Article about the Sue the Suburbs Lafayette Campaign

[hanlonbt]

Lamar Anderson of San Francisco Magazine just published an article about the Sue the Suburbs initiative and SFBARF's fight for housing in Lafayette. SPUR's Gabe Metcalf supports the initiative, which is welcome news to me.

Article Link: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/city-housing-Activitists-test-out-brazen-new-battle-cry-sue-the-suburbs

Sue the Suburbs link: http://www.suethesuburbs.org/

[Jess Montejano]

This is eff'ing awesome - good work SFYIMBY!!!

--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/6601c5ab-d003-4726-aad1-a5d84044103c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jess Montejano
415-592-4441

@JessMontejano

[Mike Ege]

Awesome Sauce!

[Armand Domalewski]

Link is not working

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/D8DDB7F1-9F22-44F7-A1E4-C6888472130A%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Armand D. Domalewski
(925) 212-3562

[Richard Kuo]

http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/city-housing-activists-test-out-brazen-new-battle-cry-sue-the-suburbs

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAMaUpO%2BMKBWtJXre6drQ57ZY_FH1K8qY-DvpKaa42bmpq1C5hQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Kuo]

Link is correct, site is just having issues I think.

[Mike Schiraldi]

The original link misspelled activists as "Activitists". It looks like they pulled it and re-posted the story under a link with the correct spelling.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAO8ZuvV_PiMh-Auw-QFxagBB_mhM2r7swE8T92tDwn5ZFoA0OQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Armand Domalewski]

Got it.

THIS IS AWESOME.

[Mike Schiraldi]

So this seems to be the key paragraph:

The basis for a lawsuit comes from 1982's Housing Accountability Act, a measure that California passed as a counterweight to municipalities’ natural NIMBY tendencies. When a proposed development includes units affordable to low- and moderate-income households (and meets zoning requirements), the law forbids a jurisdiction from denying approval, or reducing a project’s density, unless it threatens health and safety in demonstrable ways.

If true, why limit ourselves to the suburbs? Wouldn't this be applicable to everything from overturning the Mission Moratorium (if passed) to the reduction of density at a site like 1050 Valencia?

[Brian Hanlon]

We're not limiting ourselves to anywhere. SF is also out-of-compliance with state law. 

[Rafael Solari]

The HAA only applies to housing that people moderate-income or below could live in. 

There *is* an interesting angle with density bonuses. If NIMBYs downsize a project whose density bonus would've provided affordable housing, does that violate HAA?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgNtrVHfK50jRVKH9XWNAMjHWRXftVVPdxJo_ZSip-Z2%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kyle Huey]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Rafael Solari <rafs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The HAA only applies to housing that people moderate-income or below could
> live in.

I don't think that's true. I believe the income provisions only apply
when you're seeking to recover legal costs.

- Kyle

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAKOu3PfWnE5Z5LRP_uhDmBRNpoZUipT4mk7w-qo2WhY7CKS03A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rafael Solari]

If that's true, even better!

I don't see where it says that, though. Here's the part I'm reading. 

65589.5

... 

(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 50199.50 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 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 substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following:

[Kyle Huey]

I believe subsection (j) is the relevant one.

- Kyle

[Mike Schiraldi]

Does that mean this approach only works for proposals that would be 100% moderate-income (or below) units?

[Rafael Solari]

I'm not sure. It definitely applies to projects with 100% moderate AMI unit and projects with 20% lower income. 

As kyle pointed out, section (j) of the HAA doesn't mention the income qualifier. I'm not sure how the courts interpret that. Maybe it means that (j) applies to all projects, regardless of income requirements.

[Brian Hanlon]

Super busy at the moment, but I'm going to try and clarify the CA HAA later today.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Here's the text of that subsection (emphasis added):

(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the 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 substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

[Kyle Huey]

Look up Honchariw v County of Stanislaus.

- Kyle

[Rafael Solari]

http://www.kmtg.com/node/2332

Nice!

[Mike Ege]

Another supporting take: http://www.reubenlaw.com/index.php/rj/singleUpdate/housing_accountability_act_a_new_hammer_for_developers

[Mike Schiraldi]

Key quotes:

The Housing Accountability Act has been kicking around since 1982 and has not been a factor in San Francisco development until now. [...] The Act was given new life in 2011 when the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus ruled that the Act applies to all housing projects, not just affordable projects. In a nutshell the Act limits local authorities by requiring a very specific set of findings that make it extremely difficult for cities to reduce the density of a project for subjective reasons like neighborhood character, aesthetics, or other difficult-to-measure (and impossible to challenge) criteria.

For a local agency to condition approval of a housing project on reducing the density of that project to less than proposed and otherwise permitted by law, the agency must determine that the project would have a “specific adverse impact on public health or safety” unless the density is reduced.

[Armand Domalewski]

Question: does this encourage pre-emptive downzoning?

[Mike Ege]

That's a pertinent question, and it has to do with the special facts behind Lafayette, that give the whole Carla project it's special sauce. Does everyone here know the back story behind the Lafayette development? 

[Armand Domalewski]

My reading is that a city can't deny a project that serves moderate/low incomes, doesn't cause significant harm, and meets current zoning. If we succeed, would future Lafayettes pre-emptively downzone?

[Kyle Huey]

Yes, they would. But my understanding is that in general they already
have done that.

- Kyle

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Armand Domalewski

[Brian Hanlon]

FYI, I just did an interview with Dan Kerman of KRON 4 news. It should air at 5 or 6 tonight. 

[Armand Domalewski]

yesss

[Mike Ege]

Down zoning is going to be increasingly difficult given state initiatives, not the least of which is SB 375.

The secret sauce is that up until now there hasn't been a venue for all potential plaintiffs of standing - Carla can provide that.

[Donald Dewsnup]

Awesome! Glad to hear it. Way to go Guys!