2025.04.28 Speaker Card - PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL oers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to front, side, and rear setbacks, minimum open space, personal storage requirements, and parking, unless it makes written indings as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a speciic, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the speciic adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identiiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a speciic, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such indings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL speciically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Finally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, which limits project level review for inill developments for which eects have been addressed by planning decisions or uniformly applicable development policies. And recent caselaw from the California Court of Appeal afirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public beneit: it will provide badly needed aordable housing in a region of California that is most acutely aected by the housing shortage; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. CalHDF therefore strongly urges the City to approve the project as proposed, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-proit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3