CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

Kada Brown, Mayor Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk Aptil23, 2024 Page 5 the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.' (Gov. Code S 65589.5(a)(2XL)). Staffs recommendation, predicated on the false notion that the General Plan "defers" to a zoning ordinance that does not allow housing and where the General Plan itself objectively does allow housing, and the Planning Commission's decision to disapprove this Project based on that recommendation are deeply contrary to this pro-housing policy mandate. For the foregoing reasons and other reasons provided in the administrative record, we hereby appeal the Planning Commission's decision, which is incorrect on the facts, the law, and state housing policy, and which did not make and could not have made the mandatory health and safety findings required by the HAA. We respectfully request that the City Council grant our appeal, allowing this Project to proceed without a discretionary legislative PUD rezoning, which will allow this unopposed Project to seek and obtain the required Tentative Map and Design Review approvals. We regret the need to say this, but we must note that there are serious consequences for the City should it improperly disapprove this Project, as staffs recommendation and the Planning Commission's decision would have it. Those consequences include tight mandatory deadlines and costs for preparing an administrative record (Gov. Code S 65589.5(mX1)), mandatory attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff (Gov. Code S 65589.5(k)(1)), and mandatory fines of $10,000 per unit (Gov. Code S 65589.5(k)(1)) with a mandatory five times multiplier (Gov. Code S 65589.5(l)). There is no known opposition to this Project, the laws squarely favor it, and these potential consequences are all easily avoidable. We have endeavored to work with staff to understand these issues and thus to process this unopposed Project without a discretionary legislative rezoning via PUD and thus without this underlying disagreement. We find it unfortunate that this appeal is necessary, and we hope the City Council will understand and agree that a PUD cannot lavvfully be required here and that this appeal must be granted. By granting this appeal, TTLC'S Preliminary Application would remain valid and in effect and staff would be required lo commence to undertake the required CEQA analysis for the Pro.iect. We look foMard to discussing these issues in an appeal hearing no later than 40 days from the date of this letter. (PMC S 1 8.44.130), Sincerely, MILLER STARR REGALIA Brgan-'W. WQ^fLr Bryan W. Wenter, AICP BWWKIi Kelley Rutchena, Director of Entitlements, Bay Area and Sacramento R€ionscc TRLt-58837\2919580.2