The City of Huntington Beach filed new court documents April 3 asking an Orange County Superior Court judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it by the state, saying the state’s charges in the suit, relative to housing, have been remediated.
The action comes after the Huntington Beach City Council voted 6–1 March 21 to resume accepting applications under SB9—which was passed by the California Legislature in 2021 and allows up to four homes on lots where only one existed previously—and for accessory dwelling units, better known as ADUs or “granny flats.”
“There is nothing in controversy,” the city’s fresh filing reads.
The council, in February, voted to ban such applications, prompting state Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Department of Housing and Development (HCD) to file a lawsuit March 8 against the city saying the city’s actions were “in conflict” with California law.
According to city officials, during the brief four-week ban, no applications were received for such housing permits.
The state’s lawsuit also threatened future consequences if the city council voted to ban what’s known as “builder’s remedy,” which allows developers to skirt local zoning laws for some new development projects, if a city has failed to meet a state-mandated affordable housing plan. The council had a first discussion on the issue March 7.
But in the city’s filing this week, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates indicated that the issue never returned for a vote by the council, so there is nothing for the state to litigate on that issue.
Requests for comment to attorneys representing the state as well as to the housing department were not immediately returned.
Mandatory Housing Plan
The city’s lawsuit argues the number of housing units it is required to zone for is disproportionate to other cities, and the largest allocation in the state based on a city’s size and population.The city’s lawsuit references a 2022 report by the State’s Independent Auditor which determined the housing department’s 2021 calculations in question were created using a flawed system and are therefore inaccurate.
The housing department “could not demonstrate that it adequately considered all of the factors that state law requires,” concluding that “this insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need.”
Of concern to Huntington Beach officials is that of the more than 13,000 units it must zone for, a tad more than 8,000 must be set aside as “affordable” for individuals earning very low, low, and moderate incomes. Developers usually include around 20 percent affordable units in new projects, to maintain no net loss fiscally.
To meet that number, according to city officials, the affordable units would have to be spread out over multiple developments—meaning each new development would only include a quarter of units deemed affordable—which could result, they say, in having to plan for as many as 40,000 units overall.
They say such would increase the amount of housing in the city by 50 percent and would drastically change its makeup.
Violating Free Speech
California cities were required to have an approved housing plan, including a signed declaration stating the need for housing overrules unavoidable environmental impacts, by Oct. 15, 2022. Huntington Beach still does not.A plan was almost approved during the March 21 council meeting, but a presentation by city staff said the impacts of approving it would create “significant and unavoidable,” environmental impacts, such as exceeding thresholds for air quality, greenhouse gases, hydrology and water quality, noise, and utilities, and services systems.
The council voted 4–3 on the issue again April 4, with the newly elected conservative majority voting against signing the declaration. Councilors Dan Kalmick, Natalie Moser, and Rhonda Bolton voted in favor.
“I will not allow the state to violate my first amendment right by forcing me to sign a document that says I think these housing mandates are more important than the negative impacts on the environment that they will create. I won’t do it,” Councilman Casey McKeon said during the meeting.
McKeon said he reflected on campaign promises he and Gracey Van Der Mark, Pat Burns and Tony Strickland made during their campaigns last fall, which included protecting the city against overdevelopment.
“This is the moment we stand our ground and draw the line in the sand to save our city. This is the moment we fight back,” he said.
But Kalmick said during the meeting that the declaration regarding environmental impacts was more guidance than actual policy and that the new board majority was “copping out on a technicality.”
“This is an administrative document that shows that we can meet state law, it’s not a building target,” he said during the meeting.
But Mayor Tony Strickland said signing the environmental declaration would force the council to declare that the “governors housing crisis,” is more important than the negative environmental impacts caused by following the state’s housing mandates.
“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said.
In a dramatic flourish, McKeon doubled down with his closing comment on the matter.
“I will never stop fighting against state overreach in order to protect the city I love and the amazing residents who elected me, because I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees,” he said.
