California’s Attorney General has a message for Elk Grove: You are not off the hook | Opinion

Sure seems like California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta is going to make an example out of Sacramento’s little sister to the south, Elk Grove.

In a column I wrote back in February, I speculated that Bonta may decide to drop his lawsuit against the city of Elk Grove now that the city had come to a compromise with Excelerate Housing Group, an affordable housing developer it denied permits to in July 2022.

Opinion

But when I spoke with Bonta in Sacramento this week, he had a message for Elk Grove: You are not off the hook.

“I believe they violated the law,” Bonta said of Elk Grove. The city situated just south of Sacramento might have settled with the developer, but not with him and his office.

Excelerate wanted to build a 67-unit low-income housing complex for families transitioning out of homelessness, called the Oak Rose Apartments. It was planned for an undeveloped sliver of property at the eastern edge of the city’s Old Town district — 9252 Elk Grove Blvd. — but the city rejected the project in 2022, claiming that the project was the proposed project was too dense, and that the ground-floor residences did not comply with neighborhood zoning requirements.

That decision was a violation of several laws, including the Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 35, which requires a streamlined approval process for infill developments in cities or counties that have failed to meet regional housing needs.

Excelerate sued accordingly, followed swiftly by the state.

At a press conference on Tuesday where Bonta was supporting new affordable housing legislation, Bonta said the state’s case against Elk Grove is “still active,” they have not come to a resolution with the city, and his office is not satisfied with the compromise the city brokered with the developer earlier this year.

“I understand why the developer may seek to resolve the case and move forward with the project — a bigger project by the way, with more units and create more affordable housing — but it doesn’t satisfy us,” he said.

According to Bonta, a win for the state is having an affordable housing complex built on that original location.

“We think it’s important that (in) the original location and area where they should have approved the project, they should approve a (new) project,” Bonta said.

If so, it would be a rightfully-earned slap to the city and its officials, who have previously said they want to turn that property and an adjoining lot into a city library. And while I’m generally in favor of libraries, the state’s preferred outcome would send a strong and clear message to any California city that tries to pull the same stunt.

The compromise with the developer, according to a press release from the city of Elk Grove, is that the city will “provide the (Oak Rose) project a $5 million grant using funds designated to support affordable housing.” It will also purchase the Old Town property at its appraised value, transfer ownership of the new property at no cost to the Oak Rose developer, reimburse the developer $850,000, pay damages of $860,000 and pay the developer’s legal fees for another $600,000.

Under this agreement, the city has until June 30 to approve the new site for the Oak Rose apartments. If, for whatever reason, that doesn’t happen, Elk Grove will have to pay the developer another $2.2 million.

So instead of just allowing an affordable housing complex in the heart of the city, Elk Grove taxpayers are out several million dollars, and maybe more.

But this is the modern cost of classism, a lesson Elk Grove is learning the hard way. There’s simply no room left for these kinds of games, not with millions more units of housing needed. The city may have settled its lawsuit with this particular affordable housing developer, but it has not settled its dispute with the Attorney General.

Bonta is right to stick up for new affordable housing and fight against stereotypes that keep poor people out of the heart of their own cities, while Elk Grove remains on the wrong side of history.