Housing advocates have sued the state Department of Housing and Community Development over construction targets for the Bay Area, stepping up their legal fight to bring far more development to the nine-county region.
The groups YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law claim the state failed to adequately consider the enormous amount of jobs in the Bay Area when calculating the region’s housing goal and underestimated the need for new homes and apartments by at least 30 percent.
The suit brings into focus the tension between cities concerned about crowded schools and gridlocked streets and people who feel shut out of communities and homeownership.
Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, said the state’s goal of adding 441,000 homes and apartments falls far short of meeting the needs of the jobs-rich region.
One academic study estimated Bay Area cities should be required to approve 138,000 units above the state goal to meet population demands into the next decade. “We have to actually address the jobs-housing imbalance,” Foote said.
Department of Housing and Community Development officials declined to comment on the allegations in the suit but stands by its report. The department’s methodology “more accurately captures housing needs” and aligns with recently passed housing reform laws, officials said.
The suit is the latest legal effort by pro-housing groups to challenge local development policies. Residential projects in Cupertino and Los Altos, widely opposed by neighbors but supported by pro-growth advocates, already have landed in court to settle disputes over new state housing reforms designed to make it easier to build affordable housing.
A win by YIMBY Action could force reluctant cities to loosen zoning laws and earmark more land for residential development. Higher housing goals also could eventually make it easier for developers to build in certain cities.
Regional planners are in the middle of a years-long process known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation that sets development targets for Bay Area municipalities. The goals are set in an eight-year cycle and require cities to plan for and allow housing for people of all income groups.
The state has set a target of 441,000 permits for new homes and apartments in the Bay Area by 2031, more than double the allocation from the previous cycle ending in 2023. The region regularly has fallen short of the state goals, especially in building housing for moderate and low-income families.
The suit in Alameda County Superior Court asks a judge to force the department to re-consider that target and place more weight on building homes near transit and job centers. YIMBY Action notes that although the Bay Area’s housing goals were raised 135 percent from the previous cycle, goals for Los Angeles and its suburbs grew 229 percent.
The suit argues that state planners did not adequately consider requiring a reduction in commuter traffic as part of new Bay Area development, a key goal to meet state environmental mandates. Pushing more housing to outlying regions — for example, allowing super-commuters coming to job-rich cities from Santa Cruz and San Joaquin counties — creates more traffic and pollution. If commuters had more access to housing near employment centers, traffic and greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced, the suit says.
Housing advocates in recent years have become more aggressive in using the courts to make cities approve projects. Developers and advocacy groups have successfully sued under housing reforms passed since 2017.
Matt Regan, senior vice president of public policy at the Bay Area Council, said the organization was hoping the state would set a goal of more than 600,000 new homes for the region. Compared to Los Angeles, he said, “our housing crisis is arguably worse.”
The council has not taken a position on the lawsuit. If it succeeds, Regan said, it could “send shockwaves around city council chambers.”
The Association of Bay Area Governments is also assigning targets to municipalities. Already, several cities have balked at requirements for more aggressive development.
Susan Kirsch, a slow-growth advocate from Mill Valley, said lawmakers and state planners have continuously over-estimated housing needs. Planners also have not considered the growth of remote work during the pandemic and the migration out of California, she said.
“I don’t think we’re on the right course,” Kirsch said. “We don’t have reason to trust those targets.”
