The site is designated for high-density multifamily residential in the City’s General Plan and zoning code. In 2015, a developer applied to the City to build a ten-unit, multifamily residential building on a site surrounded by single-family residences. (f)(4).) The Legislature also reiterated that the policy of the state and the HAA should be interpreted in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest, provision, and approval of housing. (j)(i).) Dissatisfied with the dearth of housing in the state, in 2017 the California Legislature added teeth to this requirement by clarifying that a housing development is deemed to comply with such objective standards if “substantial evidence … would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that it does.
It provides that local governments may only deny an application to build housing if the proposed housing project does not comply with “objective” General Plan, zoning, and design review standards. meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects. The Housing Accountability Act, colloquially known as the “Anti-NIMBY” (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) law, was originally passed in 1982 with the goal of: The court also upheld the HAA against challenges that it infringed upon the city’s rights under the California Constitution.
The court held that because the design standards were subjective, rather than objective, they could not serve as a basis to deny the application. City of San Mateo held that the City of San Mateo (City) violated the state’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) in denying a proposal for multi-family housing based on concerns that the project’s height and scale conflicted with the city’s design standards. The First District Court of Appeal in California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v.
0 kommentar(er)
