CAL HDF
May 4, 2026
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 601-623 South Anaheim Boulevard
By email: planningcommission@anaheim.net
CC: jhwang@anaheim.net; CityManager@anaheim.net;
cityattorneysoffice@anaheim.net; tbass@anaheim.net
Dear Anaheim Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the City of its
obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 39-unit
housing development project at 601-623 South Anaheim Boulevard and a vacant parcel at
the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Stueckle Avenue, which includes 4
moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the
Density Bonus Law (DBL), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and AB
130.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding
specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The
HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would
reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a
development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls
within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.
Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.
Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan,
for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore
apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as
outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must
conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the
action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain
protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting any increased
density allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and
concessions with respect to patio frontage, street/interior property line setbacks,
recreation-leisure areas, landscaping, and fencing. If the City wishes to deny requested
waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the
waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is
no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City
wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1)
requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost
reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or
safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any
such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Additionally, the
California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more
waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development
standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the
building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers
Hill150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to sections 15315 and 15300.2 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB
130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that
local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a
CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.
County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing
shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will provide badly needed affordable
housing, it will bring new customers to local businesses as well as increased tax revenue,
and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. While no one
project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the
right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under
state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for
increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
2 of 3
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3