2025-01456 Appeal Crocker Village Residential Development (P24-028) [Noticed 08.01.2025; Published 08.01.2025] — Sacramento City Council, September 9, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Crocker Village Residential Development
the 2035 General Plan), the Curtis Park Village AQMP must provide for 15 mitigation credit points that are actually implemented. This translates to an estimated 15% reduction in operational emissions of criteria pollutants.

The Curtis Park Village AQMP provides for 17.3 mitigation credit points in total. Based on current buildout, including the currently proposed project P24-028, 1.28 mitigation credit points for residential density are not implemented. This means that the AQMP contains only 16.02 mitigation credit points that are actually implemented.
 Please note that further reductions in AQMP mitigation credit point implementation have potential to reduce the project’s consistency with the 2035 and 2040 General Plan measures requiring 15 air quality mitigation credit points.

Transit Supportive Density
Although the AQMP would be consistent with 2035 General Plan Policy ER 6.1.3 based on current buildout including the currently proposed project, Sac Metro Air District recommends that the City ensure a minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre near Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations, such as the station accessible from Crocker Village via the multi-modal bridge across rail tracks, consistent with the City Transit Oriented Development Ordinance. Transit supportive residential density near light rail stations is associated with reduced motor vehicle miles traveled and resulting polluting emissions. It supports state and regional plans to reduce polluting motor vehicle emissions, including the Sacramento region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sac Metro Air District’s Sacramento Regional Ozone Attainment Plan and other plans for meeting federal and state air quality standards.

Construction
All projects are subject to Sac Metro Air District rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Please visit our website to find a list of the most common rules that apply at the construction phase of projects. Because this project is located in the Curtis Park Village PUD, it is subject to mitigation measures for construction-related air quality and climate impacts in the Curtis Park Village MMP. This includes measures from Sac Metro Air District’s Basic Construction Emission Control Practices, further measures to ensure equipment efficiency and control fugitive dust, possible construction mitigation fees, and more. Please send construction mitigation fee inquiries to [email protected]
Conclusion
Thank you for your attention to our comments. If you have questions about them, please contact me at [email protected] or (279) 207-1157.

Sincerely,
Molly Wright, AICP
Air Quality Planner / Analyst
cc: Paul Philley, AICP, Program Supervisor, Sac Metro Air District Ron Bess, City of Sacramento Environmental Planning Services From: Rachel
To: Daniel Abbes
Subject: Project P24-028 - comments in opposition
Date: Thursday, October 31, 2024 4:52:15 PM
Re: Project P24-028 downzone application.

Mr. Abbes,
I live in Curtis Park on 24th Street, just a couple of blocks from the referenced proposed project. I am strongly opposed to the downzone application and the applicant's request to construct yet more high-priced single family homes in our neighborhood.

In the City of Sacramento, as in the rest of the country, the most critical housing need is for multifamily rental apartments for individuals and families who are shut out of the expensive for-sale housing market. Curtis Park's resident make-up has become less economically diverse as the price of a down payment on a typical home here has sky-rocketed.

The Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association has noted that our Curtis Park neighborhood is the fourth whitest neighborhood in the City. Given the distressing racial imbalance in Curtis Park, in no small part attributable to the homogeneous (expensive for-sale) housing stock, the requested downzone would violate HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule which mandates that public agencies "proactively take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, eliminate disparities in opportunities, and foster inclusive communities free from discrimination." Initially giving a couple of parcels in this PUD a multifamily zoning designation was an action that had the potential to affirmatively further fair housing. Any action taken to approve the downzone application would violate the AFFH federal regulation and undermine the efforts of City residents and leaders to make our City and its neighborhoods more equitable and inclusive.

I urge the City to deny the downzone application and support the applicant in connecting with multifamily developers who embrace the vision of a more inclusive neighborhood and City.

Respectfully,
Rachel Iskow
From: Kathleen Ave
To: Daniel Abbes
Subject: AgencyCounter: P24-028 inquiry (Was: Fwd: Also - Re: CPV flex zone PUD amendment) Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 9:28:02 PM
Attachments: Informational flyers to property owners (2).pdf Hi Danny,
I hope you’re well - it’s been a long while since we corresponded about this project. I remain 100% supportive of multi-family and affordable housing in all the open parcels at Crocker Village.

I understand this will be heard at the planning commission on April 25, but I don’t see any material posted about it online, other than the application materials in the “Agency Counter” section of the Community Development website. When will the staff report be available? Have you seen the attached screed? It refers to the developer in the third person and isn’t signed though it has a familiar fear-mongering ring to it. It refers to a request from the City for a “100’ tall 130 unit apartment complex…” and later indicates that the "apartment tower will have five floors sitting on top of three story parking structure.” Any information you can share about the City’s request of the developer would be appreciated.

Thank you very much -
Kathleen
Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniel Abbes <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Also - Re: CPV flex zone PUD amendment
Date: November 15, 2022 at 2:19:26 PM PST
To: Kathleen Ave <[email protected]>
Hi Kathleen,
Yes, the item was withdrawn from the agenda and will not be heard tomorrow.

I did not receive any specific main reason, but one is not needed to request a withdrawal of a project.

At this time I am not sure when a hearing would occur.

Hi Kathleen,
That can be found on page 6 of the staff report, link below:
https://cas5-0-urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query? url=https%3a%2f%2fsacramento.granicus.com%2fMetaViewer.php%3fview%5fid%3d34%26clip%5fid%3d5390%26meta%5fid%3d700037&umid=610aff3a928c-41c3-8077-4d2397c97d6b&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f-203fce226bf884f9afbcda82a9142db7cb93d4b4 Thank you for your comments. I will include them in the public record for the decision makers.

This item is tentatively scheduled for November 15th at City Council (it would not be any earlier). Please feel free to e-mail me a week ahead of time if you'd like an update.

Danny Abbes, Associate Planner
City of Sacramento | Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor
(916) 808-5873; [email protected]
Advisory: All-electric NEW construction requirements begin on January 1, 2023! -----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Ave <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Daniel Abbes <[email protected]>
Subject: Also - Re: CPV flex zone PUD amendment
Attention Property Owners
The City of Sacramento is demanding that a 100’tall 130 unit apartment complex be developed on one of the two small remaining vacant parcels. It would house up to 500 renters. • Why is the City demanding this illogical anti-community, anti-smart growth approach? o The planners are zealots that believe regardless of the surrounding land uses, this tiny parcel should be built in an extremely intense manner since it is not far from the seldom used pedestrian bridge (relative to its $14 million cost at taxpayer’s expense) connecting Crocker Village to the light rail station. But for the developer, there would be no connection to the light rail station. o This is social engineering by zoning. Very few people who can afford a car use light rail. Its unsanitary and full of street people. Statistics are facts. There is much higher crime emanating from light rail stations and the Sacramento City Station is the first stop after the crime infested Broadway light rail station. It is also the busiest light rail station in the system.
o The City believes higher density multi-family apartment buildings will result in lower housing costs for people with incomes similar to those that qualify for affordable housing, including homeless people (I am not kidding). Nothing could be further from the truth since the cost to build such an immense structure would result in the highest rents in the region.
o Even then, due to the outrageous increases in materials and labor, the apartment building would need to be built using the very lowest quality construction and finishes. Apartments rents have tanked since the pandemic. There are almost no apartment projects under construction anywhere due to these market conditions.

The City does not care and is treating a “Guideline” as if it’s a requirement. • The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Guidelines that were approved with the project 15 years ago suggested, and did not require higher density residential on this parcel. • This parcel was going to be the location of the four story Senior Affordable project. • The City agreed with me that a better location for the Affordable housing project was to have it built on half the Flex zone parcel where it is now located. • Consequently, the project has met its density requirement but yet the City is refusing to view the project as having met the PUD objectives and is now manically only focusing on the parcel that was to be considered for higher density without that specific requirement. I had no idea the City, by moving the high density affordable project to a parcel that was not required to have any residential and is zoned for retail development, would be excluded from the PUD goals. The City failed to inform the developer that it was going to require an additional even higher density super structure on this small parcel and at this level of intensity adjacent to existing single family homes.
• The developer is against this and has been tirelessly trying to convince the City to support his application to no avail.
• His intention is to not build additional commercial per the existing zoning on the parcel at the corner of Crocker Drive and 10 Avenue but to build the exact same single family detached homes on that parcel that exist today surrounding it. He is applying to do the exact same thing on the other parcel tucked in the corner against the railroad tracks where the city wants a towering structure.
• Even those that don’t live adjacent to these parcels will be impacted with lower property values and a degradation of the quality of the overall living environment. The environment surrounding the pedestrian bridge will also be negatively affected. • The developer’s approach of simply building out these last two parcels consisting of five acres with the same very high quality single family homes is what should happen. • This is the proper approach to preserve your home values and finish this community with home ownership.
• These single family homes will not be rented. The apartment project the city is demanding would house as many as 500 renters vs 30 single family detached homes at the exact same density as exists surrounding these parcels and another 31 homes on the commercial parcel at Crocker Drive and 10th Avenue. The developer wants homeowners with pride of ownership instead of renters.
• What happens if the Planning Commission denies the project? o The commercial parcel at Crocker Drive and 10th Avenue is developed by right as commercial.
o The MF parcel becomes a homeless sanctuary. They hide behind the mound of dirt on the property and I can only do so much to keep them out. o Alternatively, the MF parcel is sold to an affordable housing developer who builds a project that has 500 affordable residents.
▪ The existing affordable housing project already provides 120% of the affordable housing units required for the entire project and was the very first structure developed.

How can you help:

1. Call and write an email to every planning commissioner. Here is a link to the City’s website that lists the members. https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/communitydevelopment/meetings-and-hearings/planning-and-design-commission Kendra Macias Reed lives on 5th Avenue and we have spoken. She was appointed by Councilman Rick Jennings. She gets it and is being a big help communicating with those that live north of the park/basin.

2. Call and write an email to your councilman Rick Jennings at (916) 808-7007. Don’t expect to reach him, but leave a detailed message. His email address is [email protected] I have attempted five times to reach him and his Chief of Staff Dennis Rogers (who I have known for 30+ years) and have not received one return phone call or even a message received notification. This is unacceptable. As a voting constituent, they can’t afford to ignore you.

3. Call and email Dennis M. Rogers, Jennings Chief of Staff: (916) 808-7338. Email:
[email protected]
Again, these people who work and are paid by us only pay attention when a strong number of constituents reach out. Its all about professional politicians staying in office and the only thing that can disrupt that is them feeling vulnerable come election time.

4. Attend the April 24, 2025 Planning Commission at City Hall: 915 I Street. The hearing will be held in the main hearing room. Do not be bashful. The Planning Commission is not full of politicians or unapproachable people. They are ordinary people who volunteer their time.

However, they rarely vote against City Staff’s recommendation! Staff will be writing a staff report telling the Planning Commission to deny the application since it does not have a 130 unit apartment project on it per above despite the four story complex next to it that fulfilled that requirement. If the hearing date changes, I will notify you if you provide me your contact information per below.

5. Call and email Jasleen Escobar, Director of Constituent Affairs and Engagement for CM Jennings. (916) 808-7192. [email protected] The message is simple:
• We are not NIMBYs
• We are only looking for common sense since the project and its PUD will be more than satisfied with this application based on how the surrounding parcels were developed after the 2010 approvals 15 years ago.
• By turning the commercial parcel at Crocker Drive and 10th Avenue to residential, the combined density of the multi-family parcel and the commercial parcels exceeds the wrongful demands of Staff.
• Due to the above and since the existing four story Affordable Housing Complex was built on land zoned commercial, not residential, the project has already met its overall density requirements.
• It is wrong of City Staff to look at one parcel in a vacuum and not take into consideration the fact the goals and overall intent established when the project was approved have been met.
• We all bought our properties with the understanding the PUD Guidelines were guidelines and the City would not impose such an insanely intense land use overlooking our properties.
• A 100’ tall structure would be the tallest structure outside the Central Business District in downtown Sacramento. It would be taller then the DMV office building on Broadway.
• Stop social engineering our neighborhood with a ridiculous inappropriate land use that will either result in an ugly residential tower that eventually will be akin to The Projects or just like other neglected high density apartment buildings. Why will this happen? The apartment tower will have five floors sitting on top of three story concrete parking structure above the wall separating this building from the railroad yard. The pale green walls along the west side of the railroad are full of the unsightly graffiti that is never abated. All the unused tracks are a major blight full of debris.

The other view from this project is the ugly six story water tower made of grey concrete. No one will pay rents to support a first class apartment building in this environment. This is not midtown!
• Alternatively, the apartment building will not be developed and will continue to be a sanctuary for the unhoused. At that point, the developer will have no choice but to donate it to a non-profit land bank who does not have the money to develop or maintain it so he avoids all the fines, responsibility and phone calls from us. • The developer is not the bad guy here. He is not trying to increase his zoning capacity to our detriment. He is trying to protect the community and develop these last two vacant parcels responsibility with our support. Meanwhile, City Staff and their ridiculous ideals who don’t have to live with the consequences are causing this problem.

6. Communicate with your neighbors and help educate them if they have not heard about this wrongful action by City Staff which will lead to a denial by the Planning Commission. In my 44 years of experience of obtaining approvals, I have never seen the Planning Commission vote against Staff’s recommendation. The only time that happens is when people like you show up and say no with rationale arguments as noted above.

7. Attend a community meeting to be held in the Crocker Village shopping center where I will explain all this and answer any and all questions you have. The space this will occur in is walking distance from your home. It will be held at 3570 Crocker Drive, Suite 160. That space is on the south end cap of the retail building closest to your homes across the parking lot from City Sports.

8. Please email me at my personal email address which is [email protected] so I can assess how much support there is to change this undesirable outcome. Please send me your contact information. I probably can’t respond to each and every email individually, but I will through group responses.

April 13, 2025
Dear Commissioner Reed:

Hello. I live in Curtis Park, which is adjacent to Crocker Village. Recently, I read an article in our local newspaper that indicated that the developer of Crocker Village, has applied to build single family homes, rather than the previously NEGOTIATED and APPROVED commercial or multi-family housing. The application regards two parcels located withing walking distance of the light rail station.

The City, and your Commission, must REJECT this request. Sacramento needs more multi-family units, not less, especially at locations such as these two parcels. It is logical to add density close to light rail where it can reduce reliance on cars.

These parcels are located within walking distance of not only a light rail station, but also a major grocery store, several retail outlets, and a gym. The bicycle and pedestrian bridge, which the neighborhood and the City helped to secure funding for, is a vital link between the neighborhood and Sacramento City College, Land Park, Hollywood Park, and beyond. We need MORE people, not LESS people, living in walkable communities.

I urge you to REJECT the application to change the use of these parcels to accommodate fewer people.

I look forward to attending, with some neighbors, the upcoming Planning and Design Commission meeting where this application will be discussed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Nancee Murray
2509 11th Ave
From: Jessamyn Lett
To: Daniel Abbes
Subject: Crocker Village Residential Development Public Hearing - Info Needed Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:36:07 PM
Hello Danny,
I have recently received the Notice of Public Hearing for the Crocker Village Residential Development (P24-028) project, where a request has been put forward to allow singleunit dwellings in the Multi-Family housing designation. As a neighbor within Curtis Park, I am deeply concerned about this request because diverse housing is vital for a diverse neighborhood. The proximity of this area to Sacramento City College and light rail also make it ideal for multi-family housing. I was honestly floored that so much single-family was allowed at all.

I want to more fully understand the context of this request, but I am unable to find the referenced Curtis Park Village PUD on the City's website. This is the location I was searching: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/zoning-andentitlements/zoning/PUDguidelines Can you please provide me with this document? If you have any additional resources linked to this request that you can provide I would also appreciate those.

Thank you,
Jessie
April 22, 2025
Daniel Abbes
Project Planner
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Blvd.

Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: Crocker Village Schema�c Plan Amendment and Condi�onal Use Permit Dear Mr. Abbes,
The League of Women Voters of Sacramento County (LWVSC) strongly opposes the proposed schematic plan amendment to permit single-family homes on land currently zoned for highdensity, multiple-family development in Crocker Village. These parcels represent some of the last remaining opportunities for meaningful multi-family housing in the area.

The LWVSC stands in full support of the Sacramento Housing Alliance’s position that this proposed change undermines the City’s commitment to fair housing, increased infill, and the expansion of affordable, multi-family housing options. Our League's housing policy aligns with that of the SHA and prioritizes equitable, sustainable development that addresses our region's housing crisis.

The League of Women Voters Sacramento County urges you to reject this amendment and instead uphold the original zoning to ensure that high-density, multi-family dwellings are built as intended.

Sincerely,
Charlene Jones
Lilli DuVall
Co-Presidents
League of Women Voters of Sacramento County
www.lwvsacramento.org

From: Carol Blackman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:26 AM
To: Kevin Colin <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for Crocker Village hearing on May 22 Hello Kevin Colin,
I understand the developer of Crocker Village has applied to build single-family housing on the remaining “open” and “Flex” parcels. I am opposed to this. We must support our entire community’s values, including affordable living.

Please maintain the approved plan for multi-family housing. I’ve been a Curtis Park neighbor for over 50 years, and I’ve appreciated the diversity and inclusivity of our neighborhood and the city. We must keep these values and speak out against those who want to develop single family housing for their own personal gain.

Thank you for adding my comment to your hearing on May 22.

Carol Blackman
2900 26th Street
Sacramento, CA 95818

!"# $

%
#
&#"

%

(

)

*

+,-../.01234/0.5677/44/6.8973.:3:
903.:-1;<==,373.>-,?->3@/-,A
B=:->3:CDEFGEHCHIJKLCI+?M CDAHDAHI
FNLKC

FOKOKHI C
;3.>/73.>4P6@9,,?33>/.04
QR3P6,,6S/.00@-=R4:/4=,-T43.>/73.>4P6@U6773.>4>R->R-V3,6U->/6.:->-WX.,T,6U->/6.46P<43@4SR6R-V3U6773.>3:

S/,,Y34R6S.W
XV3@-,,;3.>/73.>

!"# $
%#"

&

&

()*++,-./0-120/33435/36789453:-;;4994-3<43=>89?408@7ABCBDE CCBFB
BC( C
B)GH4,6E2/,>I*++8/0AJ-,>H5/>8*<K2<GI+8B(:L2MNBOECPCQRJ->4S86 COK((KBCBDT?408@7ABCBDECCUOD
OC( C
P):,-SV8,W400/58X894683>4/078.80-+;83>M2BOECBUQRJ->4S86 COKCOKBCBDT?408@7ABCBDECCUUC

BFPBP C
2=Y04S:-;;83>9E</>>8,9J->-3>H8*5836/ (CC C
ZL22[\<\JG*[<*G\X@*[/6686>-@>8;PEZ88*5836/@>8;]80-^ RL+6/>86ECOK(UKBCBD_PACD2<T (CC C
2,43>*;83686*5836/ (CC C
Z83>4;83>91-,*00*5836/@>8;9 GH81-00-^4355,/+H9649+0/I983>4;83>91-,S-;;83>9>H/>H/.80-S/>4-36/>/)`30I0-S/>4-39-1=98,9^H-H/.8S-;;83>86 ^400Y89H-^3)
`.8,/00Z83>4;83>

!"#$%&&'#()*+#()
, -./-

012%)*1(3
'45+*))#67)3839:;+9<=><=>8
7?@A%"#A%6+%(B21++4(*2%)*1(C*)AD%2EF%A&%%(6G%)*#H#(#I4#&%1"#$)A#;$1;1?#6;$1J#2)K @61(1)5#&*#"#*)C%?&#L%&&B;1?)#6%?@#+%*&#6)A#+%(6)A#BM4*2E&BL1)4;6%)#6%(6;%??(#C;#$+*)?%(6 ;4?A#6)A$14LA)A#+##)*(LKNA*??*LA)*?%)&#%?)<99=:99;%$E*(L?;%2#??A1$)O1$)A#%+14()1O2%$?O4)4$# $#?*6#()?*()A#P#CQ##%;%$)+#()?C*&&5$*(LK
NA#;%$E*(L+#)#$?1('')C*&&O1$2#%&&1O)A#O14$$#?)%4$%()?%)D1#)%2154*&6*(L%2$1??)A#?)$##)O1$2*(L)A#+ %(6$#?*6#()?)12$1???1+#)*+#?O%?)+1"*(L)$%OO*2K
RA%)*?L1*(L)1?)1;)A#P#C%;%$)+#()?O$1+O*&&*(L&#%?#?)A#()%E*(L%C%BA%&O1O$#?*6#()?;%$E*(L*( ?)$42)4$#J4?)%?)A#QSS7;%$)+#()?6*6KNA#($%*?*(L)A#;$*2#1($#?*6#()?O1$T%$E*(L*(?)$42)4$#%?)A#QSS 7;%$)+#()?6*6K
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
NA#+4?*2"#(4#*?(1))15&%+#O1$)A#;%$E*(L+#)#$?%?)A#+#6*%%(6\*)BA%?;4)14))1;45&*2%(62*)B C1$E#$?KZ%(B54*&6*(L?C*)A&*+*)#6;%$E*(L)A#()A#2*)BL*"#?(#C21(?)$42)*1(;%$E*(L;#$+*)?%O)#$D%2E F%A&%%(6G%)*#H#(#I4#&%?%*6)A#BA%6?4OO*2*#();%$E*(LK[&116*(L)A#(#*LA51$A116C1$?#K NA*?T%$E*(L+#)#$%L#(6%O1$)*2E#)%(6+#)#$;$1O*)?*?A1$$*5&#%(6$#?)%4$%()?C*&&(#"#$5#?422#??O4&K @)*?#])$#+#&B6*OO*24&))1;%$)*2*;%)#*()A#?#+##)*(L?%(6@O#%$)A#$#%$#(1Q&4#21&&%$C1$E#$?*(14$2*)B 214(2*&1$O1$)A#?#+##)*(L?K
^?*(LT45&*2)$%(?;1$)%)*1()%E#+%(BA14$?+1$#)A%(6$*"*(L%(6&1C*(21+#;#1;&#C*&&(#"#$A%"#%L116 M4%&*)B1O&*O#O*(%(2*%&&BCA#(O1$2#61(;45&*2)$%(?;1$)%)*1(%(6(#"#$%5&#)1A%"#)A#)*+#1$+1(#B)1211E_

!

"

"

#

$

%

"

&

&

&

%
& $ &

& &

'
#
$

()*+,-.*/0123
45

&
565
7
896:9;

!

<=8
>?

@:
=;#

&

A02B.)CD2EF2G-EE2BDHI-*JKLM/*.NO)*DPAQQ2)RFS-*DM0)D2A(TO(LPQ2JUGVOWXJYNZ[Z\]S-D/^2.ZYTUUTJZJ_`a/R2CbF JZJ_NZZcY_
d

G2^2R/)e2BD*2HH
45

&
5;5
<
89;89;

&
@@ d

f)QM/*2g/-B0
45

&
5:57
89;89;

!
"
#
$%
&# '#()* +,(-(.
/"

$"

"0
1 "
2
2"

3 4

" 5

6
7"
" 8
9" 8
9

&

"
:788&;0 " 4 "
"

8
9"

.+ "
4 " <

9
" **

$"

"= "**

" " >* ('

" ? 6

:?6;
&1@61
" " 8
9"
A%
"
" $" B%" 2"0 <

<% "< " "

C%
"

"

>

<
9 %

%
> <

&1@61

%

9
0 <
"
" <
*
"
C%

" "
"

#

/?4

90 " "

"
%"

"

"

<
"

"
"
D "
" "
" 9
<
9 %% **%"

**
9

9 % &
9 "

C%
" <
<

"
"

"
%"
1

0 "
"
"%
" <
"
%
D"
%

"
9 "

C%

*

E F %
<
" 9"
0 <

%
"
%

!= " "
#
4 (+('0 $"

" % " '0++( /?4
"

" 4 (+((0 GG)
<

*
0 " <"
"
'0G)' /?4

"
H 4 (+((0 )(I /?4 "

<
"
$"

"
&
(+(, "0
%
<
#
H B% ,# & %*
/?4

/ 6" 6"

%
J%
" *

"
H B% I# & /?4

" A%
G+
J%

**0

%
9

H F

'(# &

<"

" /?4
"
% 1"
&

> "
J% %
K
*

0 "

"*"
0 "
9

""
> 7"
" 8
9"
%
" 9 %9
"

0 "

9
0 "
*

* &**

9 " "

C%

&1@61

"
"
D
*
% %
9

$"

" ? 6

:?6;
"
%
"0
*%

"0 "
9

9

0
2
2"

3 5

6
0 7"
" 8
9" 8
9
&

"

L
M NOP
!
"
#
$%
&# '+#.," +,')(.
6" 9 $% $*"0
" " IG+, Q
%

9 2 R&
$"

"0 &0 ).G(+0 > <

"
" "
%
%

!
"#$%
!&!&
!
'()

!
' !!""!
*+,-.//0,1234,12

56

789.2381:
0;<4322,=>2:?:?@A4B?C@?C@D
E./3F8-13.3G.G,+,-,H8;G31I9-3G3G.1=1,,=G28<;3/=.G4;9HH84,G.GA8GG3</,JK,GH8;/=182A,-432=8L1 M8131I8F4;/23F.43/N28G31I/,CF.43/NH84,G31.2-.1G32.1=-,G8;-9,-39H1,3IH<8-H88= O

PQ
789.2381:
0;<4322,=>2:R:[email protected]B?C@?C@D
S.4.E;-23GT.-U-,G3=,12.1=8AA8G,2H3GA-8A8G./J73U,4NF,//8L1,3IH<8-GVS.4G2-81I/N31F.+8-8F.==31I 4;/23F.43/NH8;G31I.1=9-,.231I48-,.FF8-=.</,8AA8-2;1323,GF8-A,8A/,28/3+,.1=L8-U310.9-.4,128JWH3G3G .1.-,.2H.2H.G282-.1G32VA.-UGV.1=82H,-=,G3-.</,.4,1323,G.1=3GA-8X34.2,2843=28L1.1=2H,=,+,/8A31I Y-8.=L.N98--3=8-JSF0.9-.4,1283G9844322,=2848+31I28L.-=G.2-.1G32C8-3,12,=F;2;-,.1=9-,.231I48-, 43GG31I43==/,H8;G31IV2H3G3G2H,A,-F,928AA8-2;132NJ Z
[
789.2381:
0;<4322,=>2:\:D]A4B?C@]C@D
*;-932N1,,=G48-,H8;G31I8A2381GF8-2H8G,2H.29.1182.FF8-=G31I/,F.43/NH84,GJWH3G/89.2381<,31I1,.-.

I-89,-NG28-,.1=A.-U9-,.2,G8AA8-2;132NF8-/,GG.FF/;,12-,G3=,12G28,XA,-3,19,.1=9812-3<;2,282H,E;-23G T.-U^,3IH<8-H88=_;G2/3U,2H,3-48-,.FF/;,121,3IH<8-GJ O[
789.2381:
0;<4322,=>2:\:??A4B?C@]C@D
K,1,,=I-,.2,-=3+,-G32N8FH8;G31I8A2381G319/;=31I4;/23-,G3=,123./;132GJK,.-,,XA,-3,1931I.H8;G31I 9-3G3G318;--,I381.1=2H-8;IH8;22H,G2.2,JWH3GA.-9,/VL32H1,.-<N2-.1G328A2381G.1=-,G3=,123./.4,1323,GV3G .1,X9,//,12/89.2381F8-=,+,/8A31I48-,.FF8-=.</,V9844;132N8-3,12,=H8;G31I8A2381GJ

!
"!

#$%&
%$
&'(%&)*$&

+,%&
%'

-
$%
,
,$'$%&&
%
,)

.$)*/0&$&%
%
.$$
&'&
-
*
1 234

544

!
"!

6,%7%&
8$)&$&9%:&;('
&%$&<%=
8$&$%-%-)'%
-.
%
%'.%
$9'%-
-;
%
%'-

%
(
-=
8$,
-
%
(
$'$
%$

%%.
%

%
(-
.$&9%:&;=
#$%,
-
:-
&%

%
(
$'$
%$

.$&,&(
&%*
/&%$
-,&%.--)$
'$
.
%,&

%
($-!.-)&,%'%-

%
.$
-,$--

%
-
7
&%
&
-*#$&&

$-&
%
$
&'*#$&&

%-
$&'$
%$

*#$-&$'&&
%
.,$-%)$&
-*8

-$
%'-
-*
8$&'$
%$

,----..%
$
%'-
-*
>2?@A2@B@3

!
"!

D

--
,
%&'-.-)-'&
-E%
F%G--'*8$(
%$
'$&'-.-)
$
&&*8%
-H&:
-H&+$&&'-*/-(H&'E%&I%F: -H+
&-'$.-*/&H--.
%
)-'.
%'$
%&$-
'$
$%+&&'.-)
%
..
%-.
%&--%.-)*#%
-H&&$
-$&--&&&)-$&,

%-&+'
'

$%:
-H&+&--
%-'&+-&
--%'%
%-'&*#$%&'%

%)$%
(%&.)$'$
%<

$/-
(*
J52
2KL?
52

M
!
"!

&%&
.E%
F%G--'N
E%
F%D%(O+/,%'&%
'&

%
.-'PC&-)-
&'-!.-)$
&*#$%%&&&
-%)-&.
%!&
%)
%-'.
%-
,%!
&
%&+,$&Q-
%-(-

%)*#$

.
$%+''%
%-',
-
%'%&%..+
&+

--
*
/&%
'-)
%'$)

%
&%

.$$
&&&
%

&)$(-

%*#$%&-,--

-+
&%
)+$$%%
.$&'$
%$

+,$$&H--H
-
.&&&.-%
.--
)*
R?
43L535@

C
M
!

!

&E%&I%F%&+/

&$
%

&Q
'$'&
--
,.
%&'-.-)%&-*
%
E-.
%.&(%$
&'%&&,

FH

&.
%&'-
.-)$
&'.--*%
&
%$
&'+
,*
S5LT4UV

!

!"
#$!
"!
!
%
&!%

%%'%
%
%(
!
(

"

#$!
(
%
!&

(
'
'

')%'

*"!
"
"!

(

#+

(

%
!
!"
!
%

,

#-

"!
!

"!
!
"
"%!

%

'!
(
%

"
%
&!

%%%%!

!&,
!&

!!
#

"!

%

&!

*"
%!%
'
(
%

*%
'!
"#
./010.234056078/

:;
'&<"

'

=%%"
#$!
%

(
%

!&

%

('&
%

!

"

%
#"

&!
!

!

"%

%'<"!
>
%

%

&!!

"%

%'!
?%
*

%&!
%#@
"<"!"%

%'<"&%%&
:A

%
*

%
!<"!
?%
*

%

%

&

(
%'
B
"
(
%

%

%%
!

%
(

9%&

#
@
""!
>
%
% B

&!
!
!

(
%
!
*%
,
!

<
(
!%

"
("

!

%

!

#
!
?%
*
%

!

&
%

%

%',

!

(
%

'&
%
&#
CDE0FGHD8I076

&
:;

#
!

!
K>
%

%K

!
K?%
*

%#K
%%&""%

!

%
"

%

%'

%
(
%

#$!
K>
%

%K!
%

%

%'!
?%
*

%!
%

!

!
"%@>A
"#
!

&

&!

%
&!
!

=%%"

%
A:
(
%

!
'!
%
%%!

%

&!&%%#L

>-@M!
"

#L
!(
%

!!
%
!

%#$!%
&!!
N

%
%#$!'
#
OPDQ/3QDR0Q23

%

(
''!

%

%'
(
%

%'

'

*%
'<"%&!(

"

% "
,

("
"!
!#

=%%"
!

*'

"!
!!

%

%'
!
"
!

#!
!

%&%%!%'

!

!

%'%(

=%%"

%!

'

%'%("

'&!
%

%
&!

"!
!
!

%(
!
!%
&!
%
*
'"'",
!
,
%
!&
%
(
S
%%"%

%'!

&
%#
R0DTQ807E/P7U

V

>'

W
@

!!"

#$!

'

%%'

"
"

%%!X

(
%'

!

!
" X

"

%

%%
(
%

9X
%

*%
'<" X%%&

%

%'!
"
X

"

*

"!
!!
'#
%%
!

"%'
!!

'

%
%":
"

!

!"

$
! %

&

' #(
)

+ +

- $$ ,

./012345617
8
9
:

9;9<"=%"="<

*
:

*
>

* %(

>

>

> @

)

A

B/C4.DEFDGG
8
9
:

9 "9#<=%"="<

>

H
BI5CJKB04ILM
8
9
:

9 "9 #=%"="<

:

N

8

?

?

:

)

P/2/QE//6/J
8
9
:

9 =9=#=%"="<

)

$
35177/S44K/TJ
8
9
:

9 9""=% U"<

*

*

O

>

!"#
$%&$'&(&$)*+,-.%&
(&,//0$1&$

/2%&
(&,//0$//

,/

33)$$/)33
&/.
$0$&,0-,&4
3&$2*$
&
54

&$)
&($)$.

0)4
.&$$&,$)$-//$&
4
//0)/0

&3/4-..6

/0.
&.

$7.
$
&$4.8&/'/2*+

$
'/'&
,.+$

/&.9
03
&.-
,/

&/$5
.3-4
/9%&$'&(2*$
3 /0./3/4.
$0).-
//(
/
&5
$,$0/3/4.
$02
&
$

3./$33
&/.
$0&($.:2;.-
$&
.
$
&
$<=#
>..
$.
/
$<?=>2*%&
(&,//0).
&$$&<=#
>@$0

3&
.&2;.$$
.(
3.
$0.+$0
0
./
$
/,
&.
$0
&
/$$+/0-.
-.-
&0.
&.

2
A
BBCD
EF
GG

!"#
$%&$
&(0.
&-.
$
&

&4&/4($
&/4
.$$$/
$)*$&
0/4

$.
&9
0&1$
.0./3/4.
$0$0

$0/3/4.
$02*$

&,&$4*
$

&33
&/4%&$'&(%&
(&I//0
&
3
.2J/3/4.
$0$
&
33
&/3
&

/-.
-
&(&
%4%
//0@$&
$$.
$&
,&
$$)3
&4
0

/)3
&$0/

/)3
&
&
/&0.
&$2.,&$4($
&0.
&.

$&.&&2

//4)
&.%4K
0%
)LM
9
$

.0.&$4,/

.&/
4)/
0@
&
&/
&&
&$)&$&@
&$
$
/&$3/$2L;.$$
&0.5
/0.&/$

)&0.5
&
%4%
//0)@
&$
)&0.5
$
&$
$$$$2;.$$-.&--$4$ &&..$$.
//3/4.
$02
;.&0./3/4.
$0$
L
&//4,/L$
$$)-.,/

&$//
,&.%4

0
//3/4.
$02;.$$,4%
//&+$J
$M&
J/3/4J&(
M

&
0.)L$/$,4"
"
222-...0.$N$/$O$PH"
""222J/3/4&.
/&$/$,
/
//4"
"
$
&(
/.-40"
"#2L
*$(4

&@.$&9
0&1$2
Q
EECRCBGSRC BSE

!"#
J/3/4.
$0$&/
0.%4T$.
$00
/$/0$,&4).$$
//

/
$
&$)
&($)0&
&$)&/2%.005$09
0
&&
/
&
$0/3/4.
$0-
/
,0.-&
0&
2
ASUEVC E

?##

!"#
*&$
3%&$
&(*

$.4$1&0

&4
/33
&/)/3/4
.
$0&,//$%&
(&I//02%.00.9
0
//
-
,&
&$0/3/4
,/

W4&/
&$-
/&4/
3
&
42*$
3.009
0
&/$
//
-,/

&
/
&
&
3/.
$0$
().
/$.
/-
&(
&
,&&&$

/0/3/4.
$0)(.$,/.
$0

&33
&/
&
3/3
&,/

/2
0
&
&
/$
&0
/$3
&$$/$3
-//
/4(.
$033
&/4
-
&$($-43&
0
&/0
/$2
XCEY
ZEB[\C
S

!"#
$&$
3.%&$'&(0.
&.

$.$
&

$/2%.00.9
0.$&3&

$0/3/4
/3/4.
$0-
/./
.%4T$.
$00
/$2]

/
0

&//

//3/4.
$0-.-/(0$
3
/&$)0&
&$
.&

!"#$%
&
'
(
)'*'+,+-./0.1*
)

23

.

4

23

5

4

.

4

.

5

6

4

7
4

8 %9:
;% <=$>
&
'
(
)'/+'*-+-./0.1*
?((@,+-A

BC)
(
)0*,1+D

E=!F
G
&
'
(
)'0'+1+-./,.1*
D

4

5

2

H
4

(H

5

24

I2

E<$
;
JF$KL$M
KK$
F!N
%O=PQ "M
KK$
F!R8
FF$%!S
F

F#$E<$
;

T4(

8 %9:
;% <=$>
&
'

! "

#

$%& '
% %& & ( &)
*+,-./ 01,23 ,4522,-16 758 9:;;<=>=?@*< >*@=A0*< /..,. 15 01,2 B C 9,, *+,-./ 01,2 D,E5F G:H./1,. C IJKLMKNINO P B3IO ;>Q RS
>/8T A5.8U+V,W
X

! "

#

$%& '
% %& & ( &)

!"
#$%
$&
'(

)*&+,&-.
,/0+10.-
23)$$4$$'56$%)78,/9'

)4:);*
%
$6<*61-8.,6=>?@
%

>>?$$('3?A$?$'B

From: Parul Puri
To: Daniel Abbes; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kendra Reed; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed High-Density Development at Crocker Village Multi-Parcel Date: Thursday, May 22, 2025 12:07:48 PM
Letter to Sacramento City Council
Re: Concerns Regarding Proposed High-Density Development at Crocker Village Multi-Parcel - Sacramento City Council
- Sacramento Planning Commission
- Community Development Department
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing as a concerned community member to request a thorough review of the proposed high-density development at the Crocker Village Multi-Parcel. While I support thoughtful development that meets our community's housing needs, I have significant concerns about the current proposal that warrant careful consideration before approval.

Design and Compatibility Concerns
**Height and Scale Incompatibility:** The proposed 8-story, 100-foot structure would be drastically out of scale with the existing neighborhood character. The City adopted very specific design guidelines for Crocker Village in 2010: Resolutions 2010-575 and 2010-176, which were intended to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas. **Neighborhood Context:** Section 1.1 of the Guidelines describes the vision and context of this development as incorporating the values of new urbanism and smart growth. The current proposal appears to contradict these adopted principles by introducing a structure that would tower over existing single-family homes, two-story residences, and even the nearby brownstones.
**Request:** I urge the Planning Commission to require design modifications that better transition to the existing residential scale, potentially through stepped massing, reduced height, or alternative architectural solutions that maintain development viability while respecting neighborhood character.

Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns
**Traffic Impact Analysis:** Local municipalities may request a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) if a new development is projected to cause 100 or more additional peak-hour trips. A 131-unit complex housing potentially 500+ residents would likely exceed this threshold significantly. **Infrastructure Capacity:** The existing street network, parking availability, and utility systems in the area should be thoroughly evaluated to ensure they can accommodate the proposed density increase without negatively impacting current residents.
**Request:** I ask that the city require a comprehensive Traffic Impact Study and infrastructure capacity analysis before approving this project. This should include:
- Peak-hour traffic generation estimates
- Parking demand analysis and spillover impact assessment - Utility capacity evaluation (water, sewer, stormwater) - Emergency vehicle access review
Environmental Impact Concerns
- Air quality analysis for increased traffic and development - Stormwater management assessment
- Cumulative impact analysis considering other recent developments Constructive Solutions
Rather than opposing all development, I suggest the following alternatives that could address community needs while respecting neighborhood character:

1. **Modified Density:** Consider a medium-density approach (3-4 stories) that provides substantial housing while maintaining better compatibility

2. **Phased Development:** Implement development in phases with community input and monitoring

3. **Enhanced Design Standards:** Require architectural elements that create visual compatibility with existing homes

4. **Community Benefits:** Include community amenities, traffic calming measures, or infrastructure improvements
Request for Action
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission:

1. **Postpone approval** until comprehensive traffic and environmental studies are completed

2. **Require design modifications** to better align with adopted community guidelines

3. **Conduct additional community outreach** to gather input from affected residents

4. **Consider alternative development scenarios** that balance housing needs with community character Conclusion
Thoughtful development is essential for Sacramento's growth, but it must be done in a way that enhances rather than degrades our neighborhoods. I urge you to ensure this project meets the highest standards for design compatibility, traffic safety, and environmental protection.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. I look forward to participating in the public process and working toward a solution that benefits both current and future residents.

Respectfully submitted,
Parul Puri, Crocker Village resident and owner
Parul Puri
From: jill julian
To: Daniel Abbes; Marcus Adams
Subject: Crocker Village Residential Development
Date: Thursday, May 22, 2025 4:10:57 PM
Dear Danny and Marcus,
Please keep our Crocker Village as a family development of single family homes. My son and I moved to this development when we were the only houses on the east side of Crocker Driveknown as Curtis Park Village. We moved with the vision of living in a community based neighborhood. Because of that, I felt safe letting my son take the bus home from his school at Alice Birney to the City College exit and over the bridge to our home. How Crocker Village has developed I feel comfortable with him riding his bike and scooter in our "hood" with various neighbors watching out for all our kids. It is great having the shops across the street for the neighbors to gather for services/fellowship. Please keep our neighborhood a small time, safe feeling living area!! Please keep the original plans of single family homes. Our views to the West for the sunsets are fabulous. Crocker Village has been a dream come true for a wonderfully diverse community. I'm amazed at how many first time home buyers live here. It is wonderful to see the multifamily housing projects being built on Broadway, but they anchor the communities. As a memer of the Board of Director for the Curtis Park Village HOA, our community has expressed often in meetings how we would like single family homes, the original plans, to be built in Crocker Village.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jill Julian
3541 Crocker Drive
Curtis Park Village HOA board member
From: Daniel Pskowski
To: Rick Jennings; Dennis M. Rogers; Daniel Abbes; Jasleen E Escobar; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kendra Reed; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: OPPOSE Crocker Village CUP Ammendments
Date: Thursday, May 22, 2025 1:38:36 PM
Dear Councilmember Jennings, Planning and Design Commissioners and City Staff, I am a 34-year Sacramento resident and have resided in Curtis Park for the past 20-years. I rent an apartment which is the only way I could afford to live in this neighborhood. The benefits of being in this neighborhood is the accessibility to downtown using my bicycle. I was employed by the city of Sacramento for 29.5 years and was a bicycle commuter for my entire career.

More affordable housing is needed so citizens can have the opportunity to live close to downtown. This site and its proximity to the Light Rail station would allow residents in these multi-family units not to rely on a car which is a significant living expense.

The City should maintain the adopted zoning and deny this conditional use permit.

Sincerely,
Daniel Pskowski
2309 Castro Way Apt 2
Sacramento, CA 95818
Daniel Pskowski
916-451-1033 (landline)
----

SCHEMATIC PLAN

CURTIS PARK VILLAGE
Q1Y OP SM::lAMl!M'O. CA1.�•1•IIA -�-
MULTI-PMOLY -41 DU/AC.

MUL1'1 PM\lLY • SllNIOR 65 OU/AC.
(document
from final
council
staff report)

Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 1

4.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all State and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a “mitigated negative declaration” or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the Curtis Park Village project. The project as approved includes mitigation measures. The intent of the MMP is to prescribe and enforce a means for properly and successfully implementing the mitigation measures as identified within the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Unless otherwise noted, the cost of implementing the mitigation measures as prescribed by this MMP shall be funded by the applicant.

4.1 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
The MMP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the Environmental Impact Report for the Curtis Park Village project prepared by the City of Sacramento. This MMP is intended to be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed project.

The Curtis Park Village project Environmental Impact Report presents a detailed set of mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. Mitigation is defined by CEQA as a measure which:
• Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
• Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment;
• Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; or
• Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. The MMP will provide for monitoring of 4 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 2
construction activities as necessary and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.

Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City of Sacramento. The table attached to this report identifies the mitigation measure, the monitoring action for the mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. The applicant will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMP. The City of Sacramento will be responsible for ensuring compliance.

During construction of the project, the City will assign an inspector who will be responsible for field monitoring of mitigation measure compliance. The inspector will report to the City Community Development Department and will be thoroughly familiar with permit conditions and the MMP. In addition, the inspector will be familiar with construction contract requirements, construction schedules, standard construction practices, and mitigation techniques. In order to track the status of mitigation measure implementation, field-monitoring activities will be documented on compliance monitoring report worksheets. The time commitment of the inspector will vary depending on the intensity and location of construction. Aided by the attached table, the inspector will be responsible for the following activities:
• On-site, day-to-day monitoring of construction activities; • Reviewing construction plans and equipment staging/access plans to ensure conformance with adopted mitigation measures;
• Ensuring contractor knowledge of and compliance with the MMP; • Verifying the accuracy and adequacy of contract wording; • Having the authority to require correction of activities that violate mitigation measures, securing compliance with the MMP;
• Acting in the role of contact for property owners or any other affected persons who wish to register observations of violations of project permit conditions or mitigation.

Upon receiving any complaints, the inspector shall immediately contact the construction representative. The inspector shall be responsible for verifying any such observations and for developing any necessary corrective actions in consultation with the construction representative and the City of Sacramento; • Obtaining assistance as necessary from technical experts in order to develop sitespecific procedures for implementing the mitigation measures; and • Maintaining a log of all significant interactions, violations of permit conditions or mitigation measures, and necessary corrective measures.

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
The following table indicates the mitigation measure number, the impact the measure is designed to address, the measure text, the monitoring agency, implementation schedule, and an area for sign-off indicating compliance.

Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 3

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

5.2 Transportation and Circulation

5.2-1 Impacts to study
intersections under
baseline plus project
conditions.

5.2-1(a) At the Freeport Boulevard / 2nd Avenue
intersection, provide protected left-turn
phasing for the northbound and
southbound approaches. This mitigation
measure would reduce the impact of the
Proposed Project and Access Scenarios 2
and 3 to a less than significant level.

5.2-1(b) At the Sutterville Road / Road A
intersection, provide overlap signal
phasing to allow the southbound Road A
right turning traffic to proceed on a green
arrow simultaneously with the eastbound
left turning movement, and prohibit U-turns
for the eastbound left turning movement;
add a southbound left-right lane to provide
one left-turn lane, one left-right lane, and
one right turn lane, and provide a
dedicated right turn lane for the westbound
Sutterville Road approach to the
intersection. This mitigation measure
would reduce the impact of the Proposed
Project and Access Scenarios 2 and 3 to a
less than significant level.

5.2-1(c) Modify the southbound approach to the
Sutterville Road / SR99 SB Ramps
intersection to provide a left-turn lane, a
combination left-through lane, and two
right-turn lanes. This change would bring
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Implement
improvements
prior to the first
building permit
Show
improvements on
improvement plans
and construct prior
to the first building
permit
Improvements
shall be
constructed at five
percent of
development based
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 4

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
the right-turning movements under signal
control. This mitigation measure is
required at five percent of development
based on trip generation. The design of the
mitigation is subject to the approval of the
City Transportation Department and
Caltrans. This mitigation measure would
reduce the impact of the Proposed Project
and all access scenarios to a less than
significant level during the p.m. and
Saturday peak hours.

5.2-1(d) At the Road A / Area 3 intersection, provide
separate right-turn and left-turn lanes on
the eastbound approach. This mitigation
measure would reduce the impact of the
Proposed Project and Access Scenarios 2
and 3 to a less than significant level.

Department of
Transportation
on trip generation
Show
improvements on
improvements
plans and
constructed prior to
the first building
permit in Area 3

5.2-2 Impacts to study
roadway segments
under baseline plus
project conditions.

5.2-2 The project developer shall work with the
Regional Transit District to provide bus
service or provide private shuttle service
from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 to
7:00 p.m. between the commercial areas of
the project site and the City College light
rail station. As an alternative, the project
developer shall coordinate with the City to
reserve the required right of way needed to
construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge
to provide access to the City College
Station.

Regional
Transit District
Department of
Transportation
Prior to occupancy
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 5

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

5.2-3 Impacts to freeway
ramp under baseline
plus project conditions.

5.2-3 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2-
1(c) would reduce the traffic queue at the
southbound 12th Avenue off-ramp for
baseline conditions for the Proposed
Project and all access scenarios. However,
the reduction would not be sufficient to
fully mitigate the project impacts and no
other feasible mitigation measure was
identified. Therefore, the impact shall
remain significant and unavoidable.

See 5.2-1(c) See 5.2-1(c)

5.2-7 Impacts to on-site traffic
circulation and safety
under baseline plus
project conditions.

5.2-7(a) The design plans for the project shall be
consistent with City standards. Any
deviations are subject to the approval of
the City Department of Transportation,
Traffic Engineering Division. The
horizontal curvatures shall be realigned or
design elements such as “knuckles” shall
be installed in compliance with City
standards.

5.2-7(b) The site design shall be modified to reduce
the potential for vehicles leaving parking
stalls to back across pedestrian crosswalks.

This change may require the elimination of
some angle parking spaces.

Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Prior to approval
of improvement
plans
Prior to approval
of improvement
plans

5.2-9 Impacts during
construction.

5.2-9(a) Before issuance of grading permits for the
project site, the project applicant shall
prepare a detailed Traffic Management
Plan that will be subject to review and
approval by the City Department of
Transportation, Regional Transit, and local
emergency service providers, including the
Department of
Transportation
Regional
Transit
City of
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 6

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
City of Sacramento fire and police
departments. The plan shall ensure
maintenance of acceptable operating
conditions on local roadways and transit
routes. At a minimum, the plan shall
include:
• The number of truck trips, time, and
day of street closures;
• Time of day of arrival and departure of
trucks;
• Limitations on the size and type of
trucks and provision of a staging area
with a limitation on the number of
trucks that can be waiting;
• Provision of a truck circulation
pattern;
• Provision of a driveway access plan to
maintain safe vehicular, pedestrian,
and bicycle movements (e.g., steel
plates, minimum distances of open
trenches, and private vehicle pick up
and drop off areas);
• Safe and efficient access routes for
emergency vehicles;
• Efficient and convenient transit routes;
• Manual traffic control when necessary;
• Proper advance warning and posted
signage concerning street closures;
• Provisions for pedestrian safety; and
• Provisions for temporary bus stops, if
Sacramento
Fire and Police
Departments
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 7

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
necessary.

A copy of the construction traffic
management plan shall be submitted to
local emergency response agencies and
these agencies shall be notified at least 14
days before the commencement of
construction that would partially or fully
obstruct roadways.

5.2-10 Cumulative impacts to
study intersections.

5.2-10(a) 24th Street / 2nd Avenue – The project
applicant shall pay a fair share
contribution to install a traffic signal at this
intersection. This mitigation measure
would reduce the impact of the Proposed
Project and all access scenarios to a less
than significant level.

5.2-10(b) 24th Street / Portola Way – The project
applicant shall pay a fair share
contribution to install a traffic signal at this
intersection. This mitigation measure
would reduce the impact of the Proposed
Project and all access scenarios to a less
than significant level.

5.2-10(c) Sutterville Road / Freeport Boulevard
(north) – the applicant shall pay a fair
share contribution to provide protectedpermitted left turn phasing and install proper signage for southbound Freeport
Boulevard. This mitigation measure would
reduce the impact of the Proposed Project,
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 8

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Access Scenario 2 and Access Scenario 3 to
a less than significant level.

5.2-10(d) Sutterville Road / City College Drive – The
applicant shall pay a fair share
contribution to provide overlap signal
phasing to allow the northbound right turn
traffic on City College Drive to proceed on
a green arrow simultaneously with the
westbound left turning movement, and
prohibit U-turns for the westbound
Sutterville Road approach to the
intersection. This mitigation measure
would reduce the impact of the Proposed
Project and Access Scenario 2 and 3 to a
less than significant level.

5.2-10(e) Sutterville Road / Road A – apply
Mitigation Measure 5.2-1(b) which would
provide overlap signal phasing to allow the
southbound Road A Right turning traffic to
proceed on a green arrow simultaneously
with the eastbound left turning movement,
and prohibit U-turns for the eastbound left
turning movement; provide one left-turn
lane, one left-right lane, and one right-turn
lane on the southbound approach; provide
a dedicated right turn lane for the
westbound Sutterville Road approach to the
intersection; provide an actuated exclusive
pedestrian phase to serve pedestrians
crossing Sutterville Road; and optimize
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 9

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
signal timing. This mitigation measure
would reduce the impact of the Proposed
Project and Access Scenarios 2 and 3 to a
less than significant level.

5.2-10(f) Sutterville Road / Curtis Drive West - No
feasible mitigation measure was identified
for the Sutterville Road / Curtis Drive West
intersection. Adding a southbound right
turn lane to the intersection would mitigate
the impact but was not considered to be
feasible because of the need for
demolishing several existing buildings to
provide additional right-of-way. The
cumulative impact for the Proposed Project
and all access scenarios would remain
significant and unavoidable.

5.2-10(g) Sutterville Road / Franklin Boulevard –The
project applicant shall pay a fair share
contribution to add an eastbound right-turn
lane that would mitigate the Saturday peak
hour impact of the Proposed Project and
Access Scenario 2 and Access Scenario 3 to
a less than significant level. For a.m. and
p.m. peak hour impacts, the cycle length
would increase to 110 seconds. These
mitigation measures would reduce the
impact of the Proposed Project and Access
Scenario 2 and Access Scenario 3 to a less
than significant level.

Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 10

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

5.2-10(h) Sutterville Road / SR 99 Northbound
Ramps – The project applicant shall pay a
fair share contribution to modify signal
timing to provide split phase for all
approaches and re-stripe the eastbound
lanes to provide one left-turn, one leftthrough, and one through lane. Construct two receiving lanes on the on-ramp for the
turning movement from eastbound 12th
Avenue to the northbound SR 99 ramp. This
mitigation measure would reduce the
impact of the Proposed Project and Access
Scenario 2 and 3 to a less than significant
level.

5.2-10(i) Road A / Area 1 – The project applicant
shall pay a fair share contribution to
modify the signal phasing to provide
overlaps for the eastbound right-turn
movement; provide protected-permitted
phasing for the northbound left-turn
movement; prohibit U-turn movement at
this intersection; and increase the cycle
length to 95 seconds. This mitigation
measure would reduce the impact of the
Proposed Project and Access Scenario 2
and 3 to a less than significant level.

Department of
Transportation
Department of
Transportation
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Prior to issuance of
building permits

5.3 Air Quality
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 11

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

5.3-2 Impacts related to
exhaust emissions and
fugitive particulate
matter emissions from
project-associated
construction activities.

5.3-2(a) The project applicant shall ensure that
emissions from all off-road diesel powered
equipment used on the project site do not
exceed 40 percent opacity for more than
three minutes in any one hour. Any
equipment found to exceed 40 percent
opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
repaired immediately, and SMAQMD shall
be notified within 48 hours of identification
of non-compliant equipment. A visual
survey of all in-operation equipment shall
be made at least weekly, and a monthly
summary of the visual survey results shall
be submitted throughout the duration of the
project, except that the monthly summary
shall not be required for any 30-day period
in which no construction activity occurs.

The monthly summary shall include the
quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as
well as the dates of each survey. The
SMAQMD and/or other officials may
conduct periodic site inspections to
determine compliance. Nothing in this
section shall supercede other SMAQMD or
state rules or regulations.

5.3-2(b) Prior to the approval of any grading
permit, the project proponent shall submit
a dust-control plan to the City of
Sacramento Community Development
Department. The dust-control plan shall
stipulate grading schedules associated with
SMAQMD
Community
Development
Department
Prior to and during
construction
Prior to approval
of grading permit
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 12

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
the project phase, as well as the dustcontrol measures to be implemented.

Grading of proposed project phases shall
be scheduled so that the total area of
disturbance would not exceed 15 acres on
any given day. The dust control plan shall
be incorporated into all construction
contracts issued as part of the proposed
project development. The dust-control plan
shall, at a minimum, incorporate the
following measures:
• Apply water, chemical stabilizer/
suppressant, or vegetative cover to
disturbed areas, including storage piles
that are not being actively used for
construction purposes, as well as any
portions of the construction site that
remain inactive for longer than 3
months;
• Water exposed surfaces sufficient to
control fugitive dust emissions during
demolition, clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations.

Actively disturbed areas should be kept
moist at all times;
• Cover all vehicles hauling dirt, sand,
soil or other loose material or maintain
at least two feet of freeboard in
accordance with the requirements of
California Vehicle Code Section
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 13

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
23114;
• Limit or expeditiously remove the
accumulation of project-generated mud
or dirt from adjacent public streets at
least once every 24 hours when
construction operations are occurring;
and
• Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved
surfaces to 15 mph, or less.

5.3-3 Impacts related to a
temporary increase in
NOX emissions.

5.3-3(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall submit a SMAQMDapproved plan, which demonstrates that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road
vehicles to be used during construction of
the project (including owned, leased, and
subcontracted vehicles) will achieve a
project-wide average of 20 percent NOX
reduction and 45 percent particulate matter
reduction, based on the most recent CARB
fleet average at the time of construction. In
addition, the applicant shall submit to
SMAQMD a comprehensive inventory of all
off-road construction equipment (>50
horsepower) that will be used an aggregate
of 40 or more hours during any portion of
the construction project. The inventory
shall include the horsepower rating, engine
production year, and project hours of use
or fuel throughput for each piece of
equipment. The inventory shall be updated
and submitted monthly throughout the
SMAQMD
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 14

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
duration of the project. Inventory shall not
be required for any 30-day period in which
construction activities do not occur. At
least 48 hours prior to the use of subject
heavy-duty off-road equipment, the
applicant shall provide SMAQMD with the
anticipated construction timeline, including
the start date and the name and phone
number of the project manager and on-site
foreman.

5.3-3(b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall provide a construction
mitigation fee to the SMAQMD sufficient to
offset project emissions of NOX above 85
pounds per day. The amount of the fee
shall be based on updated construction
scheduling and equipment lists, and shall
be calculated using the SMAQMD method
of estimating excess emissions. The current
price of NOX construction offsets calculated
by SMAQMD is $16,000 per ton.

SMAQMD
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permit

5.3-5 Impacts related to longterm increases of
criteria air pollutants.

5.3-5(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit,
the project applicant shall coordinate with
the SMAQMD and the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department to
develop a project Air Quality Mitigation
Plan (AQMP). In accordance with
SMAQMD recommendations, the AQMP
shall achieve a minimum overall reduction
of 15 percent in the project’s anticipated
operational emissions. SMAQMDSMAQMD
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 15

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
recommended measures and corresponding
emissions-reduction benefits are identified
in SMAQMD’s Guidance for Land Use
Emission Reductions, which can be found
in Appendix E of the SMAQMD document.

The AQMP shall be reviewed and endorsed
by SMAQMD staff prior to project
implementation. Available measures to be
included in the AQMP include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Prohibit the installation of woodburning fireplaces and stoves; • Provide onsite bicycle storage and
showers for employees that bike to
work sufficient to meet peak season
maximum demand;
• Provide preferential parking (e.g., near
building entrance, sheltered area, etc.)
for carpool and vanpool vehicles;
• Provide transit enhancing
infrastructure that includes: transit
shelters, benches, etc.; street lighting;
route signs and displays; and/or bus
turnouts/bulbs;
• Incorporate onsite transit facility
improvements (e.g., pedestrian shelters,
route information, benches, lighting) to
coincide with existing or planned
transit service;
• Incorporate landscaping and sun
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 16

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
screens to reduce energy use.

Deciduous trees should be utilized for
building shading to increase solar
heating during the winter months.

Install sun-shading devices (e.g.,
screens) or recessed windows on newly
proposed buildings;
• Install efficient lighting and lighting
control systems;
• Install energy-efficient heating and
cooling systems, appliances and
equipment;
• Install light colored “cool” roofs and
pavements (i.e., high reflectance, high
emittance roof surfaces, or
exceptionally high reflectance and low
emittance surfaces) and strategically
placed shade trees to the extent
practical;
• Limit hours of operation of outdoor
lighting to the extent practical; and
• Provide shade (within 5 years) and/or
use light-colored/high-albedo materials
(reflectance of at least 0.3) and/or open
grid pavement for at least 30 percent of
the site's non-roof impervious surfaces,
including parking lots, walkways,
plazas, etc.; or, place a minimum of 50
percent of parking spaces underground
or covered by structured parking; or,
use an open-grid pavement system (less
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 17

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
than 50 percent impervious) for a
minimum of 50 percent of the parking
lot area.

5.3-5(b) Documentation confirming implementation
of the Air Quality Mitigation Plan shall be
provided to the SMAQMD and City prior to
issuance of occupancy permits.

SMAQMD
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
occupancy permit

5.3-8 Cumulative contribution
to regional air quality
conditions.

5.3-8 Implement Mitigation Measures 5.3-2(a)
and (b) and 5.3-4(a) and (b).

See 5.3-2 (a)
and (b) and

5.3-4 (a) and
(b)
See 5.3-2(a) and
(b) and 5.3-4 (a)
and (b)

5.4 Noise and Vibration

5.4-2 Construction noise
impacts to surrounding
existing uses.

5.4-2 Construction activities shall be limited to
the hours set forth below, unless an
exception is granted by the Community
Development Department:
• Monday through Saturday
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Sunday
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

These restricted hours shall be included on
all grading and construction plans
submitted for the review and approval of
the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits.

Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 18

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

5.4-7 Railroad noise levels at
exterior noise spaces of
proposed project
residences.

5.4-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, a
noise barrier shall be shown on the plans
along the western boundary of the project
site, from the northern boundary of the
CPV site to the southern end of the Multifamily parcel,any parcel with residences for the review and approval of the City
Engineer. A barrier 10 feet in height
(relative to nearest outdoor activity
elevations) would intercept line of sight to
railroad pass-bys, thereby reducing future
UPRR noise levels to 70 dB Ldn or less at
the nearest outdoor activity areas proposed
adjacent to the tracks.

Barriers can take the form of earthen
berms, solid walls, or a combination of the
two. Appropriate materials for noise walls
include precast concrete or masonry block.

Other materials may be acceptable provide
they have a surface density of
approximately four pounds per square foot.

City Engineer Prior to the
issuance of
building permits

5.4-8 Railroad noise levels at
interior spaces of
proposed residences on
the project site.

5.4-8(a) Prior to the issuance of building permits,
all residential lots and residential buildings
located within the 70 dB Ldn contour shall
include noise insulation features such as
the following:
• Sound-rated windows and doors with
STC rating of 35; and
• Stucco exterior siding.

City Building
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 19

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

5.4-8(b) Prior to sale of any residential lots,
statements shall be included in the title for
all properties within the 65 dB Ldn contour
that informs the buyer of elevated noise
levels during train passages, and that train
passages routinely occur during nighttime
hours.

Community
Development
Department
Prior to sale of
residential lots

5.4-9 Noise-producing
commercial uses
proposed within the
project site.

5.4-9(a) Unshielded (i.e. unloading activities which
are visible from any residential window)
nighttime truck unloading shall be
prohibited within 200 feet of any residential
unit.

5.4-9(b) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
site plans shall indicate that a parapet wall
shall be constructed along the edge of the
roofs of the commercial buildings of
sufficient height to intercept line of sight
from rooftop mechanical equipment at the
nearest residences to reduce noise levels at
those nearby residences.

Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permit
and during project
operations
Prior to issuance of
building permit

5.4-10 Park generated noise at
residential uses
proposed within the
project site.

5.4-10 Park activities shall be restricted to
daytime hours, with exceptions allowed on
a case-by-case basis subject to the
approval of the Director of the Parks and
Recreation.

Parks and
Recreation
Department
During project
operations

5.5 Biological Resources
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 20

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

5.5-2 Impacts to burrowing
owl.

5.5-2 Prior to any ground disturbance associated
with grading or construction, the applicant
shall initiate a burrowing owl consultation
with the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) and shall implement the
following mitigation measures or
equivalents, based on the results of the
consultation.

The developer shall arrange for burrowing
owl surveys to be performed consistent with
the CDFG’s 1995 Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl and the California
Burrowing Owl Consortium’s (CBOC)
Survey Protocol (1997) not less than 30
days prior to ground disturbance for each
phase of project grading. If burrowing owls
are not detected, further mitigation is not
necessary. However, if burrowing owls are
detected the following steps shall be taken:

If site disturbance commences during the
nesting season (between February 1 and
August 31) and burrowing owls are
detected, a fenced buffer shall be erected
on the project site by the developer not less
than 250 feet between the nest burrow(s)
and construction activities. The 250-foot
buffer shall be observed and the fence left
intact until a qualified raptor biologist
determines that the young are foraging
independently, the nest has failed, or the
CDFG Prior to any ground
disturbance
associated with
grading or
construction
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 21

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
owls are not using any burrows within the
buffer.

If ground disturbance associated with
grading or construction commences outside
of the nesting season, and burrowing owl(s)
are present on-site or within 160 feet of site
disturbance, passive relocation consistent
with the CDFG Staff Report (1995) and the
CBOC Survey Protocol (1997) shall be
performed. At least one or more weeks will
be necessary to accomplish this and allow
the owls to acclimate to off-site burrows.

The pre-construction surveys shall be
repeated if more than 30 days elapse
between the last survey and the start of
construction activities.

5.5-3 Impacts to Swainson’s
hawk nesting and
foraging habitat.

5.5-3 If site disturbance associated with grading
or construction activities is proposed by the
developer during breeding season
(February to August), a pre-construction
survey for Swainson’s hawk nests shall be
conducted within 30 days prior to site
disturbance/construction activities by a
qualified biologist in order to identify
active nests in the project site vicinity. The
results of the survey shall be submitted to
CDFG and the Community Development
Department. If active nests are not found
during the pre-construction survey, further
mitigation is not required. If active nests
are found, pursuant to consultation with
CDFG
Community
Development
Department
Pre-construction
survey prior to site
disturbance or
construction
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 22

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
CDFG, a fenced buffer shall be erected by
the developer on the project site not less
than one-quarter mile (approximately
1,300 feet) around the active nest. Site
disturbance associated with grading or
construction activities that may cause nest
abandonment or forced fledging shall not
be initiated within this buffer zone between
March 1 and September 1. Any trees
containing nests that must be removed as a
result of project implementation shall be
removed during the non-breeding season
(September to January).

5.5-4 Impacts to raptors and
migratory birds.

5.5-4(a) Prior to any grading or construction
activities during the nesting season
(February 1 to August 15), a
preconstruction survey shall be conducted
by a qualified wildlife biologist within 15
days of the start of project-related
activities. If nests of migratory birds are
detected on site, or within 75 feet (for
migratory passerine birds) or 250 feet (for
birds of prey) of the site, the developer
shall consult with the CDFG to determine
the size of a suitable buffer in which new
site grading or construction disturbance is
not permitted until August 15, or the
qualified biologist determines that the
young are foraging independently, or the
nest has been abandoned.

5.5.4(b) Prior to any grading or construction
Community
Development
Department
CDFG
Pre-construction
survey prior to
grading or
construction
activities
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 23

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
activities from March 15 to May 15 within
100 feet of the overcrossing of the railroad
tracks on Sutterville Road, adjacent to the
project site, a preconstruction survey shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist within
15 days of the start of project-related
activities. If active nests are present in the
overcrossing, no construction shall be
conducted within 100 feet of the edge of the
purple martin colony (as demarcated by the
active nest hole closest to the construction
activity) at the beginning of the purple
martin breeding season from March 15 to
May 15. The buffer area shall be avoided to
prevent disturbance to the nest(s) until it is
no longer active. The size of the buffer area
may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and
CEFG determine it would not be likely to
have adverse effects on the purple martins.

No project activity shall commence within
the buffer area until a qualified biologist
confirms that the nest(s) is no longer active.

5.6 Cultural Resources

5.6-1 Impacts related to the
update of the Remedial
Action Plan.

5.6-1(a) In the event that any prehistoric subsurface
archeological features or deposits,
including locally darkened soil
(“midden”), that could conceal cultural
deposits, animal bone, obsidian and/or
mortars are discovered during earthmoving activities, all work within 100 feet Community
Development
Department
During
construction
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 24

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
of the resource shall be halted, and the City
shall consult with a qualified archeologist,
representatives of the City and a qualified
archeologist shall coordinate to determine
the appropriate course of action. All
significant cultural materials recovered
shall be subject to scientific analysis and
professional museum curation.

5.6-1(b) If a Native American site is discovered, the
evaluation process shall include
consultation with the appropriate Native
American representatives.

If a Native American archeologist,
ethnographic, or spiritual resources are
discovered, all identification and treatment
shall be conducted by qualified
archeologists, who are certified by the
Society of Professional Archeologists
(SOPA) and/or meet the federal standards
as stated in the Code of Federal
Regulations (36 CFR 61), and Native
American representatives, who are
approved by the local Native American
community as scholars of the cultural
traditions.

In the event that no such Native American
is available, persons who represent tribal
governments and/or organizations in the
locale in which resources could be affected
Community
Development
Department
During
construction
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 25

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
shall be consulted. If historic archeological
sites are involved, all identified treatment is
to be carried out qualified historical
archeologists, who shall meet either
Register of Professional Archeologists
(RPA), or 36 CFR 61 requirements.

5.6-1(c) If a human bone or bone of unknown origin
is found during earth-moving activities, all
work shall stop within 100 feet of the find,
and the County Coroner shall be contacted
immediately. If the remains are determined
to be Native American, the Coroner shall
notify the Native American Heritage
Commission, who shall notify the person
most likely believed to be a descendant. The
most likely descendant shall work with the
contractor to develop a program for reinternment of the human remains and any associated artifacts. No additional work is
to take place within the immediate vicinity
of the find until the identified appropriate
actions have taken place.

County
Coroner
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
During
construction

5.7 Geology and Soils

5.7-1 Impacts related to the
update of the Remedial
Action Plan.

5.7-1(a) At least 72 hours prior to the placement of
imported fill, the applicant shall have the
potential fill inspected by a qualified
geotechnical consultant to ensure that all
fill being used for fills less than five feet
below design grade have a plasticity index
of less than or equal to 12, and that all
City Engineer At least 72 hours
prior to the
placement of
imported fill
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 26

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
soils are clean and free of deleterious
materials, organic materials, and shall not
contain particles greater than six inches in
size. The results of the geotechnical
analysis shall be submitted to the City
Engineer prior to placement of fill.

5.7-1(b) Prior to placement of imported fill, the
applicant shall have the excavation surface
inspected by a qualified geotechnical
consultant to ensure the stability of the
excavation bottom. Should the site be found
to be unstable or contain loose or
deleterious materials, the applicant shall
perform required mitigation as identified
by the geotechnical consultants and
approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation
for unstable fill could include, but is not
limited to the following:
• Restrict fill activities to occur when the
excavation bottom is dry and stable
during warm weather; or
• Require that the placement of geotextile
fabric be placed prior to granular
import fill. The geotextile fabric would
be required to be Mirafi 600X or
equivalent. Granular fill would consist
of well-graded crushed materials, such
as Class 2 aggregate base of Caltrans
Standard Specifications, but may also
consist of other granular imported
materials. Uniform crushed rock may
City Engineer Prior to placement
of imported fill
Curtis Park Village
September 2010
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4 - 27

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Curtis Park Village
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
be used as a stabilizing layer provided
that the crushed rock is completely
wrapped in the geotextile fabric.
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Help Line: (916) 264-5011
[email protected]
CDD-0066 Revised 7-19-2024 Page 1 of 1
Appeal Decision
City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
Date:

To the Planning Director:

I do hereby make application to appeal the decision of the City Planning and Design Commission on , for project number P .
(hearing date)
Granted by the City Planning Commission
Denied by the City Planning Commission
Property Location:

Grounds For Appeal: (explain in detail, you may attach additional pages) Appellant: Daytime Phone: ( )
(please print)
Address:

Appellant’s Signature:

Please note that once this application is submitted to the City of Sacramento, your information may be subject to public record.

However, please note that the City will not sell your data or information for any purposes.

THIS BOX FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Filing Fee Received: Applicant ($11,115) Or Third Party ($1,045) Received By: Date:

Distribute Copies to: Planning Director
Principal Planner Project Planner (original)
Submit the Appeal Form by email to [email protected]. OR to 300 Richards Blvd, 3rd Floor, Community Development Department Public Counter Tuesday through Thursday, between 9AM to 4 PM. Fees must be paid within the 10-day appeal period. An appeal may not be accepted unless it is timely filed and applicable fees paid.
5-29-25
Pamela Morgan
Greg Sandlund
Stacia Cosgrove Daniel Abbes
5/29/2025 May 22, 2025 24-028 X
2325 10th Avenue and 2341 Omaha Beach Avenue, APN(s): 013-0010-046-0000 & 013- 0490-110-0000 Applicant appeals the Planning Commission's denial of the amendment to the Curtis Park Village PUD Schematic Plan and Guidelines to permit single-unit housing on the Multi-Family site. The grounds for appeal are stated in the attached letter dated May 28, 2025 from Daniel Freedman of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. Paul Petrovich/PDC Construction Co Inc. 916 442-4600 3680 Crocker Drive, Suite 160, Sacramento, CA 95818 5/29/2025 By Pamela Morgan at 3:25 pm, May 29, 2025 A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Matthew Hinks
[email protected]
Daniel Freedman
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com

73329098v1
May 28, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor McCarty and Honorable Members of
the City of Sacramento City Council
City of Sacramento
915 I Street, City Hall Complex
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Crocker Village Residential Development – Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (Multi Parcel)
Dear Mayor McCarty and Honorable Members of the City of Sacramento City Council :

Our office represents the applicant for the above-described project in connection with the Crocker Village Residential Development application (P24-028). The following outlines the principal legal arguments in support of our appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s May 22, 2025 denial of the Multi Parcel component of the Crocker Village Residential Development (Item 5, P24-028).
• Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Violation – Zoning /Objective Standards Inconsistency Must Be Disregarded: The Multi Parcel project is consistent with the General Plan, which allows detached residential dwelling units under the “Neighborhood” designation. The project’s detached homes fall squarely within this allowance. While staff cited a zoning inconsistency based on the PUD’s multi-family requirement, Government Code § 65589.5(j)(4) mandates that this inconsistency be disregarded where the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. Because the project is consistent with all applicable objective General Plan standards, the City may not deny the project absent specific findings supported by a preponderance of evidence. No such findings were made or supported.

Moreover, even if the zoning is found to be consistent with the General Plan, as suggested by the City Attorney, the second sentence of Government Code § 65589.5(j)(4) expressly clearly directs local agencies to only enforce "objective standards and criteria of the zoning which [are] consistent with the general plan…" As the City has taken the position that detached single-family housing is not permitted in the zone - which conflicts with general plan – this zoning standard may not be applied without violating the HAA. • Denial Effectively Imposes a Lower Density – Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1): The Multi Parcel is part of a single housing development project application that proposes a housing development project for both the Flex and Multi Parcels. The City's denial of the May 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

73329098v1
Multi Parcel component reduces the project's overall residential yield by 30 units. This constitutes a de facto condition lowering the proposed development intensity and density.

Pursuant to Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1), to support such a condition, the City must make the necessary public health and safety findings.
• Improper Reliance on New or Non-Objective Standards: The HAA bars cities from denying housing projects based on standards that were not identified within 30 days of application completeness. The staff’s report and presentation to the Planning Commission introduced new standards and issues that were not identified in the City’s Notice of Inconsistency – which itself was untimely. These cannot form a lawful basis for a denial. • The PUD's Multi-Family Requirement Is Not an Objective Standard: The City may not rely on an alleged inconsistency with the PUD’s “multi-family” requirement, because that is not an objective standard. The term, “multi-family” is undefined in the Curtis Park Village PUD. Staff instead refers to the zoning code’s “multi-unit dwelling” definition, which requires three or more attached units per structure. But “multi-family” is a broader term and not synonymous with a singular “multi-unit dwelling.” Other legal sources confirm this. State law (Gov. Code § 65863.4) defines “multifamily dwelling” as a structure with two or more independent units. Sacramento City Code § 13.24.010 is also internally inconsistent, as it defines “multi-family residential property” as: “any multifamily dwelling, building, or group of buildings containing five or more individual dwelling units on a single parcel.” Because no objective, consistent definition governs the term “multi-family," it cannot be used to deny the project under the HAA.

Finally, a reasonable person would find that 30 homes, proposed at 15 units to the acre on a single parcel, is a multi-family development. Under Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4), there is substantial evidence in the record upon which a reasonable person could find the proposed 30-unit subdivision to be a “multi-family” use.
• Use Is Permitted in Underlying R-4A Zone and Not Prohibited by PUD The underlying R-4A zoning for the Multi Parcel permits single-unit dwellings. The PUD guidelines do not prohibit single-unit dwellings. Under § 17.452.040.B.2.d of the City Code, a PUD property may be used for any use allowed in the underlying zone or allowed in the PUD guidelines. Because single-unit dwellings are allowed in the R-4A zone and are not excluded by the PUD, the proposed use is permitted.

Moreover, the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) is explicitly described as a guideline—not a regulatory instrument superior to zoning or the General Plan. Its reference to “multi-family” housing was intended to encourage diversity of housing types within the neighborhood, not to mandate a particular structure type such as attached units.

For these reasons, the denial of the Multi Parcel component of the project violates the Housing Accountability Act and should be reversed. We respectfully request that the City Council grant this appeal and approve the proposed housing development. We reserve the right to May 28, 2025

Page 3 ends

73329098v1
supplement this letter and the appeal with further legal briefing, arguments, and evidentiary materials.i
Very truly yours,
MATTHEW HINKS and
DANIEL FREEDMAN of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
DFF/MH2
CC: Hon. City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood – [email protected] Leslie Walker, Senior Deputy City Attorney – [email protected] Clerk of the Planning and Design Commission – [email protected] i Additional issues to be expanded upon prior to hearing:

1. The City’s Notice of Inconsistency was untimely under Government Code § 65589.5(j)(2) because the project application was received on August 9, 2024. Absent a timely identification of inconsistency within 30 or 60 days of that date, the project is deemed consistent with applicable standards as a matter of law.

2. The City's appeal fee constitutes an unlawful exaction insofar as it imposes a financial barrier to the exercise of statutory appeal rights protected by the HAA.

3. To the extent the City asserts that Sacramento City Code § 17.800.050 bars appellant from refiling a substantially similar application within one year following a denial, this constitutes a regulatory taking and is preempted by the HAA if applied to block or delay resubmission of compliant housing proposals.

4. Appellant contends that the broader project's diversity goal has already been achieved.

Crocker Village includes an existing affordable multi-family complex that fulfills the PUD’s multi-family objective. Additionally, the affordable housing requirement applicable to this project could be satisfied through alternative means, including: payment of in-lieu fees; constructing single-family homes to be sold or rented to qualifying households; dedicating land on-site or off-site; constructing affordable housing units off-site; or accepting Housing Choice Vouchers. These compliance pathways further demonstrate that the PUD’s objective has been fulfilled and that denying the project based on a subjective interpretation of “multi-family” is inconsistent with state law.

5. Attachment 12– Staff response to Appellant’s claims

1. Claim of “Housing Accountability Act Violation – Zoning/objective standards inconsistency must be disregarded”
Appellant has argued that the City’s denial of its application to develop single-family homes on the Multi Site violates its rights under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code, section 65589.5). Appellant primarily cites to subdivision (j) of section 65589.5, but also has cited subdivisions (f)(4) and (f)(9).

Staff Response: The City Attorney’s office has evaluated Appellant’s claims and has concluded that they are without merit. The simple response to Appellant’s arguments is as follows: Since the Curtis Park PUD was originally adopted in 2010, it has consistently designated the Multi Site for multi-family development. The Appellant has always been aware of the requirement to develop the site consistently with that designation. Indeed, the Appellant acknowledged this continuing requirement back in 2016 when, at the Appellant’s request, the City amended the Curtis Park PUD to flip the locations of the senior housing (for which this site had previously been designated) and the market-rate housing. As discussed further below, in 2010, the City’s Planning and Development Code had an express definition for such multi-family development. In 2013, the City amended the Code to use the term “multi-unit” instead of “multi-family,” but that change in verbiage did not materially change the PUD’s requirements as evidenced in the January 28, 2016 Planning and Design Commission staff report.

The Multi Site is now subject to the Planning and Development Code’s requirements for “multi-unit” development, just as it previously was subject to the requirements for “Multiple Family” development. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, these code requirements are objective and clear, and they are legally binding unless and until they are legislatively amended. Moreover, the City’s 2040 General Plan expressly requires all development to comply with such PUD requirements – there is no inconsistency between the 2040 General Plan and the PUD. While the 2040 General Plan broadly designates most residential areas within the City as “Neighborhood” (or “N”), a category that applies to a broad array of different type of residential development, there is nothing in the 2040 General Plan permitting every types of residential development in all areas designated as “N”; instead, it expressly mandates that all development comply with applicable zoning requirements. (2040 General Plan, p. 3-13 and Appendix B, Glossary, p. B-1.)
Turning now to Appellant’s specific legal arguments, Government Code section 65589.5(j) limits a City’s ability to deny or reduce the density of a housing development project when the housing development project complies with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1).) However, “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria … if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(4).) In other words, where the zoning and general plan are inconsistent, the proposed housing development project may comply only with the objective standards in the general plan.

Here, the 2040 General Plan land use designation applicable to the Multi Site includes a range of uses, including detached and attached residential dwelling units, so long as those uses are permitted by the applicable specific plans, zoning districts, planned unit developments, and other provisions of the Sacramento City Code. (2040 General Plan, p. 3-13 & glossary p. 3-13.) The PUD, which is incorporated into the zoning by City Code sections 17.452.030 and 17.452.040B.2.d., permits only multi-family development on the Multi Site. Therefore, the use of the site for single units is inconsistent with the PUD, and the PUD is consistent with the General Plan.

In relying on subdivision (j)(4), Appellant also separately emphasizes its second sentence, which provides that “the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is 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 and proposed by the housing development project.” Appellant appears to be trying to interpret this language as prohibiting a city from enforcing its zoning requirements even if they are not “inconsistent” with the general plan. This interpretation would not only render the first sentence of subdivision (j)(4) a nullity, but it would mark a dramatic change in land use law. Nothing in the legislative history of (j)(4) (as it was finally adopted) indicated such a dramatic intent. Moreover, even if Appellant were correct, our position remains that the 2040 General Plan’s standards and criteria do not allow for single-family development on land designated in the PUD for multifamily development, for the reasons explained above.

Appellant’s most recent letter also cites to various provisions included in subdivision (f) of section 65589.5, including subdivisions (f)(4) and (f)(9). None of those provisions impact the analysis summarized above. Subdivision (f)(4) provides a project should be deemed consistent with applicable zoning requirements “if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” In this case, there is no such substantial evidence that the proposed development qualifies as “multi-family”/“multi-unit” under the City’s code (as further explained below). And subdivision (f)(9) merely clarifies the definition of “objective, quantifiable, written development standards,” which the City’s definition of “multi-unit” satisfies.

2. Claim that “Denial effectively imposes a lower density” in alleged violation of California Government Code section 65589.5(j)(1)
Staff Response: As stated above, Government Code section 65589.5 limits a City’s ability to deny or reduce the density of a housing development project when the project complies with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1).) When a project complies with all applicable objective standards, the City may deny or reduce the density of the project only if it makes specific health and safety findings set forth in Section 65589.5(j)(1).

Here, the proposed housing development for the Multi Parcel site does not comply with the parcel’s R-4A-PUD zoning. Accordingly, the developer cannot rely on this provision of the HAA.

The Planning and Development Code of the City of Sacramento, which administrates zoning laws and regulates the use of land, buildings, or other structures including for residences, states: “Property within a planned unit development may be used only for the uses that are permitted in the underlying zone in which it is located and that are authorized by the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the property.” (City Code, § 17.452.040.B.2.d) The Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Schematic Plan and Guidelines designate the Multi Parcel site for Multi-Family Housing and therefore the proposed single-unit development does not comply with zoning criteria. Therefore, section 65589.5(j)(1) of the HAA does not apply and the City is not required to make the specified health and safety findings.

3. Claim regarding “improper reliance on new or non-objective standards” Staff Response: Consistent with the Housing Accountability Act, staff provided the applicant notification of inconsistency with the objective multi-unit dwelling development zoning standard within 30 days of application completeness and has not since introduced any new objective standard inconsistencies.

General Plan and Community Plan policy considerations, which are not objective standards, are offered to the decision-makers, in this staff report, as information for their consideration of a legislative change request – the request to amend the PUD. Under section 17.808.230.C.1.c, the City Council is required to make three findings to amend the PUD. The General Plan and Community Plan policies set forth in this report weigh against amending the PUD.

4. Claim that “the PUD’s Multi-Family requirement is not an objective standard.”
Staff Response: The City has consistently interpreted the term “multi-family” in older City documents to mean “multi-unit dwelling” in the City’s updated Planning and Development Code, effective in 2013.

As background, at the time of the adoption of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development in 2010, the Multi-Family land use designation within the PUD corresponded directly to the Planning and Development Code “Multiple family dwelling” land use.

The 2010 Planning and Development Code definitions for “multiple family dwelling,” “single family dwelling,” and “family” are below, with underlining added for emphasis. “Multiple family dwelling” means a building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other, but under one roof. Ownership of the building(s) could be a single ownership of units and land (e.g., apartments) or individual ownership of each unit and joint ownership of common area (e.g. condominiums).
“Single family dwelling” means a detached building designed for occupancy by one family. A single-family dwelling shall be erected as one building connected by a common wall or walls at least eight feet in width.
“Family” means one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a rooming or boarding house or hotel.”
In 2013 the city updated the Planning and Development Code and replaced the term “family” with “unit” to be more inclusive of various living arrangements and housekeeping units within the city, and to comply with case law interpreting the fourteenth amendment to prevent zoning ordinances from denying access to households based on familial status. (April 9, 2013, City Council Staff Report.) The current Planning and Development Code definitions for “multi-unit dwelling,” “single-unit dwelling,” and “dwelling unit” are below, with underlining added for emphasis.
“Multi-unit dwelling” means a dwelling containing three or more dwelling units.

This use can include laundry facilities, gyms, and other services that are for residents only.
“Single-unit dwelling” means a structure designed for residential occupancy containing not more than one dwelling unit.
“Dwelling unit” means one or more rooms that include permanent provision for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation that are occupied for residential purposes by one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit. All rooms within a dwelling unit must have their principal entrance from inside said dwelling unit.
(City Code, 17.108.050.)
The Planning and Development Code has consistently defined multiple family/unit dwellings as three or more, and single family/unit dwellings as one. This has been the City’s interpretation of the term since the introduction of the term “multi-unit” in 2013, verified by the City’s planning director. In addition, there was no debate about the definition of multi-family at the time the PUD was modified in 2016. (January 28, 2016 Planning and Design Commission staff report.)

5. Claim that the definition of “multifamily dwelling” in California Government Code section 65863.4 applies
Staff Response: Government Code section 65863.4 explicitly applies to involuntarily damaged or destroyed dwellings and does not relate to the proposed project which does not contain any damaged or destroyed dwellings. The state’s definition of “multifamily dwelling” found in that section is for “purposes of [that] section” only. (Gov.

Code, § 65863.4(d).) This code section does not apply to the proposed project.

6. Claim that Sacramento City Code section 13.24.010 creates inconsistency with definition of “Multi-family residential property”
Staff Response: Chapter 13.24 of the City Code applies to “Commercial Solid Waste Management.” Section 13.24.010 sets forth the meanings of defined terms “used in this [Chapter 13] chapter.” As used in Chapter 13, “’commercial solid waste’ means all solid waste generated by commercial and industrial sources, multi-family residential properties, schools, public agencies, and construction and demolition activities, that is collected by a commercial hauler” and, for purposes of that chapter and that definition, multi-family has a specific definition. Similarly, title 17 is the Planning and Development Code, and chapter 17.108 sets forth the definitions for words “as used in this title [Title 17].” City Code section 13.24.010 does not govern land use development or review of development applications.

7. Claim that City’s Notice of Inconsistency was untimely Staff Response: The project application was submitted on September 25, 2024, and deemed complete on October 25, 2024. The city issued notice of inconsistency with objective development standards on November 22, 2024, within 30 days of application completeness and in compliance with the Housing Accountability Act.

8. Claim that Single Unit homes are permitted because they are permitted in R-4A
Staff Response: The appellant misstates the text of City Code section 17.452.040.B.2.b.

See discussion under 2 above, “Claim that ‘Denial effectively imposes a lower density’ in alleged violation of California Government Code section 65589.5(j)(1).

9. Claim that City’s appeal fee constitutes an unlawful exaction Staff Response: The appeal fee is adopted by resolution 2024-0153, supported by staff hourly rates.

10.Claim that Sacramento City Code Section 17.800.050 constitutes a regulatory taking
Staff Response: This assertion is premature as the appellant has not submitted an application consistent with all applicable objective general plan, zoning, and PUD standards.

11.Claim that broader project’s diversity goal has already been achieved Staff Response: Section 1.2 of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines, entitled Goals and Objectives, states one of its four primary goals is to “provide various housing choices including single-family and cluster, affordable senior, and market-rate multi-family residences.” Market-rate multi-family residences are explicitly listed as a housing type included as part of a primary goal and objective within the PUD to achieve housing diversity and choice.

A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Matthew Hinks
[email protected]
Daniel Freedman
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
73513878v1
July 29, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor McCarty and Honorable Members of
the City of Sacramento City Council
City of Sacramento
915 I Street, City Hall Complex
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Crocker Village Residential Development – Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of 30 New Homes Near Transit (Multi Parcel) Notice of Housing Accountability Act Violation
Dear Mayor McCarty and Honorable Members of the City of Sacramento City Council:

We submit this letter in support of our client’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s May 22, 2025, decision to deny the Multi Parcel residential subdivision component of the Crocker Village Residential Development project (P24-028). This appeal presents a clear and simple legal issue under California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA): Can the City rely on an outdated and inconsistent zoning ordinance to deny a housing project that otherwise complies with the City’s General Plan? Pursuant to the HAA, the answer is no, and the Planning Commission’s decision to ignore this simple legal requirement must be overturned.

To avoid any confusion, this appeal is not about the project's density or unit count.

There is no dispute that the proposed 30-unit subdivision complies with the density allowed under both the General Plan and the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The only issue is whether the City may reject 30 detached single-family homes simply because they are not configured as triplexes—i.e., the alleged zoning inconsistency. This is a question of form, not substance. As explained below, the Planning Commission’s action disregards the legal requirements of the HAA, which obligates cities to err on the side of approving housing— particularly where, as here, the zoning is clearly inconsistent with the City's updated General Plan.

Accordingly, this appeal asserts the following arguments:
 Under Government Code § 65589.5(j)(4), when zoning (including a PUD) conflicts with the General Plan, the City may apply only the objective standards in the General Plan. Here, the 2040 General Plan designates the Multi Parcel as “Neighborhood,” which allows detached single-family homes. But, according to the City, the PUD purports to prohibit them—creating an inconsistency.

July 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

73513878v1
 The PUD reinforces this inconsistency by directly referencing the outdated 2030 General Plan and its former “Traditional Neighborhood High” designation.

Because the 2040 General Plan now governs, and the project complies with its objective standards, the City is required by the HAA to approve the project.  Even if the zoning were consistent with the General Plan, the City may only apply development standards that are both objective and consistent with the General Plan.

The term “multi-family” is not defined in the PUD or General Plan, and the City’s interpretation is subjective, inconsistent, and unenforceable under the HAA.  The City claims zoning prohibits detached homes, but the General Plan expressly allows them. Under Government Code § 65589.5(f)(9), when standards conflict, the City must apply the one that allows the housing type proposed by the applicant.

Because detached homes are permitted under the General Plan, the City must apply the General Plan standard here.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council grant the appeal and approve the Multi Parcel component of the project.

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND INTENT OF THE HOUSING

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, is designed to limit the ability of local governments to deny housing projects that comply with applicable objective standards. The statute was enacted in response to the state’s longstanding housing crisis, and the Legislature has declared that it must be interpreted and implemented to prioritize housing approvals:
“It is the policy of the state that this section 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).) The HAA accomplishes this legislative intent by prohibiting a local government from disapproving or reducing the density of a housing development that is consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, unless the agency finds based on a preponderance of the evidence that the project will have a specific, adverse impact on health and safety that cannot be mitigated absent project denial. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j).) A standard is objective only if it “involv[es] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and [is] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).) Cities may not rely on subjective standards or vague policy language to deny a project that complies with objective criteria. (Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820.)
Where there is a conflict between the zoning for the project site and the General Plan, the HAA resolves the issue in favor of the General Plan. Under Government Code section July 29, 2025

Page 3 ends

73513878v1
65589.5(j)(4), where, like here, the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the General Plan, the project is deemed as a matter of law to be consistent with zoning standards so long as it is consistent with objective General Plan standards. Local agencies may only apply the objective standards from “the zoning which is consistent with the general plan,” and even then, only if those standards accommodate the density allowed by the general plan and proposed by the development.

This framework reflects the Legislature’s intent that local governments not use subjective or discretionary interpretations to obstruct housing, and that consistency with objective General Plan policies take precedence.

2. THE MULTI-PARCEL PUD AND ZONING ARE INCONSISTENT

WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The Planning Commission denied the Multi Parcel portion of the project based on staff’s assertion that a single-family residential subdivision is not a permitted use in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning. According to staff, only multi-family uses and senior housing uses are permitted in this zone, and that based on staff’s reliance on the definition of the term “Multi-Unit Dwelling,” detached single-family homes do not satisfy that requirement. This reasoning fails for at least three independent—and compounding—reasons: (1) the General Plan expressly allows detached homes in conflict with the PUD/zoning; (2) the PUD defines permitted uses by reference to the outdated 2030 General Plan and not the municipal code; and (3) the zoning’s definition of “multi-family” directly conflicts with how that term is currently defined in the 2040 General Plan. Each of these conflicts renders the zoning and PUD unenforceable under the HAA.

Government Code § 65589.5(j)(4) is clear: when zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan, a project cannot be denied for failing to comply with the zoning. The City may apply only objective standards from the General Plan—and only if those standards accommodate the density proposed by the project. The Multi Parcel is currently designated “Neighborhood” under the 2040 General Plan. That designation allows both detached and attached residential dwelling units. (Exhibit A.) The project fits squarely within the uses permitted by that designation; thus, detached homes are clearly allowed under the General Plan. Because the PUD and zoning purport to prohibit detached homes, they conflict with the General Plan and cannot be enforced under the HAA.

The inconsistency is confirmed by the fact that the PUD ties the allowed “use types” to the superseded 2030 General Plan, not the current 2040 General Plan. Specifically, the PUD describes the Multi Parcel as the “multi-family/high-density housing area in the Curtis Park Village plan,” and states that the area should contain “multi-family housing types with a Traditional Neighborhood High land use designation[] in the City of Sacramento 2030 General Plan.” (Crocker Village PUD attached as Exhibit B; 2030 General Plan uses attached as Exhibit C.) The 2030 General Plan, however, is now void, and the site no longer maintains a Traditional Neighborhood High land use designation.

Exacerbating the inconsistency is the City’s reliance on a zoning definition of “multi-family” that contradicts the current General Plan’s definition. Staff asserts that only “multi- July 29, 2025

Page 4 ends

73513878v1
unit dwellings”—defined in the Sacramento Municipal Code as “a dwelling containing three or more dwelling units”—qualify as “multi-family” uses. But the current General Plan takes a broader and more accurate view. Appendix B of the 2040 General Plan defines “Neighborhood-Scale Multi-Unit Dwelling” as:
“A neighborhood-scale residential building type, usually found in the single-unit and duplex dwelling zones, that contain more than one dwelling unit and are similar in scale and form to single-unit dwellings, such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage/bungalow courts.”
This definition includes small-lot detached and semi-detached homes—such as bungalow courts and triplexes—and also includes duplexes, which the City currently claims would not qualify as "multi-family". In fact, even the outdated 2030 General Plan referenced in the PUD allowed detached small-lot homes under the Traditional Neighborhood High Density designation, just as being proposed here. Detached dwellings have always been contemplated as part of the allowed “multi-family housing types” on this site In short, the City is applying a definition of the term “multi-family” that conflicts with the General Plan’s description of that use, further evidence that the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan.

Accordingly, because the PUD and zoning conflict with the General Plan—both in terms of land use designation and the definition of allowed uses—the City cannot rely on those standards to deny the project. The project complies with all applicable objective General Plan standards, and thus the HAA simply does not permit the City to deny the project under these circumstances.

3. THE GENERAL TERM “MULTI-FAMILY” IS NOT AN

OBJECTIVE STANDARD
Even if the City were allowed to enforce the PUD’s vague description of “multifamily” uses as a development standard—which it is not—the City’s interpretation of that term is not based on an objective standard, and therefore cannot lawfully support denial under the HAA.

The PUD does not define “multi-family.” To define the term, the City relies on the Sacramento Municipal Code’s definition of “multi-unit dwelling,” which is defined as “a dwelling containing three or more dwelling units.” But that is a different term entirely. The PUD speaks of “multifamily housing types,” not “multi-unit dwellings.” The City’s choice to substitute one undefined term with a different, more restrictive definition is inherently subjective. It requires judgment, interpretation, and discretion—all of which violate the HAA’s requirement that standards must be objective to justify denial.

Alternative definitions confirm that the City’s interpretation is unreasonable:
 Government Code § 65863.4 defines a “multifamily dwelling” as a structure with two or more independent living quarters—regardless of whether the units are attached or detached.

July 29, 2025

Page 5 ends

73513878v1
 Federal law (12 U.S.C. § 1715z-22a) defines “multifamily housing” as five or more rental units on a site—again, without regard to physical attachment.  Sacramento City Code § 13.24.010 defines a “multi-family residential property” as: “any multi-family dwelling, building, or group of buildings containing five or more individual dwelling units on a single parcel. Multi-family complexes include, but are not limited to, apartment complexes, and senior housing or care facilities.”  The City’s own 2040 General Plan defines “Neighborhood-Scale Multi-Unit Dwelling” as:
“A neighborhood-scale residential building type, usually found in the single-unit and duplex dwelling zones, that contain more than one dwelling unit and are similar in scale and form to single-unit dwellings, such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage/bungalow courts.” (Appendix B, 2040 General Plan) These definitions directly refute the City’s narrow interpretation of the term. It affirms that multi-family uses need not be attached, and that detached units—such as those in a small lot and bungalow court configurations—may qualify as multi-family depending on scale and form. It also reinforces the flexibility of the term “multi-family” as commonly understood in both local and state law, and can also include single-family subdivisions. Under Government Code § 65589.5(f)(4), a project is deemed to be consistent with zoning standards “if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project … is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” The facts laid out above demonstrate that a reasonable person could find a 30-unit small-lot subdivision to be a “multi-family” use.

Moreover, our client has further demonstrated flexibility by proposing a revised layout that adds two Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) to each home—bringing the total number of units per structure to three. That configuration clearly satisfies the City’s “multi-unit dwelling” definition. But even setting that aside, the original 30-unit detached project aligns with the commonly understood meaning of “multi-family” under state and local law and should never have been rejected. As there is no fixed, measurable, and uniformly applied definition of “multifamily” in the PUD or zoning code—and because the City’s interpretation is neither self-evident nor textually grounded—the “multi-family” requirement is not objective. Under the HAA, it cannot lawfully serve as the basis for denial.

4. THE HAA LIMITS THE CITY TO OBJECTIVE GENERAL PLAN
STANDARDS—EVEN WHEN ZONING IS CONSISTENT
Even if the City were correct that the zoning and general plan are consistent (which we dispute), Government Code § 65589.5(j)(4) still controls what standards may be enforced. The statute states:
“If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the July 29, 2025

Page 6 ends

73513878v1
standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.”
This provision confirms that even when zoning is consistent with the General Plan, only objective standards and criteria may be applied, and those standards must be applied to facilitate and accommodate the development at the density allowed by the General Plan.

This reading is reinforced by the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision in YIMBY Law and Janet Jha v. City of Los Angeles (L.A. Super. Ct. Case No. 21STCP03883). There, the trial court interpreted the second sentence of § 65589.5(j)(4) to mean that cities may not apply subjective or inconsistent standards from a zoning code even when it purports to align with the General Plan, unless those standards are objective and used to facilitate the general plan’s development goals. Irrespective of whether the zoning is consistent with the General Plan or not, the court explained, "the second sentence provides that a city may look at its zoning's objective standards if the zoning and general plan are consistent and must do so to facilitate and accommodate the site's density allowed by the general plan." (See Exhibit D, pg. 30.) The underlying purpose of this, as described in the law, is to facilitate the "proposed housing development project" that is consistent with the general plan. Government Code § 65589.5(j)(4) Accordingly, even if the City contends the zoning and general plan are consistent, it still may not deny or condition the project based on standards that are not objective, or to obstruct a housing development project that complies with the applicable General Plan densities. That is exactly what the Planning Commission has done here and what staff advocates, by insisting that “multi-family” means attached housing and that detached units are categorically disqualified— despite the absence of such a requirement in the General Plan, zoning code, or PUD guidelines.

Finally, the HAA expressly requires cities to resolve conflicts between objective development standards in favor of housing. Under Government Code § 65589.5(f)(9), when objective, written standards are “mutually inconsistent,” a project must be deemed consistent with the standards that “permit the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project.” Here, the General Plan permits detached single-family homes, while the zoning and PUD prohibit them.

That is a direct conflict between two written, objective standards—one allowing the proposed unit type, and one disallowing it. The statute compels the City to resolve this conflict in favor of the General Plan standard, which permits the density and unit type proposed. “Unit type” under the HAA includes single-family detached homes, multifamily, townhomes, and similar residential forms. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(13).) Because the project proposes detached homes allowed under the General Plan, and the zoning standard conflicts, the City must resolve that inconsistency by approving the project under the standard most supportive of the proposed use.

5. THE CITY’S POSITION REFLECTS BAD FAITH AND

UNDERMINES THE PURPOSE OF THE HAA
The City’s approach here reflects conduct the Legislature intended to prevent— denying compliant housing projects by manipulating vague or outdated standards. First, the City July 29, 2025

Page 7 ends

73513878v1
is ignoring its own planning documents. The PUD refers to housing types allowed in the “Traditional Neighborhood High Density” land use designation in the 2030 General Plan—but the City is now applying a different General Plan altogether (the 2040 Plan). Instead of acknowledging this inconsistency and applying the objective standards from the current General Plan—as required by Government Code § 65589.5(j)(4)—the City has selectively chosen terminology and interpretations that suit its opposition to this project.

Second, the City is manipulating the term “multi-family” without any supporting definition in the PUD or zoning code. The City now insists that only attached units qualify, based solely on a narrow definition from a different section of the Municipal Code—despite other parts of the Code and General Plan that treat multi-family more broadly. The HAA prohibits this type of post hoc, inconsistent interpretation.

The pattern of conduct—denying a housing development project based on ambiguous standards, shifting definitions, and outdated planning documents—undermines the clear policy of the State of California to support housing production. This project complies with the applicable General Plan, proposes a density allowed by the City’s plans, and meets the objective development standards. The City’s resistance sends a message to housing developers:
even when your project complies, Sacramento will find a way to say no.

We respectfully urge the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission’s denial, approve the Multi Parcel portion of the project.1
Very truly yours,
MATTHEW HINKS and
DANIEL FREEDMAN of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
DFF/MH
CC: Tom Pace, Director of Community Development - [email protected] Danny Abbes, Associate Planner - [email protected] Marcus Adams, Senior Planner - [email protected] Stacia Cosgrove, Senior Planner - [email protected] Leyne Milstein, City Manager - [email protected] Amy Williams, Chief of Staff, City Manager - [email protected] Susana Alcala Wood, Esq., City Attorney – [email protected] Leslie Walker, Esq., Senior Deputy City Attorney – [email protected] Lisa Nava, Chief of Staff, Mayor Kevin McCarty - [email protected] 1 Appellant reserves the right to raise new arguments at the public hearing.

July 29, 2025

Page 8 ends

73513878v1
Misty Alafranji, Chief of Staff, Council District 1 – [email protected] Bryan DeBlonk, Chief of Staff, Council District 2 – [email protected] Monika Lee, Chief of Staff, Council District 3 – [email protected] David M. Gull, Chief of Staff, Council District 4 – [email protected] Philip Norton, Chief of Staff, Council District 6 – [email protected] Councilmember Rick Jennings, Council District 6 - [email protected] Dennis M. Rogers, Chief of Staff, Council District 7 – [email protected] July 29, 2025

Page 9 ends

73513878v1

EXHIBIT A

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The General Plan Land Use Diagram (Map LUP-5)
illustrates the long-term vision for development in
Sacramento, designating the location and range of
activities that may take place throughout the city to
achieve the vision. The land use designations, shown
as colors on the diagram and described below, allow
for a range of activities within each designation. The
designations are implemented through and subject
to applicable laws, including regulations and guidelines more restrictive than the General Plan, such as specific plans, zoning districts, overlay zones, special planning districts, planned unit developments, and
other provisions of the Sacramento City Code. (See,
e.g., Sacramento Planning and Development Code §

17.104.020, Sacramento City Code Titles 8 and 15, as
may be amended.

The Land Use Diagram (Map LUP-5) is a graphic representation of policies in the General Plan and is to be used in conjunction with General Plan policies and
the following maps and figure: Map LUP-6 Maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – All Development; Figure
LUP-5 Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale; Map LUP-7 Minimum Floor Area Ratio – Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Development; and Map LUP-8 Minimum Residential Density. Together, these maps provide
direction for land use and development intensities
citywide.

Residential Designations
The Rural Residential (RR) designation is
intended to preserve low-intensity residential neighborhoods adjacent to rural and undeveloped land.

Allowable uses include detached residential uses
normally associated with urban/rural interface areas,
limited neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and
compatible public and quasi-public uses.

The Neighborhood (N) designation applies
throughout Sacramento’s established residential
neighborhoods and in newly annexed areas in the
north of the city where primarily residential development is planned. The N designation is intended to maintain and enhance livability and sense of
place. The N designation is primarily comprised of Neighborhood Rural Residential
residential uses, with some complementary neighborhood-serving commercial and public uses.

Allowable uses include the following:
• Detached and attached residential dwelling units
• Neighborhood support uses (schools, parks,
libraries, community centers, and care facilities)
• Neighborhood-serving commercial and employment uses like corner markets, coffee shops, hair salons, shops, gyms, and fitness centers
• Office uses
• Assembly facilities
• Compatible public and quasi-public uses
Mixed-Use Designations
The Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) designation is intended to foster vibrant, walkable areas with a high-intensity mix of residential, commercial,
office, and public uses, where daily errands can be
accomplished on foot, by bicycle, or by transit. The
RMU designation applies principally in the Central
City and the corridors.

SACRAMENTO 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Land Use and Placemaking Element | 3-13
July 29, 2025

Page 10 ends

73513878v1

EXHIBIT B
1 Curtis Park Village
Planned Unit Development
Schematic Plan and Development Guidelines
P04-109
Approved by City Council on September 28, 2010
Resolution 2010-572 through 576 and Ordinance 2010-027
Amended by Planning and Design Commission on January 31, 2013 (P12-026) Amended by Planning and Design Commission on January 28, 2016 (P15-027) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Location, Context and Vision

1.2 Goals and Objectives

1.3 Purpose and Intent

1.4 Procedures for Approval and Amendment

1.5 Schematic Plan

2.0 Land Uses

2.1 Concept and Land Use

2.2 Southern Commercial Area: Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone

2.3 Northern Commercial Area “Flex Zone”: Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone

2.4 Single Family Residential Uses: Single Family Alternative (R-1A-PUD) and Multi-Family (R-2B-PUD) Zones

2.5 Multi-Family Residential Uses: Multi-Family (R-4A-PUD) Zone

2.6 Neighborhood Park and Open Space

3.0 Land Use Design Standards: Commercial Areas

3.1 Site Design and Building Orientation

3.2 Building Design Principles and Building Forms

3.3 Building Details

3.4 Building Utilities

3.5 Sustainability

3.6 Security

4.0 Circulation and Parking

4.1 Streetscape and Circulation

4.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation

4.3 Parking Area Design

4.4 Special Street and Esplanade Sections

5.0 Landscape and Streetscape

5.1 Monument Features

5.2 Public Amenities within Commercial Areas

5.3 Hardscape Materials and Treatments

5.4 Landscaping

5.5 Fencing and Walls

5.6 Private Art on Private Property

6.0 Signage and Graphics

6.1 General Guidelines for Signs

6.2 Lighted Signs

6.3 Projecting Signage

6.4 Awning Signage

6.5 Window Signage
3 7.0 Lighting

7.1 Building Lighting

7.2 Parking Lot Lighting

7.3 Pedestrian Area Lighting

8.0 Site Remediation Strategy

8.1 Background

8.2 Strategy to Complete Remaining Soil Remediation and Achieve Certification

8.3 Procedure for Requesting City Council Approval of Use of Park Site for a Containment Cell

8.4 2016 Site Remediation Update
Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Location, Context and Vision

1.2 Goals and Objectives

1.3 Purpose and Intent

1.4 Procedures for Approval and Amendment

1.1 LOCATION, CONTEXT AND VISION
On the site of a former Union Pacific railyard, the 72-acre Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) is located to the south of Sacramento’s central city area, surrounded by neighborhoods established early in the 20th century and within walking distance of Sacramento City College, Curtis Park and Land Park. The project is bordered on the west by Union Pacific Railroad and Light Rail tracks, to the north and east by the existing Curtis Park neighborhood, and to the south by Sutterville Road.

Also nearby are the Western Pacific Addition and Hollywood Park neighborhoods.

With few exceptions, Curtis Park Village has been laid out using current City of Sacramento street standards, which emphasize vertical curbs and separated sidewalks with planters, and with convenient linkages to nearby public transportation. There are two light rail stations at opposite ends of the site’s west side with a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Union Pacific rails and siding tracks and Regional Transit Light Rail system rails connecting Curtis Park Village to the Sacramento City College Light Rail Station at 10th Avenue within the project. It is envisioned that the bus routes currently running along nearby 24th Street will be re-routed to the main north-south road through Curtis Park Village. The design has been based on urban infill and sustainable design principles, as well as the strong community planning traditions of Sacramento’s historic and long-established neighborhoods.

The vision for Curtis Park Village is of a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood developed at a pedestrian scale. Uses of the site include: detached brownstones, cluster-housing (cottages and court homes), single-family detached homes, affordable seniors and market-rate multi-family housing, a community shopping and retail/commercial development area, and a neighborhood park. These elements will combine into a truly vibrant mixed-use neighborhood. Curtis Park Village incorporates values of new urbanism and smart growth, including walkable neighborhoods with tree-lined streets, pedestrian-scaled architecture, and effective connections to surrounding communities.

1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Curtis Park Village PUD strives to achieve four primary goals. Each of these goals will be pursued focusing on specific design objectives:

1. Create a visually interesting, pedestrian friendly mixed-use neighborhood that promotes smart growth principles
A. Emphasize the creation of spaces and places that encourage social 5 interaction and foster community pride and support
B. Maintain a high quality of life and create charm and character for the emerging neighborhood
C. Utilize a consistent set of design elements throughout the PUD to unify the area visually and to enhance people’s lives and property values

2. Provide a vibrant and successful neighborhood retail center A. Provide an integrated development theme while still permitting flexibility in the location and development of businesses to respond to changing market conditions
B. Implement design standards that encourage design innovation and flexibility

3. Provide various housing choices including single-family and cluster, affordable senior, and market-rate multi-family residences

4. Maximize opportunities for efficient transit provided by the public transportation and roadway corridors serving the site of the PUD
A. Encourage the use of public transportation through site design that emphasizes convenient transit access and use
B. Develop appropriate linkages to surrounding neighborhoods including pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle and alternative transportation modes.

1.3 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The Curtis Park Village Schematic Plan and Development Guidelines contain specific details, elements, conditions, and restrictions to carry out the vision of the Curtis Park PUD.

To achieve the goals and objectives of the Curtis Park Village PUD, the Guidelines are formulated in a flexible manner to provide for creative solutions to a variety of design situations.

These Guidelines are intended as a supplement to the development regulations in Title 17 of the Sacramento City and shall prevail when different from the regulations in Title 17 that are otherwise applicable to the project (see Sacramento City Code Section

17.180.050).

1.4 PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT
The procedures for approval of development under, as well as amendments to, these Guidelines are as set forth in Chapter 17.180 of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code, and as it may be amended from time to time.
6 1.5 CURTIS PARK VILLAGE PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
7 2.0 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

2.1 Concept and Land Use

2.2 Southern Commercial Area: SC (PUD) Zone

2.3 Northern Commercial Area “Flex Zone”: SC (PUD) Zone

2.3 Single Family Residential Uses: R-1A (PUD) and R-2B (PUD) Zones

2.4 Multi-Family Residential Uses: R-4A (PUD) Zone

2.5 Neighborhood Park and Open Space

2.1 CONCEPT AND LAND USE
Curtis Park Village is comprised of three predominate types of development for three predominate land uses linked by a network of pedestrian friendly streets, open spaces, and a neighborhood park.

1. Southern & Northern (Flex Zone) Commercial Areas: The commercial area of the plan is generally located in the southern portion of Curtis Park Village, extending north from Sutterville Road to the area south of the multi-family residential area, and west of Road “A”. The Southern Commercial Area, between Sutterville Road and 10th Avenue, is a more defined neighborhood shopping area on the schematic plan. The building footprint of each tenant in this area shall be no greater than 60,000 square feet of sales floor area or 65,000 square feet of total ground floor area. The Northern Commercial Area, also known as the Flex Zone, may be developed with residential, commercial (including recreational/entertainment uses) office and public/open space uses.

The Flex Zone shall have a separate schematic plan prepared in the future for review and approval of the Planning and Design Commission and City Council before development occurs. It is recognized that development is not expected to occur for a number of years in this area, and market conditions will likely change during this period of time. The street system and parcel layout in the commercial areas provide a grid pattern for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation consistent with the “Traditional Center” for commercial uses and “Traditional Neighborhood High” residential requirements of the City of Sacramento 2030 General Plan policies on urban form and design. The eventual locations of all buildings will be further refined within the commercial use areas to be consistent with the 2030 General Plan policies on urban form and design, and Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code, and the requirements of these Design Guidelines. The commercial area will serve surrounding residential neighborhoods, creating destinations, convenient shopping and entertainment within walking/biking distance.

2. Single-Family Housing Area: The Single-Family Housing area of the plan is generally located in the northern half of Curtis Park Village, extending from the northernedge of the “Flex Zone” including the new neighborhood park to the Portola Way Alley that forms the northern edge of the development. Within this area are single family residential lots designated Traditional Neighborhood Low 8 and zoned R-1A (PUD) and court residential lots generally designated Traditional Neighborhood High and zoned R-4A (PUD). The single family area complements the character and style of the surrounding Curtis Park community and like many historic Sacramento neighborhoods Curtis Park Village has at its heart the neighborhood park.

Higher density single-family housing is found along the east side of Collector Road “A” in the Curtis Park Village plan. This area is designed as Traditional Neighborhood Medium per the City of Sacramento 2030 General Plan and the zoning designation is R-2B(PUD). Single-family homes in this location can be described as the following two types:

A. The Brownstone row, a slightly more urbanized residential area that acts as a transition between the existing Curtis Park single family uses to the east of Curtis Park Village.

B. Cottage Homes infilling empty parcels along 24th Street in the existing Curtis Park neighborhood and activating the new private drive.

3. Multi-Family Housing Area: The area along the western property line of Curtis Park Village south and west of the Court single-family home area and on the north edge of the commercial area Flex Zone that contains the affordable senior housing project can best be described as the multi-family/high-density housing area in the Curtis Park Village plan, allowing for the development of apartments and condominum multi-family housing. The high-density housing area acts as a transitional zone between the less intense Court single-family development to the north and east and the Flex Zone commercial area to the south in Curtis Park Village. Within this area are multi-family housing types with a Traditional Neighborhood High land use designations in the City of Sacramento 2030 General Plan. This area includes:

A. Multi-Family Housing
Building Heights in the Multi-Family Housing Area may be increased up to 55’ to allow for a higher density housing project of up to four storeys over podium parking.

2.2 SOUTHERN COMMERCIAL AREA: SC-PUD Zone
As an infill project, Curtis Park Village is bordered by already busy thoroughfares:

Sutterville Road, the Union Pacific railroad and Sacramento Regional Transit light rail lines, nearby Highway 99 and Freeport Blvd. This location provides a unique opportunity for the commercial areas of Curtis Park Village to be both economically successful and an “active buffer” between both the new and existing residential neighborhoods and these large transportation corridors. 9 The Southern Commercial Area, the 14.5 acre area south of 10th Avenue, will strike a balance between serving the more intimate immediate local community with walkable destinations, and welcoming the greater community and larger customer base required to nourish a viable environment for thriving businesses.

Nearby light rail service will add to the synergy by providing convenient public transportation.

More than 20,000 students at adjacent Sacramento City College widen the customer base considerably. They will have access to services and destinations while contributing to the viability of this commercial area.

The character of the commercial area is to be sensitively informed by the adjacent pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, urban-forested neighborhoods. The east-west Access Easement shown on the schematic plan in this area shall be constructed to look like and function as a “Main Street” with standard curbs, gutters, sidewalks and lights on both sides of the easement. The north-south connection from the park to the Southern Commercial Area shall be a minimum of eight feet in width, incorporating design features such as landscaping, art and arbors and facilitating maximum pedestrian connections.

The procedures for approval of development within the Southern Commercial Area shall be in compliance with Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code, and as it may be amended from time to time.

Exceptions to development standards set forth in Sacramento City Code Title 17 that would otherwise be applicable to development within Curtis Park Village include the following:

Building Heights may be increased up to 45’ to allow for mixed use and multi-family housing attached to ground floor commercial and retail development.

Buildings in the Southern Commercial Area shall be constructed in locations in general compliance with the Schematic Plan. This includes that the footprint of each tenant space shall be no greater than 60,000 square feet of sales floor area or 65,000 square feet of total ground floor area.

Development standards for the Southern Commercial Area are found in Section 3.0, Land Use Development Standards: Commercial Areas.
10 2.3 “FLEX ZONE”: SC-PUD Zone
The five-acre commercial area north of 10th Avenue is known as the Northern Commercial Area or Flex Zone. A detailed Schematic Plan for this area is required to be prepared for this area for the review and approval of the Planning and Design Commission and City Council, and including any other necessary entitlements, prior to development of all or any portion of this area.

The Flex Zone may include residential, commercial (including recreational/entertainment uses), office and/or public/open space uses. The Flex Zone was created in recognition that development in this area is not expected to occur for a number of years and market conditions will likely change during this period of time.

Development standards for the Northern Commercial Area “Flex Zone” are found in Section 3.0, Land Use Development Standards: Commercial Areas.

2.4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES: R-1A PUD, R-2B, and R-4A PUD Zones
Single Family Residential uses within the Curtis Park Village PUD consist of four housing types: Traditional Single Family Homes; Brownstone Homes; Cottage Infill, and Court Homes.

1. Traditional Single-Family Homes: Traditional Neighborhood Low, R-1A PUD Zone
A. The Traditional Single Family Home Neighborhood of Curtis Park Village is intended to create a visual integration of the planning, architectural design, and style of the existing Curtis Park neighborhoods.

B. Design guidelines applicable to the Traditional Single Family Neighborhood sites are found in Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines. Project review for the detached single family dwellings shall be in accordance with Sacramento City Code Sections 17.24.020 and 17.180. Corner lot duplexes and halfplexes are also permitted per the above guidelines and standards.

C. It is anticipated, although not required, that many of the homes in the Traditional Single Family Home Neighborhood will be custom homes or built by a developer constructing homes on non-contiguous lots. If a home developer purchases 12 or more contiguous lots, a minimum of four housing types will be required. In no case shall the same model of a home be placed closer than five lots from each other (homes must be placed a minimum of five lots apart) or directly across the street from each other and the homes must provide differences in architectural detailing as described in Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines.
11 D. A second residential unit proposed on a parcel in the Traditional Single Family Home Neighborhood must meet the requirements of Sacramento City Code Section 17.24.020 and the applicable standards of Appendix A:

Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines.

E. The setbacks of residences adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks shall also comply with the sound attenuation meaures found in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan of the Curtis Park Village EIR (SCH 2004082020).

2. Brownstone Homes: Traditional Neighborhood Medium, R-2B PUD Zone A. The vertical stature of the homes in this neighborhood complements the architecture of the commercial area across the street, the main access to Curtis Park Village. The Brownstones provide transition between the existing and new residential neighborhood and the commercial areas of Curtis Park Village. The design intent for the Brownstone Neighborhood is that the homes constructed in this area of Curtis Park Village reflect the traditional brownstone homes found in cities such as Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. The Brownstone Neighborhood homes shall be designed as an integrated neighborhood with a common design theme and a variety of street facades that are coordinated to present a traditional brownstone neighborhood.

B. Design guidelines applicable to the Brownstone Neighborhood are found in Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines. Project review for the Brownstone Homes, an alternative ownership housing type, shall be in accordance with Sacramento City Code Sections 17.24.020 and 17.180.

C. A second residential unit proposed on a parcel in the Brownstone Neighborhood must meet the requirements of Sacramento City Code Section 17.24.020 and the applicable standards of Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines.

3. Cottage Infill Homes: Traditional Neighborhood Medium, R-2B PUD Zone A. Cottage infill sites occur along the west side of 24th Street. The Cottage Infill Homes should be integrated into the existing Curtis Park neighborhood fabric by means of architectural character, continuity, mass, scale, details and rhythm.

B. Design guidelines applicable to the Cottage housing sites are found in Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Design Home Guidelines..

Project review for the Cottage Infill Homes, an alternative ownership housing type, shall be in accordance with Sacramento City Code Sections

17.24.020 and 17.180.
12 C. A second residential unit proposed on a parcel in the Cottage Infill Neighborhood must meet the requirements of Sacramento City Code Section 17.24.020 and the applicable standards of Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines.

4. Court Homes: Traditional Neighborhood High, R-4A PUD Zone A. Court home sites occur on smaller lots of approximately 37’ x 75’ served by motor courts along the west side of Crocer Drive. The Court Homes should be integrated into the existing Curtis Park neighborhood fabric by means of architectural character, continuity, mass, scale, details and rhythm.

B. Design guidelines applicable to the Court housing sites are found in Appendix A: Curtis Park Village Single Family Design Home Guidelines..

Project review for the Court Homes, an alternative ownership housing type, shall be in accordance with Sacramento City Code Sections

17.24.020 and 17.180.

2.5 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: R-4A (PUD) Zone
Multi-family residential uses shall consist of affordable senior housing and market rate multi-family housing. These developments shall respect the special character of Curtis Park Village as set forth in this document, in addition to any other applicable Cityadopted residential design guidelines.

1. Maximum Building Height: Fifty-five feet (55’) to the top of the plate on the highest floor.

2. Affordable Housing for Seniors
A. Acts as transitional land use bridging Curtis Park market rate non-age restricted multi-family housing and commercial areas within Curtis Park Village.

B. Fulfills affordable housing element for Curtis Park Village C. Integrates senior housing with the general community.

D. Provide parking per city code.

E. Provide the following minimum setbacks:

1. Front yard setback from back edge of sidewalk (east): 12’-6”

2. Side yard setback (north and south): 10’-0””

3. Rear setback (west): 15’-0’
13 4. Setbacks of multi-family residences adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks shall also comply with the sound attenuation measures found in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan of the Curtis Park Village EIR (SCH 2004082020).

F. The design of the building for the affordable housing for seniors should incorporate design features and elements found in Appendix A: Single Family Home Design Guidelines for Curtis Park Village. Elements such as roof lines, building materials, finishes, and windows will provide a residential design to the affordable senior housing building(s) that will integrate the affordable housing for seniors component into the overall Curtis Park Village residential community. It should be recognized, however, that the massing and scale of the affordable housing for seniors building(s) will be larger than single-family home structures and the design elements and materials should appropirate to the scale, mass, and character of buildings for affordable housing for senior adults.

G. Project review for the building(s) for the Affordable Housing for Seniors within the Curtis Park Village PUD shall be per Sections 17.24.020 and

17.180 of the Sacramento City Code.

3. Market-Rate Multi-Family Housing
A. Provides additional pedestrian links through Curtis Park Village B. Acts as a buffer between Curtis Park Village single family residential and Curtis Park Village commercial areas in the Flex Zone
C. Provides an alternative type of housing for the neighborhood D. Neighborhood Park will provide shared recreational, open space, and tot lot facilities
E. Provide parking per city code.

F. Achieve variety in exterior architectural forms through the use of various building materials and colors
G. Shared common open space space may be substituted for private patios and balconies
H. Provide the following minimum setbacks:

1. Front yard setback from back edge of public sidewalk: 10”-0” 14 2. From property line of nearest existing Curtis Park single family residential housing: 15”-0” which can include public roads and private driveways

3. From property line of nearest commercial use: 10”-0”

4. From Union Pacific Railroad property line: 10’-0”

5. From accessory structures and property line of Union Pacific Railroad property: 5’-0”

6. From accessory structures and property line of nearest new Curtis Park single family residential housing: 10’-0” which can include public roads and private driveways.

7. Setbacks of multi-family residences adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks shall also comply with the sound attenuation meaures found in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan of the Curtis Park Village EIR (SCH 2004082020).

8. Other building setbacks shall be determined as part of multi-family housing project review.

I. The design of the buildings for the market rate multi-family housing should incorporate design features and elements found in Appendix A: Single Family Home Design Guidelines for Curtis Park Village. Elements such as roof lines, building materials, finishes, windows, etc. will provide a residential design character to the market rate multi-family housing buildings and will integrate the multi-family housing buildings into the overall Curtis Park Village residential community. It should be recognized, however, that the massing and scale of the market rate multi-family housing buildings will be larger and different than those of the single family home structures. The design elements from the Single Family Home Design Guidelines should be appropriate to the scale, mass, and J. Project Review for the building(s) for the Market Rate Multi-Family Housing buildings within the Curtis Park Village PUD shall be per Sections

17.24.020 and 17.180 of the Sacramento City Code.

2.5 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND OPEN SPACE LOTS
An approximately 6.6 acre neighborhood park which includes and approximately 4.9 acre detention basin is located near the center of the single-family residential area. A park preserves open space for outdoor recreation, provides for public health and safety, and is a visual amenity. Park design shall be in compliance with the City of Sacramento Department of Parks and Recreation design guidelines and the approved Park Master Plan.

There are also open space lots designated on the Schematic Plan. These will be developed and maintained as part of the project’s Homeowner’s Association. 15 3.0 LAND USE STANDARDS: COMMERCIAL AREAS

3.1 Site Design and Building Orientation

3.2 Building Design Principles & Building Forms

3.3 Building Details

3.4 Building Utilities

3.5 Sustainability

3.6 Security

3.1 SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING ORIENTATION
Site planning and design are vital in creating usable, successful outdoor spaces. The arrangement and siting of buildings, the scale and location of spaces and landscaping, and the way these elements relate to each other, will determine the vitality of the neighborhood.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. The development of individual site plans to positively relate with neighboring properties

2. Design for lively pedestrian use

3. A continuous network of safe, convenient, comfortable and interesting walkways and sidewalks

4. Pedestrian paths that connect Curtis Park Village to the surrounding neighborhoods along transportation connections

5. Carefully planned outdoor spaces with defined edges, lighting and enhanced paving

6. Spaces designed at a pedestrian scale

7. Spaces enriched with seating and landscaping, fountains, public art, and trellises

8. Plazas, courtyards, pocket parks, and outdoor cafes designed to encourage pedestrian activity

9. Destinations that attract people and activity

10. Focal points created as placemaking landmarks

11. Whenever possible place buildings at the edge of pedestrian walks

12. Consideraton of view corridors when siting buildings 16 3.2 BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND BUILDING FORMS
Key concepts direct the feel of a neighborhood, and determine community identity, economic vitality and levels of activity and use. Individual building forms and facades influence cohesiveness, comfort and aesthetic pride and at the same time can invite usage, increase a sense of security, and generate pedestrian activity.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines to encourage design within the following principles:

1. Architectural Character: Consider building type, materials, form and design, the relationship to other buildings in the neighborhood, and the overall effect on the viewer. No particular architectural theme or style is being recommended; rather a variety of styles with consideration of appropriateness for the surrounding area should be used.

2. Continuity: a connection or harmony among buildings in form, scale and proportions

3. Mass: The volume defined by a building relative to its surroundings and to its solidity and weight. Details, such as window size and placement, or open spaces in the forms, can change the visual perception of mass and make a building more interesting

4. Scale: the proportion of one element to another. The overall scale is determined by the size and proportions of the elements, their relationship to each other and to the building itself, as well as the spaces and buildings in view.

5. Rhythm: the relationship of building components, the relationship of buildings to each other, and the spaces in between, form a visual rhythm. This contributes to the excitement, comfort and charm of the area.

6. “360 degree” architecture: buildings, especially those on corner lots or with high visibility, should be aesthetically pleasing from all angles and sides. Details on each side of the building complement and enhance the primary street view

7. Building Articulation: 40 feet is an ideal width for storefronts. Pedestrians react positively to well-designed storefront variations at increments that do not exceed about 40 feet. This scale provides an intimacy to the neighborhood experience.

8. Building Facades
A. Clearly organize facades to have a base (bottom), street wall (middle), and cornice (top)
B. Design proportions of façade elements to be in harmony within the context 17 of the street
C. Design facades to be pedestrian-friendly
D. Design roof lines to be varied in height
E. Allow for architectural treatments and heights of up to 45’-0” and 55”. 45’- 0” provides height to place housing over retail uses. 55’ allows four floors of residential over podium parking. This is how vibrant neighborhoods are created.

9. Building Base
A. Visually anchor the building through good base design using wainscoting or other architectural elements
B. Provide visual interest and variety
C. Design in a scale complementary to human scale
D. The use of durable materials such as cast concrete, masonry and stone is encouraged

10. Building Street Wall
A. Reflect the patterns of the neighborhood
B. Structure meaningful urban massing using good street wall design C. Use color and texture to provide visual interest
D. Provide visual interest using windows, balconies, arcades, colonnades, awnings, reveals, step backs, moldings, and other changes in the vertical plane
E. Provide clear-glazed fenestration on approximately 50% of each building façade that abuts a pedestrian way

11. Building Cornice
A. Design parapets and roof elements with decorative treatments that clearly define the top of the building
B. Design roof lines to be varied in height
C. Consider the special articulation in the cornice above entries and building corners
E. The use of projecting cornices, lentils, caps, and other elements are encouraged
F. Finish the interior sides of parapets that are visible to be similar to the front sides

12. Building Entrances
A. Consider micro-climatic conditions such as solar orientation, wind and shadows when siting buildings and locating building entrances B. Orient building main entrances to streets or public spaces wherever possible or practical
18 C. Multiple entrances or corner entrances are encouraged at street corners to activate both street frontages
D. Locate sidewalk entrances to accommodate ease of pedestrian movement E. Articulate building entrances with canopies, awnings, special lighting and other features
F. Locate service entrances away from pedestrian entrances

13. Building Corners
A. Design buildings to be in compliance with City of Sacramento required visibility triangles
B. Use building corners to emphasize street intersections C. Consider increased pedestrian activity in the design of building corners

14. Tower Elements
A. The inclusion of tower elements is encouraged at corners and at view corridor terminuses
B. Integrate tower elements with the lower elements of the building

15. Roofs
A. Consider the aesthetics of rooftops as viewed from other buildings.

B. Screen rooftop mechanical equipment from public view

3.3 BUILDING DETAILS
Building details enhance buildings by promoting visual vitality through the use of interesting forms, textures, patterns, colors and shadows.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. General Guidelines
A. Finished building materials applied to all sides of a building B. A consistency of style maintained by using building materials, textures, colors, roof treatment and landscaping
C. Maintaining compatibility with exterior building materials in screening utility equipment
D. Blank walls on visible facades are strongly discouraged

2. Building entrances
A. Use of distinctive architectural elements and materials 19 3. Doors and windows
A. Organized to present a unified appearance except where variations are an integral and necessary part of the exterior design

4. Transparent glazing
A. Use of transparent glazing wherever practical
B. Dark tinted, opaque, or frosted glazing is acceptable only when required to screen views into a building
C. The use of simulated, reflective, mirrored or dark tinted glazing is strongly discouraged

5. Awnings
A. Awnings of translucent glazing, metal or canvas
B. The use of awnings to articulate the tops of doors and windows C. Lighting used to highlight awnings

6. Wall transitions
A. The use of columns and pilasters to articulate wall transitions is strongly encouraged

7. Cornice details
A. Offsets and jogs in cornices and parapets
B. Parapets of sufficient height to screen roof-mounted equipment from public view

8. Exterior Decorative Elements
A. The use of wall pattern treatments, changes in materials, building popouts and recessed areas are encouraged to create shadow patterns and depth on wall surfaces
B. Different portions of the building façade articulated to create images of buildings that have been developed over time
C. Display cases, which may be considered to add interest to large blank wall surfaces

9. Exterior Building Materials
A. Use of materials, roofing, color and lighting that is compatible with other buildings within Curtis Park Village
B. Use of materials that hold up well under public use
C. The use of masonry, concrete and cement plaster is encouraged 20 D. Provide a continuous (360 degree) treatment on all building facades.

10. Building Color
A. Use of colors that are harmonious with other colors within Curtis Park Village
B. The use of color is encouraged to create interest, focus, unity and compatibility for building surfaces and details
C. Provide a continuous (360 degree) color treatment on all building facades.

11. Gutters and downspouts
A. Painted to integrate with the building design

12. Sheet metal vents, pipe stacks and flashing
A. Painted to match adjacent materials

3.4 BUILDING UTILITIES
Utility service areas are building components or features that are necessary for a building’s function. It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Loading and delivery areas
A. Locate in less conspicuous places
B. Delivery areas designed so as not to impede traffic flow C. Delivery areas clearly distinguished from parking and driveway areas

2. Recycling and trash enclosures
A. Designed using similar materials and colors as the surrounding buildings B. Screened with a surrounding wall at least 6-feet high and with landscaping C. The use of landscaping to cover screen walls is encouraged D. Gated pedestrian entrance to the enclosure located to facilitate ease of access into the enclosure

4. Electrical service panels
A. Placed within enclosures that are architecturally integrated into the building design wherever possible
B. Consider placing electrical and communication equipment within buildings whenever possible
C. Utility company access provided as required.
21 5. Roof access
A. Roof access from the interior of the building
B. Exterior roof access ladders are strongly discouraged

6. Rooftop equipment
A. All roof-top equipment screened from public view if visible from the street and/or positioned to be invisible to the passerby
B. Mechanical equipment located below the highest vertical element of the building

3.5 SUSTAINABILITY
As a mixed-use infill project making use of a formerly brownfield site near the heart of the city, Curtis Park Village is by its nature improving the environmental footprint of the community. The impact can be further mitigated through architectural, construction and landscaping techniques.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Preparation of a ‘Green Development Plan’ is strongly encouraged

2. Siting and neighborhood fabric
A. Buildings sited to take advantage of passive solar design and to utilize natural breezes to assist heating and cooling systems when possible B. Provision of pedestrian and bicycle linkages
C. Provision of preferred parking for vanpools, carpools, car sharing services and bicycles

3. Site improvements
A. A storm water management plan developed for any new commercial structure
B. Landscaping used to shade and cool buildings and spaces and reduce the ‘urban heat island’ effect (the temperature increase due to development)

4. Water conservation
A. Use of water conserving appliances and fixtures
B. Provision of an efficient landscape irrigation system

5. Energy efficiency
22 A. All buildings shall meet or exceed California Building Code Title 24 requirements
B. Provision of energy-efficient lighting
C. Utilization of daylighting strategies
D. The use of photovoltaic (PV) systems or PV-ready structures is encouraged

6. Utilize materials beneficial to the environment wherever possible including:

A. The use of regional building materials and products is encouraged B. Preparation of a construction waste management plan to reduce impact on landfills, emphasize recycling and reuse of materials C. Use of recycled materials is encouraged
D. Roofing, paving and plantings designed to reduce Heat Island Effect

7. Healthy living environment
A. Use of construction materials with no or low volatile organic compounds (VOC’s)
B. Use of healthy and energy efficient HVAC systems and water heaters

3.6 SECURITY
A lively pedestrian streetscape is an important component in security and is enhanced by a feeling of safety and comfort. Appropriately arranged spaces, entries and buildings, and proper lighting can create safer, ‘defensible’ spaces. Safeguard property and promote public welfare and safety by providing minimum security standards to be used in the design, construction, alteration, and maintenance of buildings and facilities and the quality of materials used therein.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Visual corridors established by limiting dense landscaping near structures and at the periphery of parking areas

2. Each building shall display its well lit street number in a prominent location on the street side of the building so as to be easily visible and readable from the street

3. Building entrances should be enlivened and well-lighted

4. Possible crime risk areas, such as automatic teller machines, should be located in highly visible and well-lighted areas

5. Provide wide-angle door viewer at all exterior doors used to the side or rear 23 6. Operable windows constructed so that when they are locked, they cannot be lifted from the frame

7. Plants selected, trimmed, spaced and irrigated in a way that hampers the spread of fire and minimizes available fuel

8. Visibility of parking area entrances maximized from adjacent uses and public streets

9. Park and Lot V (Pedestrian Access) designed to include appropriate lighting and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design concepts

4.0 CIRCULATION AND PARKING

4.1 Streetscape and Circulation

4.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation

4.3 Parking Area Design

4.4 Street Sections

4.1 STREETSCAPE AND CIRCULATION
The character and feel of a community are in large part determined by its streetscape.

Curtis Park Village streetscape will respect and build on the distinctive identity of the Curtis Park neighborhood while allowing for innovation and enhancement.

The streetscape should provide visual continuity and be welcoming and engaging.

Streetscape elements should combine to provide an environment that is walkable, sustainable, safe, and attractive.

Curtis Park Village will have an intimacy of scale and a sense of community that will invite pedestrian use and interaction. This will contribute to the richness of the Curtis Park Village experience for residents and visitors.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Visual continuity of streetscape elements, such as parking, planters, landscaping, sidewalks, building scale and setbacks along each street

2. Sidewalks in conformance with the City of Sacramento standards

3. Tree canopy that is consistent and generous

4. Public areas well lighted without causing glare or light spill5.Utilization of traffic calming curb extensions, such as bulb-outs and neck-downs, and wide,well marked crosswalks, to promote safety of pedestrian-vehicle interface and as required by City of Sacramento street standards
24 4.2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
The success of Curtis Park Village as a community will be strongly linked to its success as a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly community. Creative design solutions that further enhance the walkability and connectivity of the area are strongly encouraged.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Pedestrians and bicyclists given the same importance as motor vehicles, and buffer them from the street where possible, according to City of Sacramento standards

2. Sidewalks and bicycle paths perceived as safe, clean and well-lit

3. Pedestrian-transit linkages intended to facilitate direct access to light rail stations and bus stops

4. Pedestrian paths and walkways
A. Convenient walkway access between uses and neighborhoods B. Clearly defined building entry zones through the use or combined use of elements such as accent paving, planting, potted plants, and bollards C. Enhanced paving, striping or other distinguishing design features to emphasize special areas

5. Whenever possible sidewalks will be separated from the street using vertical curbs, decorative bollards, parked cars, and/or street trees in order to provide a sense of protection for the pedestrian per City of Sacramento standards.

Attached sidewalks and rolled curbs can be used in limited locations where public streest serve Cottage or Court home lots.

6. Bicycle paths
A. Adequate and secure bicycle parking
B. Bicycle storage is encouraged at parking lots and places of employment C. Clearly marked bicycle storage

7. Signed bicycle lanes will be located along Road A and Road C within the commercial zone per City of Sacramento standards

8. Pedestrian/Bicycle Esplanade along the Neighborhood Park A 12 ft.wide concrete esplanadefor pedestrians and bicycles shall be constructed along the south and west edges of the neighborhood park boarding the Single- 25 Family Houses on the south side of the park (see Section 4.4 of these Design Guidelines for graphic depections of this condition at the Single-Family Houses).

A 20 foot wide esplanade allowing emergency and maintenance vehicle access along the north edge of the neighborhood park boarding the Single-Faily House on the north side of the park. These esplanades will provideoff-street pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the north Single-Family Housing area of Curtis Park Village and the south Single-Family Housing, Multi-Family Housing, Flex Zone, and Commercial areas in the south portion of Curtis Park Village. The esplanades shall be designed with City standard historic street lights and street trees to edge the esplanade to provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and bicyclists and to function as a public edge to the neighborhood park. The SingleFamily Homes shall face the park with entries and front doors on the esplande.

Vehicle parking will not be allowed to face the esplanade but will be contained in parking areas behind the Single-Family Homes in garages along the private driveways or the public street that runs along their respective northern and southern property lines of the Curtis Park Village site.

4.3 PARKING AREA DESIGN
Well designed parking areas can be comfortable to use, aesthetically pleasing and provide a sense of security to the user. Make parking areas easy for vehicles and pedestrians to access and navigate. Aesthetically blend parking areas into site plans.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Parking areas should be functional and efficient

2. Parking areas designed as well-defined spaces with landscaping, decorative lighting, and pedestrian walkways

3. Generously landscaped parking areas with shade trees to meet or exceed City of Sacramento parking lot shade requirements

5. Strong pedestrian linkage to parking areas.

6. Convenient and attractive areas for bicycle parking

7. Public perception of delivery areas limited or obscured

8. One or more of the following shall be used to buffer each parking area from a public sidewalk or street:

A A minimum 6’ wide planter planted with a combination of trees and shrubs B A fence shall be open with a minimum of at least 4’ of landscaping in front C Trellis structures with vines
D A site wall, maximum height of 4’, with decorative finish and details. 26 9. Shopping cart return areas within the retail developments shall be provided as needed and shall be designed to be integrated into the design of the commercial development

10. Parking shall be required for each use according to the City of Sacramento Zoning Code.

4.4 SPECIAL STREET and ESPLANADE SECTIONS
Sections at Esplanade at the Neighborhood Park

5.0 LANDSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE

5.1 Monument Features

5.2 Public Amenities Within Commercial Areas

5.3 Hardscape Materials and Treatments

5.4 Landscaping

5.5 Fencing and Walls

5.6 Private Art on Private Property
27 5.1 MONUMENT FEATURES
Monument features, strategically placed, provide unity throughout an entire neighborhood and create a “sense of place” within the community. Curtis Park Village shall have a hierarchy of monument features that announce a sense of arrival and create a sense of place upon entry. Scale of monumentation should be attuned with the size and use of the space. Each monument will highlight and strengthen the project’s design theme with consistent materials and landscape palette. Use landscape plantings and trees to complement project monumentation.

1. Major entry monument
A major entry monument feature may be placed at the entrance to Curtis Park Village on Road “A” north of the Sutterville Road/Road “A” intersection. This entry monument may include an arch and/or pylon entry monument subject to the final review and approval of the City Department of Transportation. The intent of the major entry monument is to:

A. Provide signature monumentation for the development that exemplifies an overriding design theme
B. Provide a major entry monument at the major entry to the project from Sutterville Road.

2. Minor entry monuments
Minor entry monument features may be placed at the entrances to residential villages, multi-family housing developments, or commercial areas within Curtis Park Village to differentate one area from others. These entry monuments may include pylon entry monuments and should have a consistent design throughout the project site with appropriate lettering designating the area. The intent of the minor entry monuments are to:

A. Provide minor entry monuments as a secondary level of signature for the development and in keeping with the design theme
B. Make minor entry monuments smaller than the major entry monument.

C. Locate minor entry monuments at the transition between the single family neighborhood zone and the mixed-use neighborhood zone

3. Minor entry monuments shall be constructed out of quality materials which are durable and long-lasting such as stone, brick, and metal in order to reduce the maintenance of monument features.
28 5.2 PUBLIC AMENITIES WITHIN COMMERCIAL AREAS
Public amenities may consist of seating, bollard, trash and recycling receptacles, bicycle racks, and information kiosks. The goal for the use of elements is to create enjoyable outdoor spaces and to provide comfortable amenities for relaxation and leisure. Street furniture is encouraged in outdoor areas to harmonize style, design and materials with surrounding buildings.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Seating
A. Provide a variety of seating alternatives such as benches and seat walls in outdoor spaces and walkways
B. Design spaces at a pedestrian scale
C. Enrich outdoor seating areas with landscaping, fountains, public art, and trellises

2. Bollards
A. Decorative bollards may be used to define edges of pedestrian and vehicle interfaces
B. Use to protect utilities and vulnerable elements from vehicle traffic C. Use of decorative bollards is encouraged whenever a bollard is necessary

3. Pedestrian trash and recycling receptacles
A. Place near benches and at regular intervals throughout area B. Details of the receptacles are to be sympathetic to the design of the buildings they serve and are to be visually pleasing within the streetscape

4. Bicycle racks
A. Place in easily accessible locations in clear public view B. Locate such that use of surrounding spaces is unimpeded

5. Trellises
A. Provide trellises to define outdoor spaces and seating areas B. Independently or combined with landscaping, trellises may be used to screen undesirable views
C. Use to contrast scale and mass of buildings
D. Trellises are to be constructed of durable materials to maintain the aesthetics of the trellis and reduce maintenance requirements 29 5.3 HARDSCAPE MATERIALS AND TREATMENTS
Good paving design enhances the cohesiveness of a neighborhood and provides visual cues about the purpose of spaces. Use a hierarchy of hardscape materials, textures and treatments to distinguish vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian pathways and linkages.

Landscape materials should be consistent with City of Sacramento standards.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Sidewalks
A. Maintain consistency with historic sidewalk patterns of the City of Sacramento B. Distance between scorelines to match sidewalk patterns found in the existing Curtis Park neighborhood
C. Scorelines to create 6” strip at each side of sidewalk parallel to street D. Scorelines ¼” wide by ¼” deep
E. Lamp black is to be used in the concrete mix to provide color consistency among separate pours consistent with City of Sacramento standards F. Specialty stamped paving associated with a building may be used to interrupt the standard sidewalk color and pattern at certain special locations, such as building entrances

2. Crosswalks
A. At selected paved crosswalks within the commercial areas of Curtis Park Village, stamped colored asphaltic concrete paving or other suitable material in durability and quality shall be used
B. Paving at crosswalks enhanced to be 15’ in width, with 2’ wide bands at edges per City of Sacramento standards

3. Enhanced street paving
A. Enhanced street paving shall be used at medians with turning lanes or tapered ends where the median is too narrow to support plant life or to be efficiently irrigated

5.4 LANDSCAPING
Thoughtful landscaping design in Curtis Park Village should complement the longestablished neighboring area, noted for its “urban forest” of shady old-growth trees and gracious plantings. Use landscaping to enhance architectural character, to define exterior spaces, and to promote a comfortable pedestrian experience.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:
30 1. Street trees
A. Plant a consistent network of street trees along travel corridors to establish shade, beauty, and human scale
B. Maintain visual order by planting street trees of the same genus and species along the length of any street per City of Sacramento standards C. Enhance identity of individual streets by varying genus or species D. Select trees on a performance basis with the objective of minimizing water use, providing shade, minimizing hazardous litter, minimizing root intrusion, and providing color and contrast
E. Select evergreen and deciduous or flowering trees in combination to create visual interest and a dynamic landscape
F. Plant street trees at approximately 30’ on center
G. Locate trees to allow for mature and long-term growth

2. Site landscaping
A. Select accent planting for entrances and key activity hubs B. Select planting to screen or separate less desirable areas from public view, such as dumpster enclosures, parking areas, storage areas, loading areas, and public utilities
C. Plant vines where appropriate along solid walls and screen fences D. Avoid short-lived plants, plants susceptible to disease, and large expanses of single plant varieties
E. Group plants in high- and low-maintenance zones as well as traffic zones, and hydrozones
F. Landscaping may be used to bio-filtrate storm water runoff

3. Irrigation and water conservation
A. Design irrigation systems to ensure the efficient use of water and to discourage vandalism
B. The use of low-water native plants is highly encouraged C. Control all automatic irrigation systems with a timer D. Use rain shutoff valves and moisture sensors to minimize overwatering E. Use plant materials or other attractive site elements to screen irrigation controls and pedestals from view
F. The use of drip or bubbler-type irrigation is encouraged to promote water conservation
G. Use conventional spray irrigation systems with head-to-head coverage for turf areas
H. Cover all exposed soil in planter areas with bark mulch to reduce moisture evaporation and to help control weeds
I. Comply with local and State of California applicable irrigation and water use standards
31 5.5 FENCING AND WALLS
Fences and walls provide security, privacy, visual screening and sound attenuation as well as separation between uses of differing intensities. If used in excess, fences and walls can discourage pedestrian movement between residential, commercial, and public use areas, and therefore should be used only where necessary.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Use of aesthetically pleasing, high-qualtiy fencing and wall materials to complement the character of the unique areas within Curtis Park Village

2. Fencing and walls coordinated with the architecture with which they are associated

3. Consideration of grafitti control when selecting fence and wall materials

4. Chain link fencing other than the existing colored chain link fencing along the west property line of the project providing separation between Curtis Park Village and the Union Pacific property is not allowed.

5. All private drive gates shall be placed a maximum of 20 feet behind the right-ofway to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. All gates shall provide sufficient area for the swing of the gate and shall be equipped with a Knox Box.

5.6 PRIVATE ART ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
Art placed where it can be viewed by people can enhance the personality and character of a community. Art adds visual interest, engages community members and visitors and creates a sense of place.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. The integration of art into the design of buildings and site.

2. Art located where it can be enjoyed by a large number of people: at sidewalks, intersections, plazas, and building entrances
A. Art can be created in small elements, such as tile banding on a stair riser, or in larger pieces, such as interpretive sculptures and functional art B. Art can be an interactive media, such as video projections, fountains or water elements
32 C. Art can be used as a wayfinding feature to attract pedestrians to key locations such as a plaza, or can be developed as murals D. Art can take the form of decorative detail on benches, walls, stairs and entries

3. Art that is responsive to the environment (eg: clocks, benches, bicycle racks)

4. Art may consist of both permanent and temporary installations

5. Coordination in the placement of art with other streetscape improvements to ensure a coherent character for the neighborhood

6. Consideration of safety and visibility in placement and size of art

6.0 SIGNAGE AND GRAPHICS

6.1 General Guidelines for Signs

6.2 Lighted Signs

6.3 Projecting Signage

6.4 Awnings

6.5 Window Signage

6.1 General Guidelines for Signs
Signs attract attention and provide information and directions. In Curtis Park Village signs are to enhance the visual quality of the space, have a consistent and aesthetically pleasing look, and assist wayfinding by pedestrian, bicycle and motor traffic. All signage must comply with the Sign Ordinance of the City of Sacramento.

In general, signs within Curtis Park Village should:

A. Be easy to read and decipher
B. Be simple in design
C. Enhance aesthetic environment through design consistency and quality D. Use colors that are compatible with those used throughout Curtis Park Village
E. Highlight the unique character of the neighborhood
F. Assist in wayfinding - the ability of a person to find his or her way to a given destination - in a safe and clear manner
G. Be designed to be vandal-resistant
H. Be designed so that electrical connections will not be visible on signs 33 6.2 Lighted Signs
Lighted signs at Curtis Park Village should be designed such that:

A. Lighted from a concealed light source, nonintrusive to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or to neighbors
B. The light for a sign originates from an indirect source C. Light is directed at the sign from an external, shielded lamp. Internal illumination of a sign is inappropriate
D. Halo and silhouette signs are encouraged
E. The sign is not illuminated by fluorescent light or backlighting F. No sign or part of a sign may move, rotate, flash or change its brightness G. A warm light, similar to daylight, is appropriate
H. The use of neon and/or incandescent bulbs may be considered I. Use neon in limited amounts so it does not become visually obtrusive J. Plastic internally illuminated sign cabinets are prohibited unless the sign is a plastic “punch-through” sign
K. Internal illumination of an entire sign panel is prohibited

6.3 Projecting Signage
Projecting signage is a building mounted sign with the faces of the sign perpendicular to the building fascia.

A. Projecting signage (sometimes referred to as “blade” signs) are encouraged along pedestrian paths
B. Design with maximum dimensions of 36-inches in width by 24-inches in height
C. Install with bottom edge of sign at approximately 8-feet above the pedestrian way

6.4 Awning signage
A sign painted or placed on an awning, canopy, structural projection or cover over a door, window, storefront, or outdoor service area, typically non-illuminated A. Use a simple text or logo design that will not detract from the overall streetscape

6.5 Window signage
Any sign or painting on a window, intended to be viewed from the outside.

A. Subtle in size and design
B. Use to cover no more than 15% - 30% of display window space C. Attractive lettering and graphics shall be used such that window signage does not appear cluttered or non-professional
34 7.0 LIGHTING

7.1 Building Lighting

7.2 Parking Lot Lighting

7.3 Pedestrian Area Lighting
Well-designed outdoor lighting is an integral component in the creation of an active, walkable neighborhood for use when natural light is not sufficient. Lighting in Curtis Park Village serves to illuminate buildings, spaces and signage, to provide an adequate level of personal safety while enhancing the appearance of the area and is to be based upon sustainable neighbor-friendly principles.

It is the intent of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines to encourage the following:

1. Lighting designed to provide ambiance, safety, and security without unnecessary spillover or glare onto adjacent properties

2. Use of current energy efficient fixtures and technology

3. Adequately lighted pedestrian areas, plazas, sidewalks and building entrances to provide safety and security

4. Light pole heights scaled to complement adjacent areas

5. When security lighting is needed, lighting design is used to prevent offsite glare and light trespass

6. Addressing special circumstances such as ‘areas in shadow’

7. Utilization of vandal-resistant fixtures

8. Lighting that meets IESNA standards

7.1 Building Lighting
A. Building light fixtures that are architecturally compatible with buildings and to complement the theme of the surrounding area
B. Good lighting provided at building entrances
C. Use architectural lighting to provide for the safety of pedestrian movement D. The use of lighting to wash primary walls and to highlight architectural features or detailing of building facades is encouraged E. No use of blinking, flashing lights, or exposed neon lighting to illuminate building facades or to outline buildings. Exception: temporary decorative lights, such as holiday lighting, may be allowed for temporary periods during the calendar year
35 F. No use of wall pack lighting on facades facing streets, parking or publicly accessible areas

7.2 Parking Lot Lighting
A. Human scaled lighting to illuminate pedestrian walkways within parking areas
B. Light standards that do not exceed 30’ in height for parking areas C. The ratio between maximum and minimum lighting levels shall not exceed 4:1
D. Fully integrated and coordinated lighting and tree plans to avoid conflicts E. Light standards and fixtures that meet minimum City of Sacramento illumination requirements

7.3 Pedestrian Area Lighting
A. In pedestrian areas, light fixtures compatible with other light fixtures in Curtis Park Village
B. Building facades fronting on public streets illuminated with a minimum of 3 foot-candles
C. Light standards for pedestrian areas shall not exceed 12’ in height D. Decorative free-standing or bollard-type fixtures used to provide lower intensity lighting where appropriate

8.0 SITE REMEDIATION STRATEGY

8.1 BACKGROUND
The Curtis Park Village site once housed railyard operations. In the early 1980’s, the site became surplus and was subsequently closed. The applicant purchased the property in 2003.

In 1995, the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) identified the Curtis Park Village site as contaminated with hazardous wastes from the railroad era operations. The hazardous wastes identified are common to former railroad operation areas and include, but are not limited to: Arsenic, Lead, Chromium, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, and Chlorinated Volatile Compounds. The site was characterized as a State Superfund site (a classification that is no longer in use), and as part of the clean-up process a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were approved by the DTSC in 1995. Soil remediation activities on the site have been on-going.
36 8.2 STRATEGY TO COMPLETE REMAINING SOIL REMEDIATION AND

ACHIEVE CERTIFICATION
By letter dated June 30, 2010, the Curtis Park Village owner submitted a “Proposed Excavation and Remediation Strategy” to the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), outlining a strategy to complete remediation of the Curtis Park Village site under the 1995 RAP, with certain modifications. The elements of the strategy as they affect the proposed development of the site are summarized as follows:

1. Categorization of Remaining Impacted Soil and Disposition All remaining impacted soil at the Curtis Park Village site will be excavated, stockpiled, profiled, and designated as one of six proposed categories (A through F) based on detected constituents. The proposed categories, and their intended disposition, are as follows:

A. Category A (unrestricted use) – Place as fill material within the commercial zone;
B. Category B (commercial use) – Place as fill material within arterial and commercial area streets;
C. Category C (metals exceeding commercial standards) – Off-site disposal via rail or truck, or eligible for placement into a soil containment cell (if constructed);
D. Category D (TPH exceeding cleanup standards) – Off-site disposal via rail or truck;
E. Category E (metals and TPH exceeding commercial standards) – Offsite disposal via rail or truck; and F. Category F (asbestos-containing material) – Off-site disposal via rail or truck.

On anticipation of approval of the proposed strategy, the Curtis Park Village project entitlements are conditioned to allow use of Category B soil as fill material within Road A (to the northern tip of the neighborhood park) and Road C and D that surround the Southern Commercial Area, as shown on the Tentative Map (Lot P).

2. Re-evaluation of Remedy
The new strategy intends to manage all impacted soil through on-site and offsite approaches that would not include an on-site containment cell. However, if Category C soil (as described above) exceeds 20,000 cubic yards, the cost of off-site disposal may be prohibitive, and an alternative approach to management and disposal would need to be evaluated. The Curtis Park Village owner will have the option to re-evaluate the soil remediation remedy and consider an on-site containment cell for retention of “Category C” soil that exceeds commercial cleanup standards. If and when re-evaluation is 37 required and an on-site containment cell is considered, the Curtis Park Village owner expects that an amendment to the 1995 RAP or equivalent document will be prepared for submission to, and hearing and action by, DTSC.

3. Resolution 2010-176: Location Priorities for Placing Containment Cell in Curtis Park Village Site
City Council Resolution No. 2010-176, adopted April 1, 2010, provides policy direction on, among other issues, the Curtis Park Village site remediation and, if considered as a remedy by the Curtis Park Village owner, the placement of a containment cell in the proposed neighborhood park site. Consistent with this policy direction, priorities for location of a containment cell on the Curtis Park Village project site shall be as follows:

A. First, two acres in the Flex Zone under parking;
B. Second, under a hard surface in the Village Green;
C. Third, under hard surface uses in the neighborhood park; Provided, that the Curtis Park Village owner is required to return to the City Council to ask for approval to place a containment cell in the park.

If there is no legal challenge to DTSC’s adoption of the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) or its accompanying environmental document, the owner of Curtis Park Village agrees not to request that the Council approve a containment cell under the neighborhood park in Curtis Park Village.

8.3 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPROVAL OF USE OF PARK SITE FOR

A CONTAINMENT CELL
The Curtis Park Village owner may apply for a modification to the conditions of approval of the Curtis Park Village project entitlements to allow for the placement of a containment cell under hard surfaces within the project’s proposed neighborhood park site if the amount of “Category C” soils in the project site exceeds 20,000 cubic yards and the cost of off-site disposal is found to be prohibitive. The application for modification of affected conditions shall be heard by the City Council concurrently with the master plan for the park, after hearing by the Planning and Design Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission.

8.4 2016 SITE REMEDIATION UPDATE
In a letter dated June 30, 2015 and titled “CERTIFICATION OF REMDIAl

ACTION, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, CURTIS PARK RAILYARD

SITE, SOIL OPERABLE UNIT, SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 38 CALIFORNIA” (attached in this document immediately following this section) the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), who oversees the remediation activities at the Curtis Park Village site, states the following:
“Remedial action was conducted in accordance with the 1995 approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and subsequent Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) documents. DTSC concurred with the completion of the soils cleanup in December 2013. Land use covenants were recorded in January 2015 for the inactive portion of the Rialyard and in June 2010 for Operable Unit S-5 (Active Yard). By this letter, DTSC herby certifies that the final remedial actions for the soil at the Site have been properly implemented.”
With this letter the soils on the Curtis Park Village site have been deemed to be remediated to unrestricted standards for development.

The letter further states that groundwater remediation at the Site will continue pursuant to the enforceable agreement and the operations and maintenance plan. The groundwater remediation consists of pumping a plume that is off-site to the southeast of Curtis Park Village and the water is pumped and discharged into the City of Sacramento sewer system. This should continue for several more years. No groundwater activities continue on the Curtis Park Village site itself. 39 40
41 Appendix A:

Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design
Guidelines
42 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………… 44
Purpose of the Design Guidelines…………. 44
The City’s Commitment to Sustainability… 44
How to Use the Design Guidelines………… 45
Project Review Process……………………… 45

HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE CURTIS
PARK VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD………………. 46
Residential History and Neighborhood
Context…………………………………………. 46
Residential Character Area of Curtis Park
Village…………………………………………… 47

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES…………………………………………. 48
Site Design…………………………………….. 48
1 Setbacks and Orientation……….. 48
2 Scale and Mass…………………… 50
3 Number of Stories………………… 51
4 Garages…………………………….. 52
5 Parking……………………………… 53
Architecture…………………………………….. 54
6 Architectural Character and
Detailing ……………………… 55
43 7 Roof Styles……………………. 55
8 Entry Features……………….. 56
9 Doors…………………………... 57
10 Windows………………………. 58
11 Siding………………………….. 59
12 Roofing………………………… 60
13 Lighting and Addresses……. 61
Site Elements……………………………… 63
14 Landscaping…………………… 63
15 Irrigation………………………… 64
16 Fencing…………………………. 65
17 Paving/Hardscape Surfaces… 66
18 Utilities and Storage Facilities. 67
19 Access Ramps…………………. 68
44 INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Design Guidelines
The Curtis Park Village Single Family Home Design Guidelines have been specifically developed for the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development. They are intended to provide consistent design principles for single family residential structures that contribute to the creation of neighborhoods with a strong, cohesive sense of place and improve the overall character of neighborhoods by making them attractive, safe and inviting places to live.

These Design Guidelines have been created for use by residents, developers, design professionals, City of Sacramento planning staff and appropriate City hearing bodies.

They are intended to facilities the review process outlined in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development Guidelines and Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code by helping applicants and City planning staff identify major design issues and devise solutions early in the application process. In summary, these Design Guidelines are intended to:
• Create a positive sense of place and enhance community identity; • Promote neighborhood pride;
• Encourage high-quality development and provide creative design solutions and options;
• Provide clear and usable design direction to project applicants, developers, designers, and City planning staff;
• Protect and enhance property values and community economic viability; and • Facilitate a clear and expeditious project review process.

Projects will be reviewed for compliance with the design principles identified in this document. Although it is understood that not all design principles will be applicable to all proposed projects, conformance with relevant principles is required.

Overall, these Design Guidelines are intended to encourage consistent designs while allowing for variety and innovation. City planning staff will review all applications on the basis of the guidelines in this document.

The City’s Commitment to Sustainability
In 2006, the Sacramento City Council adopted a vision for the city reflecting the Council’s commitment to “sustainability and livability.” Based on the council’s vision, the City continues to develop and refine standards and guidelines intended to influence a sustainable and livable design of future development in Sacramento.

In the meantime, these Design Guidelines include a number of specific guidelines that promote environmentally responsive site, building and landscaping design. 45 How to Use the Design Guidelines
Each subsection in the Design Guidelines is organized to include some or all of the following elements:

Design Principle
The design principle is a general concept that must be met by all projects and forms the basis for individual design guidelines.

Rationale
The rationale explains the key features of a design principle and how it relates to the neighborhood context.

General Design Standards and Guidelines
The general design standards and guidelines provide suggestions for high performance building and landscape design in accordance with stated design principles and rationale.

Sustainability Guidelines
The sustainability guidelines give suggestions for providing environmentally responsive site, building and landscape design.

Project Review Process
The design of single family residences in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) is subject to City review as noted in the PUD Guidelines and as required by Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code (The Zoning Code). In most cases, staff level review will be required, but Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission review may be required for some projects. Applicants for development should expect to communicate with planning staff at several key junctures in the application process.

Once a project has been approved by City staff or the appropriate City hearing body an application for a building permit may be submitted.
46 HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE CURTIS

PARK VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD
Residential History and Neighborhood Context
These Design Guidelines are intended to result in the development of single-family residential areas in Curtis Park Village that reflect the quality and design of the existing Curtis Park neighborhood that surrounds the project site to the north and east. Now one of the most mature and desirable neighborhoods in Sacramento, Curtis Park was originally developed from ranch and farm land and is one of the city’s early suburbs.

The development of Curtis Park can be traced back to October 1887 when an auction was held to sell lots in “Highland Park”, an early subdivision in the City of Sacramento, followed by West Curtis Oaks, Curtis Oaks, South Curtis Oaks and East Curtis Oaks subdivisions to become the Curtis Park neighborhood that we know today. Curtis Park continued to develop during the early 20th century as one of the “streetcar neighborhoods”. Curtis Oaks and West Curtis Oaks, in addition to the Highland Park subdivision all became part of the growing residential community of Curtis Park. In 1907 and 1909 right-of-way and land was deeded to the Western Pacific Railroad on the west side of the Curtis Park neighborhood. The railroad site was to be used for the shops and railyards to serve the needs of the Western Pacific in Sacramento. This is the area that contains the 72 acres of the Curtis Park Village site.

Home designs in Curtis Park Village are intended to reflect the design and pattern of homes found in the existing Curtis Park neighborhoods. These houses tend to be predominately bungalows, both single and two story, in a variety of eclectic styles including California Mission, Arts and Crafts, English/Storybook cottage and Tudor Revival, among others. Newer infill homes and remodels of existing homes throughout Curtis Park reflect both tradition and contemporary influences. Many infill and remodeled homes are two stories in height in response to the challenge of building larger homes on smaller lots to accommodate changing lifestyles. While cement plaster is a common exterior cladding material, a variety of exterior finishes including wood lap siding, brick, and some stone can also be seen with new construction generally reflective of the quality and detail of the original homes in the neighborhood. 47 Residential Character Area of Curtis Park Village
The designs to be emulated in the single family homes within Curtis Park Village can be found in the established neighborhoods of Curtis Park and Land Park. The Residential Character Area of these design guidelines can be described as north of Sutterville Road, south of 2nd Avenue, west of Franklin Boulevard, and east of Land Park Drive.

The homes within the described Residential Character Area represent a variety of eclectic architectural styles including Victorian, Queen Ann, Craftsman, Bungalow, Sacramento Highwater, California Mission, English Country Cottage (Storybook Cottage), Tudor Revival, Curtis Park vernacular, and various period revival styles.

Although a few streets represent a mixture of styles, many blocks and streets have some consistency of style and materials, representing the numerous small subdivisions constructed by the firms developing the area at the time.

Of the many styles represented, Craftsman, Mediterranean and California Mission influences are perhaps the most common. These homes tend to be one, one-and-a-half and two stores in height with gable roofs and front porches with sturdy, square or round support columns particular to the Craftsman style. Common building materials include wood, brick, and plaster.
48 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

GUIDELINES
Site Design
Site design addresses a home’s location on the lot, its orientation toward the street and adjacent buildings, and its overall layout relative to the site. The site design of infill homes and additions to existing homes should emphasize respect for the context of established structures. In addition, new homes, infill homes, and additions, where appropriate, should:
• reflect the scale of existing homes on the block and the Curtis Park Village Residential Character Area;
• in most cases, the home should be located toward the front of the lot with minimal setbacks;
• provide an entry facing the street or easily identifiable from the street to create a welcoming appearance and to give homes “curb appeal”;
• minimize the appearance of the garage by locating it at the side or rear of the home; and
• minimize the appearance of mass in two-story homes with an articulated façade. 1 Setbacks and Orientation
Design Principle
The front setback and the placement of the home on the lot shall correspond to setbacks as defined in this document.

Rationale
Setbacks may be slightly varied to create interest but should contribute to the established assemblage of homes on the block and help to form a “streetwall” on the public right-of-way. Front yard setbacks shall conform to the setback standards stated below.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

1.1 Homes should be oriented toward the front of the lot with front entries facing the street or easily identifiable from the street to encourage an active visual relationship with the street. Homes adjacent to private drives should have garages accessed from the private drives.

1.2 Construction should generally be parallel to lot lines. 49 1.3 Infill structures should reinforce the existing rhythm of building widths and setbacks.

1.4 The front setback shall be measured from the back of sidewalk, all other setbacks shall be measured from the property line. Minimum setbacks shall be consistent with the following:

Lots Adjacent to Private Drives
Front: 12.5' to 20’
Side: 3’
Corner Lot Side (45' wide typical): 10'
Rear (Garage along private drive): 3'-6”
Rear (Main structure): 10'
Maximum Lot Coverage: As identified per size of lot listed below.

Traditional Single Family (50' x 100’ to 120” typical)
Front: 12.5’ to 20’
Side: 5'
Corner Lot Side (55' typical):10'
Rear: 10'
Maximum Lot Coverage: 50 percent
Deep Lots (lots deeper than 120’)
Front: 15' to 20’
Side: 5'
Corner Lot Side (55' typical):10'
Rear: 15’
Maximum Lot Coverage: 50 percent
Brownstone Lots (30'x 80’ typical, zero lot line to minimal side setback) Front: 12’-6”
Side: 0' or 5', depending on placement of home on adjacent lot Rear (Garage along private drive): 3'-6”
Maximum Lot Coverage: 60 percent
Cottage Infill Lots (zero lot line to minimal side setback) Front: - 12’ along public ROW, 5’ to 10’ on private drive Side - 0' to 5’
Rear - 0'
Maximum Lot Coverage: 60 percent
50 Court Lots, Typical Lot Size 35’ X 75’ (zero lot line to minimal side setbacks) Front: - 12.5’ along public ROW, 5’’ on court
Side - 0' to 5’
Rear - 0'
Maximum Lot Coverage: 80 percent
Sustainability Guidelines

1.5 Homes should be designed and oriented on the lot to maximize solar access on southern exposures so that such features as photovoltaic solar panes and daylight can be incorporated into the design of the home, when feasible. 2 Scale and Mass
Design Principle
Although one and one-and-one-half story homes are allowed, most homes within Curtis Park Village are anticipated to be two to two-and-one-half stories in height. Homes shall be compatible with the overall scale and mass of other homes on the block and in Curtis Park Village and the Residential Character Area.

Rationale
The scale and mass of homes within Curtis Park Village are intended to be exemplary in engaging the diversity of the existing Curtis Park neighborhood. The establishment of a “streetwall” along public rights-of-way and a consistency of scale and mass are desirable in the neighborhoods of Curtis Park Village. Homes and additions to existing homes should respect each other and earlier established homes by minimizing the appearance of building and mass through site layout and architectural design.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

2.1 Homes should be oriented perpendicular to the street whenever possible to minimize the appearance of mass.

2.2 The mass of a larger structure should be broken down into smaller components that are similar in scale to other buildings in the neighborhood.

2.3 Wherever possible, the garage shall be located to the rear of the primary residence (See also Section 4, Garages) with the exception of the Cottage and Court lots where the garage may be located at the front of the home due to the lot and access configuration
51 2.4 Contemporary homes are typically constructed as concrete slab-on-grade. The concrete slab of the newer home should be treated in one or more of the following ways:
• The height of the slab could be increased to match established/typical floor levels relative to the street.
• The soil under the slab could be graded so that it is above the grade of the surrounding yard.
• The home could be constructed with raised wooden subfloor. In this case, the home could also have a raised entry that steps down to the ground level.

General Design Standards and Guidelines for Additions

2.5 Additions should respect the massing, scale, and height of the primary structure.

2.6 Additions should not visually interfere with but complement the original structure.

2.7 Additions that are taller than the original building should be located at the rear of the building so that the new addition does not visually overpower the original structure.

2.8 Large additions should be broken down into smaller, varied components that relate to the scale and massing of the original structure Sustainability Guidelines

2.9 Solar access for daylighting and solar panels should be considered in massing design. Glazing should be located predominantly on the north and south sides of the home. Glazing on the west side of the home should be minimized unless the west side of the structure is the street side.
3 Number of Stories
Design Principle
One to three story homes are acceptable in Curtis Park Village. The structures should be designed to minimize the appearance of mass of the third story. All homes shall meet the height requirements of the zone as stated in Sacramento City Code Title 17 (The Zoning Code).

Rationale
52 Although there are many two-story homes in Curtis Park, the majority of homes are one story. Because two and three story homes have the capacity to appear out of scale with other homes on a block they should be carefully designed so as not to overwhelm adjacent one-story homes.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

3.1 The front of the home should not present an unbroken two or three story wall to the street. Facades should be articulated to break up the surface, add interest and minimize the appearance of mass. Articulation should include at least two of the following features:
• protruding or recessed façade surfaces
• bow, bay, or dormer windows
• horizontal elements such as cornices, window lintels, or horizontal bands:
• porches or porticoes

3.2 All sides of the homes should be given visual interest through the careful placement of windows, while also protecting the privacy of the adjacent home. No side of a multi-story home should present an entirely blank façade. Finishes and materials shall be consistent on all sides of the structure.

3.3 Porches and porticoes in multi-story homes should be one story to maintain the proportion and context of the surrounding homes on the block and provide an inviting entry with pedestrian scale to the street. (See also Section 8, Entry Features)

3.4 Architectural elements, such as dormers, multiple gables, and windows, should be added to the upper stories to create articulation and break up the façade. 4 Garages
Design Principles
The garage shall be placed at the rear of the primary residence whenever possible to minimize its visibility from the street, and shall match the character and materials of the residence. Cottage and Court Homes that face the motor entry court are allowed to have garages facing the front of the home.

Rationale
53 To emphasize the front entryway and porch and minimize the prominence of the garage, the garage should be placed at the rear of the home. The garage can be placed along the side of the residential lot provided that the garage is recessed well behind (i.e. 18’) the front façade of the house.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

4.1 Garages shall conform to all relevant City of Sacramento regulations and guidelines.

4.2 On-site parking may be an attached or a detached garage. Attached garages on Traditional Lots should be recessed a minimum of 18 feet behind the front façade (the main front wall) of the home. Garages on homes on Cottage and Court Lots should be recessed a minimum of 3 feet behind the front façade (the main front wall) of the home whenever possible.

4.3 Detached garages are recommended when feasible. If private drive access is available, detached garages shall be placed in the rear yard. When private drive access is not feasible, front access is acceptable such as on the Cottage and Court Lot homes.

4.4 Garage design, siding, roofing, trim, and window materials should match the material used on the home.

4.5 Garage doors facing the private drives shall have remote control opening.

4.6 Many older homes in Curtis Park have Porte-cocheres along the side of the home with detached garages at the rear of the lot. Porte-corcheres are allowed provided they meet City Code requirements. The Porte-corchere should be designed to the same standard as the residential structure or a front porch and compatible with the overall design of the structure.

Sustainability Guidelines

4.7 Single-car garages or tandem garages are encouraged to reduce the extent of paved driveway areas.

4.8 Reduced private drive aprons are encouraged to decrease pavement runoff.

4.9 Garage doors should include clear top panels for natural lighting. 5 Additional On-Site Parking and Driveways
Design Principle
Any additional on-site parking shall be located at the side or rear of the lot, whenever 54 feasible, to minimize parking along the façade facing the street and afford an unobstructed and attractive view of the home.

Rationale
In many of the city’s older neighborhoods, over time, extensive driveway paving and parking has occurred in the front setbacks, taking away from the original character of the neighborhood. Development should place driveways and parking pads toward the side of the lot so that the front yard is visually attractive and can be landscaped.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

5.2 Unless specifically allowed in the Curtis Park Village PUD Development Guidelines, parking shall conform to all relevant City of Sacramento regulations and guidelines.

5.3 Private drive access is preferred in areas where it is feasible within Curtis Park Village.

5.4 Concrete is the typical residential driveway paving material. Alternative driveway paving surfaces, such as mortared brick or concrete pavers, and tinted concrete, are encouraged to minimize the appearance of monotonous paved front yards.

Permeable materials, such as pavers, cobblestone, or similar treatments, are also recommended paving materials for driveways. Driveway strips with turf between the strips are another desirable alternative. Alternative treatments must be approved by the relevant reviewing agencies per City development standards for paving surfaces.

5.5 Shared driveways are utilized on Cottage and Court Lots and shall be encouraged, where feasible, to minimize the paved area in front of the homes.

ARCHITECTURE
Architecture addresses the built form of the home, along with its detailing. Homes and additions to homes should respect the architectural style of established homes on the block, while also reflecting contemporary construction methods.

Curtis Park has experienced decades of infill development which lends interest and variety to the neighborhood. The new homes in Curtis Park Village can continue this trend by bringing fresh new style while still emphasizing respect for the overall scale of the existing Curtis Park neighborhood.

All architectural elements should be constructed of high-quality materials to promote longevity and a pleasing appearance. Variety of design and materials is desirable within the single-family home area of Curtis Park Village if complementary to the existing Curtis Park neighborhood context.
55 6 Architectural Character and Detailing
Design Principle
Homes shall be designed in an architectural style that complements the best examples of existing residential development in the Curtis Park neighborhood.

Rationale
Structures that are compatible with the existing Curtis Park neighborhood will contribute to a sense of place and add to the character of the area helping to knit the former railyards back into the urban environment and the neighborhood. Use of stylistically cohesive, character-defining features, such as porches, columns, balustrades, brackets, rafter ends, and decorative trim enhances visual compatibility.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

6.1 Architectural design should complement the architectural styles of the existing homes in the Curtis Park neighborhood.

6.2 New stylistic interpretations of traditional architecture are encouraged.

Contemporary concepts should follow fundamental design principles without copying them. Architectural features and detailing should be proportional to the scale of the home, as well as to other homes on the block of a similar architectural style.

6.3 Additions should be designed with architectural details that are similar to those of the existing structure.

6.4 Individual elements in a structure should be consistent with that structure’s overall design or style.

6.5 All elevations should be given equal design treatment and architectural consideration including the use of consistent materials on all facades of the structure.
7 Roof Styles
Design Principle
The design of a roof shall correspond to the prevailing designs of roofs on homes in the existing Curtis Park neighborhood and the roof design shall be compatible with the overall design and architectural style of the home. The design of the roof on additions 56 and renovations shall correspond to the roof style and pitch of the existing structure.

Rationale
The pitch, style, and orientation of the roof on a home should be similar but not necessarily identical to the roof styles of the surrounding homes on the block. Roofs pitches and materials should be complementary from home to home but should also be in keeping with the architectural style and design of the individual home. However, the pitch, style, and orientation of the roof on a renovation or addition should be identical to that of the existing home. Any crossing gables should match the established pitch and style of the existing roof.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

7.1 The roof pitch, overhang and exposed rafter tails on structures should be compatible with the architectural style of the home.

7.2 Whenever possible the roof pitch, overhang and exposed rafter tails should be similar to those of existing homes on the block and in the Curtis Park Village Residential Character Area.

7.3 Flat roofs are discouraged and should only be used when appropriate for the architectural style of the structure.

7.4 Infill homes should respect the primary gable orientation of the majority of existing homes on the block.

7.5 The roof forms and slope of additions should be similar to those of the original structure. The roof of additions should be subordinate to that of the primary building. Gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for additions.

7.6 A dormer should be compatible with the scale of the primary structure. The number and size of dormers should not be visually overwhelming. Dormers should be placed at least 18 inches below the ridgeline of the primary roof.

7.7 Roof overhang ranging from 18 to 36 inches are encouraged to promote window shading and building longevity when appropriate to the architectural design of the home.
8 Entry Features
Design Principle
Homes shall have an entry feature such as a porch, overhang feature, or stoop that faces the street or the entry motor court whenever possible and defines the entry to the home from the street.
57 Rationale
Entry features accent the front façade of a home and add visual interest. Entry features and their components, such as columns and steps, should be proportional to the overall scale of the home.

Porches and other entry features are common architectural elements in homes in Curtis Park Village Residential Character Area. Porch elements in these older homes differ greatly, ranging from solid, square columns of Craftsman homes, to the deep recesses and covered walkways of California Mission Revival homes, to the delicate turned balusters in Queen Anne homes. Entry features should be consistent in design and scale with the architectural style of the home and the predominant style of the block while providing diversity and interest to the home and the block from the street.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

8.1 Clearly distinguished entry features are encouraged on all homes.

8.2 Entry porches and porticoes in two and three story homes should be one story to minimize the appearance of bulk and offer an appropriately scaled pedestrian entry to the home.

8.3 Entry features should be built to a minimum depth of 6 feet from the front of the entry feature to the front façade of the home: however, shallower entry features will be considered on a case-by-case basis and on smaller lot homes in the Cottage and Court Home areas.

8.4 The scale and style of porch and portico elements should be consistent with the scale and style of the home.

8.5 Porches and portico columns should be given some form of detailing, such as a defined plinth and capital, as appropriate to the architectural style of the home.

8.6 Porch columns and railings should be constructed of high-quality materials that complement the materials used in the overall exterior of the home. 9 Doors
Design Principle
Doors shall be made of high-quality materials and include decorative elements such as raised panels, sidelights, and transoms that are appropriate to the overall design of the home.

Rationale
58 Doors are an important architectural feature that offers security and visual appeal. For this reason, doors should be made of high-quality materials that protect the home, while also offering aesthetic appeal through decorative elements that correspond to the style of the home.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

9.1 Doors are character-defining features of a home and should be appropriately designed to contribute to the overall composition of the house.

9.2 Doors should not be flat surfaces, but should include raised panels, glass, or other forms of detailing and articulation appropriate to the architectural style of the home.

9.3 Doors should be of high-quality material, such as solid-core wood or metal.

High-quality metal framing can afford enhanced security and fire protection and should be considered. Whether wood or metal, door framing should be slightly recessed or extended to lend interest and definition to the entry.

9.4 Horizontal sliding doors are highly discouraged on the public side(s) of the home. 10 Windows
Design Principle
Windows shall be constructed of high-quality materials and designed to complement the style of the home.

Rationale
High-quality materials and construction techniques ensure the longevity of windows and enhance their aesthetic appeal.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

10.1 Windows should complement the style of the home.

10.2 Single or double hung windows as well as casement windows are encouraged.

Horizontal sliding windows are discouraged.

10.3 Windows with multiple panes provide interest and definition to a home’s façade and are encouraged.

10.4 Window frames, sash, trim, and sills may be wood, vinyl, or a paintable fiberglass composite. Other compositions will be considered on a case by case basis. 59 10.5 A consistent window treatment should be used on all sides of the building.

10.6 Reflective or tinted glass and opaque plastic skylights are discouraged.

10.7 Windows should have decorative trim and projecting sills consistent with the architectural style of the home.

10.8 Windows used in additions and renovations should be similar to those in the primary structure.

Sustainability Guidelines

10.9 The use of insulating or energy efficient glazing is encouraged to increase energy efficiency.

10.10 Prismatic glazing is encouraged to increase the energy efficiency of skylights.

10.11 Daylighting should be incorporated into the architectural design of the home, to increase energy efficiency.
11 Siding
Design Principle
The siding used on a home or addition shall be durable, consistent with the style and character of the home, and complement the siding material used on other homes on the block.

Rationale
Siding should not only complement the style of a new home but should be consistent with siding materials commonly used on other homes in the neighborhood and consistent with the architectural style of the structure to avoid appearing out of context.

Siding materials in additions and renovations should match the siding on the existing home to the greatest extent possible.

Common siding materials used on homes in the Curtis Park Village Residential Character Area include brick, stone, wood lap siding, wood shingles, and cement plaster. The predominant material depends on the predominant architectural style of the home.

General Design Standards and Guidelines
60 11.1 Wood lap siding, wood shingles, brick, stone, and cement plaster (stucco) are acceptable materials. The siding should always reflect the architectural style of the house and be appropriate for the design.

11.2 Wood lap siding should be applied horizontally and should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish used on other homes on the block and appropriate to the architectural style of the home.

11.3 Several lap siding materials are available with some recommended over others.

Lap siding of wood or cement fiber is recommended. Lap siding of vinyl, grooved plywood, and aluminum are not recommended.

11.4 Cement plaster (stucco) must be smooth or imperfect smooth troweled texture.

Spray-on stucco is not allowed and foam trim sprayed with stucco should be avoided.

11.5 The use of two materials, with one employed as wainscoting, should be considered in order to add to the interest of the home. Change of materials in upper gables is recommended to break-up the overall mass of the home.

11.6 Avoid highly reflective siding materials such as metal, glass, plastic, and vinyl.

11.7 The color, texture, bonding pattern, and grout profile of brick should be similar to established uses of brick on the buildings in the Residential Character Area. 12 Roofing
Design Principle
Roofing on homes in Curtis Park Village shall be durable and complement the architectural style of the home. Roofing on an addition or renovation shall be durable and complement the roofing on the existing home.

Rationale
Roofing materials should be durable to ensure their attractiveness and continued functionality for many years. Roofing materials should also be suitable for context. For example, high-quality metal roofing may be appropriate in some rural or resort settings but is uncommon in the Curtis Park neighborhood and therefore may be considered inappropriate.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

12.1 Roofing materials must have a minimum 30 year guarantee. Roofing with a 40 year guarantee or greater is encouraged.
61 12.2 The color and materials used for roofing should complement the color and architectural style of the home. Accent colors may be used but they should not overwhelm the home or clash with other homes on the block.

12.3 The following materials are recommended: laminated dimensional (asphalt) shingles, wood shingles/shakes, laminated dimensional fiberglass shingles, lightweight concrete shingles, terra cotta tile or lightweight concrete tile, or slate shingles.

12.4 Metal roofing is typically inappropriate and is discouraged.

12.5 Composition shingles should only be rolled over side barge boards when appropriate to the overall design of the structure.

12.6 Ogee gutters should be used on structures with a traditional style of architecture.

Fascia gutters are more appropriate to ranch style and more contemporary homes.

Sustainability Guidelines

12.7 Photovoltaic solar panels or solar shingles such as “solar slate” are encouraged to reduce the home’s use of energy from conventional sources.

12.8 Homeowners are encouraged to consider roofing options that include recycled content.

12.9 The use of “cool roof” options, including lighter colored roofing and reflective coatings, is encouraged to achieve energy efficiency.
13 Lighting and Addresses
Design Principle
Exterior light fixtures shall be consistent with the architectural style of the home and shall provide adequate illumination of the front entry and address(es) so that both are clearly visible from the street.

Rationale
To assist emergency vehicles and contribute to the safety of the home, address lettering should be affixed near the door and should be large enough to be seen from the street.

Lighting fixtures should be adequate to illuminate the address(es) and the front entryway to the home.

General Design Standards and Guidelines
62 13.1 Light contributes to the security of the home and is required for the front entryway, walkways, and garage area. Recessed entryways should be clearly lit.

13.2 Lighting fixtures should be designed for exterior use and should be weather resistant.

13.3 The address should be illuminated and clearly visible at night.

13.4 The address numbers should be 4 to 8 inches high.

13.5 The preferred location to display the address is affixed to the front of the home, adjacent to the front door. If structural considerations preclude affixing the address adjacent to the front door then the address may be attached on the front of the home as long as it is still clearly visible from the street and illuminated at night.

13.6 Lighting fixtures should be directed away from adjacent areas to minimize light pollution.

13.7 Light fixtures and address numbers style and design are to be consistent with the architectural style of the house.

Sustainability Guidelines

13.8 Compact fluorescent bulbs and photocell sensors are encouraged to achieve energy efficiency.
63 SITE ELEMENTS
Site elements include those features that are auxiliary to the home, such as landscaping, fencing, and paving. Site elements are typically used to enhance the appearance and functionality of the home.

High-quality site elements can increase the beauty and value of the home and, when carefully selected, can also contribute to the visual continuity of the street and the neighborhood.
14 Landscaping
Design Principle
Landscaping shall be used around the home to positively contribute to its’ appearance and give a sense of visual continuity along the street. The front yard shall be planted with landscaping materials that may include a mixture of turf, groundcover, and decorative shrubs.

Rationale
A variety of landscaping plants and materials can contribute to a positive sense of place in a neighborhood. Trees provide shade, reduce energy consumption in the summer, help to filter air pollution, and provide visual interest along the street. The neighborhoods surrounding Curtis Park Village have many mature trees that contribute to the positive character of the area. Curtis Park Village will include planting of many trees that, in time, will reflect the surrounding neighborhoods and contribute to the urban forest of the City of Sacramento.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

14.1 Landscaping shall conform to all relevant City regulations and guidelines, including Sacramento City Code Chapter 17.68.010, “Landscaping Requirements”.

14.2 Alternatives to turf, such as groundcovers that can tolerate foot traffic and native grasses, are encouraged.

14.3 Bare soil should be planted or mulched with bark, stone, or other suitable materials to avoid unnecessary runoff.

14.4 A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback of the Traditional Single Family homes. A minimum of two trees should be planted at homes on corner lots where the size of the yard permits full canopy growth.

Trees for the Brownstones and Cottage Infill homes shall be determined at the time of project review as required by Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code. 64 14.5 Street trees should be provided at a maximum of 30 feet apart in the street tree planter between the curb and the sidewalk subject to the final approval of the City Department of Transportation, Urban Forest Division. Consult the City Urban Forest Division for questions regarding the selection and care of street trees.

Private tree services are available for consultation before trimming or removal of mature trees on private lots.

14.6 Refer to the following lists for more information about recommended species:
• Sacramento Tree Foundation
www.sactree.com/treeinfor/treesWeOffer.html
• Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
www.smud.org/residential/saving/trees/index.html
• City of Sacramento Department of Transportation, Urban Forestry Division
www.cityofsacramento.org/transportation/urbanforest/index.html

14.7 Plant species should be suitable for the Sacramento climate. Low-water landscaping materials are encouraged to conserve water.

14.8 Trees species should be selected so that the canopy of each tree at full growth can be accommodated by the site. A variety of tree species representing a range of sizes will contribute to the visual interest of the yard and is recommended.

Sustainability Guidelines

14.9 Homeowners are particularly encouraged to plant deciduous shade trees and shrubs that shade the east, south, and west sides of the home to minimize solar heat gain and increase energy efficiency. Shade trees should be planted to shade paved areas to reduce heat island effects and increased energy consumption.
15 Irrigation
Design Principle
Irrigation is essential to maintain the health and beauty of a home’s landscaping.

Rationale
The seasonal extremes of the Sacramento climate make regular irrigation of planted areas mandatory to maintain the integrity of landscaping. Automatic irrigation ensures regular and consistent watering and promotes healthy landscaping. 65 General Design Standards and Guidelines

15.1 An automatic irrigation system shall be installed in the front yard to provide consistent coverage of all planted areas. A home on a corner lot should have an automatic irrigation system that covers the yard fronting both streets. Automatic controllers with rain shut-off valves provide greater water conservation.

15.2 The homeowner is responsible for the irrigation of and the maintenance of the irrigation system and landscaping in the front planter strip between the curb and the sidewalk along the street. All irrigation of turf areas shall meet relevant State and City codes and regulations.

15.3 Turf and groundcover are more effectively irrigated with a conventional spray system. Head-to-head spray coverage is recommended. Avoid overspray onto sidewalks and adjacent properties.

15.4 A drip irrigation system is recommended for shrubs and trees to provide deeper, more even watering. Drip irrigation also permits greater water conservation than a conventional spray system.

15.5 Irrigation controls must be screened from view by landscaping or other attractive site materials.

Sustainability Guidelines

15.6 Development shall comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements of the Sacramento City Code, Chapter 15.92 and applicable State laws. 16 Fencing
Design Principle
Fencing must be of high quality materials that are consistent with the style of the home to enhance the overall character of the home and contribute to the positive appearance of the neighborhood.

Rationale
Fencing should be selected for its decorative qualities and should complement the character of the home as well as the overall character of the neighborhood.

General Design Standards and Guidelines
66 16.1 Fencing shall be located and constructed in conformance with the Sacramento City Code Chapter 5.156, “Fences”, and Chapter 17.76, “Wall, Fence, and Gate Requirements”.

16.2 Fencing must allow unobstructed visibility of the main entrance including, in the case of corner lots, any main entrance off of the street side yard setback.

16.3 Front yard fencing should have a minimum of 50 percent transparency.

16.4 The style, materials, and color of the fencing should complement the style, materials, and color of the home.

16.5 High-quality materials, including wood, metal, cement plaster (stucco), and some forms of appropriately designed vinyl fencing, are acceptable fencing materials.

Cement plaster must be smooth or imperfect smooth texture consistent with the design of the house.

16.6 Chain link fencing is not allowed as a front yard or street side yard fence.

Sustainability Guidelines

16.7 The use of chlorine-based vinyl fencing is discouraged. 17 Paving/Hardscape Surfaces
Design Principles
The paving materials selected shall contribute to the overall appearance of the home.

Impervious paving surfaces shall be minimized and limited to the driveway, walkways, and patios.

Rationale
Large areas of impervious paving surfaces made up of materials such as concrete and asphalt should be minimized at the front of the home. Instead, alternatives surfaces such as brick, stone, concrete pavers, and patterned concrete should be used as appropriate. Some of these alternative forms of paving can offer the added benefit of minimizing storm water runoff and the need for supplementary irrigation, as water is able to percolate down through the spaces between paving units.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

17.1 Paved areas shall not exceed those defined by Sacramento City Code Chapter

17.68.010, “Landscaping Requirements”.
67 17.2 Alternative paving surfaces such as concrete pavers, brick, or stone are encouraged for driveway surfaces to reduce the appearance of large paved areas.

17.3 Alternative paving surfaces that help to keep stormwater runoff on-site are encouraged.
18 Utilities and Storage Facilities
Design Principle
The visibility of utilities and storage facilities shall be minimized by placing them at the side or rear of the home and screening them from view from the street. When utility equipment must be located at the front of the home every attempt shall be made to minimize the visual intrusion of the equipment into the home, yard, and street.

Rationale
Utilities and storage facilities are less attractive but necessary features of a home.

These features should be placed at the side or rear of the home and screened by fences and landscaping. Private drive access can facilitate placement of and access to these features at the rear of the home whenever possible or appropriate.

General Design Standards and Guidelines

18.1 Trash receptacles, if kept outside, should be placed in the side or rear yard and adequately screened by landscaping or a side yard fence.

18.2 Storage sheds shall be placed in the yard area behind the home and shall follow Accessory Structure regulations found in Sacramento City Code Chapter 17.80.

18.3 Accessory structures should be similar in character and materials to the main building but subordinate in massing, scale, and height.

18.4 Antennae should be mounted at the rear of the home. Satellite dishes should be mounted on the home to minimize their visibility from neighbors or the public right-of-way.

18.5 Heating and cooling units should not be roof-mounted where they are visible or placed at the front the home. Heating and cooling units should be placed in the attic or at the side or rear of the home and screened by a side yard fence or landscaping. Solar panels do not need to be screened but should be placed to minimize visual impact.
68 Sustainability Guidelines

18.6 Where feasible heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units should be placed on the north side of the primary structure or garage (preferably not the street side unless screened by a fence or wall) to shade the units and minimize energy consumption.
19 Access Ramps
Design principle
Ramps that provide access to the front or side of the home shall be safe, designed to match the style of the home, and constructed of durable materials that complement those used on the home.

Rationale
Ramps that provide universal access to single-family homes should be designed so that they look like they are a part of the home to the greatest extent possible. The ramp should be designed to minimize its size and bulk without compromising safety and ease of access. Materials used should complement those used on the home, i.e., a concrete ramp with brick facing could be used on a brick home, while a wooden ramp might be more suitable for a home with wood lap siding.

Design Guidelines

19.1 Any ramp providing access to a single family residence shall be designed to meet applicable standards of the California Building Code Chapter 11A (as adopted by the City), or in Sacramento City Code Chapter 15.154.

19.2 Ramps should be designed so that it does not detract from existing architectural elements at the front of the home. The specific location and angle of the ramp may vary, depending on the design of the home and its location on the lot.

19.3 Ramps should be constructed of sturdy, long-lasting materials. Ramp materials should complement those used on the home. Where appropriate, facing materials used on the home may be affixed to the side of the ramp.

19.4 Modular aluminum ramps at the front of the home are discouraged. 69 Exhibit B – Curtis Park Village PUD Schematic Plan

July 29, 2025

Page 11 ends

73513878v1

EXHIBIT C
Part Two : CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES

Page 2 ends

SACRAMENTO
2030 GENERAL PLAN
Traditional
High Density
Traditional
Medium Density
Traditional
Low Density
Traditional Neighborhood Low Density
Allowed Uses
This designation provides for
moderate-intensity housing and
neighborhood-support uses
including the following:

Single-family detached dwellings
Single-family attached dwellings
(e.g., duplexes, triplexes,
townhomes)
Accessory second units
Limited neighborhood-serving
commercial on lots two acres or
less
Compatible public, quasi-public,
and special uses
Traditional Neighborhood Low Density
Development Standards
Minimum Density: 3.0 Units/
Net Acre
Maximum Density: 8.0 Units/
Net Acre
Maximum FAR: 1.50 FAR
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Traditional Neighborhood Medium Density
Allowed Uses
This designation provides for higherintensity medium-density housing and neighborhood-support uses
including the following:

Small-lot single-family dwellings
Small-lot single-family attached
dwellings (e.g., duplexes,
triplexes, townhomes)
Accessory second units
Multifamily dwellings (e.g.,
apartments and condominiums)
Limited neighborhood-serving
commercial on lots two acres or
less
Compatible public, quasi-public,
and special uses
Traditional Neighborhood Medium Density
Development Standards
Minimum Density: 8.0 Units/
Net Acre
Maximum Density: 21.0 Units/
Net Acre
Maximum FAR: 1.50 FAR
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Traditional Neighborhood High Density
Allowed Uses
This designation provides for
single-use multifamily housing and
predominantly residential mixeduse development in areas served by major transportation routes and
facilities, and near shopping areas,
including the following:

Small-lot single-family dwellings
Small-lot single-family attached
dwellings (e.g., duplexes,
triplexes, townhomes)
Accessory second units
Multifamily dwellings (e.g.,
apartments and condominiums)
Mixed-use neighborhoodserving commercial uses
Compatible public, quasipublic, and special uses
Traditional Neighborhood High Density
Development Standards
Minimum Density: 18.0 Units/
Net Acre
Maximum Density: 36.0 Units/
Net Acre
Minimum FAR: 0.50 FAR
Maximum FAR: 1.50 FAR
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Development Standards Note: Residential development that is part of a mixed-use building shall comply with the allowed floor area ratio (FAR) range and is not subject to the allowed density range. Stand alone residential development shall comply with the allowed density range.

July 29, 2025

Page 12 ends

73513878v1

EXHIBIT D
Yes in My Backyard, Sonja Trauss, and Janet
Jha v. City of Los Angeles and City Council,
21STCP03883
Decision on
granted
Petitioners Yes in My Backyard ("YIMBY"), Sonja Trauss ("Trauss"), and Janet Jha ("Jha") seek a writ of mandate directing Respondents City of Los Angeles ("City") and the City Council (collectively, "City") to deem the development application for a project at 5353 Del Moreno Drive ("Project") as complete pursuant to SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA''), and the Permit Streamlining Act ("PSA"), and to approve the Project within 60 days.

The court has read and considered the moving papers, revised opposition, 1 and reply, heard oral argument, and renders the following decision.

A. Statement of the Case

1. Petition
Petitioners commenced this proceeding against the City on November 24, 2021. The Petition alleges claims for traditional and/or administrative mandamus under the PSA, traditional and/or administrative mandamus under the HAA, and declaratory relief for the application process The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

On May 19, 2020, Jha submitted a preliminary application for the Project, which is a multifamily development with affordable units and one commercial unit at 5353 Del Moreno Drive ("Property"). The Property is in a "Limited Commercial" area within the Canoga Park-WinnetkaWoodland Hills-West Hills Community Plan ("Community Plan") area. The preliminary application included all the information listed in Government Code ("Govt. Code") section 65941.1 as necessary and Jha paid the required $1,060.26 fee on May 29, 2020.

On June 8, 2020, the City rejected the preliminary application and informed Jha that it was non-compliant with the Property's RA-1 zoning, which prohibits multi-family housing and more than one dwelling per lot. The City also stated that the Property is not eligible for a density bonus because the RA-1 zoning permits only one unit on the Project site, and it would require a rezoning of the Project site to permit a density bonus. The City directed Jha to verify the appropriate entitlement path and secure a signed Affordable Housing Referral Form ("AHRF"), something not required by Govt. Code section 65941.1 and SB 330.

On August 17, 2020, Jhasubmitted a completed AHRF. The City's Housing Services Unit refused to process an invoice or return a signed AHRF - or a Geographic Project Planning Referral 1 As mentioned by the court at the hearing, the parties submitted a trial notebook with 3 7 requests for judicial notice -- most of them the City's requests -- without exhibit tabs. As a result, the court was forced to tab these exhibits. Counsel for both sides are admonished to provide exhibit tabs for future requests for judicial notice, particularly when they are lengthy.

The City also filed an opposition that is compliant with the font and 12-point requirements of CRC 2.104 and 2.105, but which squeezes words together in an apparent attempt at page limit compliance. This approach may be consistent with procedural rules, but it made the opposition difficult to read. The court recommends that the City's counsel not take this approach in the future. 1 Form ("ORF")- because it concluded that the Project is non-compliant with the Property's zoning.

On August 18, 2020, Jha submitted a complete development application to the City's Department of City Planning ("City Planning"). On September 18, 2020-a day after the PSA's 30-day deadline for finding an application incomplete - Respondents issued Jha a completed "CP7782.1 DCP Application Checklist and Deemed Complete" form ("Checklist") reflecting City Planning's belief that the application was incomplete.

Jha submitted the documents listed on the Checklist on January 21, 2021. On February 26, 2021, the City notified Jha that the application was still incomplete because (1) the Project is inconsistent with the Property's zoning, and (2) the application lacked staff signatures on the AHRF and ORF forms. The same day, Jha requested an appeal of the completeness determination.

The City claimed that the application was unacceptable and technically not an application because it had not signed the referral forms, and therefore not subject to appeal.

In Jha's attempts to proceed with the Project over the following months, the City refused to take any action based on the absence of signed referral forms despite the fact that it, not Jha, was supposed to sign them. The City also demanded that Jha reduce the density of the Project to comply with the Property's zoning or seek rezoning, despite the fact that the Project complies with the Community Plan's designation of the area as Limited Commercial.

Only after Jha retained an attorney did the City provide an appeal before the City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee ("PLUM") in June 2021. YIMB Y and its director Trauss provided written comments, attended the August 31, 2021 PLUM hearing, and testified.

City Planning recommended denial based on the absence of signed referral forms and the fact that the application was incomplete. PLUM agreed that the PSA's 30-day compliance determination requirement had not been triggered and denied the appeal.

On September 1, 2021, the City Council heard and denied Jha' s appeal, finding the application only would be complete after Jha reduces the density of the Project or sought rezoning.

Petitioners contend that the City Council's decision is part of the City's larger pattern of circumventing the PSA's deadlines by finding that permit applications have not been accepted.

The City also previously has concluded that RA-1 zoning is consistent with the Property's Limited Commercial designation, despite the fact that RA-1 prohibits multi-family housing and the Limited Commercial designation permitting it.

Petitioners seek a writ of mandate directing the City to (1) review and process development applications pursuant to the PSA, SB 330, and the HAA, and not refuse to accept preliminary applications based on their incomplete status, (2) deem Jha's preliminary application complete under the PSA and SB 330, and (3) approve Jha's application pursuant to the HAA. Petitioners also seek attorney's fees and costs.

2. Course of Proceedings
No proof of service for the Petition is on file. On December 30, 2021, the City filed an Answer.

B. Standard of Review

1. Traditional Mandamus
Agency decisions under the HAA are reviewed as administrative mandamus. §65589.S(m); Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1072. See Opp. 2 at 15. The City argues that it has not disapproved the application under the HAA and Petitioners' claims for violation of the PSA and SB 330 are reviewed as traditional mandamus. See Opp. at 4.

Although Petitioners disagree and contend that the Project has been disapproved, they do not dispute that this case lies in traditional mandamus.

A petition for traditional mandamus is appropriate in all actions "to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station .... " CCP §1085. Traditional mandamus permits judicial review of ministerial duties as well as quasi-legislative and legislative acts. County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City, (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 972.

A traditional writ of mandate is the method of compelling the performance of a legal, ministerial duty required by statute. See Rodriguez v. Solis, (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 495, 501-02.

Generally, mandamus will lie when (1) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy, (2) the respondent has a duty to perform, and (3) the petitioner has a clear and beneficial right to performance." Pomona Police Officers' Assn. v. City of Pomona, (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 578, 583-84 (internal citations omitted). Whether a statute imposes a ministerial duty for which mandamus is available, or a mere obligation to perform a discretionary function, is a question of statutory interpretation. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health, (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 693, 701.

In the absence of a ministerial duty, traditional mandamus relief is unavailable unless the petitioner can demonstrate an abuse of that discretion. An agency decision is an abuse of discretion only ifit is "arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, unlawful, or procedurally unfair." Kahn v. Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System, (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 98, 106. In applying this deferential test, a court "must .ensure that an agency has adequately considered all relevant factors, and has demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of the enabling statute." Western States Petroleum Assn v.

Superior Court, ("Western States") (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 577. Mandamus will not lie to compel the exercise of a public agency's discretion in a particular manner. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 247, 261. It is available to compel an agency to exercise discretion where it has not done so (Los Angeles County Employees Assn. v. County of Los Angeles, (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 1, 8), and to correct an abuse of discretion actually exercised. Manjares v. Newton, (1966) 64 Cal.2d 365, 370-71. In making this determination, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, whose decision must be upheld ifreasonable minds may disagree as to its wisdom. Id. at 371. A writ will lie where the agency's discretion can be exercised only in one way. Hurtado v. Superior Court, (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574,579.

2. Declaratory Relief
An action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review an administrative decision.

State of California v. Superior Court (Veta) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 249. But it is available to contend that an agency has an unlawful pattern or practice that encompasses future and contingent legal rights. Eye Dog Foundation v. State Bd. of Guide Dogs for the Blind, (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541. Declaratory relief enables the court to avoid piecemeal review of agency policies through a multiplicity of actions. Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1565-66. Review of Petitioners' claim that the City has a pattern and practice of failing to 3 follow state law is properly a matter of declaratory relief.

C. Governing Law2
2 Petitioners request judicial notice of the following: (1) Assembly Floor AB 1515 Analysis dated July 13, 2017 (Pet. RJN Ex. 1); (2) Senate Committee on Governance and Finance AB 3194 Report dated June 27, 2018 (Pet. RJN Ex. 2); and (3) Senate Floor AB 3194 Analysis dated August 8, 2018 (Pet. RJN Ex. 3). The requests are granted. Evid. Code §452(b).

The City requests judicial notice of the following: (1) Los Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC") section 12.04 (Resp. RJN Ex. 1); (2) LAMC section 12.07 (Resp. RJN Ex. 2); (3) LAMC section 12.08-12.11 (Resp. RJN Ex. 2-6); (3) LAMC section 12.13.5 (Resp. RJN Ex. 8); (4) LAMC section 12.22-12.24 (Resp. RJN Ex. 9-11); (5) LAMC section 12.32 (Resp. RJN Ex. 12); (5) LAMC section 19.00 (Resp. RJN Ex. 13); (6) the City's General Plan, Framework Element, Chapter 1, The General Plan System (Resp. RJN Ex. 14); (7) Excerpts of Housing Element 2013-2021, adopted December 3, 2013 (Resp. RJN Ex. 15); (8) the Community Plan (Resp. RJN Ex. 16); (9) a General Plan Land Use Map for the Community Plan (Resp. RJN Ex. 17); (10) Council File No. 90-1422, Re: General Plan Amendment Clarifying Corresponding Zones and Density (Resp. RJN Ex. 18); (11) City Ordinance No. 173518, Re: Community Plan Update, Table 1 - Zone/Height District Changes Ordinance, Effective Nov. 7, 2000 (Resp. RJN Ex. 19); (12) SB8 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2021, Ch. 161 (Resp. RJN Ex. 20); (13) AB1584 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2021, Ch.360 (Resp. RJN Ex. 21); (14) SB1030 (2019-2020 Reg.

Sess.), Stats.2020, Ch.165 (Resp. RJN Ex. 22); (15) AB 2345 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess. ), Stats. 2020, Ch. 197 (Resp. RJN Ex. 23); (16) SB 330 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2019, Ch. 654 (Resp.

RJN Ex. 24); (17) Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, Analysis of SB 330 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), as amended June 12, 2019 (Resp. RJN Ex. 25); (18) Assembly Floor Analysis of SB 330 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), Senate Third Reading, as amended Aug. 12, 2019 (Resp. RJN Ex. 26); (19) AB1763 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2019, Ch. 666 (Resp. RJN Ex. 27); (20) AB 3194 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2018, Ch. 243 (Resp. RJN Ex. 28); (21) AB 3194 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), as introduced Feb.16, 2018 (Resp. RJN Ex. 29); (22) AB 3194 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), as amended May 29, 2018 (Resp. RJN Ex. 30); (23) AB 3194 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), as amended June 21, 2018 (Resp. RJN Ex. 31); (24) Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, Analysis of AB 3194 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), as amended April 16, 2018 (Resp. RJN Ex. 32); (25) AB 2280 (2007-2008 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2008, Ch. 454 (Resp.

RJN Ex. 33); (26) Senate Transportation & Housing Committee, Analysis of AB2280 (2007-2008 Reg. Sess.), as amended June 18, 2008 (Resp. RJNEx. 34); (27) AB 2280 (2007-2008 Reg. Sess.), as amended June 18, 2008 (Resp. RJN Ex. 35); (28) SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary (2020 and 2021) (Resp. RJN Ex. 36); (29) a calendar for the years 2020 and 2021 (Resp. RJN Ex. 37); and (30) the unpublished June 24, 2021 ruling in Snowball West Investments, LP v. City of Los Angeles, ("Snowball") Los Angeles Superior Court No. 20STCP00771 (Resp. RJN Ex. 38).

The requests for Ex. 1-6, 8-13, 20-24, 27-31, 33, 35 are granted under Evid. Code §452(b).

The requests for Ex. 14-19, 25-26, 32, 34, and 36 are granted under Evid. Code §452(c). The request for Ex. 3 7 is granted under Evid. Code §452(h). Petitioners object to the request for judicial notice of the unpublished ruling in Snowball (Resp. RJN Ex. 38). Snowball is on appeal and has no precedential value or relevance. The request is therefore denied. 4 1. The Permit Streamlining Act
The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) (§§ 65920-65964) states that there is a statewide need to ensure a clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met for the approval of development projects and to expedite decisions on such projects. Govt. Code3 §65921. The PSA requires that each agency maintain lists that "specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant." §65940.

Once a development project application has been submitted, the agency must make a written determination whether the application is complete within 3 0 calendar days, or else "the application together with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete." §65943(a).

Agencies have "30 days, and 30 days only" to determine an application is incomplete. Orsi v. City Council of Salinas, ("Orsi")(1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 1576, 1584.

When the agency makes an incompleteness determination, it must provide "an exhaustive list of items that were not complete" which is limited to those items required on the agency's submittal requirement checklist. §65943(a). Upon any resubmittal, a new 30-day review period begins during which the agency shall determine completeness, but the agency "shall not request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete." §65943(a).

If the application is determined incomplete, the agency must provide a right to appeal that determination. §65943( c ). There shall be a final written determination on the appeal no later than 60 calendar days after receipt of the written appeal. Id. If a final written determination is not made within that 60-day period, "the application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete." Id.

Deemed complete does not necessarily mean deemed approved. See §65950 (agency shall approve or disapprove project within specified time limits). The PSA does not create an exception to the well-established law requiring hierarchical consistency of land use permits, zoning ordinances, and general plans. Land Waste Management v. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, ("Land Waste") (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 950, 960. Hence, the PSA does not require that a permit application be deemed approved if not acted on within the statutory period when the permit application would require a legislative change in the applicable zoning ordinance, general plan, or other controlling land use legislation. Id. at 961.

The City's actions under the PSA are reviewed as traditional mandate. §65943(c).

In reply, Petitioners request judicial notice of(l) Senate Floor AB 3194 Analysis dated August 8, 2018 (Reply RJN Ex. A), (2) Excerpts of Volume 8 of the Journal of the Senate, dated August 20, 1984 (Reply RJN Ex. B), (3) a technical assistance letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development to the City of Millbrae, dated February 28, 2020 (Reply RJN Ex. C), and (4) excerpts of the City Council's approval and findings for a mixed use project at 1900 South Broadway (Council File 16-1058-S2) dated November 1, 2017 (Reply RJNEx. D).

At the hearing, the City objected to Petitioners' reply exhibits as improper reply evidence.

The objections are overruled. The request is granted for Reply RJN Exs. A, B, and D. Evid. Code §452(b ), ( c ). The request is denied for Reply RJN Ex. C, which is not an official act. 3 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated. 5 2. SB 330
In SB 330, part of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, the Legislature added a new preliminary application process for housing development projects. §65941.1. The purpose of the preliminary application -- also known as a SB 330 application -- is to freeze or lock into place existing development standards. A local govermnent is prohibited from applying development standards that were not in effect at the time an SB 330 application was submitted. §65589.5(0 ).

An applicant "shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information", a list consisting of 17 specific pieces of information that must be submitted. §65941. l(a). Each local agency shall compile a checklist and application form that applicants may use for the preliminary application. §65941.l(b)(l). The "checklist or form shall not require or request any information beyond that expressly identified in subdivision (a)." §65941.l(b).

In 2020, the Legislature added that a project's increase of 20% or more, in unit count or square footage, does not void preliminary application rights if the increase is from the Density Bonus Law (§65915), or from "any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided." §§ 65941.l(c), 65589.5( o )(2)(E).

Within 180 days after submitted the requisite preliminary application, the applicant shall submit an application for a development project that includes all the information required to process the development application consistent with sections 65490, 65491, and 65491.5. §654491.1( d)(l ). If the public agency determines that the application is not complete, the applicant shall submit the specific information required within 90 days. If the applicant does not do so, the preliminary application will expire and have no force and effect. §65491.1 ( d)(2).

This section shall not require an affirmative determination by the local agency regarding the completeness of a preliminary application or a development application for purposes of complying with section 65491.1. §65491.l(d)(3).

3. The City's Application Procedure
The City provides forms and instructions for an applicant seeking to freeze local regulations to submit a preliminary application. Bilow Deel., Exs. B, C.4 The City does not consider a preliminary application or a project application to be filed until it has been completed in accordance with the City's rules and regulations, has been submitted with the required filing fee, and a receipt for the fees has been issued. LAMC § 19.00.A (Resp. RJN Ex. 13). City Planning performs a brief review of the case contents for completeness of the application, site and building plans, authority to sign the application, and project description. AR 565. A case number is assigned, and a case jacket is prepared. Id. The case jacket is then transferred to the appropriate 4 The City submitted the Declaration of Just Bilow as extra-record evidence. In traditional mandamus with a record, extra-record evidence may be received to assist the court in understanding an agency's quasi-legislative decision and to establish whether the agency fulfilled its duties. Outfitter Properties, LLC v. Wildlife Conservation Board, (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 237, 251. Extra-record evidence also is appropriate for judicial review of informal administrative actions. Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at 576. Petitioners have not objected to this declaration. 6 City Planning division processing the case. Id.

The City's acceptance for filing starts the 30-day PSA clock in which City Planning reviews the case record to ensure that it has all the necessary documents and information to process the application, including the accuracy and completeness of the project description and all plans, entitlement requests with related code provisions, description of the project site and surrounding areas, prepared findings, and the submittal of all necessary supporting reports. AR 566. By the end of the 30-day period, City Planning must either determine that the case is complete or identify deficiencies and put the case on hold. AR 566.

If the City determines that an application remains incomplete, the decision can be appealed in writing to the City Council. The appeal is formally filed in writing using a City Planning appeal form. AR 260-312. The PSA does not prohibit an appeal form. See §65943(c).

4. The Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act ("HAA'') (§§ 65589.5-65589.6) (known as the "antiNIMBY law") prohibits local governments from disapproving code-compliant housing development projects unless certain public health or safety impact findings are made.

The Legislature adopted the HAA in 1982 and amended it numerous times afterwards to "significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local govermnents to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters." §65589.5(a)(2)(K).

The Legislature significantly amended the HAA, effective January 1, 2018, to strengthen its provisions, expand its applicability, and increase local governments' liability for violations.

The HAA found that California is in the midst of a housing crisis that is "partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost ofland for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing," §65589.5(a)(l )(B). There were allegations that some local agencies intentionally maintain zoning inconsistencies with their general plan to gain an additional measure of control over development by requiring case-by-case rezoning, even when the projects are consistent with the objective standards of the general plan. Pet. RJN Ex. 2. Local agencies sometimes exploit this loophole to evade compliance with the HAA on the ground that the project is inconsistent with zoning standards. Id. In amending the HAA in 2017 and 2018, the Legislature hoped these "game changers" would undercut those efforts by requiring approval of creatin projects that are inconsistent with zoning even if the jurisdiction has not brought its zoning ordinance into compliance with the general plan. Pet. RJN Ex. 3; Reply RJN Ex. A.

The HAA should be "interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing." §65589.5(a)(2)(L).

A local agency may require a "housing development project" to comply with objective plan and zone standards. §65589.S(f)(l), G)(l), G)(4). A housing development project "shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if "there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that" it is. §65589.5(f)(4).

Section 65589.SG)(l) provides:
7 "When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1 ), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density." (emphasis added).

The HAA defines a "specific, adverse impact" as a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." §65589.SG)(l)(A). The Legislature intended that conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety should arise infrequently. §65589.5(a)(3).

The standards and findings required by the HAA apply to an agency's action on a project after an application is accepted for processing, when there is a vote, an approval, or a disapproval after the adoption of environmental analysis, or a decision on the requested entitlement. §65589.5(±)(4), (h)(6) and G)(l), 65589.6, 65950; compare Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ.

Fund, (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 832-33, 837 (city council's denial of application). The HAA defines "disapproval" as any instance in which a local agency "[v]otes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved." §65589.5(h)(6).

If a permitting agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent with "an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision," it must provide the applicant with written documentation identifying and explaining the claimed inconsistency within either 30 or 60 days of the submittal of a complete application, depending upon the size of the project. §65589.5G)(2)(A). Absent timely notice, the project is deemed to be compliant with all applicable standards as a matter oflaw. §65589.5G)(2)(B).

A housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance, and shall not require a rezoning, if it is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. §65589.50)(4).

If the agency has provided timely notice of inconsistencies with the applicable plan or zoning, it may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are consistent with the general plan. §65589.SG)( 4). In 8 that case, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate the development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. §65589.5(j)(4).

Agency decisions under the HAA are reviewed as administrative mandamus. §65589.S(m); Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at 1072. The court must inquire whether there is "substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project" complies with applicable standards. Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo, (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 837. The agency "bears the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to the HAA" and that its findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; 65589.6.

If the court finds that an agency acted in bad faith in disapproving a project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, without making the required findings, the court may issue an "order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project." §65589.S(k)(l)(A)(ii). "Bad faith" "includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit." §65589.5(1). The City bears the burden of proving that its decision conforms to the conditions specified in section 65589.5. §65589.6.

HAA Amendments
In 20 I 7, AB 1515 changed the standard of review a court must apply to review whether a project is code compliant. AB 151 eliminated the deference given to a local govermnent's interpretation of its own municipal code and requires a court to find a housing project compliant if substantial evidence would allow a reasonable person to conclude the project is compliant. §65589.5(±)(4); Pet. RJN, Ex. Ip. 3 (Assembly Floor AB 1515 Analysis, July 13, 2017).

In 2018, AB 3194 sought to close a loophole that local govermnents have exploited to avoid compliance with the HAA: maintaining low zoning densities to force projects into discretionary rezoning processes. Pet. RJN Ex. 2, pp. 2-3 (Senate Committee on Governance and Finance AB 3194 Report dated June 27, 2018). AB 3194 added section 65589.5(j)(4) which prohibits local govermnents from requiring rezoning in cases where the general plan's density supports the project's density:
"For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is 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 and proposed by the proposed housing development project." 9 AB 3194's proposed amendments to section 65589.5(i)(4) - now section 65589.50)(4) - would have prohibited an agency from finding that a proposed project is inconsistent or noncompliant with the applicable zoning ordinance, and would have eliminated a rezoning requirement, where "the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity allocable on the site by the housing element or by the land use element of the general plan if it was adopted or updated within the previous 10 years." Resp. RJN Ex. 29 ( emphasis added).

The American Planning Association ("AP A") asserted to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development that the proposed amendment obviated the general plan's purpose of being general and forced it to reflect the specific analysis of zoning ordinances. Resp.

RJN Ex. 32. The May 29, 2018 revisions to AB 3194 therefore deleted this language. Resp. RJN Exs. 21, 30.

On June 21, 2018, AB 3194 revisions added language authorizing local agencies, following proper notice to the applicant, to require a project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the inconsistent zoning that are consistent with the general plan, while applying the standards and criteria to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed by the general plan. Resp. RJN Ex. 31. This language was adopted as part of section 65589.50)(4).

Resp. RJN Ex. 21.

5. The Density Bonus Law
The Density Bonus Law(§§ 65915-65918) mandates the approval of density bonuses and reduced development standards and parking for housing developments that set aside stipulated percentages of low income and very low-income units. §65915(b). The amount of the density bonus varies according to the amount by which the percentage of low and very low-income units exceed the percentages. §65915(f).

A "housing development" that replaces existing units and contains specified percentages of affordable or target population units (e.g., disabled veterans), may obtain one density bonus, one to four incentives or concessions, and unlimited waivers of development standards that physically preclude the project. §65915(b).

The Density Bonus Law prohibits local governments from applying development standards that would preclude the construction of such projects. §65915( e)(l ). An applicant may propose a waiver or reduction of development standards that have the effect of precluding the construction of a development meeting the Density Bonus Law's criteria. Id. The statute does not require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if there would be an adverse impact on health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method of mitigation to avoid the impact. Id.

The Density Bonus Law mandates that density bonuses be granted based on the "maximum allowable density" for the project site, defined as: "the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail." §65915(0)(5).
10 Amendments
On June 18, 2008, AB 2280's version of section 65915( o )(2) defined "maximum allowable residential density" as the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, meaning the maximum if it was a range.

The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee heard comments that the land use element of a general plan can and often will conflict with zoning ordinances, causing confusion as to the applicable maximum density: "Theoretically the land use element and zoning should always be consistent. In reality, they are often inconsistent. In such cases, this bill will create confusion and conflict." Resp. RJN Ex. 34, p. 706. Section 65915(0)(2) therefore clarifies that if the general plan and zoning are inconsistent, the general plan prevails: "If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail."
The October 2019 version of SB 330 amending section 65589.5(o)(2)(e) stated that while housing development projects are generally subject to policies and ordinances in effect at the time completed, revision of the project subjects it to newer policies if the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by at least 20%, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision. Resp. RJN Ex.

24. In September 2020, SB 1030 clarified that the bonuses and incentives exempt from this 20% calculation include those from any locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses for providing affordable housing. Resp. RJN Ex. 22.

6. The City's Density Bonus Process
The City implements the Density Bonus Law through LAMC section 12.22.A.25, which incorporates on-menu incentives. See LAMC § 12.22.A.25(f)(l )-(8).

A housing development project that has 10% of the total units for low-income households or 5% of the total units for very low-income households, either as rental or for sale units, shall be granted a minimum density bonus of20%. Resp. RJN Ex. 9 (LAMC § 12.22.A.25( c )). In addition to the density bonus and parking options identified in LAMC section 12.22A.25( c) and ( d), a housing development project that qualifies for a density bonus shall be granted a number of incentives based on meeting required percentages of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Resp. RJN Ex. 9 (LAMC §12.22.A.25(e)). These incentives include using the area of any land required to be dedicated for street or alley purposes as lot area for purposes of calculating the maximum density permitted by the zone in which the project is located. Resp. RJN Ex. 9 (LAMC § 12.22.A.25(f)(7)).

Due to existing City bonus programs, projects are entitled up to a 35% bonus and are ineligible for the state's 50% bonus. If a local agency has an ordinance or housing program that incentivizes the development of affordable housing and it allows for density bonuses that exceed those required by the December 31, 2020 version of section 65915, the local agency is not required to amend its program to comply with amendments to the bonus density incentives of section 65915(d). §65915(s). As of section December 31, 2020, section 65915(£) provided a maximum 35% bonus. AB 1763 (Resp. RJN Ex. 27). The City had over a 35% bonus effective Feb. 26, 2018. LAMC §12.24.U.26 (Resp. RJN Ex. 11).

Unless restricted to certain zones or locations, if approved by the Planning Commission as 11 the initial decisionmaker, or the City Council as the appellate body, any zone may apply a density bonus for a housing development project in which the density increase is greater than the maximum permitted in LAMC section 12.22.A.25. Resp. RJN Ex. 11 (LAMC §12.24.U.26).

A housing development located within a Transit Oriented Communities ("TOC") Affordable Housing Incentive Area shall be eligible for TOC Incentives if it provides minimum required percentages of On-Site Restricted Affordable Units, meets any applicable replacement requirements of section 65915(c)(3), and is not seeking and receiving a density or development bonus under the provisions of section 65915 or any other state or local program that provides development bonuses. Resp. RJN Ex. 9 (LAMC §12.22.A.31(b)(l)). An eligible housing development shall be granted increased residential density at rates that shall meet or exceed a 35% increase. Resp. RJN Ex. 9 (LAMC §12.22.A.31(b)(2)(i)).

7. The City's Zoning
In order to regulate the use of property, the City is divided into various zones with a defined order of most to least restrictive. Resp. RJN Ex. 1 (LAMC § 12.04(a)). RA Suburban Zones (No. 4), for example, are more restrictive than Cl.5 Limited Commercial Zones (No. 24). Resp. RJN Ex. 1 (LAMC §12.04(A)).

RA Suburban zones may have only specific types of buildings, including one-family dwellings. Resp. RJN Ex. 2 (LAMC §12.07(A)(l)). RA lots shall have a minimum width of70 feet and a minimum area of 17,500 square feet, except for a two-family dwelling on lots having a side lot adjoining a lot in a commercial orindustrial zone. Resp. RJN Ex. 2 (LAMC § 12.07(C)( 4)).

Rl One-Family zones may have only specific types of buildings, including one-family dwellings. Resp. RJN Ex. 3 (LAMC §12.08(A)(l)). Rl One-Family zone lots shall have a minimum width of 50 feet and a minimum area of 5,000 square feet, except for a two-family dwelling on lots having a side lot adjoining a lot in a commercial or industrial zone. Resp. RJN Ex. 3 (LAMC §12.08(C)(4)).

Any use permitted in an Rl One-Family zone is also permitted in an R2 Two-Family zone.

Resp. RJN Ex. 4 (LAMC §12.09(A)(l)). Any use permitted in an R2 Two-Family zone is also permitted in an R3 Multiple Dwelling zone. Resp. RJN Ex. 5 (LAMC §12.lO(A)(l)). Any use permitted in an R3 Multiple Family zone is also permitted in an R4 Multiple Dwelling zone. Resp.

RJN Ex. 6 (LAMC § 12.11 (A)(l) ). Any single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, or apartment house use permitted in an R4 Multiple Dwelling zone is also permitted in a Cl.5 Limited Commercial zone, provided that all R4 zone regulations are met. Resp. RJN Ex. 8 (LAMC § 12.13 .5(A)(l )).

Any change of use of a building, or a portion of a building, must conform to the current regulations of the zone and other applicable land use regulations. Resp. RJN Ex. 10 (LAMC §12.23(B)(7)(a)). However, in the R, C, or M zones, a non-conforming use may be changed to any use that is permitted in a more restrictive zone than the current zone. Resp. RJN Ex. 10 (LAMC § 12.23(B)(7)(b)).

An owner of property may apply for a proposed land use ordinance if authorized to do so.

Resp. RJN Ex. 12 (LAMC §12.32(B)). The applicant shall complete the application for that proposed land use ordinance, pay the required fee, and file the application with City Planning on a form it provides. Resp. RJN Ex. 12 (LAMC § 12.32(B)).

An application or appeal shall be considered filed whenever it has been completed in 12 accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, has been submitted to the City department together with the required filing fees, and a receipt for the filing fees has been issued. Resp. RJN Ex. 13 (LAMC § 19.00(A)). If at any time it is discovered during the processing of an application that the application has been improperly prepared, or requires pertinent information has not been submitted in accordance with established rules and regulations, upon notification to the applicant by the appropriate officer or employee, the time limits specified within the LAMC shall be suspended and not continue to run until the application has been rectified or the omitted information furnished in a proper manner. Resp. RJN Ex. 13 (LAMC §19.00(A)).

D. Statement of Facts

1. General Plan and Zoning Consistency
In 1978, the Legislature enacted AB 283 requiring all zoning ordinances adopted by a charter city with a population of2,000,000 or more (i.e., the City) to be consistent with the city's general plan by July I, 1982. Reply RJN Ex. B. The City did not comply with the deadline. Reply RJNEx. B.

In 1984, the Legislature introduced SB 1848 to extend the deadline for compliance to 1987.

The governor chose not to sign it, finding it disturbing that the City had taken over six years to comply. Reply RJN Ex. B. 5

2. The City's General Plan
The City's General Plan Housing Element includes an inventory of adequate sites for residential housing across all community plan areas without the need for any discretionary zoning action; the Property is not among them. Resp. RJN Ex. 15.

The Framework Element of the City's General Plan delegates the assignment of land designations to the community plans, which are tailored to local conditions, subject to the more general determinations of the General Plan. Resp. RJN Ex. 14, p. 166.6 Cl.5 is one of the zones corresponding to the Limited Commercial land use designation.

Resp. RJN Ex. 1 (LAMC §12.04.A). The General Plan land use map identifies CR, Cl, Cl.5, RAS3, RAS4, and P as the zones that correspond to a Limited Commercial designation. Resp.

RJNEx. 17.

Footnote 9 to the General Plan land use map expands the range of land use categories to include the less restrictive zones in each more restrictive zone listed on the land use map:
"Each Plan category permits all indicated corresponding zones as well as those zones referenced in the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) as permitted by such 5 In 2020 and 2021, the state released a Determination Summary identifying which cities and counties had not met their prorated very-low and low and above-moderate income Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") and were subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process under SB 35. Resp. RJN Ex. 36. In both years, the state concluded that the City was subject to the SB 35 streamlining process for proposed developments with at least 50% affordability. Resp. RJN Ex. 36.
6 For convenience, the court will refer to these land designations as made by the General Plan, not the Community Plan.
13 zones unless further restricted by adopted Specific Plans, specific conditions and/or limitations of project approval, Plan footnotes or other Plan map or text notations. 'i[Zones established in the LAMC subsequent to the adoption of the Plan shall not be deemed corresponding to any particular Plan category unless the Plan is amended to so indicate.
'i[It is the intent of the Plan that the entitlements granted shall be one of the zone designations within the corresponding zones shown on the Plan, unless accompanied by a concurrent Plan amendment." Resp. RJN Ex. 17 ( emphasis added); AR 334-36,416.

The City Council adopted the language in Footnote 9 on March 27, 1991, amending all community plans to clarify that zones more restrictive than those shown on the legend are consistent with the General Plan. Resp. RJN Ex. 18, p. 246 (City Council File). The City Council memorialized the fact that the "changes are in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and serve as clarification of longstanding policy and interpretation of the Plan", which is that the "more restrictive zones are consistent with the applicable plan category." Ex. 18, p.261, 265. It clarifies the full range of corresponding zones "without requiring the recitation of each and every corresponding zone." Ex. 18, p. 266.

While the land use map does not explicitly indicate that the RA zone corresponds to the Limited Commercial category, Footnote 9 shows that the RA zone is included because the RA zone is more restrictive than the Cl.5 zone. Resp. RJN Exs. 1,10 (LAMC §§12.04.A, 12.23.B.7(b) (listing zones most to least restrictive: RA, Rl, R2, R3, R4 and Cl .5). The RA zone uses also are permitted in the Cl.5 zone. Resp. RJN Ex. 7 (LAMC §12.13.5.A.l); The R4 zone permits R3 (Resp. RJN Ex. 6 (LAMC 12.11.A.l)), the R3 permits R2 (Resp. RJN Ex. 5 (LAMC §12.10.A.l)), and the R2 permits RI uses (Resp. RJN Ex. 4 (LAMC §12.09.A.l). The RI zone permits one dwelling on a 5000 square foot lot (Resp. RJN Ex. 3 (LAMC §12.08.A.1, C.4)) and the RA zone requires one dwelling on a 17,500 square foot lot. Resp. RJN Ex. 2 (LAMC §12.07.A.l, C.4).

Opp. at 10.

While the land use map has a footnote allowing affordable housing in Canoga to exceed the density normally permitted in Rl zones, the same is not true for Woodland Hills. Resp. RJN Ex. 17.

3. The Applications
Petitioner Jha owns the Property, which is located in Woodland Hills. See Pet. Op. Br. at 6; Resp. RJN Exs 16, 17. The Property is zoned RA-I pursuant to LAMC section 12.07A, while also having a Limited Commercial land use designation under the Community Plan. AR 416; Resp. RJN Exs. 14, 16, 17. The Property currently is improved with a single-family home built in 1978. AR 114.
a. The First SB 330 Application
On May 19, 2020, Jha submitted a preliminary application -- also known as an SB 330 application -- for the Project. AR 504, 716-23. The Project sought to build 60 units: 43 base units, a density bonus of 35% (16 units) because 11% of the units (5) are for very low-income 14 households, and one additional unit because the five very low-income units are assigned to disabled veterans. AR 717. On May 21, 2020, Jha paid fees and surcharges for the application totaling $1,060.28. AR 748.

On June 8, 2020, the City asked Jha to provide a signed AHRF to verify the entitlements, indicate the public easements on the Property, and provide a site plan, building area diagram and table, and colors and materials for the elevations. AR 1284.

In response, Jha asked if the City could review the SB 330 preliminary application without the AHRF, which she claimed was optional and contrary to the purposes of state law. AR 1284.

She added that, once the SB 300 form was approved, she knew that the Project would have to go through the AFHR and case filing for the density bonus just like any other project. AR 1284.

The City replied that Jha was proposing to use the development standards of the underlying land use designation rather than the zone and proposing to use a density bonus. AR 1283. State law does not allow, as Jha believed, her to choose the development standards of the General Plan land use designation over the development standards of the zoning laws to justify her claim. AR 1283. The SB 330 application asks the applicant to identify whether the project proposes to use a density bonus and Jah is doing so. AR 1283. The City planner had to make sure the information is accurate and complete and the information on the AHRF will confirm that. AR 1283. n1a did not provide the AHRF at the time, noting that it might slow down her application and cause additional fees that she would be unable to pay. AR 1282-83. b. The Second SB 330 Application
On June 18, 2020, Jha resubmitted the SB 330 preliminary application with a list of easements and codes she believed supported the Project based on General Plan land use. AR 778- 79, 785-89. Where the application form asked about an AHRF under "Optional Related Documents," she wrote: "This form is not available." AR 1228.

On August 7, 2020, a City planner explained to Jha that the preliminary application was not complete under section 65941.1 because it contained inaccurate information regarding the density bonus. AR 1110. The preliminary application states that Jha is applying for a density bonus, but the zone does not support a density bonus development because it authorizes only a single-family dwelling. AR 1110. Additional density for the Project would have to be sought with a zoning change. AR 1110. The City planner indicated that it is important to have relevant information from the outset to avoid delays in reviewing and processing the application. AR 1110. nm replied that she never based her application on the RA-1 zoning of the Property. Rather, her application cited state laws permitting projects based on the General Plan without a requested zoning change. AR 1110.
c. The First Project Application
On August 14, 2020, Jha completed a standard project application on the City Planning form. AR 97-104. City Planning's application form asks for up to 18 applicable documents and referrals, not including proof ofrecorded covenants or easements on the property. AR 88. A City planner proposed that Jha submit the electronic file and deliver hard copies the following Monday.

AR 1114. Jha therefore shared the file link and brought printed copies to City Planning on August 18, 2020. AR 1114.

On August 21, 2020, a City planner emailed Jha that, although the Property is Limited 15 Commercial under the General Plan, it is zoned RA-1 and she needed to seek a zone change. AR 1115. Additionally, per Measure JJJ and City policy, she could not seek a zone change and a density bonus at the same time. AR 1115. The density bonus could be filed only after City Planning approved the zoning change (nine to 12 months). AR 1115. The email also said that Jha was missing three essential referral forms; (1) a GRF from the Ventura Corridor Specific Plan, (2) an AHRF completed by the City's Housing Unit, and (3) a Bureau of Engineering Hillside Referral Form, which is important to determining if the streets can support the Project. AR 1115.

Jha replied on the same day that she was obtaining the requested referral forms, but that her Project is based on the General Plan. AR 1115. Her application included citations to the Govt.

Code demonstrating that (!) City Planning could not reject an application unless the project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinances and the general plan (§65589.5(d)(5)); and (2) City Planning must provide a written determination why the application is inconsistent with applicable requirements within 30 days of the application submission date. AR 1115-16. Jha asked for a written finding why her Project was rejected. AR 1116.

On August 26, 2020, the Housing Unit denied Jha's application for an AHRF because the Project site is zoned for single family use and the Project is therefore not eligible for a density bonus. AR 1105. Upon Jha's inquiry how to appeal, City Planning explained that there is no appeal process for a rejection of a referral form request. AR 1103.

On August 27, 2020, Jha emailed a City planner that she had submitted all documents needed to obtain the three requested referral forms from the respective units. AR 1119. She attached her requests and all unit responses and asserted that this fulfilled the City's document requests for her application. AR 1119. Of the three forms, only the Bureau of Engineering Hillside Referral Form was signed. AR 1204-14.

A City planner replied that upper management had reviewed Jha's request and decided that Jha needed to go back to the City units so they could complete the referrals. Until the respective units signed them, the application was not complete. AR 1120. Jha replied that a local agency cannot justify denying a housing project by denying the referral and then using the referral denial to deny the project. AR 1120.
d. The City Planning Clarifying Memo
On September 18, 2020, City Planning sent Jha a clarifying memorandum with instructions to return to the Specific Plan and Housing units to obtain the necessary referrals. AR 513. The memo explained that, per section 65913.4(a)(5)(A), developments eligible for streamlined review under SB 35 must comply with objective zoning standards and objective design review standards.

AR 1215. A project deviating from objective zoning standards is not eligible for such streamlining but could remain consistent with objective standards after requesting zoning modifications or density bonuses. AR 1215. The email included a Checklist of items necessary to complete the Jha's application. AR 513, 1216-19.

Jha replied that the Project is not a SB 35 project, and she did not intend to convert the Project to one either. AR 349. She compared the language of SB 35 (§65913.4(5)(A)) to the language of the HAA (§65589.5) and queried whether they did not say the same thing. AR 349. e. The Second Project Application
On January 1, 2021, Jha recompleted the Project application, acknowledging that she was 16 not able to submit all the requested documents from the Checklist within the 90-day deadline and requested an extension. AR 520, 824-31. The Project application sought to build 67 units; 43 base units, a density bonus of 35% (22 units) because 15% of the units (7) are for very low-income households, and two additional units because the seven very low-income units are assigned to disabled veterans. AR 825.

On January 4, 2021, the City replied that, because Jha's application was not complete for filing, no deadlines were in effect and she could submit whenever she chose, subject to the expiration dates on specific forms. AR 521.

On January 21, 2021, Jha delivered a package purportedly including all the documents identified on the Checklist necessary to complete the application. AR 1131. Later that day, the City replied that the application still had issues, reiterating that the RA-1 zone does not allow for multifamily housing and that AB 2345's 50% density increase is not applicable to the City. AR 501.

On January 25, 2021, a City planner reviewed the documents and added that there were a number of issues to resolve before Jha could receive clearance for the application. AR 548-50.

He explained that the referral review is performed to determine if the application is ready to file and can include all materials, plans, and incentives/waivers that affect the Specific Plan and that there are a lot of items needed before he could give Jha clearance to file. AR 550.

One City planner conferred with supervisors to "find out if there are any errors" with the designation (AR I 098) and elicited a response from another planner that the reason for the RA-1 zoning may be the result of hilly topography but it "is anyone's guess" and "the logic is not obvious." AR 1100.

On February 26, 2021, a City planner explained to Jha that she needed to resolve multiple issues before submitting the application for further review, including having the GRF, AHRF, and Preliminary Zoning Assessment forms completed and signed by the respective City units. AR 522-23.

Jha asked about appealing this decision, but the City planner responded that there was no appeal process for an application that is not filed because it is incomplete. AR 1146.

In an internal City email dated June 8, 2021, the City planner denied receiving the application fee on May 29, 2020 because he never created a case or sent out any invoice. AR 538.

6. The Appeal
On March 7, 2021, while submitting the Preliminary Zoning Assessment form, Jha cited section 65943(c) to assert that an agency must have a process allowing applicants to appeal a decision that an application is not complete. AR 1153. Additionally, section 65589.5G)(2)(B) automatically renders a project compliant with all relevant laws if the agency fails to provide necessary documentation. AR 1153. Jha asserted that, if City Planning denied her an appeal, it would inherently be failing to provide necessary documentation under section 65589.5G)(2)(B) and the Project would automatically be deemed consistent. AR 1153.

Because City Planning asserted that there is no appeal from incompleteness determinations, on July 8, 2021 Jha appealed from an entitlement determination. AR 260-63. a. City Planning's Report and Recommendation
On August 26, 2021, City Planning submitted an Appeal Recommendation Report 17 ("Report") for the PLUM hearing on Jha's appeal. AR 406-22. The Report's chronology of correspondence claimed that Jha's January 21, 2021 submission (the second application) was treated as a new application for which City Planning issued an invoice that Jha paid. AR 413.

The Report summarized City Planning's rationale that the application had not been submitted for filing because several documents were still missing, including an accurate and completed AHRF and GRF. AR414. Because of these failures, a City Plarming case number was never created, entitlement fees were never invoiced or paid, and the application was not received.

AR 414, 419. Therefore, the PSA' s 30-day written determination requirement was never triggered.

Alternatively, the City timely satisfied its obligations by the emails to Jha listing the deficiencies in the application. AR 414. Because Jha's documents were not "determined to be complete", City Planning never needed to determine in writing whether the Project is consistent with the "applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision" per section 65589.5 (the HAA). AR 417.

Further, the Project does not trigger the requirement of a consistency determination under section 65589.5(i)(2). AR 414. The Report noted that City Planning had warned Jha multiple times that the application was subject to the RA-I zoning requirements ofLAMC section 12.07A as well as the Limited Commercial designation of the General Plan. AR 414, 416. The Project does not comply with the objective standards of the RA zone because it does not allow multifamily residential or commercial uses. AR 414. Therefore, a multi-family density bonus project with commercial uses cannot be developed on the site. AR 414. Additionally, the Property's RA zoning is enforceable because City Planning has determined that the existing zone and land use designation are consistent. AR 414. In order to pursue the Project, Jha was advised that she would need to seek a zone change or seek approval of a SB 35 project. AR 414.

Footnote 9 to the General Plan makes it clear that the General Plan and the zoning are consistent; each land use category in the General Plan permits the less intensive zones referenced by the LAMC. AR 416. This means that the Project requires a zoning change and is not eligible for any density bonus. AR 416. Additionally, AB 2345's 50% density bonus is not applicable in the City, so any density bonus would be 3 5% at most. AR 416-17. It is also infeasible to seek both a 50% density increase per AB 2345 and a 20% density increase per AB 2442. The City is required to grant only one density bonus. §65915(b)(l), (f). These deficiencies are the reasons why the City refused to sign the AHRF and GRF. AR 420.
b. Response
On August 30, 2021, Jha submitted a rebuttal to the Report ("Response"). AR 313-33.

The Response asserted that the City Plarming staff's timeline of submission and acceptance does not provide a defense to the timeline requirements of SB 330. AR 315. The SB 330 timeline is strict and has nothing do to with City Plarming staff's case number, checklist, the site's zoning as consistent with the general plan, and advice given to an applicant. AR 315. At a minimum, the City responded one day late to the August 18, 2020 application and six days late to the January 21, 2021 document production. Each violated section 65943(b), rendering the application complete.

AR 315. There is no justification for the claim that, if entitlement fees and a case number are never generated - both of which are the City's responsibility, the 30-day determination requirement of the PSA is not triggered. AR 322-23.

As for LAMC's zoning regulations, the HAA must be interpreted to prioritize the interest 18 of and the approval of housing. AR 316. City Planning staff has confusingly tried to insert an argument of consistency between the Property's zoning and the General Plan. AR 316. Any zoning regulations that would constrict housing more than the General Plan are invalid, even if otherwise consistent. AR 316. Similarly, if the maximum allowable residential densities under the General Plan and zoning regulations conflict, the General Plan prevails. AR 316. Section 65589.5(d)(2) prohibits a city from denying a housing project based on the inconsistency between zoning and the general plan. AR 316. Finally, section 65589.50)( 4) states that a proposed housing development project is consistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria. AR 317. Whether the General Plan and the Property's RA-1 zoning are consistent is therefore a moot point. AR 316.

The Response also asserted that the Report misinterpreted footnote 9 of the General Plan in asserting that it is consistent with LAMC zoning regulations. AR 317. The Report does not quote the portion of footnote 9 stating that "the entitlements granted shall be one of the zone designations within the corresponding zones shown on the Plan." AR 318. RA-1 is not a zoning designation listed for Limited Commercial areas on the General Plan. AR 319. City Planning also failed to articulate an objective standard that shows how the RA zone is consistent with Limited Commercial designation; there is no similarity between use and density of the building uses allowed. AR 320.

The Response interpreted City Planning's September 18, 2020 memo on SB 35 as an admission that the Project would be approved if it were submitted under that law. AR 321. The Response argued that the language of SB 35 and SB 330 is so similar that if the Project should be approved under one, it should be approved under the other. AR 321-22.

The Response further argued that the GRF and AHRF were complete when submitted. AR 323-24. The City units are responsible for signing these forms and when they refused to do so, the claim that the application is incomplete because the forms were unsigned disregards state laws promoting development based on the General Plan. AR 324.

The Report claimed that the application did not trigger the PSA's consistency requirement, but section 65589.5G)(2)(A) states that the requirement is triggered when 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. AR 326. A city then has 30 days to provide a written explanation of that finding.

AR 326. City Planning failed to meet this deadline on two separate occasions, even as Jha submitted all the documents on the Checklist. Nor did City Planning provide the required appeal process per section 65943(c). AR 326-27.

Finally, the Report claimed that the density bonus was incorrect, but AB 2345 requires that density bonuses be granted without discretionary approval. AR 328. Additionally, the City's bonus for 15% oflow-income units is 5% less than AB 2345, which is only preempted if the City process results in greater bonuses. AR 329. The City's interpretation of AB 2442 correctly states that other density bonuses, such as for reserving units for disabled veterans, are in addition to the density bonus. AR 329-30.

7. The Appeal Hearing
The appeal hearing occurred as part of PLUM's August 31, 2021 meeting. AR 624. At 19 the hearing, City Planning gave a presentation that (1) the Project is prohibited and ineligible for density bonuses because the Property is zoned for RA-1; (2) the density bonus is incorrect; (3) footnote 9 of the General Plan permits the LAMC to further restrict land use through zoning; ( 4) the physical documents Jha submitted did not constitute a received application triggering PSA deadlines; (5) Jha failed to submit a completed and signed AHRF and ORF; and (6) the documents she provided for filing are not subject to the HAA's timeline for a determination of consistency.

AR 595-602.

Petitioner Trauss commented that the Project does not require rezoning under the HAA, and therefore the application did not need to include a rezoning request. AR 619.

Another speaker opined that City Planning does not get to determine whether an application is submitted under the PSA based on whether it is complete. AR 620.

City Planning reiterated that the Project application was never accepted for case filing purposes, a case number was never created, and the entitlement application was therefore never required to be deemed complete. AR 625. Nevertheless, because the LAMC did not provide for the appeal process required under SB 330, City Planning complied with SB 330 by permitting Jha to use the appeal process before the City Council. AR 625.

City Planning asserted that the City's hierarchy of less-to-more intensive zones in LAMC section 1204(a) provides a basis for finding that the RA-1 zoning of a Limited Commercial area is consistent. AR 626.

Jha responded by (1) asking how City Planning can claim it did not receive anything when Jha submitted thousands of pages, and (2) the most City Planning has shown to support its position of consistency for LAMC AR-1 zoning and the General Plan's Limited Commercial designation of the same area is to quote half a footnote of the General Plan. AR 631-32.

During deliberations, one of the PLUM members opined that no one can have multi-family housing in RA zones without getting it rezoned; a ruling otherwise would subject the City to liability to other citizens who sue because the City permitted a multi-family project in a Ra-1 zone.

AR634.

8. The Appeal Decision
PLUM recommended that the City Council deny Jha's appeal and therefore sustain City Planning's denial of the preliminary application. AR 606. It agreed with City Planning's determination that the application is incomplete and cannot be accepted and that the Project does not comply with the RA-1 zoning requirements of the Property. AR 606.

In a meeting on September 1, 2021, the City Council voted to adopt this recommendation and deny the appeal. AR 607.

9. The City's Change in Position
The 2020 amendments to section 65589.5(o)(2)(E) enable a developer to add residential units or square footage after submitting a preliminary application if the addition is the result of a density bonus (§65915) or local program offering additional density or development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. Bilow Deel., 14.

Additionally, as of 2022, the distribution of uses over floor area no longer determines preliminary application eligibility. Bilow Deel., 13. SB 8, codified at section 65941.1, allows any project that creates a single dwelling unit to submit a preliminary application. Bilow Deel., 13. 20 As of mid-2021, City Planning waives a preliminary application's inconsistencies with state and local standards regarding affordable units, bonus units, unit count, and the distribution of residential and non-residential floor area. Bilow Deel., 13, These processing changes permit City Planning to review the feasibility of proposed uses and the proposed entitlement approval process separate from the preliminary application and recognize that an applicant may alter proposed uses and use a variety of density and development bonuses. Bilow Deel., 11 4-5.

As a result, on January 31, 2022, City Planner Justin Bilow ("Bilow") emailed Jha that her preliminary applications submitted for the Project could be confirmed as submitted. Bilow Deel., 16, Ex. A. Because of the quantity of applications filed with City Planning, some of which are abandoned, Bilow' s email gave Jha the responsibility of informing City Planning if she would continue to pursue the application. Bilow Deel., 16, Ex. A.

10. The Previous Project
In 2017, PLUM required a community plan amendment changing the designation of a property from Limited Manufacturing to Community Commercial. Reply RJN Ex. D. It decided that a particular mixed-use project was not consistent with the City's community plan because the Limited Manufacturing land use does not allow for residential uses. Reply RJN Ex. D. As a result, an amendment to the plan was necessary to enable the residential project. Reply RJN Ex. D.

E. Analysis
Petitioners contend that the City violated its duties under SB 330, the PSA, and the HAA, and seek an order that the Project is deemed compliant and directing the City to approve it within 60 days.

1. Violation of SB 330
a. Mootness
The City argues that Petitioners' claims about the SB 330 preliminary application and application are moot. City Planning is willing to accept Jha's 2020 preliminary application as submitted because it has changed its processing policy for SB 330 applications. Bilow Deel., 11 3-8. The City concludes that Petitioners' claims about the preliminary application are conjecture because there is no evidence the City has returned to a prior practice, and any declaratory judgment would only recite the statute. See Burke v. City etc. of San Francisco, (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 32, 34-35 (no controversy because the policy challenged was that ofpredecessor). 7 Opp. at 17.

The City adds that it timely issued a decision on Petitioners' appeal, which makes their claim that the City does not provide a PSA appeal moot. The City responded to and processed the appeal inquiry through a formal filing process, rendering a decision 54 days after it was filed.

Since Jha sought a GRF from the Ventura Corridor Specific Plan and an AHRF from the City's Housing Unit out of order and submitted them as part of the Project application, the City addressed the completeness of the Project application and the referrals together in its decision. AR 406-69.

Opp. at 17.

Petitioners reply that apparently an HAA amendment spurred City Planning's change in 7 The City correctly notes that Petitioners have not briefed a pattern and practice claim and it is waived. See Pet. Prayer For Relief11,2,4. Opp. at 22-23. 21 policy, not some change in the preliminary application requirements of SB 330. The preliminary application requirements of section 65941.l(a) remain the same, and the fact that the City now is willing to accept Jha' s preliminary application merely confirms that its initial refusal was unlawful.

The claim is not moot as the entire point of a SB 330 preliminary application is to lock the development standards in place at the time it is submitted. See §65589.5( o ). A judicial declaration that Jha's preliminary application was complete as of the date it was originally submitted is entirely appropriate. Reply at 3.

The court agrees. Petitioners seek a judicial declaration that Jha's SB 330 preliminary application properly was submitted to City Planning -- apparently Petitioners are relying upon the May 19, 2020 preliminary application -- in order to lock in development standards. Pet. Op. Br. at 10. A judicial declaration would give Petitioners the benefit oflocked in development standards at the time the SB 330 preliminary application was submitted. The City now is willing to accept the 2020 preliminary application as submitted, and the issue is whether that acceptance now as opposed to May 19 has any legal impact. While Petitioners fail to show any change in the City's development standards, and the City pointed out at the hearing that SB 330 only freezes zoning standards and not the building code, Petitioners' counsel argued that the City could make changes to its zoning standards between the court's judgment and the City's decision whether to approve Project. See §65950; Land Waste, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 958-60. That prospect means the submission of Jha's preliminary application is not moot. b. The Preliminary Application Was Submitted
Petitioners contend that Jha submitted the preliminary application on May 19, 2020, providing all 17 pieces of information listed in section 65941.l(a). AR 716-23. Pet. Op. Br. at 9-

10. The City responds that Jha never formally filed the SB 330 application to trigger the PSA 30-day clock because it was "an informal drop-off' and fees were never paid. Opp. at 16.

The City's claim that Jha's application was never formally submitted is untenable. Jha asked City Planning how to submit the application and she complied with the City Plauner' s instructions to submit electronic copies and drop off physical copies in bins outside the City Planning office. AR 1113-15. City Planning confirmed receipt of the preliminary application. Id.

Jha also paid all requested fees. AR 748. The City is really arguing that its refusal to file Jha's application made it an informal submission, but that argument is plainly bootstrapping a desired result. The application was formally submitted.
c. The City Should Have Accepted the SB 330 Application The City contends that it substantially complied with SB 330 (§65941.1) because its review of whether the SB 330 preliminary application was complete gives effect to the express mandate that all 17 required categories of information -- such as "proposed uses" and "proposed approvals process" -- are provided. See §65941.l(a). See Lewis v. City of Hayward, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 103, 112 (city complied with the PSA because it made the application's incomplete status clear even though not in writing). Opp. at 17-18.

Petitioners note that the City refused to accept Jha's SB 330 application because she did not submit a signed AHRF, even though this form is not one of the required pieces of information listed in section 65941.l(a). AR 1228. Petitioners note that the submission of a SB 330 22 preliminary application "shall not require an affirmative determination by a city, county, or city and county regarding the completeness of a preliminary application or a development application for purposes of compliance with this section." §65941.l(d). In other words, once the required information is provided, an SB 330 application is deemed submitted and an agency has a ministerial duty to accept it. Pet. Op. Br. at 9-10.

The City refused to accept Jha's SB 330 preliminary application because "the Preliminary Application contains inaccurate information regarding the use of Density Bonus." AR 1110.

Petitioners argue that the information provided was not inaccurate because section 65941.1 (a)(l 0)- (11) merely requires an applicant to submit the "number of proposed below market rate units" and the "number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions requested," regardless of whether the proposal or requests will be approved. The City later acknowledged that this is true, noting that the Project is "proposing to use the development standards of the underlying land use designation rather than the zone and proposing to use Density Bonus." Pet. Op. Br. at 10.

The court agrees. The submission of a preliminary application differs from a project application in that there is no completeness determination. §65941.l(d). The City refused to accept the preliminary application because a City planner affirmatively determined that the Project did not comply with the Property's zoning. AR 1283. Yet, no compliance determination is required for an SB 330 preliminary application to be deemed submitted. The City failed to carry out its ministerial duty to accept an SB 330 application that provided all 17 pieces of information listed in section 65941.1, and it violated SB 330 by requiring information beyond that which was specifically listed. 8
The issue of Jha's submission of a preliminary application is not moot, and her May 19, 2020 SB 330 application was submitted.

2. Violation of the PSA
a. The Project Application Must Be Deemed Complete
Petitioners argue that Jha' s Project application must be deemed complete as a matter oflaw.

The PSA provides precise time limits for agencies to act on an application. Once a project application has been submitted, section 65943(a) requires the local agency to make a written completeness determination within 30 calendar days, or else "the application together with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete." The agency has "30 days, and 30 days only" to determine an application is incomplete. Orsi, supra, 219 Cal. App. 3d at 1584. Pet. Op. Br. at 11. (i). The August 18, 2020 Submission
On August 18, 2020 Jha completed a Project application on the City's form. AR 97-104, 8 The City also argues that Jha's preliminary application has "no further force or effect" because she failed to file, with a filing fee, a complete project application with all required information within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application, and she failed to submit the information needed to complete the August 18, 2020 application within 90 days of receiving the City's notice of incompleteness on September 18, 2020. There is no extension of time available. §65941.1 ( d). Opp. at 16. Jha did not fail to submit a complete project application. See post.
23 1114. On August 21, 2020, City Planning emailed Jha and informed her that the Property is zoned RA-1 and she needed to seek a zone change, she could not seek a zone change and a Density Bonus at the same time, and her application was missing a GRF, an AHRF, and the Bureau of Engineering Hillside Referral Form. AR 1115.

On August 27, 2020, Jha told a City planner that she had submitted to the City's respective units all documents necessary for the three requested referral forms and their responses were attached. Hence, she had complied with the City's document requests for her Project application.

AR 1119. Of the three forms submitted by Jha, only the Bureau of Engineering Hillside Referral Form was signed. AR 1204-14.

On August 28, 2020, a City planner replied that upper management had reviewed Jha's request and decided that she needed to go back to the City units for them to complete the referrals.

Until the respective units signed them, the application would not be complete. AR 1120. On September 18, 2020, City Planning sent Jha a clarifying memorandum with instructions to return to the City's Specific Plan and Housing Units to obtain the necessary referrals. AR 513.

From these facts, Petitioners argue that Jha' s application must be deemed complete as a matter of law because the City failed to make a completeness determination within 30 days as required by the PSA. Jha submitted her Project application on August 18, 2020, but the City did not provide a written completeness determination until 31 days later, on September 18, 2020. AR 1114, 1303. The City had exactly 30 days to notify Jha that her application was incomplete, and the belated September 18 memorandum is irrelevant. Pet. Op. Br. at 11.

The City responds that it complied with the PSA's timeline. Each time Jha submitted information, a new 30-day period began, and the City met that deadline each time. See §65943(a), (b ). The City's emails constitute the written determinations of incompleteness and specifically itemized the missing information. The PSA does not specify the formality of the determination and emails were a regular form of communication between parties during COVID. See §65943(a), (b); Civil Code §1633.5. Opp. at 17.

The court agrees that the City planner's August 28, 2020 email informing Jha that her application was not complete (AR 1120) was a timely incompleteness determination.9 (ii). The January 21, 2021 Submission
On January 21, 2021, Jha submitted the documents listed in the September 18, 2020 9 Petitioners argue that the PSA requires the agency to provide "an exhaustive list of items that were not complete" when an application incompleteness determination is made. §65943(a).

A new 30-day review period begins upon any resubmittal, but the agency "shall not request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete." Id. Jha submitted the requested documents on August 27, 2020. AR 1119. Once they were submitted, the City was prohibited from requesting "any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete." If the August 21 email was the incompleteness determination, the information requested in the September 18 letter was invalid.

Pet. Op. Br. at 12.

The court views the City planner's August 28 email as the incompleteness determination and Petitioners fail to show what new information was sought in the September 18, 2020 letter that was not in the August 28, 2020 email.
24 memorandum, and this began a new 3 0-day review period. AR 1131. Petitioners argue that the City failed to meet the 30-day deadline to respond to her January 21, 2021 submission because the City planner did not respond until 36 days later, on February 26, 2021. AR 1132. Pet. Op. Br. at 11-12.

The City implicitly admits that the City planner's February 26, 2021 email was outside the 30-day review period and contends that the February 26 email simply repeated earlier notices within the 30-day period. See AR 315,412,513, 518-19, 522-23, 1215-23. The City argues that Orsi, supra, 219 Cal. App. 3d at 1576, is distinguishable because in that case the city was silent for 41 days (219 Cal.App.3d at 1584) whereas the City responded to every piecemeal submission from Jha. The City's consistent message to Jha was that it would be an idle act to accept and process an application for a land use approval that is not legally available. Civil Code §3532 ("The law neither does nor requires idle acts."). Opp. at 17.

The court notes that the February 26 email states that Jha must submit the GRF and the AHR forms signed by the appropriate units, which is the position consistently taken by the City.

See, e.g., AR 1115 (August 21, 2020 email). Nonetheless, Jha's January 21, 2021 application purported to submit all the information required in the September 18 memorandum; she did not simply reiterate her previous position. AR 1131. The City was required to respond in 30 days, did not do so, and Jha's application must be deemed complete. (iii). The Appeal
Even if the City did not violate the 30-day deadline, the PSA requires the agency to provide a right to appeal a completeness decision, and further requires a final written determination on the appeal within 60 calendar days. §65943( c ). If the final written determination is not made within that 60-day period, "the application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete." Id.

The City argues that it rendered a decision 54 days after the formal appeal was filed on July 8, 2021. Opp. at 17.

While this is true, Jha was forced to appeal from denial of an entitlement because the City had no PSA completeness appeal process. Jha demanded an appeal on March 7, 2021. She warned the City was warned that it had to have an appeal process (see AR 1153) and a City planner admitted at the PLUM hearing that an "appeal procedure is not codified in the Los Angeles Municipal Code." AR 625.

The City failed timely to process Jha's appeal and the court construes Jha's March 7, 2021 demand as starting the PSA appeal clock. §65943( c ). The March 7 demand began a 60-day period for the City to provide a final written completeness determination. AR 1153. The City failed to meet that deadline because the City Council did not issue a final written determination on Jha' s appeal until 178 days later, on September 1, 2021. AR 607. Jha's application must be deemed complete as a matter of law for failure to provide a timely appeal. 10 11 10 The City correctly points (Opp. at 16) out that the HAA standards and required findings apply to a project application that has been accepted for processing, when there is a vote, an approval, or a disapproval, or a decision on the requested entitlement. §§ 65589.5(f)(4), (h)(6), G)(l), 65589.6, 65950. These standards are irrelevant to whether there is a submitted application under SB 330 and a complete application under the PSA.
11 According to Petitioners, the City has a long history of refusing to accept permit 25 3. Violation of the HAA
a. Principles of Statutory Interpretation
Petitioners' contention that the City has violated the HAA presents issues of statutory interpretation. In construing a statute, a court must ascertain the intent of the legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724; Orange County Employees Assn. v. County of Orange, ("Orange County") (1991) 234 Cal.App. 3d 833, 841. The court first looks to the language of the statute, attempting to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of the language and seeking to avoid making any language mere surplusage.

Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., (1989) 48 Cal 3d 711, 724. Significance, if possible, is attributed to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.

Orange County, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at 841. "'The statute's words generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent; if they are clear and unambiguous, '[t]here is no need for judicial construction and a court may not indulge in it. [Citation.]"' MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. California Dept. of Tax & Fee Administration, ("MCI") (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 635, 643.

If a statute is ambiguous and susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the court may resort to extrinsic aids, including principles of construction and legislative history.

Macisaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc., (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1076, I 082 (quoting Riverview Fire Protection Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126). Legislative committee reports, legislative analyst reports, bill reports, and other legislative records are appropriate sources indicative of legislative intent. In re John S., (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1144, n. 2.

Where ambiguity still remains, the court should consider "reason, practicality, and common sense." Id. at 1084. This requires consideration of the statute's purpose, the evils to be remedied, public policy, and contemporaneous administrative construction. MCI, supra, 28 Cal.App.5111 at 643. The enactment must be given a reasonable and commonsense interpretation consistent with the apparent purpose and intent of the lawmakers, practical rather than technical in applications for filing to circumvent the PSA's deadlines. Petitioners contend that the City wrongly requires applicants to seek signed approval forms from up to 18 different units before a project application may be submitted. AR 88. Petitioners contend that, as exemplified by this case, City units request information on a case-by-case basis and their staff makes subjective determinations whether the underlying project, not the information provided, complies with its rules, and all this occurs outside of the PSA's protections with no deadlines or appeals. Pet. Op.

Br. at 12-13.

The PSA requires that each agency maintain lists that "specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant." §65940. Local jurisdictions are precluded from requiring additional information, and the local agency must deem the application complete if all required information is provided. Resp. RJN Ex. 25, p. 589 (Analysis of SB 330 as amended June 12, 2019); Ex. 26, pp. 599 (analysis of SB 330 as amended August 12, 2019). The legality of the City's PSA procedure has not been adequately briefed and is unnecessary to the court's decision.

Therefore, the court expresses no opinion whether the City's procedure unlawfully frustrates a project application's completeness by requiring one or more of its units to sign off on a substantive requirement. See §65940.
26 nature, and which, when applied, will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity.

Lungren v. Deukmejian, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 727, 735.

If a statute is unambiguous, an agency's interpretation is entitled to no deference. Bonnell v. Medical Board, (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1255, 1265. For an ambiguous statute, the interpretation of the agency operating under the statute "is entitled to consideration and respect, [but] it is not binding and it is ultimately for the judiciary to interpret[.)" Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 1094, 1105, n.7. An agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute consisting only of the agency's litigating position, without promulgation of formal regulations, is entitled to no deference. Culligan Water Conditioning, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 86, 92-93.
b. The General Plan
A city adopts a general plan to guide its future development. §65300. The general plan is a city's constitution for future development. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540. General plans generally do not state specific mandates or prohibitions, but rather policies and goals. Napa Citizens for Honest Govermnent v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors, (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342,378.

The housing element of a local govermnent' s general plan is heavily regulated and relied on by the state's Department of Housing and Community Development to determine whether localities have the planned capacity to accommodate their Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"). The Legislature, to provide certainty to home builders and ensure that claims regarding residential capacity in a local agency's housing element is accurate, has given primacy to the densities allowed under the general plan in state housing laws. See Pet. Op. Br. at 15.

The City's General Plan Framework Element states that the precise land use "designation will be determined in the community plan", which will "set forth how property may be used and form the basis for decisions on discretionary permits." Resp. RJN Ex. 14, p. 167 (General Plan Framework Element). 12 The City's 35 community plans collectively comprise the General Plan's Land Use Element. 13 Opp. at 19-20.
c. The HAA's General Plan Consistency Requirement
The Legislature has made numerous findings of a housing crisis in California that is "partially caused by activities and policies of many local govermnents that limit the approval of housing .... " §65589.5(a)(l)(B). To combat this, the HAA greatly limits a local government's ability to deny housing development projects that comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, except in cases where the agency finds by a preponderance of 12 The City argues that Petitioners cannot claim zone/plan inconsistency through the General Plan's Housing Element because the Property's parcel number is not listed on the applicable page of the Community Plan's RHNA inventory of underdeveloped suitable sites identified for housing production without need for discretionary action. Resp. RJN Ex. 15 (Inventory); AR 473 (Property's A.P.N.). Opp. at 20. Petitioners do not purport to rely on the Property as an underdeveloped site.
13 For ease of reference, the court will refer to the land designation set forth in the Community Plan as made by the General Plan.
27 evidence that: (1) the project would have an unavoidable impact on public health or safety; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than the disapproval. §65589.5(j)(l)(A)-(B); see also Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at 1081. The HAA defines "disapproval" as any instance in which a local agency "[v]otes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved." §65589.5(h)(6). A local agency must provide written documentation identifying any plan, program, ordinance, or standard consistency, conformity, or compliance issues within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete. §65589.5(j)(2). Pet. Op. Br. at 13-14.

Petitioners argue that the HAA mandates a determination of compliance with a city's zoning code when the project is consistent with the city's general plan density. The Legislature has amended the HAA several times to strengthen its provisions and close loopholes that local governments have exploited. Pet. Op. Br. at 14. AB 3194's amendments were described as "game changers" to give local agencies less deference and strengthen the HAA "by requiring approval of certain projects that are inconsistent with zoning if the jurisdiction has not brought its zoning ordinance in compliance with the general plan" so that the HAA would be "implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing." Pet. RJN Ex. 3, p. 4; §65589.5(a)(2)(L). Pet. Op. Br. at 18.

In 2017, AB 1515 changed the standard of review that a court must apply to review whether a project is code compliant. Prior to this amendment, significant deference was given to a local government's interpretation of its own code, and its compliance determination would generally be upheld unless the determination was an abuse of discretion. AB 1515 eliminated that deference and requires a court to find a housing project compliant if "substantial evidence would allow a reasonable person to conclude" that the project is compliant. §65589.5(±)(4); Pet. RJN Ex. 1, p. 3.

In 2018, AB 3194 sought to close a loophole exploited by local governments to avoid compliance with the HAA by maintaining low zoning densities that force a project into a discretionary rezoning process. Pet. RJN Ex. 2, p. 3. AB 3194 fixed this problem by (a) prohibiting local governments from requiring a project applicant to seek rezoning where the zoning is inconsistent with the general plan and (b) where zoning is consistent with the general plan, requiring the local government to facilitate the density allowed under the general plan rather than the zoning.

AB 3194 added section 65589.5(j)(4), which states:
"For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria. and shall not require a rezoning. if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is 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 and proposed by the proposed housing development project. (emphasis added). Pet.

Op. Br. at 14-15.
28 At the hearing, the court and counsel spent significant time discussing the meaning of this ambiguous provision. The court noted that the first sentence could be interpreted to mean that a housing development project is not inconsistent with zoning standards if it is consistent with the general plan's standards, and it does not matter whether the zoning is inconsistent with the general plan. This interpretation is a statement that "A necessarily is consistent with B" no matter what alternative exists; i.e., whether the zoning is consistent or inconsistent. The court suggested that otherwise much of the first clause would be surplusage - specifically, the phrase "not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and".

Discussion with counsel at the hearing persuaded the court that the first sentence does not have this meaning. Counsel explained that zoning standards can include more than density requirements; they can also include setbacks, side yards, and subjective requirements such as compatibility and aesthetics. Thus, "objective general plan standards" are distinct from the broader category of zoning standards. The means that the first clause of section 65589.50)( 4) has meaning and is not surplusage. As such, the sentence provides that a project is not inconsistent with zoning standards (which are broad) if it is consistent with the objective general plan standards even though the zoning is inconsistent with the general plan.

At the hearing, Petitioners' counsel summarized their interpretation of section 65589.50)( 4) as follows: a city must defer to its general plan's density requirements whether a property's zoning is consistent or inconsistent with the general plan. Pursuant to this interpretation, the first sentence of section 65589.5(j)(4) provides that a city must look to its general plan if the zoning is inconsistent, and the second sentence provides that a city may look to its zoning's objective standards if the zoning and general plan are consistent and must do so to facilitate and accommodate the site's density allowed by the general plan. In either circumstance, the city is required to permit the density allowed by the general plan.

The City argues that section 65589.5(j)(4) should not be interpreted always to require the general plan's density. Instead, zoning inconsistency is a prerequisite to application of the general plan's density. The plain text of both the HAA and the Density Bonus Law require a property's zoning to be inconsistent with the general plan before "the general plan density shall prevail," or a local government is required to accommodate "the density allowed on the site by the general plan." See§§ 65589.5(j)(4), 65915(0)(5). Opp. at 18.

The City argues that its interpretation ensures that "each part of the statute is given meaning," harmonizes, and does not "render nugatory important provisions." Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization, (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640,645,647. In contrast, Petitioners' interpretation of always requiring general plan density improperly renders the term "inconsistent" meaningless and attempts to improperly compel actions beyond the duties articulated by the statute's text based on legislative policy. See Larson v. Redondo Beach, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 332, 337-38 (denying mandamus because legislative policy statements did not enjoin the acts sought to be compelled). The City adds that its interpretation reinforces the zoning consistency with the general plan required by section 65860 which is a concept that is well established by section 65860 and associated caselaw. 14 Opp. at 18-19. 14 The City also refers to Civil Code section 1645 ( contract technical terms should be interpreted as professional would understand them) and County of Sacramento v. Hickman, (1967) 29 As part of its argument, the City contends that, like the first sentence, the second sentence of section 65589.5(j)(4) still requires inconsistency between zoning and the general plan before any requirement is imposed. If the general plan and zoning are consistent, no requirement is imposed by the second sentence.

The City's interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the second sentence. Its language expressly permits a city which has complied with the consistency/compliance determination requirements in subsection (i)(2) to require a project to comply with those objective zoning standards that are consistent with the general plan, but it must do so to in accordance with general plan density. The plain language of the second sentence does not require any inconsistency for general plan density to apply.

The City argues that the statute should not be interpreted so that general plan density always applies, pointing out that the inconsistency requirement was added to the HAA and the Density Bonus Law after the Legislature received comments about the relationship of zoning to the general plan. For the HAA, the Legislature added section 65589.5(j)(4) in 2018 after deleting language in the original bill that would have allowed projects to build at maximum general plan density. Resp.

RJN Exs. 28-32 (AB 3194 analyses). Deletion of text means that the statute "should not be construed to include the omitted provision." People v. Tingcungco, (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 249, 256. Thus, the deletion of section 65589.5(j)( 4)'s language suggests that maximum density under the general plan should not apply without inconsistency with zoning. See Opp. at 18.

AB 3194's legislative history for section 65589.5(j)(4) initially would have prohibited an agency from finding that a proposed project is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance where the existing zoning ordinance does not allow the maximum residential use, density, and intensity permitted by the general plan. Resp. RJN Ex. 29. The APA objected and requested that the language be limited solely to density, explaining that "if the bill is amended to instead allow the developer to use the density specified in the housing element or zoning ordinance for a specific site, whichever is higher, APA would support that change." Resp. RJN, Ex. 32 p. 691 (emphasis added). AB 3194 was revised to delete this language. Resp. RJN Exs. 21, 30. Thus, the original HAA amendment would have broadly required maximum general plan use, density, and intensity and not merely maximum general plan density. The resulting compromise reduced the scope so that the use and intensity language was removed, but not maximum general plan density. Reply at 10-11.

Petitioners are correct that section 65589.5(j)( 4) requires a city to defer to its general plan's density requirements whether a property's zoning is consistent or inconsistent with the general plan. This interpretation is consistent with the Legislature's directive that the HAA "be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing." §65589.5(a)(2)(L). The HAA greatly limits a local government's ability to deny housing development projects that comply with applicable development standards, except in cases where the agency finds the project would have an unavoidable public health or safety impact. §65589.5(j)(l)(A)-(B). 15 66 Cal.2d 841, 851 (constitutional provision incorporating statute should be construed to employ statute's meaning in the same sense), but neither bear on the statutory interpretation in this case. 15 At the hearing, the City's counsel contended that this interpretation is inconsistent with 30 This interpretation is consistent with other pertinent housing statutes: SB 35 and the Density Bonus Law.
(i). The Density Bonus Law's Inconsistency Provision
The Density Bonus Law has a consistency provision:
"[T]he density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, [it] means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail." §65915(0)(5) (emphasis added). Pet. Op.

Br. at 15-16.

The Density Bonus Law provides that a local government must apply "the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project" and, if the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail. §65915(0)(5).

The City argues that the Density Bonus Law's definition of "maximum allowable residential density" has two directions. The second sentence regarding zoning consistency with the land use element of the general plan contrasts with the first sentence stating that the maximum allowable density is the density allowed under the "zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan". §65915(0)(5). The plain language of the first sentence directs the City to harmonize the impact of both zoning and the plan when there is consistency so that zone and plan can have "concurrent operation." Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 805. According to the City, Petitioners' interpretation that the general plan's density must always be applied would render the first sentence meaningless or redundant. Opp. at

19. The first sentence exists for clarity and is not meaningless. As Petitioners argue (Reply at 9-10), section 65915(o)(5)'s language was intended to clear up any confusion that the maximum density allowed by the general plan applies when there is an inconsistency by laying out the alternatives. The first sentence of section 65915(0)(5) provides that the density bonus is the maximum density permitted by the general plan and zoning where they are consistent. The second sentence states that the density will be the general plan's density where the two are inconsistent.

The Legislature added this inconsistency language after an analysis of the proposed amendment noted that "Theoretically the land use element and zoning should always be consistent. In reality, they are often inconsistent. In such cases, this bill will create confusion and conflict." Resp. RJN, HAA subsection 65589.5(d)(5), which requires inconsistency with both zoning and the general plan for a local government to disapprove a very low, low-, or moderate-income housing project.

There is no contradiction between requiring a city to comply with the density provided by its general plan for a market rate housing project and at the same time preventing a city from denying a low-income housing project unless it is inconsistent with both zoning and the general plan. 31 Ex. 34, p. 706. The analysis suggested picking one standard, either the zoning or general plan. Id.

Instead, the Legislature added language that "[i]f the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail."
(ii). SB 35's Inconsistency Provision
The City argues that SB 35 is a similar statute which streamlines projects providing 50% affordable units, and yet it does not make inconsistency a prerequisite to using general plan density.

Rather, it seeks to "facilitate and expedite" housing for specified income levels in specific jurisdictions. §65913.4(a)(4); Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 326-27 ( city's reliance on municipal code provision requiring very low-income units as ground to deny ministerial approval of low-income housing impermissibly :frustrated SB 35). An SB 35 project is consistent with zoning "if the density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation .... " §65913.4(a)(5)(A); see also, §65589.S(d)(S) (allowing denial of specified projects if inconsistent with "both" zoning and plan). The fact that the HAA and Density Bonus Law term "inconsistent" is not in SB 35 means that the Legislature meant to convey a different meaning. The omission of a provision from a similar statute concerning a related subject "is significant to show that a different legislative intent existed." County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 798, 825. Opp. at 18, 22.

Petitioners correctly reply that SB 3 5 does have an inconsistency provision. Section 65913.4(b)(5)(B) requires projects to be governed by the general plan in cases where the general plan and zoning are mutually inconsistent. Reply at 10, n. 7.

At the hearing, the City's counsel acknowledged the inconsistency provision of section 65913.4(b)(5)(B) and argued that it concerns design review, not density. Counsel contended that section 65913 .4(b )(S)(A) provides that a housing project complies with objective zoning standards for housing density if it complies with the general plan's land use designation while section 65913.4(b)(5)(B) provides that, if objective zoning and design review standards are inconsistent, then the project shall be deemed consistent with the zoning standards if consistent with the design review standards in the general plan.

Scrutiny of the plain language of section 65913.4(b)(5)(B) shows it to be broader than simply design standards. It provides that, if"objective zoning, general plan, subdivision, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent", then the general plan standards prevail. The "or" means that the general plan standards prevail if objective zoning standards are inconsistent with the general plan. Additionally, design review standards would not be expected to be in a general plan. Section 65913.4(b)(5)(B) is an inconsistency provision similar to the Density Bonus Law and the HAA. The Director of City Planning has confirmed that SB 35 requires the approval of housing projects that use the maximum density allowed under the general plan and prohibits rezoning requirements. AR 145.
(iii). Conclusion
The consistency provisions of SB 35 and the Density Bonus Law are similar to the HAA.

Petitioners are correct that section 65589.5G)(4) must be interpreted to allow a project the maximum allowable density under a city's general plan in the same manner as those statutes.

Otherwise, a local government would be required to grant a density bonus using its general plan 32 density but would be free to deny the project under the HAA by relying on lower zoning densities.

Pet. Op. Br. at 16. 16 Section 65589.5(j)(4) requires a city to defer to its general plan's density requirements whether a property's zoning is consistent or inconsistent with the general plan.

In any event, the Property's zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. See post. d. The Parties' Positions on Whether the Property's Zoning Is Inconsistent With the General Plan
The Property is within the Community Plan, which designates the subject parcel "Limited Commercial," with various corresponding "C" zones that allow for commercial uses and multifamily residential uses with densities up to one unit per 400 square feet. Despite the Property's Limited Commercial land use designation, the site is zoned RA-1. The RA-1 zone prohibits all commercial and multi-family uses, allowing only one single-family residence per lot. (i). The Disapproval
Petitioners argue that the City disapproved Jha's application and required a rezoning even though the Property's zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. Pet. Op. Br. at 14.

The court agrees. The City claims that there was no disapproval because the City Council did not take a final vote on project entitlements, but the definition of disapproval is explicitly tied to the project application. The HAA defines "disapproval" as any instance in which a local agency "[v]otes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved." §65589.5(h)(6).) The City disapproved the Project because of its purported noncompliance with the Project site's single-family zoning. AR 606. A City Councilmember stated:
"[Y]ou can't do multifamily in residential agriculture in RA zones. You have to get it rezoned." AR 634. The Council's final administrative action disapproved Jha' s application based on an inconsistency finding and directed her to seek rezoning. Reply at 4, n. 3. (ii). The Parties' Positions
Petitioners argue that the City erroneously determined that Jha must submit a request for a rezoning even though the HAA strictly prohibits local govermnents from requiring rezoning where the general plan and zoning are inconsistent. The Property's zoning is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan designation. The RA-1 zoning only allows one single-family unit and entirely prohibits the two primary uses of commercial and multifamily that are within the General Plan's Limited Commercial designation. No reasonable person would conclude that a zoning district is consistent with the general plan where the zoning prohibits the two principal categories of uses specifically authorized by the general plan. This inconsistency prompted one City Planner to confer with supervisors to "find out if there are any errors" with the designation (AR 1098) and elicited a response from another planner stated that the reason for the RA-1 zoning may be the 16 Petitioners argue that this case demonstrates the absurdity of this interpretation, as Jha has requested a density bonus pursuant to the Density Bonus Law relying on the maximum density allowed under the Property site's General Plan designation, and yet the City's concludes that the Project cannot be approved without a zone change and can be denied under the HAA. This decision would violate the Density Bonus Law requirement that the City grant a density bonus pursuant to its General Plan density. See §65915(f). Pet. Op. Br. at 16. 33 result of hilly topography but it "is anyone's guess" and "the logic is not obvious." AR 1100. Pet.

Op. Br. at 17; Reply at 8-9.

The City acknowledges that section 65860 requires the Property's zoning to be consistent with the General Plan, but it does not rigidly dictate the consistency required. See §65860(a)(2).

A local agency action is consistent with the general plan if it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. See Corona-Norco Unified Sch. Dis.t v. City of Corona, ("Corona-Norco") (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994. It should not "frustrate" the achievement of the plan objectives and policies. Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Assn. v. City of Modesto, (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 9, 23 (giving deference to city's conclusion that shopping center was consistent with general plan policies and goals because its size limits were flexible).

This does not mean that a property's zoning must be "in rigid conformity with every detail" of the general plan, such as zoning that exactly matches the density of the zones listed for the general plan. Id. at 17-18; accord, Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland. (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 717-18 (upholding city's consistency determination for housing development despite not conforming precisely with land use designation because map permitted variation); Corona-Norco, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at 994 (upholding city's approval of a zone change to single family where general plan was not specific and does not contain mandatory provisions). Opp. at

20. The City contends that footnote 9 clarifies the impact of the General Plan legend's list of zones by stating that the full range of Limited Commercial corresponding zones includes the listed C 1. 5 zone as well as more restrictive zones such as RA. Resp. RJN Ex. 17. As a result, the RA zoning and its uses are "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs" specified in the General Plan category of Limited Commercial because it can operate concurrently with the General Plan's maximum plan density allowed. §65860(a)(2). In other words, the RA zone's limitation to one dwelling does not exceed the 43-unit density of the Limited Commercial Cl.5 zone, and the zone does not "prohibit what the [plan] commands or command what it prohibits." Sherwin Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 902 (local antigraffiti ordinance not preempted by state law penalizing the sale of aerosol paint to minor as misdemeanor). 17
The City concludes that Petitioners have not shown the zone-plan inconsistency prerequisite to applying general plan density under the HAA and Density Bonus Law. §§65589.5G)(4), 65915( o )(5). The 67-unit Project does not comply with RA-1 standard of one dwelling on the lot and the Property therefore requires a zone change to accommodate the Project. See §65589.S(f)( 4), G)(l); Mira Dev. Corp. v. City of San Diego. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1202, 1222 (HAA findings do not apply to a project that requires legislation because it does not comply with existing standards); Resp. RJN Ex. 12 (LAMC §12.32 zone changes). Opp. at 19, 22. e. Warner Ridge
17 The City argues that Petitioners cannot claim the RA zoning or footnote 9 is inherently void, as land use legislation is voidable only if an action is timely brought within 90 days of the adoption. §65009; Gonzalez v. County of Tulare, (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 777, 789. Opp. at 20.

Petitioners do not argue that the Property's RA zoning is void; they only argue that it is inconsistent with the General Plan which must prevail.
34 Petitioners argue that the City's hierarchy of zoning use theory was rejected in an unpublished case, Warner Ridge Associates v. City of Los Angeles, ("Warner Ridge"), (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 238. 18 Pet. Op. Br. at 17-18.

In Warner Ridge, a 21.5-acre parcel in the City's Community Plan area was designated as "neighborhood and office," which allows for a range of commercial zones, but the property was zoned RA-I (rural residential) and Al-I (agricultural). Id. at 244. The property owner sought to build a 810,000 square foot commercial project and applied for a zoning change to C4. Id. at 244.

When the City rejected the project, the owner argued that the City was in violation of section 65860's requirement of consistency between zoning and the general plan. The City argued, as it does here, that RA-I zoning is "less intensive" and therefore consistent with the commercial designation of the General Plan under its hierarchy of uses theory. Id. at 246.

The trial court stated that the question is whether "a zoning ordinance is consistent with the general plan if the ordinance prohibits all commercial uses in an area designated in the general plan for commercial use?" Id. at 247. The trial court stated that the answer is "obviously no." Id.

The trial court found that "[nlo reasonable person can seriously believe that a zoning ordinance which prohibits all commercial uses in an area designated in the general plan for commercial uses is 'consistent' with the general plan." Id. Such an ·ordinance is not consistent with the plan in any meaningful sense of the word "consistent". Id.

The appellate court reviewed the comprehensive, long-term nature of a general plan, which sits atop the hierarchy of local governmental law regulating land use. Id. at 249. The court note that the general plan consistency requirement in state law has transformed general plans from "just an 'interesting study'" into the land use charter for a city. Id. at 250. A zoning ordinance inconsistent with the general plan is invalid and not vice versa; the tail does not wag the dog. Id. at 251.

The court found that the record showed the City's zoning was so inconsistent with the General Plan as to override the deference normally accorded to such an ordinance - zoning which prohibits commercial development must, perforce, necessarily be inconsistent with a general plan which permits such development. Id. at 252. The court rejected the City's contention that the residential suburban zoning is consistent with the General Plan because the City's hierarchical scheme of zoning incorporates any less intense use. Id. at 253-254. The court found this hierarchy theory had a logical fallacy which would permit the City to prohibit an entire category ofland use specifically permitted in the General Plan. Id. at 254. Yet, the City cannot pass a zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the General Plan. Id. at 254. The hierarchy theory would improperly allow the City to amend its General Plan through the enactment of inconsistent zoning ordinances.

Id. at 254. In order fofzcmih:g to be consistent with the General Plan, at a minimum it cannot prohibit an entire category of use permitted by the General Plan. Id. A "general plan which designates property for intense development with the contemplation that designation may thereafter be prohibited through zoning is, in effect, no general plan .... The hierarchy theory, in essence, repeals the consistency requirement." Id.
f. Collateral Estoppel
18 The California Supreme Court granted review of Warner Ridge, but withdrew the review on March 12, 1992 at the petitioner's request and ordered the appellate opinion depublished. 35 Petitioners note that Warner Ridge is unpublished, but CRC 8.1115(1) permits a party to rely upon an unpublished opinion "[w]hen the opinion is relevant under the doctrines oflaw of the case, resjudicata, or collateral estoppel." Pet. Op. Br. at 18.

Under collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude the re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, (2005) 545 U.S. 323, 336. Collateral estoppel prevents re-litigation when the following factors are met: (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; ( 4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding. Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 547,556.

Petitioners argue that Warner Ridge is unquestionably relevant to the doctrine of general plan and zoning consistency at issue in this case. The prerequisites for collateral estoppel are also met, as the consistency issue decided in Warner Ridge is identical to that presented in this litigation, was actually litigated, there was a final judgment on the merits of the issue, and the City was a party to the prior action. See Lucido v. Superior Court, (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335,341.

The City responds that Warner Ridge does not meet the test for collateral estoppel because it did not involve the actual litigation and necessary decision of the identical issues raised by Petitioners concerning the Property. See Church v. San Mateo County Assessment Appeals Board, ("Church") (2022) 52 Cal.App.5th 310, 321-22 (not applying issue preclusion); County of Los Angeles v. County ofLosAngelesAssessmentAppeals Bd., (1993) 13 Cal.App4th 102, 110. (not applying collateral estoppel to contracts that were "similar" but concerned different property).

Opp. at 21.

The City argues that Warner Ridge does not involve the Property or the consistency of the RA zone. Instead, it decided a challenge under section 65860 to a newly adopted RS zone to determine whether the zoning should be set aside. Opp. at 21. While Warner Ridge discussed its disagreement with the City's hierarchy theory and part of the footnote language, it did not decide whether the City's zones and plans "may allow a lower use" or whether "a less intense use is included within a more intense use, or whether such a use may be permitted," calling the question "beside the point." See Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 892. 906 (a case does not stand for a proposition not considered).

This is mostly true, 19 but irrelevant. Warner Ridge held that the City's hierarchy theory had a logical fallacy which would permit the City to prohibit an entire category of land use specifically permitted in the General Plan, improperly allowing the City to amend its General Plan through the enactment of inconsistent zoning ordinances. Warner Ridge did not address whether the City's zoning may permissibly cascade to permit lower uses; it only held that the City's zoning cannot be consistent with the General Plan where it prohibits an entire category of use permitted by the General Plan. But it is this consistency holding, not the lawfulness of the City's zoning hierarchy or cascading, that is germane to this case.

The City contends that Petitioners' reliance on Warner Ridge is problematic for two other 19 The challenge was to property zoned RA-1. It was not rezoned to RS until the City Council's decision rejecting the project. Warner Ridge, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at 245. 36 reasons. First, it attempts to convert an unpublished case into citable precedent on an issue of law - i.e., what development standard applies. Yet, legal questions are not subject to collateral estoppel. Church, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at 310, 322. Second, collateral estoppel does not apply where injustice would result. See Pacific Maritime Association v. California Unemployment Ins.

Appeals Bd., ("Pacific Maritime") (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 325, 333-34 (citing Restatement of Judgments section 70). The City argues that the application of collateral estoppel to this case would create a public injustice by preventing the City and individual property owners from litigating development standards within the zoning and planning context of an individual parcel.

Opp. at 21.

Petitioners reply that Warner Ridge decided an issue of ultimate fact as applied to law, not a pure question of law, because it decided whether single family zoning is consistent with the General Plan's commercial land use designation under state law consistency requirements. Reply at 7, n. 4. While teasing out the difference between an issue of law and ultimate facts is sometimes difficult, the court agrees. Warner Ridge decided that the City's cascading or hierarchy zoning is not consistent with the General Plan where it prohibits an entire category of use permitted by the General Plan. The case applied zoning consistency law to the facts of the City's zoning and General Plan; it did not decide a question of law.

The City's argument misunderstands Pacific Maritime's injustice exception, which stated that collateral estoppel does not apply where injustice would result from the application of one rule of law in subsequent actions between the same parties and a different rule of law in subsequent actions between other persons. 236 Cal.App.2d at 333-34 (applying injustice exception to unemployment benefits where ruling that prior case determining that employee left his employment voluntarily under labor agreement provisions would affect other employees and other employers). In future lawsuits concerning the consistency of the City's General Plan and zoning, the developer will be a different person or entity, but the City will be on the other side. If collateral estoppel applies, the same rule of law should apply in every such action. Therefore, the injustice exception does not apply.

Thus, the City is collaterally estopped from contending that its cascading zoning is consistent with its General Plan under the HAA where it prohibits an entire category of uses permitted by the General Plan.
g. Footnote 9 Does Not Make the Property's Zoning Consistent with the General Plan Even if, arguendo, the City is not collaterally estopped by Warner Ridge, the court finds its reasoning persuasive.20
20 The City argues that, if the court relies on any ruling about the existing zones and uses allowed by a land use category under the footnote language and within the context of section 65589.5(j)(4), the superior court decision in Snowball West Investments, LP v. City of Los Angeles, LASC 20STCP00771, is relevant. Resp. RJN Ex. 38. Opp. at 21. The court declined to judicial notice this ruling, which is not binding on the court.

In any event, Snowball did decide that footnote 23 of a land use map (which appears similar to Footnote 9) had been interpreted by the City for 50 years as a cascading of zones, this interpretation was entitled to deference, Snowball failed to provide any legal justification to disregard footnote 23, and therefore had not demonstrated zoning inconsistency within the City's 37 The Property is zoned RA-1 and has a Limited Commercial land use designation under the General Plan. The General Plan land use map identifies CR, Cl, Cl.5, RAS3, RAS4, and Pas the zones that correspond to a Limited Commercial designation. Resp. RJN Ex. 17; see Resp. RJN Ex. 1 (LAMC §12.04.A). The City's position is that RA-1 's single-family zoning is consistent with the Limited Commercial designation because any zoning that is less intensive than the uses allowed by the General Plan is consistent, a theory that the City calls a hierarchy of uses.

The City Council adopted this language for Footnote 9 on March 27, 1991, amending all community plans to clarify that zones more restrictive than those shown on the legend are consistent with the General Plan. Resp. RJN Ex. 18, p. 246 (City Council File). The City Council memorialized the fact that the "changes are in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and serve as clarification of longstanding policy and interpretation of the Plan", which is that the "more restrictive zones are consistent with the applicable plan category." Ex. 18, p.261, 265. It clarifies the full range of corresponding zones "without requiring the recitation of each and every corresponding zone." Ex. 18, p. 266.

Thus, the City concludes that the RA zone is included in the Limited Commercial designation because the RA zone is more restrictive than the Cl.5 zone. The zones thereafter cascade to less intense uses, such that the R4 zone permits R3, the R3 permits R2, and the R2 permits Rl. The Rl zone permits one dwelling on a 5000 square foot lot (Resp. RJN Ex. 3 (LAMC §12.08.A.1, C.4)) and the RA zone requires one dwelling on a 17,500 square foot lot. Resp. RJN Ex. 2 (LAMC §12.07.A.l, C.4). Therefore, the RA zone is consistent with the General Plan's Limited Commercial designation because it is included by footnote 9. See Opp. at 10.

The City argues that it is entitled to deference concerning its interpretation of its zoning code and Footnote 9. The City's interpretation must "be respected by the courts unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized." City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba, (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1087, 1091; MCH Operating Lt'd Partnership v. City of San Jose, (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, community plan under the HAA. Ex. 38, pp. 745-46. Warner Ridge provides that missing legal analysis.
38 219 (upholding a city's interpretation of its ordinance). Courts grant significant deference because agencies have the expertise and knowledge to administer their laws. Yamaha Corp. of America v.

St. Bd. Of Equal., (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 12. The City's zoning regulations and Footnote 9 are subject to long-standing and consistent interpretation. It is the City's expertise, expressed as an interpretation, "that is the source of the presumptive value of the agency's views." Id. at 11. See, City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa, (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1021 ("The construction placed on a piece of legislation by the enacting body is of very persuasive significance."). Opp. at 15, 20-21.

Petitioners argue that Footnote 9 is explained by the City's long history of ignoring state law and is the very loophole the Legislature intended to close in AB 3194's prohibition against rezoning in cases where zoning is inconsistent with the general plan. In 1978, AB 283 required the City to achieve zoning and general plan consistency by July 1, 1982. City of Los Angeles v.

State of California, (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 526. Rather than comply, the City unsuccessfully argued the requirement was unconstitutional. The court held that all City ordinances must be consistent with its General Plan and ordered that "conformity shall be achieved by July 1, 1982." Id. at 532. The City disregarded the court's ruling and failed to comply. Governor Deukmejian vetoed a proposed extension to the deadline, finding it "disturbing" that the City failed to comply and "inappropriate" to extend the deadline. Pet. RJN, Ex. B. Reply at 5.

Despite all three branches of state government mandating compliance, the City still failed to achieve consistency. The City was then sued in Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, ("Federation") LASC C526616, to prevent the issuance of new permits until consistency was achieved. See Elysian Heights Residents v. City of Los Angeles, (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 21, 26.21 Federation potentially involved the rezoning of thousands of parcels in the City, and the City agreed to a stipulated judgment that required a permit moratorium and implementation of a consistency program, adopting the hierarchy theory to achieve consistency for purposes of the stipulated judgment. Warner Ridge, supra, 2 Cal. App. 4th at 253.

In 1990, the City was sued again in Warner Ridge. Faced again with the threat of thousands of lawsuits, the City appealed and immediately "attempted to set its hierarchy theory in concrete" by adding a footnote to every community plan. Id. at 253. It lost. Reply at 6-7.

Petitioners' recitation of footnote 9's history shows the City's motivation in adopting it but does not reflect on the City's interpretation ofit. The City has a long-standing interpretation of footnote 9 to mean that the full range of Limited Commercial corresponding zones include more restrictive zones such as RA. Resp. RJN Ex. 17. This interpretation is entitled to deference and the court accepts it. MCH Operating Lt' d Partnership v. City of San Jose. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 219 (upholding a city's interpretation of its ordinance).

Petitioners also argue that the City focuses on the first sentence of footnote 9 and ignores the last sentence which states: "It is the intent of the Plan that the entitlements granted shall be one of the zone designations within the corresponding zones shown on the Plan, unless accompanied by a concurrent Plan amendment." Resp. RJN Ex. 17 (emphasis added); AR 334-36, 416. 21 A court decision may be judicially noticed for its existence and for the truth of the results reached, but not the truth of hearsay contained in the record. People v. Harbo.!, (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 123, 127. The court is citing historical facts in appellate cases for background purposes only.
39 Petitioners argue that this is a mandatory directive that requires the City to approve projects according to the zones identified in the General Plan's land use designation. This is consistent with the Framework Element's directive that the community plans "form the basis for decisions on discretionary permits." Read together, the General Plan and the Framework Element clearly requires entitlements to be issued per the General Plan designation even if the zoning is inconsistent. This is exactly what the HAA requires. Reply at 5.

The second sentence of footnote 9 does not aid Petitioners' argument. It is a forwardlooking instruction that, if the City grants a discretionary entitlement, it "shall be one of the zone designations within the corresponding zone shown on the Plan." This sentence ensures greater certainty about ever changing future zoning and does not mean that a project must be approved in accordance with the General Plan's designations.

Contrary to the City's position, however, its interpretation of footnote 9 does not mean that the Property's RA zoning is consistent with the General Plan as furthering its objectives and policies and not obstructing their attainment. See Corona-Norco, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at 994.

Warner Ridge rejected the City's zoning hierarchy as consistent with its General Plan where it prohibits all commercial uses in an area designated by the General Plan for commercial use. The City's hierarchy zoning has a logical fallacy that would permit the City to prohibit an entire category of land use specifically permitted in the General Plan. Yet, the City cannot pass a zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the General Plan, and the hierarchy zoning improperly allows the City to amend its General Plan through the enactment of inconsistent zoning ordinances. As Warner Ridge stated, a "general plan which designates property for intense development with the contemplation that designation may thereafter be prohibited through zoning is, in effect, no general plan .... The hierarchy theory, in essence, repeals the consistency requirement." Id. at 254.

Thus, Warner Ridge found that the City's cascading zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan where the General Plan permits commercial use and the zoning prohibits an entire category of commercial use. This is not an issue of interpreting footnote 9 or the City's zoning. Assuming that the City's interpretation of footnote 9 is correct, the Property's zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan under the HAA.22
22 As Petitioners argue (Reply at 7), Warner Ridge did not decide whether the City may permit a less intensive use where the General Plan has a Limited Commercial land use designation, and the City's cascading zoning shows that it can do so. Despite this fact, Petitioners contend (Reply at 8) that the City also does not consistently apply the General Plan footnotes to allow a less intense designation than listed on the General Plan. The City routinely requires property owners to seek a general plan amendment to change a property to a less intense designation. See Pet. RJN Ex. D (City required a General Plan amendment from the more intense Limited Manufacturing designation to the less intense Community Commercial designation because the "Limited Manufacturing land use does not allow residential uses"). Pet. RJN, Ex. D. See also Westsiders Opposed to Overdevelopment v. Los Angeles, (2018) Cal.App.5th 1079, 1083 (City required redesignation from the more intense Light Industrial to less intense General Commercial designation to accommodate residential project).

The City does not respond to this argument. Clearly, the City cannot at once ignore the footnotes to force a General Plan amendment to be consistent with zoning' s less intense designation and then rely on the General Plan footnotes as consistent with zoning and require rezoning to be 40 Warner Ridge's reasoning aside, Petitioners note (Reply at 7-8) that the HAA changed the standard of review. The HAA amendments eliminated the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard and requires a court to find a housing project compliant if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that it is. §65589.5(£)(4). "[B]ecause the HAA cabins the discretion of a local agency to reject proposals for new housing, it is inappropriate for us to defer to the City's interpretation." Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo, (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844. The Property's RA-1 zoning eliminates an entire category of commercial use designed in the General Plan. The RA zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan because it does not further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and instead obstructs their attainment. See Corona-Norco, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at 994.

The Property's RA zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan's Limited Commercial designation under the HAA.
h. Even if the General Plan and Zoning Are Consistent, the City Must Facilitate the Density Allowed by the General Plan
Even if the Property's RA-1 zoning were consistent with the Limited Commercial designation, the City still may only apply objective RA-1 standards (e.g., setbacks, coverage, height, etc.) to the degree that they facilitate the density allowed by the Limited Commercial designation. §65589.5G)(4).

Petitioners argue that the Project is consistent with the density allowed under the General Plan's Limited Commercial designation. The City acknowledged as much, stating that "you're proposing to use the development standards of the underlying land use designation rather than the zone and proposing to use Density Bonus." AR 1283. Pet. Op. Br. at 18. Yet, the City is attempting to apply RA-1 zoning density to prevent, not facilitate, the density allowed by the Limited Commercial designation. Pet. Op. Br. at 19. Even if the zoning were consistent, the City must only apply the zoning in a manner that facilitates the maximum density allowed on the Property site under the General Plan. Reply at 10.

The City does not respond to this argument, which is mooted by the court's conclusions that the General Plan's designation prevails.

4. The Remedy
Petitioners argue that the City disapproved Jha's Project application without attempting to make the required public health and safety impact findings. Instead, the City disapproved the application unless and until Jha meets the City's demand to secure a rezoning- even though such requirement is prohibited under the HAA - based on a court-rejected theory that no reasonable person, not even the City planners, could believe. The City's actions were frivolous, without merit, and a bad-faith violation of the HAA. Petitioners seek an order that the Project is deemed compliant and directing Respondents to approve it within 60 days pursuant to section 65589.S(k)(l)(A)(i), (ii). Pet. Op. Br. at 19.

The HAA defines "bad faith" as an action that is "frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit." §65589.5(1). There is more than one test for this determination, and the City's conduct does not meet any of them. Burkle v. Burkle, (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 387,401 (conduct that is consistent with the General Plan's more intense designation. 41 "objectively unreasonable"); Peake v. Underwood, (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 440 (a claim is "legally frivolous is it is 'not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law").

Petitioners have not shown that the City's actions occurred with an improper motive or are entirely without merit under the HAA. At the hearing, Petitioners' counsel argued that the City's actions with respect to the SB 330 preliminary application and project application show bad faith.

Without agreeing with this conclusion, the court notes that a bad faith violation of the PSA is not the same as bad faith under the HAA. The City has a legitimate, if wrong, interpretation of section 65589.5(j)(4), and the court does not agree that Warner Ridge found footnote 9 to be void. In fact, footnote 9 cannot be entirely void because there are permissible applications of its cascading theory. Warner Ridge simply held that this cascading does not alter the inconsistency of the City's zoning and General Plan.

The City's actions were taken in good faith. The court will not order the City to approve the Project. 65589.S(k)(l)(A)(ii). Instead, the court shall issue a judgment and writ compelling compliance with the HAA in 60 days. §65589.S(k)(l)(A)(i)(II), (ii).

F. Conclusion
The Petition is granted. A writ shall issue deeming the SB 330 application to have been submitted, deeming the Project application complete, and directing the City to comply with the HAA in 60 days.

Petitioners' counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment and writ of mandate, serve them on the City's counsel for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then submit the proposed judgment and writ along with a declaration stating the existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re:
judgment is set for September 13, 2022 at 1 :30 p.m.

Dated: July_, 2022
JAMES C. CHALFANT
Superior Court Judge
42 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 27, 2025
Greg Sandlund, Planning Director
Tom Pace, Director of Community Development
Sacramento City Hall
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Greg Sandlund and Tom Pace:

RE: City of Sacramento – 2341 Omaha Beach Avenue – Letter of Technical Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is aware of the controversy regarding the City of Sacramento’s (City) denial of a proposed rezoning within the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) and, after meeting with the parties involved, wishes to provide technical assistance, specifically as it relates to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).1 The applicant seeks to amend the applicable PUD in order to allow single-unit dwellings on a parcel located at 2341 Omaha Beach Avenue, which is currently zoned for multi-family residential use. HCD understands that the City Planning Commission denied the request and the applicant is appealing the decision to the City Council, claiming that the denial violates the HAA. The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance on the applicability of Government Code section 65589.5 as it pertains to the City’s denial of the project.

Background
HCD understands that on May 22, 2025, the Planning Commission followed staff’s recommendation and voted to deny the applicant’s request to amend the Curtis Park Village PUD to allow single-unit dwellings on a 2.37-acre site that is zoned for multifamily use. This request was accompanied by a tentative subdivision map to subdivide the site into 30 residential parcels and five common parcels, and a site plan and design review for the construction of 30 single-unit dwellings.

HCD understands that the project is currently zoned R-4A-PUD, which under the Curtis Park Village PUD allows for multi-family residential uses but not single-family residential uses. HCD also understands that the site has a land use designation of Neighborhood (N) under the Sacramento 2040 General Plan, which allows for “detached and attached residential dwelling units.” Further, HCD understands that the applicant disagrees with 1 Gov. Code, § 65589.5.

Greg Sandlund, Planning Director, and Tom Pace, Director of Community Development

Page 2 ends

Sacramento City CouncilSeptember 9, 2025

Sacramento City Council
September 9, 2025