California A.G. Says Anaheim NIMBYs Can't Block Women's Group Home

State officials have been warning Anaheim for decades that their regulations on transitional housing were illegal. The city's rejection of nonprofit Grandma's House of Hope's group home was the last straw.

California's state government is coming to the aid of an Anaheim-based nonprofit whose plan to open a group home for formerly homeless women was shot down by the city at the behest of NIMBY neighbors.

It's a case that tests the power of California housing officials to set limits on localities' ability to say no to new housing. Should the state prevail, Anaheim could have to permit far more housing than just group homes.

On Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the state's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) filed an application to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the nonprofit Grandma's House of Hope against Anaheim in Orange County Superior Court earlier this year. That lawsuit challenged the city's refusal to issue House of Hope a conditional use permit to establish a 15-person group home serving formerly homeless women with mental health disabilities.

"The support and assistance that transitional housing providers like Grandma's House of Hope deliver are essential in addressing California's homelessness crisis and the shortage of housing for people with disabilities," said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez in a press release. "Cities and counties across the state will be held accountable for attempts to evade fair housing and anti-discrimination laws."

For close to two years now, House of Hope has been locked in a contentious battle with Anaheim city officials and neighborhood opponents over its proposed group home.

Its original plan was to host up to 21 women at an 8-bedroom house in a single-family neighborhood on West Street near Anaheim's downtown. They'd receive therapy and other services from seven House of Hope staff members, several of whom would be on-call 24/7 to respond to emergencies. The plan would be to move these women into permanent housing within 18 months.

It's something House of Hope has succeeded with at its other group homes, including some in Anaheim. The nonprofit reports a 65 percent success rate at placing program participants in permanent housing within 9 to 18 months and has partnered with the Orange County government on various programs over the years.

But their proposal for an additional Anaheim group home proved controversial with a vocal set of nearby residents. They argued their neighborhood was already "oversaturated" with group homes and that adding another one would threaten public safety, strain sewer infrastructure, and overtask emergency services.

At an August 2021 Planning Commission meeting, 36 residents showed up to argue against granting House of Hope the conditional use permit it needed for the group home.

Despite a recommendation from city staff to approve the group home, the commission voted unanimously against the nonprofit's application. Their findings stated that the house would threaten public health and safety.

A similar scene occurred at an October public hearing before the Anaheim City Council.

At the hearing, House of Hope founder Je'net Kreitner tried to allay fears that a new group home would become a burden on the neighborhood. She said that House of Hope had agreed to reduce the number of people staying at the home from 21 to 16. Far from just picking people up off the street, she stressed that residents would only be placed in the group home after extensive screening and consenting to psychiatric treatment.

During the hearing, Kreitner held up a phonebook-thick binder that contained House of Hope's contract with the Orange County Health authorities outlining its transitional housing program and "good neighbor" policy as evidence that hers wasn't a fly-by-night operation.

"Our case managers are dedicated to following this by the letter," Kreiter said at that meeting. Anaheim had a growing homeless population that needed to be addressed, she said, adding, "we are trying to do that for you."

This did little to mollify opponents at the city council hearing. They complained that the neighborhood was already oversaturated with "lucrative" businesses like House of Hope. Speakers expressed fears that the formerly homeless women staying at the nonprofit's group house might wander around the neighborhood at night, create traffic through excessive GrubHub orders, and put undue strain on water and sewer infrastructure.

Those arguments proved convincing for the city council, which also voted unanimously to reject House of Hope's application.

All out of administrative options, the group sued the city in January 2022.

In the background of House of Hope's struggle to open its shelter has been a slow-burning dispute between Anaheim and state housing officials about the city's general treatment of transitional housing.

Back in 2013, HCD told Anaheim that its permitting requirements for transitional housing violate a state law requiring local governments to treat transitional housing the same as residential housing in the same district. Since Anaheim doesn't require conditional use permits for single-family homes, the department said it couldn't require them for transitional housing within single-family homes.

The city committed to bringing its transitional housing regulations in line with state law as part of its 2014 Housing Element—a periodic report that cities must produce outlining how they'll meet state-established housing production goals.

But that never ended up happening. Indeed, while House of Hope's doomed permit application was winding through the approval process, the Anaheim Planning Commission endorsed piling even more regulations on transitional housing.

Over the past two years, HCD has also been warning Anaheim in technical assistance letters, phone calls, and in-person meetings that its treatment of House of Hope specifically was illegal and could provoke more serious state intervention.

Anaheim continued to blow off these warnings, however. At most, the city said it would commit to changing its transitional housing regulations as part of its 2023 Housing Element.

Its patience exhausted, HCD, along with Bonta, asked the court earlier this week to let it join House of Hope's lawsuit against Anaheim.

Its lengthy petition repeats complaints that Anaheim is violating state law designed to streamline the approval of transitional housing. By committing to and then failing to remove illegal regulations on transitional housing in its Housing Element, the city is also in violation of the state's Housing Element laws, argues the state. Their application also claims that by shooting down a group home for mentally disabled women specifically, Anaheim is violating state anti-discrimination and fair housing laws.

The state is asking the court to prevent Anaheim from requiring conditional use permits for the House of Hope project or similar projects.

It's also asking the court to declare the city's 2014 Housing Element "not substantially" compliant with state Housing Element law.

That could open the door to even more sweeping state remedies.

Cities without substantially compliant housing elements can lose access to some state funding. The state's "builder's remedy" also prevents cities without compliant housing elements from using their zoning codes to deny housing projects with a certain amount of below-market-rate housing.

If the court declares Anaheim's housing element out of compliance, a developer could theoretically build a project of unlimited density anywhere in the city.

California, for all its housing woes, has many laws on the books intended to boost housing production and put some outer limits on cities' ability to shoot down new development. Until recently, those laws have largely gone unenforced.

That's starting to change, as the fight over the House of Hope shelter illustrates.

Both HCD and the State Attorney General's office have created new units dedicated to enforcing state housing laws. Increasingly, they're using whatever tools those laws give them to override local regulations and get housing built.

In August, the two departments launched an unprecedented audit of NIMBY capital San Francisco's housing policies and practices with the explicit intent of uncovering violations of state housing law.

The message is clear: shooting down individual projects for specious reasons or keeping blatantly illegal regulations on the books isn't going to fly anymore.

Comments

[Cyto]

This one is definitely more complex than "NIMBY".

I have some friends in a similar situation. There are several group homes with 15 transient residents each in a residential neighborhood. Many have been drug addicts. They wander the neighborhood on foot, hanging out at the neighborhood park.

It makes the park much less useable, and the neighborhood much different for families. Where kids used to ride bikes to the park unsupervised, parents don't want to do this any more.

Making a single family home into a halfway house group home is not a trivial matter. It is way more than "I don't like the way a windmill looks". There are legitimate concerns that are more than economic.

[Rossami]

Ooh, they "wander the neighborhood on foot" and "hang out at the neighborhood park" - just like everyone else. "Many have been drug addicts" and many of your single-family-home neighbors also have been (and still are) drug addicts. Some of these people have mental health problems - and so do my crazy neighbors down the street.

Kids don't ride to the park unsupervised anymore because Karens like you are over-reacting and inventing fears, not because of actual risks.

[BYODB]

Sounds like exactly the kind of comment someone would make if they've never seen one of these types of facilities, or the types of people who wander in and out of them.

Also, since when is a psychiatric facility zoned as residential one might wonder.

[Rossami]

My father ran one of those facilities. Yes, in my residential neighborhood. I grew up around those people. And I still rode my bike to the park unsupervised.

Granted, that was more years ago than I want to admit to. But my point is that the actual risk is unchanged.

[Kelly J. Hopkins]

In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-04] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/

[AlfredaVidales]

I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able Haq to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://jobopportunity22.blogspot.com

[David Welker]

Let's translate:

"Wander the neighborhood by foot"

AKA

Go for a walk, which is good exercise.

"hanging out at the neighborhood park"

They go to the local public park? These monsters!

[David Welker]

Wander around on foot, you say?

You mean, they go for walks?

The horror! The horror!

[MWAocdoc]

So let me see if I have this straight: The state has the authority to outlaw zoning regulations that they don't like but the city and county don't have the authority to zone out things that THEY don't like? Okay, I think that makes almost no sense at all. So what we have here is a case of dueling autocrats.

[Square = Circle]

So what we have here is a case of dueling autocrats.

AKA "California."

[eva031david12]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs

Just open the link-------------------->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/

[Rossami]

Since by definition, the city and county are subordinate entities of the state, no the city and county do not have legal authority to zone out things that the state has said they can't.

Think of it as if the Marketing Department wanted to just ignore their company's policy on expense reimbursement. They have no legal authority independent of the parent. So if the parent says 'no that's not reimbursable', the Marketing Dept can't simply say 'yes it is'.

[Social Justice is neither]

It's more like the marketing department wrote a policy in line with corporate policy and some VP is overriding their decisions and allowing non reimbursable expenses but not held responsible for the budget impact on the department.

[JohannesDinkle]

Anaheim is 54% Hispanic, 16% Asian, and only 24% white. It warms the heart to see emerging populations demonstrating traditional American traits, like not wanting to live near drug addicts. If whites do this it is racist.

[Bill Dalasio]

I was unaware that the proliferation of presumably state-subsidized halfway houses was now a vital libertarian issue. Of course, if compliance with a "periodic report that cities must produce outlining how they'll meet state-established housing production goals" isn't the heart of libertarianism, I don't know what is.

[Stuck in California]

I'm pretty sure Reason libertarianism is all about deference to larger government. Like, let's make one law for 40 million people in wildly diverse (geographically and culturally) communities rather than allowing the smallest, most local level of government to set rules for their constituents.

I mean, at least when it suits the current narrative that Reason wants to push.

Screw having governance that's locally informed and appropriate to a city in Orange County, or Siskuyu, or Imperial. Nope, we all get rules made as though we live like the people of San Francisco because the fucker in Sacramento said so. And this is good and right because in this case Reason likes the rule.

Maybe we should just get Biden to sign an executive order setting uniform local zoning restrictions nationally. Problems solved.

[Ghatanathoah]

Reason libertarianism is about preventing governments of any size from abusing their power and interfering with people's freedom. This means that if a state government intervenes to prevent a local government from abusing its power and restricting people's freedom, that is a good thing.

Sometimes local governments become oppressive and abusive, and place unreasonable restrictions on people. In those circumstances it is sometimes acceptable to get a larger government to put a stop to that. This has risks of course, the state and federal governments are eager to seize on pretexts to increase their power. But it has also had a large number of successes in American history, such as the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation.

[Stuck in California]

Wait, did you just equate the government in Sacramento removing power from locals with the abolition of slavery?

I mean, it's not Godwin's law, but it's pretty damned close.

[Bruce D]

Slavery is only one example. In this case it is the protection of property rights - the right to build as one pleases on one's own property.

[NOYB2]

Slavery is only one example.

Slavery only existed because federal and state governments violated subsidiarity.

In this case it is the protection of property rights – the right to build as one pleases on one’s own property.

There is no such right. Almost every piece of property is encumbered by easements, covenants, and other legal agreements. In a purely libertarian society, every piece of property in the country would be covered by CC&Rs which would impose the equivalent of zoning restrictions without any government involvement.

The idea that you have "the right to build as one pleases on one’s own property" is an empty communist promise of a "stateless society".

And, of course, underthe kind of authoritarianism you advocate, every piece of property is covered by a huge number of federal and state regulations anyway, regulations that destroy "the right to build as one pleases on one’s own property".

What you are really arguing for is for federal and state governments to be able to impose their will on local governments and property owners, in this case to effectively place a government financed facility in a neighborhood where people don't want such a facility.

You're no libertarian, you're a statist.

[NOYB2]

Reason libertarianism is about preventing governments of any size from abusing their power and interfering with people’s freedom. This means that if a state government intervenes to prevent a local government from abusing its power and restricting people’s freedom, that is a good thing.

Local government is doing the same thing the equivalent private arrangement, an HOA, would be doing in this situation: prohibit construction that would clearly lower property values and lead to an increase in crime. On top of that, the builder is not even a local community member but effectively the state itself.

For Reason to promote the idea that state law should override local political choices is wildly anti-liberty and authoritarian.

[NOYB2]

But it has also had a large number of successes in American history, such as the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation.

Slavery and segregation existed because they were strongly supported and promoted by the federal and state governments. If the US had consistently respected subsidiarity, neither slavery nor segregation would have become widespread or done the damage that they did.

Citing slavery and segregation as a justification for violating subsidiarity is utterly reprehensible.

[Longtobefree]

I would have thought that the biggest objection in California would be the group's insistence that there are such things as "women"

[Jerryskids]

Or at least "mentally ill women". I mean, that seems kind of redundant.

[Ajsloss]

+1

[JohnZ]

Should have referred to them as "birthing persons".
That would have settled it.

[CFred]

“21 women at an 8-bedroom house in a single-family neighborhood on West Street near Anaheim's downtown”
Who wouldn't want 21 elderly, mentally disturbed women moving, crammed three to a bedroom (I'm assuming the caretaker/manager would have her own bedroom [there will be a full time/live in caretaker, right?]), into a single family house in their single family neighborhood?
This isn't a nimby issue, it's an issue of whe they or not this sort and size of group home belongs in this sort of neighborhood.

[Rockstevo]

I can understand the residents not wanting this in their neighborhood, why should they not have any say in this? The big question is if this has been dragging on for two years why have they not just found another structure somewhere else? Why does it have to be in a neighborhood hell why does it have to be in a house at all? With the economy the way it is I am sure they can find some empty retail outlet, put in some walls and beds and their yah go. No this is about shoving this in the residents faces. Now if you really want to see some fun headlines, Elon Musk should buy a big house in Beverly Hills or Bellaire and donate it to this group for a home, then watch the liberatzie go crazy like De Santis and Martha’s Vineyard.

[Bruce D]

With the economy the way it is I am sure they can find some empty retail outlet, put in some walls and beds and their yah go.

The local planning commission would not likely approve any conditional use permit or required zoning variance.

[NOYB2]

I can understand the residents not wanting this in their neighborhood, why should they not have any say in this?

Because Reason's view of "individual liberty" is that of communists, where the state attempts to guarantee that you have maximum individual liberty to act, unrestrained by society or community, all governed by identical laws handed down from far-away legislatures.

A libertarian view, in which there is a wide range of arrangements, mutual obligations, and voluntary associations is incompatible with the ideology Reason authors promote.

[JohnZ]

As a libertarian, I protest the forcing of wymyn into a confined space against their will.
Their rights must be respected, therefore, they should be allowed to live on the streets alongside all those other libertarians who have decided to live as freely as possible, consume whatever they wish as as they have the right to do so. The sidewalks are public spaces owned by the taxpayers so if a housing deficient birthing person needs to dispose of their used needles after exercising their rights as an American to consume as they wish, then so be it. It's all about liberty and freedom. The liberty to live as any person wishes and the freedom to use and consume what ever they wish.

[docduracoat]

That is excellent sarcasm.
You sir, win the Internet for today

[NOYB2]

It's a case that tests the power of California housing officials to set limits on localities' ability to say no to new housing. Should the state prevail, Anaheim could have to permit far more housing than just group homes.

From the "Libertarians against subsidiarity and self-governance desk." But it's California: people vote for authoritarianism.

The message is clear: shooting down individual projects for specious reasons or keeping blatantly illegal regulations on the books isn't going to fly anymore.

Yes, the message is clear: Reason supports authoritarianism.