As readers of the Rockridge Voice may know, I and others have previously expressed our concerns about the two massive housing projects whose expected adverse impacts are of most immediate concern to the Rockridge community:
- The proposed senior care facility at 6230 Claremont Ave
- The proposed Twin (or Terrible) Towers at the Trader Joe's site across from the Rockridge BART station
For example, see my letter “Shining a Light on the 6230 Claremont Project;” and my article “Maximum Allowable Units: Getting the Math Right.” This article, however, will largely focus on the three state laws which most impact these projects:
- SB330 (aka The Housing Crisis Act)
- The Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
- The State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)
This article won’t discuss SB79–it doesn’t apply to the 6230 Claremont and the Twin Tower projects, because both of them filed preliminary applications under SB330 before SB79 went into effect on July 1st of this year. Look for my follow-up article about SB79 in a future edition. (Here’s a link to a recent article on the same subject: The current article updates and expands on this topic).
Key Provisions of Three Laws:
SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act, Gov. Code § 65941.1)
- Adopted in 2019, renewed in 2024.
- Freezes local standards: SB 330 created a "Preliminary Application" process. When a developer submits this short checklist, all local zoning rules, design standards, and ordinances are frozen for the duration of the project (which is why SB79 can’t be applied to the 6230 Claremont or Twin Tower applications.) The developer then has up to six months to submit a full application.
- Limits public hearings: Placed a strict five-hearing maximum on any qualified housing development project. This count includes all planning commission meetings, architectural design reviews, city council appeals, and sub-committee sessions. Once the fifth hearing concludes, the local jurisdiction must take a definitive vote to approve or deny.
- Adjusts legal standards to make it easier for developers to sue non-compliant cities and win: Tightened the definition of an "objective standard," ensuring that subjective criteria (e.g., "the project must match the neighborhood character") cannot be used to justify permit denial or density reduction.
The Housing Accountability Act
(HAA, Gov. Code § 65589.5)
- Adopted in 1982.
- Limits the ability of local governments to deny, downsize, or delay housing development projects that comply with local zoning rules.
- Prohibits a city from denying a project (or forcing a reduction in density) if the project complies with objective standards, unless the city can prove the project creates a specific, un-mitigatable threat to public health or safety.
- Threatens Severe Financial Penalties: If a local jurisdiction refuses a court order to comply with the HAA within 60 days, the court can fine the city a minimum of $10,000 per proposed housing unit in the rejected development; $20,000 per unit if the city was found in violation of the HAA in the previous five years; $50,000 per unit if the court finds the city to have acted in bad faith or willfully violated the law.
The State Density Bonus Law
(SDBL; Gov. Code § 65915(e))
- Awards density bonuses to increase the maximum number of allowable housing units for affordable housing and senior housing developments:
- Step 1: The city determines the maximum number of units that the application qualifies for under the local zoning codes.
- Step 2: The SDBL awards an additional number of units that increases the maximum number of units allowed for the project.
- Adopted in 1979 to enable density bonuses for affordable housing
- Amended in 1984 to enable density bonuses (20%) for senior housing developments with no affordability requirement
- Amended in 2024 (by AB 2694) to clarify that Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFEs) qualify for density bonuses awarded to senior housing developments with no affordability requirement.
- Stipulates that developers must be granted waivers that allow them to build to the maximum number of allowable units unless granting such waivers would constitute a specific and measurable risk to public health or safety.
- A city or county cannot apply any development standard (such as height limits, setback requirements, lot coverage, or floor area ratio) that would prevent the construction of a development at the maximum number of units allowed under local zoning codes plus the state density bonus
- A local government can only deny a requested waiver if it makes written findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the waiver would cause a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, a negative impact on a listed historical resource, or is contrary to state or federal law
- Applicants are entitled to an unlimited number of waivers as long as the standards to be waived physically prevent the permitted bonus units from fitting on the site.
Summary: To Deny A Proposed Project…
- A specific, adverse impact must exist
- Subjective concerns, such as “neighborhood character”, do not legally constitute an objective threat to public health or safety.
- Zoning is not safety: the law explicitly states that inconsistency with a city’s zoning ordinances or general plan land use designation does not constitute a “specific, adverse impact” on public health and safety.
- No feasible mitigation is possible
- The city cannot deny the project if there is any feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact other than not approving development or reducing its density.
- Strict enforcement standards
- Infrequent occurrence: The legislature has stated its intent that conditions giving rise to a valid health or safety denial should arise infrequently.
- Financial consequences of unlawful denial: Fines of a minimum of $10,000 / unit (five times that if the city is found to have acted in bad faith).
6230 Claremont Avenue
Now, let’s look at how these laws apply to the application to build a senior care facility at 6230 Claremont Avenue.
- In July 2025 the developers, Ellis Partners and Spirit Living Group, submitted a preliminary application under SB330 with the Oakland Planning Department for a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly at that site. That froze all the local zoning codes as of that date for the life of the project, and gave the developers six months to submit a full application.
- In December 2025, the developers filed a full application with the Planning Department. Planning Department staff identified some additional information needed from the developers before the application could be accepted as complete.
- In March 2026, the application was accepted as complete, and Planning Department staff began evaluation processes to determine whether to approve the requested building permit, considering factors such as maximum number of allowable units, possible environmental hazards, traffic safety, fire safety, etc.
- In June 2026, at a community meeting at Rockridge Library, Planning Department staff said that they had determined that the project qualifies for 253 units under local zoning code, which with the 20% SDBL bonus is increased to 304 units – 50% more than the 203 units that the developers had applied for! I believe the maximum number of allowable units should be approximately 175. (See my article https://www.rockridgevoice.com/maximum-allowable-units-getting-the-math-right/).
- Now, the provisions of the HAA and SDBL kick in, guaranteeing that the project must be allowed to build to the allowable number of units proposed by the developer, with whatever waivers on development standards are needed (unless significant and un-mitigable threats to public health or safety can be demonstrated.)
At a Planning Commission meeting on September 2, planning staff informed the commissioners that the CEQA (environmental) study was nearly over; a draft report is being circulated and will probably be complete within the next couple of weeks. But language in SB330 and the HAA set a very high bar for demonstrating specific adverse hazards to public health or safety.
Planning Department staff has found the 6230 Claremont application to qualify for an unreasonably (ridiculously) high number of units. What can we expect from their CEQA (environmental) determinations? Well, the one sure thing is that there’s still time for us to make our voices heard—to the Planning Director, who will decide whether to grant the permit without modifications, and to the Planning Commission, to whom the Planning Director’s decision can be appealed.
We can challenge Planning staff’s unreasonably high figure for the maximum number of allowable units, and we may well find grounds for challenging some of staff’s environmental (CEQA) findings.
Community members are encouraged to send emails to members of the Planning Commission. Links are available at Rockridge Neighbors for Sensible Housing.
