From: Antonio Xavier
To: =yCouncil Members
Cc: webCityClerk
Subject: Agenda Item H-1 (Bridle Gate)
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:01:58 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
The alternate Bridle Gate plan still has a significant traffic problem.
Alternate VTSM 9586 brings us back to a previously identified traffic problem that we have already discussed at length. This also includes a judicial review.
By removing the planned westward expansion of San Jose we are deviating from the General Plan traffic circulation plan.
This was already discussed at length in prior Bridle Gate applications.
The proposed changes force traffic through nearby communities and will prevent future plans to relieve traffic in these areas with connections to North/South roads like Hillcrest located to the West.
The current attempt to remove any direct access from San Jose shifts traffic to the Raley's shopping center and Highland Way/Meadowgate Way as well as increasing traffic flow around Loma Vista Elementary which increases danger to school aged children.
This is a clear violation of General Plan policies CIR 1-7 and 3-4.
I ask the council to deny this appeal for at least the reasons laid out in the staff report and discussed at great length in the prior record.
Thank you
--Antonio Xavier
From: Prince, Leigh F.
To: =yCouncil Members
Cc: Roberts, Anita; Sparling, David; Johnson, Gerald; Flohr, Rod; Brand, Kristopher; Nolthenius, Erik; Wisinski, Katherine; webCityClerk
Subject: Bridle Gate Project – City Council Public Hearing Item H.1 Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 4:02:55 PM
Attachments: 2024.12.10 Second Comment Letter Bridle Gate City Council with Attachment(165849180.1)-C.pdf CAUTION � EXTERNAL SENDER
Attached please find a letter submitted on behalf of Discovery Builders, Inc. in support of the Council’s denial of the Bridle Gate project. This letter is submitted with regard to Item H.1 on the Council’s December 10, 2024, agenda. Please confirm receipt, and that this letter will be provided to the Council at the dais before the meeting this evening.
Regards,
Leigh
Leigh F. Prince | Partner | Fox Rothschild LLP
Office: (704) 384-2617 | Cell: (408) 309-3349
[email protected] | www.foxrothschild.com
This email contains information that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent authorized to receive for the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose or use any contents in this email. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at Fox Rothschild LLP by replying to this email and delete the original and reply emails. Thank you.
165846572.1
LEIGH PRINCE
Direct No: 704.384.2617
Email: [email protected]
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.364.5540 415.391.4436
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
704.384.2600 704.384.2800
www.foxrothschild.com
December 10, 2024
Via Email: [email protected]
City Council
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Project – City Council Public Hearing Item H.1 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
This letter is written on behalf of Fox Rothschild, LLP client Discovery Builders, Inc. in support of both the Planning Commission and City Council unanimous denial of the Bridle Gate project. The proposed amendments to the project application do not change the project in a meaningful way. The proposed project still does not comply with either the City’s General Plan or the Municipal Code for all the reasons outlined in previous correspondence to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council should stand firm in its unanimous vote to deny the project.
A. The City Council Denied the Project.
On August 27, 2024, the City Council voted unanimously to deny the project. The motion to deny the project was based on findings of inadequate public safety, insufficient reduction of vehicle miles travelled (VMT), a preference for one park instead of two, poor circulation that was inconsistent with the general plan, non-compliance with the zoning code requirements (exceeding the maximum allowable zoning density of 166 homes); deterioration of ridgelines that was inconsistent with the general plan, and noise concerns. The Council directed the City Attorney to prepare and bring back on consent, without further public comment, a resolution denying the project based on the Council articulated findings.
The Council was clear regarding what action they were taking at the August 27th meeting. There was no direction to the applicant to come back with an amended application, and nothing in the amended application corrects all the bases for denial. As Councilmember Medoza stated: “If we are denying, we are denying.” Prior to the vote, the mayor ensured that all Council members understood what a vote on the motion would December 10, 2024
165846572.1
mean. With full understanding, the Council voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project. All that remained was for the resolution memorializing the Council’s denial to come back as a consent agenda item.
B. The Denial Was Final.
The City Council administrative policy provides: “After a vote is taken on a matter, if an appropriate resolution is not already prepared, the Council may direct the staff to prepare a resolution reflecting the City Council’s findings and decision. A resolution brought back to the Council may be placed on the Consent Calendar. (No public comments can be received or considered unless a public hearing is re-noticed.) The vote is not considered final until the City Council reviews and approves the resolution at a later meeting.” This policy reflects the fact that a Council vote is final and the resolution reflects that final decision. Also, the City’s law (not merely policy) provides that “action on any permit or other entitlement shall become effective fourteen days after the date of decision.” Municipal Code Section 18.800.011. The date of decision was August 27, 2024 – the date the Council voted and decided unanimously to deny the project, subject only to the staff preparing a resolution reflecting that decision.
C. The City Failed to Provide Interested Parties Adequate Notice of this Hearing.
Based on the Council’s vote to deny the project in August, one would expect that a resolution memorializing the decision would have come back on the consent agenda at a meeting in September. However, because this item is on the agenda it is apparent that staff did not come back as anticipated with the resolution as directed by the City Council.
My client only became aware that this project would be subject to another public hearing on an amended application on Friday December 6, 2024, when a staff member happened to review the Council agenda. My client then contacted me on Monday December 9th to prepare a comment letter for the Council hearing on Tuesday December 10,
, 2024. This is inadequate notice for an interested party that has commented at both the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings. Notice of a potentially adverse decision must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford interested persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306, 313; Beaudreau v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 448; Scott v.
City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 549.
Further, any proposed modifications to a project “shall be subject to the same procedure and regulations as those applicable to the original application.” Municipal Code December 10, 2024
165846572.1
Section 17.800.012. If the City followed this required procedure, interested parties would have adequate notice and an opportunity to meaningfully comment on the project as there would be additional procedures prior to Council action on an amended project.
I respectfully request that this item be continued to allow interested persons adequate time to digest the project changes and prepare comments and supporting evidence for the Council’s consideration. The applicant has had months to prepare while the public assumed that the project denial was complete and now have had only a couple days to review the amended materials. Justice and fairness require additional time for all parties prior to the Council hearing.
D. Significant Sleuthing is Required to Determine Why a Project that was Denied is on the Council Agenda.
The staff report does not explain the almost four-month delay between the City Council unanimous vote to deny the project and the agenda item that proposes the Council consider approval of an amended application. There is a single sentence buried in Document #17 for this agenda item, an email from Doug Chen, that references a closed session on September 10, 2024. The reader must then go to the agenda for the Council’s September 10th closed session item. Attached to the cover memo for the closed session is a letter threatening litigation based mainly on the Housing Accountability Act, but also on State Density Bonus Law (although the project does not utilize that law). Based on this letter and whatever discussion took place in closed session, it appears the City decided to allow an amended application to avoid the threatened litigation despite the final decision on the project.
E. New Proposed Park Location Inappropriate.
The consolidation of the park from two into one was identified as a basis for denial but was not a core basis for the Council’s denial of the project. The amended proposal consolidates and relocates the park in an attempt to overcome the denial. However, locating the park on Sand Creek conflicts with the City’s Parks, Trails & Recreation Master Plan Update that identifies considerations for park planning that have not been studied here including: “Physical site or off-site constraints such as major roads, railroad tracks, terrain or existing land uses that act as barriers or create safety concerns for residents of the new development attempting to utilize a nearby existing neighborhood park.” This park consolidation and relocation is not appropriate or consistent with City plans.
December 10, 2024
165846572.1
E. The County Transportation Analysis Guidelines Provide the Applicable VMT Threshold and Project has Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
The City of Brentwood does not have its own Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. In the absence of City adopted Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, the County’s Guidelines for transportation analysis control. The Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines provide a VMT threshold as follows:
“The CEQA thresholds of significance (“TOS”) impact criteria provided below require the proposed project’s transportation impact analysis to compare the VMT per person/employee to the VMT per person/employee for the County or Bay Area region. A proposed project should be considered to have a significant impact if the project VMT is greater than:
• Residential Projects: 15% below the Countywide average home-based VMT per capita.”
The County Transportation Analysis Guidelines “require” comparison to the countywide average VMT. The Guidelines make no reference to the Grown Management Plan for an alternative VMT threshold and no reference to a potential less stringent threshold. Thus, the required and applicable threshold as identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines is a threshold of 15% below the Countywide average homebased VMT per capita.
The DKS report attached to the staff report (Document #15) indicates that the county-wide residential VMT per capita is 19.4, with a significance threshold of 16.5. The project has a VMT after mitigation of 25.08 – far exceeding the County threshold.
Because the project exceeds the threshold even after mitigation, this is a significant and unavoidable impact.
The Growth Management Plan, although it includes a discussion of VMT methodology, serves a very different purpose. The purpose of the Growth Management Plan is to implement Measure C and Measure J to collect tax revenue and help the County plan for and accommodate continued increases in population, households and jobs. “The project generated home-based VMT per resident constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than 85% of the home-based VMT per resident in the subject municipality or unincorporated CCTA subregion (for areas outside of municipalities) or 85% of the existing County-wide average home-based VMT per resident, whichever is less stringent.” The Growth Management Plan does not require selection of a threshold December 10, 2024
165846572.1
but provides discretion: “Local jurisdictions may choose to apply methods and thresholds that are more stringent than those outlined in this document.” When there is a conflict, the general rule is that the specific controls over the general. See Code of Civil Procedure Section 1859; San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist. v. State Allocation Bd. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 12, 20–21. Because the County’s guidelines are more specific, required and better reduce VMT and greenhouse gases in accordance with state directives this is the threshold for environmental review purposes.
F. The Housing Accountability Act Does Not Prevent Denial.
The Housing Accountability Act is not a blank check for housing developers to obtain approval of any project. The Act has nuances allowing the city to deny a housing project if it has specific adverse impacts upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development infeasible. Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2). The Council identified these bases for denial at the August 27 th meeting and they are
incorporated into the resolution for denial. It is important to highlight, that if the County Transportation Analysis Guidelines and its objective VMT threshold are applied as they should be, this project has a significant and unavoidable VMT impact which is a legally appropriate basis on which to deny the project.
The closed session letter argues that the City is deemed to have determined that the density is appropriate. This is incorrect. The letter from the City to the applicant dated August 22, 2022 identified the inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance and was provided to the Council with my last correspondence dated August 27, 2024 (attached).
There is no deemed consistency; the project is inconsistent with zoning as previously described.
G. State Density Bonus Law is Irrelevant and a Red Herring.
Government Code Section 65915 is a state law designed to encourage the production of affordable housing by providing a density bonus, concessions and waivers.
Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) states: “In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.” State law is intended to allow modifications/waivers because local standards (e.g. setback, open space, etc.) would physically preclude construction in excess of the maximum allowable local zoning density. Here, the project does not utilize any density bonus or concession permitted by state law. Therefore, no waiver is necessary to physically construct the project, and it can December 10, 2024
165846572.1
comply with local laws designed to accommodate the base density. The suggestion that State Density Bonus Law would step in and “boot strap” the legality and appropriateness of this project is simply a misuse of state law.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the denial of the project should be upheld and the Council should adopt Option 1, the resolution prepared in accordance with its vote on the project. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Enclosure
cc: Anita Roberts ([email protected])
David Sparling ([email protected])
Gerald Johnson ([email protected])
Rod Flohr ([email protected])
Kristopher Brand ([email protected])
Erik Nolthenius ([email protected])
Katherine Wisinski ([email protected])
City Clerk ([email protected])
Clients
161981584.6
LEIGH PRINCE
Direct No: 704.384.2617
Email: [email protected]
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.364.5540 415.391.4436
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
704.384.2600 704.384.2800
www.foxrothschild.com
August 27, 2024
Via Email: [email protected]
City Council
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Project – City Council Public Hearing Item F.1 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
This letter is written on behalf of Discovery Builders, Inc. in support of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of the Bridle Gate Project (“Project”) on the basis that the Project does not comply with either the City’s General Plan or the Municipal Code.
A. The Project does not comply with the City’s General Plan.
The Planning Commission made findings that the Project does not comply with General Plan policies to protect Brentwood’s ridgelines or discourage cut-through traffic.
See General Plan Policy COS 7-1 and CIR 3-4. The City Council can also make these findings and deny the Project. It should be noted, however, that the City Council is not limited to these findings and may find that the Project does not comply with other General Plan policies. For example, by not including larger lot sizes as required in Subarea D, an objective zoning standard, the Project does not conform to Policy LU 2-8 to provide a variety of residential products through the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the City’s population.
The courts defer to a local agency’s determination of consistency, or lack thereof:
“When we review an agency’s decision for consistency with its own general plan, we accord great deference to the agency’s determination. This is because the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” Save Our Peninsula Comm. v Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4 th 99, 142.
Thus, the Council’s decision to deny based on findings that the Project does not conform to the City’s General Plan policies would be given great deference.
August 27, 2024
161981584.6
B. The Project does not comply with the City’s Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission also found that the Project did not comply with the City’s Municipal Code by failing to conform to both Subarea C and Subarea D standards.
Attached is the letter submitted to the Planning Commission explaining that the land use regulations applicable to the Project are not limited to Subarea C standards, but also include Subarea D standards and Subarea E standards, even after the court decision.
The staff report is correct that the court did not address these other Subarea standards.
These standards are codified in the City’s Municipal Code remain applicable as to open space, ridgeline preservation and lot sizes.
C. The Environmental Impact Report should not be certified.
As outlined in the attached letter to the Planning Commission, there are inadequacies in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Therefore, the City Council should not certify the EIR, and does not need to certify the EIR when it denies the Project.
For all the foregoing reasons, Discovery Builders urges the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s determination that the Project is not in compliance or conformance with both the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and deny the appeal.
Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Enclosure
cc: Anita Roberts ([email protected])
David Sparling ([email protected])
Gerald Johnson ([email protected])
Rod Flohr ([email protected])
Kristopher Brand ([email protected])
August 27, 2024
161981584.6
Erik Nolthenius ([email protected])
Katherine Wisinski ([email protected])
City Clerk ([email protected])
Clients
LEIGH PRINCE
Direct No: 704.384.2617
Email: [email protected]
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.364.5540 415.391.4436
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
704.384.2600 704.384.2800
www.foxrothschild.com
July 16, 2024
Via Email
Planning Commission
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Housing Development Project - Planning Commission Hearing July 16, 2024 – Item E.1
Dear Planning Commission:
My firm represents Discovery Builders, Inc. and this letter pertains to the housing development project in the City of Brentwood known as Bridle Gate Project Subdivision 9586 (“Project”) and is submitted for the Planning Commission hearing regarding the Project on July 16, 2024.
In reviewing the staff report, it appears that City staff have determined only Subarea C standards in the PD-36 zoning district apply and therefore the Project meets applicable objective requirements of the City’s land use regulations. This conclusion is incorrect.
City staff submitted a comment letter on August 2, 2022 (attached) while reviewing this Project and summarized the land use regulations applicable to this Project. Applicable land use regulations, as indicated by staff, are not limited to Subarea C standards.
Furthermore, there is a final court ruling Superior Court ruling N22-1738 (attached) as a result of an April 27, 2023 hearing. The issue in the case was whether PD-36 was valid and whether lots less than 5,000 square feet were acceptable. The court did not find PD36 invalid and held that the minimum lot size in the PD-36 zoning district for Subarea C was 5,000 square feet (an objective standard). Although lots could not be smaller, nothing in the court’s ruling suggests larger 10,000 square foot lots (also an objective standard for Subarea D) were not appropriate. The court did not rule that only Subarea C requirements applied.
July 16, 2024
160675160.1
Following are some objective standards outlined in the City’s Municipal Code – PD-36 – that the current application does not comply with:
• Subarea D – requiring 10,000 sq ft lot minimums
• Subarea E – specifying open space preservation, specifically the sensitive topographic areas
• Maximum number of units: 124 in Subarea C and 42 in Subarea D for a total maximum allowable unit count of 166
Government Code section 65589.5(j) provides that the City may require the proposed housing development to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are consistent with the general plan; however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan. Here, whether Subarea C standards only or standards consistent with City staff’s August 2nd letter are applied the Project would still be consistent with the general plan density of 1.1 to 5 units per acre. Applying only Subarea C results in approx. 4 units per acre and applying the Subareas as shown in the August 2nd letter results in approx. 3 units per acre. As argued by the City during the litigation, the Planning Commission (and if appealed, the City Council) will be the final decision maker regarding compliance with all applicable land use regulations.
In order to comply with the objective standards as outlined in the City’s August 2, 2022 letter that is consistent with the allowable general plan density and the final court order, the Project needs to be redesigned. Moving forward with approval of the application as presented will be in violation of the applicable objective standards and therefore the application would not be subject to the protections of the Housing Accountability Act.
In addition, upon reviewing the latest map, there is a future San Jose Road extension to the west in the Southwest portion of the Project site. This is not adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project, and it should be further analyzed and addressed. This future San Jose Road extension will be crossing a jurisdictional wetland and also crossing and impacting a significant PG&E gas line.
Environmental impacts of this future road extension should be fully addressed and July 16, 2024
160675160.1
discussed in the EIR. Furthermore, if this road extension is completed, it will impact traffic patterns for this Project and the City. This extension is not adequately addressed is the City’s traffic studies for this Project.
In summary, Discovery Builders, Inc. urges the Planning Commission to request that the Project be revised to comply with the objective standards identified in City staff’s letter dated August 2, 2022 and for the EIR to be updated to adequately and comprehensively address the future San Jose Road extension.
Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Enclosures
cc: Anita Roberts ([email protected])
David Sparling ([email protected])
Gerald Johnson ([email protected])
Rod Flohr ([email protected])
Kristopher Brand ([email protected])
Erik Nolthenius ([email protected])
Katherine Wisinski ([email protected])
City Clerk ([email protected])
Louis Parsons [email protected]
David Young [email protected]
MERITAGE• VISION• Of>l'OllTUNITY
August 2, 2022
Louis Parsons
Discovery Builders, Inc.
4061 Port Chicago Highway
Concord, CA 94520
Subject: Review of the Bridle Gate project consistency with PD-36 Zone Development Standards and Brentwood General Plan Land Use Policies (APN 019-082- 007)
Mr. Louis Parsons:
Thank you for your recent submittals proposing the development of 286 single family residences, two parks, a commercial area, and open space on 135.31 acres located at the west end of Sand Creek Road and west of State Route 4. Based on a review of the application submittal materials, staff has determined that the project, as proposed, is inconsistent with the Development Standards for the PD-36 zone (pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486), the Brentwood General Plan, and the City's Residential Design Guidelines.
As you know, the proposed project includes development within subareas C, D, and E of the PD36 zone as approved by City Council in 2006. The subarea map is included as an attachment to this letter. The subareas should be clearly delineated on the proposed vesting tentative map.
Consistency with Zoning Regulations
Chapter 17.486 PD-36 Zone of the Brentwood Municipal Code includes the permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and general development standards within each subarea of the PD36 zone.
Subarea C is located between Bridle Gate Drive, State Route 4, Sand Creek Road, and the southern boundary of the project site. The following are the applicable development standards required for subarea C. Inconsistencies or unmet requirements are noted under the sections in italics.
Section 17.486.004 (C)
1. Minimum lot size: Five thousand square feet;
• Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.
2. Minimum lot width: Fifty feet;
• Many proposed lots have a width of 45 feet, and do not meet his requirement.
3. Minimum lot frontage: Thirty-five feet at the front property line for lots on culs-de-sac, knuckles, or curvilinear streets;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
150 City Park Way • Brentwood, California 94513
Phone: 925-516-5405 • Fax: 925-5115-5407
e-mail: dept-comdev@brentwoodca
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page2
• Requirement met.
4. Minimum front yard setback: Twenty feet for front-facing garages; fifteen feet for building walls and porches;
• Proposed setback requirement to garage is 20 feet, and requirement is met. • Proposed setback to living and porch is 10 feet, and requirement is not met.
5. Minimum side yard setback: Five feet, with the sum of both sides twelve feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of ten feet on the streetside yard; • Proposed minimum side yard setback is 5 feet, but the sum of both sides does not equal 12 feet, and the requirement is not met.
• Proposed streetside yard setbacks for corners lots maintains a minimum of 10 feet and the requirement is met.
6. Minimum rear yard setback: Fifteen feet, with an average of twenty feet; • Proposed minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, but does not average 20 feet and the requirement is not met.
7. Maximum building height: Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet; • Building heights for single- and two-story homes are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
8. Corner lot fence setback: Five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of [Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code];
• Fence setbacks are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a six-foot high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506;
• Fence heights for these lots are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3: 1 slope;
• No accessory structures are shown on the proposed vesting tentative map.
Insomuch as none are proposed, this requirement is met.
11. Maximum lot coverage: Forty percent for two-story homes and forty-five percent for singlestory homes; · • The proposed 40% lot coverage for two-story homes meets the requirement. • The proposed 50% lot coverage for single-story homes does not meet the requirement.
12. Maximum number of primary dwelling units: One hundred twenty-four. (Ord. 857 § 2, 2008) • The proposed vesting tentative map exceeds the maximum number of lots allowed within subarea C.
Subarea D is located between Cottonwood Avenue and Heatherwood Drive. The general development standards for subarea D are found in Section 17.486.005 of the Brentwood Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page3
Municipal Code.
Section 17.486.005 (C)
1. Minimum lot size: Ten thousand square feet;
• Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.
2. Minimum lot width: Ninety feet;
• Many proposed lots have a width of 45 feet, and do not meet his requirement.
3. Minimum lot frontage: Forty-five feet at the front property line for lots on culs-de-sac, knuckles, or curvilinear streets;
• No proposed cul-de-sacs within subarea D.
4. Minimum front yard setback: Twenty feet for front-facing garages; fifteen feet for building walls and porches;
• Proposed setback requirement to garage is 20 feet, and requirement is met. • Proposed setback to living and porch is 1 O feet, and requirement is not met.
5. Minimum side yard setback: Five feet, with the sum of both sides fifteen feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of ten feet on the street side yard. • Proposed minimum side yard setback is 5 feet, but the sum of both sides does not equal 15 feet, and the requirement is not met.
• Proposed streetside yard setbacks for corners lots maintains a minimum of 1 O feet and the requirement is met.
6. Minimum rear yard setback: Fifteen feet, with an average of twenty feet. • Proposed minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, but does not average 20 feet for every lot within subarea D and the requirement is not met.
7. Maximum building height: Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet; except that the ten lots referenced on the approved residential site plan with Model 11 shall not exceed thirty-three and one-half feet;
• Building heights for single- and two-story homes are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
8. Corner lot fence setback: five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of this title; • Fence setbacks are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a six-foot-high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506;
• Fence heights for these lots are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3: 1 slope; • No accessory structures are shown on the proposed vesting tentative map.
Insomuch as none are proposed, this requirement is met.
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page4
11. Maximum lot coverage: Forty percent for two-story homes and forty-five percent for singlestory homes; • The proposed 40% lot coverage for two-story homes meets the requirement. • The proposed 50% lot coverage for single-story homes does not meet the requirement.
12. Maximum number of primary dwelling units: Forty-two. (Ord. 857 § 2, 2008) • The proposed vesting tentative map exceeds the maximum number of lots allowed within subarea D.
Subarea E is located west of Heatherwood Drive, and extends to the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the project site. Permitted uses within subarea E are:
•
•
•
•
•
Public recreational areas;
Public or quasi-public rights-of-way for utility, irrigation, drainage, or similar areas utilized for or having the potential to be utilized for trials or similar uses; Open space as a reserve for fire protection, seismic safety, water conservation, protection of view, or similar appropriate purposes;
Parks, playgrounds, and recreational trails;
Conservation easements for wetland and habitat preservation and mitigation related to development of SPA E.
Conditionally permitted uses with subarea E include:
• An addition to an existing structure which will increase the coverage of the structure by five hundred square feet, or any new structure in excess of five hundred square feet, except minor recreational structures such as playground equipment, trellises, and similar uses;
• Any commercial use which may be conducted on open space land without substantially detracting from its value as open space such as golf courses, riding academies or stables, tennis or swim clubs, and similar recreational-related uses of a predominantly open nature.
All uses in subarea E are subject to the design and site development review procedures established in Chapter 17.820. The setback, building height, parking, and other design and performance criteria shall be established at the time of the proposed development and in accordance with any development standards established by resolution for the type of use proposed.
The proposed vesting tentative map shows single-family lots within subarea E, which is neither a permitted or conditionally permitted use per Section 17. 486. 006 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
Consistency with General Plan Policies
Policy LU 2-1 states: Maintain Brentwood's predominant land use of single family residential, while providing for a mix of housing types throughout the community, in accordance with the Housing Element. Consistent with this policy, the PD-36 zone included a subarea with a 5,000- square-foot (sf) lot minimum, and a subarea with a 10,000-sf lot minimum, in order to achieve a mix in housing and lot sizes. However, the proposed project includes a 4,500-sf lot minimum throughout the development, and therefore does not achieve a mix of housing types.
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page5
Consistency with City of Brentwood Residential Design Guidelines Section 2.4 Landscaping - 2.4.1 Street Trees
• Street trees are required along all public and private streets at a minimum of 1 tree per lot, plus 2 additional trees on the side of corner lots.
Not all comer Jots within the proposed development map include 2 additional trees on the side yard.
Project Comments Unrelated to Consistency with Objective Standards In addition to the foregoing. staff also notes:
Section 1.6 Basic Design Principles - 4.
• Minimize the impact of garages and driveways along street frontages.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map shows many of the lot frontages being 45 feet. Having narrow lot widths makes minimizing the impact of garages and driveways difficult. Additionally, the layout of the lots in a linear design without curves or breaks only emphasizes garages and driveways further.
Section 2.1 Subdivision Layout - 2.1.1 Neighborhoods:
• Incorporates natural features into the site design to enhance the subdivisions' visual links to their unique location.
PD-36 subarea E maintained open space around the onsite hills, however the project includes development on a portion of subarea E.
Section 2.2 Streets - 2.2.1 Internal Streets:
• Interior streets should have visual interest with street trees, parks trips, decorative street lights, and landscape bulbs to reduce apparent street width. • Internal streets should be faced by no more than a maximum of 1 O uninterrupted parking spaces or garages. Significant landscaped areas, including trees and with a minimum width of 5 feet, should separate blocks of garages and/or parking spaces.
While the minimum 5-foot side yard setback may meet the minimum required in the guidelines, the length of Cottonwood Avenue and Heatherwood Drive do not meet the intent of the guideline. For example, Heatherwood Drive has over 1,600 feet of lots that are very similar in size in a straight line, with one street tree each.
This layout will not minimize driveways or create a streetscape with visual interest.
In order to proceed with the proposed project, project plans must be revised to be compliant with all applicable regulations and guidelines or a rezone application to modify the development standards is required.
Staff will provide additional project comments, which are not related to inconsistencies with objective standards, in separate correspondence. Please note that as the City continues processing of your application, it may identify additional information that is necessary to clarify, amplify, correct, or supplement your application.
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page6
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Erik Nolthenius by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
C+--
Alexis Morris
Community Development Director, City of Brentwood
(925) 516-5405
Parsons
August 2, 2022
17.486.08
Attachment: Subarea Map for PD-36
SUBAREA MAP FOR PD-36
(subarea D:)10,000 sq ft
min lots
-- ' . • :.,11,
*iii n:r: . !
Km ·;r jnJ ,,. -......
:r·
(Subarea C:). ·, ____ ---- ---- _______ /
5,000 sq ft
min lots
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
MINUTE ORDER
DISCOVERY BUILDERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS.
CITY OF BRENTWOOD, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL-LAW CITY
N22-1738
HEARING DATE: 04/27/2023
PROCEEDINGS: *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: JUDGMENT ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CONTINUED FROM 3/30/23 CALENDAR)
DEPARTMENT 12
JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES S TREAT
CLERK: DENESE JOHNSON
COURT REPORTER: RAQUEL SHARP, #10619
JOURNAL ENTRIES:
Counsel: Ellis Raskin & Andrew Bassak, for petitioner, are present in person.
Counsel: Kevin Siegel & Deepa Sharma, for respondent, appear via Zoom.
The Court issued the following tentative ruling:
Petitioners, Discovery Builders, Inc. and WCHB Development, LLC, request judgment on the pleadings. Among other items, their petition seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent and Defendant City of Brentwood to “proceed with processing” the Bridle Gate Project consistent with various applicable laws. They also seek a determination from this Court that the Project is consistent with the City’s standards, and that the City cannot require a zoning amendment.
The Court previously requested supplemental briefing to address several questions concerning Chapter 17.486 of the City’s Municipal Code, the “blank map” located at section 17.486.008 of that Chapter, ripeness and the issues before the Planning Commission, and timelines for further Project review. Parties have provided responsive supplemental briefs.
Having reviewed these materials, the motion is denied. As discussed below, Petitioners fail to meet their burden to demonstrate the requirements for a writ of mandate: a clear and present duty on the part of the City, and their entitlement to the City’s performance of any duty.
Requests for Judicial Notice
Both the City and Petitioners request judicial notice.
Petitioner requests notice of various provisions from the City’s Municipal Code (Exs 1-2, 6-7), a 2014 map from a draft EIR, not ultimately adopted (Ex 3); a City staff report regarding the 2014 General Plan Update agenda item for City Council (Ex 4); the Land Use Element of the City’s 2014 General Plan (Ex 5); Ordinance No. 960, adopted in 2015, as well as the attached blank map showing PD-36 (Ex 8); and the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Ex. 9).
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
In support of its Opposition, the City requests notice of the judgment in a previous lawsuit between the parties (Ex. A); various provisions from the City’s municipal code (Exs. B-C); and provisions from other cities’ municipal codes, including Antioch, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek (Exs. D-M).
Both these requests are unopposed and granted.
On reply, Petitioners additionally request notice of an agenda for a meeting of the City of San Ramon Planning Commission for the purpose of showing statements by counsel for the City in this case. The request is denied based on relevance. Further, the argument of counsel is not evidence. (Fuller v. Tucker (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1173.)
In support of its supplemental brief, the City requests judicial notice of its Notice of Preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bridle Gate Project. The request is granted.
Standard
The parties appear unsure about which sort of mandate controls our analysis. The court in Bunnett v. Regents of University of California (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 843, 848, provides the basic rules by which we may determine the applicable standard here:
The proper method of obtaining judicial review of most public agency decisions is by instituting a proceeding for a writ of mandate. Statutes provide for two types of review by mandate: ordinary mandate and administrative mandate. (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 1085 [ordinary], 1094.5 [administrative].) The nature of the administrative action or decision to be reviewed determines the applicable type of mandate. In general, quasi-legislative acts are reviewed by ordinary mandate and quasi-judicial acts are reviewed by administrative mandate. But judicial review via administrative mandate is available "only if the decision[ ] resulted from a 'proceeding in which by law: 1) a hearing is required to be given, 2) evidence is required to be taken, and 3) discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency." Thus, ordinary mandate is used to review adjudicatory actions or decisions when the agency was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. (Citations omitted.)
Because no one has argued that an evidentiary hearing should have occurred in this matter, we proceed under the standard for ordinary mandate, Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. Section 1085 (a) provides that a writ of mandate may be issued “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.” This has been read to require the showing of a (1) clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty. (CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 265, Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
278, citing Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, 539-40.) The petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving the facts on which the claim for relief is based. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1153.) Discussion
1. The Consistency Determination
Petitioners contend the Planning Commission was required to make the relevant consistency determination, that it did not, and this means the Project must be deemed to conform with any objective criteria. They contend the Court must order the City to “proceed with processing” the Project consistent with applicable laws and deem the Project compliant with all objective standards.
In support of their position, Petitioners urge the Court to examine the Legislative purposes of Government Code § 65589.5. Government Code, section 65589.5(j)(2) states (emphasis added):
(A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
[…]
(ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
Nothing in the statute itself refers to a meeting or determination by the Planning Commission.
Further, it is only where an applicant is not informed of an inconsistency within the relevant time period, that the housing project is "deemed consistent […] with the applicable plan, program," etc. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).)
In this case, the triggering event for deeming a project compliant did not occur. Petitioners were timely informed of the alleged inconsistency.
Parties here agree that the application was complete on June 3, 2022. Then, within 60 days, the City (staff) sent a letter (“written documentation”) on August 2, explaining the issues with the application (“an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity”). This is all the statute requires.
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
The Court is not permitted to read additional requirements into the law, be it an implication that the Planning Commission make the consistency determination, or redefining the term “considers” to include a requirement that the agency opinion is correct.
A court's role in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 916, 924.) Courts look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning because statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent. (Ibid.) When the statutory language is clear, courts usually adopt the plain meaning of that language unless it would (1) produce absurd consequences that the Legislature clearly did not intend or (2) frustrate the manifest purposes that appear from the provisions of the legislation when considered as a whole in light of its legislative history. (Ibid.)
Petitioners argue that there are absurd consequences in construing the City’s August 2 letter as a valid consistency determination. The Housing Accountability Act must be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) But requiring a local agency to convene a properly noticed Planning Commission meeting within the timelines mentioned in the statute (30 or 60 days) could also be an absurd consequence of the interpretation urged by Petitioners, as the City contends.
Because (1) the August 2 letter was sent, and (2) no one contends additional standards (beyond what was mentioned in the letter) should apply, there is no clear, present duty on the part of the City pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
2. Zoning for PD-36
Petitioners argue they are entitled to an Order that their Project is consistent with all objective criteria—a determination premised on a finding that the zoning for PD-36—the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.486—is wholly invalid (see Petitioner Supplemental Brief, 10:20-22.) That premise is not sufficiently supported here.
The City’s Chapter 17.486 of its Municipal Code is titled “PD-36 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THIRTYSIX) ZONE.” It contains seven sections of text in addition to the attached map.
As reflected in the City’s August 2 letter, the text of section 17.486.004 provides that lot sizes for single-family residential areas within PD-36 must be a minimum of five thousand square feet. (See Raskin Decl., Ex. 3 [“1. Minimum lot size: Five thousand square feet; Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.].)
This minimum is unambiguous and this section is the most permissive residential lot size that exists within Chapter 17.486 (the other minimum residential lot size being 10,000 square feet). One can derive, from this, the minimum lot size for residential lots within the area designated as PD-36.
That means any residential lot that measures less than this violates the Code provisions. No subjective judgment is necessary to determine whether residential lots can be less than 5,000 square feet. This is a standard that is “objective” pursuant to Government Code, § 65589.5(h)(8) Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
[“involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official”].) A similar construction is possible with respect to lot widths. The unambiguous and most permissive width for residential lots is 50 feet. The City’s August 2 letter states the Petitioners’ application includes lots that only measure 45 feet.
As the Court’s previous order mentioned, Petitioners make no argument that the lots in their Project comply with the standards of the text.
Although not mentioned by the parties, the Court notes that the City’s Municipal Code provides for inconsistencies in its rules of construction. The rules, listed in Chapter 1.01, state, in relevant part:
J. Severability. The titles, chapters, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this code are severable. If any is declared unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable by a court, that determination shall not affect the remaining provisions.
K. If there is an inconsistency, the stricter regulation applies. (Ord. 999 § 1, 2018; Ord. 978 § 2, 2016)
Petitioner ignores the specifics of its Project, not presenting “substantial evidence” showing compliance with the relevant standards, relying instead on the invalidity of the zoning chapter. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) discussing substantial evidence standard for consistency determination.) Petitioners do claim the zoning in PD-36 is inconsistent with the General Plan, but do not provide specifics as to how. Whether or not the Chapter is inconsistent with the General Plan may ultimately need to be determined in the course of this litigation, but the issue is not necessary to reach at this time.
Conclusion
Petitioners’ requested relief (the duty) is not particularly precise. An order of compliance with several broad statutory schemes, as well as “all applicable laws and regulations” does not sufficiently articulate a ministerial duty appropriate for a writ of mandate. (See Proposed Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment.) Petitioners fail to meet their burden to articulate a duty.
They also cannot show entitlement to the City’s performance as the City appears to already be granting the relief requested by continuing to process the application. (See RJN in Support of Supplemental Brief [draft revised EIR].) Parties agree there are still timelines (mandated by CEQA) applicable to the processing of the application. (See City’s Supplemental Brief, 3:16-28 and Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief, 12:10-13:8.)
Because the burden falls on Petitioners to show the existence of a clear and present duty, and their entitlement to the City’s performance, the motion must be denied.
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
The Court, having considered the pleadings and oral argument of counsel, adopts the above tentative ruling as the ruling of the Court.
A case management conference is set for 8/2/23 at 8;30 a.m.
FUTURE HEARING(S):
AUGUST 02, 2023 8:30 AM *CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
TREAT, CHARLES S
JOHNSON, DENESE
DEPARTMENT 12
DATED: 4/27/2023 BY:__________________________________
D. JOHNSON, DEPUTY CLERK
From: Angela Louise Tiangco
To: webCityClerk; Wisinski, Katherine
Subject: YIMBY Law Correspondence re: Appeal for the Bridle Gate Project Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:31:25 PM
Attachments: 12.10.24 Letter of Support - Brentwood.pdf CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Brentwood City Council and City Attorney,
Good afternoon. Please find the attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding the public hearing for the Bridle Gate Project ahead of today's meeting (December 10) of the Brentwood City Council.
Angela Tiangco she/her/hers
Research Attorney
571-499-1556
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
12/10/2024
Brentwood City Council
City Hall, 150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via Email
Re: Appeal for the Bridle Gate Project
Dear Brentwood City Council,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). We write again to say that YIMBY Law remains committed to seeing the Bridle Gate project approved as required by law. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.
Following the public hearing on August 27, 2024, the applicant submitted an alternate Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) of the project to address the concerns noted at the hearing.
The alternative VTSM includes a slight reduction in the overall number of residential units from 272 to 269, each of which is on a lot of at least 5,000 square feet in size.As noted in the Staff Report, 5% of the project units will be affordable to very-low income households and 2% will be affordable to low-income households.
The project also includes associated improvements within the project site, including one park, open space, stormwater detention and treatment areas, utility connections, and construction of an internal roadway network on 92.96 acres. At the time of project’s application submission, the affordable housing ordinance in place (Ordinance No. 1014) required 10% of the total units to be affordable, and as such, the project applicant has entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide a minimum of 27 affordable units at the requisite affordability levels.
City Council
On August 27, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal filed by the project applicant regarding the Planning Commission’s denial of the Bridle Gate project. During the hearing, the City Council raised various concerns, ranging from traffic impacts to deterioration of ridgelines, and the City Council unanimously passed a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project. Following that hearing, the project applicant 1 has taken considerable action to alter the project to better accommodate the City Council’s requests.
Zoning Standards
The General Plan designates the majority of the project site as Residential Low Density (R-LD), allowing for development between 1.1 and 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed project would have a density less than 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The zoning for the project site is PD-36, set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 17.486. In the lawsuit concerning this project application, the City itself took the position that the appropriate residential development standards are those for Subarea C, which is consistent with the property’s General Plan designation of Residential Low Density. We reiterate that both the “Proposed VTSM” and “Alternate VTSM” complies with the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet for PD-36, Subarea C as well as development standards for open space and recreation, and the City cannot impose the development standards of the only other residential subarea–Subarea D–as its minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet would substantially decrease the density of the project in a way that conflicts with State law.
Additionally, because the project provides 5% of the units as affordable to very-low-income households, Government Code § 65915 requires that the City waive any development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed. The City must provide an unlimited number of waivers of development standards, regardless of whether the applicant has requested such waivers. Importantly, the use of waivers does not render the project noncompliant for purposes of California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, which states, “For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision . . . .” (Government Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Lastly, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found that a city may not require an applicant to redesign a § 65915 project to avoid the need for waivers. (See Department of Housing and Community Development, 3832 18th Street Project – Notice of Violation, December 29, 2022.) Again, the proposed project in both forms is consistent with the City’s general plan and complies with the PD-36 development standards. As such, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits localities from reducing the density of or denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make specific findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.
Conclusion
This is a State Density Bonus Law project that complies with all applicable objective standards.
The project applicant has made significant efforts to satisfy City Council’s requests as articulated at the August 27, 2024 hearing. Therefore, your local agency must approve the project, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an unmitigable adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Should the City 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
2 fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced.
Sincerely,
Angela Tiangco
Research Attorney at YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
3