May 5, 2025 City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: 100% Affordable Housing Development Project at 2 Rovina Lane By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; pfl[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dear Petaluma City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
housing
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
32-unit,
100%
affordable
residential
building
at
2 Rovina
Lane.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
and
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subds.
(d),
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
reduce
the
project’s
density
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
(
Id
.
at
subd.
(d).)
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3).)
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915) offers 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
all-electric
construction,
universal
design,
building
height,
fence/wall
height,
retaining
wall
terracing
and
coverage,
height
of
fence
on
retaining
wall,
open
space,
compact
parking
stalls,
tree
requirements,
and
parking
requirements,
unless
it
makes
written
findings
as
required
by
Government
Code,
section
65915,
subdivision
(e)(1)
that
the
waivers
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
upon
health
or
safety,
and
for
which
there
is
no
feasible
method
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific
adverse
impact,
or
as
required
by
Government
Code,
section
65915,
subdivision
(d)(1)
that
the
concessions
would
not
result
in
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions,
that
the
concessions
would
have
a
specific,
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
findings,
bears
the
burden
of
proof.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915,
subd.
(d)(4).)
Of
note,
the
DBL
specifically
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.)
Additionally, the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section
15194
(Affordable
Housing
Exemption)
as
it
meets
the
eligibility
requirements
set
forth
in
section
15192
(Threshold
Requirements
for
Exemptions
for
Affordable
Housing).
Caselaw
from
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
affirms
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
Dieg
o
(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
benefit;
it
will
bring
new
customers
to
local
businesses,
decarbonization
in
the
face
of
climate
crisis
–
and
most
importantly,
with
its
provision
of
32 badly-needed
affordable
units,
it
will
reduce
displacement
of
existing
residents
into
homelessness
or
carbon-heavy
car
commutes.
While
no
one
project
will
solve
the
statewide
housing
crisis,
the
proposed
development
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
CalHDF
urges
the
City
to
approve
it,
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit 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
Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3