My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Item 19
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2025
>
05/06/2025
>
Correspondence - Item 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2025 5:14:39 PM
Creation date
5/6/2025 5:03:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
residential units allowed by the DBL,the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers <br /> and concessions with respect to ground floor height,porch depth,asymmetrical entry, <br /> common open space,and private open space,unless it makes written findings as required <br /> by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision(e)(1)that the waivers would have a specific, <br /> adverse impact upon health or safety,and for which there is no feasible method to <br /> satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact,or as required by Government <br /> Code,section 65915,subdivision(d)(1)that the concessions would not result in identifiable <br /> and actual cost reductions,that the concessions would have a specific,adverse impact on <br /> public health or safety,or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law.The City,if <br /> it makes any such findings,bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915,subd. (d)(4).)Of <br /> note,the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to <br /> the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).)Additionally,the California Court of <br /> Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or <br /> concessions pursuant to the DBL,the City"may not apply any development standard that <br /> would physically preclude construction of that project as designed,even if the building <br /> includes`amenities'beyond the bare minimum of building components"(Bankers Hill 150 u <br /> City of San Diego (2022)74 Cal.App.5th 755,775.) <br /> Finally,the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines <br /> section 15192 (Threshold Requirements for Exemptions)and section 15195 (Residential Infill <br /> Exemption). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, <br /> and may be sued,when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or <br /> streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group,Inc.a County of San Diego <br /> (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 benefit:it will provide badly needed <br /> homeownership opportunities;it will bring new customers to local businesses;it will <br /> expand the city's tax base;and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing <br /> competition for existing housing. Ca1HDF therefore strongly urges the City to approve the <br /> project as proposed,consistent with its obligations under state law. <br /> Ca1HDF is a 501(c)(3)non-profit 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 Ca1HDF at www.calhdf.org. <br /> 2of3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.