Under the Municipal Code, therefore, Compliance Determinations for proposed land uses have always been under the authority of the ZA (or the ZA’s designee), i.e., at staff level. The Compliance Determination does not guarantee that the City will ultimately approve a proposed land use; the proposal may still require a land use permit or other discretionary permit that requires Planning Commission approval. Under SB 330, the Compliance Determination does, however, strictly limit the grounds by which a City may deny the project.
Practices of Other California Cities
Staff has done extensive research on the practices of other cities and counties throughout California. To date, staff has found no other city in California authorizes its Planning Commission to make Compliance Determinations. The Consultants’ Report includes a table of the current practices of the cities in Contra Costa County, all of which make the Compliance Determination at staff level.
In addition, Wallis Memorandum 2 (Attachment C) includes as its Exhibit A an Excel Spreadsheet listing eleven cities and one county that Commissioner Wallis believed were considering allowing their Planning Commissions to make Compliance Determinations under SB 330 (the “SB 330 Spreadsheet”). Staff has conducted follow-up research on all of the jurisdictions listed in the SB 330 Spreadsheet, including direct conversations with most of their City Attorneys or planning staff. None of the jurisdictions listed in the SB 330 Spreadsheet confirmed their intent to have the Planning Commission make the Compliance Determination.
5.1 Packet Pg. 8
AGENDA #5.1
Each of the officials contacted from the other cities on the SB 330 spreadsheet stated that their staff, not their planning commissions, makes their Compliance Determinations.1 Objective Standards
In determining the appropriate official to make the Compliance Determination, it is important to note the nature of “objective standards.” As stated above, under SB 330, objective standards involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. This limits the decision-making to questions of knowable quantities and simple yes-no questions. For example, an objective standard may involve maximum allowable height of a proposed building. Because height is readily quantifiable, it is an objective standard.
Another objective standard might be to require certain mitigations if a proposed good-neighbor fence is taller than six feet. Because this standard essentially asks a yes-no question (is the fence taller than six feet?), the standard is objective. An illustration of objective standards is included herewith as Attachment D.
Because the City may only consider objective standards, which involve no personal discretion or subjective judgement in their application, it should make no difference whether staff or the Planning Commission makes the Compliance Determination. In fact, the HAA also imposes the “Reasonable Person Standard” on Compliance Determinations. This means that if a reasonable person could conclude that a proposed project complies with an objective standard, then the City must deem the project compliant with that standard, irrespective of any Planning Commission determination. Therefore, under the HAA, the applicant can provide their own Consistency Determination, and unless the Planning Commission finds that no reasonable person could reach the same conclusions, the HAA would deem the project to comply with the City’s standards.
Accordingly, there is little value in scheduling an extra hearing early in the review process simply for the Planning Commission to fill the staff function of evaluating a project’s compliance with objective standards.
Based on all of the above, staff and the City Attorney recommend that the authority to make Compliance Determinations on behalf of the City remain with staff.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The decision of this Committee will not affect the General Fund.
NEXT STEPS
If the Committee finds that the City should continue to make Compliance Determination at staff level, no further action is required. If the Committee instead elects to refer this matter to the full Council, staff will make a presentation at a future regularly scheduled Council meeting.
ATTACHMENT
1 To date, all but one city listed on the SB 330 Spreadsheet has responded to inquiries from the City of San Ramon.
5.1 Packet Pg. 9
AGENDA #5.1
A: Consultants’ Report
B: Wallis Memorandum 1
C: Wallis Memorandum 2
D: Objective Standards Examples
5.1 Packet Pg. 10
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: San Ramon Planning Commission
FROM: Thomas B. Brown
Eric S. Phillips
DATE: January 12, 2023
RE: SB 330 Determinations
The City of San Ramon (“City”) Planning Commission has requested guidance regarding whether to enact a policy requiring the City’s Community Development Department to schedule a Planning Commission hearing within 30 days1 after determining that a housing development project is complete for the purposes of analyzing whether that project is consistent with applicable standards. Such a policy would, as far as we know, be unique among California cities.
As discussed in more detail below, we advise against such a policy change.
Based on recent changes to state law that sharply limit cities’ discretion and impose harsh penalties for noncompliance, we recommend that the Planning Commission continue to review housing development projects after City staff have conducted their evaluation.
To the extent that the Planning Commission is concerned with how City staff would interpret or apply applicable standards, the most legally viable approach for doing so would be to adopt standards that are clearly objective so that there is no room for parties to disagree as to the standards’ application.
I. Legal Framework
Senator Nancy Skinner authored Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”), the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” to “suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing during the period of the statewide emergency” through January 1, 2025 stemming from the lack of housing supply throughout the state.2 On October 9, 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 330 into law effective as of January 1, 2020. Subsequently, the Legislature
1 For projects with more than 150 units, a hearing would be scheduled within 60 days after determining the project application is complete.
2 SB 330, Section 2, subsection (c).
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
enacted and the Governor signed Senate Bill 8, which extends SB 330 through January 1, 2030.
Although SB 330 enacted numerous changes to the procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving housing development projects, two of its changes are of particular relevance to the Planning Commission’s policy question. First, SB 330 added provisions to the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5, or the “HAA”) to ensure only objective standards are used to deny or reduce the development of a housing development project. Second, SB 330 limits the number of hearings that may be held on a housing development project to five.
At the highest level, the HAA limits the City’s discretion with respect to housing development projects to the evaluation of that project’s consistency with objective development standards.3 A “housing development project” means any proposal for (1) residential units only; (2) mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or (3) transitional or supportive housing.4 As amended by SB 330, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”5
The HAA requires the City to issue written determination of any inconsistency with objective standards within 30 days (150 or fewer units) or 60 days (more than 150 units) after a housing development project’s application is complete, otherwise the project will be deemed consistent with those standards by operation of law.6In addition, a project shall be deemed consistent with City standards if there is evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude the project is consistent.7 In practice, this means that if the City is challenged by a developer for denying a housing project, the City does not receive the normal amount of deference from a reviewing court for its decisions. It is
3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(j). Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent references are to the California Government Code.
4 § 65589.5(h)(2).
5 § 65589.5(h)(8).
6 § 65589.5(j)(2).
7 § 65589.5(f)(4).
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
not sufficient simply for the City to have a basis for denial; there must also be no reasonable basis for approval.8
Finally, after the City determines that the formal application for a housing development project is complete, it may only subject the project to five or fewer hearings before taking final action to approve or deny the project.9 II. Applicable Development Standards Must Be Objective.
As noted above, the HAA’s key function is to limit the City’s discretion with respect to housing development projects. Specifically, when a housing development project complies with applicable, objective development standards, the City may not deny the project or impose a condition that it be developed at a lower density without making specific findings that the project would otherwise have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated.10 Despite this limitation, the HAA provides that, “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.”11 The implication is that the HAA does prohibit the City from requiring compliance with standards that are not objective. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) advises that local governments may apply development standards when they meet the “objective” definition provided above.12 Likewise, the First District Court of Appeal has concluded that the HAA allows local agencies to establish and enforce “appropriate design review standards,” provided that “those standards must be objective and they must be in place at the time an application is complete.”13
8 Accordingly, if an applicant has suggested findings of consistency, the Planning Commission would need to find that those findings were unreasonable or not supported by substantial evidence to deny the project.
9 § 65905.5.
10 § 65589.5(j)(1).
11 § 65589.5(f)(1).
12 HCD September 15, 2020 Memorandum re: Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance (“HCD Advisory Memo”) page 7.
13 California Renters Legal Advoc. & Educ. Fund (“CARLA”) v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 846.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
For a standard to be objective, it must be “uniformly verifiable,” which means that “there is little to no room for reasonable persons to differ on whether a project complies with [an external and uniform] benchmark.”14 Examples of objective standards can include setbacks, stepback and height requirements when they are suitably specific.
For example, requirements that building height not exceed 45 feet, that buildings shall be set back a minimum of 15’ to a maximum of 20’ from the property line for at least 60% of the building frontage, and that portions of a building over 30 feet in height shall be stepped back 8’ minimum are all objective, because it is possible for an applicant, the public, City staff, or City officials to know whether an application complies by reference to measureable benchmarks.15 Likewise, design review criteria can be objective by making reference to specific features, such as a roof pitch with a slope of 1:5.16 References to design styles may be objective so long as the elements are clearly defined and include illustrations.17
By contrast, standards that are “so malleable that reasonable minds could differ on whether they are met” are not objective, and may not be used to evaluate housing development projects under the HAA.18 If a standard requires any level of “after-the-fact interpretive gloss,” it is not sufficiently objective.19 For example, the City of San Mateo established guidelines that advised an applicant to avoid changes in building height greater than one story from adjacent structures. The guidelines further provided that if height varied by more than one story between buildings, a transition or step in height would be necessary. Such standards are not objective, because it is not knowable in advance when changes greater than one story in height would be allowable or how much “transition or step in height” would be sufficient to bring a project into conformity with the guideline.20
Standards that require a project to obtain entitlements that involve subjective decision-making are likewise not objective, and therefore they are not relevant in the HAA context. For example, HCD advises that, “a standard that requires a general plan amendment, the adoption of a specific plan, planned development zoning, or another discretionary permit or approval does not constitute an objective standard.”21 Under HCD’s guidance, the City “shall not require a development proponent to meet any standard for
14 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 845.
15 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 841-842.
16 HCD SB 35 Guidelines § 300(c)(1).
17 Id.
18 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 851.
19 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 844.
20 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 838.
21 HCD SB 35 Guidelines § 300(c)(2).
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
which the locality typically exercises subjective discretion, on a case-by-case basis,” because such a requirement would expose housing development projects to non-objective standards, upending the HAA’s protections.22
Additional examples of standards that are and are not objective are included in Attachment A, along with short explanations as to why a given standard is or is not objective.
III. The HAA Includes a Short Time Period to Provide Notice of Inconsistencies.
After a housing development project application is submitted, the City must determine whether that application is complete. Once the applicant has provided sufficient information for the City to evaluate the housing development project’s consistency with objective standards, the application must be “deemed complete.”23 Once an application is deemed complete, if the City believes that the housing development project is inconsistent with objective standards, then the City must “identify the specific provision or provisions and provide an explanation of the reason or reasons why the local agency considers the housing development to be inconsistent, non-compliant, or non-conformant with identified provisions.”24 This notice must be provided within 30 days after the project application is deemed complete if the project has 150 units or less, or within 60 days of that date if the project has more than 150 units. 25 If the City does not
provide timely notice of alleged inconsistencies with objective standards, then 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.”26
In other words, without timely notice of inconsistences with objective standards, the City would not be able to later claim a housing development project is inconsistent with such standards.27 This would limit the City’s ability to deny or reduce the project’s density under the HAA; however, the City “retains broad authority, subject to judicial review,” to “deny or
22 Id.
23 HCD Advisory Memo, page 8.
24 § 65589.5(j)(2).
25 § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).
26 § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
27 Note that even if the City provides timely notice under the HAA, a housing development project may still be deemed consistent with the City’s standards as a matter of law so long as there is substantial evidence to support a reasonable person’s conclusion that the project complies. (§ 65589.5(f)(4).) This means than an applicant can submit its own analysis of project consistency and, as long as the conclusions are reasonable, the HAA requires this analysis, rather than the City’s, would control.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
reduce the density of a project that . . . causes an unavoidable adverse impact on public health or safety; and to impose conditions of approval that do not reduce the project's density where applicable objective standards are met.”28 In addition, the HAA does not relieve the City from complying with CEQA in connection with housing development projects.29
IV. The City Should Focus on Objective Standards Rather than Additional Project-Specific Review.
As an initial matter, it should be noted that we are not familiar with any jurisdictions that require a Planning Commission hearing within the first 30 or 60 days after a housing development project is deemed complete. A summary of development processing procedures and hearing timeframes of specific Contra Costa County cities is included as Attachment B. Breaking from precedent and holding such a hearing would cause a number of issues for the City.
First, preparing material for a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission takes significant staff time and resources, and doing so on a compressed timeframe for each housing development project application the City receives would be an inefficient use of City resources.
Second, holding a Planning Commission hearing to make a formal determination on a project’s consistency with objective standards before taking action to approve the project would create confusion regarding whether the Commission’s action constitutes a final determination that may be appealed to the City Council. Holding a hearing and an appeal in the midst of the administrative process, before the City has taken final action to approve or deny a project, could lead to interlocutory legal challenges that raise novel procedural questions regarding ripeness and remedies. In addition, such hearings would take time away from the Commission and the Council and staff that could otherwise be spent on other important work, such as the creation of objective standards, adoption and implementation of the Housing Element, and updating the City’s nexus studies.
Third, SB 330 limits the City to holding no more than five hearings before taking final action to approve or deny the project.30 Any hearing held “in connection with the
28 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 852.
29 § 65895.5(e).
30 § 65905.5.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
approval of the housing development project” counts towards the five-hearing limit.31 Specifically, a “hearing” includes “any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted . . . with respect to the housing development project,” including all meetings of the City Council, the Planning Commission, “or any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any committee or subcommittee thereof.”32 The definition encompasses continuances and appeals, so the City must carefully plan its hearing schedule and avoid study sessions or other extra hearings to fit its full review process within the five-hearing limit while preserving hearings for potential appeals. Using one or more hearing early in the process simply to make an initial consistency determination would limit the hearings available to the Planning Commission to act the project, refine it with conditions of approval, and make its findings of fact.
Finally, as described above, the City’s discretion under the HAA is limited, and setting an additional hearing to evaluate compliance with standards may set incorrect expectations that the City has authority to enforce changes against a project that are not based in law. Reliance on non-objective standards to deny or to reduce the density of a housing development project can violate the HAA, and the applicant, a potential resident, or a housing organization all have standing to bring an enforcement action.33 Remedies can involve a writ ordering the City to comply with the HAA, or, if the court finds that the violation was in bad faith, ordering the City to approve the project.34 Continued violations of a court order can result in fines ranging from $10,000 to up to $50,000 per unit.
35 Successful plaintiffs are also eligible to recover attorney’s fees, which means that an HAA violation could cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars.36
Moreover, since standards that require “interpretative gloss” or explanation as to how they should be applied are not objective, there is little value in having the Planning Commission rule on consistency with objective standards. If a standard is truly objective, it will be obvious whether a project satisfies the standard or not, and using one of the City’s five hearings to examine these issues would not be necessary.
It is important to reiterate that although the HAA limits the City’s discretion as applied to individual projects, it does not prohibit the City “from establishing and
31 § 65905.5(a).
32 § 65905.5(b).
33 § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i).
34 § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii).
35 § 65589.5(k)(1)(B), (l).
36 § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii).
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
enforcing appropriate design review standards” provided that those standards are objective.37 For the City to “enforce limitations on housing developments, it must promulgate standards that are not so malleable that reasonable minds could differ on whether they are met.”38 In other words, the City must identify “clear rules adopted in advance, rather than by ad hoc decisions to accept or reject proposed housing.” 39 To the extent that the Planning Commission is concerned with City staff’s interpretation or application of the City’s development standards, the most effective solution is for the City to enact more specific standards that are objective and leave no doubt as to their interpretation. Reviewing housing development projects on an ad hoc basis is more likely to yield inconsistent results, changing interpretations, and disagreements on how to interpret and apply standards. The presence of such a debate would indicate that such standards are not objective, which renders the standards (and the ostensible purpose for their review) inapplicable as a basis to deny or reduce a housing development project’s density regardless. Therefore, an additional hearing focused on a project’s compliance with objective standards would offer little utility, and it is not advised.
V. Conclusion
The HAA limits the City’s discretion over housing development projects to the application of objective standards. Objective standards are narrowly defined, and a properly-crafted objective standard will leave no room for competing interpretations as to whether the standards is satisfied. Therefore, we advise against a policy change requiring a Planning Commission hearing to determine if housing development projects comply with objective standards within 30 or 60 days after the project application is deemed complete. Enacting such a policy would set the City of San Ramon apart from all other cities that we have surveyed. Doing so would also be an inefficient, and ineffective, use of City resources that could create false expectations or invite legal challenges.
Rather, the City should focus its efforts on crafting generally applicable objective standards for City staff to use when evaluating housing development projects, and the Planning Commission’s ad hoc project review should continue to occur later in the
37 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 846.
38 CARLA, 68 Cal.App.5th at 851.
39 Id.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Planning Commission
January 12, 2023
process with a focus on health and safety, conditions of approval that do not reduce a project’s density, and compliance with CEQA.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
ATTACHMENT A
Objective and Non-Objective Standards
An “objective standard” involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion. In addition, objective standards generally use “shall,” “will,” and “must” statements to demonstrate mandatory compliance, though not every “mandatory” standard is objective.
Below are examples of development standards that are objective and are applicable to housing development projects under the HAA.
1. Projects with two or more structures shall be staggered with a minimum two-foot variation and maximum six-foot variation measured from the front setback with the intent of providing a varied street elevation.
This is objective because it defines the types of projects subject to the standard (projects with two or more structures) and the acceptable methods for achieving a varied street elevation are measurably defined (2-6 feet from front setback). No personal judgment is required to determine whether a design provides “varied” street elevation, because the standard itself defines what is acceptable.
2. Residences must have a front entry sited from parallel to within 45 degrees of parallel, to the street.
This is objective because it references measurable criteria; no subjective judgment is required to determine whether the standard is satisfied.
3. If used, shutters will be sized to cover 100 to 105 percent of the window and match the exact window shape.
This is objective because it defines the allowable size (100-105%) and shape (exact window shape) of shutters by reference to a verifiable reference to an external benchmark (the window under the shutter)
4. Windows must be recessed by a minimum of two inches from the wall plane or must include wood, metal, or engineered wood trim with a minimum width of three inches and minimum depth of three-quarters of an inch.
This is objective because the standard includes measurable criteria for window depth (2 inches from the wall plane) along with an alternative, objective standard that specifies what trim materials are allowed (wood, metal, or engineered wood trim), and the minimum, measurable width and depth of the trim (3 inches, ¾ inch) under this compliance option.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) A standard is not objective when it cannot be applied without personal interpretation or subjective judgment. If a standard does not provide a method for determining whether a proposed project complies with the standard, or if it requires case-by-case interpretation to determine compliance, the subject is subjective.
1. New residential development or remodels should avoid a design approach or architectural features that exaggerate height, bulk or mass and create incompatibilities in relation to neighboring properties, distant public views from across a canyon or other parts of the City, or views from the public right-of-way. This requires subjective judgment because opinions could differ about whether features “exaggerate” height, bulk, and mass and about whether the project is “incompatible” with neighboring properties.
2. ‘Mixed-use’ means a property on which various uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design.
This definition of “mixed use” is subjective because opinions could differ about whether uses have “significant functional interrelationships” and about whether the physical design is “coherent.”
3. The design of multi-family and mixed-use developments shall be compatible with the natural and built character of the surrounding neighborhood. New development should also respect the characteristics of the specific site, including existing natural topography, vegetation, and drainage patterns on a site.
This requires subjective judgment because opinions could differ about whether a development is “compatible” with the surrounding neighborhood and whether it “respects” the characteristics of the site.
4. Design building heights and upper story step backs to reduce impact on neighboring properties and the public right-of-way and allow access to sun light and natural ventilation. This requires personal interpretation because there is no reference to a quantifiable standard defining how or by what amount impacts must be reduced.
5. Ensure that projects built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development respect the scale of adjacent properties.
This requires subjective judgment because opinions could differ about whether a development “respects” the scale of adjacent properties.
6. Design the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. This requires subjective judgment because opinions could differ about whether a project’s design causes “unreasonable” impacts.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
ATTACHMENT B
Peer Cities’ Development Procedures
City Initial Consistency
Determination Responsibility Planning Commission Hearing Timeframe Antioch Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Brentwood Planning staff Within 8-12 weeks after consistency determination Clayton Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Concord Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Danville Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
El Cerrito
Planning staff, incl. zoning
administrator, or design review
board depending on entitlements
required
Prior to approval if project requires certain
entitlements
Hercules Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Lafayette Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Moraga Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Oakley
Planning staff, incl. zoning
administrator depending on
entitlements required
Prior to approval if project requires certain
entitlements
Orinda Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Pinole Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Pittsburg Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Pleasant Hill Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
Richmond
Planning staff, incl. zoning
administrator depending on
entitlements required
Prior to approval if project requires certain
entitlements
San Pablo
Planning staff, incl. zoning
administrator depending on
entitlements required
Prior to approval if project requires certain
entitlements
Walnut Creek Planning staff Prior to approval if project requires certain entitlements
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: A: Consultants’ Report (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) 1 MEMO
Attorney-Client Communication
To: Martin Lysons
From: Eric Wallis
Date: October 25, 2022
Re: Housing Accountability Act Notices of Noncompliance
I want to follow up with our discussion on October 24 conversation regarding the October 17 letter Staff sent to the Marketplace development project’s applicant. I do not claim to be an expert on municipal law or real property regulation, but after reviewing San Ramon’s laws I reached the following conclusion.
While I agree that Staff has the right and obligation to reach a conclusion whether and to what extent a proposed residential housing project subject to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is consistent with the City of San Ramon’s (“City”) General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”), we part company on whether Staff has the final authority to speak for the City to an applicant on whether that project consistency exists through the issuance (or not) of the “deficiency notice” described in California Government Code (“Government Code”) Section 65589.5 (j)(2)(A)(i). In my view, that decision rests with the Planning Commission (secondarily, if a decision on such a residential project is either appealed to or called up by the City Council, the City Council itself). This view is based not only on the applicable City policies and enactments but the practical implications of a HAA consistency determination.
1. The Planning Commission Has Review Authority For Project Consistency with the City’s Governing Documents
Government Code §65100 allows delegation of a city’s planning functions to such body as the city council may chose. Under Title A, Division A5, Chapter II of the City’s Municipal Code, that body is the Planning Commission:
A5-13. - Planning agency duties.
The planning commission shall be the planning agency under Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Government Code for the following functions:
The Planning Commission was the Reviewing Authority for the Marketplace Development Plan just as it was for every development plan – whether residential or commercial – since I joined the Planning Commission in early 2010. The Ordinance provides that the Reviewing Authority determines whether a proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Ordinance by making findings before approval (or disapproval) that the proposed development:
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: B: Wallis Memorandum 1 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) 2 1. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development;
2. Will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the neighborhood;
3. Will not be injurious or detrimental to the general welfare of the City;
4. Will not be inconsistent with the policies and goals of the General Plan or any applicable specific plan; and
5. Is architecturally compatible with other developments in the same vicinity, both inside and outside of the subject zone. [Emphasis added.] This authority is further shown by allowing the Reviewing Authority to prescribe reasonable and necessary Conditions of Approval to:
a. Achieve the general purposes of this Zoning Ordinance or the specific purposes of the subject zone, or to make it consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan…
It is clear from the above that – regardless of what other municipalities do1 – that the Planning Commission, not Staff, was the body tasked by the City to determine at this time whether the Marketplace development project – and all other development projects submitted to the Planning Commission for review – was consistent with City standards including those set forth in the General Plan and Ordinance. That is particularly true, in my view, when considering the impact on the City created by the decision whether to send a HAA “deficiency notice” to an applicant proposing a housing development (ostensibly subject to the HAA) as required by Government Code Section 65589.5 (j)(2)(A):
(2)(A) If the local agency2
considers a proposed housing development3
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 1 I do not know what colleagues you talked to or what the context of your questions was. As I have noted above, it is commonplace – if not required – for staff to prepare a memo to the municipality’s own decisionmaker whether a project is consistent with the municipality’s governing documents. That process is only relevant to the issue before us if your colleagues advised you that in their jurisdiction HAA consistency notices are written and submitted to the applicant by staff without a final decision by that municipality’s decision-making body (either planning commission or city council). Given the impact of such notices as discussed in pt. 2, infra, I have questions about whether any such representations are based upon actual events.
2 Which includes the City. Cal. Government Code §2.
3 Which includes, per Government Code §65589.5 (h)(2) (A) – (B) , a project with only residential units or a mixed-use project in which 2/3 of the floor space is for residential use.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: B: Wallis Memorandum 1 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) 3 housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
2. The Impact of HAA-Required Consistency Determination In my view, the purpose of the Section 65589.5 (j)(2)(A) procedure is to put the applicant on notice of currently-perceived deficiencies in the project based upon inconsistencies with an agency’s “applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision…” that may result in a future denial of the project (the notice itself not being such a denial).4 This in turn can trigger several responses from the applicant: (1) provide evidence that the project is compliant so that the City is then convinced, and prepared to make the required finding on, compliance with City standards as part of the final approval/disapproval decision, (2) re-design the project to meet the objections, (3) withdraw the project, or (4) proceed with the application as is and take its chances in court that a judge will find the City’s position unsupportable under the HAA.
I see three different scenarios involving the project deficiency notice upon residential projects subject to the HAA.
a. No Notice Given Scenario
First, the City does not serve the applicant with a Section (j)(2)(A) deficiency notice. In that event Government Code Section 65589.5 (j)(2)(B) provides (emphasis added):
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. “Shall be deemed consistent” means that by operation of law the project has been found compliant with all the agency’s “applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision….” In other words, the failure to send the notice waives the agency’s right to allege any noncompliance with agency standards, which waiver is binding on the agency including here the Planning Commission and City Council. Otherwise, the statement that “the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan” would be a nullity.
For these reasons, as I stated at our October 24 meeting, I do not agree with Ms.
Chamberlain that the absence of such notice nonetheless allows the City at final project decision to deny approval based upon noncompliance with City standards. In connection with a prior HAA project Staff told us the opposite – that not sending the notice within 4 It is my view that promulgation of such a notice does not constitute an irrevocable finding that the project is inconsistent with a local agency’s “applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision….” Rather, it reserves the agency’s power to make such a determination – or not – when a final decision is made on project approval or disapproval after considering the applicant’s response.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: B: Wallis Memorandum 1 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) 4 the statutory time frame barred the City from using inconsistency as a basis for denying a proposed development.
I have found no authority for Ms. Chamberlain’s view (there does not seem to be any case law on the effect of non-issuance of a subsection (j)(2)(A)(i) notice). If you believe that notwithstanding sending a subsection (j)(2)(A)(i) notice that an agency can still disapprove a proposed development project based on inconsistency with a general plan or zoning ordinance I’d like to know why and what authority you have for that. b. “Your Project Meets Our Standards” Scenario
The agency can, of course, go a step beyond not sending a subsection (j)(2)(A)(1) notice by sending a notice stating that all agency requirements have been met – this is the Marketplace scenario. It seems clear that a notice explicitly stating the proposed project is consistent with agency standards precludes the agency from later denying the project on any basis that should have been contained in such a notice – that is what Ms. Poon advised us at the October 18 hearing. Again, absent such a waiver consequence subsection 65589.5 (j)(2)(B) is rendered meaningless. And like my comments concerning the 1st scenario, I believe that the waiver result created stating the proposed project meets agency standards precludes the agency at whatever level (e.g., City Council) from later contending that the defects not identified in the subsection (j)(2)(A)(i) notice justifies project disapproval.
Thus, at this point I again disagree with Ms. Chamberlain that notwithstanding Staff’s October 17 letter the City can raise noncompliance with either the General Plan or Ordinance as the basis for denying the Marketplace project. If you have some argument or authority to the contrary I would very much like to see it. c. The “Here’s Where You Fall Short” Notice
The third scenario is the one requested by the Planning Commission on October 4 – that the proposed project does not meet the specified requirements of an “applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision….” The HAA does not contain, insofar as I can tell, a specific limitation on the agency’s right to refuse approval on deficiencies apart from those cited in the notice, but I think that is inherent in the statutory language. In simple terms, to disapprove the project the City would sink or swim on the deficiencies described in the subsection (j)(2)(A)(1) notice.
The common thread in all these scenarios is that Staff is making the decision what residential-containing projects falling under the HAA will be built in the City. If no subsection (j)(2)(A)(1)notice is sent, or one stating the proposed project is compliant with City standards is issued, the project gets approved whether the Planning Commission or City Council believes otherwise because, as you know, disapproval of a HAA project on other grounds (or educed in density) is virtually impossible under subsection (j)(1) unless the agency makes written findings that:
(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.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: B: Wallis Memorandum 1 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) 5 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.
I’m not aware of any proposed housing project in the City that was denied on a health and safety basis.
If a subsection (j)(2)(A)(1) notice is provided to the applicant the City’s ability to disapprove the project is limited to those specific aspects of the project, aspects that neither the Planning Commission or City Council has or could make a determination on pre-issuance. That simply removes the legislative bodies from the decision-making process which I doubt the Council would be happy with.
3. Going Forward
Based on my review of the HAA and what limited authority exists concerning the subsection (j)(2)(A)(i) notice, it is my view that the Planning Commission is the only appropriate body in the City to make the statutory determination on the necessity and contents of a subsection (j)(2)(A)(1) notice. While I think it permissible for Staff to draft and later serve the notice, the contents of the notice must be those as authorized and approved by the Planning Commission; otherwise Staff will be making a decision that deprives both the Planning Commission and the City Council, as a matter of law, from making a different determination and denying approval of a project that is inconsistent, in the legislative bodies’ view, with City standards.
As I suspect you are aware, there are several different housing projects in the pipeline that are at least arguably subject to HAA’s requirements. I think it imperative that we reach a final decision - “final” in the sense that you provide me with your last opinion on the matters raised in this memo - on the issue of the appropriate body to make the decision on any future subsection (j)(2)(A)(i) notices so that the Planning Commission has adequate time to discuss this and decide how to proceed in light of your opinion that, we assume, Planning Staff will follow.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you further.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: B: Wallis Memorandum 1 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: C: Wallis Memorandum 2 (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)) San Ramon Development Standards for the RS-6 Residential Zoning District Development Feature RS-6 Requirement Objective/
Subjective
Minimum lot size:
Area
Width
Depth
6,000 sf
60 ft.
90 ft.
Objective
Setbacks:
Front
Side - Interior
Side - Corner
Sides - Non-Corner Lot Aggregate
Sides – Corner Lot Aggregate
Rear
20 ft.
5 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
20 ft.
15 ft.
Objective
Lot Coverage, FAR N.A. Objective
Height Limit 35 ft. max. Objective
Exterior finish materials The exterior walls
of all primary
structures shall
have a nonmetallic
finish
Objective
Landscaping Not applicable to
residential
developments
(defined as SF
subdivisions and
MF units)
Objective
Driveways and Paved Area* Each parcel w/SFD
shall be allowed
only one driveway.
Minimum width:
10-15’ for one-way;
20-26’ for two-way
Objective
Parking SFD w/up to 4 bed;
2 covered spaces
within a garage;
w/up to 5 bed; 3
covered spaces; 6+;
4 covered spaces.
Specific dimensions
provided
Objective
Signs Specific sign
standards in Table
3-15
Objective
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: D: Objective Standards Examples (3883 : GP/Zoning Consistency Determination Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA))