AB 678

Bill Subjects

Abstract

(1) The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. This bill would require the findings of the local agency to instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. (2) The act authorizes a local agency to disapprove or condition approval of a housing development or emergency shelter, as described above, if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with specified law. This bill would specify that a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete does not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (3) The act defines various terms for purposes of its provisions, including the term "housing development project," which is defined as a project consisting either of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential units, or transitional housing or supportive housing. For a mixed-use development for these purposes, the act requires that nonresidential uses be limited to neighborhood commercial uses, as defined, and to the first floor of buildings that are 2 or more stories. This bill would instead require, with respect to mixed-use developments, that 23 of the square footage be designated for residential use. (4) If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. This bill would specify that a housing development project or emergency shelter is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision for purposes of the above-described provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill, if the local agency considers the housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, would require the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity within specified time periods. If the local agency fails to provide this documentation, the bill would provide that the housing development project would be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. By requiring local agencies to provide documentation related to disapprovals of housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The act authorizes the project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, as defined, to bring an action to enforce its provisions. This bill would entitle a housing organization to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce the act. (6) If a court finds that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible the project or emergency shelter or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with its provisions within 60 days, including an order that the local agency take action on the development project or emergency shelter and awarding attorney's fees and costs. This bill would additionally require the court to issue an order compelling compliance with the act, as described above, if it finds that either the local agency, in violation of a specified provision of the act, disapproved or conditioned approval of a housing development project in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter or certain housing without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or, the local agency, in violation of another specified provision of the act, disapproved a housing development project complying with specified standards and criteria or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill would authorize the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter in violation of the act. (7) The act authorizes the court to impose fines if it finds that a local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days of the court's judgment. The act requires that the fines be deposited into a housing trust fund and committed for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. This bill, upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with these provisions within 60 days, would instead require the court to impose fines, as described above, in every instance in which the court determines that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible, the housing development project or emergency shelter without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings. The bill would require that the fine be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the bill would require the court to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need and any prior violations of the act. The bill would authorize the local agency to instead deposit the fine into a specified state fund, and would also provide that any funds in a local housing trust fund not expended after 5 years would revert to the state and be deposited in that fund, to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. If the local agency has acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court's order, as described above, the bill would require the court to multiply the fine by a factor of 5. This bill would also require that a petition to enforce the act be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (a) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or taking any other final action on a housing development project or (b) the expiration of certain time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. (8) In order to obtain appellate review of a trial court's order, the act requires a party to file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. This bill would allow a party to instead appeal a trial court's order or judgment to the court of appeal pursuant to specified law. (9) This bill would make various technical and conforming changes to the Housing Accountability Act. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1515 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1515 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.