HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-03-24_10a_Supplemental 6MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Matthew Downing, City Manager
Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
DATE:
Agenda Item 10.a – March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Appeal Case 26-001; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way;
Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
March 24, 2026
On March 23, 2026, the City received a letter from Edwi n J. Rambuski, legal counsel for
the appellants, requesting the City Council grant a 30-day conti nuance of agenda item
10.a (Attachment 1). Subsequently on March 23, 2026, the City also received an email
from Christopher Guillen, legal counsel for the applicant, recommending that the City
Council deny the continuation request and hold the public heari ng as agendized
(Attachment 2).
Considering the correspondence received pertai ning to the timi ng of the public hearing,
staff recommends continuing the item to the next regular meeting of the City Council,
which is scheduled for April 14, 2026. The City believes a 21-day conti nuation is
reasonable accommodation that balances the appellants’ request with the State’s
mandate for agencies to promptly act on housing applications.
Should the City Cou ncil be supportive of staff’s recommendation, it is requested that
the action to contin ue Item 10.a to a date certain of April 14, 2026 occur during
the consideration of Item 5 – Agenda Review and not open the public hearing. The
City’s Master Fee Schedule requires the appellant remit a payment of $531.30 to the
City for the meeting contin uation request.
Attachments:
1.Appellant’s Continuation Request
2.Applicant’s Email
cc: Planning Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
R JE LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
edwin@rambuskilaw.com
www.rambuskilaw.com
March 23, 2026
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
aloe@arroyogrande.org
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Motion to Continue Appeal Hearing – Submitted on Behalf of All Appellant
Parties
Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants respectfully move for a 30-day continuance of the above-described hearing. The Staff
Report for Tuesday’s agenda item No. 10.a, which was not posted to the City’s website until Friday
afternoon giving Appellants and the public literally one business day (or less) to review it before
the March 24, 2026 hearing, introduces and heavily emphasizes the Housing Accountability Act’s
(“HAA”) “deemed complete” lock-in under Government Code § 65589.5(j)(2) as the basis for
concluding that certain issues are no longer subject to review.
This new position appears repeatedly in the Staff Report and is used as the City’s primary basis
for concluding that the project cannot be challenged on the very issues raised in the appeal:
1. Parking adequacy and enforceability (Staff Report p. 10: “With the application of a parking
concession, the project is deemed in compliance…”);
2.Creek setbacks and riparian protections (Staff Report pp. 15-16: “The 32’ creek setback …
has already been deemed consistent … The HAA provides that … the project is deemed
consistent with unidentified standards, as a matter of law”); and
3.All objective development standards generally (Staff Report pp. 2-3, 6, 12: “if a city does
not notify an applicant of inconsistencies with applicable development standards before an
ATTACHMENT 1
application is deemed complete, then the project is deemed consistent with all unidentified
standards as a matter of law”).
None of this “deemed complete” analysis or reliance on the lock-in was raised or relied upon at
the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Appellants’ original appeal detailed extensive,
evidence-based challenges to parking (binding easements, lack of enforceable agreements,
historical shortages), creek setbacks, zoning consistency, and CEQA exemption eligibility, without
any rebuttal from staff that these issues were forever “deemed consistent” and off-limits.
The AB 130 statutory exemption findings (Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission Resolution)
mention completeness only generically and never deploy the HAA lock-in as a substantive defense.
This late disclosure deprives Appellants, adjacent property owners, and the public of any
meaningful opportunity to respond. To address the Staff Report’s new position, we need immediate
access to the basic administrative record that should have been produced months ago when one of
property owners made its public records request. Whether the records were intentionally omitted
or the City chose to review the request in as limited a manner as possible, non-production suggests
a lack of transparency. At a minimum, Appellants require:
1. The actual application “deemed complete” letter, checklist, and date;
2. Any and all HAA inconsistency notifications (or lack thereof) sent to the applicant within
the statutory 30-day window;
3. All parking agreement, easement, and shared-parking documents submitted (or claimed)
by the applicant prior to completeness; and
4. Any internal City memos or analyses addressing shared-parking enforceability, reciprocal
easements, or specific adverse impacts under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1).
Without these documents, neither the Council nor the Appellants can evaluate whether the City
actually performed the required early review or whether the “deemed complete” finding was itself
based on incomplete or inaccurate information (e.g., the applicant’s representations about parking
that the appeal proves are unenforceable).
The HAA was never intended to prevent the City from providing the public and the appellate body
(this Council exercising de novo review under AGMC § 1.12.010) with a fair opportunity to
address issues at this stage of the proceedings.
While HAA § 65589.5(j)(2) protects applicants from late-moving goalposts, it does not:
1. Strip the Council of its independent obligation to make specific adverse impact findings on
public health and safety (§ 65589.5(j)(1));
2. Prevent the Council from reviewing whether the City’s own early review process was
adequate; or
3. Eliminate basic due process protections in an administrative appeal that directly affects
neighboring businesses and residents.
Granting a short continuance is the only fair and prudent course. It allows Appellants to renew our
Public Records Act request (assuming no voluntary production) so the Council can decide this
appeal on a complete, transparent record, not on a novel legal position raised for the first time at
this late stage.
Denying the continuance risks reversible error on judicial review and undermines public
confidence that the Council is exercising independent judgment. Council should not be required
to overlook these objective standards simply because the Staff Report now asserts that the City did
not address them at the completeness stage. A 30-day pause ensures that the City’s own process
was followed which is what the HAA and due process require.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk (jmatson@arroyogrande.org)
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney (Isaac.Rosen@bbklaw.com)
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel (jferro@nanoknee.com)
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel (sean.varner@varnerbrandt.com)
Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel (scott.heil@varnerbrandt.com)
50903974.1
Christopher R. Guillen
805.882.1452 direct
cguillen@bhfs.com
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
March 23, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
publiccomment@arroyogrande.org
RE: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001 for
the Creekside Junction Project
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable City Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, Russell Sheppel, the owner of 1271 and 1281 James Way (“Property”) in
support of his development of a 92-unit multi-family housing project (“Project”) on the Property. The
Project will consist of two residential buildings with 20 studios, 58 one-bedroom units, and 14 two-
bedroom units, with either 15 percent of the base density units deed restricted as affordable for very
low income households, 24 percent for low income households, or a potential blend of the two .
The Project was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2026 and
subsequently appealed to this Council by Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC
and Ray Bunnell (collectively, “Appellants”). This letter responds to each issue raised in the appeal in
turn.
II.The Project Utilizes a Density Bonus Law Concession to Reduce Parking Requirements
Appellants argue that the Project does not comply with the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) and Municipal
Code’s parking requirements because it only provides 31 covered parking spaces “truly on site,” while
the remainder are provided offsite and are uncovered. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issues 1, 1(a)-(d).) Appellants
clearly misunderstand application of the DBL in multiple facets.
The DBL sets maximum parking standards for DBL projects. (Gov. Code, 65915(p)(1).) The DBL, however,
states there is nothing precluding a city from “reducing or eliminating a parking requirement for
development projects of any type in any location” including through applicant requested incentives or
concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(p)(5), (8).) The DBL then explicitly provides that an applicant can
request a concession, under its provisions, to reduce the “ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
ATTACHMENT 2
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 2
50903974.1
otherwise be required” so long as it results in identifiable and actual costs reduction. (Gov. Code,
§65915(k)(1).)
That is precisely what Mr. Sheppel has done here. Given Appellants’ claim relating to parking
requirements and request that Mr. Sheppel provide more offsite parking, which would in turn increase
the costs of the Project, Mr. Sheppel has requested the City reduce the Project’s required parking to 31
spaces. Although Mr. Sheppel previously used a concession to reduce the required parking spaces from
99 to 98, he has revised the concession request on March 18, 2026 to reduce the number of required
parking spaces to 31 covered parking spaces without reconfiguration of the Project. The City must
approve that concession request under DBL. The Project need only provide the garages that Appellants
concede are onsite parking to satisfy the Project’s parking requirements. (Staff Report, pp. 9-10
[“Irrespective of the private parking easements, applicant would be eligible to seek a modified
concession for a reduction of the parking requirement from 99 to the number of on-site spaces.”].)
The City also cannot rely on alleged conflicts with parking easements, which are completely unfounded,
as a valid basis to deny a housing project with protections under DBL and the Housing Accountability
Act. Again, a misapplication of DBL as the Appellants have proposed, will lead to a misapplication of
California housing law.
III. The Project Does Not Impinge Upon Any Parking Rights Provided By Recorded Easements
Appellants cite to three documents recorded against the Property that provide various access and
parking rights to Mr. Sheppel and his neighbors. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(c).) The Project is consistent
with the obligations provided in these easements.
The Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement recorded on June 5, 2000 and amended in August 2008
by the Amendment to Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement provide certain access and parking
rights to Mr. Sheppel and Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC (the gym). The Project complies with the
obligations in these documents. In particular, Section 2(c) states that if development of the Project site
causes parking spaces that benefit Arroyo Grande Partners to be separated from that entity’s property,
Mr. Sheppel shall locate those parking spaces on areas of Mr. Sheppel’s property that allow for
pedestrian access to Arroyo Grande Partners’ property. The Project has done just that, creating new
parking spaces that may be used by Arroyo Grande Partners’ customers in front of Building B and on
the western side of Building A.
As to the 2021 Grant of Easement for Parking, the only parking provided in that document is to Mr.
Bunnell’s property. The easement is non-exclusive, but with a primary right to use for Mr. Bunnell’s
customers, meaning Mr. Sheppel’s tenants may use the parking, which lies on his parcel. That parking
is maintained and provided for in the row of parking running north/south on the eastern edge of
Building B. In sum, Appellants’ accusations about violating parking easements are entirely unfounded.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 3
50903974.1
IV. Appellants’ Arguments About Historical Parking Shortages Do Not Raise an Appeal Issue
Appellants identify alleged historical parking shortages at the Project site. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(d).)
However, Appellants fail to argue how these parking shortages render the Planning Commission’s
approval invalid in any manner. As explained above, the DBL permits a concession of the City’s parking
standards, while, as explained below, the Project is exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Any historical parking shortages are not relevant to this
appeal, nor whether the City must approve the Project under applicable law.
V. The Project Is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA Under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66
The Planning Commission properly found that the Project met all the criteria to qualify for the statutory
infill exemption in AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). The Staff Report, and Attachment 5 (AB 130
Findings), explain how substantial evidence supports findings that the Project meets each and every AB
130 criterion. The following addresses each of the Appellants’ AB 130 arguments. (See Appeal, Ex. 1,
Issues 2(a)-(d), 3-5.)
The Site is Not a Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat. Appellants posit that the Project’s adjacency to the
Meadow Creek precludes use of Section 21080.66. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(a).) As noted in the Staff
Report, the Project is not located on a “site” that contains “Wetlands, as defined in the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).” (Staff Report, pp. 13-14; Gov. Code, §
65913.4(a)(6)(C).) As identified by the Project’s biologist, no wetlands exist on the Project site.1 Section
21080.66 also does not include riparian habitat as a disqualifying site criteria. (See Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66; Gov. Code, § 65913.4(a)(6).) Even if it did, the Project’s biologist concluded that “the
proposed project would have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State.”2
(See also Staff Report, pp. 13-14.) The Staff Report, based on the biologist’s expert analysis, explains the
absence of riparian habitat on the site, which is mainly a paved dirt parking lot. (Ibid.) Appellants present
mere speculation to the contrary. Accordingly, the evidence supports that the Project meets this
criterion.
Surrounding Urban Use Criterion Are Met. Appellants mislead the Council as to the applicable criteria.
(Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(b).) A qualifying project site need only meet one of the following criteria: (1) has
been developed with an urban use; (2) at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels
that are developed with urban uses; (3) at least 75 percent of the area within one-quarter mile radius
1 See David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande,
California, dated September 4, 2025; David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination,
City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025.
2 David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande,
California, dated September 4, 2025, p. 4.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 4
50903974.1
of the site is developed with urban uses; or (4) for four sided sites, three of the four sides are developed
with urban uses and at least two-third of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed
with urban uses. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(3) [emphasis added].) Under AB 130, “‘Urban use’
means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park
that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger
facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” (See also Pub. Res. Code, § 21072.) Staff
concludes that the Project meets criteria (3) above because 77 percent of the area within one-quarter
mile radius of the site qualifies as urban uses. (Staff Report, p. 14.) The Project thus meets this criterion.
The Project is Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Appellants assert that the Project does not
qualify as a mixed-use project, since the existing adjacent commercial development cannot be relied
upon to support the mixed-use status. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(c).) Appellants are simply wrong. The City’s
Office Mixed Use (OMU) District includes “multi-family housing” as one of its primary purposes, along
with other office and commercial uses. (See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”), § 16.36.020(H).)
As noted above in Section I, City staff determined that the Project “complied 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” on July 27, 2025. (Staff Report, p. 3.) The
Planning Commission affirmed this determination when approving the Project based on staff’s
consistency analysis. (Staff Report, pp. 1, 4.) Under the Housing Accountability Act, this determination
is conclusive that the Project “combines both commercial and residential uses” by adding multi-family
housing next to existing office and commercial buildings. (AGMC, § 16.04.07; Gov. Code, §
65589.5(j)(2)(A)-(B) [If a local agency fails to provide the required documentation on time, a project
“shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy,
ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.”].)3
Moreover, nothing in AGMC section 16.04.07 requires a Project to construct both commercial and
residential uses as part of a single project. The City reasonably interprets that this Project meets the
OMU zone district because the existing non-residential and residential uses will function like a mixed-
use development due to the shared ingress and egress, making application of these standards
reasonable. (Staff Report, p. 8; Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) [agencies must find a project consistent with
a standard if a reasonable person could do so], (j)(2)(A)-(B).) As a reminder, all development(s) on this
site are a CUP which supports the mixed-use category. In fact, the Staff Report notes that this
interpretation has been consistently applied by City staff and the Planning Commission. (Staff Report,
p. 11.) Indeed, this approach is consistent with the residential mixed-use entitlement of 2006 authorized
by the City of Arroyo Grande. Therefore, the Council has substantial evidence to find the Project
3 Further, “approval of a density bonus incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and
reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the
project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program” for the purposes of AB
130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(C).)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 5
50903974.1
consistent with the OMU District and the Project otherwise has been deemed consistent with this
requirement as a matter of law.4
The City Has Met All Other Performance Standards in AB 130. Appellants speculate that the City failed
to meet tribal consultation, Phase I assessment completeness, air quality measures, and repeat other
generalized concerns not relevant to the City’s AB 130 analysis. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(d).) The Staff
Report explains that the City completed AB 130’s tribal consultation process. (Staff Report, pp. 14-15.)
The conditions of approval require the Project to comply prepare a phase I environmental site
assessment as required by AB 130. (Condition 20.) A Phase I ESA also was completed for the site in 2021.
The Project is located over 900 feet from the freeway, as shown in the attached figure, so AB 130’s air
quality measures do not apply. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(c)(2).) Appellants other generalized
concerns (e.g., parking) are not relevant to qualifying for AB 130, addressed in this letter, and/or
otherwise unsubstantiated by Appellants.
The Project Does Not Violate Creek Setbacks or Riparian Protection Standards. Appellants assert that the
Project conflicts with applicable Meadow Creek setbacks. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 3.) Not so. The City’s
General Plan Element C/OS2-1.3 states that “where feasible, [the city shall] maintain development
setback of 25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope,
habitat and floodplain characteristics.” (Emphasis added.) The Project provides a 32-foot creek setback
and therefore is consistent with this standard. (Staff Report, p. 4, 6.) Three prior times in over a 20-year
period, Staff has consistently applied a 32-foot setback to this site when approving a mixed-use project
on the site in 2006, and senior care facility projects in both 2015 and 2021. (Staff Report, p. 6.)
Appellants’ accusation is baseless.
The Staff Report also acknowledges that the 50-foot setback requirement was not previously identified
and therefore cannot be enforced. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §§ 65944(a), 65589.5(j)(2)(A)-
(B).) As such, this standard is not “applicable” to the project for the purposes of AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21080.66(a)(4)(A).) Further, in the event of conflict between zoning and the general plan, AB 130
mandates that the Project be found consistent with both if it is consistent with one. (Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66(a)(4)(B); Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(4).) Finally, as noted in the Staff Report, even if this standard
could be applied, the City would have to waive it under DBL. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §
65915(e)(1) [“In no case may a city … apply any development standard that will have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of a [qualifying housing] development…”].)
4 In addition, the Project could revise its requested DBL concessions and waivers or reductions in development standards to
use a concession to eliminate any alleged mixed use requirement. DBL allows an applicant to require a concession to reduce
a site development standards or modify a zoning code requirement or other regulatory incentives or concessions to provide
for affordable housing. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1), (k)(1).) As such, the Project could modify its concessions and waivers or
reductions in development standards to apply a concession to this mixed use component. (See also Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66(e).)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 6
50903974.1
For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the applicable creek setback standards for the
purposes of AB 130.
The Project Provides Adequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Appellants assert without evidence or
citation that the Project does not comply with the SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) standards and
the City’s Circulation Element. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 4.) Appellants are wrong for many reasons. First, this
is irrelevant for whether the Project qualifies for AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Second, Mr.
Sheppel prepared a traffic study for the Project (Attachment 6). Based on these analyses, Staff
concluded that the Project would have no impact on traffic and circulation because the Project is below
the City’s VMT thresholds. (Staff Report, p. 16.) Third, the Project’s further reduction of required
parking spaces to 31 total onsite covered parking spaces is permissible under DBL, and has no impact
on whether the Project qualifies for the AB 130 exemption. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(e) [“This section
does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or
concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to
Section 65915 of the Government Code.”].) Fourth, even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA under
AB 130, CEQA does not require an analysis of parking shortages, nor can a parking shortage alone
constitute an environmental impact. (See Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed
Conserv. Auth. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, 26 [rejecting that a reduction in parking spaces constituted an
environmental impact; Pub. Res. Code, § 21099(b)(3) [“[T]he adequate of parking for a project shall not
support a finding of significance [under CEQA].”].) Appellants arguments resoundingly fail.
The Project Receives Protections under State Law, Not Preferential Treatment. In closing, Appellants
make unsupported claims that the Project does not qualify for state housing laws and CEQA. (Appeal,
Ex. 1, Issue 5.) For the reasons explained herein, Appellants have failed to carry their burden of proof to
show that the Project—unanimously approved by the Planning commission—does not qualify for AB
130 or protections under State housing laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act and DBL.
VI. The State Housing Law and the City’s Housing Element Support Approval of the Project
The City’s Housing Element sets forth the goals and policies to achieve the City’s regional housing needs
allocation, including through the development of multifamily housing in the City’s OMU zone.5 (Housing
Element, Program A.10-2.) The City is tasked with building 692 housing units, including 277 housing
units for very low and low-income households, between 2020-2028. (Housing Element, Table 4-2.)
While the City has made progress in meeting its targets, it has failed to meet these goals. By providing
deed restricted affordable units, the Project helps the City make progress toward achieving its regional
housing needs allocation.
5 The City’s Housing Element is available at https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/475/Housing-Element-.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 7
50903974.1
Recent Legislation further helps protects cities from meritless NIMBY litigation against housing projects.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a court “shall rarely, if ever” award attorney fees and costs to a
petitioner challenging a housing project when the project is approved in good faith by the local agency
and meets certain criteria. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(p)(1).) The Project at issue here is one such qualifying
Project for two reasons: it meets the AB 130 criteria and provides more than 15 units per acre. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5.1(a)(1), (3).) As a result, the City Council can rest assured that their good faith reliance
on the Staff Report, the unanimous approval through all City hearing bodies to date, and this letter,
should insulate the City from Appellants’ attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of any litigation.
For the last decade, the Legislature has consistently passed and amended State housing laws, including
the Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, and AB 130, to facilitate and streamline residential
development. The Planning Commission’s guidance by the City Attorney, understanding of State law,
and approval of this Project reflects proper implementation of State housing laws and AB 130
specifically designed to streamline approvals of housing projects to ensure that these projects are built
and help address the City’s and State’s housing needs.
* * * * *
In closing, we respectfully request that the Council reject this meritless appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s approval of the Project as required by applicable California Housing Law and AB 130.
Approving this Project will create critically needed new housing opportunities in a key area of the City
and generate new, deed restricted, low and/or very-low income housing units for the City’s most
economically vulnerable residents.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Guillen
With copy to:
Mack Carlson, mcarlson@bhfs.com; Russell Sheppel, rsheppel@gmail.com; Isaac Rosen,
isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com
32543661.1