Thread by @CSElmendorf

CA builder's remedy news: @California_HCD has found La Canada-Flintridge in violation of HAA for refusing to process a builder's remedy project application.

I think this is first official statement by a state agency that a city has violated HAA with respect to a BR project.
1/6

Unfortunately, HCD's Notice of Violation letter also reiterates the least-tenable legal position the department has taken in recent years: that an adopted housing element does not become "substantially compliant" until HCD finds it to be compliant.
/2

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1620851743990095872

It's also unfortunate that HCD's pivotal letter finding this city out of compliance w/HE law called the city's HE "not fully compliant" rather than "not substantially compliant." (The latter is the legal shortcoming that triggers the builders' remedy.)

From context, it's...
/3

clear that HCD meant "not substantially compliant," but HCD really should update it's boilerplate to say what it means.
/4

If this case ends up in court, the big question will be whether HCD gets deference on its finding that the housing element was substantively inadequate.
/5

The recent Clovis case provides ammunition for the department, but It's not a great look for HCD to be taking tenuous legal positions and muddying waters ("fully compliant" == "substantially compliant"?) while it's asking for deference from courts.
/end

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1644809660065787904