On Tuesday, the Brentwood City Council blasted Assembly Bil 2011 after a housing project was able to move forward without any local input.
The council received an informational report in response to AB 2011 (Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland) allowing for a 26-unit apartment project at O’Hara and Lone Tree without the City of Brentwood having any say since the project meets state requirements—the building is also 40 feet tall. Staff said they found the project qualifies for streamlined, ministerial approval under AB 2011 – which also exempts provisions of CEQA.
“A ministerial review means that the decision-making body can’t offer any discretionary review. The review must be limited to items that are purely objective that have no room for discretion or disagreement as to the uses,” stated interim City Attorney Katherine Wisinski.
In response to City Council questions later in the meeting, Wisinski stated traditionally land use decisions and processes are laid out in the municipal code and would go before planning commission or city council, however, because this was an AB 2011 project, there is no process in the municipal code so there is no requirements it goes to the council or planning commission. Staff said timelines outline in AB 2011 prompted staff to move forward to meet state required timelines and the process was followed – takes public, city and elected officials out of the process.
“We are asking direction tonight whether you would like to change that process in the future,” stated Wisinski who added an ordinance would be brought back.
The application was submitted on January 9, 2024 with the application found to be consistent on March 9, 2024 and approval will be issued by April 8, 2024.
Under AB 2011 (“Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”):
- bill essentially overrides local General Plan and zoning designations. Regardless of the General Plan designation since AB 2011 does not require consistency with the General Plan and focuses solely on limited, objective zoning requirements.
- AB 2011 creates a ministerial, CEQA-exempt approval process for multifamily housing developments on sites within zones where either office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use.
- any qualifying project must pay prevailing wages to construction workers and comply with certain labor standards.
- In order to qualify for the AB 2011 ministerial approval, a project must comply with certain eligibility criteria generally known as the “site and project criteria,” the “affordability criteria,” and the “objective development standards criteria.”
- Projects meeting the above criteria that contain 150 units or less must be processed within 90 days, and the City must identify any inconsistencies with qualifying criteria within 60 days.
- Projects meeting the above criteria that contain more than 150 units must be processed within 180 days, and the City must identify any inconsistencies with qualifying criteria within 90 days.
Mayor Joel Bryant asked staff why do they have to do to this and what happens if they do not do this which he called it very frustrating why they are in this situation.
Wisinski stated this was in result of AB 2011 which was passed in 2022—staff cannot take a position if they like or do not like the bill or project, they have to fulfill their duties and that currently there is no process laid out in the Brentwood Municipal Code to bring ministerial reviews to the council for approval.
“The penalties for violating state housing law can be quite severe,” stated Wisinski which have become more severe in the last several years requiring cities to comply. “To avoid severe penalties, its necessary to approve these in the short timelines.”
Bryant asked her to outline some of the penalties while calling it very frustrating to residents who feel like they are being held hostage to place houses or high-density buildings anywhere there is open space.
Wisinski shared that California Housing and Community Development now has an accountability and enforcement arm to go after cities that they feel who have violated state housing laws—a long list of penalties.“In addition, Senator Scott Wiener, who you know has been very pro-housing, in the last few days has introduced a new bill SB 1037 that would seek to impose a minimum penalty of $10k per month not to exceed $50k per month for each violation of state housing laws by local jurisdictions who are not following the new requirements. Staff is trying to be mindful of those severe consequences”
Located at Lone Tree Way & O’Hara
Councilmember Pa’Tanisha Pierson stated “I hate AB 2011 and I also don’t like SB 6” stating this one hit hard because its going to be a big shocker to the community to see this 40 ft tall building on the corner.
She called it a public safety concern over traffic at Lone Tree and O’Hara noting the merger of lanes along with a school being developed, other development projects also in the area.
“To say this is going to get congested, its going to get extremely congested,” stated Pierson who wanted a traffic engineering study for the area. She also expressed concern over the height of the building. “It completely takes control from the people who elected us to make decisions. I understand the frustration and I am not upset with our staff… tonight I do not feel like staff did anything wrong.”
Pierson further highlighted AB 2011 is codified in Government code and what the local government has to do when they receive an application—including the timelines. She also highlighted staff did send back the project but once the requirements were met, there was nothing staff or the city could do.
“We need to look at who we elect at our state levels, either get them out of there when elections come around. Get new people in place. But you have people who sit in places saying they support housing, but they do not. They make deals not taking you all into consideration. They make deals in consideration of their next election or consideration of special interests they have,” explained Pierson. “In this situation, we have nothing. Even if they brought this to us 30 or 60 days ago, we do not have discretion to say we want to or we don’t. This AB 2011 is so horrible, it even skips CEQA. When you think of the essence of what CEQA is for, its disgusting. It skips it. So now, I am not in support of it.”
Pierson continued by asking if staff could provide them the information 30 days before the timeline is up for review so they can see the approval while stating she wanted more feedback from the community but recognized some people in Sacramento when they passed this law took away the peoples rights.
“You can stand here and talk but guess what, they didn’t care about what you feel or what you think,” said Pierson. “Staff did nothing wrong, they did what they had to do with what they had. I understand their hands were crossed, so were their legs, everything. They had no options.
“This law, in effect, took away all of our powers,” said Pierson who shared Councilperson Jovita Mendoza warned everyone a year ago because anywhere its zoned commercial a developer could come in and claim AB 2011—including PA-1.
“She kept saying, I heard her, AB 2011 and SB 6 is coming, get ready. We are here now,” said Pierson.
Mendoza added in they are working on a constitutional amendment which Our Neighborhood Voices is raising money to prevent the state from telling local governments what to do.
She challenged Mayor Joel Bryant to share what Assemblyman Tim Grayson says to him regarding AB 2011 and his vision.
“Tim Grayson voted yes on this,” stated Mendoza. “Vote for Marisol Rubio don’t vote for Tim Grayson is my message right now. He stabbed us all in the back, every single one of us.”
Bryant shared he did meet with Assemblymember Grayson where he is co-authoring bills that they are fighting against.
“As you might expect, his reasoning is a pretty broad brush versus what local control is and works for everyone,” said Bryant. “We are all getting the same conversations and the same responses and its infuriating and frustrating and its frustrating not to be heard or felt like you are being heard. I don’t like being placated and I feel that happens every time we have conversations.”
He again said he was frustrated.
“I am very frustrated and angry but I don’t see a future changing a lot unless there’s changes at the state level with who is making the decisions,” stated Bryant.
Vice Mayor Susannah Meyer called this very frustrating and maybe they will get to the point of only being able to approve a street light.
“My hope is that any media outlets that are paying attention to this meeting, that you are very realistic in how you report this and very honest and very real and you talk about the fact your city council is pissed. We are. Each one of us is going to Sacramento and taking part in policy committees and department officer meetings,” explained Meyer. “We are all encouraging you to watch who you vote for. Senator Scott Wiener seems to be the worst of the lot… but pay attention because that is the only way we are going to have any say in this is if we vote people out who are only there for their deep pockets, special interests, for the developers paying huge contributions, we need to vote people in at the state level who are willing to stand up.”
She encouraged the media and community to look into the bills of SB 9, SB 10, SB 423, AB 2011, SB 430 and how they are coming down on local communities and begin talking about it.
“I feel like the media is sugar coating and not telling the real story and it really needs to,” said Meyer. “This is how people learn about what they want to vote for and who they want to vote for.”
She encouraged staff to push back by finding any possible way and possible loophole to protect Brentwood’s way of life.
Councilmemebr Tony Oerlemans admitted when he read the agenda he thought there was no way they were putting an apartment building in this location. But after reading the agenda, he realized there is nothing they could to do stop it.
“It’s frustrating. The frustration that all of you are feeling and directing it to us and all the frustration we are feeling and we are directing it towards staff. I think we are all directing it the wrong way, it has to go to the State of California,” explained Oerlemans. “It has to go way above us because we don’t get to make the rules.”
Oerlemans said this project location was denied twice before, but got it through due to AB 2011.
“It passes all the rules of the State and it sucks we have to put up with that,” stated Oerlemans. “That the citizens of Brentwood have to put up with it and its horrible… I can’t stop this, I can’t change it no matter how bad I want to. We feel your pain, we are right there with you and I appreciate everything that our staff has done to deny it twice and push it back twice but eventually they are going to make it happen.”
The Council ultimately directed staff to do the following:
- Create a workshop specific to AB 2011 and SB 6 (possibly annual with all the bills/new bills)
- Continue to have staff complete the ministerial review and consideration of AB 2011 project applications, and provide the City Council with a report such as this one, within approximately 45 days (and not to exceed 50 days) of submittal. If staff determines an AB 2011 application is incomplete prior to that 45 day deadline, it shall not be brought back to the City Council for City Council input.
- AB 2011 projects would be posted online and noticed to residents an application has been submitted.
- Staff shall affix a name to the application on the City’s ‘Development Page’ that will clearly communicate it is an AB 2011 application, which shall be posted within seven business days of receipt of the application.
O’Hara Apartment Complex Related Documents:
9 comments
Nay. More like the AB blasted Brentwood CC. They are only “frustrated” or “mad” because they have to finally do something about their reluctant to bring affordable housing to Brentwood. Cry me a river.
The affordable housing on Carol Lane on Oakley is an asset to the community.
We really need an earthquake to reset the housing crisis and BS that California is consuming.
This is the result of the progressive-liberal supermajority in the state legislature. “Mother Kalifornia knows best – so sit down and shut up” is the attitude toward local government. It will only get worse unless California’s electorate revolts.
Selectorate. FIFY. Don’t forget to mail vote early, and often!
happy to see this is being built. we need many many more of these.
This is what the majority of Californians wanted. Not sure why there is so much fuss. Remember to obey your ruling party. Dissenters will be jailed for “hate” speech so be careful when you lament.
You can’t even tell them to ‘vote harder next time’ because you are right, the majority (49 sheep and 51 wolves deciding what’s for dinner) voted for this.
Good Brentwood needs to do their fair share
Comments are closed.