Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-03-24_10a_Supplemental 5 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item 10.a - March 24, 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 DATE: March 24, 2026 Attached is additional correspondence received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item. Cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Planning Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Website and Public Review Binder Enc From:Linda Busek To:City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson Subject:Request to Revisit Proposed 92 unit RRM Development Plans (Oak Park & James Way) Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:34:16 PM Dear Arroyo Grande City Councilmembers, I’m writing to urge you—and the Planning Commission—to revisit the approved plans for the proposed 92-unit RRM development behind the medical buildings, Curl Fitness, and Best Western near Oak Park and James Way. This area is already experiencing significant parking strain. As a regular patron of both the medical offices and fitness center, I can attest that parking is often insufficient today— overflowing into informal areas due to earlier planning limitations. Adding a 92-unit residential project without clearly adequate parking will only intensify this problem, creating daily conflicts between residents and existing businesses. I’m also concerned about the impact on the adjacent green open space. This area provides both visual relief and practical breathing room for an already dense cluster of uses. The current plans appear to push development up against the hillside in a way that risks diminishing this valuable space. Traffic is another serious concern. Access to James Way is already constrained, and increased density at this location could lead to congestion and safety issues given the limited ingress and egress. I want to be clear: I support the need for additional housing in Arroyo Grande. However, this particular site—at the proposed scale—does not appear to be a good fit. I encourage the City to consider alternative infill opportunities along Grande Avenue and on Halcyon Avenue (such as the area behind the Fair Oaks Theatre), where underutilized parcels, better proximity to services, and stronger transit access could support housing more successfully and with fewer unintended consequences. At a minimum, I respectfully ask that you pause further action until the project is substantially revised—specifically to reduce density and ensure adequate, realistic parking for both residents and surrounding businesses. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Linda Busek 240 Aspen Street, AG From: "Carlson, Mack" <mcarlson@bhfs.com> Date: March 24, 2026 at 12:25:05 PM PDT To: Isaac Rosen <Isaac.Rosen@bbklaw.com> Cc: "Guillen, Christopher R." <cguillen@bhfs.com> Subject: FW: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002  Isaac, As a follow up to this email and our prior conversations, we believe that a continuance tonight will count toward one of the City’s five allowed hearings on the project for the reason explained below. Since Chris’ email was sent, we also note that legal counsel for two of the appellants have submitted substantive comment letters and appear ready to present their appeal tonight. We see do not believe that one appellant’s request for a continuance is sufficient to push out the hearing after the Project applicant and other appellants have expended substantial sums of money to present their cases. Government Code section 65905.5(a), in relevant part states: “after the application is deemed complete, a city . . . shall not conduct more than five hearings pursuant to Section 65905, or any other law, ordinance, or regulation requiring a public hearing in connection with the approval of that housing development project. If the city, county, or city and county continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section. The city, county, or city and county shall consider and either approve or disapprove the application at any of the five hearings allowed under this section consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920)).”(Emphasis added.) Under Government Code section 65905, a public hearing shall be held on various types of applications, including a CUP application at issue here, and any appeals of those applications. Section 65905.5(b)(2) defines “hearing” broadly to include “any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting, including any appeal, conducted by the city or county with respect to the housing development project, including any meeting relating to Section 65915, whether by the legislative body of the city or county, the planning agency established pursuant to Section 65100, or any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any committee or subcommittee thereof.” As noted in the staff report, the Project application is complete and consistent with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards as determined by the Planning Commission and staff consistent with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65905.5((c)(1)-(2).) By agendizing this appeal hearing, the City Council must act on the item to continue it to “another date.” (See Gov. Code, § 54955.1.) This Council action necessarily “shall count as one of the five hearings” since otherwise local agencies would be able to endless continue items without a public hearing in direct conflict with the purposes of this section to limit a project to no more than five public hearings. This interpretation aligns with various state laws designed to protect housing development project applicants from delays. The Housing Accountability Act clarifies that violations of Government Code section 65905.5 constitute a disapproval of a housing development project (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(h) (6)(F).) The Housing Accountability Act and SB 330, which enacted Section 65905.5, are to be construed liberally to expedite and promote the development of housing. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(L); Chap 654, Stat. 2019 § 2 [SB 330’s legislative intent].) The Courts further interpret the effect of the Permit Streamlining Act, and laws like Section 65905.5, in the context of the Housing Accountability Act to reduce local governments capacity to deny or render infeasible affordable housing development projects. (See Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 842, 855.) In summary, the City must treat tonight’s hearing as one of the five allowable hearings under Government Code section 65905.5. Based on the staff materials, we understand that the City has already conducted at least three qualifying hearings on this project, thus any tonight’s meet will constitute the fourth hearing on this project regardless of whether the City continues it or holds the appeal hearing as requested by three of the four interest parties (i.e., two appellants and the Project applicant). We appreciate you advising the Council of this interpretation at the meeting tonight so they can understand the effect of a potential continuance on processing this application. Best, Mack Carlson Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 805.882.1485 tel mcarlson@bhfs.com WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 From: Guillen, Christopher R. <cguillen@bhfs.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 6:19 PM To: publiccomment@arroyogrande.org Cc: Carlson, Mack <mcarlson@bhfs.com>; Russ Sheppel <rsheppel@gmail.com>; Isaac Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>; Scott Martin <samartin@rrmdesign.com>; Linda Blackbern <lblackbern@rrmdesign.com>; Malone, Caitlin K. <CMalone@BHFS.com> Subject: RE: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26- 002 Dear Mayor Russom and members of the City Council, We understand the Appellants for this item on the City Council meeting agenda tomorrow have requested a 30-day continuance of the hearing because they allegedly only received the staff report for the hearing on Friday afternoon “with only one business day of notice before the hearing.” In addition to the fact that this statement is inaccurate—the agenda and staff materials were publicly available on Thursday afternoon, a full five full days before the hearing consistent with AGMC 1.12.030 —we have reviewed the letter requesting the continuance and see no legal basis to grant the continuance. The basis for the request amounts to a complaint about the normal land use appeal process that affords the Appellants and Project applicant all the due process required by law. As with any land use appeal, Appellants submitted their written grounds for appeal after the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, City staff responded to the appeal in their staff report, which was posted and made publicly available beyond the time required by the Brown Act (i.e., 72 hours), and now Appellants and the Project applicant will be allowed to present to this Council tomorrow evening. In fact, the Project team has already provided their response to the Appellants as well, giving Appellants ample notice of the issues. Appellants’ frustration about only finding the staff report on Friday is not grounds for an appeal; rather, it is a request to be treated differently than all other appellants that have come before this Council. Indeed, it is telling that the law firm that submitted the request on behalf of Appellants cites no law requiring such a continuance. Granting a continuance on this matter would establish a dangerous precedent by allowing any appellant to delay any project based on solely on the Appellants’ inaction and inattention. The request also claims that Appellants’ ignorance of the Housing Accountability Act is justification for the continuance. That is an absurd request and if granted would set additional dangerous precedent for the City. This precedent is acutely problematic for housing development projects where the Legislature has created various statutory deadlines and penalties to agencies that delay action on housing projects. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 65956 [a project is “deemed approved” without a hearing if an agency misses 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 <rsheppel@gmail.com>; 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.