Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-04-14_10a_Supplemental 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item 10.a – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002; 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, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust DATE: April 13, 2026 Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced Item. Cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Interim Community Development Director City Attorney City Clerk City Website and Public Review Binder Enc From: Frank, Lisa@HCD <Lisa.Frank@hcd.ca.gov> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 8:47 AM To: Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>; Isaac Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>; Bill Robeson <brobeson@arroyogrande.org>; Patrick Holub <pholub@arroyogrande.org>; Matt Downing <mdowning@arroyogrande.org> Cc: Heaton, Brian@HCD <Brian.Heaton@hcd.ca.gov> Subject: HCD follow up re: Arroyo Grande Creekside Junction Project Good morning all, Thanks for taking the time to meet with HCD staff on April 6, 2026 regarding the proposed 92-unit Creekside Junction Project. This email is to follow up on our call in anticipation of tomorrow’s April 14, 2026 City Council hearing. HCD reviewed relevant portions of the staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council and, based upon the information conveyed in the reports, Housing and Community Development 651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento CA Phone: 916.776.7781 understands that the Project qualifies for the protections of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and that staff has evaluated the project and determined its compliance with the applicable objective standards. HCD further understands that the Project qualifies for the added protections under subdivision (d) of the HAA for projects that provide the requisite affordable housing specified in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(3)(A). To assist the City in its consideration of the forthcoming appeal, and as described in the referenced staff reports, HCD reminds the City that subdivision (d) of the HAA specifies the written findings local governments must make to disapprove a qualifying affordable housing development project, or to condition its approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible. This includes, among other required findings, that the local government find, based on a preponderance of evidence in the record (Gov. Code section 65589.5, subd.(d), that there is a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions (…)” (Gov. Code section 65589.5, subd.(d)(2).) “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.” (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (h) (9).) Additionally, a local government can only deny or condition the approval in the manner described above, if “the denial […] 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 (…) (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (d) (3).) In addition to the five possible findings required under subdivision (d) referenced above, any “housing development project” under the HAA that meets all applicable objective standards (except those lawfully modified via State Density Bonus Law concessions and waivers) may only be disapproved or approved at a lower density if the City makes the written findings (supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record) contained in subdivision (j) that, (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result from the project and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible. (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).) Note that the Legislature has explicitly provided that the specific adverse impacts described in the HAA are intended to arise infrequently. (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).) Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Thank you, Lisa Lisa Frank (she/her) Senior Housing Policy Specialist