HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-04-14_10a_Supplemental 4_RedactedMEMORANDUM
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 14, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received by 2 p.m. 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
Second, this site plan references a parking agreement with the church across the street. The
pastor of that church confirmed on the record at the prior hearing that no such agreement exists
and that he has no intention of entering into one.
Third, this site plan references shared parking arrangements with the hotel. The hotel owner has
confirmed that no such agreement exists. To the contrary, the hotel owner holds a primary legal
right to 18 of those stalls under a 2015 recorded settlement agreement — a right he has formally
exercised by posting no parking signs on all 18 of those stalls just last week.
The entire parking solution for this project is built on agreements that do not exist.
Additionally, this site plan shows the location of Building A. Building A's parcel was never a party to
the shared parking agreement governing this center and therefore has no legal parking rights
anywhere within the center. According to the applicant's own submitted square footage data,
Building A represents over 75 percent of this project — approximately 70 of the 92 proposed
residential units — with only 21 on-site garage spaces and zero legal access to any other parking
anywhere in this center.
Exhibit 4 — Recorded Easement Documents
This exhibit contains the recorded Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement — Document
Number 2000-030755 — on file with the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, as amended in 2008.
These documents establish binding easement rights that run with the land and are enforceable
against all successors and assigns.
Building B is proposed to be constructed directly on top of recorded easement areas established
under these agreements. You cannot legally build on land encumbered by a recorded easement
held by other property owners. Building A has no legal parking rights in this center. Building B
cannot legally be built where it is proposed. This project is legally infeasible on its face.
Conclusion
The four exhibits submitted with this public comment document conditions that are not
speculative — they are real, observable, and photographically documented. The parking lot is
already at capacity. Vehicles are already blocking emergency access routes. The project's parking
solution is built entirely on agreements that do not exist. And the proposed buildings conflict with
recorded easement rights that cannot be overridden by a conditional use permit.
The Housing Accountability Act defines a specific adverse impact as a significant, quantifiable,
direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards. The conditions documented in these exhibits meet that definition precisely. This
Council has not only the legal authority to deny this project — it has the responsibility to do so.
I respectfully request that the City Council uphold the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit
25-001, or alternatively require substantial redesign to address these fundamental legal and
operational deficiencies before any approval is granted.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the developer communicated in writing to the other parcel
owners within this center just this past week that he has already created a scaled-down alternative
design for this project but cannot discuss it until after tonight's hearing. The developer himself has
acknowledged that this project as submitted is not the right solution. There is a better path forward
for housing on this site. But it is not this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Victor Poma Co-Owner,
Oak Park Professional Center
James Way Arroyo Grande, California
From: Jeri Edwards >
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 1:11 PM
To: Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>; Kate Secrest <ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>; Jamie
Maraviglia <jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Guthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Your note NO on 92 unit project is NOT ABOUT HOUSING
Don't let the narrative 'we need more housing' override your common sense, judgment and
fiduciary duty to your tax-paying citizens and to the entire community. This project will create
a permanent safety and parking nightmare for everyone accessing this business plaza,
including residents who rent and expect to park onsite. It will drive patients away from the
medical businesses and drive away the community members who utilize the fitness center.
DON'T be fooled by the 'we need housing' mantra.
DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOTE NO.
Jeri Edwards
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeri Edwards >
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 8:35 AM
Subject: Vote NO to the 92 unit project
To: Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>, <ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>,
<jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>, <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>
Of course Arroyo Grande needs more housing. But why I'm writing you is to suggest that the
City Council adopt a SMART, SAFE, QUALITY OF LIFE approach to approving new
housing developments.
In this case, the 92 unit project is TOO BIG, does not provide enough PARKING, and there
are serious SAFETY issues that have been completely ignored.
The hotel and church will not offer parking to the developer.
There is NO street parking available (all curbs are red).
I understand that this project is NOT exempt from an EIR.
There are environment issues of bordering a creek that have not been addressed.
The developer OVERSTATED the number of PARKING spaces he is allotted for this project.
I URGE you to go to the site at any time of the day to see how there is already an
OVERFLOW parking situation at this site due to the fitness center and medical office patrons.
The fact that there is already an OVERFLOW situation would create an impossible parking
problem for members of the fitness center (I am a member of this fitness center), patients of
the medical facilities and of course residents of the 92 unit development if built.
This fitness center is a HOT SPOT of HEALTHY activity for community members and the
medical buildings are of critical importance to all area residents. Being able to PARK in this
center and not be denied access is a huge QUALITY OF LIFE issue. Please go visit the site
and see for yourself.
Please vote NO on the number of units being proposed. Please pay attention to the QUALITY
OF LIFE, HEALTH, SAFETY of all the residents using these businesses in this center.
Jeri Edwards
Please stop this ill conceived project.
L. Randall Harris