Loading...
CC 10-23-2024 Item 1 Statewide Housing Laws that Apply to Applications for Housing Development Projects_Written CommunicationsCC 10-23-2024 Item No. 1 Statewide Housing Laws that Apply to Applications for Housing Development Projects Written Communications From:Vikram Saxena To:City Clerk Cc:Liang Chao Subject:Written Communication for Wednesday"s Study session on housing law Date:Sunday, October 20, 2024 2:22:56 PM Attachments:Builders-Remedy-and-Housing-Elements.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk: I wanted to enter the following document which is from the ABAG website and is attached to the email. It interprets the law regarding the housing element and builder's remedy. The paragraph I wanted to highlight specifically says: "HCD approval is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agencies to the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section 65585(j).)" https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Builders-Remedy-and-Housing- Elements.pdf 1 DISCLAIMER: This document is intended solely as a technical overview of the provisions of certain provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. It is not intended to serve as legal advice regarding any jurisdiction's specific policies or any proposed housing development project. Local staff should consult with their city attorney or county counsel when determining the applicability of these provisions to any proposed housing development project in their jurisdiction. The “Builder’s Remedy” and Housing Elements There have recently been press reports regarding the so-called “Builder’s Remedy” that can be used to avoid local zoning requirements when a locality’s housing element does not substantially comply with state law. These reports have stated that, if a locality has a noncompliant housing element the city or county must approve the housing development project, regardless of the local zoning. The “Builder’s Remedy” arises from the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5 1; the HAA). This paper describes the provisions of the HAA that constitute the “Builder’s Remedy” and how they may apply to a proposed housing development project. How Does the “Builder’s Remedy” Work? The HAA requires that cities and counties make one of five findings to deny, or to apply conditions that make infeasible, a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” or an emergency shelter. (Section 65589.5(d).) A housing development project with 20 percent of the total units available to lower income households or with all of the units available for moderate or middle income households may qualify as housing “for very low, low- or moderate income households” (see detailed description below). The five findings which would allow denial of an eligible project can be summarized as follows: 1.The city or county has met or exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the proposed income categories in the development. 2.The housing development or emergency shelter would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application was deemed complete. 3.The denial or condition is required to meet state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. 4.The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project. 1 All future references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified. Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program 2 5. The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element. However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law. If a locality has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the zoning or the general plan. The term “Builder’s Remedy” is used to describe the situation where a local agency may be required to approve an eligible housing development project because it cannot make one of the other four findings. Are Projects Using the “Builder’s Remedy” Exempt from CEQA Review? The HAA contains no exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act. The HAA states specifically that nothing relieves the local agency from making the required CEQA findings and otherwise complying with CEQA. (Section 65589.5(e).) A project may be exempt from CEQA under other provisions of CEQA, other state laws, or the CEQA Guidelines. When Does a Housing Element No Longer Comply with State Law? Is There a Grace Period If the Housing Element Is Not Adopted by the Due Date? Housing elements are required to comply with current state housing element law on the established due date (January 31, 2023 in the ABAG region). State law has changed significantly since fifth cycle housing elements were adopted, and it would be unlikely that a fifth cycle housing element would substantially comply with current state law. If a sixth cycle element has not been adopted by the due date, the housing element would likely be out of compliance with state law until a complying sixth cycle housing element is adopted. There is no grace period, even for the period when a housing element is being reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD approval is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agencies to the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section 65585(j).) Are a Local Agency’s Development Standards Null and Void If the Housing Element is Not in Compliance with State Law? No, the local agency’s development standards are not null and void if the housing element is not in substantial compliance with state law. The “Builder’s Remedy,” however, may require a local agency to approve an eligible housing development project despite its noncompliance with local development standards. Conversely, other projects may be challenged because a finding of general plan consistency cannot be made if the general plan is out of compliance with state law. What Projects Are Eligible to Use the “Builder’s Remedy”? The “Builder’s Remedy” applies only to a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” and to emergency shelters. The HAA defines a “housing development project” as either: • Residential units only; • Mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program 3 • Transitional housing or supportive housing.2 (Section 65589.5(h)(2).) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes either: • 20% of the total units sold or rented to lower income households; • 100% of the units sold or rented to moderate income households; or • 100% of the units sold or rented to middle income households.3 Monthly housing costs for lower income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of median income, adjusted for household size, and the units must remain affordable for 30 years. Monthly housing costs for moderate income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of median income. There are no standards in the HAA for housing costs for middle income households. (Sections 65589.5(h)(3), (h)(4).) An emergency shelter is housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (Section 65582(d); Health & Safety Code Section 50801(e).) 2 As defined in Section 65582. 3 Those earning no more than 150 percent of median income. From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Cal Matter"s April 2024 article on proposed bills to address Builders" Remedy Date:Sunday, October 20, 2024 1:10:01 PM A resident brought my attention to this April 2024 article about California housing laws that I thought might be a good reference for the 10/23 special council meeting on housing laws. Please enter this into the written communication. I thought these paragraphs are worth noting. But keep in mind that the article was written in April 2024 when the two bills to address Builder's Remedy were just proposed. The version finally adopted and signed by the Governor in September might be different, which I hope the City Attorney or Ms. Babara Kautz could provide some clarity on. "The proposed overhaul, outlined in a newly amended draft of the bill published this morning, includes new perks for developers, textual edits to clear up how the law would apply and a provision to let developers who make use of other state laws allowing them to bypass environmental review and public hearing requirements to make use of builder’s remedy guarantees too. But the bill would also put a cap on how big builder’s remedy projects can be, while prohibiting its use in industrial zoned areas. That’s a break from current law, in which the sky — and the California Building Code — is the limit." "AB 1886 by San Diego Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat, would specify that jurisdictions without state certified housing plans would be subject to the builder’s remedy until those plans are passed by local officials and signed off on by the California Housing and Community Development department. That’s a response to cities that have argued that the state’s stamp of approval isn’t necessary." "Though the state doesn’t gather data on builder’s remedy projects, the pro-housing legal advocacy group YIMBY Law has identified 93 projects with roughly 17,000 potential units spread across 40 mostly affluent California cities. Jurisdictions have refused to process nearly half of these applications, arguing that the law doesn’t actually apply, that it’s been misinterpreted or that the law itself is unconstitutional. Eight of the projects are the subject of current lawsuits. Few, if any, builder’s remedy projects have actually resulted in new housing — yet." "A sizable chunk of California municipalities are still legally vulnerable to the “remedy.” At last count, nearly 40% of cities and counties have failed to have their “housing elements” certified by the state." "The first is legal. As written, the builder’s remedy includes seemingly self-contradictory provisions that seem to simultaneously allow developers an unlimited amount of density while also empowering local governments to apply their own standards. Both of those things can’t be true at the same time." "Wicks’ bill would ... cap projects at two or three times the current zoned density, depending on the neighborhood. That doesn’t include whatever add-ons are allowed under the state’s density bonus law, which gives developers added height and density in exchange for building affordable units. The bill would also allow cities to impose “objective” standards of development, including architectural style requirements, if they already apply to other dense multifamily areas and aren’t prohibitively expensive to abide by ... In a perk for developers, the bill would also reduce the number of affordable units that builder’s remedy projects are required to provide. Currently developers have to set aside at least 20% of the units for lower income renters or buyers. The bill would cut that number to 10% while exempting projects of 10 units or fewer from any affordability requirement." ====== California’s most controversial housing law could get a makeover by Ben Christopher APRIL 2, 2024 HTTPS://CALMATTERS.ORG/HOUSING/2024/04/BUILDERS-REMEDY-BILLS/ In summary Some of California’s top lawmakers want to clear up, but also rein in, the state’s most controversial housing statute For the last two years the “builder’s remedy” has been the unruly teenager of California housing laws. Running roughshod over zoning regulations while sowing angst among local elected officials, the law lets developers build as much as they like, wherever they like, in cities and counties that have blown past deadlines to get their housing development blueprints certified by state regulators. Despite its use as a hardball negotiating tactic by aggressive developers, no project has broken ground, much less finished, as a result of the builder’s remedy. That’s partially because relatively few developers are willing to make use of the confusingly-worded law for lack of legal certainty. Now, some of California’s most powerful Democratic lawmakers are pushing legislation that would clear up, but also rein in, the state’s most controversial housing statute. Nearly a year and a half since a developer first used the law to propose a zoning-code- blowing project, 2024 may be the year that the builder’s remedy grows up. “The ‘builder’s remedy’ has sort of lived in the Twitterverse, but actually making it a clear law, so that everyone is following the same rules of engagement and we know what the rules are…(that) is really what we’re aiming to do here,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Berkeley Democrat, who chairs the Assembly appropriations committee and who authored AB 1893, which she said would “modernize” the law. The proposed overhaul, outlined in a newly amended draft of the bill published this morning, includes new perks for developers, textual edits to clear up how the law would apply and a provision to let developers who make use of other state laws allowing them to bypass environmental review and public hearing requirements to make use of builder’s remedy guarantees too. But the bill would also put a cap on how big builder’s remedy projects can be, while prohibiting its use in industrial zoned areas. That’s a break from current law, in which the sky — and the California Building Code — is the limit. “We tried to land this bill in a place where it is a stick — it’s holding our cities accountable — but it’s not overreaching in its scope,” said Wicks. Wicks’ bill is backed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has ramped up the state Department of Justice’s enforcement of housing production law since coming into office in 2021. “It has been over 30 years since the builder’s remedy was enacted and it’s remained in effect, largely unchanged, since then,” Bonta said in a statement. The bill is meant to provide clarity to “local governments, planners, developers, and courts,” he added, while also ensuring that housing actually gets built in cities and counties that don’t have certified housing elements, rather than getting stuck in legal limbo. This is one of at least two bills aimed at tying up the builder’s remedy’s perceived loose ends. AB 1886 by San Diego Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat, would specify that jurisdictions without state certified housing plans would be subject to the builder’s remedy until those plans are passed by local officials and signed off on by the California Housing and Community Development department. That’s a response to cities that have argued that the state’s stamp of approval isn’t necessary. Does the builder’s remedy need fixing? The builder’s remedy has been on the books for more than three decades, but was only recently given new life by pro-housing legal scholars and state housing regulators. As cities and counties have scrambled to plan for their share of the 2.5 million new homes that Gov. Gavin Newsom wants built across California by the end of the decade, the builder’s remedy — which spells a total loss of local control over land use — has been among the most menacing possible consequences of non-compliance. It’s also been a reliable path to litigation. Though the state doesn’t gather data on builder’s remedy projects, the pro-housing legal advocacy group YIMBY Law has identified 93 projects with roughly 17,000 potential units spread across 40 mostly affluent California cities. Jurisdictions have refused to process nearly half of these applications, arguing that the law doesn’t actually apply, that it’s been misinterpreted or that the law itself is unconstitutional. Eight of the projects are the subject of current lawsuits. Few, if any, builder’s remedy projects have actually resulted in new housing — yet. Defenders of the current law say that isn’t surprising: Large residential developments take years to complete and the current legal ambiguities in the newly unearthed law are being ironed out by the courts in developers’ favor. “The builders remedy is already a very successful program at motivating cities to get in compliance with the housing element law and in generating applications for housing that would otherwise not be possible in the highest income, highest opportunity places in California,” said Sonja Trauss, YIMBY Law’s founder. The group has not taken a position on Wicks’ bill. Though all builder’s remedy projects remain on paper, the law has taken on an outsized significance in the politics of California housing over the last 15 months. For “Yes In My Backyard” activists who blame development-averse local governments for the state’s housing shortage, the builder’s remedy has been celebrated as the policy equivalent of the “F—- Around and Find Out” meme. For opponents, the builder’s remedy is the most extreme logical conclusion of the state’s recent push to build more housing. Jen Wolosin is a Menlo Park city council member whose district includes the former headquarters of Sunset Magazine, now the site of a proposed builder’s remedy project with three residential towers and 805 housing units. The tallest would reach 421 feet. Nothing is moving forward just yet. The builder’s remedy application simply holds the project’s place in the permitting queue. Even so, Wolosin, who was endorsed in her 2020 election by Peninsula for Everyone, a local YIMBY group, called the proposal “jaw dropping” and “outrageous” in its scale relative to the surrounding low-lying neighborhood. “I don’t like seeing cities flout state law and exacerbate the housing crisis,” she said. “That offends me.” But, she added, in lacking all “guardrails,” the builder’s remedy “can turn off people who would otherwise want to help solve the housing crisis.” A sizable chunk of California municipalities are still legally vulnerable to the “remedy.” At last count, nearly 40% of cities and counties have failed to have their “housing elements” certified by the state. Legal gray areas hold back widespread adoption Wicks’ bill would add some of those guardrails. The bill would cap projects at two or three times the current zoned density, depending on the neighborhood. That doesn’t include whatever add-ons are allowed under the state’s density bonus law, which gives developers added height and density in exchange for building affordable units. The bill would also allow cities to impose “objective” standards of development, including architectural style requirements, if they already apply to other dense multifamily areas and aren’t prohibitively expensive to abide by. “This is just a crazy-making provision of the law.” - Chris Elmendorf, Law professor, UC Davis Putting restrictions on the builder’s remedy may seem an ideological 180 for Wicks and Bonta, both of whom have allied themselves with YIMBY activists. Even so, the bill has received outright support or optimistic neutrality from many of the state’s pro-housing organizations. Leaders of California Community Builders and Habitat for Humanity California are attending a press conference in Sacramento today where Bonta and Wicks will unveil the latest version of the bill. “Part of why the YIMBY movement emerged was to have a clear process in place to have homes actually being built and if you’re going to have to end up in court all the time, that’s not really ideal,” said Matthew Lewis, a spokesperson for the state advocacy group, California YIMBY. The group does not yet support the bill, but Lewis said it agrees with Wicks’ general intent. “The builder’s remedy is fantastic, we love it, it’s one of the most popular things among YIMBYs. But with the big asterisk — not if a city decides to sue you all the time.” Supporters of the legislation say it will resolve two problems that are currently slowing the law down. The first is legal. As written, the builder’s remedy includes seemingly self-contradictory provisions that seem to simultaneously allow developers an unlimited amount of density while also empowering local governments to apply their own standards. Both of those things can’t be true at the same time. “This is just a crazy-making provision of the law,” said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor who has done more than anyone to revitalize and popularize the long- forgotten statute. Setting explicit numeric limits on what is allowed could make it more difficult for opponents to argue that a builder’s remedy project isn’t consistent with the law. Converting the builder’s remedy from a supersized bargaining chip in an open-ended negotiation into a policy that “anyone with a calculator can figure out” would likely encourage more traditional developers to make use of it, said Dave Rand, a land-use attorney who represents many builder’s remedy projects. In a perk for developers, the bill would also reduce the number of affordable units that builder’s remedy projects are required to provide. Currently developers have to set aside at least 20% of the units for lower income renters or buyers. The bill would cut that number to 10% while exempting projects of 10 units or fewer from any affordability requirement. A credible housing threat Keeping developers from proposing supersized “completely preposterous” developments could also help limit the political backlash to the law, said Louis Mirante, a lobbyist with the Bay Area Council, which regularly backs legislation to speed up housing construction. “Legislators are worried about maintaining the credibility of housing laws to their housing skeptical colleagues.” The proposal is likely to face plenty of skepticism regardless. The bill is scheduled to go before the Assembly’s Housing and Community Development committee on April 17. As negotiations continue over future amendments, pro-development lawmakers and lobbyists will need to come to a shared conceptual understanding of what the builder’s remedy is actually for, Elmendorf said. For cities that failed to get their housing plans enacted on time, the builder’s remedy has been seen as a “punishment,” he said. This new bill could represent a different way of thinking about the law, one that doesn’t unleash unmitigated chaos on a city’s planning department, Elmendorf said, but kicks in “as a default statewide zoning code that applies when cities haven’t come up with a good enough alternative on their own.” Liang Chao​ Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: You have some great choices - chaotic and nasty politics in Cupertino Date:Sunday, October 20, 2024 12:36:56 PM The resident would like their comment to be included as written communication for the 10/23 special meeting on housing laws. But they do not want to include their names. I appreciate these paragraphs by this long-time Cupertino resident about housing laws: "The center of this saga is about housing and redevelopment in Cupertino. This is a very complex and controversial issue, especially for smaller cities. Keep in mind that as a small city, the existing infrastructure in Cupertino was meant for a small city. There are no roads, except Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd as main arteries, designed to absorb heavy traffic. Even these two major arteries become heavily congested during busy hours. Those who support heavy development should go to any neighborhood where school children need to fight with heavy traffic to avoid being hit. We all remember vividly the big tragedy that happened years ago to a Monta Vista High student who was hit and killed by a truck on the way biking to school. We CANNOT afford to lose any more precious life." "I am sure you all know very well that State Housing remedy is not free for all to receive the funding and this kind of funding could be just a one-time deal and depends on availability. Each city that applies for the funding needs to come up with a plan to support the new proposed housing/building development, such as maintenance of public works, roads, sewage, etc. and many more. This is a long-term plan that will have big impacts on our city, environmentally and financially. We need moderate development that is appropriate for the size of Cupertino." "I am sure you all have studied the Housing remedy and laws. I have read the pro and con analysis by California Matters https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/04/builders- remedy-bills/ . " For the record, I have the enclosed emails from the Council of Former Mayors, since they are not relevant to the housing laws, which is on the 10/23 agenda. Thank you. Liang Chao​ Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Cupertino Resident (name withheld) Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 10:23 AM To: councilofcupertinomayors@gmail.com <councilofcupertinomayors@gmail.com> Cc: Sheila Mohan <smohan@cupertino.gov>; J.R. Fruen <jrfruen@cupertino.gov>; Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Hung Wei <hwei@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: You have some great choices - chaotic and nasty politics in Cupertino I am deeply disturbed to receive three very negative emails from the following groups: 2 from this so-called Council of Former Mayors, 1 from Safer Cupertino. Wheather Ray is suitable as a candidate should be up to the voters, not a small group of people who might have special interests. It becomes so nasty that Ray's sign was removed from a front yard by one of those candidates who is attacking him. Ray has the permission from the property owner (who I know very well) to display his sign. I am stating the fact but not necessarily implying my position. I am copying all council members so they know how messy this election goes. The center of this saga is about housing and redevelopment in Cupertino. This is a very complex and controversial issue, especially for smaller cities. Keep in mind that as a small city, the existing infrastructure in Cupertino was meant for a small city. There are no roads, except Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd as main arteries, designed to absorb heavy traffic. Even these two major arteries become heavily congested during busy hours. Those who support heavy development should go to any neighborhood where school children need to fight with heavy traffic to avoid being hit. We all remember vividly the big tragedy that happened years ago to a Monta Vista High student who was hit and killed by a truck on the way biking to school. We CANNOT afford to lose any more precious life. I am sure you all know very well that State Housing remedy is not free for all to receive the funding and this kind of funding could be just a one-time deal and depends on availability. Each city that applies for the funding needs to come up with a plan to support the new proposed housing/building development, such as maintenance of public works, roads, sewage, etc. and many more. This is a long-term plan that will have big impacts on our city, environmentally and financially. We need moderate development that is appropriate for the size of Cupertino. As a long-time Cupertino resident, I strongly encourage and urge you to STOP sending emails like this to voters so they can make their own independent and impartial decision. Please help us run a civilized, fair and positive election. I am sure you all have studied the Housing remedy and laws. I have read the pro and con analysis by California Matters https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/04/builders-remedy-bills/ . Please provide useful information so voters would be better educated to help them make a reasonable and wise decision. Thank you for reading. Sincerely, = = = = = = Cupertino Resident (name withheld) A Concerned Long-time Cupertino Resident From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Content of City Council Meeting on State Housing Laws Date:Friday, October 18, 2024 10:03:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council: There is an upcoming City Council meeting for Wednesday, October 23, 2024 on new Housing Bills. I'm glad we are having a meeting about these extremely confusing housing Bills. Is this meeting acting in any way as a first public meeting for SB 330 projects since these projects can only Have five public Meetings? I'm very concerned that these SB 330 projects will be trying to keep the Public from learning about the projects because of the five meetings rule. The Builders Remedy/SB 330 housing laws are very controversial and upsetting and we need to Get as much information about them as possible and the other housing bills so we don't lose our Heart of the City and our beautiful street trees. The people in Sacramento pass these awful housing bills, but they have no comprehension about how They will attempt to destroy our cities. Thank you. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2024-10-23 City Council Special Mtg-AGENDA ITEM 1-State Wide Housing Laws - QUESTIONS Date:Tuesday, October 22, 2024 2:17:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear City Council and Barbara Kautz, Thank you for brining Ms. Kautz in to explain the housing laws and hopefully what they can and cannot do. I’ve heard Ms. Kautz several times before when the previous council invited her to speak on density bonus law. She has always been straight forward and direct when answering questions which is very much appreciated. I have several questions I hope she can answer/address in person and in an Informational Memo of some kind that people can reference later and that can be posted on the city website under Planning/Housing or something related. Preferably not buried in a long list of Information Memos or maybe in addition to being placed in a long list. Housing Element certification Q1: Can a city self-certify? Q2a: Why are we seeing Builder’s Remedy Projects now but not during the previous Housing Element cycle? Q2b: What changed to make this happen? SB330 SB330 allows commercial lots to convert to housing along major corridors. In Cupertino, we are loosing an enormous amount of retail which forces people to go elsewhere thus increasing traffic AND giving our sales tax to other jurisdictions. Loss of revenue means reducing services, the inability to maintain infrastructure, etc. We have a Heart of the City Specific Plan that encourages retail and activity along our major corridors. It requires retail on the bottom floor. I believe we added objective standards. Q3: Can SB330 projects be held to the Heart of the City Specific Plan and General Plan specifications when converting to housing? In particular, can they be required to provide retail on the bottom floor? Q4: What can a city do to prevent loss of retail and planning requirements due to SB330? Thank you, Peggy Griffin