Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-03-24_10a_Supplemental 3misses a deadline]; 65589.5(h)(6)(B), (E), (K) [failing to meet certain deadlines means the agency has “disapproved a housing development project”].) For example, if granted, any time a project opponent appeals a project in the future, the opponent can claim ignorance of the law as a grounds for a continuance request to achieve the desired delay of the project. That cannot be the policy the City intends to create. Finally, Appellants ask for “immediate access to the basic administrative record” for the Project. However, Appellants have not submitted a formal Public Records Act request for such documents and there is no obligation for staff to produce that record absent such a request. Moreover, none of these records are relevant for the appeal before the Council since—as noted by the Appellants in their letter—the Planning Commission already heard Appellants’ arguments at the January 20, 2026 meeting and rejected them by unanimously approving the Project as consistent with the applicable City standards. Staff providing additional legal bases to support the Planning Commission’s determination and refute Appellants’ contentions is hardly grounds to delay the hearing. For each of these reasons, this Council should deny the continuance request and hold the hearing on Appellants’ appeal tomorrow. In considering the continuance request, we request the opportunity to provide public comment on this matter as well. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Chris Christopher R. Guillen Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 805.882.1452 tel 909.518.8435 cell cguillen@bhfs.com WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 From: Malone, Caitlin K. <CMalone@BHFS.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:46 AM To: publiccomment@arroyogrande.org Cc: Guillen, Christopher R. <cguillen@bhfs.com>; Carlson, Mack <mcarlson@bhfs.com>; Russ Sheppel ; Isaac Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com> Subject: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002 Good morning, Please see attached letter from Chris Guillen’s office on behalf of Russell Sheppel. This pertains to Item 10a on the agenda for tomorrow’s 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. Caitlin K. Malone Legal Practice Assistant Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 805.882.1462 tel CMalone@BHFS.com WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. 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 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, ; Isaac Rosen, isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com 32543661.1 From: Edwin Rambuski <edwin@rambuskilaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:50 AM To: City Council <citycouncil@arroyogrande.org>; Caren Ray Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Jamie Maraviglia <jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>; Kate Secrest <ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>; Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Guthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org> Cc: Jessica Matson <jmatson@arroyogrande.org>; Isaac Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>; James Ferro <jferro@nanoknee.com>; Sean Varner, Esq. <sean.varner@varnerbrandt.com>; Scott Heil <scott.heil@varnerbrandt.com> Subject: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ SECOND ADDITIONAL Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants March 23, 2026 VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org crayrussom@arroyogrande.org jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem, District 3 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council aloe@arroyogrande.org Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council Caren Ray Russom, Mayor City of Arroyo Grande City Council ksecrest@arroyogrande.org Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council jguthrie@arroyogrande.org Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to edwin@rambuskilaw.com and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ SECOND ADDITIONAL Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council: Please find attached hereto a letter dated March 23, 2026 from the Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski regarding the above-referenced Appeal. Mr. Rambuski’s letter shall constitute an item to be included in the record for Appeal Case 26-002. If you have any questions whatsoever regarding this submission, please telephone Mr. Rambuski at (805) 215-4004. Very truly yours, Trina Baumsteiger Assistant -- Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski 1401 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel.: (805) 546-8284 Fax: (805) 546-8489 www.rambuskilaw.com Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity. 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 City of Arroyo Grande Mayor Russom Members of the City Council 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 EJ R March 23, 2026 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 SECOND ADDITIONAL Appellants’ Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members: Appellants submitted a request to continue the hearing for Appeal Case 26-002 regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP 25-001 on March 23, 2026. Appellants further submitted additional briefing to address issues raised in the City’s Staff Report. If reasonable continuance is not granted, Appellants hereby submit this SECOND ADDITIONAL BRIEFING and object to have less than on business day to address these important issues. Even accepting arguendo the Staff Report’s newly advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)), the City Council retains full de novo review authority under Arroyo Grande Municipal Code § 1.12.010. De novo review means the Council conducts an independent, new determination on the merits and is not bound by the Planning Commission’s findings or the Staff Report’s legal conclusions. The HAA expressly preserves the Council’s independent obligation to make specific adverse impact findings on public health and safety (HAA § 65589.5(j)(1)) and to ensure compliance with the City’s own objective development standards. The “deemed complete” lock-in does not strip the Council of these duties, nor does it eliminate basic due process or the requirement for substantial evidence. (See also, Gov. Code § 65589.5(e) [HAA does not override CEQA or site-suitability analysis]; Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of Pacifica (2025) [HAA does not compel approval without appropriate environmental review].) Critical new evidence confirms the project fails multiple objective standards and creates specific adverse impacts the Council must address: a. Parking & the 2000 Reciprocal Easement (see Section (a) of Additional Briefing): The 2000 Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement (recorded June 9, 2000 as Doc. No. 2000-030755) (See Appeal Exhibit A), as amended in 2008 (recorded as Doc. No. 2008-043791) (See highlighted portions of Appeal Exhibit B attached here), grants and maintains reciprocal parking, access, and utility easements across defined Areas A–D and E. As shown on the approved site plan for CUP 25-001 (Planning Commission Packet, Exhibit B, sheets A2 and A3) Proposed Building B is located directly within the area subject to these reciprocal easements. The 2008 Amendment did not eliminate or relocate those easements; it merely authorized Applicant to restrict up to 22 spaces in Area A for its own medical tenants during business hours and required replacement parking only if development in Area E separated spaces. No new binding, recorded reciprocal easement has been provided that ensures adequate shared parking for the residential project during overlapping peak periods. Further, the former Assessor Parcel Number ending in -053 (the proposed site of Building A), was not included in the original 2000 Reciprocal Easement. While it was referenced in the 2008 Amendment, that amendment did not modify the original reciprocal easements nor grant any reciprocal easement rights in favor of that parcel. Therefore, Proposed Building A cannot claim the benefits of the reciprocal easement for parking. This physical placement of the new residential buildings on or over the historic shared easement areas, when combined with the 2004 OEG monitoring reports (chronic overflow and conflicts), the limited Best Western Casa Grande settlement agreement, and the priority parking rights already granted to commercial tenants in the 2008 Amendment, renders the Applicant’s claimed shared-parking arrangement unenforceable and physically inadequate. The project will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased congestion and traffic hazards on James Way, routine towing of resident and visitor vehicles, and impaired emergency access/evacuation for approximately 125–150 residents. These constitute specific adverse impacts on public health and safety under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council must address in its de novo review. b. Density Bonus and Affordable Unit Dispersal As addressed in Section b of our additional briefing, the project violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E) (mandatory proportional dispersal). Staff’s Conditions of Approval are silent on this objective standard. c. Incorrect Mixed-Use Application Even if Section b of our additional briefing does not address appropriate analysis, it does highlight that staff erroneously applied “mixed-use” density bonus rules. Using the square footages confirmed by First American ClarityFirst and Applicant’s own information provided to the owners in seeking reimbursements: − Existing commercial: 39,551 sf − New residential (Buildings A + B): 102,359 sf (100% of new construction) − Even if the City forces-inclusion of existing commercial buildings, the residential component is 72.1% of total — exceeding the HAA’s two-thirds threshold (§ 65589.5(h)(2)). However, the project is properly a 100% new residential project and cannot lawfully receive mixed-use waivers or bonuses. d. Traffic, CEQA, Waivers, and Public Safety As addressed in Sections c–g of the prior supplemental submittal, the project fails AB 130 VMT presumption, lacks required riparian/habitat analysis, and has no evidence supporting the requested waivers. Approving only 31 spaces (or zero) for 92 units creates an undeniable public health and safety hazard under Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17 § 7977. We disagree with Staff’s deemed complete argument. Because the Council is exercising de novo review, it is not only authorized, but required, to reverse the Planning Commission approval, deny CUP 25-001, impose dispersal and parking conditions, or direct required CEQA review. The “deemed complete” theory does not override the Council’s independent duty to protect public health, safety, and objective local standards. 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)