My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
2024.10.28 Speaker Cards - PC
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
Speaker Cards - Public Comments
>
2024.10.28 Speaker Cards - PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2024 9:46:05 AM
Creation date
11/12/2024 9:45:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Speaker Card
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
10/28/2024
Text box
ID:
1
Creator:
REDWOOD_CITY\NANCYRAMIREZ
Created:
11/12/2024 9:46 AM
Modified:
11/12/2024 9:46 AM
Text:
http://www.carlaef.org/
ID:
2
Creator:
REDWOOD_CITY\NANCYRAMIREZ
Created:
11/12/2024 9:46 AM
Modified:
11/12/2024 9:46 AM
Text:
http://www.calhdf.org
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The DBL o ers the project certain bene its.(See Gov.Code,§65915.)The City must <br />respect these bene its.Speci ically,the City must grant the developer’s requested <br />concessions and waivers with respect to pervious area,building length,parking,and sight <br />lines.And,as mentioned above,these waivers and concessions do not impede the HAA’s <br />application to the project.Pursuant to the DBL,the project is also entitled to a relaxed <br />accessory parking requirement.(Id.at subd.(p).)Furthermore,the California Court of Appeal <br />has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions <br />pursuant to the DBL,the City “may not apply any development standard that would <br />physically preclude construction of that project as designed,even if the building includes <br />‘amenities’beyond the bare minimum of building components.”(Bankers Hill 150 v.City of <br />San Diego (2022)74 Cal.App.5th 755,775.) <br />Finally,the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of <br />the CEQA Guidelines,which limits project level review for in ill developments for which <br />e ects have been addressed by planning decisions or uniformly applicable development <br />policies.And recent caselaw from the California Court of Appeal af irms that local <br />governments err,and may be sued,when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA <br />exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled.(Hilltop Group,Inc.v.County of <br />San Diego (2024)99 Cal.App.5th 890,911.) <br />As you are well aware,California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing <br />shortage.New housing such as this is a public bene it:it will provide badly needed a ordable <br />housing in a region of California that is most acutely a ected by the housing shortage;it will <br />bring new customers to local businesses;and it will reduce displacement of existing <br />residents by reducing competition for existing housing.Given how challenging it is for <br />a ordable developers to acquire suitable sites on the Peninsula,one of the most job-rich <br />regions of the entire country,it is disappointing that the project was already reduced in <br />density due to neighborhood opposition.CalHDF therefore strongly urges the Council to <br />approve the project as proposed,consistent with its obligations under state law. <br />CalHDF is a 501(c)(3)non-pro it corporation whose mission includes advocating for <br />increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels,including low-income <br />households.You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. <br />Sincerely, <br />Dylan Casey <br />CalHDF Executive Director <br />2 of 3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.