Attachment 15Date of Hearing : July 12, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITIEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair
SB 167 (Skinner) -As Amended July 3, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 30-10
SUBJECT: Housing Accountability Act.
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
Specitica lly, this bill:
1) Makes a number of changes to the HAA, as follows:
SB 167
Page l
a) Changes the evidentiary standard for a local agency to disapprove a housing development
project from "substantial" evidence in the record to a ''preponderance of the" evidence 01
the record, as specified, and changes other references in the HAA to this standard for
consistency.
b) Provides that a change in a z.oning ordinance or general plan land use designation
subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid
basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or
emergency shelter.
c) Adds, to the section in HAA about the burden of proof being on the local legislative body
to show that its decision is consistent with the findings required in HAA to disapprove
the project, that this additionally includes the imposition of conditions or lowering
density by the local agency, as specified.
d) Requires, if a local agency proposes to deny or reduce the density of a housing
development project or emergency shelter or impose restrictions or conditions, including
design review standards, that render the housing development project infeasible for very
low-, low-, or rooderate-income housing or for an emergency shelter, the local agency to
publish an analysis of the requirements as part of its review of the application for the
housing development project. Requires the analysis to include a finding whether this
section does or does not apply to the project, and, if applicable, requires the local agency
to make the findings that apply to the project, as specified, if it is a housing development
project for very low-, low-, or rooderate-income househokls, as specified.
e) Adds several additional situations after which the court shall issue an order of judgment
compelling compliance, including the following:
i) The local agency, in violation of a specified provision in the HAA, disapproved a
housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and
z.oning standards and criteria ; or,
ii) The local agency imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density
without making the findings or without making findings supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
ATTACHMENT 1 5
SB 167
Page 2
f) Requires the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the
housing development project or emergency shelter if the court find s that the local agency
acted in bad fuith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing
de velo pment or emergency shelter in violation of the HAA
g) Provides that a housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and
costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.
h) Requires , if the court detennines that its order or judgment ha s not been carried out
within 60 days , the court to impose fine s on a local agency that has violated the HAA.
Require s the local agency to deposit any fine levied into a housing trust fimd. Specifies
that the fine shall be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing
development project on the date the application was deemed complete, as specified.
Requires the court, in detennining the amount of fine to impose , to consider the local
agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regiona I housing need, as
specified , any prior violations of the HAA , the budget of the local jurisdiction, whether
the jurisdiction has complied fully with d),above, and the ratio of median home price to
median household income within the jurisdiction, with the aim of imposing a fine that ha s
a deterrent effect without unreasonably impacting the local government's ability to
provide basic services to its residents.
i) Prohibits fines from being paid out of fimds already dedicated to affordable housing, as
specified . Requires the local agency to commit the money in the housing trust fund
within five years for the so le purpose of financing newly constructed housing units
affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households.
j) Requires , if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad fuith when it disapproved or
conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter, and fuiled to carry
out the court's order or judgment within 60 days , as specified , the court to multiply the
fin e specified above by a fuctor of 5. Requires the increased fin e to be paid , and the
proceeds to be committed in the same manner as the base fine .
k) Allows the petitioner to elect to prepare the record as provided in the HAA, as specified .
I) Requires a petition to enforce the HAA to be filed and served no later than 90 days from
the later of
i) The effec tive date of a decision of the local agency impo s in g conditions on,
disapproving, ·or any other final action on a housing development project; or,
ii) The expiration of the time periods specified in the Pennit Streamlining Act.
m) Make s other technica~ clarifying changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Provide s, pursuant to the HAA , the following :
a) Define s ''housing development project" to mean a use consisting of any of the following:
i) Re s idential units only;
ii) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses as
specified; and,
iii) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
SB 167
Page 3
b) Defines "disapprove the development project" to include any instance in which a local
agency e ither:
i) Votes on a proposed housing d evelopment project and the application is disapprove d ;
or,
ii) Fails to comply with the required time period for approval or disapprova l required b y
law .
c) Defines ''housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households" as either:
i) At leas t 20% of the total units shaU be sold or re nted to lowe r-income household s; o r,
ii) I 00% o f the unit s shall be so ld or rented to persons and fumilies of moderate-income
or middle-income.
d ) Defines "very lo w-income" as pe rsons and fumilies whose income does not exceed 50%
area median income (AMI).
e) Defines "low-income " as persons and fumilie s whose income does not exceed 80% AMI.
f) Defines "mode rate-income" as p e rsons and fumilies whose income does not exceed
120%of AMI.
g) Defines "above modera te -income " as persons and fumilies whose income exceeds 12 0 %
of AMI.
h) Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a proposed housin g d eve lopment project for
very low-, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter, or conditioning
approval in a manner that renders the projec t infeasib le for d evelo pment, unless it makes
written findin gs based upon s ub stantial evidence in the record, as to one of the foUowing:
i) The jurisdiction has adopted and revised its housing element as require d by law and
has met it s share of the regional housing need a Uocation;
ii) The proposed d evelo pment proj ect would have a spec ific ad verse impact upon public
health o r safety that cannot be mitigated without rendering the development
unaffo rdable or shelter infeasible ;
iii) The d enial of the proposed develo pment projec t is required to comply with s pecific
state or federal la w and there is no feasible method to comply without re ndering the
deve lopment unaffordable or she lter infeas ibl e;
SB 167
Page 4
iv) The development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land that does not have
adequate water or waste water fucilities, or is zoned for agriculture or resource
preservation, as specified; and ,
v) The proposed 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.
i) Provide s that 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:
i) 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 the y existed on the date the application was d eemed
complete; and,
ii) There is no feasible method to satisfuctorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified , pursuant to a), above, other than the disapproval of the housing
development project or the a pproval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.
j) Require s, if a jurisdiction denie s approval or imposes re striction s that have a substantial
adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housin g deve lopment for very low-,
low-, or moderate-income househo ld s and is the subject of a court action which
challen ges the denial, the burden of proof to be on the local legis lative body.
k) Require s, in any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a jurisdiction to
disapprove a project or approve a project upon the condition that it be developed at a
lower density, the local government shall bear the burden of proof that its decision ha s
conformed to all of the conditions specified in the HAA.
1) Authorizes the applicant, any person who would be eligJ.b le to apply for residency in the
proposed development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action
to enforce the HAA.
FlSCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
SB 167
Page 5
I) Background on the HAA. The HAA, also known as the "Anti-Nimby" legislation, was
enacted in 1982, and re stricts a local agency's ability to disapprove , or require density
reductions in, certain types of residentia I projects. The purpose of the HAA is to help ensure
that a city or county not reject or make infeasible housing developments, including
emergency shelters, that contnbute to meeting that housing need determined , pursuant to
Housing Element Law, without a thorough analysis of the economic, socia~ and
environmental effects ofthe action.
Under the HAA, a jurisdiction may not disapprove a housing development project, including
farmworker housing, as specified , that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income
households , or emergency shelters , or condition approval of such a project in a manner that
makes the project infeasible , unless it finds , based on substantial evidence, one of the
following:
a) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element that has been revised in accordance with
Government Code section 65588 , is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element
law, and the city ha s met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for the
income category proposed for the housing deve lopment project;
b) The project as proposed would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health and
safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated without rendering the housing d evelopment
project unaffordable , or development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible
(inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not
constitute a specific , adverse impact upon public health and safety);
c) The d e nial of the project or impos ition of conditions is required in order to comply with
state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rend ering the
housing deve lopment project unaffordable or development of the emergency shelter
financially infea s ib le;
d) The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is
surrounded on at lea st two sides by land being used for agriculture or preservation
purpose s, or the site does not have an adequate water or wastewater facility to serve the
project; or,
e) The project is inconsistent with both the city's zoning ordinance and general plan land
use des ignation as specified in the g eneral plan as it existed on the date the application
was deemed complete and the city has adopted a revised housing element in accordance
with section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element law.
To qualify for protections provided by the HAA, an affordable housing project must propose
development of housing for very low -, low-, or moderate-income households which includes:
(I) Projects in which at least 20% of the total units sha ll be sold or rented to lower-income
households; (2) Projects in which 100% of the units shall be sold or re nted to moderate-
income households, or to middle -income households; and, (3) Supportive housing,
transitional housing, and certain mixed use projects, as specified.
SB 167
Page 6
The HAA also specifies that there is no prohibition on local agencies imposing fees and other
exactions otheiwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services
and fucilities to the development project or emergency shelter. The HAA is applicable to all
cities, including charter cities.
The applicant for the housing development project, any person eligible for residency in the
development, or any housing organization can bring action to enforce the HAA. For such
legal action, the burden of proof fulls on the local agency to show that its decision is
consistent with the finding s and supported by s ubs tantial evidence. Should the local agency
not meet this burden, then the court can issue an order compelling compliance within 60
days, including, without limitation, an order to take action on the proposed project. The
court retains jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out, and awards
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the suit to the petitioner, except in specified
circmmtances. Should the court determine that its order has not been carried out within 60
days, the court may issue a finther order to ensure that the law is upheld, which can include
vacating the local agency 's decision, deeming the project approved, and imposing fines if the
court finds that the city acted in bad fuith.
2) Bill Summary. This bill is s ponsored by the California Renters Legal Advocacy and
Education Fund and the California Apartment Association, and makes a nwnber of changes
to the HAA, as follows :
a) Burden of Proof. The bill changes the evidentiary standard for a local agency to
disapprove a housin g development project from "substantial " evidence in the record to
"a preponderance of' evidence in the record, as specified , and changes other references
in the HAA to this standard for consistency.
b) Change in Zoning or Land Use Designation not Valid for Disapproval. The bill
provides that a change in a zoning ordinance or general plan land use des ignation
sub se quent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid
basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or
emergency shelter.
c) Additional Analysis Requirement. Provisions in the bill require, if a local agency
proposes to deny or reduce the d ens ity of a housing development or emergency shelter or
impose restrictions or conditions, including design review standards, that would render
the development infea s ible for very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing, the local
agency to publish the analysis of the requirements of the HAA as part of its review of the
application for the project.
n) Attorney's Fees. This bill expands the HAA's attorney's fees provision by providing that
the court shall award reasonable attorney's fee s and costs of suit to the petitioner, except
under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not
finther the purposes of this section. Additionally, the bill provides that a housing
organization shall be entitled to re asonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing
party in an action to enforce this section.
o) Court Fines per Unit. The bill requires a court to impose a fine in a minimum amount
of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project if a court find s a
·violation of the HAA. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already d edicated to
SB 167
Page 7
affordable housing, and shall be corrunitted to a housing trust fund within five years for
the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely
low-, very low-, or low-income households . In determining the am0tmt of fine to impo se,
the court shall consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target a llocation of the
regional housing need, any prior violations of the HAA, the budget of the jurisdiction,
whether the jurisdiction complied with other s pecified provisions of the HAA, and the
ratio of median home price to median household income with the jurisdiction, with the
aim of imposing a fine that has a deterrent effect without unreasonably impacting the
local government's ability to provide basic services. The bill also requires additional
fine s in certain instanc es, multiplied b y a factor of 5, and paid , and proceeds corrunitted ,
in the same manner as the base fine.
2) Author's Statement. According to the author, "SB 167 seeks to address the severity of
California's housing crisis by taking a critical look at city's approval process for
development. State courts are often too deferential to localities in accepting any justification
to deny a good housing project, that otherwise meets all development requirement s. Ahhough
there is an evident lack of funding, space, and construction, there are solutions the state can
implement to ensure deve lopment is taking place in cortjunction with a city's local laws."
3) Related Legislation. This bill is substantially s imilar to AB 678 (Bocanegra), which is
currently pending in the Senate.
4) Policy Considerations. The American Plannin g As sociation, California C hapter (APA),
raises several outstanding issues in the ir ''Oppose Unless Amended" letter, as follows:
a) RIINA Target. The bill requires the court to d ete rmine the amount of the fine based on
a numb er of considerations , includin g the lo cal agency's progress in attaining its target
allocation of the RHNA. APA suggests alternative langua ge that would allow the judge
to compare the numb er of housing project applications submitte d to a city or county, to
the number of proj ects actually e ntitled and approved by the city and county.
b) Compliance with CEQA. AP A argues that more time is needed beyond the 60 days
s p ecified in the bill to comply with the judge's o rde r to approve a project that was the
subj ect of a court challenge.
c) Clarification regarding Subdivision Map Act. AP A sugges ts that langua ge in the bill
s hould be clarified so that Subdivision Map Act findings , which may be s ubjective in
nature, run contrary to the objective reasons require d for denial in the HAA. This is
b ecause of the recent co urt case in Eden Hous in g v. the Town of Los Gatos.
5) Argwnents in Support. Supporters argue that this bill will stre ngthe n the HAA a nd ensure
that loca l agencies cannot disapprove housing proj ects without clear and convinc in g evidence
proving that the project adversely imp acts public health or safety.
7) Arguments in Opposition. The City of San Marcos, in opposition, writes that "penalizing
cities tha t have been trying hard to create a ffordable housing will no t spur additional
development."
8) Double-referral. This bill was heard in the Housing a nd Connnunity Deve lopment
Committee on June 28, 20 17 , where it passed with a 6 - l vote .
REGISTERED SUPPORT /OPPOSITION:
Support
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education FlUld (SPONSOR]
California Apartment Association [SPONSOR]
California A ssociation of Realtors
California ColUlcil for Affordable Housing
SV@ Home
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter (unless amended)
City of San Marcos
Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Michel I L. GOV. I (916) 319-3958
SB 167
Page 8
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2017
SB 167
Page l
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HO USING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
David C hiu, Chair
SB 167 (Skinner) -As Amended May 23 , 20 17
SENATE VOTE: 30-10
SUBJECT: Hous ing Accountability Act
SUMMARY: M ake s a nwnber of changes to the Hous in g Accountability Act (HAA).
Specifically, this bill:
l) Increases the burden on local agencies from "sub stantia I evidence" to "a preponderance of
the e videnc e" when making finding s as to the disapproval o f a housing d evelopment project.
2) Provides that a change in a z.oning ordinance or general plan land use d esignation subseque nt
to the date the application was d eemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to
disapprove or condition approval of the housing d evelopment project or emergency she lte r.
3) R e quires every local agenc y to publish an analysis of the requirements of the HAA as part of
it s review of each application for a housing development project.
4) Imposes a minimum fine of$1,000 per housing unit in the housing development project if a
court finds a violation of the HAA. In d etermining the a roount, the court shall consider the
local agency's progress in attaining it s target allocation of the regiona I housing needs, the
budge t of the local jurisdiction, whether the jurisdictio n complied full y with re quireme nts to
publis h an analysis of the requireme nts in the HAA, and the ratio of the median ho me price
to median household income within the jurisdiction, with the aim of imposing a fine that has
a d e terrent effect without unreasonably imp acting the local agency's ability to provide b asic
services to its residents.
5) Provides that fines shall not be paid out of fund s already dedicated to affo rd a ble housing, a nd
s hall be committed to a housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing
newly constructed housin g units affordable to e xtremely low-, very low-, or low-income
house hold s.
6) Allows a court to imp ose punitive damages if it find s that the loca l agency acted in bad faith.
If the court find s a local agency acted in bad fuith, the court shall multiply the fine calc ulated
in 4 ), above, by a fuctor of 10. Defines "bad fuith" as including, but not limited to, a n action
that is frivolous or otherwise e ntire ly w itho ut merit.
7) Exp a nds the HAA's attorney's fees provision by providing t hat the court shall award
re a sonable attorney's fe es and cos ts of suit to the plaintiff or p etitio ner, regardle ss of whether
that plainti ff o r petitioner proposed the housing d evelopment project or emergency s helter at
is s ue.
8) Provides that a housin g organization shall be e ntitled to reasonab le attorney's fees and costs
if it is the prevailin g party in an action to e nfo rce this section
SB 167
Page 2
9) Requires a petition to enfo rce the HAA to be filed and served no later than 90 days from the
later of.
a) The withdrawal of the application by the applicant or the effective date of a decision of
the local agency ; or
b) The expiration ofthe time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act.
10) Makes technicai clarifying changes.
EXISTING LAW: Under the HAA:
l) Defines ''hous ing development project" to mean a use consisting of any of the following:
a) Re s idential units only.
b) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses as
specified.
c) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
2) Defines "disapprove the development project" to include any instance in which a local
agency either:
a) Vote s on a proposed housing development project and the application is disapproved;
or
b) Fails to comply with the required time period for approval or disapproval required by
law.
3) Defines ''housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income hous eholds" as either :
a) At least 20% of the total units shall be sold or re nted to lower-income household s; or
b) l 00% of the wijts s hall be sold or rented to persons and fumilies of moderate-income
or middle-income .
4) Defines "very low-income" as persons and fumilies whose income does not exceed 50% area
median income (AMI).
5) Defines "low-income" as persons and fumilies whose income does not excee d 80% AMI.
6) Defines "moderate-income" as persons and families whose income doe s not exceed 120 % of
AMI.
7) Defines "above moderate-income" as persons and fumilies who se income exceeds 120% of
AMI.
SB 167
Page 3
8) Defines "housing organization" as a trade or industry group whose local members are
primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit
organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing
for low-income househokls and have filed written or oral corrnnents with the local agency
prior to action on the project. A housing organization may only file an action under the HAA
to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency.
9) Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a proposed housing development project for very
low-, low-, or moderate-income househokls or an emergency shelter, or conditioning
approval in a manner that renders the project infea sible for development, unle ss it makes
written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
a) The jurisdiction ha s adopted and revised its housing element as required by law and
has met its share of the regional housing need allocation.
b) The proposed development project would have a specific adverse impact upon public
health or safety that cannot be mitigated without rendering the development
unaffordable or shelter infeasible .
c) The denial of the proposed d evelopment project is required to comply with specific
state or federal law and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the
development unaffordable or shelter infeasible .
d) The development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land that does not have
adequate water or waste water facilities, or is zoned for agriculture or resource
preservation as specified.
e) The proposed development project or emergency shelter is inconsiste nt with both the
jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as s pecified in
any e lement of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed
complete.
10) Provides that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable,
objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, includin g de sign review standards,
in effect at the time that the housing deve lopment project's application is determined to b e
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 sha ll base its
decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings
sup ported by sub stantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
a) The housing development project would have a specific , adverse impact upon the
public health or safety unle ss 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 unavoid a ble
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; and
b) There is no fea s ible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified pursuant to a), above , other than the disapproval of the housin g
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.
SB 167
Page 4
11) Authorizes the applicant , any person who would be e ligible to apply for residency in the
proposed development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to
enforce the HAA.
12) Requires, if a jurisdiction denies approval or impo ses restrictions that have a s ubstantial
adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low-, low-,
or rmderate-income households and is the subject of a court action which challenges the
denia~ the burden of proof to be on the local legislative body.
13) Requires, in any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a jurisdiction to
disapprove a project or approve a project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower
density, the local government shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has conformed
to all of the conditions specified in the HAA.
14)Requires the court, if it finds a violation of the HAA, to award rea sonable attorney's fees and
costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner who proposed an affordable housing development or
emergency shelter, except under extraordinary circurmtances in which the court finds that
awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section.
15) Provides that if the court finds that the local agency ( 1) acted in bad fuith when it
disapproved or conditionally approved the housing deve lopment or emergency shelter in
violation of the HAA and (2) fuiled to carry out the court's order or judgment within 60 days
the court, in addition to any other remedie s provided by the HAA, may impo se fines upon the
local agency that the local agency shall be required to deposit into a housing trust fund.
a) Fines shall not be paid from fimds that are already dedicated for affordab le housing,
including, but not limited to , redevelopment or low-and rmderate-income housing
fund s and federal HOME and C OBO funds.
b) The local agency shall commit the rmney in the trust fund within five years for the
sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units a ffordable to extremely
low, very low, or low-income households .
c) For purposes of this section, ''bad fuith" sha ll mean an action that is frivolous or
otherwise entire ly without merit .
(Govt. Code Section 65589.5)
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
The HAA: The purpose of the HAA, also known as the "Anti-NIM BY Act", is to limit the
ability oflocal agencies to reject or make infeasible housing deve lopments without a thorough
analysis of the economic, socia~ and environmenta l effects of the action. The HAA provides for
a judicial remedy that allows a court to issue an order to compel a city to take action on a
development project. An a pplicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the
SB 167
Page 5
developrnent or ernergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce the
HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing developrnents . In
2011 the California Court of Appeal in Honchariw v. Coun ty of Stanislaus (200 CaLApp.4th
1066) held that specified provisions of th e HAA apply to aU housing projects, not just affordable
projects .
Need for this bill: According to the author, the HAA has been a tool used to ensure local
jLUisdictions build the housing our state desperately needs. Strengthening the HAA will make it
more difficult for local governments to disapprove, prolong, or reject proposed housing
developrnents. This bill addresses the severity of California's housing crisis by taking a critical
look at cities' approval process for developrnent. State courts are often too deferential to
localities in accepting any justification to deny a good housing project that otherwise rneets all
developrnent requirernents. Although there is an evident Jack of funding , space, and construction,
there are solutions the state can implement to ensure development is taking place in conjllllction
with a city's local laws.
Staff comment: This bill is similar to AB 678 (Bocanegra), which was heard in this committee
earlier this year. That bill is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This bill make s a number of changes to HAA law, including:
Burden of proof. Under the HAA , for affordable projects or ernergency shelters, a local
government ma y not disapprove the developrnent or condition approval in a manner that renders
the project infea s ible llilless it makes written find in gs, based upon substantia I evidence in the
record, as to at least one of five elernents. For other type s of housing projects, the local
government may not deny the proposed housing development or condition its approval upon
lower density llilless it make s written findings , supported by substantia I evidence on the record ,
that it is necessary to safeguard human health and safety. Substantial evidence, which is a
relatively low threshold , is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." (Richardson v. Perales (1971) 402 U.S. 389 .) This bill would
require a local government to make these findings by a "preponderance of the evidence" rather
than "substantial" evidence. The substantial evidence sta ndard is lower that the "preponderance
of the evidence" standard, in which the evidence provided has to convince the decision maker
that it is "more likely than not." The preponderance of the evidence standard is the one employed
in most civil legal cases and is sometimes expressed in statistical terms as 50% plus one .
Fines and punitive damages: Under existing Jaw , a court may impo se fines upon a local agency
for acting in bad fuith. This bill also require s a court to impose a minimum fine of $1,000 per
housing unit in the housing development project if the court find s a violation of the HAA. In
determining the amount of fine to impose , the court shaU consider the local agency's progress in
attaining its target allocation of the regio nal housing needs, the budget of the local jurisdiction,
whether the jurisdiction complied fully with requirernents to publish an analysis of the
requirernents in the HAA, and the ratio of the median horne price to median household income
within the jurisdiction, with the aim of imposing a fine that has a deterrent effect without
unreasonably impacting the local agency's ability to provide basic services to its residents. These
fines cannot be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, and shall be committed
to a housing trust fimd within five years for the sole purpose of financin g newly constructed
housing lil1its affordable to extreme ly low-, very low-, or low-income households. A court may
SB 167
Page 6
also impose punitive damages if the court finds that the local jurisdiction acted in bad faith, and
the fine shall be multiplied by a factor of 10.
Change in Zoning or Land Use Designation not Valid for Disapproval: The bill provides that a
change in a zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the
application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition
approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
Attorney's fees: Existing law provides that a court may award attorney's fees and costs to a
petitioner who proposed a housing development or emergency shelter. This bill woukl authorize
a court to award attorney's fees and costs to a petitioner, including a housing organization,
regardless of whether the petitioner proposed the project.
HAA analysis: This bill would require every local agency to publish an analysis of the
requirements of the HAA as part of its review of each application for a housing development
project.
Petition to Enforce: Requires a petition to enforce the HAA to be filed and served no later than
90 days from the later of (1) The withdrawal of the application by the applicant or the effective
date of a decision of the local agency; or (2) The expiration of the time periods specified in the
Permit Streamlining Act.
Arguments in support: Supporters argue that the current enforcement mechanisms of the HAA
are inadequate to achieve compliance from local governments. The housing shortage, while felt
regionally and statewide, is often created by the individual decisions of local jurisdictions. It is
critical to prevent localities from saying no to housing at the expense of California as a whole.
According to supporters, this bill will make critically needed changes to the HAA to enstrre local
governments cannot forestall housing projects that deserve approval By clarifying existing
provisions of the HAA and imposing additional penalties on local governments that violate it
without sufficient evidence, this bill will help prevent NIMBY groups from posing barriers to the
housing development the state critically needs.
Arguments in opposition: Opponents cite several issues with the bill, including: (1) The bill
requires local decisions to be supported by sufficient findings supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. Sufficient should be deleted since the court shoukl only be considering whether
the agency's decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence , not reaching its own
conclusion about whether the findings are sufficient; (2) This bill requires the court to consider
the local agency's process in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need in
determining the amount of fine to impose on a local agency that has violated the HAA. The
regional housing need is a planning tool and was not designed to be used as a production goal or
target. Fines should only be assessed based on existing requirements in housing element law that
local agencies are already required to meet by law ; (3) Local agencies should have an
opportunity to cure a violation of the HAA before fines are imposed; and (4) The bill should
provide more clarity as to what should be included in the new requirement for a local agency to
publish an analysis of the HAA for a housing development project.
Related legislation:
AB 678 (Bocanegra, 2017): Makes several changes to the HAA. This bill is pending in the
Senate JudiciGl y Committee.
SB 167
Page 7
AB 1515 (Daly, 2017): Provides that, under the HAA, a housing development project or
emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable
plan, program, policy, ordinance , standard, requirement, or other similar provision 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. This bill is
pending in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
AB 2584 (Daly), Chapter 420, 2016: Authorized a 'housing organization," as defined, to enforce
specified provisions of the HAA.
Double referral: If SB 167 passes out of this committee, the bill will be referred to the
Committee on Local Government.
REGISTERED SUPPORT I OPPOSITION:
Support
Abundant Housing LA
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Corrnnerce
California Community Builders
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay Forward
East Bay Leadership Council
Hacienda
NHA Advisors
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Oakland Chamber of Corrnnerce
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Temer Center for Housing Innovation
YIMBY Action
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
City of San Marcos
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California
Analysis Prepared by: Rebecca Rabovsky I H. & C.D. /(916) 319-2085
SB 167
Page 8
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
Bill No :
Author:
Amended:
Vote:
SB 167
Skinner (D), et al.
5/23 /17
21
THIRD READING
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-2, 4/18/17
SB 167
A YES : Beall, Allen , Atkins, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski,
Wiener
NOES: Cannella, Morrell
NO VOTE RECORDED : Bates , Gaines
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/2/17
A YES: Jackson, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning , Stem, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SUBJECT: Housing Accountability Act
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes several changes to the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA).
S enate Floor Am endm ents of5/23 /l 7 return two provisions to existing law, which
do not prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing fees or exactions that are essential
to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development
project or emergency.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law, under the HAA:
1) Requires cities and counties , under existing planning and zoning law, to
prepare and adopt a general plan , including a housing element, to guide the
future growth of a community. The housing element shall consist of an
SB 167
Page 2
identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a
statement of goals, policies, objectives, financial resources and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
2) Requires the local jurisdiction, to the extent that it does not have adequate sites
within its existing inventory of residentially zoned land , to adopt a program to
rezone land at appropriate densities to accommodate the community's housing
need for all income groups.
3) Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing project containing units
affordable to very low-, low-or moderate income renters, or conditioning the
approval in a manner that renders the housing project infeasible, unless it
makes make one of the following fmdings, based upon substantial evidence in
the record:
a) The jurisdiction has adopted an updated housing element in substantial
compliance with the law, and the jurisdiction met its share of the regional
housing need for that income category.
b) The project will have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or
safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact
without rendering the housing development unaffordable to very low-,
low-or moderate income renters.
c) The denial or imposition of conditions is required to comply with state or
federal law.
d) The project is located on agricultural or resource preservation land that
does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities .
e) The jurisdiction has identified sufficient and adequate sites to
accommodate its s hare of the regional housing need and the project is
inconsistent with both the general plan land use designation and the zoning
ordinance.
4) Provides that if a locality denies approval or imposes restrictions , design
changes , a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that may
be occupied by a building or structure und er the applicable planning and
zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete, that have a
substantial adverse effect on the viability or affo rdability of housing
development for a very low-, low-or moderate-income households , and the
denial of that development or the imposition of restrictions on the development
is the subject of a court action which challenges the deniaL then the burden of
SB 167
Page 3
proof shall be on the locality to show that its decision is consistent with its
fmdings disapproving the development.
5) Provides "disapprove the housing development project" includes any instance
in which the local jurisdiction does either of the following:
a) Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the
application is disapproved.
b) Fails to comply with time periods for approving or disapproving of
projects under existing law.
6) Defines "housing d eve lopment project" as any of the following:
a) Residential units only.
b) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses
in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses
and to the first floor of the buildings that are two or more stories.
c) Transitional or supportive housing.
7) Provides "housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households" means
that either:
a) At least 20% of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income
households, or
b) 100% of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of
moderate income or middle-income.
8) Defines "very low-income" as persons and families whose income does not
exceed 50% area median income (AMI).
9) Defmes "low-income" as persons and families whose income does not exceed
80% AMI.
10) Defmes "moderate-income" as persons and families whose income does not
exceed 120% of AMI.
This bill:
SB 167
Page 4
1) Increases the burden on local jurisdictions from "substantial evidence" to "a
preponderance of the evidence" when making findings as to the disapproval of
a housing development project.
2) Provides that a change in a zoning ordinance or general plan land use
designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall
not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing
development project or emergency shelter.
3) Requires the local jurisdiction to publish an analysis of the requirements of the
HAA as part of its review of each application for a housing development
project.
4) Imposes a minimum fine of$1,000 per housing unit in the housing
development project if a court finds a violation of the HAA. In determining
the amount, the court shall consider the local agency's progress in attaining it s
target allocation of the regional housing needs, the budget of the local
jurisdiction, whether the jurisdiction complied fully with existing requirements
to publish an analysis of the requirements in the HAA, and the ratio of the
median home price to median household income within the jurisdiction, with
the aim of imposing a fine that has a deterrent effect without unreasonably
impacting the local jurisdiction's ability to provide basic services to its
residents. Fines shall not be paid out of fund s already dedicated to affordable
housing, and shall be committed to a housing trust fund within five years for
the sole purpose of fmancing newly constructed housing units affordable to
extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households. A court may also
impo se punitive damages if the court fmd s that the local jurisdiction acted in
bad faith. If the court fmds a loc al agency acted in bad faith, the court shall
multiply the fme by a factor of 10. If a housing organization is the prevailing
party, it s hall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.
5) Requires a petition to enforce the HAA shall be filed and served no later than
90 days from the later of:
a) The withdrawal of the application by the applicant or the effective date of a
decision of the local agency, or
b) The expiration of the time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining
Act.
Comments
SB 167
Page 5
1) Purpose of the bill. According to the author, this bill seeks to address the
severity of California 's housing crisis by taking a critical look at cities approval
processes for development. State courts are often too deferential to localities in
accepting any justification declaring a development infeasible. Although there
is an evident lack of funding, space, and construction, there are solutions the
state can implement to ensure development is taking place in conjunction with a
city's general plan and zo ning ordinance.
2) HM Background. The purpose of the HAA is to limit the ability oflocal
agencies to reject or make infeasible housing developments without a thorough
analysis of the economic , socia~ and environmental effects of the action. A
person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or
emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce
the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing
developments .
3) Hig her standard of proof This bill increases the burden on local jurisdictions
from "substantial evidence" to "a preponderance of the evidence" when making
finding s as to the disapproval of a housing development project. According to
the author, state courts are too deferential to local jurisdictions and accept "any
justification" for failing to meet state housing goals.
4) Fin es, fees, and punitive damages. Under existing law, a court may compel
compliance with the HAA, including an order that the locality approve the
housing development or emergency shelter. Additionally, a court may impos e
fine s upon a local agency for acting in bad faith. This bill imposes a minimum
fine of$1 ,000 per housing unit in the housing development project if a court
finds a violation of the HAA, and allows the court to evaluate a number of
factors to impose a fine that has a deterrent effect without unreasonably
impacting the local governrnent' s ability to provide basic services to its
residents. These fines cannot be paid out of funds already dedicated to
affordable housing, and shall be committed to a housing trust fund within five
years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed hous ing units
affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households. If a
housing organization is the prevailing party, it shall be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees. A court may also impose punitive damages if the court finds
that the local jurisdiction acted in bad faith, and the fine shall be multiplied by a
factor of 10.
SB 167
Page 6
According to the author, when other entities such as businesses or people break
the law, they often must pay fines , lose licenses , or face imprisonment. When
municipalities violate the HAA, there are no repercussions. Imposing specific
fees may not only punish bad actors, but may also serve as a deterrent for
violating the HAA. As noted by the opposition, these fines could result in
fmancial hardship for localities depending on the size of the project.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/30/17)
Abundant Housing LA
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Housing Consortium
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
East Bay Forward
North Bay Leadership Council
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Terner Center for Hous ing Innovation
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23 /17)
American Planning Association -California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California
Prepared by: Alison Hughes I T. & H. I (916) 651-4121
5/30/17 12:02:12
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
20 17 -2018 Regular
Bill No: SB 167 Hearing Date: 4118 /2017
Author: Skinner
Version: 4/17/2017 Amended
Urgency: No F iscal: No
Consultant: Alison Hughes
SUBJECT: Housing Accountability Act.
DIGEST: This bill makes several changes to the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law , under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA):
1) Requires cities and counties , under existing planning and zoning law, to prepare
and adopt a general plan, including a housing element, to guide the future
growth of a community. The housing element shall cons ist of an identification
and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals,
policies , objectives , financial resources and scheduled programs for the
preservation, improvement, and d evelopment of housing.
2) Requires the local jurisdiction, to the extent that it does not have adequate sites
within its existing inventory of residentially z oned land , to adopt a program to
rezone land at appropriate densities to accommodate the community 's housing
need for all income groups.
3) Prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing project containing units
affordable to very low-, low-or moderate income renters , or conditioning the
approval in a manner that renders the housing project infeasible, unless it makes
make one of the following findings , based upon substantial evidence in the
record :
a) The jurisdiction has adopted an updated housing element in substantial
compliance with the law, and the jurisdiction met its share of the regional
housing need for that income category.
SB 167 (Skinner) Page 2 of7
b) The project will have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or
safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact
without rendering the housing development unaffordable to very low-, low-
or moderate income renters.
c) The denial or imposition of conditions is required to comply with state or
federal law.
d) The project is located on agricultural or resource preservation land that does
not have adequate water or wastewater facilities.
e) The jurisdiction has identified sufficient and adequate sites to accommodate
its share of the regional housing need and the project is inconsistent with
both the general plan land use designation and the zoning ordinance.
4) Provides that if a locality denies approval or imposes restrictions, design
changes, a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that may
be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning
in force at the time the application is deemed complete, that have a substantial
adverse effect on the viability or affordability of housing development for a
very low-, low-or moderate-income households, and the denial of that
development or the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject
of a court action which challenges the denial , then the burden of proof shall be
on the locality to show that its decision is consistent with its findings
disapproving the development.
5) "Disapprove the housing development project" includes any instance in which
the local jurisdiction does either of the following:
a) Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the
application is disapproved.
b) Fails to comply with time periods for approving or disapproving of projects
under existing law.
6) Defines "housing development project" as any of the following :
a) Residential units only.
b) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in
which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood comm.ercial uses and
to the first floor of the buildings that are two or more stories.
c) Transitional or supportive housing.
SB 167 (Skinner) Page 3 of7
7) "Housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households " means that
either:
a) At least 20% of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income
households , or
b) 100% of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate
income or middle-income.
8) Defines "very low-income" as persons and families whose income does not
exceed 50% area median income (AMI).
9) Defines "low-income" as persons and families whose income does not exceed
80% AMI.
10) Defines "moderate-income" as persons and families whose income does not
exceed 120% of AMI.
11) Defines "above moderate-income" as persons and families whose income
exceeds 120% of AMI.
This bill :
1) Broadens the application of the HAA to also include housing development
projects with units affordable to above-moderate income households in several
provts1ons.
2) Increases the burden on local jurisdictions from "substantial evidence" to "clear
and convincing evidence" when making findings as to the disapproval of a
housing development project.
3) Provides that a change in a zoning ordinance or general plan land use
designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall
not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing
development project or emergency shelter.
4) Requires the local jurisdiction to publish an analysis of the requirements of the
HAA as part of its review of each application for a housing development
project.
5) Imposes a minimum fine of $100,000 per housing unit in the housing
development project if a court finds a violation of the HAA. Fines shall not be
paid out of funds aJready dedicated to affordable housing, and shall be
SB 167 (Skinner) Page4of7
committed to a housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of
financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low-, very
low-, or low-income households. A court may also impose punitive damages if
the court finds that the local jurisdiction acted in bad faith. If a housing
organization is the prevailing party, it shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's
fees.
6) Requires a petition to enforce the HAA shall be filed and served no lat er than
90 days from the later of:
a) The withdrawal of the application by the applicant or the effective date of
a decision of the local agency, or
b) The expiration of the time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining
Act.
7) Defines "very low-income" as persons and families whose income does not
exceed 50% area median income (A.Ml).
8) Defines "low-income" as persons and families whose income does not exceed
80% AMI.
9) Defines "moderate-income" as persons and families whose income does not
exceed 120% of AMI.
10) Defines "above moderate-income" as persons and families whose income
exceeds 120% of AMI.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of the bill. According to the author, this bill seeks to address the
severity of California's housing crisis by taking a critical look at cities approval
processes for development. State courts are often too deferential to localities in
accepting any justification declaring a development infeasible. Although there
is an evident lack of funding, space, and construction, there are so lutions the
state can implement to ensure development is taking place in conjunction with a
city's general plan and zoning ordinance.
2) HAA Background. Thepurposeofthe HAA is to limit the ability oflocal
agencies to reject or make infeasible housing developments without a thorough
analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action. A
person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or
emergency shelter, or a housing organization, may bring an action to enforce
SB 167 (Skinner) Page 5 of7
the HAA. Many provisions of the HAA are limited to lower-income housing
developments.
3) Broaden applicability of HAA to market rate housing. Most of the provisions in
the HAA, under existing law , apply to housing projects containing units
affordable to very low-, low-or moderate-income renters . According to the
Department ofHousing and Community Development, California presently has
a surplus of 300 ,000 units affordable to above moderate-income earners, a
61,000 unit shortfall for moderate-income earners, a 1 million unit shortfall for
low-income earners , a 1.5 million unit shortfall for very low-income earners,
and a 1 million unit shortfall for extremely low-income earners . While the
housing crisis is now felt among moderate income earners , the most severely
impacted are lower-income earners (i.e. 3.5 million unit shortfall). The HAA
incentivizes developers to include affordable housing in their housing
developments by providing a remedy for the denial of a project.
This bill would broaden some provisions of the HAA to apply to market rate
housing. The expansion of this law to include market-rate development would
remove an incentive for a market rate developer to include affordable housing
in a project where the crisis is most acutely felt. The author has agreed to
remove the expansion of provisions of the HAA to above-moderate income
renters.
4) Higher standard of proof This bill would increase the burden on local
jurisdictions from "substantial evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence"
when making findings as to the disapproval of a housing development project.
"Clear and convincing" indicates that the thing to be proved is highly probably
or reasonably certain. According to the author, state courts are too deferential
to local jurisdictions and accept"any justification" for failing to meet state
housing goals. By elevating the evidentiary standard to "clear and convincing,"
localities will need to prove that denying proposed housing development
projects or conditioning their approval upon lower density is necessary to
safeguard human health and safety.
5) Fines, fees , and punitive damages. Under existing law, a court may compel
compliance with the HAA , including an order that the locality approve the
housing development or emergency shelter. Additionally, a court may impose
fines upon a local agency for acting in bad faith. This bill would impose a
minimum fme of $100,000 per housing unit in the housing development project
if a court fmds a violation of the HAA. These fmes cannot be paid out of funds
already dedicated to affordable housing, and shall be committed to a housing
trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of fmancing newly constructed
SB 167 (Skinner) Page 6 of7
housing units affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or low-income
households. If a housing organization is the prevailing party, it shall be entitled
to reasonable attorney's fees. A court may also impose punitive damages if the
court finds that the local jurisdiction acted in bad faith.
According to the author, when other entities such as businesses or people break
the law, they often must pay fines, lose licenses, or face imprisonment. When
municipalities violate the HAA, there are no repercussions. Imposing specific
fees may not only punish bad actors , but may also serve as a deterrent for
violating the HAA. As noted by the opposition, these fines could result in
financial hardship for localities depending on the size of the project. The author
has agreed that these fines may be too high, and will work on the appropriate
fines in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
6) Seeing double. This bill is exactly the same as a bill that was introduced in the
Assembly (see related legislation section below). The author states the reason
for moving two bills that are exactly the same in two houses is to provide "two
vehicles" for the same legislation.
7) Opposition . California State Association of Counties, Rural County
Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California state that
the court fines are too high and could bankrupt a city. These groups also
contend that the higher standard of proof would be almost impossible for local
governments to meet. The American Planning Association, California Chapter
shares these concerns , and adds that expanding the HAA to include above
moderate-income would remove any incentive to take advantage of the HAA by
including affordable housing in a project.
8) Double-referral. This bill was double-referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 678 (Bocanegra, 2017)-would make several substantive changes to the
HAA and is identical to this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
April 12, 2017.)
SB 167 (Skinner)
SUPPORT:
Abundant Housing LA
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
East Bay Forward
North Bay Leadership Council
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Terner Center for Housing Innovation
Y1MBY Action
OPPOSITION:
American Planning Association -California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California
-END-
Page 7 of7