Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Density Bonus topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves University Avenue condo project using state density‑bonus; one deed‑restricted very‑low‑income unit required

La Mesa City Council · December 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council approved design review for a project at 7285 University Ave that uses California's density‑bonus law; the developer will provide one deed‑restricted very‑low‑income rental unit (affordability covenant for at least 55 years) and a parking reduction from 44 to 27 spaces.

La Mesa’s City Council approved design review for a project at 7285 University Avenue after staff said the developer invoked California’s density‑bonus law (Gov. Code 65915) by offering a deed‑restricted very‑low‑income rental unit.

Staff explained that under the density‑bonus formula the project’s parking obligation drops from the zoning requirement of 44 spaces to 27; the developer plans 18 units in total with one deed‑restricted unit held for rent while the remainder are intended for sale. Staff said the affordable unit will be deed‑restricted via an affordable homes agreement for at least 55 years and that the city will perform annual compliance monitoring (income verification via pay stubs and tax returns). As an example staff noted a one‑person household very‑low‑income threshold of roughly $57,900 (income limits vary by household size and are set by state guidance).

Council members asked whether neighbors had been notified (staff said yes) and whether the site qualified for other waivers tied to proximity to transit; staff said the site has two bus stops about 150 feet away but is farther than the half‑mile radius that sometimes allows broader parking waivers. No specific construction start date was provided; staff said the developer expressed eagerness to begin but had not submitted a confirmed schedule on the record.

A motion to approve the item carried unanimously.