Yorba Linda City Council
February 3, 2026

1 PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING

MINUTES
November 12, 2025, 6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Commissioners Present: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson Commissioners Absent: Chavez Marquez
Staff Present: Diaz, Dominguez, Farnsworth, Litfin, Valdez _____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
The Yorba Linda Planning Commission convened at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda, California.

Note: No new items will be considered after 11:00 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Traffic Chairman Gerardo De Santos

3. ROLL CALL
Planning Commissioners: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson

Absent: Commissioner Chavez Marquez
Traffic Commissioners: De Santos, Phayakapong, Patel, Cugini, Johnson Chair Pro Tem Masterson arrived at 6:36 p.m.

2 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
None

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Steve Schofro represents Lithium Awareness International to educate on the present, past, and future of tech. He provided documents on Senate bill 283 regarding battery energy storage systems and taking away the rights as a locality to do anything about them. To have a locality or any access with one simple design, one simple drawing, one approval which will put a last resort by fire suppression on any system. They also advise on counterfeit bike batteries, charger placement as there are 1.4 million non-Tesla EV's Enrico some of them have 5 recalls.

6. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA Approval of reading by title all resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

Moved by Behura
Seconded by Goldfarb
Approved waiting readings in full of all resolutions.

AYES (4): Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, and Masterson
ABSENT (1): Chavez Marquez
CARRIED (4 to 0)

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-10, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2025-02 - CITY VENTURES
Gabe Diaz, Associate Planner, provided a visual presentation for a site planning and architectural design review for a three-story, 62-unit, multifamily, for sale, attached townhome project at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard, east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue located in a Residential Multi-family 20 (RM-20) zone. The property is approximately

2.65 acres with 62 town homes with 33, 3-bedroom units and 29 fourbedroom units. The project will consist of 12 buildings with each unit ranging in size between 1363 to 1639 square feet.

3 The project is proposing 137 parking spaces, utilizing a state density bonus law reduction. This was a housing element site that was chosen to support the RHNA numbers as state mandated to meet housing growth targets. The project is surrounded by the Chabbad Center, single family dwellings and Jessamyn West Park.

The request is to subdivide the parcel through a tentative tract map into a single lot for condominium purposes. There will be common ownership of the common areas, public space, access, and circulation and will be governed by a homeowner’s association that will oversee the communal areas.

Staff have reviewed the tentative tract map for access and circulation, grading and drainage, traffic, and parking.

This project is utilizing the density bonus which is mandated by the state and is a matter of right regardless of local regulations.

In this case there will be three affordable units (5% of the units) providing for an up to 20% density bonus. The applicant is not proposing to use the entire 20%. The three units will be at a very low income for a four-person household that equates to an income of up to $84,600. Due to the density bonus, the 53 base units for the base zone are being proposed at 62 units.

They're also asking for several waivers. State law does not have any limit on the number of development waivers, and the applicant is asking for a reduction of the required 50-foot setback for buildings in the RM zone as well as a cumulative 16’-11” side yard setback instead of 20 feet. They're also asking for reductions in the overall landscaping, and five-foot screen landscaping buffers on certain portions of the site. Due to grading changes, they are requesting an increase in the perimeter wall heights for privacy impact reductions.

The site would be accessed from a singular egress and ingress driveway with a decorative entryway paving treatment. From the northeast to the southwest the height of the site would be reduced and sloped in certain areas from three to 8 feet. There will not be any reduced drainage patterns.

In terms of traffic, it was reviewed under the Housing Element PEIR and the city made findings that determined that the housing element and related actions would outweigh significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. In terms of traffic, staff requested that the applicant conduct a focused traffic impact analysis to further analyze some of the intersections

4 in the area. Impacts were analyzed with a project build and no build of the project conditions. The study found that the traffic impacts associated with the project would not exceed the levels as evaluated in the PEIR and was approved by the city's traffic engineering manager.

In terms of parking, they are entitled to a reduction in parking standards.

The three-bedroom rate is 1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom and 2.5 spaces for four bedrooms which requires a total of 122 spaces. The applicant is also providing additional guest parking spaces. A parking demand analysis was conducted and concluded that the project provides sufficient parking to meet the parking demands for the project. Their own market-based analysis in various parts of the Southern California region resulted in 2.19 parking spaces per unit; in this case they are providing 2.21 spaces. Staff have shared their concerns from the public regarding overflow parking and staff have added conditions of approval that would require quarterly garage checks to make sure that these areas of the home are not used for storage, but for parking.

In terms of noise, there will be temporary construction noise and mitigation measures are included for noise reduction techniques. Staff does not find there will be any generation of significant noise after the project is complete.

The infrastructure has been routed to the Yorba Linda Water District and Sewer District, Orange County Fire Authority, who have reviewed and provided conditions of approval; in many cases having to upgrade facilities to provide for additional strain on the system.

The project must comply with multifamily residential design guidelines which covers architectural style and form, layout, site planning, and amenities. The proposed style will be a Mediterranean architectural design.

The applicant has provided a photometric plan that shows lights being cut off at the property line and a condition has been included should the lights and design need to be modified.

Due to the project being within 70 feet of residential homes, staff have reviewed for privacy and architectural purposes. There will be second story balconies and there are none on the third story. Many of the buildings with decks are oriented towards one another. There could be some privacy impacts on the northern and southern property; they will not be closer than 40 feet from building to building. Due to the presence of

5 existing and proposed screen trees, staff finds the privacy impacts have been reduced but not eliminated, therefore staff believes the privacy impacts are minimized but would take time for those trees to grow to a mature height. A condition of approval has been included requiring the city landscape architect to have final oversight and the size and location of trees.

Due to the requested waivers and the orientation of the site, staff believes that the privacy impacts in most areas would be minimized. The site will be graded to reduce the site elevation from 3 to 8 feet which would help reduce the overall height of the building as well as the privacy impacts.

The project was reviewed under the existing PEIR for the housing element an addendum and certified by the council. The project meets all the requirements under the existing housing element, and the applicant provided consistency analysis that determines the product does not involve any new significant impacts or effects that would increase the severity as seen in the previous EIR.

A public notice has been sent to all property owners within 300 feet as required by state law, and the applicant conducted a community outreach meeting. The community outreach meeting notice was sent to all residents within 500 feet; it was attended by staff, the applicant and approximately 40 residents and the applicant provided a response letter to all the concerns raised at that meeting.

Staff have received comments regarding parking, the number of dwelling units, privacy impacts, traffic, and safety concerns.

Staff are recommending that the Planning Commission approve the project with the attached conditions.

Chair Bernstein asked for Traffic Commission, Chair DeSantos to begin questioning.

Commissioner Patel stated in the applicant’s parking analysis, Artesia and Compton are the only two cities compatible with the size of this project and asked why other comparable size projects were not analyzed.

Mr. Diaz referred to the applicant to respond.

Commissioner Behura asked for concurrence from the applicant that this is actually one meeting which includes Planning Commission and Traffic Commission.

6 Ms. Sanders, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed it is the city’s position to have this count as one meeting.

Commissioner Goldfarb agreed with Traffic Commissioner Patel and noticed that the statistics are misleading because they're all higher ratios and asked who picked the sites that were analyzed.

Mr. Diaz responded the applicant chose the sites.

Commissioner Goldfarb asked if any analysis was done on the ingress and egress from Yorba Linda Boulevard. Was analysis done on safety impacts due to cars, no light, and being close to schools.

Mr. Diaz stated the applicant considered the introduction of a traffic signal which was part of the overall traffic impact analysis. Residents raised that same question and the applicant did not decide to include a light for technical reasons. They've looked at current traffic counts and modeled those with the proposed project and did not find any elevated safety concerns.

Commissioner Goldfarb asked if it was determined that adding 100 or more additional people to that area did not increase safety concerns.

Mr. Diaz stated yes, and the applicant and consultant can talk to those technical issues.

Chair Bernstein asked about the very low-income units. He asked for an explanation on the size of the buildings.

Mr. Diaz stated there will be 3 affordable units. It is conducted on a sliding scale and comes down to a percentage count. Mr. Diaz provided a visual explanation of the size comparison of the buildings.

Alex Rounaghi, development manager for City Ventures and, representative for the applicant, stated this is one meeting not two.

He provided an overview of the company, types of development and a visual presentation of the project. This site was identified as part of the housing element.

He provided renderings of the proposed site, architecture, and perspectives. The project consists of 62 units, three-story single-familyattached housing, of which 59 are market rate units and three are affordable very low-income units.

7 Their traffic study found that there is less than a 2% increase in daily trips on Yorba Linda Boulevard. The analysis was based off feedback from city staff to ensure that they were studying all the right intersections. The traffic consultant will speak on the decision to eliminate the option of installing a traffic light.

Under state density bonus law, they are required to have 122 parking spaces; they are proposing 137 spaces so there will not be overflow parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. They cannot sell projects that do not have sufficient parking. They are willing to add a condition in the CC&Rs to ensure that garages are used for cars and not storage.

He has conducted community outreach to answer any questions from the community and their goal is to be a good neighbor through the process.

They had a community meeting on October 27th and met with several individuals after the fact to answer their questions.

The staff report outlined the mitigating facts to ensure the privacy impacts on the neighboring properties. The grading allows them to shield privacy as well as strategic landscaping
All the city departments, including Public Works and Orange County Fire Authority, have not identified any safety impacts from the project.

Chair Bernstein asked if he and the entire team have read all the conditions of approval and agree with them.

Alex stated yes; there were several minor conditions that they discussed with staff, but they agreed overall.

Chair Bernstein asked Traffic Commission to begin questioning.

Megan Macias and Hasham Hasawi from EDP Solutions prepared the traffic and parking studies for the project.

Commissioner Patel stated the examples they use to compare the parking analysis for this project does not have the same number of units. He asked why they compared the smaller Upland project to this project? Is it misleading to propose 2.19 versus 2.21 and have Upland in the table? Would they be able to add an additional two spaces if it is needed? He asked who will do the garage inspections and how often? Alex responded that the goal of providing that table was to give them an idea; there was nothing scientific about the process by which they

8 identified those sites. The comparison was to provide examples showing this project is not outside of the norm. They do not feel the project will have overflow parking. It is not misleading; the exercise was just to show that there were examples of other projects that had a comparable parking ratio. It is not outside of the norm as it relates to guest parking. The garage inspections will be part of the CC&R's and the condition of approval means the HOA will enforce them and inspect four times per year.

One item of feedback they received in their meeting was the location of the trash enclosure that was too close to one of the residences; they were able to move the trash enclosure and provide one additional parking space.

Traffic Commission asked how many of the other projects that were shown have only one ingress egress.

Mr. Rounaghi didn’t have information on the other project’s access points.

Traffic Commission asked how long they will stay involved in the project once it is completed.

Mr. Rounaghi stated they form an HOA board and they are members of the Board of Directors for the first few years to ensure the CC&Rs are enforced.

Traffic Commission asked where the fire hydrants are located.

Mr. MacDougall, Civil Engineer, pointed them out on a tentative tract map.

They meet the standards of the Water District; they constructed a hydraulic analysis that showed the fire flows to meet the requirements.

Traffic Commission asked:
 If any traffic analysis was conducted on egress for those who wanted to go east.
 Has any analysis been conducted if residents take the wrong way left-turn when no traffic is approaching? Any proposed mitigation? The assumption of the traffic analysis is people will leave making a right turn if they want to go eastbound on Yorba Linda Boulevard then make a U-turn at Ohio Street.
 What is queuing during morning peak hours.

Ms. Macias explained the expectation is that the drivers would take a right out of the site then make a U-turn at the first light at Ohio. There was no

9 analysis done on the left turn because they assume people are obeying the traffic laws when they conduct a study and no mitigation was proposed. It would be an enforcement issue if that was occurring. There was never more than one vehicle queued, and the volumes of the three intersections were well below the capacity and queuing is less that one vehicle.

Traffic Commission asked:
 Is the property in a Fire Zone area?
 How many units do they need to build in order to break even on the project, what is the profit, and average unit price.
 Why was there only one community meeting because there were a lot of comments brought up at that meeting and was any part of the plan changed because of the comments??
 Was any other outreach conducted?
 How accurate is the formula for traffic studies?
 Why are traffic counts different than the volume?
 Why weren’t Chabad and park traffic not considered in the analysis.

The Chabad may have similar peak hours because there is a school on the premises with in and out traffic and it is important to know what their peak hours are.
 What is line of site at the entrance of development; he wants to make sure they can clearly see when exiting the Chabad and the park.
 Was the lack of available public transportation evaluated?  There will be a lot of people making a U-turn at the park entrance instead of going all the way to Palm and it should be studied.  For other properties that are already built do the parking demand meet the reality of the actual parking? He feels 13 guest parking spaces are inadequate; during holidays and special events, homeowners can have parties. Demand needs to match reality.

Director Farnsworth stated it is not in a fire zone area.

Mr. Rounaghi responded they looked at the price of the land and zoning to come up with the number. He did not have a specific break-even number.

10 The market rate units should be in the $700,000 to $800,000 range. The affordable units are based on a complicated formula that depends on interest rates but should be between $150,000 to $200,000.

A letter was sent to residents within a 500-foot radius, and they received one response in the summertime, and they met with that person. They didn't canvass the community but did send out the letter and were willing to meet with anybody who responded. This site was part of the community outreach and was fully vetted and approved as part of the housing element.

As for the traffic studies, they hired traffic consultants and worked closely with city staff to ensure that the scope of their analysis had the right data for the analysis for the trip generation. They followed the best available traffic study analysis to come up with the findings.

Ms. Macias stated the trip generation is developed by using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers that is based upon surveys that are conducted throughout the United States. There are several things that can be looked at when they conduct the actual roadway counts. They count a 2-hour period during the highest commute hours then they take the highest one-hour period from the two-hour count. The park and Chabad have different peak hours than the project and the traffic generated by those uses is already in count.

The line-of-sight topic was brought up at a community meeting and there is no line-of-sight issue. They reviewed collision statistics along this corridor and there have not been any within the last five years within the surrounding driveways; therefore, because they are in the middle of those two sites they don't believe there is a line-of-sight issue from this project.

Consultant explained the line-of-sight triangle that was plotted by the city.

Ms. Macias responded that ITE trip rates are classified as close to transit or not close to transit, and they used suburban locations not close to transit.

Consultant stated they have not studied current sites. Home buyers will not be allowed to live here if they have three cars as they will not be allowed to have a third car in the guest parking spaces.

Traffic Commission asked how left turns will be mitigated and what intersection do they expect someone to make a U-turn.

11 Consultant responded that they are open to placing signs and hoping that the citizens are law abiding. U-turns are expected at Ohio.

Traffic Commission added they are expecting people to cross three lanes to get into the left turn pocket at Ohio?
Consultant responded that two adjacent intersections to the east would have gaps which would allow traffic to safely maneuver.

Traffic Commission asked if an analysis was done on the safety of crossing three lanes during peak hours to make a U-turn at Ohio? Ms. Macias responded that the intersection at the driveway was analyzed as a level of service C. There will be gaps in traffic because of the mirroring of this signal to the east of the project driveway. There could be further studies done, but every study that they have done has shown that every intersection is under capacity and well within the city’s guidelines. As previously said, this was identified as a housing site and has already had an EIR and traffic study for this site. This is the second set of studies that have been done for a housing project on this site.

Traffic Commissioner asked Ms. Macias, would she feel comfortable crossing three traffic lanes in peak hours to make a U-turn.

Ms. Macias responded yes, it can be done if there is an adequate gap in traffic. If you visit the area during peak hours, you'll see people from the park or the Chabad that are turning left.

Traffic Commission asked If there are any codes that indicate it is a safe distance. The speed limit is about 40 miles an hour during peak hours.

Would they be able to further analyze the safety.

Ms. Macias responded that she is unaware of any codes. The safe distance would be the number of seconds in the gap in the traffic. It could be further analyzed.

Traffic Commission asked if the median island could be modified to prohibit or discourage left turns. Could the westbound side of the curb be extended?
Mr. Rounaghi responded that it would be a city determination to modify the island; they do not have the power to change it. They followed the adopted city traffic guidelines that were adopted by the City Council and traffic commission.

12 Traffic Commission asked what is the speed design that the triangles are based upon? They do not look very long. They need to be able to look down the street and see the oncoming traffic. How far do you have to be out on the sidewalk to see the traffic?
Consultant responded he didn't have the city standard with him; however, it is the city standard for a driveway. It is a driveway and not an intersection. Everything is pulled back 10 feet to allow a car to pull up to the back of the sidewalk to see down Yorba Linda.

Traffic Commission asked if they would be open to recommendations made by the commission because they have done it on other projects such as widening one of the streets and paying for some street improvements.

Mr. Rounaghi stated they have been open to every suggestion that they have received from staff and open to collaborating on the right solution, but they do not have the power to control the median in the middle of the street.

Chris Burt, land use counsel for the applicant, stated one of the subjects that was not discussed in staff's presentation is density bonus law. It is a state housing law that is applicable to this project. The Housing Accountability Act provides that local agencies are limited in their discretion to deny projects that comply with objective written design standards. This project complies with all applicable written design standards. There's been a lot of speculation about illegal activities that this project would cause or that this project will result in some sort of potential health and safety impact. Earlier, a question was posed as to whether there was a written standard that proved that a right-hand turn followed by a left-hand U-turn is safe. There is no city standard that has concluded that that situation is unsafe therefore, the project was designed to be considered with that sort of standard. The traffic analysis considered those movements; it was blessed by the city's traffic engineer. The project and the traffic analysis meet all objective standards. The speculation about all potential safety impacts is unfounded; there is no basis for them and to deny a project within the Housing Accountability Act, the decision-making body has to find a specific adverse impact. A specific adverse impact has to be based upon an objective written health and safety standard; there are no such standards here.

Chair Bernstein reminded the Commission that when they deliberate, they can add as many conditions of approval as they deem necessary. He

13 asked if the removal of the trash receptacle added an additional guest parking space.

Consultant responded yes, they have 14.

Chair Bernstein turned the questioning to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Masterson asked if they met with any City Council members and Planning Commission members regarding the project.

Consultant responded they met with some of the Council members and had high level conversation. They reached out to all the Planning Commissioners but did not get a response.

Commissioner Masterson asked if they factored in the additional traffic in the study for the expansion of Chabad?
Director Farnsworth stated there is an approval for three housing units on the back end of the Jewish Center.

Ms. Macias stated the forecast and traffic analysis was done using the same methodology as the forecast in the housing element traffic analysis.

It was based upon a growth rate applied to existing traffic counts. The growth rate around the project is very low so they assumed a higher growth rate than what was included in the previous analysis, so those three units were included.

Commissioner Masterson asked if they expect cars to stack when trying to make a left turn during peak hours?
Ms. Macias explained the city's methodology for the level of service does not explicitly take queuing into account because it is based upon the volume capacity ratio of each movement at the intersection. They did look at the intersection again using the highway capacity manual method so that they could get the queue length. The other thing that goes into that calculation is the peak hour factor which is what they count when they go out into the field. It is a measure of how much traffic stacks up within each 15-minute period within the course of one hour.

Commissioner Masterson added he feels the guest parking is insufficient.

Due to the affordable housing and the state mandate, they are eliminating approximately 90 parking spaces. The Upland site is close to downtown where there is a lot of available parking. The Compton site has a lot of street parking and most of the other developments have street parking on top of what is provided on site. This site doesn't have the same options as

14 their other developments, and he sees an issue with the parking ratios and a potential problem.

Is a landscaping buffer being proposed on the site of the Jewish center? Consultant stated guests could be ticketed if they park in the park parking lot and go into the housing development.

Jose Cesaros, C2 Collaborative, responded there is a drainage slope along the edge that impacts some of the landscape area, but they have a three-foot buffer that will include shrubs and vines along with trees at the end of the paseos.

Commissioner Masterson asked if there is a six-foot masonry wall between the properties? Will there be continuous screening with trees? Mr. Cesaros responded yes there is a wall but there is not a continuous route of trees.

Commissioner Bernstein added the walls can be as high as 12 feet.

Mr. Cesaros responded the height varies along the synagogue and screening will be provided accordingly. There are grade differences that minimize the mass and scale of the homes; it is a lot less than what it would be at the same grade and trees will be part of that. On the north side the project is down 6 feet with a six-foot screen wall on top with additional trees for screening. For the neighbor behind the project and at the northeast corner there is a 19-foot difference. From a privacy perspective, the grading creates an appearance of the massing being a lot less if it were at the same grade.

Mr. Cesaros added they would like to have the trees as large as possible, but they must take into consideration the installation and budget. At a minimum, they will be 24-inch box trees that are zoned for Yorba Linda.

They are very considerate of this species and plant materials that they are proposing to avoid safety concerns for fire.

Commissioner Masterson asked if they would be willing to abide by the condition to install 36-inch box trees if possible, with approval of the Community Development Director.

Mr. Cesar stated a 36-inch box tree would be tight with utilities that have to be installed and worked around. With a 24-inch box tree they typically get a 12-to-14-foot height because they are meant for screening.

15 Commissioner Masterson stated a big issue is the 20-foot setback from Yorba Linda Boulevard to the height of the first building which is 35 feet. It destroys the street line because it is right on top of it. He does not want another project like the D.R. Horton at Yorba Linda and Prospect.

Consultant explained that the setback requirement is 20 feet and the height limit for the zone is 40 feet; they followed the development standards with respect to that.

Commissioner Goldfarb stated they plan to police the use of garages and keep tenants out of guest parking. They are assuming the HOA will enforce the parking, which means the city will not be involved; it becomes private enforcement under the CC&Rs and if they choose not to enforce it there is nothing the city can do about it. To enforce it, HOA would have to go through a lawsuit and spend the money, so you're making the people who buy there pay if they are not keeping two cars in the garage and the city cannot do anything about it. Will people who purchase the low-income units have to pay the HOA fees as well?
Consultant stated the HOA will monitor the spaces and guests will have to obtain a permit to park there. They can collaborate with staff to ensure that the CC&Rs are maintaining that enforcement. The HOA could have the ability to fine people. All owners will pay the same HOA fees.

Ms. Macias added, in the past, they have had situations where the cities have been the beneficiaries of the terms that the city requires in the CC &Rs. If there are reports of non-compliance, the city would be able to enforce against HOA directly if they are not compliant.

Commissioner Goldfarb stated in their presentation they found no privacy, safety, or traffic issues. They will only be on board the HOA for two years; so, they are short-term good neighbors.

Consultant clarified they are mitigated privacy issues. The same conclusions were also in the staff analysis. They conducted the study in accordance with the city guidelines and traffic engineers and concluded there were no traffic issues.

Commissioner Goldfarb opined that safety is analytical and doesn't have a checklist that you can meet.

Chris Burt clarified that is incorrect. Under the Housing Accountability Act, the standard for a specific adverse impact as defined by the act is that the project has a specific adverse impact which is based upon a written

16 objective health and safety standard. Theorizing about a potential safety issue does not meet that standard. It is a question of whether the project causes a health and safety issue based upon a written objective standard.

Commissioner Behura asked if they did ICU and HCM analysis. Was HCM analysis done for signalized intersections? Was an easily doable GAP completed? Did they look at the midday traffic due to the school let out time?
Ms. Macias stated yes to ICU and HCM and no gap analysis was carried out. The gap analysis is doable but is it warranted based upon the level of service that they observed add the two adjacent signalized intersections which create gaps in traffic. They did not look at daytime traffic because it is not required by the city traffic standards.

Traffic consultant responded they used HCM for the signalized intersection and the queuing analysis. The ICU was used for the signalized intersection.

Commissioner Behura opined that there are standards that they are allowed to look at but Commission must look at the safety of the community. Not only follow the minimum requirements that they are required to do but also steps that they could add if they really want to be a good neighbor.

He understands that not all projects require a mid-day analysis but there is a school that lets out at that time.

Ms. Macias stated by doing a midday study, they are asking them to study at the school which is not part of the project. The project does not have a significant trip generation during midday hours. We are looking at when the project has the most traffic.

Commissioner Behura asked if they had an idea of the average age of the home purchasers. Yorba Linda has a higher parking requirement than other communities and there is a value to use local numbers if they are available.

He asked if they considered using a concrete channelizer.

Ms. Macias responded they did not look at it because there is a median which restricts left-hand turns.

Chair Bernstein opened the public hearing.

17 Pam strongly objects to the development as it is not consistent with Measure JJ. The site was supposed to be on 3.9 acres with 66 units, 20 units to an acre; this is 23 or 24. Some of the commissioners were in the meetings on measure JJ and KK. A calculation could have easily been placed for max density, assuming that a developer was going to develop 100% affordable. With three or four units at 50% AMI, it seems like they are trying to do a bait and switch. The public needs to know how the density bonus is calculated; is it based on three units at 50% AMI and what is it based on 4 units at 50%. This is a three and four bedroom, forsale product and most multifamily developments are studios to two bedrooms, so it doesn't seem like the 418 daily trips are accurate. Even the 220 multifamily protocol that is stated in the studies isn't appropriate because it includes two bedrooms; this development does not include two bedrooms. The development would move the LOS down with more accurate trip generation information and perhaps require a traffic light or increase the queuing length and be above the 50 peak hour vehicle trips.

She does not see an accurate turning radius for fire trucks; there is one lane in and one out with no large turning radius on site.

The EPD memo dated November 4th did not answer all of the questions that were asked at the October 27th meeting.

There are concerns about drainage because it is going from nearly 100% pervious to 100% impervious. This development will not be self-contained and water runoff will occur and affect adjacent properties.

Fair Housing laws allow eight people to reside in a three-bedroom unit and 10 people in a four-bedroom unit, so all the impacts need to factor that in.

There should be concerns about earth movement and the 500 underground storage tanks. Will the development of this project shift the foundations of adjacent properties, and will perimeter walls contribute to soil erosion?
The city resolutions are weak and there is no prohibition from the owners of the 62 units from parking at Jessamyn West Park or the Chabad center.

The developers do not understand the nature of the city; it has a robust home-schooling community and they use the parks at all times of the day.

Brian Sharr resides at 9030 Lynn Lane, and his property will be the second most impacted. He strongly opposes the location as it is lowering the overall charm and attraction of the horse community. He understands that the state mandates this, but all the tax paying community suffers. As

18 for the traffic study, they need to look beyond just the median to where the egress and ingress. The scope is limited and ignored the impact on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Within the stretch of 2 miles, there are multiple quick stops of stores and restaurants and there are 154 units of high-density condominiums within a one block stretch. There are many queuing and back ups along Yorba Linda Boulevard. The total impact needs to take into consideration a parameter of two miles in either direction and not just that intersection.

Shawn Starkey resides 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard and opposes the project. Under the fire code any residential development with more than 30 dwelling units must have two separate fire apparatus roads. The OCFA guidelines raises the threshold to 150 units but the guideline also states that more than one road is required if a single road may be insufficient due to terrain location, travel distance, potential fire or life safety hazards or other factors that could limit access. This project relies on only one entry and exit and if the route were blocked during a wildfire from an earthquake or a traffic accident 62 families and the surrounding neighbors could be trapped. Yorba Linda’s history of wildfire evacuations make this a serious life safety concern. Over 100 additional cars could be trying to leave during peak traffic. Fire apparatus may face restricted turning or limited access across medians in real emergencies. According to the fire code, fire apparatus access roads must not exceed 150 feet without proper turn around or additional access. In this project, it is critical to confirm that all roads meet this requirement to ensure that emergency vehicles can respond safely and efficiently. There must be a minimum turning radius inside required by the CFC of 28 feet and a minimum outside turning radius of 48 feet. This project shows a 20-foot radius which is significantly less than the 28 feet required.

He asked the Commission to confirm on the record whether this project meets the fire codes and guidelines, and, if not require a redesign before any approval. He asked the Commission to carefully consider potential impacts to fire safety, noise, traffic, and the character of the neighborhood.

Brad Howard resides on Palm Avenue. This project reminds him of the fires that occurred in 1989 at Ball and Euclid. Yorba Linda has three fire trucks and if there is a fire and they get into the alleyway there is no way for them to get out. When you exit the driveway they will have to go across three lanes to get to the intersection. The U-turns will be unsafe.

19 It's most probable that these three- and four-bedroom units will have more than two cars and they will probably park in the park and on Palm Avenue or Ohio because there won't be enough parking. Have they asked the surrounding neighbors how they feel about this project with windows overlooking their backyard.

Bill Lawrence resides on Palm. The City Council denied a project in 2014 stating “The Yorba Linda zoning code requires that multifamily or singlefamily development can serve the values of adjacent properties operate in harmony with their surroundings and prove not to be detrimental to the character of buildings or uses already established in the area.” The noise, light and privacy impacts from this project are not harmonious with the surrounding environment and development and will detrimentally impact the character and use of the pre-existing single family residences. The proposed resolution indicates the construction does not result in any significant loss of privacy for adjacent residences in a manner that would compromise the neighbors' ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their property; however, the neighbors do not feel that way. Tonight, there were no good answers to fundamental questions. Eighty parking spaces below the code with no assurance that parking will not overflow in the neighborhood. The traffic study cite that Palm and Oriente are narrow streets, with no sidewalks and not design for the additional traffic. It is not safe to cross 3 lines of traffic especially if they travel up the hill at 40 mph.

Measure JJ was adopted based on the promise of local control and there are a lot of concerns expressed for this project; you need to deliver on the promises that were made for local control.

Lee Burroughs resides at 19205 Palm Vista behind the park. The questions presented today reveal innate bias in the information that's been presented today by the applicant and in the paperwork. One of the inaccuracies is how there would not be any overflow parking and numbers that don't match what is being proposed for the units.

The documents that have been presented in support of the applicant’s request for the conditional use permit has a lot of incomplete information.

When you are dealing with traffic in this general area it is like a circle between Ohio, Oriente, and Palm. Turning right out from the park and other places to go to the east, go in a circle around the neighborhoods to exit on Palm and then go east. Just studying that portion is not adequate, you have to look at the entire neighborhood and Oriente and Palm should have been part of the study.

20 There is a deficit of 80 spots according to what Yorba Linda determines to be reasonable in its zoning; where will the 80 cars go? There could be more than three or four cars per unit if there is a potential for eight to 10 people in some of the three- and four-bedroom units. Cars will be parked on streets with no sidewalks, minimal streetlights, and no parking control.

It increases the risks to all the pedestrians who walk their dogs and ride their bikes. It will narrow the dark street and cause more of a safety issue.

There will also be threshold construction noise and no substantiation for the project noise. The Commission should require additional studies and another EIR for further proof that they meet basic safety requirements for the community.

Matthew Vawter resides at 4777 Palm Avenue, 318 feet away. After he received the public notice, he reached out to the city manager and assistant city manager and did not receive a response. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked about the technical studies that were completed from biology, traffic, GHG, construction, and vibration noise.

Commission has discretion authority with the CUP and can probably deny the project based on the CUP.

The trees will take time to reach their maturity; there are no trees for privacy on the east side and the planter on the east side is only three feet wide, which is too tight for planting trees in them. The bio study has no mention of the bio studies.

The applicant failed to provide evidence that the noise and vibration will be within the limits of the mitigation measures. The schedule states that the grading operation will consist of six days for 2 1/2 acres and they are exporting 10,000 yards; does that sound reasonable?
Gary Devian resides on JJ Lane on the north end of Ohio. Sixty-two units will affect the neighborhood, and it is inappropriate.

Elizabeth Hansberg supports the project because there is a housing shortage in California. Many professionals are still living with their parents because there is no entry level homeownership opportunity in the city where they grew up. The price point of $1.5 million entry point is prohibitively expensive to most people under 40. This site was approved by the voters as being appropriate for housing.

Travis Hudson resides on Ohio. The garage checks will not affect the cars that are parked on the streets. They didn't conduct a parking analysis, they just showed what was done on other projects and they didn't care to see

21 what was parked in adjacent areas in those other communities. He doesn’t agree with their statement that there will be zero effect on traffic.

Penny resides on Ohio and frequents the Park with her two young children and there is never any parking due to sports and parties. The tenants will park in the park. $800,000 is not affordable housing and this is not the place for these many units.

Jeanie MacArthur on Fairway View Drive opposes the project due to cost of units and placement of the project. That property was donated to the city years ago and was to be used as a park and equestrian community.

John DeLap resides at 4625 Ohio and is a real estate broker. His street has no sidewalks, or lighting with very little traffic. There will be four cars per unit and it will be difficult to enforce the use of garages and the fines are not enforceable. He has traffic concerns due to the high density.

Barbara Fox of 4502 Palm Avenue asked if this is the first three story complex in Yorba Linda? This project does not fit in with the rural nature of Yorba Linda. She feels fire access is inadequate for such a small area. Is there storage in garages for bicycles, workbenches, golf clubs, etc. and how will they police the number of cars per household?
Karen Krueger stated she does not want to see the 50-foot setbacks waived because it set a precedence. The public notice should have gone out to all Yorba Linda residents.

Rebecca Dominguez resides at 19363 Easy Street across from the park.

Her main concern is the safety issue with parking and feels the overflow parking will go on Palm. There are a lot of red-light runners due to the hill on Yorba Linda.

Aaron Adams, 19175 Palm Vista is one of the three who will have the project overlook his yard. He has privacy concerns due to lack of trees on that part of the project. If there is a fire, people will be trapped along the north wall. Also, trees are overgrown on Palm and people cannot see the light as they are coming through.

Ron Thompson, 19111 East Yorba Linda Boulevard has concerns for parking, garage inspections, privacy, burrowing animals, and maturity of trees. Concerns about vibration damage from compaction and removal of 3-5 feet of soil that is five feet from his home. Infiltration testing was not conducted close to his property.

Craig Paul, 18751 Deville Drive opposes the project.

22 Steve Thompson, 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard, opposes the project due to safety, traffic, and quality of life.

Recess 10:10 p.m. to 10:20 p.m.

Chair Bernstein called the meeting back to order and asked the Commission to defer this meeting to next Wednesday due to the late hour.

Director Farnsworth added the next regular Planning Commission meeting is December 10th. A special meeting can be scheduled for November 19th for the balance of the agenda.

Ms. Sanders asked to have the meeting called back to order, take roll and take a motion to adjourn.

Roll call taken; all Commissioners remained present at the meeting.

A motion was made by Commissioner Behura, second by Commissioner Goldfarb to continue the item to the November 19th Planning Commission meeting. Vote: 4-0
Chair Bernstein asked for deliberation beginning with the Traffic Commission to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission.

Chair De Santos asked for comments or a motion.

Commissioner Behura asked staff if signs for U-turns will be added at the park if this passes.

Public Works stated yes to comply with restrictions in the California MUCD.

Chair De Santos asked if they are amending the recommendation for city staff to continue to evaluate signage for this project.

Jaimie Lai, Public Works Director, added there is a condition on the dais that has been drafted that addresses those concerns.

Mr. Diaz stated it is on the last page of the resolution, condition 156.

Commissioners all took time to review the condition.

Traffic Commission clarified it is the resolution that includes the optional draft condition if necessary?
Ms. Lai responded that the conditions can be modified as needed.

Traffic Commission opined there needs to be improvements on the project; they are not against housing; it has to be done the right way.

23 There are still a lot of questions that haven’t been fully answered. He recommended adding in the draft condition no. 156 and read it into the record. He asked them to study the park and Chabad to see how many cars they contribute. He would also like to study how many cars are coming out of Club Terrace and making a left turn onto Yorba Linda Boulevard heading west. It will play a part of cars in that area. It is important to see real count of parking spaces and demand of other projects that have already been built to help them understand real parking demands.

Commissioner Patel added a signal modification or installation within 500 feet of the subject property and center raised median modifications could be an option. Five hundred feet covers Palm and Ohio.

Commissioner Cugini asked if implementation mitigations are paid for by the city or developer?
Ms. Lai stated the developer pays because the timing is still prior to release of bonds.

Chair DeSantos suggested adding cost and implementation to condition so that it is clear to the developer.

He recapped that the additional language should read “The applicant shall be responsible for cost and implementation of any improvements or any counter measures necessary to mitigate any traffic safety issues, identified by the city after full occupancy of the development. Including, but not limited to, pavement marking modifications, signage installation, center raised median configurations and signal modifications and installation.” Ms. Sanders advised they can follow their standard practice when making their recommendation and don’t need a formal vote, but they can do so.

Chair Bernstein asked if they want Planning Commission to add the cost and implementation of traffic safety to their consideration and Planning Commission will consider parking.

Chair DeSantos stated yes.

Ms. Sanders added the Planning Commission has the Traffic Commission’s deliberation and recommendations that they can take into account.

Traffic Commission vote:

24 Cugini asked for a modification to the motion to add additional studies as well as consideration of looking at parking demand of their current projects.

Motion: Cugini Second: Phayakapong - 5-0
Chair Bernstein asked if Commission if they want to continue, postpone or continue to December 10th. He asked staff if there was a way for the applicant to forward concessions.

Director Farnsworth stated it would be helpful to advise the applicant of any additional information that they would like them to provide in preparation for the next meeting if this is continued. Is there anything else the Commission wants from the applicant before the meeting.

Commissioner Behura asked if it is feasible to have the channelization that he was asking about and can a portion of the driveway be used for channelization to cut down on left turns from the site. Can a Rt-2 sign be installed?
Public Works stated they typically install a right turn only on their side and there could be another one on the far side on the raised median.

Commissioner Behura added that it is likely that there are enough gaps in traffic, but he would like to see it in writing, so the public understands.

Parking is a major concern to him, and he is not convinced where people will park and walk across the streets. Is it possible to have control over the CC&R’s and conduct surprise inspections.

Ms. Saunders stated yes, it can be conditioned or if the applicant agrees, it can be added in the CC&R’s.

Commissioner Behura would like them to look at the feasibility of mature trees for privacy issues. He is also concerned about access for fire trucks and wants the questions addressed. Will they be enforcing no parking against the buildings. He’d like to know the difference between Measure JJ and this project and difference between what would have been and now.

Commissioner Goldfarb asked for clarification on the difference between the 3 and 4 affordable units. He asked about parking accommodation for laborers such as gardeners, plumbers, etc. Does the park already have no overnight parking. (staff nodded yes)

25 Commissioner Masterson asked applicant about replacing building one with additional parking. It would go a long way; they would lose four units, but it would solve the street line issue, and it would provide additional parking.

Chair Bernstein agreed with all commissioners and asked for clarification on how traffic moves if there is a fire truck and outgoing vehicles. He suggested bringing the height of the front building down to two stories.

Commissioner Masterson agreed that it is a fair compromise.

Consultant asked for clarification on what they are looking for with the parking studies because they based it all on what the law allows. What could a study show that would be the basis to not approve the project.

Commissioner Behura responded they are not looking to not approve the project, just want concessions for normal parking requirements. If there was no density bonus, what would have been their normal parking ratio.

Chair De Santos added improvements are counter measures once they see what is happening with the number of people and cars that are there.

Consultant asked how that would work because the final bond release would be after final occupancy. It can’t be an open-ended commitment.

Mr. Burt added this condition is a mandate to fund any improvements they deem appropriate in the future. It doesn’t say who the city decides, the standard, how much they decide, it just says you shall pay for the things we demand in the future. It also is for the next ten years. So, additional projects can be built or have ambient traffic growth and the city now believes this project is responsible. This condition is a non-starter and violates constitutional principles about improper exactions. It is unworkable the way it is drafted.

Commissioner Goldfarb stated they could just ask for a light.

Mr. Burt said no because there is no demand for a light, no relationship to the project.

Chair Bernstein stated they are throwing out uninformed thoughts because they understand their community but not the project. There is no need for a back and forth but would like them to hear the commission and come back with a creative idea.

Mr. Burt stated he talked about the Housing Accountability Act and the Density Bonus Law and needed to discuss the purpose of them and why

26 the project is availing itself of those. It is impossible to complete affordable projects, you need government subsidies so the density bonus law is a mechanism whereby you can get affordable projects, but to build those affordable units, it entitles developers to benefits and one of those is parking. Legally the parking standard for this project is less than the parking that is being provided and they are being asked to further analyze something that they are entitled to do. The Housing Accountability Act limits the agency’s ability to impose undue demands that constitute undue delays and hardships on projects. They are asking them to further analyze a parking ratio that already exceeds what they are required to do under state law. The conditions being imposed on the applicant are going beyond what this commission is entitled to do. Reading the law, the requests and demands of the commission violate the law.

Commission Behura stated anything they are asking for is not a requirement to implement. There is a large impact on the neighborhood.

Ms. Saunders stated Commission is not deciding right now and is just providing their thoughts and comments. If continued, they can discuss changes to the draft condition that will make it more tailored to the impacts of the project. They are aware of the housing laws. What they are asking for is informational and there is no requirement.

Commissioner Goldfarb added even though you are allowed to do something, you might want to be a good neighbor and do a little less than you are allowed to.

Counsel added that the project cannot be built if they reduce the number of affordable units, which means the project doesn’t get built. This is a housing element site that the Commission and Council identified for housing and this development delivers on that. The only project the neighborhood would be comfortable with would be two or three homes.

Chair Bernstein feels the applicant understands what is needed.

Consultant stated he cannot promise that he can remove a whole building and he is trying to understand what they are specifically looking for.

Chair Bernstein responded he can confer with staff on what they need.

There is a two-phase affordable project being built and they took off the entire top floor to make it fit the neighborhood. They don’t have to figure it out tonight; just look at it for options.

27 Director Farnsworth added they will meet with the applicant and their team within the next week and give them further direction. They have a good understanding of what the commission is requesting.

Commissioner Masterson asked if the applicant could meet with Commissioners.

Ms. Sanders said yes if they are not meeting with multiple members.

Moved by Behura
Seconded by Masterson
A motion by Commissioner Johnson, second by Commissioner Phayakapong, recommending to the Planning Commission additional studies and conditions to address traffic safety and parking impacts.

The Planning Commission continued this item to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting date of December 10, 2025.

AYES (4): Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, and Masterson
ABSENT (1): Chavez Marquez
CARRIED (4 to 0)

8. NEW BUSINESS

9. OLD BUSINESS

10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

12. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
Yes, from Mr. Schofro

13. ADJOURNMENT
11:15 p.m.
_________________________

NATE FARNSWORTH, AICP

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Urban Planning ■ Due Diligence ■ Entitlements ■ CEQA/NEPA ■ Development Services ■ Management ■ Public Outreach 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 ■ Irvine, CA 92612
949.794.1180 ■ [email protected]
This technical memorandum serves as a supplemental memorandum to the Traffic Impact Analysis and Parking Demand Analysis prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc (EPD). The analyses within this technical memorandum include gap, sight distance, parking, and other traffic analyses specifically requested to be performed by commissioners at the joint Traffic and Planning Commission meeting held on November 12, 2025. The proposed Project would construct 62 attached, three-story townhome residential units on the 2.6-acre site.

The residential units would have three or four bedrooms. Access to the Project site would be provided by a 24-foot-wide driveway on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Internal circulation would be served by 24-foot-wide drive aisles that also function as fire access lanes. The Project provides a total of 138 parking spaces, or approximately 2.2 spaces per dwelling unit. Each unit includes a two-car garage, resulting in 124 garage spaces, all pre-wired for electric vehicle (EV) chargers. In addition, 14 guest spaces are proposed. The Project site plan is shown in Figure 1.

Project Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed Project was analyzed utilizing the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition. The Project trip generation is shown in Table 1. The Project trip generation was calculated using trip rates from the ITE, Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition, 2021. The analysis used trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. It is to be noted that the trip generation for the Project was initially prepared with the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual prior to the release of the 12th Edition; however, using 12th Edition trip rates, the Project would generate the same number of trips overall, even with slight variations between the AM and PM trip rates of the 11th and 12th editions. The proposed 62 dwelling units (DU) were analyzed using ITE Land use code 220 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise). As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 418 daily trips, with 25 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 32 trips occurring during the PM peak hour.

Table 1: Project Trip Generation
To: City of Yorba Linda
From: Hashem Basrawi, EIT, Meghan Macias, TE, EPD Solutions Inc Date: 12/2/2025
Site: 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Subject: Supplemental Traffic Analyses – 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard EPD Project #: 25-062

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses 2
Figure 1: Project Site Plan

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
3 Gap Analysis
According to the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 400, Table 405.1A (shown in this document as Table 2), the required corner sight distance time gap for a passenger car to make a right turn at unsignalized intersections is 6.5 seconds. EPD conducted a gap survey on November 19, 2025 to determine the number of gaps (seconds) that are available within the westbound traffic along the Project’s frontage. The gap survey was only conducted for the AM peak hour since that hour corresponds to the highest volume of westbound traffic on Yorba Linda Boulevard, as well as the highest outbound trip generation. Traffic count data is provided in Attachment B.

Table 3 includes the number of the observed gaps recorded during a 32-minute period between 7:44 AM and 8:16 AM. The number of vehicles that could exit during the gap, indicated as “Vehicles Exiting (RightTurn)” was calculated by dividing the number of available gaps (in seconds) by 6.5 seconds. As shown in Table 3, there were 95 gaps sufficient for passenger cars to make a right-turn from a stop during the observed half-hour period. The Project is anticipated to generate 19 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 12 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The worst-scenario vehicle-gap demand (19) of the Project is much lower than the vehicle-gap capacity (95); therefore, it is concluded that vehicles would have sufficient gaps to make a right turn out of the Project’s driveway.

Table 2: Corner Sight Distance Time Gap from Table 405.1A (Highway Design Manual)

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
4 Table 3: Number of Available Gaps During the AM Peak Hour Available Gap (Seconds) Vehicles Exiting (Right-Turn)
1 7:44 AM 47.55 7
2 7:45 AM 18.29 2
3 7:46 AM 10.26 1
4 7:46 AM 27.8 4
5 7:48 AM 8.43 1
6 7:48 AM 27.58 4
7 7:49 AM 7.98 1
8 7:51 AM 6.61 1
9 7:51 AM 22.16 3
10 7:52 AM 15.31 2
11 7:52 AM 18.73 2
12 7:53 AM 9.15 1
13 7:54 AM 10.4 1
14 7:55 AM 28.21 4
15 7:55 AM 8.9 1
16 7:56 AM 14.76 2
17 7:56 AM 17.03 2
18 7:57 AM 24.63 3
19 7:58 AM 16.01 2
20 7:59 AM 8.51 1
21 7:59 AM 27.26 4
22 8:00 AM 24.36 3
23 8:01 AM 10.88 1
24 8:01 AM 26.95 4
25 8:02 AM 6.91 1
26 8:03 AM 13.76 2
27 8:03 AM 14.36 2
28 8:04 AM 10.14 1
29 8:04 AM 13.21 2
30 8:05 AM 24.78 3
31 8:05 AM 14.11 2
32 8:06 AM 17.7 2
33 8:07 AM 8.23 1
34 8:08 AM 9.58 1
35 8:08 AM 18.18 2
36 8:09 AM 11.58 1
37 8:10 AM 21.85 3
38 8:11 AM 18.78 2
39 8:12 AM 20.73 3
40 8:13 AM 23.26 3
41 8:14 AM 9.26 1
42 8:15 AM 27.11 4
43 8:16 AM 15.5 2
Total 95
Time

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
5 Line of Sight Analysis
A sight distance analysis was conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, (July 1, 2020). Line of sight for corner sight distance for passenger cars is to be determined from a 3 and 1/2-foot height at the location of the driver of the vehicle in the center of the minor road approach lane to a 3 and 1/2-foot object height in the center of the approaching outside lane of the major road. The Highway Design Manual states that the minimum corner sight distance at unsignalized intersections should be determined by the following equation:

1.47 ∗  ∗ 
Where Vm is the design speed (mph) of the major road and Tg is the time gap (seconds) for the minor road vehicle to enter the major road. Tg can be determined from Table 2, Time Gap for Unsignalized Intersections – Highway Design Manual Topic 405, which is derived from the Highway Design Manual.

As derived from Table 2, automobiles making a right-turn from a stop require a default time gap of

6.5 seconds which yields to 459 feet of required corner sight distance, based on the 85th percentile speed (48 MPH). Detailed intersection sight distance analyses conducted for the Yorba Linda Drive/Project Driveway intersection is provided in Table 4, Intersection Sight Distance Analysis – RightTurn From a Stop. Intersection line of sight layout prepared for the intersection is provided in Attachment A. It is to be noted that the downhill on Yorba Linda Boulevard (east and west of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Palm Avenue intersection) is east of the 459 feet line of sight segment; therefore, the vertical sight distance of the downhill would not cause a sight restriction. As shown in Table 4 and Attachment A, the line of sight would be sufficient for passenger cars departing the Project Driveway by making a right-turn.

Table 4: Intersection Sight Distance Analysis – Right-Turn From a Stop Intersection Sight Distance Calculation
Analyzed Movement: Right Turn from Stop
Intersection Yorba Linda Blvd/Project Dwy
Minor Street Project Dwy
Major Street Yorba Linda Blvd
Design Vehicle Passenger Car
Default Time Gap 6.5 seconds
Minor Road Grade > 3%? No
Time gap adjustment for slope needed? No
Minor Road Slope 0
Additional time gap added for slope N/A
Major Street Speed 48 mph
Intersection Sight Distance 459 feet

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
6 Additional Parking Demand Analysis
As concluded in the parking demand analysis prepared by EPD on November 20, 2025:
“The proposed Project includes 138 on-site parking spaces. According to the City of Yorba Linda Code of Ordinances, 217 spaces are required; therefore, the Project provides 79 fewer spaces than the City standard. Parking demand was also evaluated under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL; California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1)), which requires 1.5 spaces per three-bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces per four-bedroom unit, resulting in a total requirement of 123 spaces. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, the estimated parking demand is 79 spaces, derived from surveys of comparable residential developments. The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures—including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections—will promote efficient use and management of available parking.”
Additionally, the Parking for Smart Growth 2010 report prepared by SANDAG (The San Diego Association of Governments), includes a rate of 2 per dwelling unit plus 1 per 5 dwelling units for each 3 or 4-bedroom multifamily unit. As shown in Table 5, per SANDAG parking rates, San Diego County would require 137 parking spaces. The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 1 space relative to the San Diego County requirement.

Table 5: SANDAG Parking Requirement
Land Use Unit
Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
SANDAG1
Use
Residents 2 / 1 unit 62 124
Guest 0.2 / 1 unit 62 13
Total 137 138
1 Parking rate for 3 or 4-bedroom multifamily units as shown in the Parking for Smart Growth Report prepared by SANDAG.

Parking Ratio

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
7 Other Traffic Considerations
This section includes other traffic analysis components that should be considered as part of the Project’s development. The Project’s driveway is along Yorba Linda Boulevard which includes a raised median dividing the eastbound and the westbound traffic. As shown in Figure 2, the raised median extends for approximately 100 feet east of the Project site before the TWLTL (two-way left turn lane) into Jessamyn West Park begins.

Community members raised concerns about the potential of outbound vehicles exiting the Project by making a left turn out of the driveway and traveling eastbound in the westbound lanes on Yorba Linda Boulevard (i.e., not obeying traffic laws) for approximately 100 feet to avoid making a U-turn at the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Ohio Street South intersection. To ensure that residents are aware of the turn restriction at the driveway, it is recommended that a “no left-turn” sign (CAMUTCD:

R3-2) be installed on the raised median, to be located facing the outbound traffic as shown in Figure 2 (orange color location).

Figure 2: Project Site Frontage

Additionally, traffic peak hours and volumes for the North County Chabad Center, Jessamyn West Park, and Club Terrace Drive were obtained using StreetLight Data, a transportation analytics website which includes data for traffic planning and engineering. The data is provided in Attachment C. As shown in Attachment C, the North County Chabad Center generates approximately 34 vehicles during the worst-case peak hours (9-10 AM and 2-3 PM). The Chabad Center includes two schools on its campus: Discover of Learning, a homeschool resource center which is open from 9 AM – 2:30 PM, and Aleph Preschool, with programming between 8:30 AM and 2:30 PM. The Jessamyn West Park generates approximately 76 vehicles during the worst-case peak hours (9-10 AM and 4-5 PM). It should be noted that the AM peak hour of the Project (i.e. commute hours between 7-9 AM) would not correspond to the AM peak hour of either the Chabad or the park. The PM peak hour of the Project would correspond to the park peak hour. However, there are no conflicting movements between the park driveway and the Project driveway, therefore no conflict between the two land uses is anticipated during the 4-6 PM peak commute period. Club Terrace Drive generates approximately 16 vehicles during peak hours (10-11AM, 11-12PM, 1-2PM, or 4-5PM). 100’

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
ATTACHMENT A – LINE OF SIGHT LAYOUT

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
ATTACHMENT B – TRAFFIC COUNT DATA

CITY: Yorba Linda PROJECT:

AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB
0:00 10 11 12:00 200 201
0:15 12 3 12:15 197 233
0:30 11 4 12:30 172 180
0:45 14 47 4 22 69 12:45 212 781 224 838 1619
1:00 3 6 13:00 214 190
1:15 3 4 13:15 222 191
1:30 0 4 13:30 224 221
1:45 4 10 1 15 25 13:45 248 908 229 831 1739
2:00 3 5 14:00 264 205
2:15 2 0 14:15 234 199
2:30 2 1 14:30 250 293
2:45 6 13 5 11 24 14:45 271 1019 273 970 1989
3:00 8 5 15:00 310 210
3:15 2 4 15:15 278 248
3:30 4 4 15:30 313 290
3:45 8 22 7 20 42 15:45 366 1267 305 1053 2320
4:00 5 9 16:00 335 260
4:15 8 13 16:15 361 263
4:30 19 19 16:30 351 209
4:45 14 46 31 72 118 16:45 338 1385 274 1006 2391
5:00 15 26 17:00 369 250
5:15 20 48 17:15 343 281
5:30 24 43 17:30 364 226
5:45 46 105 53 170 275 17:45 322 1398 233 990 2388
6:00 36 66 18:00 296 224
6:15 42 77 18:15 299 200
6:30 53 107 18:30 231 169
6:45 76 207 178 428 635 18:45 261 1087 203 796 1883
7:00 109 154 19:00 210 207
7:15 147 211 19:15 238 153
7:30 164 220 19:30 165 139
7:45 145 565 269 854 1419 19:45 217 830 147 646 1476
8:00 170 326 20:00 177 136
8:15 224 365 20:15 140 115
8:30 212 310 20:30 137 88
8:45 223 829 267 1268 2097 20:45 146 600 94 433 1033
9:00 168 202 21:00 106 84
9:15 144 208 21:15 93 65
9:30 153 205 21:30 73 48
9:45 169 634 202 817 1451 21:45 62 334 50 247 581
10:00 163 192 22:00 43 34
10:15 153 165 22:15 51 31
10:30 161 181 22:30 26 29
10:45 162 639 223 761 1400 22:45 21 141 18 112 253
11:00 191 236 23:00 25 19
11:15 185 210 23:15 21 14
11:30 191 192 23:30 22 8
11:45 195 762 198 836 1598 23:45 9 77 17 58 135
Total Vol. 3879 5274 9153 9827 7980 17807
EB WB Combined
13706 13254 26960
Split % 42.4% 57.6% 34.0% 55.2% 44.8% 66.0%
Peak Hour 8:00 7:45 8:00 16:15 15:30 15:30
Volume 829 1270 2097 1419 1118 2493
P.H.F. 0.93 0.87 0.89 0.96 0.92 0.93
Tuesday, August 26, 2025 SC5572
ADT1 Yorba Linda Blvd east of S Ohio St. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Supplemental Traffic Analyses
ATTACHMENT C – STREETLIGHT DATA

Data Periods Mode of Travel Intersection Type Zone Name Day Type Day Part Average Daily Zone Traffic (StL Volume) Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 00: All Day (12am-12am) 141Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 05: 4am (4am-5am) 1Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 06: 5am (5am-6am) 1Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 07: 6am (6am-7am) 1Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 08: 7am (7am-8am) 4Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 09: 8am (8am-9am) 6Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 10: 9am (9am-10am) 34Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 11: 10am (10am-11am) 13Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 12: 11am (11am-12noon) 5Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 13: 12pm (12noon-1pm) 8Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 14: 1pm (1pm-2pm) 2Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 15: 2pm (2pm-3pm) 34Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 16: 3pm (3pm-4pm) 7Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 17: 4pm (4pm-5pm) 9Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 18: 5pm (5pm-6pm) 7Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 19: 6pm (6pm-7pm) 3Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 20: 7pm (7pm-8pm) 2Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 21: 8pm (8pm-9pm) 2Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 22: 9pm (9pm-10pm) 1Jan 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through Chabad 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 23: 10pm (10pm-11pm) 1 Chabad

Data Periods Mode of Travel Intersection Type Zone ID Zone Name Zone Is Pass-Through Zone Direction (degrees) Zone is Bi-Direction Day Type Day Part Average Daily Zone Traffic (StL Volume) Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 00: All Day (12am-12am) 121Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 07: 6am (6am-7am) 8Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 09: 8am (8am-9am) 8Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 10: 9am (9am-10am) 8Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 11: 10am (10am-11am) 16Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 12: 11am (11am-12noon) 16Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 14: 1pm (1pm-2pm) 16Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 16: 3pm (3pm-4pm) 8Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 17: 4pm (4pm-5pm) 16Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 18: 5pm (5pm-6pm) 8Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 19: 6pm (6pm-7pm) 8Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025 All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A ClubTerrace yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 23: 10pm (10pm-11pm) 8 Club Terrace Dr at Yorba Linda Blvd

Data Periods Mode of Travel Intersection Type Zone ID Zone NameZone Is Pass-Through Zone Direction (degrees) Zone is Bi-Direction Day Type Day Part Average Daily Zone Traffic (StL Volume) Avg Travel Time (sec) Avg All Travel Time (sec) Avg Trip Length (mi) Avg All Trip Length (mi) Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 00: All Day (12am-12am) 517 913 1018 4.8 5.1Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 05: 4am (4am-5am) 8 N/A N/A N/A N/ASep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 06: 5am (5am-6am) 8 N/A N/A N/A N/ASep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 09: 8am (8am-9am) 15 N/A N/A N/A N/ASep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 10: 9am (9am-10am) 76 488 488 2.3 2.3Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 11: 10am (10am-11am) 15 N/A N/A N/A N/ASep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 12: 11am (11am-12noon) 68 423 423 2.4 2.4Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 13: 12pm (12noon-1pm) 8 N/A N/A N/A N/ASep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 15: 2pm (2pm-3pm) 38 1091 1290 2.9 4.3Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 16: 3pm (3pm-4pm) 38 1485 1260 9.2 7.2Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 17: 4pm (4pm-5pm) 76 1959 1722 12.8 10.8Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 18: 5pm (5pm-6pm) 76 701 701 3.5 3.5Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 19: 6pm (6pm-7pm) 68 880 1466 4.1 6Sep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 20: 7pm (7pm-8pm) 8 N/A N/A N/A N/ASep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 22: 9pm (9pm-10pm) 8 N/A N/A N/A N/ASep 01, 2025 - Sep 30, 2025All Vehicles CVD Plus - StL All Vehicles Volume Trip Pass-Through N/A Park yes N/A no 1: Weekday (Tu-Th) 23: 10pm (10pm-11pm) 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A The Park

MEMORANDUM
4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
714-961-7100 | www.yorbalindaca.gov
DATE: December 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department
BY: Gabriel Diaz, Associate Planner
RE: Attachment 26 - Continuation Memo for Planning Comm. 12-10-25.docx

BACKGROUND
This item was initially heard at a joint Planning and Traffic Commission meeting on November 12, 2025. The request to review a proposal from City Ventures to develop the Housing Element site at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard and adjacent to Jessamyn West Park with 62 single-family attached homes was attended by over 80 residents. During the hearing, the Planning and Traffic Commissions took public testimony and deliberated. After considering the proposal, public comments, and input from the Traffic Commission, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to their regular meeting of December 10th with direction to the applicant to further study concerns related to traffic, circulation, parking, landscaping, and building height. Staff has attached a copy of the staff report and draft meeting minutes from the November 12th meeting for the Commission’s reference.

DISCUSSION
Following the meeting, the applicant coordinated with residents, commissioners, and city staff to incorporate feedback to revise plans, prepare new studies, and explore alternatives. Topics that have been revisited since the meeting include traffic, circulation, parking, landscaping, privacy, and fire access. These items are discussed in further detail below:

Traffic, Circulation, and Safety
At the request of the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the applicant was instructed to provide additional information to supplement the project’s traffic impact analysis, including a gap analysis to determine the feasibility of existing the site and heading westbound onto Yorba Linda Boulevard from the project’s only driveway. This was a large source of concern from the public since the project’s future residents would need to gain access to the left turn lane pocket at South Ohio Street to complete a U-turn if they wanted to go eastbound.

Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 2
The applicant’s traffic consultant, EDP Solutions, Inc., conducted a gap study on November 19, 2025, to observe and collect data during the peak hour traffic period for the site. An AM survey was completed between 7:44 a.m. and 8:16 a.m. to determine if adequate right-turn maneuvering time, 6.5 seconds1, was available based on the number of vehicles expected to exit the site. Given that the project Is expected to generate 19 outbound trips during the AM peak period and the survey data, the anticipated demand is much lower than the vehicle-gap capacity (95 vehicles); it was concluded that vehicles exiting the project site would have adequate gaps to make a right turn out of the driveway.

A line-of-sight analysis was also analyzed using site specific variables such as the posted speed limit (40 mph), the actual observed 85th percentile vehicle speeds (48 mph), and the timed gap needed to turn onto the road (6.5 seconds). The analysis determined that the 459 linear feet of sight distance that is provided is adequate. Furthermore, the downhill sloped portions of the Yorba Linda Boulevard, located east of the project site, is outside of the 459-foot distance.

1 The gap analysis cites the Highway Design Manual, which references 6.5 seconds as the required corner sight distance time gap for a passenger car to make a right turn at an unsignalized intersection.

Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 3
In terms of traffic safety improvements, the applicant has agreed to adding “no-left-turn” signage in the median to ensure project residents are aware of the turn restrictions. The existing median extends 100 feet easterly, as measure from the proposed site driveway, in order to prevent this type of maneuver. Lastly, the applicant has agreed to include reflective bollards and a right turn only divider to further prevent an illegal maneuver.

Lastly, traffic peak hours were specifically analyzed for the adjacent properties located at the North County Chabad Center, Jessamyn West Park, and Club Terrace Drive using traffic data.

Worst case scenarios for the generation of traffic at the Chabad Center and Jessamyn West Park, and Club Terrace Drive intersection were analyzed and were found to either have different land use peak hours and/or would not conflict with the project driveway maneuvering.

Parking
The applicant presented an alternative site layout option at the November 12 meeting that would relocate an existing site trash enclosure further north to create an additional guest parking space.

Although this is a minor increase, the new stall was gained in the redesign that was originally intended to alleviate the potential noise and odor concerns for the trash enclosure location raised by the resident at 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard. That design was formally submitted to staff, and the added parking stall has been included in the project plans as seen below highlighted in red. The added stall has also been incorporated into the updated parking demand analysis.

Although it is a minor increase, the overall on-site parking count is now 138 spaces compared to the State Density Bonus Law requirement of 122 spaces which is inclusive of ADA spaces.

Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 4
Other parking-related requests from the Commissions included the analysis of parking requirements using SANDAG parking rates for multi-family units to compare to another suburban metropolitan area. The analysis concluded that the project is providing adequate parking based on the SANDAG parking rates in addition to those required under State Density Bonus Law.

Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 5
Landscaping and Privacy
The Commission requested the applicant to include larger 36-inch box trees, to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize privacy impacts for the adjacent properties. A larger box size tree can provide a larger canopy and shading to further obscure views. After consulting with the City Landscape Architect and staff, the applicant has redesigned the rear portion of the project along the horse trail. In order to accommodate these larger trees, the applicant has swapped the walkways with the landscape/tree area to pull the trees closer to the project buildings. In doing so, there is more room to allow for the larger canopies and root systems required for the larger 36” box trees. In addition, the applicant has shifted the planting locations of these trees to align more directly with the upper floor windows and balconies. A total of 13 trees are now proposed along the rear property line compared to the previous design utilizing 12 trees. The changes can be observed in the rectangle seen below on the landscape plans. As a result of these changes the privacy impact towards the horse trail and the northern property, located at 19030 Lynn Lane, have been further reduced.

Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 6
Fire Access
Due to public feedback, the Commission requested the applicant to reach out to Orange County Fire Authority to confirm the project was meeting their site planning standards. This was confirmed between OCFA staff, the city, and the applicant over email correspondence. OCFA reiterated that there were no observable site access design issues with the plans. Staff has included a standard condition of approval provided by OCFA stating that approval of a Fire Master Plan must be completed prior to OCFA clearance of a final map or issuance of a precise grading permit. This requirement was already included as OCFA condition #154 for the Tentative Tract Map resolution and remains unchanged. Any site planning changes made after the initial OCFA review will still be subject to the Fire Master Plan review and all OCFA access and safety standards.

State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) Calculation
As requested by the Planning Commission, staff has included a breakdown of the SDBL calculation for this project for further clarification based on the site specifics for lot size, base density, and the inclusion of very low-income (VLI) units in the project. The subject site is 2.647 acres at a base density of 20 units per acre under RM-20 zoning standards, which would allow for up to 52.94 “base” units. SDBL requires all fractional units to be rounded up; therefore, 53 base units is allowed by-right.

The project proposes to develop 3 of those units (equal to 5.7 percent of the base units) as VLI affordable units. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), the applicant is entitled to a 22.5% “density bonus” as a result (highlighted in the table below). For a 53 base unit project, the applicable density bonus equates to 11.9 additional units, rounded up to 12 units, for an overall total of 65 units. The density bonus increases on sliding scale if the number of affordable units increases as seen in the table below. Although the project is entitled to the full bonus, the applicant has elected to cap the overall total to 62 units.

INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR VERY LOW-INCOME UNITS (53 Base Units) (Per State Density Bonus Law)
Percentage of Very
Low-Income (VLI)
Units Provided
Percentage
Density Bonus
Allowed
# of VLI Units
Required for
Reservation to Qualify
Overall Maximum
Project Units
Allowed
5% 20% 3 64
6% 22.5% 4 65
7% 25% 4 67
8% 27.5% 5 68
9% 30% 5 69
10% 32.5% 6 71
11% 35% 6 72

Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 7

RECOMMENDATION
Staff has included previous staff reports, attachments, and plans for the Planning Commission’s reference. With the additional studies, analysis, and revised plans submitted in response to the Traffic and Planning Commission’s direction at the previous hearing, staff believes the applicant’s request has further mitigated potential impacts and provided requested clarifications.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map 19389, with conditions.

2. Approve, by minute motion, Design Review 2025-02, with conditions.

3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, with conditions.

ATTACHMENTS
1) Project Plans
2) Vicinity Map
3) Applicant Narrative Letter
4) Community Meeting Response
5) Public Correspondence
Traffic & Parking
6) Traffic Impact Analysis
7) Traffic Impact Analysis Appendices
8) Parking Compliance Memo
9) Parking Demand Analysis Memo
10) Level of Service Screening Memo
Environmental
11) Environmental Analysis
12) Project Geotechnical Report
13) Phase I Report
14) Phase II Report
15) Preliminary Hydrology Report
16) Preliminary WQMP
17) Project GHG Report

Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 8
18) Project Biological Resources Assessment
19) Noise & Vibration Analysis
Resolutions and Conditions
20) Tentative Tract Map 19389 Resolution, with conditions 21) Conditions of Approval for Design Review 2025-02
22) CUP 2025-10 Resolution with Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval New or Revised Information
23) Joint Traffic & Planning Commission Meeting Minutes- 11/12/25 24) Supplemental Traffic Analysis- 12/2/25
25) New Public Correspondence

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65915
65915. (a)  (1)  When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local government shall comply with this section. A city, county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (s), failure to adopt an ordinance shall not relieve a city, county, or city and county from complying with this section.
(2)  A local government shall not condition the submission, review, or approval of an application pursuant to this chapter on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law, including this section. This subdivision does not prohibit a local government from requiring an applicant to provide reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus, as described in subdivision (b), and parking ratios, as described in subdivision (p). (3)  In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus application, the local government shall do all of the following:
(A)  Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a density bonus application. (B)  Provide a list of all documents and information required to be submitted with the density bonus application in order for the density bonus application to be deemed complete. This list shall be consistent with this chapter. (C)  Notify the applicant for a density bonus whether the application is complete in a manner consistent with the timelines specified in Section 65943. (D)  (i)  If the local government notifies the applicant that the application is deemed complete pursuant to subparagraph (C), provide the applicant with a determination as to the following matters:
(I)  The amount of density bonus, calculated pursuant to subdivision (f), for which the applicant is eligible.
(II)  If the applicant requests a parking ratio pursuant to subdivision (p), the parking ratio for which the applicant is eligible.
(III)  If the applicant requests incentives or concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) or waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to subdivision (e), whether the applicant has provided adequate information for the local government to make a determination as to those incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions of development standards.
(ii)  Any determination required by this subparagraph shall be based on the development project at the time the application is deemed complete. The local government shall adjust the amount of density bonus and parking ratios awarded

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL

pursuant to this section based on any changes to the project during the course of development.
(b)  (1)  A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (f), and, if requested by the applicant and consistent with the applicable requirements of this section, incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), waivers or reductions of development standards, as described in subdivision (e), and parking ratios, as described in subdivision (p), if an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the following:
(A)  Ten percent of the total units of a housing development, including a shared housing building development, for rental or sale to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (B)  Five percent of the total units of a housing development, including a shared housing building development, for rental or sale to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (C)  A senior citizen housing development, as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code, or a mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code. For purposes of this subparagraph, “development” includes a shared housing building development and a residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code.
(D)  Ten percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development are sold to persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase.
(E)  Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, as defined in Section 66025.9 of the Education Code, disabled veterans, as defined in Section 18541, or homeless persons, as defined in the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11301 et seq.). The units described in this subparagraph are subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years and shall be provided at the same affordability level as very low income units.
(F)  (i)  Twenty percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development that meets the following requirements:
(I)  All units in the student housing development shall be used exclusively for undergraduate, graduate, or professional students enrolled currently or in the past six months in at least six units at an institution of higher education accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges or the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. In order to be eligible under this subclause, the developer shall, as a condition of receiving a certificate of occupancy, provide evidence to the city, county, or city and county that the developer has done any one of the following:

(ia)  Entered into an operating agreement or master lease with one or more institutions of higher education for the institution or institutions to occupy all units of the student housing development with students from that institution or institutions.

An operating agreement or master lease entered into pursuant to this subclause is not violated or breached if, in any subsequent year, there are insufficient students enrolled in an institution of higher education to fill all units in the student housing development. (ib)  Established a system for confirming its renters’ status as students to ensure that all units of the student housing development are occupied with students from an institution of higher education.
(II)  The applicable units in the student housing development for lower income students shall be used for and occupied by lower income students. (III)  The rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students shall be calculated at 30 percent of 65 percent of the area median income for a single-room occupancy unit type.
(IV)  The development shall provide priority for the applicable affordable units for lower income students experiencing homelessness. A homeless service provider, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 103577 of the Health and Safety Code, or institution of higher education that has knowledge of a person’s homeless status may verify a person’s status as homeless for purposes of this subclause. (V)  The student housing development is not located on a site that pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) would require replacement units for projects with greater than a 35-percent density bonus.
(ii)  For purposes of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this subparagraph, the term “unit” as used in this section means one rental bed and its pro rata share of associated common area facilities. The units described in this subparagraph are subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years, which shall not tie any rental bed reserved for lower income students to a specific bedroom.

Notwithstanding any other law, an affordability restriction provision, state or county law or policy, or property management policy shall not prevent a lower income student from sharing a room or unit with a nonlower income student. Any attempted waiver of the requirements of this clause is void as against public policy. (G)  One hundred percent of all units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are for lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that up to 20 percent of the units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. For purposes of this subparagraph, “development” includes a shared housing building development.
(2)  For purposes of calculating the amount of the density bonus pursuant to subdivision (f), an applicant who requests a density bonus pursuant to this subdivision shall elect whether the bonus shall be awarded on the basis of subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of paragraph (1).
(c)  (1)  (A)  An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure, the continued affordability of all very low and low-income rental units

that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for 55 years or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. (B)  (i)  Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii), rents for the lower income density bonus units shall be set at an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), rents for all units in the development, including both base density and density bonus units, shall be as follows:
(I)  The rent for at least 20 percent of the units in the development shall be set at an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (II)  The rent for the remaining units in the development shall be set at an amount consistent with the maximum rent levels for lower income households, as those rents and incomes are determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. (2)  (A)  An applicant shall agree to ensure, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure, that a for-sale unit that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus meets one of the following conditions:
(i)  The unit is initially sold to and occupied by a person or family of very low, low, or moderate income, as required, and it is offered at an affordable housing cost, as that cost is defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code and is subject to an equity sharing agreement.
(ii)  If the unit is not purchased by an income-qualified person or family within 180 days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the unit is purchased by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation that meets all of the following requirements pursuant to a recorded contract that satisfies all of the requirements specified in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
(I)  The nonprofit corporation has a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service affirming its tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and is not a private foundation as that term is defined in Section 509 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(II)  The nonprofit corporation is based in California. (III)  All of the board members of the nonprofit corporation have their primary residence in California.
(IV)  The primary activity of the nonprofit corporation is the development and preservation of affordable home ownership housing in California that incorporates within their contracts for initial purchase a repurchase option that requires a subsequent purchaser of the property that desires to resell or convey the property to offer the qualified nonprofit corporation the right to repurchase the property prior to selling or conveying that property to any other purchaser pursuant to an equity sharing agreement or affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the property that ensure that the property will be preserved for lower income housing for at least 45 years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold only to persons or families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(B)  For purposes of this paragraph, a “qualified nonprofit housing corporation” is a nonprofit housing corporation organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program.
(C)  The local government shall enforce an equity sharing agreement required pursuant to clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A), unless it is in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law or may defer to the recapture provisions of the public funding source. The following apply to the equity sharing agreement:
(i)  Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the downpayment, and the seller’s proportionate share of appreciation. (ii)  Except as provided in clause (v), the local government shall recapture any initial subsidy, as defined in clause (iii), and its proportionate share of appreciation, as defined in clause (iv), which amount shall be used within five years for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote home ownership.
(iii)  For purposes of this subdivision, the local government’s initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household, plus the amount of any downpayment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value.
(iv)  For purposes of this subdivision, the local government’s proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the local government’s initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. (v)  If the unit is purchased or developed by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) the local government may enter into a contract with the qualified nonprofit housing corporation under which the qualified nonprofit housing corporation would recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation if the qualified nonprofit housing corporation is required to use 100 percent of the proceeds to promote home ownership for lower income households as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code within the jurisdiction of the local government.
(3)  (A)  Except as provided in subclause (V) of clause (i) of subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), an applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions under this section if the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units are located or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income; subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or occupied by lower or very low

income households, unless the proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of the following applies:
(i)  The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragraph, contains affordable units at the percentages set forth in subdivision (b).
(ii)  Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, is affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low income household. (B)  For the purposes of this paragraph, “replace” shall mean either of the following:
(i)  If any dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) are occupied on the date of application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. If the income category of the household in occupancy is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of lower income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database. For unoccupied dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) in a development with occupied units, the proposed housing development shall provide units of equivalent size to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as the last household in occupancy. If the income category of the last household in occupancy is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of lower income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2). (ii)  If all dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) have been vacated or demolished within the five-year period preceding the application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size as existed at the highpoint of those units in the five-year period preceding the application to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that low-income and very low income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of low-income and very low income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s

Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2). (C)  Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), for any dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) that is or was, within the five-year period preceding the application, subject to a form of rent or price control through a local government’s valid exercise of its police power and that is or was occupied by persons or families above lower income, the city, county, or city and county may do either of the following:
(i)  Require that the replacement units be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, low-income persons or families. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2). (ii)  Require that the units be replaced in compliance with the jurisdiction’s rent or price control ordinance, provided that each unit described in subparagraph (A) is replaced. Unless otherwise required by the jurisdiction’s rent or price control ordinance, these units shall not be subject to a recorded affordability restriction. (D)  For purposes of this paragraph, “equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced. (E)  Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an applicant seeking a density bonus for a proposed housing development if the applicant’s application was submitted to, or processed by, a city, county, or city and county before January 1, 2015. (d)  (1)  An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A)  The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (B)  The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.
(C)  The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. (2)  The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions:

(A)  One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 5 percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(B)  Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(C)  Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(D)  Five incentives or concessions for a project meeting the criteria of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or is located in a very low vehicle travel area in a designated county, the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet.
(E)  One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development. If a project includes at least 23 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing project, the applicant shall instead receive two incentives or concessions. (F)  Four incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 16 percent of the units for very low income households or at least 45 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale. (3)  The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section that shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section.
(4)  The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.
(e)  (1)  In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an

applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.
(2)  A proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce nor increase the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to subdivision (d). (3)  A housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) shall only be eligible for a waiver or reduction of development standards as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and clause (ii) of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (f), unless the city, county, or city and county agrees to additional waivers or reductions of development standards. (f)  For the purposes of this chapter, “density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density, as of the date of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and county, or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density. The amount of density increase to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in subdivision (b). (1)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:

Percentage Density
Bonus
Percentage Low-Income Units
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
16 29

17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
21 38.75
22 42.5
23 46.25
24 50
(2)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:

Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
(3)  (A)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of senior housing units.
(B)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of the type of units giving rise to a density bonus under that subparagraph. (C)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:

Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 20 35
21 38.75
22 42.5
23 46.25
24 50

(D)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the following shall apply:
(i)  Except as otherwise provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), the density bonus shall be 80 percent of the number of units for lower income households. (ii)  If the housing development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the city, county, or city and county shall not impose any maximum controls on density.
(iii)  If the housing development is located in a very low vehicle travel area within a designated county, the city, county, or city and county shall not impose any maximum controls on density.
(4)  For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:

Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30

36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
41 38.75
42 42.5
43 46.25
44 50
(5)  All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
(g)  (1)  When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential development approval donates land to a city, county, or city and county in accordance with this subdivision, the applicant shall be entitled to a 15-percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density for the entire development, as follows:

Percentage Very Low Income Percentage Density Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35

(2)  This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated by subdivision (b), up to a maximum combined mandated density increase of 35 percent if an applicant seeks an increase pursuant to both this subdivision and subdivision (b). All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a city, county, or city and county to require a developer to donate land as a condition of development. An applicant shall be eligible for the increased density bonus described in this subdivision if all of the following conditions are met:
(A)  The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application. (B)  The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households in an amount not less than 10 percent of the number of residential units of the proposed development.
(C)  The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned with appropriate development standards for development at the density described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure. (D)  The transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the transferred land, not later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application, except that the local government may subject the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2 if the design is not reviewed by the local government before the time of transfer.
(E)  The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (c), which shall be recorded on the property at the time of the transfer. (F)  The land is transferred to the local agency or to a housing developer approved by the local agency. The local agency may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the developer.
(G)  The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the local agency agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development.
(H)  A proposed source of funding for the very low income units shall be identified not later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application.
(h)  (1)  When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of subdivision (b) and includes a childcare facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the city, county, or city and county shall grant either of the following:

(A)  An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the childcare facility. (B)  An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the childcare facility. (2)  The city, county, or city and county shall require, as a condition of approving the housing development, that the following occur:
(A)  The childcare facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable pursuant to subdivision (c). (B)  Of the children who attend the childcare facility, the children of very low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required for very low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income pursuant to subdivision (b). (3)  Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, a city, county, or city and county shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a childcare facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate childcare facilities.
(4)  “Childcare facility,” as used in this section, means a child daycare facility other than a family daycare home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended daycare facilities, and schoolage childcare centers. (i)  “Housing development,” as used in this section, means a development project for five or more residential units, including mixed-use developments. For the purposes of this section, “housing development” also includes a subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code, approved by a city, county, or city and county and consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the residential units shall be on contiguous sites that are the subject of one development application, but do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households are located.
(j)  (1)  The granting of a concession or incentive shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other discretionary approval. For purposes of this subdivision, “study” does not include reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the definition set forth in subdivision (k). This provision is declaratory of existing law. (2)  Except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), the granting of a density bonus shall not require or be interpreted to require the waiver of a local ordinance or provisions of a local ordinance unrelated to development standards.

(k)  For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any of the following:
(1)  A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (2)  Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3)  Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(l)  (1)  (A)  A concession or incentive shall not result in a proposed project with a commercial floor area ratio that is greater than two and a half times the premises’ current allowed base zone commercial floor area ratio.
(B)  This paragraph shall not apply to proposed projects that have submitted a preliminary application or an entitlement application prior to January 1, 2026. (2)  Subdivisions (e) and (k) do not require a city, county, or city and county to approve, to grant a concession or incentive requiring approval of, or to waive or reduce development standards otherwise applicable to, a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, other than a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code, as part of a housing development subject to this section.

For purposes of this paragraph, “other transient lodging” does not include a resident’s use or marketing of their unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in a manner otherwise consistent with local law. (3)  Subdivision (k) does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing development, including the provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and county, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
(m)  This section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that

is consistent with this section and Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.
(n)  If permitted by local ordinance, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and county from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this section.
(o)  For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)  “Designated county” includes the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Napa, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura, and the City and County of San Francisco.
(2)  “Development standard” includes a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, a minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation that is adopted by the local government or that is enacted by the local government’s electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the local government.
(3)  “Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop” means that any point on a proposed development, for which an applicant seeks a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, or a vehicular parking ratio pursuant to this section, is within one-half mile of any point on the property on which a major transit stop is located, including any parking lot owned by the transit authority or other local agency operating the major transit stop. (4)  “Lower income student” means a student who has a household income and asset level that does not exceed the level for Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B award recipients as set forth in subdivision (k) of Section 69432.7 of the Education Code.

The eligibility of a student to occupy a unit for lower income students under this section shall be verified by an affidavit, award letter, or letter of eligibility provided by the institution of higher education in which the student is enrolled or by the Student Aid Commission that the student receives or is eligible for financial aid, including an institutional grant or fee waiver from the college or university, the Student Aid Commission, or the federal government.
(5)  “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
(6)  “Maximum allowable residential density” or “base density” means the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means the greatest number of units allowed by the specific zoning range, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. Density shall be determined using dwelling

units per acre. However, if the applicable zoning ordinance, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan does not provide a dwelling-units-per-acre standard for density, then the local agency shall calculate the number of units by:
(A)  Estimating the realistic development capacity of the site based on the objective development standards applicable to the project, including, but not limited to, floor area ratio, site coverage, maximum building height and number of stories, building setbacks and stepbacks, public and private open-space requirements, minimum percentage or square footage of any nonresidential component, and parking requirements, unless not required for the base project. Parking requirements shall include considerations regarding number of spaces, location, design, type, and circulation. A developer may provide a base density study and the local agency shall accept it, provided that it includes all applicable objective development standards. (B)  Maintaining the same average unit size and other project details relevant to the base density study, excepting those that may be modified by waiver or concession to accommodate the bonus units, in the proposed project as in the study. (7)  (A)  (i)  “Shared housing building” means a residential or mixed-use structure, with five or more shared housing units and one or more common kitchens and dining areas designed for permanent residence of more than 30 days by its tenants. The kitchens and dining areas within the shared housing building shall be able to adequately accommodate all residents. If a local ordinance further restricts the attributes of a shared housing building beyond the requirements established in this section, the local definition shall apply to the extent that it does not conflict with the requirements of this section.
(ii)  A “shared housing building” may include other dwelling units that are not shared housing units, provided that those dwelling units do not occupy more than 25 percent of the floor area of the shared housing building. A shared housing building may include 100 percent shared housing units.
(B)  (i)  “Shared housing unit” means one or more habitable rooms, not within another dwelling unit, that includes a bathroom, sink, refrigerator, and microwave, is used for permanent residence, that meets the “minimum room area” specified in Section R304 of the California Residential Code (Part 2.5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), and complies with the definition of “guestroom” in Section R202 of the California Residential Code. If a local ordinance further restricts the attributes of a shared housing building beyond the requirements established in this section, the local definition shall apply to the extent that it does not conflict with the requirements of this section.
(ii)  “Shared housing unit” for purposes of a residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, includes a unit without an individual kitchen where a unit may be shared by unrelated persons, and a unit where a room that may be shared by unrelated persons meets the “minimum room area” requirements of clause (i).
(8)  “Student housing development” means a development that contains bedrooms containing two or more bedspaces that have a shared or private bathroom, access to

a shared or private living room and laundry facilities, and access to a shared or private kitchen.
(9)  (A)  “Total units” or “total dwelling units” means a calculation of the number of units that:
(i)  Excludes a unit added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local law granting a greater density bonus.
(ii)  Includes a unit designated to satisfy an inclusionary zoning requirement of a city, county, or city and county.
(B)  For purposes of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this section for a shared housing building, “unit” means one shared housing unit and its pro rata share of associated common area facilities.
(10)  “Very low vehicle travel area” means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. For purposes of this paragraph, “area” may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per capita” pursuant to this paragraph, a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization.
(p)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivisions (b) and (c), that exceeds the following ratios:
(A)  Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
(B)  Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half onsite parking spaces. (C)  Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. (D)  One bedspace in a student housing development: zero parking spaces. (2)  (A)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes at least 20 percent low-income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) or at least 11 percent very low income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes at least 40 percent moderate-income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not

impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom.
(B)  For purposes of this subdivision, “unobstructed access to the major transit stop” means a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments. For purposes of this subparagraph, “natural or constructed impediments” includes, but is not limited to, freeways, rivers, mountains, and bodies of water, but does not include residential structures, shopping centers, parking lots, or rails used for transit.
(3)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development meets the criteria of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose vehicular parking standards if the development meets any of the following criteria:
(A)  The development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. (B)  The development is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 55 years of age or older that complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3 of the Civil Code and the development has either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day. (C)  The development is either a special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code, or a supportive housing development, as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code. A development that is a special needs housing development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day.
(4)  If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide onsite parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through onstreet parking. (5)  This subdivision shall apply to a development that meets the requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c), but only at the request of the applicant. An applicant may request parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this subdivision pursuant to subdivision (d).
(6)  This subdivision does not preclude a city, county, or city and county from reducing or eliminating a parking requirement for development projects of any type in any location.
(7)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3), if a city, county, city and county, or an independent consultant has conducted an areawide or jurisdictionwide parking study in the last seven years, then the city, county, or city and county may impose a higher vehicular parking ratio not to exceed the ratio described in paragraph (1), based upon substantial evidence found in the parking study, that includes, but is not limited to, an analysis of parking availability, differing levels of transit access, walkability access to transit services, the potential for shared parking, the effect of parking requirements on the cost of market-rate and subsidized developments, and the lower rates of car ownership for low-income and very low income individuals, including

seniors and special needs individuals. The city, county, or city and county shall pay the costs of any new study. The city, county, or city and county shall make findings, based on a parking study completed in conformity with this paragraph, supporting the need for the higher parking ratio.
(8)  A request pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce nor increase the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to subdivision (d).
(q)  Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. The Legislature finds and declares that this provision is declaratory of existing law.
(r)  This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.
(s)  Notwithstanding any other law, if a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county has adopted an ordinance or a housing program, or both an ordinance and a housing program, that incentivizes the development of affordable housing that allows for density bonuses that exceed the density bonuses required by the version of this section effective through December 31, 2020, that city, county, or city and county is not required to amend or otherwise update its ordinance or corresponding affordable housing incentive program to comply with the amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision, and is exempt from complying with the incentive and concession calculation amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision as set forth in subdivision (d), particularly subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) of that subdivision, and the amendments made to the density tables under subdivision (f).
(t)  When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) that is a shared housing building, the city, county, or city and county shall not require any minimum unit size requirements or minimum bedroom requirements that are in conflict with paragraph (7) of subdivision (o).
(u)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind the Density Bonus Law is to allow public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance in exchange for affordable units.

It further reaffirms that the intent is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional public subsidy. (2)  It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to make modifications to the Density Bonus Law by the act adding this subdivision to further incentivize the construction of very low, low-, and moderate-income housing units. It is further the intent of the Legislature in making these modifications to the Density Bonus Law to ensure that any additional benefits conferred upon a developer are balanced with the receipt of a public benefit in the form of adequate levels of affordable housing. The Legislature further intends that these modifications will ensure that the Density Bonus Law creates incentives for the construction of more housing across all areas of the state.

(v)  (1)  Provided that the resulting housing development would not restrict more than 50 percent of the total units to moderate-income, lower income, or very low income households, a city, county, or city and county shall grant an additional density bonus calculated pursuant to paragraph (2) when an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), agrees to include additional rental or for-sale units affordable to very low income households or moderate-income households, and meets any of the following requirements:
(A)  The housing development conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and provides 24 percent of the total units to lower income households.
(B)  The housing development conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and provides 15 percent of the total units to very low income households.
(C)  The housing development conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and provides 44 percent of the total units to moderate-income households.
(2)  A city, county, or city and county shall grant an additional density bonus for a housing development that meets the requirements of paragraph (1), calculated as follows:

Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 23.75
7 27.5
8 31.25
9 35
10 38.75
Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
(3)  The increase required by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be in addition to any increase in density granted by subdivision (b).

(4)  The additional density bonus required under this subdivision shall be calculated using the number of units excluding any density bonus awarded by this section. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 486, Sec. 1.5. (AB 87) Effective January 1, 2026.)

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65589.5
65589.5. (a)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A)  The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B)  California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. (C)  Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D)  Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2)  In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A)  California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions.

The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.
(B)  While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. (C)  The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability.
(D)  According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.
(E)  California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s.

The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL

(F)  Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians.
(G)  The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. (H)  When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. (I)  An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J)  California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K)  The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was 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 governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L)  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.
(3)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (4)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments removing provisions from subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) and adding those provisions to Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2 by Assembly Bill 1413 (2023), insofar as they are substantially the same as existing law, shall be considered restatements and continuations of existing law, and not new enactments. (b)  It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c)  The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state.

Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away

from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas.
(d)  For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1)  The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2)  The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. 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. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
(A)  Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B)  The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(3)  The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.

(4)  The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan.
(A)  This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B)  If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(6)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project.
(e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(f)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency

from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. (2)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4)  For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter 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 the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(5)  For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(6)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project:
(A)  A local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant.

If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply.

(B)  (i)  Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following:
(I)  Render the project infeasible.
(II)  Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. (ii)  The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). (C)  (i)  A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
(ii)  For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential density or base density means the density permitted for a builder’s remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iii)  A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h).
(iv)  A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided to a housing development project that dedicates three percentage points more units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65915. (v)  All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant to paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915.
(D)  (i)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval.
(ii)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the same type and density proposed by the applicant.
(iii)  Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.
(E)  A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to,

increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. (F)  (i)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123.
(ii)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(G)  (i)  (I)  If the local agency had a local affordable housing requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency may require a housing development for mixed-income households to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other aspect of the local affordable housing requirement.
(II)  Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing requirements shall not be applied to require housing for mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the units to affordable units of any kind. (III)  Housing for mixed-income households that is required to dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(IV)  A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income households to comply with the local percentage requirement or affordability level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance with the local percentage requirement or the affordability level, or both, would not render the housing development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required to comply with that requirement.
(ii)  Affordable units in the development project shall have a comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units.
(iii)  Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law.
(7)  (A)  For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary

application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.
(B)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more.
(8)  A housing development project proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, and that is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (6) and paragraph (9).
(9)  For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project. (g)  This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (h)  The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1)  “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2)  “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A)  Residential units only.
(B)  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions:
(i)  A mixed-use development that meets both of the following:
(I)  At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use.
(II)  (ia)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging.

(ib)  (Ia)  Notwithstanding sub-subclause (ia), if a mixed-use project as defined in this paragraph includes a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, the portion of the mixed-use project which does not include a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging shall be considered a housing development project.
(Ib)  The local agency may separately approve the portion of the project that includes a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, which shall not be eligible for any benefits conferred on a housing development project by state law, including, but not limited to those available to a development under Section 65913.4. (ic)  For purposes of this subclause, the term “other transient lodging” does not include either of the following:
(Ia)  A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (Ib)  After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident’s use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local law. (ii)  At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following:
(I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii)  At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following:
(I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II)  The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use.
(III)  The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site.
(IV)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C)  Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(D)  Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3)  (A)  “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households.
(B)  “Housing for lower income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units.
(C)  (i)  “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of the following:
(I)  A housing development project in which at least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(II)  A housing development project in which at least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(III)  A housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(IV)  A housing development project in which there are 10 or fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, that is on a site that is smaller than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum density of 10 units per acre.
(ii)  All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall meet both of the following:
(I)  The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(II)  The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years.
(D)  “Housing for moderate-income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units.
(4)  “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(5)  Notwithstanding any other law, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the application is not complete.

(6)  “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does any of the following:
(A)  Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B)  Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (C)  Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (D)  Fails to meet the time limit specified in Section 17970.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
(E)  Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if all of the following conditions are met:
(i)  The project applicant provides written notice detailing the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local agency established under Section 65100. (ii)  Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice on the local agency’s internet website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
(iii)  The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and shall not make a determination until at least 60 days after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency pursuant to clause (i).
(iv)  Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements:
(I)  The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary.
(II)  The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (v)  (I)  If a local agency continues the challenged course of conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant.

(II)  If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph.
(vi)  A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. (F)  Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete.
(G)  (i)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist.
(ii)  In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was not identified in the initial determination and upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified in the initial determination.
(iii)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of the items required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (iv)  If a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project under this section.
(H)  Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (f). (I)  Makes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions(d) and (e) of Section 65941.1. (J)  (i)  Fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.1 are satisfied.

(ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (K)  (i)  Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.2 are satisfied.
(ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (7)  (A)  For purposes of this section and Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2, “lawful determination” means any final decision about whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 or subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.2. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (8)  “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(9)  “Objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.
(10)  Notwithstanding any other law, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. (11)  “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all of the following criteria:
(A)  The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.
(B)  On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article. (C)  The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions:
(i)  The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities:
(I)  Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.
(II)  Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater.
(III)  The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element.

(ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following:
(I)  One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(II)  A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1.
(III)  A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (D)  (i)  On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (I)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. (II)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading.
(ii)  On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower.
(E)  The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. (12)  “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing development project, or attempting to subject it to, development standards, conditions, or policies. (13)  “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. (14)  “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses.

(i)  If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o).
(j)  (1)  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 application was deemed 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.
(2)  (A)  If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i)  Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(ii)  Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.

(B)  If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3)  For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.
(4)  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.
(k)  (1)  (A)  (i)  The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii):
(I)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section.
(II)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section. (III)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (IV)  The local agency violated a provision of this section applicable to a builder’s remedy project.
(ii)  If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing

development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of the following instances:
(I)  The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section.
(II)  (ia)  In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) or (K) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval. (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (B)  Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within the time period prescribed by the court, the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of the fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(C)  If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action

determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(D)  Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2)  For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency.

A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. (l)  If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit. (m)  (1)  Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be

determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(2)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within the time period set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 after the applicant’s timely written notice. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (3)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (K) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written notice.
(B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (n)  In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o)  (1)  Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2)  Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances:
(A)  In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction.
(B)  A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
(C)  Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(D)  The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project,

following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph:
(i)  “Affordable housing project” means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements:
(I)  Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (II)  All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii)  “Final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met:
(I)  The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. (II)  If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project.
(E)  The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided.

For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
(3)  This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted.
(4)  For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions.
(5)  This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section.

(6)  This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(7)  With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. (p)  (1)  Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate, shall give due weight to the degree to which the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the suitability of the site for a housing development, and the reasonableness of the decision of the local agency.

It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2.
(2)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (q)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(r)  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 789, Sec. 1.5. (SB 838) Effective January 1, 2026. Inoperative January 1, 2031, pursuant to Sec. 1 of Stats. 2023, Ch. 768. )