Main Page

Projects

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has the statutory duty to review each municipality's general plan housing element. CAHLP has summarized certain review letters on this Housing Element Review page.

California is experiencing an unprecedented loss of conventional public housing. For more information, see the Loss of Public Housing page.

Advocates are developing strategies to design a model Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. This project page contains source materials and examples to help develop policy options.

Manuals and Reference

CAHLP/PILP produce four manuals covering affordable housing legal issues including housing elements, anti-NIMBY laws and inclusionary zoning. For electronic versions of portions of these, go to Publications.

This site is also a resource to collect materials on substantive law topics for California affordable housing on a variety of issues, starting on the Reference page.

Recent Updates

On March 23, 2009, CAHLP and co-counsel Public Counsel, Rebecca Thornton, O’Melveny Meyers, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher reached a settlement in the Rogel, et. al. v. Lynwood Redevelopment Agency, Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BS106592. Plaintiffs challenged the Redevelopment Agency's failure to provide relocation assistance, replacement housing units, inclusionary housing units, and to make proper deposits and expenditures from its low and moderate income housing fund. The settlement agreement calls for the Agency to fulfill its affordable housing obligations in a variety of ways: (1) develop 49 replacement housing units for occupancy in no less than 6 years, (2) develop 42 inclusionary units in the same time period, (3) contract with a special master to account for replacement and inclusionary units and increase the baseline obligations if warranted, (4) deposit additional amounts in the low and moderate income housing fund (LMIHF) for inadequate past deposits, (5) make LMIHF deposits for excess amounts spent on planning and administration, (6) require the special master to account for all LMIHF, including improperly spent funds and excess surplus amounts held by the Agency, (7) provide relocation assistance to individual plaintiffs in the action, (8) issue a notice of relocation assistance available retroactively for past displacement activity of the agency, and (9) comply with fair housing laws. For more information, see the terms of the settlement.

On May 23, 2008, the CAHLP and co-counsel Bay Area Legal Aid won a significant victory from the Court in Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, et al. v. City of Dublin, et al., U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Cal., Case No. C-07-05794. The case involves a proposal by the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) to dispose of 150 units of public housing in the Arroyo Vista development. Plaintiffs consist of four residents of the property and the tenants' association, who oppose DHA's proposal to sell the property to a developer who will demolish all the units to construct a replacement project which includes smaller units, at substantially higher rents, on half the property (with the other half redeveloped as market rate for-sale homes). In January 2008, plaintiffs moved the U.S. District Court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin DHA's activities to displace and relocate at least 60 families prior to even completing its application for disposition. However, prior to hearing on the motion, the District Court requested further briefing on the issue of whether plaintiffs have a private right of action. In a well reasoned decision, District Court Judge Marilyn Patel holds that plaintiffs have a private right of action to enforce the resident notice and relocation assistance provisions of the public housing disposition statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437p, which proscribes the circumstances under which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may approve or must disapprove applications to dispose of public housing. The decision finds that plaintiffs have a right to receive notification of the disposition prior to any relocation or displacement activity, and this right necessarily includes the right to be told that HUD has approved the application. In this case, DHA has yet to even complete its application, much less receive any approval from HUD, so the reasoning of the decision strongly implies that plaintiffs will prevail upon renewing their motion for preliminary injunction. Contact Deborah Collins of the CAHLP or Lisa Greif of Bay Area Legal Aid (510) 663-4744 for pleadings and further information.