By Kevin V. Nguyen : sfstandard – excerpt
State laws gutted the old arguments against new housing. So opponents are getting creative…
Over nearly a decade, California has layered housing laws that narrow what cities and neighbors can do to block a project they don’t like once a developer files. Essentially, cities can’t change the rules mid-stream anymore, downzone a site, or use discretionary review to stall projects that qualify based on growth mandates and affordability carve-outs…
With few legal avenues for challenges to development on the grounds that it is too big, too dense, or “out of character,” NIMBYs are increasingly honing in on the fine print.
But cities that attempt to side with opponents of development can end up in court and owing legal fees. That’s what happened to Menlo Park, which was sued this month by the developer of the former Sunset Magazine headquarters, alleging the city spent nearly three years stalling a mixed-use development by claiming it didn’t qualify for the state’s fast-track laws. (California Attorney General Rob Bonta had warned the city about this conduct.)
‘If we apply them, let’s apply them as written’
In San Francisco, neighbors of the Marina Safeway redevelopment last month filed their intent to sue the developer, city, and PG&E in federal court, arguing that the project doesn’t qualify for streamlined approval under AB 2011 and that contamination at the site (stemming from when it housed a PG&E steam plant) wasn’t properly considered during the application process.
Specifically, they are challenging the city’s view that enough of the site’s perimeter borders “urban uses,” a test that gets a project fast-tracked. The neighbors argue that a yacht harbor and Fort Mason shouldn’t count as urban use and allege that the developer skipped a required assessment of the contamination.
Of note, the YesAnd group), which spearheaded the lawsuit, shares a founder with Neighborhoods United SF, a coalition that previously campaigned against “extreme and unnecessary development.”
Stu Gross of Gross Klein PC, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, declined to state why his clients are waiting to file their suit. However, the complaint references the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a federal hazardous waste law, that has a required waiting period after providing regulators and responsible parties notice of intent to sue.
“Politicians and interest groups can debate whether these streamlining laws are appropriate,” Gross said. “But if we apply them, let’s apply them as written.”… (more)