HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-04-14_10a Appeal James Way_Bunnell Revocable Trust_PP
Appeal of Conditional Use
Permit 25-001
Presentation will include a brief project description, an overview of applicable state laws, the arguments in the appeal and the City’s response to each.
1
Project Description
92 multi-family units across 2 four-story buildings
Qualifies for 50% density bonus under State law by reserving units for lower income households
Approved by PC on January 20, 2026
Appealed on January 30, 2026
Project site consists of 2 parcels totaling 1.81 acers is located adjacent to the existing commercial plaza near the intersection of Oak Park and James Way
Proposed project consists of two buildings with a total of 92 multifamily units and will reserve units for lower income households to qualify for a 50% density bonus under state law
The project was reviewed and approved by PC on January 20, 2026
An appeal of the project was filed on January 30, 2026 and tonight’s public hearing was rescheduled from March 24, 2026.
Breakdown of 92 units: 20 studios, 58 one-bedroom, 14 two-bedroom
Affordable units: 15% very low or 24% low
2
Site Plan
Site plan of the proposed development. From this orientation, Oak Park Blvd runs horizontally along the top of this image and James Way runs vertically along the right side.
This image shows the configuration of the two buildings within the project site relative to the existing commercial plaza and Meadow Creek along the bottom of this image.
It also shows the two driveways from James Way that provide access to the site and the existing commercial uses.
3
Elevations
These are elevations of the proposed project.
The top left is an elevation looking at the project from James Way, north of the project site. The top right is a view from south of the project site as if you were looking from the
hotel property.
The bottom rendering is an elevation showing the project if it were viewed from the Meadow Creek side, east of the project site.
Because the buildings are built into the site, they have the appearance of a three-story structure, when they are in fact four levels.
4
Housing Accountability Act
Severely limits the City’s ability to modify or deny a qualifying project absent a “specific adverse impact”
Prohibits denial unless one of six findings in Gov Code Section 65589.5 can be made
Each of the staff reports prepared for this project consistently convey how state housing laws severely limit the city’s discretion over this project.
For instance, the Housing Accountability Act is state law that establishes the state’s overarching policy that a local government may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible
housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards unless it would create a specific adverse impact to public health and safety that cannot
be mitigated.
**Specific, adverse impact defined as “a significant, quantifiable direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies,
or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
The proposed project is eligible for protections under the Housing Accountability Act, which limits the City’s ability to deny or reduce the density of a project that complies with the
City’s objective development standards. Objective stds are defined as a development requirement that involves no personal or subjective judgment by Staff, applicants, and members of
the public to verify compliance.
Additionally, because the project includes affordable units, the HAA prohibits the city from denying the project Unless the City can make one of the six findings described in Gov Code
Section 65589.5 (listed in PC staff report – 1/20)
5
Density Bonus Law
Project qualifies for 50% density bonus by reserving units for lower income households
Entitled concessions that result in project cost savings
Unlimited waivers from standards that would preclude the project
Density bonus law is the second set of laws that limit the City’s discretion over the project. Density bonus law allows for increased residential density in exchange for reserving a
percentage of the units as affordable for lower income households. For this project, that would be either 15% of the units reserved for very-low income households, or 24% of the units
for low income households to obtain a 50% density bonus.
On top of the allowance for more units, density bonus law entitles a project to concessions and waivers that make the project financially and physically feasible
This project is eligible for three concessions based on the percentage of units reserved as affordable for lower income households.
Concession is defined as relief from a development standard that results in cost savings for the project whereas waivers are a method of getting relief from development standards that
will have the effect of physically precluding construction of a project
6
Concessions & Waivers
Concessions: height, parking lot landscaping, parking
Revised concession request to reduce parking to 31 spaces on March 20th
Waivers: building size, FAR, open space
This project requests concessions for relief from development standards for building height, parking lot landscaping and required parking. Since the PC approval, the applicant modified
the parking concession.
The original concession request reduced the parking requirement by one space: from 99 to 98 spaces, but the modified concession requests a reduction of the parking requirement from 99
spaces to 31 spaces. I will discuss this in greater detail when we get into the specific assertions of the appeal.
The project also requests waivers, for exceeding the standard for maximum building size, FAR, and providing less open space than required.
When an applicant requests a concession under Density Bonus Law, state law requires a city to grant the concession unless it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that
the requested concession: either (1) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents, (2) would cause an unmitigable “specific,
adverse impact” to public health and safety, or (3) the concession is contrary to law. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1)(A)-(C).)
7
State Law
State policy: HAA shall be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing”
Failure to comply may result in:
Fines
De-certification of Housing Element
In sum, these two laws represent a significant legal mandate from the State Legislature to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing and reduce local discretion
to deny a project that is consistent with a City’s objective standards.
Specifically, the HAA states: read quote
Should the City fail to comply with provisions of the HAA there are significant penalties, such as fines, de-certification of the city’s housing element, and the courts can compel compliance
if it finds that the City impermissibly denied the project.
8
Appeal
An appeal of the project was filed on Jan 30, 2026
The appeal focuses on five topics:
Parking
Environmental Analysis
Creek Setback/Riparian Protection
Inadequate Traffic Analysis
Ineligible for preferential treatment under HAA
The appeal filed on January 30th is based on five topics: insufficient parking due to inconsistency with shared parking arrangements, improper environmental analysis, violation of creek
setback, inadequate traffic and circulation analysis, and that the project does not qualify for preferential treatment under the HAA.
Two additional letters were submitted by the appellant on March 23rd restating these points and adding that the project would result in a specific, adverse impact on public health and
safety
9
Parking
Appeal asserts that proposed parking is not feasible
City Response:
Concession requested to reduce parking requirement
On-site parking is proposed through private garages
City action to approve or deny shall be based on facts of the current application
-Appellants assert that the shared parking spaces identified for use by future residents is misrepresented and the applicant does not have legal access to many of those spaces. Appeal
also states that the development code requires covered parking for this project which is not provided. Finally, contends that this project will worsen the historic parking shortages
at this location
-In response, the applicant submitted a written request to modify the parking concession, to reduce the parking requirement from 99 spaces to 31 spaces. State Density Bonus Law does
not prevent an applicant from modifying a concession prior to final project approval; which in this case is on appeal.
These 31 spaces would be provided in private garages, and rebuts the argument regarding inaccessible shared parking spaces and that the project’s parking spaces should be covered.
In response to the appellants claim that existing encumbrances limit the project ability to provide parking, it is important to note that the City is not legally obligated to enforce
private agmts and private disputes are irrelevant with regards to the City granting the concession request.
-Finally, with regards to historical parking shortages, State law requires the City to make findings for projects based on facts of the applications being reviewed. Past acknowledgement
of parking issues related to different applications does not meet the standard of a specific, adverse impact that merits project denial.
10
Environmental Analysis
Appeal asserts improper application of AB 130 statutory application
City Response:
Presence of riparian habitat does not preclude use of statutory exemption
Statute offers three methods to determine if the site is surrounded by urban uses
State law exempts inconsistencies resulting from application of concession
Tribal consultation performed
With regards to the environmental analysis, the appeal asserts that the project is not eligible for the statutory exemption from CEQA, pursuant to AB 130, as recommended by staff.
Specifically, it claims the project is ineligible because it fails to meet the required criteria: 1) the project will result in impacts to riparian habitat, 2) it is not substantially
surrounded by urban uses, 3) the project is inconsistent with the City’s general plan and zoning, 4) there was inadequate analysis of traffic impacts, and 5) failure to properly consult
with native American tribes
Staff Response – Environmental Analysis
Beginning with the first claim, the project site contains no riparian habitat. The project’s biologist evaluated the project site on multiple occasions and concluded that it does not
contain and wetlands, riparian habitat, nor habitat for threatened or endangered species. These reports were included as attachments to the 3/24 staff report and supplemental memo no.
3 in tonight’s materials. Additionally, the prepared Resolution contains conditions that will maintain the health of the creek.
State law provides three options to meet the AB 130 criterion that requires a project to be substantially surrounded by urban uses to qualify for the statutory exemption. One option
is to verify that at least 75% of the area within ¼ mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses. An analysis of the surrounding development concludes that approximately 77%
of the surrounding area is developed with urban uses and therefore the project satisfies this criterion.
Regarding the claim that the project is inconsistent with the City’s general plan and zoning, state law is clear that the application of concessions or waivers under DBL does not make
a project inconsistent with general plan or zoning ordinance. Staff confirmed that all other aspects of the project are consistent with objective development standards during the consistency
analysis that occurred after the project was deemed complete.
Finally, tribal consultation was conducted in accordance with the statute. One tribe requested consultation which resulted in the inclusion of conditions requested by the tribe.
Will address claims regarding traffic and circulation in another slide.
11
AB 130 (PRC 21088.66) provides three options to meet criterion regarding the project site being substantially surrounded by urban uses
To calculate the percentage:
Establish ¼ mile perimeter around project site
Identify areas that qualify as an urban use
Calculate the area of properties developed with an urban use
Sum of urban areas divided by area within the ¼ mile buffer
AB 130 – Urban Uses
READ SLIDE.
PRC defines urban uses as 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.
12
Creek Setback
No variance was requested to reduce the 50-foot setback from Meadow Creek
City Response:
City did not notify applicant of the inconsistency with creek setback standard
32-foot setback was deemed consistent with dev std by HAA
Prior projects on this site were approved with 32’ creek setback
Reduction in creek setback eligible for a waiver
Appeal also claims that the project does not meet the required 50-ft setback from Meadow Creek and that no variance was requested for relief from that standard
City Response
Since the initial submittal of the project, Building A has been proposed to be located 32 feet from the top of the creek bank.
The 32-foot setback is consistent General Plan policy C/OS 2-1.3 which directs the city to maintain a development setback of 25-50 feet from top of creek banks. This is inconsistent
with the City’s development code requirement of 50 feet, and when such inconsistencies exist, the HAA defers to the general plan standard.
Additionally, prior projects on this site were approved with a 32 foot creek setback which demonstrates that decision makers have been supportive of a reduction of this standard.
However, it should also be noted that a waiver of the creek setback could have been requested by the applicant because it physically precluded construction of the building, which it
would have been entitled to under DBL.
13
Traffic and Circulation
Inadequate mitigation of traffic and circulation impacts required by SB 743
City Response:
SB 743 establishes VMT as metric for evaluating circulation impacts
Analysis shows no potentially significant impacts because anticipated VMT per capita is 15% below existing VMT
Inadequate mitigation of traffic and circulation impacts required by SB 743
City Response
None of the criteria for an AB 130 statutory exemption contemplates potential transportation related impacts because the exemption specifically applies to infill projects whare are presumed
to reduce VMT, which stands for vehicle miles travelled, and is a measurement of the amount a person drives.
In a scenario where the City is required to analyze traffic impacts, it needs to rely on VMT, per State law. The traffic study prepared for the project demonstrates that the project
will not have VMT induced impacts because it reduces VMT on a per capita basis more than 15% below the existing threshold. (project 12.29, avg 20.2 per capita)
Discuss lack of LOS impacts to support general plan consistency?
14
Ineligible Under HAA
Project does not comply with zoning, development standards, housing laws, and CEQA
City Response:
Meets the definition of a housing development in the HAA
Complies with all objective standards
No evidence in the record indicating the project would result in an unmitigable specific, adverse impact
Project does not comply with zoning, development standards, housing laws, and CEQA and is ineligible for preferential treatment afforded by HAA
City Response
Meets the definition of a housing development in the HAA, which only requires the development to consist of more than one residential unit
Complies with all objective development standards.
State law clearly exempts any inconsistency with general plan or zoning standards that are due to the application of a density bonus concessions or waivers.
No evidence in the record indicating the project would result in an unmitigable specific, adverse impact.
15
Additional Updates
Staff’s April 14th published Supplemental Report responds to additional arguments raised by appellants.
Staff’s recommendation to approve the project consistent with state law remains the same.
Staff has evaluated appellant’s April 10, 2026 supplemental and draft City Council resolution granting the appeal based on “objective standards.”
Read slide:
After 3rd point: Staff disagrees that the standards cited are objective or applicable. For example, the following cited policy (City’s Safety Element) requires subjective judgment as
to what constitutes adequate water supply and improved access.
16
HCD Email
HCD has enforcement authority, including over the HAA and Density Bonus Law.
“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).)”
City received an email from California Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”) on April 13, 2026, within the published administrative record.
HCD has enforcement authority, including over the HAA and Density Bonus Law pursuant to Gov. Code 65585(j)(1),(3).) If HCD determines a violation has occurred, they may initiate proceedings
to revoke the City’s Housing Element. (Gov. Code 65585(i).)
In the email rec’d this morning, HCD staff reminds the City to…READ QUOTE
17
Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 26-001 and approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001; and
Determine that the project is statutorily exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
Recommendation
18