Laserfiche WebLink
Ca1HD1F also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain <br />protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in <br />residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers <br />and concessions with respect to publicly accessible open space, common open space, <br />private open space, and parking spaces. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, <br />Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would <br />have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible <br />method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to <br />deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires <br />findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, <br />that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that <br />the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, <br />bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Additionally, the California Court <br />of 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 />Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to section <br />15168 (program EIR) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is also eligible for a statutory <br />exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66), which was signed <br />into law on June 30, 2025 and effective immediately (Assembly Bill No. 130,2025-2026 <br />Regular Session, Sec. 74, available 1 ,). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal <br />affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a <br />project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, <br />Inc. a County of 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 benefit: by providing affordable housing, it <br />will mitigate the state's homelessness crisis; it will increase the city's tax base; it will bring <br />new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by <br />reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on <br />transportation -related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more <br />urban areas, as opposed to farther -flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one <br />project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the <br />right direction. Ca1HD1F urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under <br />state law. <br />Ca1HD1F 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 Ca1HD1F at www.calhdf.org. <br />2of3 <br />