Dive Brief:
- Housing advocacy groups are taking three California cities to court over alleged violations of a new state law that permits housing development near qualifying public transit stops.
- The lawsuits argue that San Diego, San Francisco and Montebello, California, have implemented measures that limit the scope of Senate Bill 79, which was signed into law last fall and went into effect July 1.
- Other California jurisdictions are also facing litigation for allegedly failing to comply with state housing production goals, which tasks local governments with planning for an additional 2.5 million homes statewide.
Dive Insight:
The state law provides localities with some flexibility, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments. Local governments can adopt their own local transit-oriented development plan, as long as it provides the same overall housing capacity and is approved by the state Department of Housing and Community Development.
The lawsuit against San Diego argues the city misinterprets a “walking path” requirement for development in the state law and improperly excluded areas with gaps in sidewalks from development, according to Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit arm of the California Association of Realtors and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits.
Plaintiffs allege that San Francisco excluded areas it designated “industrial employment hubs” from development in violation of the legislation. The lawsuit against Montebello challenges the city’s alleged moratorium on development.
“The Legislature has included strong local control provisions in this law, allowing cities to adjust the state policy to better fit the needs of their communities,” Matthew Gelfand, in-house litigator for Californians for Homeownership, said in a news release. “We are committed to ensuring that cities strictly comply with these provisions in adopting local transit-oriented development policies.”
The California Housing Defense Fund is also a plaintiff in the three lawsuits, and YIMBY Law joined both organizations in the legal action against San Francisco.
