2013-12-19 uc village project aha appeal

8/13/2019 2013-12-19 UC Village Project AHA Appeal

1/6

"'-- -; . PLANNING & ZONIN PPE LGENERAL INFOR MATION Date of decision being appealed:

2 / / 2 0 1 3Who: Any Applicant or party with standing may appeal an

administrative decision by Planning staff or a Planning &Type of decision: Please check on eZoning Commission action

When: A written appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the Administrative 0administrative or Commission action

Planning & Zoning Commission [iJ

Where:Appeals of administrative decisions are filed with theMunicipal Code or ZoningCommunity Development Department. Appeals o f Planning &Ordinance Section 0Zoning Commission actions are filed with the City Clerk

Cost: $565.00 (non-refundable)

Process: Appeals o f Planning Staff decisions will be consideredby the Planning & Zoning Commission. Appeals of Plan- If you have any questions regarding thisning & Zoning Commission decisions will be heard before procedure, please call the City Clerk atthe City Council. For appeals o f Planning. & Zoning (510)528-5720 or Planning DivisionalCommission decisions on items not requiring a Public (510) 528-5760.Hearing l the appeal will be set for formal City Councilconsideration within 30 days. For items which requireda Public Hearing, the City Council willschedule a Public Hearing within 30 days to consider the

appeal. . 1100 San Pablo Avenue (Senior Residential Development); 1080 Monroe Street (Retail Development)

Project Address: aod 1OZ5-1095 Mooroe Street (Betail Delielopmeot)University VillageMixed Use ProjectDescription of Project:

Albany Housing Advocates and AmberApplicant Name: University of California Appellant Name:Whitson c/o Naomi YoungBelmont Village

Address: Oppidan/Portfolio Address: c/o Naomi Young, Bay Area Legal Aid(See Attachment A) (See Attachment A).

Phone Number: Phone Number:

Basis of Appeal: (Please be precise) AQQellants aQQeal the Planning & Zoning Commission's aQQroval of Tentative MaQs and

Design Review for a Senior Residential DeveloQment (Belmont Village) at 1100 San Pablo Avenue and a retail develoQment at1075-1095 Monroe Street, Albany, CA on the grounds that the Commission's aQQrovals are inconsistent with the Ci y's General Plan.The Ci!:i's General Plan is invalid because it lacks a housing element that substantially complies with state law. (See Attachment B).

~ J

Signature:

Date Filed:

I f ~\ L k ~l \ IRe c e ' d ( }Y: ~ R

Dote: December 19, 2013

Q IFee: Sc.5' IReceipt : ~ l ~ S 5Appeal Agenda Date:

\ . . /

P Z D City Council DJ:/Forms/Planning/P&ZAppeaIForm.pub Revised 9/23/2013

X


2/6

APPEAL ATTACHMENT AAppeal by Appellants AHAIWhitson o Planning and Zoning Commission Decision on 12/11/l3approving Tentative Maps and Design Review for University Village Mixed Use Project.

APPLICANT:

Owner: The Regents o University o California200 A&E BuildingBerkeley, CA 94720-l382Telephone: (510) 643-5314

ApplicantlRepresentative:

Belmont Village Albany, LLC (Senior Housing)5800 Armada Drive, Suite 200Carlsbad, CA 92008Contact: Brent Covey

Telephone: (760) 931-1l34 x

Oppidan/Portfolio (Retail)c/o BKF, Consultant4670 Willow Road, Suite 250Pleasanton, CA 94588-3323Telephone: (925) 396-7700

APPELLANTS:

Albany Housing AdvocatesAmber Whitson

c/o: Naomi YoungBay Area Legal Aid1735 Telegraph AvenueOakland, CA 94612Telephone: (510) 663-4744

David LevinBay Area Legal Aid1025 MacDonald Ave.Richmond, CA 94801Telephone: (510) 233-9954

Deborah CollinsLauren HansenThe Public Interest Law Project449-15 t Street, Suite 301Oakland, CA 94612Telephone: (510) 891-9794 x 156

Attachment A - Page 1 o 1


3/6

APPEAL ATTACHMENT BAppeal by Appellants AHAlWhitson o Planning and Zoning Commission Decision on 12111113approving Tentative Maps and Design Review for University Village Mixed Use Project.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.

Summary o Appeal. Appellants Affordable Housing Advocates (AHA) and Amber Whitsonappeal the decision o the Planning and Zoning Commission ( Commission ) on December 112013 to approve Resolution Nos. 13-05, 13-06, 13-07, 13-08, 13-09, 13-10, and 13-11 approvingtentative maps, conditions, and design review o the University Village Mixed Use Project(Project). See Commission Agenda for 12/11/13 Meeting, Agenda Item 4.A and attachmentsthereto. The appeal is based on the grounds that the Commission's approval o the tentativemaps and design o improvements is inconsistent with the Albany General Plan.

Standing o Appellants. AHA is a non-profit corporation comprised o Albany residents,including Ms. Whitson. AHA's mission is to encourage residents and officials to support theneed o all persons to have safe and secure housing, promote fair housing opportunities, andensure the City's compliance with fair housing and housing element requirements. Appellantsare parties to a housing element lawsuit against the City o Albany in which they allege that theCity failed to adopt a housing element for the current housing element planning period (2009-14)as required by California Government Code 65580, 65583, 65588. See Petition for Writ oMandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed October 2 2013 inAffordable Housing Advocates et al v City Albany et at. Alameda County Superior Court,Case No. RG13697761 (Exhibit A). The Commission's approval o the tentative maps anddesign improvements for the Project impedes the City's ability to identify adequate sites to meetits outstanding regional housing needs allocation, thereby preventing it from bringing its housingelement into compliance with state law and depriving AHA and Ms. Whitson o relief requestedin their petition. AHA and Ms. Whitson also are beneficially interested in ensuring that the Citycomplies with state land use and planning laws, including that all land use actions are consistentwith Albany's General Plan.

Factual Background. Albany does not have a valid housing element. It last adopted a housingelement in 1992. See Albany General Plan, adopted December 7, 1992, at p. 49 [HousingElement] (available at http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=439 ). That housing element hasnot been regularly updated as required by Govt. C. 65588 and does not substantially complywith current housing element law which has changed significantly since 1992. See Govt. C.65580 et seq. The most recent housing element revision was required to be completed by June30 2009. See HCD Revision Update Schedule, Revision 4 (Exhibit B). The City did not submita draft housing element to the Department o Housing and Community Development (HCD) forreview until on or about October 25, 2013. See Transmittal Letter to HCD dated October 25,2013 (Exhibit C). HCD has not completed its review o the draft element, and City staffrecognizes that additional revisions will be required by HCD before a final element can beadopted by the City Council. See HCD Review Status Report (Exhibit D); Staff Report,Planning and Zoning Commission, September 25, 2013 (Exhibit E). Because the City lacks ahousing element that substantially complies with state law, its General Plan was invalid onDecember 11,2013.

Attachment B - Page 1
http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=439http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=439


4/6

The Commission nonetheless approved tentative maps and design improvements for a marketrate senior residential development at 1100 San Pablo Avenue and retail developments at 10751095 Momoe Street and 1080 Momoe Street on December 11, 2013. (Minutes o theCommission's meeting are not yet available.) It also made findings that the tentative maps anddesign o improvements for the Project are consistent with the General Plan. See Resolutions

2013-05 at p. 3, ,-rl; 2013-06, p. 3, ,-rl; 2013-07, p.3, ,-rl; 2013-08, p. 3, ,-rA.1: 2013-09, p. 4, ,-rA.l;2013-10 at p. 4, ,-rA.1.

Analysis As a matter o law, the Commission was precluded from making consistency findingsin the absence o a valid General Plan. A City's General Plan is its constitution for development,and all subsequent land use actions must be consistent with the General Plan. See De Vita vCounty o f Napa, 9 Ca1.4th 763, 772 (1971); Lesher Communications, Inc v City o f Walnut Creek,52 Ca1.3d531-540 (1990). Consistency with the General Plan is required for approval o atentative map. Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc v City Council, 44 Cal.App.3d 825 (1975).

A General Plan must contain seven mandatory elements, including a housing element. Govt. C.

65302. The housing element must include, among other things, an analysiso

the jurisdiction'scurrent and projected housing needs, including its fair share o regional housing needs and thehousing needs o special populations. Govt. C. 65583(a), 65584. It also must contain a landinventory and identify adequate sites to provide for the housing needs o persons at all incomelevels. Govt. C. 65583(a)(3). f its inventory o sites does not identity sufficient sites toaccommodate the housing needs for all income levels, it must accommodate the remaining needby rezoning additional sites within specified time frames. Govt. C. 65583(c)(1)(A), 65583(f);see also 65584.09. Unlike other elements o the General Plan, the housing element must beupdated on a regular basis pursuant to a schedule imposed by the Legislature. Govt. C. 65588.By failing to update its housing element since 1992, Albany has failed to comply with housingelement laws. As a result, it lacks a valid housing element.

Without a valid housing element, the General Plan lacks a mandatory element, rendering theGeneral Plan invalid. Resource Defense Fund v County o f Santa Cruz, 133 Cal.App.3d 800, 806(1982). Because the General Plan is invalid, the Commission's approval o tentative maps anddesign o improvements regarding the University Village site were inconsistent per se with theGeneral Plan. Lesher, 52 Ca1.3d 531; Citizens o f Goleta v Bd f Supervisors, 52 Ca1.3d 5531990); Neighborhood Action Group v County o f Calaveras, 156 Cal.App.3d 1176 (1984).

The City should set aside the Commission's approval o the tentative maps and postpone anyfurther action on the University Village site until it demonstrates in a valid housing element thatit can accommodate its outstanding regional housing needs on other sites. Albany was assigneda regional housing need (RHNA) o 277 units for the 1999-2006 planning period. Draft HousingElement October 2013 (Exhibit F) at p. 2-1. Its RHNA for the current planning period is 276

1 Resolution 2013-11, approving special fmdings in support o design review applications for the Project, omits afmding that the action is consistent with the General Plan. d. at pp. 2-6.

2 When a City fails to adopt a valid housing element, a court may suspend its land use powers, including forexample, suspending its authority to issue building permits, grant zoning changes or variances, approve subdivisionmaps, or otherwise approve any construction or development, except housing units affordable to very low and lowincome households. See Govt. C. 65755.

http:///reader/full/Cal.App.3dhttp:///reader/full/Cal.App.3dhttp:///reader/full/Cal.App.3dhttp:///reader/full/Cal.App.3dhttp:///reader/full/65584.09http:///reader/full/Cal.App.3dhttp:///reader/full/Cal.App.3d


5/6

units. Id pp. 1 3 - 1-4. Because the City did not identify adequate sites to accommodate itsRHNA for the prior planning period, the total RHNA that must be accommodated during thecurrent planning period is 553 units. See Govt. C. 65584.09. The inventory o r sites in the DraftHousing Element reflects that the City can accommodate, at est only 147 residential units.Draft Housing Element at 4-5; Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5. Although the University Village site is

identified in the draft element as oneof

very few vacant sites remaining in Albany, the Cityconcludes that this site is not available or needed to meet its outstanding RHNA. See DraftHousing Element at Table 4-4, p. 4-12. Appellants disagree. The University Village site maywell be needed to accommodate the City s longstanding regional housing needs.

Appellants urge the City Council to set aside the Commission s approval of the tentative maps,conditions, and design of improvements for the Project as inconsistent p r se with the GeneralPlan. See Lesher at 544.

http:///reader/full/65584.09


6/6

EXHIBITS Attached

EXHIBIT A: Petition/Complaint in AHA et al v City o Albany, filed 10-2-13

EXHIBIT B: HCD Schedule o Fourth Revisions

EXHIBIT C: Transmittal Letter to HCD, dated 10-25-13

EXHIBIT D: HCD Current Review Status

EXHIBIT E: Staff Report to Planning nd Zoning Commission, dated 9-25-13

EXHIBIT F: Draft Housing Element October 2013)


2013-12-19 uc village project aha appeal

Documents