Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, No. F060788 (5th
Dist. November 14, 2011)
Last week the 5th District Court of Appeal clarified that
certain requirements of the Housing Accountability Act, Government
Code Section 65589.5, are triggered by all housing developments,
not just those that include affordable housing.
At issue in the case was Section 65589.5(j), which limits a local
agency's ability to disapprove a proposed "housing
development project" that complies with applicable general
plan, zoning, and design review standards. To disapprove such a
project, the local agency must first make written findings that the
project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or
safety, and that the impact could not be mitigated or avoided
except by disapproving the project.
Without making findings under Section 65589.5(j), the Stanislaus
County Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to subdivide 33
acres along the Stanislaus River and develop single family
houses.
The developer petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel the County
to make the required findings The trial court ruled that the County
did not need to make findings because the proposed development did
not comply with an applicable design review
standard—namely a County Code requirement that all lots
of a subdivision must be connected to a public water system. The
developer appealed.
On appeal, the County first argued that Section 65589.5(j) applies
only to affordable housing projects. It reasoned that because other
sections of the Housing Accountability Act specifically address
affordable housing, the legislature must have intended to limit the
applicability of Section 65589.5(j) to affordable housing
projects.
The court rejected the County's argument. It first noted that
the Act "expressly defines 'housing development
project' to include residential units . . ., and nothing in
that definition limits the reach of the phrase 'housing
development project' to projects involving affordable
housing."
Then applying standard principles of statutory construction, the
court found that limiting Section 65589.5(j) to affordable housing
projects would contradict the express definition in the Act.
Moreover, the court found that even if the Act was ambiguous,
nothing in the legislative history suggested that it was meant to
be limited to affordable housing. Finally, the court pointed out
that previous cases supported this interpretation, and that
subsequent amendments to the Act did not compel a different
result.
On appeal, the County renewed its argument that the public water
connection requirement was a design review standard within the
meaning of Section 65589.5(j), and that because the proposed
development did not comply with the requirement, the County was
relieved from the obligation to make written findings.
The court rejected the County's argument and reversed the trial
court. The court doubted that the water connection requirement was
a design review standard, but assuming it was, the court concluded
that the developer had not failed to comply with it. The
requirement stated that "all lots of a subdivision shall be
connected to a public water system . . . whenever available."
But because the County had not approved the developer's
tentative map, there were no lots to connect to the water system at
the time the County disapproved the development. Thus, the
development had not failed to comply with requirement, and the
County was obligated to make Section 65589.5(j) findings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.