HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-03-24_10a_Supplemental 1MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
City Council
Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
DATE:
Agenda Item 10.a – March 23, 2026 City Council Meeting
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 and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
March 23, 2026
Attached is a letter from the appellant requesting a 30-day continuance of the public
hearing, received after the agenda was published.
Enc
City Manager
Assistant City Manger/Director of Public Works
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
cc:
R J E 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
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 (