HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2025-04-08_11b Supplemental 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 11.b – April 8, 2025 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update
DATE: April 8, 2025
Attached is public comment received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:04 PM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Land Use Alternatives
Name: Sean
E-mail:
Comments:
As an Arroyo Grande resident and long term member of the south county area, I agree with
Alternative 2. I also agree with the option for agriculture residents in the Fair Oaks Avenue corridor
to be able to develop their land for other uses, such as residential or commercial. I am not in
agreement with the development of Frederick’s at this time. There are too many unknowns for
traffic, drainage, and environmental impact.
Page title: Land Use Alternatives
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:49 PM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Garrett
E-mail:
Comments:
Hello,
I’d like to recommend leaving the agricultural land decision up to the land owners themselves.
The land is theirs and will belong to whomever purchases it, if in fact they sell it.
The glaring point to me is that this land is good for farming because it’s in a natural flood plain :)
which is why it’s not suitable for long term residential use.
Circling back to my point on ownership, in order to facilitate natural growth, one needs to
acknowledge the development costs that are imposed by city plans and zoning. If there is too much
regulation for example on Grand Ave properties, then the cost to buy and develop them will remain
infeasible financially. Keep the plan simple and straightforward so all parties, families, and
businesses can grow together.
Page title: Home
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 3:55 PM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Paul Provence
E-mail:
Comments:
I have multiple concerns regarding the General Plan Update. I question the methodology used to
survey the communities and specifically the neighborhoods that would be affected. I am a resident
that would directly be affected by the Fredricks project and Fair Oaks proposed projects.
1. New Local High Fire Severity Zoning and existing State Very High Severity Zoning.
2. Traffic impact to already over stressed areas
3. Lack of increase water storage or procurement since last drought cycle
4. Neighborhoods directly affected should have been directly contacted to survey their concerns
about said project.
5. Appears that the methodology used to survey High School students was a failure. With a body of
over 2k students responses of only 3 is directly contrary to the Consultants own admission that a
sample size of at least 30 constitutes valid statistics.
Based on review of the plan options 1 or 2 are the only appropriate options for Arroyo Grande.
Please contact me for further.
Page title: Home
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 3:52 PM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Frederick Lewis
E-mail:
Comments:
I'm hopeful that the city planning staff and city council members do consider the impact on existing
neighborhoods on any of the land use alternatives. It's been my experience that both developers
and builders do not take into consideration such things as the impact of traffic, noise, and
construction debris on neighborhoods that are already established and will do what's in their best
interest for the sake of minimizing capital outlays. Please, please give a higher priority to the needs
of the good people of Arroyo Grande over the needs of developers looking to just satisfy their
stakeholders. Thanks for listening.
Page title: Home
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 3:46 PM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Steve Howarth
E-mail:
Comments:
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on March 18, 2025 and listened to the proposed land
use changes to the General Plan. I reside in the Creekstone neighborhood that is located closely to
the Frederick property that is one of the focus areas of the General Plan. I am concerned that the
proposed recommendation for this focus area lacks information and/or investigation into the traffic
flow and congestion consequences of any moderate or high density residential use, and I do not
understand how a decision can be made without a prior understanding of these consequences. Of
course, one reason for my concern is that one potential traffic path from focus area is a [currently]
small road that runs through our neighborhood and adjacent to a small neighborhood park. One
specific concern that I have is that a prospective developer of the property apparently believes that
its current plan for a 200-home residential development is a "done deal" and may have a prelim
approval from AG.
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 4:49 PM
To: Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>; Caren Ray
Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Kate Secrest <ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>; Jamie
Maraviglia <jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Guthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: I am an Arroyo Grande resident AND
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an
email from this sender jodilether @ yahoo.com
I absolutely oppose the development of homes and retail on current agricultural land.
We never received any “Survey” for our input. Please regard this email as a negative vote
towards the development. What about our water issues and where would all those kids
moving into the development go to school? It’s an irresponsible plan for AG.
Jodis and Igor Voyevodin
93420
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 3:17 PM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Pamela Lewis
E-mail:
Comments:
I am very concerned about the possibility of a Waller Street extension. As a homeowner at the base
of the hill where the road would be extended we will lose our privacy and quality of life. Headlights
from cars coming downhill will shine directly into our windows in the darkened hours. Car exhaust,
noise and air pollution, are just a few of the destroying of our quality of life. Neighborhood children
will be put at risk at our park from cars going too fast right near them playing on the sidewalk. Let's
remember the recent tragic death of a student in Atascadero walking on the sidewalk by a drunk
driver.
The possible extension of Waller was considered well before a neighborhood and park was built and
it became a quiet community loved by residents. If the road is allowed we will all be negatively
impacted and harmed.. Please ask yourself if it were you, would you want to see your home and
neighborhood ruined?
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:36 PM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Tori Perkins
E-mail:
Comments:
It is plain and simple. We don’t want to look like LA. Heck, at this point, we don’t want to look like
Grover. They are packing buildings in so tight in Grover that it looks horrible. That is not why you or
anyone else choose to live in the five cities. We live here because of the farmland, empty lots, and
the lack of tall buildings, and the trees and trails everywhere. Please do not ruin Arroyo Grande by
putting homes on the ag land across from the high school.
Page title: Home
From:Lauren Ames
To:City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Support for more housing!!!!
Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 9:55:05 PM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
I am a resident of Arroyo Grande, I own a small business and I am a mom of two young
children. (Lack of) affordable housing is one of the most if not the most pressing issue in this
area. I am writing to voice my support for more affordable housing, increased housing density
and more options that prioritize housing development. Young people and young families
should be able to buy homes and stay in this area instead of getting priced out and having to
leave the area for more affordable housing. We need more affordable housing in our beautiful
town!!!!
Thank you for your consideration.
Lauren AmesConference InterpreterFederally Certified Court InterpreterCalifornia State Certified Court InterpreterTexas Master Licensed Court Interpreter Master of Arts in Translation & Interpretation (MATI) - Middlebury Institute ofInternational Studies at Monterey (MIIS)
Office: +1(805)270-3156 Cell: +1(831)277-8785
www.latiservices.com
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 7:18 AM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Shannon Kessler
E-mail:
Comments:
Thank you for seeking public input. Please choose the plan that allows for the most dense housing,
especially in already developed areas/infill. Also, please consider converting empty
commercial/industrial spaces or lots and land currently zoned commercial to change to multifamily
residential
Page title: Home
From:Mike Harris
To:public comment
Subject:Fwd: Public Comment on City Council April 8, 2025 Agenda Item 11.b. Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the
General Plan Update
Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 7:51:53 PM
Attachments:Land Use Scenario Statistics at Full Buildout.ods
2025-04-08 Proposed Hybrid Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update.odt
2025-04-08 Comments on General Plan Update Options and Public Input.pdf
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
Whoops! Left of the final "g" on the email address.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mike Harris <
Date: Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Subject: Public Comment on City Council April 8, 2025 Agenda Item 11.b. Adoption of a
Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update
To: <publiccomment@arroyogrande.or>
Cc: Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>, Brian <bpedrotti@arroyogrande.org>,
Matthew Downing <mdowning@arroyogrande.org>
Attached are the following as my public comment on City Council April 8, 2025 Agenda Item
11.b. Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update:
Spreadsheet of Land Use Scenario Statistics at Full Buildout
Note Corrections to Mintier Harnish numbers
Proposed (DRAFT) Comprehensive Hybrid Land Use Scenario for General Plan Update
Comments/Notes on General Plan Update Options and Public Input
I'm happy to talk in depth with any city council members and/or city staff.
Note: Prior commitments prevent me from being at this meeting in person; however, I'll make
an effort to attend via Zoom and have already registered.
Mike P. Harris
Comments/Notes on General Plan Update Options and Public Input
•For all the evaluation criteria, except jobs, there was essentially not a great deal of variation
(see spreadsheet which specifically includes population, jobs, and single & multi family units).
◦Jobs were approximately doubled under scenario 4 versus scenarios 1-3.
▪Aspects of scenario 4 should be incorporated as much as possible in a hybrid proposal
based upon the following:
•Sales tax was determined to be needed to be increased and was increased by 1%
per Measure E-24 passed during the November 5, 2024 election.
◦Expected to generate approximate $6 million annually
•5-year financial forecast presented at January 28, 2025 meeting:
◦Projected revenue growing 3.2% annually while expenditures growing 3.7%
annually
◦9% increase in unfunded accrued liability (UAL) for pensions per CalPERS
◦Note Mintier Harnish had multiple errors (5 boxes with a yellow background on
spreadsheet) in regards to their differential numbers from scenario 1.
▪Calculated numbers are shown in the spreadsheet, incorrect Mintier Harnish numbers
are in the notes for each cell.
•Long term planning includes planning use of existing agricultural lands, hence Scenarios 1 and
2 really not options.
◦Scenario 1 is actually a baseline analysis with no changes and certainly NOT an option
▪Mintier Harnish apparently did a poor job noting it was a baseline and not a real option
based upon the number of public respondents choosing it as an option
Housing Accessibility and Affordability
RHNA projects out to only 2028 while horizon for the General Plan extends over the next 20-30 years.
Scenario 1 is insufficient.
Scenario 3 covers housing capacity out to 2028 projections; however, far lower maximum than 2 or 4
which would ensure that Arroyo Grande will be well-prepared to meet its future RHNA cycles.
Land Use Efficiency
Scenarios 3 and 4 propose a similar amount of land consumption; however, Scenario 4 more efficient.
Scenario 4 increases housing capacity by 29.1 units/acre of land versus 12.7 for scenario 3.
Scenario 4 increases capacity for employment by 89.3 jobs/acre of land versus 2.7 for scenario 3.
Nonresidential Development and Employment Capacity
Scenario 4 is by far superior as already noted at the beginning.
Respondents that liked scenario 4 focused on employment opportunities and generating more tax
revenue for the City as I did at the beginning.
Frederick Area
This area definitely provides opportunities for new types of commercial, manufacturing, and light
industrial uses in Arroyo Grande including potential large-scale manufacturing, business centers, and
retail due to its freeway access and hence would not infringe on already congested roadways.
The area could also include a self-contained neighborhood with housing and small retail and personal
services businesses (e.g., restaurants, barber shops, pet grooming).
There is an interest in using the area to improve truck routing and reducing traffic impacts on the
Village. Some respondents expressed concerns about the strain on infrastructure and traffic
congestion, especially in connection with Highway 101.
•Note proposed language in draft comprehensive hybrid scenario for potential of a future inland
101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the SLO airport.
•While ALL input gathered should be considered, it needs to be noted that the public input that
was gathered is:
◦statistically not valid based upon the low number of responses
▪2023 population of 18,243
▪Only 354 survey responses for the initial phase to develop scenarios
▪Only 28 worksheets were collected during the workshop to choose scenario
preferences
▪Only 92 survey responses were received, 9 which indicated they attended the
community workshop on February 5th, to choose scenario preferences
▪Only 3 responses in regards to the high school response for scenario preferences
◦skewed based upon the demographics of those that did respond
▪Half were over the age of 55 for the initial phase to develop scenarios
▪In regards to scenario preferences:
•34% aged 65+
•24% aged 55-64
•25% aged 35-54
•9% aged 18-34
•1% aged under 18
•8% did not provide a response regarding their age
▪Older people are statistically more resistant to change than younger people and hence
more likely express opposition to any significant growth or population increases
Methodology
•The Project Team used Urban Footprint, a GIS-based application used to analyze the
implications of changes to land uses, to model Arroyo Grande’s four land use Scenarios.
Urban Footprint uses a curated, enriched dataset of existing land uses in the United States to
calculate insights and implications of different theoretical models of planning areas. The
program looks at several topics, including general city statistics, land consumption, energy
use, water use, pedestrian accessibility, transit accessibility, transportation, emissions, and
household costs.
Link: https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/explorer/
Note: 30 day free demo
•Pretty sure AG could have bought a license to use the software for far less than hiring Mintier
Harnish
•Pretty sure I could become proficient with the software in short time to analyze hybrid
scenarios, especially if all current data/iterations were obtained from Mintier Harnish which I
hope was included as part of the contract as the property of AG
Outcomes at Full Buildout
Scenario Population
+ from
Scenario
1 Jobs
+ from
Scenario 1 Single-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
1 – Existing General Plan 23,650 15,407 9,502
2 – Infill Focus 34,325 10,675 18,507 3,100 11,167 1,665
3 – Residential and Complimentary Focus 26,801 3,151 15,780 373 9,798 296
4 – Commercial Focused Approach 31,607 7,957 28,199 12,792 10,770 1,268
Page 1
Outcomes at Full Buildout
Multi-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
3,103
6,787 3,684
4,124 1,021
5,562 2,459
Page 2
Proposed Hybrid Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update
The initial focus shall be to emphasize densification within the existing city boundaries, focusing on
infill development of vacant and underutilized land to increase housing, population, employment capacity and
tax revenue. In other words, to increase densities across the spectrum of residential land use designations (e.g.,
from 25 du/ac to 28-30 du/ac for Mixed Use) and more intense commercial development by increasing the
allowable floor-area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage standards. The following specifics shall be done:
• Very Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-VLD) designation shall be eliminated and collapsed
into the Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-LD) designation.
• Multi-Family Residential (MFR), Townhouse/Condo, and Mobile Home Park (MHP) designations shall
be eliminated and collapsed into the Medium High Density Multi-Family Residential (MHD)
designation.
◦ Note: 1st and 2nd designations were proposed for elimination under Scenario 2 & 3, but not 4
• A new Parks and Recreation (PR) General Plan land use designation shall be used for all current and
future parks and recreational facilities within the city.
• A new, higher-intensity mixed use designation named “Corridor Mixed Use” shall be used.
• Designate key areas for mixed-use development, encouraging walkable centers with retail, office, and
residential uses.
• Increase the amount of land designated as Regional Commercial to allow for the development of larger
commercial establishments.
The maximum increase in densities shall take into the account the overall projected future growth in
population needs as well as additional housing included in the specific plans for the North Fair Oaks and
Frederick’s focus areas. In other words, the maximum figures listed in Table 1 for Scenario 2 of the Mintier
Harnish February 5, 2025 Memorandum (Attachment 1) shall be adjusted down accordingly.
Additional recreational facilities to support future development shall be included as recommended by
the CAG.
The primary area of the initial focus shall be the redevelopment potential for the E. Grand Avenue
corridor as a whole based upon the new Corridor Mixed Use designation that allows higher residential densities
(30 du/ac, 2.0 FAR) with the potential of providing small commercial/industrial incubator spaces.
In regards to other 2 focus areas (North Fair Oaks agricultural parcels and Frederick’s property),
agricultural land will be kept as an existing land use option since it is important to preserve prime farmland for
future generations, food production, and environmental sustainability and it highlights Arroyo Grande’s
agricultural heritage and the value of maintaining its rural character, scenic beauty, and historical ties to
farming. Since it has been noted that the property owner of the North Fair Oaks focus area has indicated that
they are not looking to continue the history of farming on the property, specific plans will be established to
guide future development within the currently agriculturally zoned areas to permit the conversion to residential
uses and complementary amenities, such as parks and open space. Complementary (including commericial)
amenities in the North Fair Oaks area shall include the consideration of the schools, especially the high school
students (e.g. so they have closer options for lunch).
Specifically in regards to the Frederick’s focus area, specific plans shall also include potential economic
growth and employment in addition to residential development in mixed-use zones and light industrial use. The
potential of a future inland 101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the San Luis
Obispo airport shall be considered.
While no city expansion or annexation is proposed, plans for future annexation shall be considered for
the following areas:
◦ Agricultural areas south of the city, near the Arroyo Grande High School
◦ Northeast of the city
◦ Southeast of the Frederick property
Lastly, any additional modifications to remaining current land use designations shall be made to comply
with changes in State law, such as to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, remove housing
constraints, and/or to be consistent with the current Housing Element.
From: m lee <
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:33:11 AM
To: Jamie Maraviglia <jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>; Caren Ray Russom
<crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Guthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>; Kate Secrest
<ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>; Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: April 8 City Council Hearing for General Plan -
Dear Mayor and City Council
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Attached is a Discussion on the General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives.
I look forward to your input.
Date: April 5, 2025
RE: City Council Hearing April 8, 2025
General Plan Update —a Density Discussion
Dear Arroyo Grande Mayor and City Council,
Since density and intensity affects the visual character as well as the utilities and
infrastructure of Arroyo Grande, I submit the following and seek your input.
To better visualize how the densities shown on Table 1, Alternative #3, for the Fair Oaks
Focus Area, I went to Grover Beach planning and asked for the densities for projects
that are under construction on Grand Avenue.
Grover Beach allows up to 20 du/ac on Grand Avenue.
1. The market rate Palladium condo project at Grand Ave at 4th Street is 35 du/ac
using the Fractional Density Program*. This is a 75% increase in density from
20 du/ac to 35 du/ac.
2. The Cleaver and Clark affordable housing project on Grand Ave at 13th Street is
34 du/ac using the 80% density bonus law. This is a 70% increase from 20
u/ac to 35 du/ac.
What are the actual maximum densities for North Fair Oaks, using bonuses?
The Fair Oaks project area is 90 total acres. The Ratio of Uses calls for 60% Medium
High Density (MHD) on 54 acres at a density of 12 du/ac. And 10% for Mixed Use (MU)
on 9 acres at 25 du/ac. This is 873 total dwelling units.
However, using 75% bonuses the Medium High Density Multi Family (MHD) at 12 du/ac
would be 21 du/ac. Using 75% bonuses the Mixed Use (MU) at 25 du/ac density would
actually be 43.75 du/ac. This would result in 1527 total dwelling units, compared to
873 total dwelling units without bonuses.
How would Bonuses affect the densities of East Grand Corridor Mixed Use?
Alternative #3 for Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) is 30 du/ac. The existing Mixed Use
zoning is 25 du/ac. (Currently there are no projects in Arroyo Grande on Grand Avenue
at 25 du/ac.) Do we want a base density at 25 or 30 un/ac when 70% - 80% bonuses
would yield an actual density of 42 - 51 un/ac. Seems high looking at new buildings
in Grover Beach at 35 units per acre with the allowed bonuses.
Questions:
1. Will the EIR for the Final General Plan use the densities shown on Table 1 “Land
Use Designations” or the actual densities which are higher using bonuses? (With
the understanding that the General Plan needs to determine the maximum
buildout for evaluation by the EIR, and the Specific Plan needs to be consistent
with the General Plan.)
2. How do we want to see and experience our community? Do we want to be like
Grover Beach or LA or do we want to be the beautiful small town on the Central
Coast that we and visitors love?
Please consider keeping the Prime Agricultural soils in Agriculture for our children and
grandchildren's “sustainable “food. . Grand Avenue has good freeway access, local
services, and vacant/underutilized parcels for both affordable housing projects and
market rate housing. Fredricks is perfect for Planned Community with a mix of uses.
I look forward to your input.
Thank you,
Marsha Lee
*Fractional Density Program allocates density as a fraction based on the size of the
dwelling unit, (ie. <600 square feet = 0.5 DU, 600-1000 square feet = 0.66 DU, & 1000
== 1DU). If not law now in AG, can be added by the City.
Bonus Density Law - 80% for affordable housing
Also, cities can use the center of road to calculate land area, which also increases the
density.
From:Generation Build
To:City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Increased Density - Land Use Alternative
Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:47:04 PM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
To the honorable Arroyo Grande City Council,
My name is Michael Massey, and I am the founder and president of the local pro-housing
group called Generation Build. We have members of all ages and locations across the coast,
but we largely represent the generation of citizens who are finding the Central Coast to be an
increasingly unattainable area to live— and one of the largest challenges for our members is
housing.
As a group, we are supportive of all types of housing, and the new land uses present important
opportunities for Arroyo Grande to clearly identify where more housing could be built. We
appreciate the comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission and would
urge the council to adopt their proposed new land uses that increase density and promote more
housing at all levels. The General Plan update provides an exciting opportunity and we are
confident the Council can seize this moment and help propel Arroyo Grande forward.
Let's build!
Thank you for your time,
Michael Massey
Founder, Generation Build
From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <administrator@planarroyogrande.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 7:33 AM
To: michael@mintierharnish.com; Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>;
Brent@mintierharnish.com; Nikki@mintierharnish.com
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
Name: Raymond Berguia
E-mail:
Comments:
I do not want housing build on Fairoaks/Valley Road, across AG High School! I was born and raised
in Arroyo Grande, and worked on a farm as a child. I do not was our city crowded with thousands of
houses. Keep Arroyo Grande rural!!!
Page title: Home
From:Anna Gebauer
To:City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Land Use Scenarios for AG
Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 8:06:22 PM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
Dear Mayor Russom & Council Members Kate Secrest, Aileen Loe, Jamie Maraviglia & Jim
Guthrie:
My husband, Luke, was borned and raised in Arroyo Grande, and now we are raising our
young family here. We love Arroyo Grande and we are blessed to live here, but it is not easy
to make it here as a young family with limited employment opportunities and a housing
crunch. We hope to speak to the concerns and priorities of the younger generation in regards
to the new land use scenarios proposed for Arroyo Grande.
If Arroyo Grande is going to be a place where young families can afford to live and (most
importantly to us) where our kids would eventually have the option to afford to raise their
families, then it is essential that we prioritize healthy residential and commercial development.
Development can be done responsibly and in a way that seeks to preserve the charming small
town feel we all love, but first it starts with prioritizing just that: development. Options #3 &
#4 both provide pathways that would allow for more housing and healthy economic growth in
the decades to come.
Please don't let Arroyo Grande become the kind of place where only retirees moving here
from out of town can afford to live and buy property. The ones most affected by the decisions
made today in regards to land use scenarios for the next 30 years are the ones who currently
have the smallest voice: it's the children of Arroyo Grande who will eventually become the
adults that call Arroyo Grande their hometown. Vote for their futures!
Thank you for your consideration,
Luke & Anna Gebauer
(Grateful residents of the tree neighborhood along with lots of other young families)
From:Amy Martel
To:City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Arroyo Grande"s General Plan
Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:40:12 AM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
To the Members of the Council,
I am a resident in Arroyo Grande and I urge you to adopt the General Plan alternative with the
greatest potential for infill growth for the next 30 years. We are fortunate to be able to afford
our single-family home here, but part of that was just luck and timing. We love the character
of this town and its rural feel, but also believe that plans can be created that balance that with
the urgent need for affordable housing. With careful deliberation, development can be done in
a way that honors the heritage of this area, adds to the beauty of the town, considers traffic
issues, is responsible in water allocation, and eases the burden on families and individuals
trying to afford a place to live.
Arroyo Grande can choose to grow and build for their working families, or it can continue to
more and more be a community for the healthy and wealthy. Doing so means we continue to
say goodbye to talent, investment, and community ties for future generations. Make a choice
for your future kids, and all of ours.
Thank you,
Amy Martel
From:Claire Momberger
To:City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Arroyo Grande"s General Plan
Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 6:54:54 PM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
To the Members of the Council, I am a community member of Arroyo Grande and I urge you
to adopt the General Plan alternative with the greatest potential for infill growth for the next
30 years.
I a have a Master’s degree, am employed by the County, and married (joint income, husband
owns a small business in AG) with no realistic hope of buying a home or even changing
renting situations. Yes, housing costs (to buy and rent) are high. But more, our community’s
housing stock is limited in size (need more units) and types (need more creative solutions,
like triplexes/quadplexes/mixed use).
Arroyo Grande can choose to grow and build for their working families, or it can continue to
more and more be a community for the healthy and wealthy. Doing the latter means we
continue to say goodbye to talent, investment, and community ties for future generations.
Make a choice for your future kids, and all of ours.
Thank you for serving our community.
Respectfully,
Claire
From: Paul Provence <
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:12:15 AM
To: Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: Caren Ray Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Kate Secrest
<ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>; Jamie Maraviglia <jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Guthrie
<jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Arroyo Grande General Plan update
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
Council Member Loe,
I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to reach out to you as a concerned member of your
District. I live with my family at near the Frederick property. It has come to
our neighborhood's attention that there are proposed changes to the General Plan for the City
which includes options for growth of the community on the Frederick property as well as
some new roads. I have reviewed the consultants' reports, findings, and recommendations. I
have watched and reviewed the Planning Commission meeting from last week. After
educating myself on the project and talking with my neighbors along our street I wish to voice
my concerns about the proposal of a new development above us. I recognize the need for
growth in our community and the lack of available housing. This is a known issue throughout
the State of California and with the lasting impacts of COVID and catastrophic wildfire,
Arroyo Grande is a very favorable place to move.
Concerns
1.Water has been a long standing issue for the City and San Luis Obispo County as a whole.
While we have had a few favorable years of rain and our water stores have been filled, little to
nothing has been done to increase storage capacity to ensure there is enough water for the
already existing residents. Not long ago water restrictions were in place and our primary
source of water, Lopez lake, was critically low. With the addition of more housing units that
will increase consumption, new roads which will lead to more uncaptured runoff our water
supply will continue to be taxed.
2.Fire Hazard Severity zones. The County area that is part of the Frederick property is in the
State Responsible Area for fire protection, this area is already classified as a high fire hazard
severity zone and the new Local fire hazard severity zone maps now put our
neighborhood into that same classification. Our neighborhood only has one way in and one
way out, if the need for evacuation arose we would be challenged to get out on the existing
roads and additional homes would add to this issue. The Five Cities Fire Authority is limited
in their resources and additional resources would be needed from the County Fire Department
and CAL FIRE to mitigate a fire in this area. The additional responding CAL FIRE resources
would be coming from Nipomo, Camp San Luis, Shell Beach, Parkhill, and Cayucos to
support our Fire Department. Without the bolstering of our Five Cities Fire Authority our
aging community could potentially be put at greater risk.
3.Traffic. Traffic in this part of town is already heavily impacted. Trying to get to the main
parts of town during morning and afternoon commutes is terrible. Our roads in this part of
town are already at capacity with little to no room for growth to handle more traffic. Looking
at the Commission's recommendations based on the Consultants report discussing the options
for the Frederick property and maps of conceptual development there is little to no realistic
road expansion to hold the type of traffic development of the Frederick property would cause.
4.Community input methodology. I am highly troubled by the methodology of the
Consultant and the Planning Department on the gathering of Community input on this General
Plan. As were briefed by staff, surveys were conducted as to which there were less than 400
replies and to my amazement this constituted a successful survey. I can assure you that there
was at best a feeble attempt to reach out to our neighborhood to ask for our input. I never
received a mailer, I never received an email, I grow my own vegetables so I do not go to
farmers market, and my work commitments typically keep me from attending Planning
Meetings. I have been interested in development of the Frederick property since the
Creekstone development went in off of Cherry Ln. When that development was up for
approval at the Planning Commission we were sold on water saving and gateways to our city,
and a Japanese Memorial Garden (never completed). In that project there was a proposed road
stub out at the end of Waller Pl. As a plan for a future road going up to the Frederick property,
coincidently this road would go right through the neighborhood's backyard. Our neighborhood
made comments at Commision meetings back in 2016 when the Creekstone development was
proposed. We were able to have this proposed road stub removed from the plan which staved
off this idea until the recent maps of a developer came to light with this update to the General
Plan. The reason I mention this is that of the less than 400 surveys submitted to the City for
review magically the communities that would be impacted by this road and development did
not participate, nor do any of us recall ever seeing a survey. During last week's Planning
Commission meeting multiple residents of the local neighborhoods voiced that there was no
out reach to us. The City Staff, Planning Commissioners, and Consultants assured us all that
multiple attempts over time have been made. After email correspondence with Andrew Perez
from the Planning Department, I was informed that surveys were sent out in January and
November of 2024. Common sense would dictate that if that number of residents did not
receive, participate, or recognize these surveys that the methodology to seek our input is
critically flawed and broken. During the same meeting the residents in attendance were
admonished for non participation in City issues and non inclusive comments were made by
Commissioner Catherine Sackrison regarding the demographic of the attendees of the
meeting. I find this behavior by a representative of our city to be reprehensible and not
consistent with the values of Arroyo Grande. After speaking to my neighbors many of us
were offended by her comments and feel she should be admonished by the Council and or
removed from the Commission.
Reading the Consultants report as a resident of this neighborhood I can support options 1 and
2 for the Frederick property which preserve our agricultural land and open spaces. It is my
opinion that a park with trails or just leaving it as grazing land would be far more
representative and beneficial to Arroyo Grande.
I understand that these are just concepts but, in my experience once things go into a plan like
this it is hard to stop that ball from rolling. Developers will see the opportunity for profit and
projects will move forward. I hope that you will vote for options 1 and 2 in regards to the
Frederick property. If the community really does wish to develop this corner of the city please
address my concerns listed above before we put concepts like this into our general plan. I love
living here. It has been a great pleasure to grow up here. I hope the values of our small town
remain and we can work collaboratively on modern problems.
Respectfully,
Paul Provence
231 Trinity Ave. Arroyo Grande
805-801-7401
From:
To:Aileen Loe; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Cc:City Council
Subject:Changes to the General Plan being considered on April 8, 2025
Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 1:06:53 PM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
Dear Ms. Loe (and other City Council members),
I am writing to express my opposition to the current Planning
Commission recommendation that will be heard by the City Council on
April 8th, 2025. It is premature to provide for development and
population increase before calculating whether local resources can
support such increases. On its face, the recommendation presents
changes to three areas that could add large numbers of homes but does
not require that any Special Plan assume that the other areas will also
be built out to the maximum. Such an approach would reward those
who rush to file a proposal, including the developer who has already
presented plans to residents to build out Fredericks. And the data used
to develop this recommendation suggests that developers are driving
the process.
As the beneficiary of a recent new development (Creekstone at the
Village), I do not want to stop others from moving to Arroyo Grande.
However, I also do not want to see over-development ruining what
makes this an attractive place to live. I am skeptical that future
development in the Fair Oaks and Frederick’s areas will actually include
traffic improvements considering that roads which already need repair
and dangerous intersections such as that at Fair Oaks and the 101
intersection have not yet been addressed.
More importantly, we are living under the scourge of climate change and
it seems foolish at best to open new areas for development without
considering in advance the maximum additions that could be added
without endangering residents’ access to water. The potential for
development in all three areas should be addressed together as far as
traffic and water resources are concerned.
We first learned of the potential for General Plan changes directly
impacting our neighborhood from people who attended a developer’s
presentation at the St. Barnabas church. The developer’s meetings
showed members of the congregation how its 200-home plan is going to
be built in a way that convinced some attendees that there was nothing
to be done to oppose the development. There was also nothing to
indicate how the additional 3,000 plus car trips would be handled past
the Waller/Sweet Pea intersection and onto Cherry and Traffic. Although
nothing has been “formally submitted” there is still cause for concern
because:
Mr. Perez attended one of the meetings at the church which some
people took as an official imprimatur of the development.
At the recent Planning Commission meeting we learned of surveys
done regarding alternatives for the General Plan. But the survey
process seemed to aiming at a specific conclusion.
Neither my husband nor I nor multiple neighbors in the
Creekstone neighborhood recall seeing information about the
surveys; given how many were unaware of the survey, the
process feels like an effort to minimize public input, not
maximize.
The consultants used vague terms like many and most in
describing the results. One number, 67%, was used to
describe a favorable result provided by respondents from AG
High School. The audience learned after a question from a
commissioner that consultants used 67% to gloss over that
only 3 students had responded to the survey. You can
understand why this caused even more skepticism of the
entire survey effort and conclusions.
That water and traffic issues are not part of the decision to amend the
General Plan when at least one developer is working to make their plan
for at least 200 homes (9.5 round trips per household daily) inevitable,
suggests that the developers are driving the process and the ultimate
decision making. And that concerns me greatly.
If the City is not prepared to restart the process and determine what the
City can actually support from a traffic and resource perspective, then at
a minimum, the adoption of changes to the General Plan should require
that any work to develop the necessary Special Plans, work from the
assumption that all the building will be done to the maximum that could
be contemplated so that we can have a holistic view of AG’s water and
traffic issues going forward.
Regards,
Sabrina Stanley
Arroyo Grande CA
From:
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:01 PM
To: Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: April 8, 2025 Meeting re: Waller
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email
from this sender
Hello Andrew,
I am planning on attending the City Counsel meeting tomorrow, April 8, 2025, and have
attached a letter with my thoughts on why putting a road at the end of Waller Place is
such a bad idea.
Please confirm you received my letter.
Thanks,
Trish
April 8, 2025
Trish Avery Caldwell,
I’m not here to talk about NO growth. I’m here to talk about responsible growth.
The flow of traffic within the city limits is terrible and people are racing around our
neighborhood to get from point A to point B.
We need good infrastructure and roads to support additional large-scale growth. We
need roads and highways that can handle cars and people safely.
I walk many miles in the City of AG every week, and monthly I can say with confidence,
I almost get hit by a car moving too fast to avoid having to stop for on-coming cars. The
corner of Traffic Way and E. Cherry is horrific. I can count on more than two hands the
number of times I have almost been hit while in the middle of the crosswalk. YES, in
the middle of the crosswalk on E. Cherry Ave. This has become worse over the years.
Based on this alone, adding a collector road to Waller Place Street doesn’t make sense.
Why would you direct traffic into a neighborhood that already has traffic problems?
Waller Place is a street that has kids playing in a park, grass where animals are playing,
and neighbors that care about each other. Why would you add traffic to this high liability
(accidents, injuries) area that would cause traffic issues at both the bottom and the top
of the road?
The thought of adding a 2-lane collector road with enough room for a car on both sides
to pull off in an emergency, a bike-lane, and room for people to walk, between two
neighborhoods seems like a stretch.
Not to mention the impact on the new houses in the E. Cherry Ave development on
Haven Court. Having to contend with car lights shining through their homes every
evening, or worse, a car loses control when it comes down the little collector road and
goes through a fence/house. Which brings me to what kind of lighting is going to be
needed to keep cars and people safe and how will that affect homes that are so close to
the road? And I just can’t get over the church parking lot entrance and the collector
road coming out at the same spot. There must be something better.
As a reminder, this topic was discussed on September 6, 2016, at the City of Arroyo
Grande, Planning Commission meeting, when the E. Cherry Development was being
proposed. The issue then was to have church property used for a collector road.
Fortunately, this suggestion was not accepted. However, my understanding is that the
developer has always planned to get this approved, regardless of it not being part of the
2001 Circulation Element or the revised 2021 Circulation Element.
We the people are asking the City of AG to make the right decisions when considering
placing a collector road bridging Waller Place to Trinity Avenue. The right action is to
require a highway interchange to get people to the Freddricks homes. Or at the very
least, make improvements to Traffic Way Extension and Trinity Ave so it can handle
additional traffic that would be created by this development. Thank you for your time
From:Mike Harris
To:public comment
Cc:Andrew Perez; Brian Pedrotti; Matt Downing
Subject:Re: Public Comment on City Council April 8, 2025 Agenda Item 11.b. Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the
General Plan Update
Date:Tuesday, April 8, 2025 6:40:24 AM
Attachments:2025-04-08 Proposed Hybrid Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update.odt
2025-04-08 Comments on General Plan Update Options and Public Input.pdf
Land Use Scenario Statistics at Full Buildout.ods
The attached revised documents replace the versions previously sent.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 1:24 PM Mike Harris < wrote:
FYI - Felt it important to get out as much as possible as early as possible so as many as
possible had more time to review.
I plan on submitting revised documents tomorrow morning and am still planning on
attending via Zoom.
Mike P. Harris
On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 7:48 PM Mike Harris < wrote:
Attached are the following as my public comment on City Council April 8, 2025 Agenda
Item 11.b. Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update:
Spreadsheet of Land Use Scenario Statistics at Full Buildout
Note Corrections to Mintier Harnish numbers
Proposed (DRAFT) Comprehensive Hybrid Land Use Scenario for General Plan
Update
Comments/Notes on General Plan Update Options and Public Input
I'm happy to talk in depth with any city council members and/or city staff.
Note: Prior commitments prevent me from being at this meeting in person; however, I'll
make an effort to attend via Zoom and have already registered.
Mike P. Harris
Proposed Hybrid Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update
The initial focus shall be to emphasize densification within the existing city boundaries, focusing on infill
development of vacant and underutilized land for increased population and housing capacity AND employment
capacity and tax revenue. In other words, to increase densities across the spectrum of residential land use
designations (e.g., from 25 du/ac to 28-30 du/ac for Mixed Use) and more intense commercial development by
increasing the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage standards. The following specifics shall be done:
• Very Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-VLD) designation shall be eliminated and collapsed
into the Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-LD) designation.
• Multi-Family Residential (MFR), Townhouse/Condo, and Mobile Home Park (MHP) designations shall be
eliminated and collapsed into the Medium High Density Multi-Family Residential (MHD) designation.
◦ Note: 1st and 2nd designations were proposed for elimination under Scenario 2 & 3, but not 4.
• A new Parks and Recreation (PR) General Plan land use designation shall be used for all current and future
parks and recreational facilities within the city.
• A new, higher-intensity mixed use designation named “Corridor Mixed Use” shall be used.
• Designate key areas for mixed-use development, encouraging walkable centers with retail, office, and
residential uses.
• Increase the amount of land designated as Regional Commercial to allow for the development of larger
commercial establishments.
The maximum increase in densities shall take into the account the overall projected future growth in
population needs as well as additional housing included in the specific plans for the North Fair Oaks and
Frederick’s focus areas. In other words, the maximum figures listed in Table 1 for Scenario 2 of the Mintier
Harnish February 5, 2025 Memorandum (Attachment 1) shall be adjusted down accordingly.
Incorporate additional commercializable recreational facilities to support future development as
recommended by the CAG. (PC member elaborated the concept well at the March 18 PC meeting.)
The primary area of the initial focus shall be the redevelopment potential for the E. Grand Avenue corridor
as a whole based upon the new Corridor Mixed Use designation that allows higher residential densities (30 du/ac,
2.0 FAR) with the potential of providing small commercial/industrial incubator spaces.
In regards to other 2 focus areas (North Fair Oaks agricultural parcels and Frederick’s property),
agricultural land will be kept as an existing land use option since it is important to preserve prime farmland for
future generations, food production, and environmental sustainability and it highlights Arroyo Grande’s
agricultural heritage and the value of maintaining its rural character, scenic beauty, and historical ties to farming.
(Recommend specifically preserving some acreage for both potential use by the high school for class/students
AND more community gardens like those near the Elm Street Dog Park). Since it has been noted that the property
owner of the North Fair Oaks focus area has indicated that they are not looking to continue the history of farming
on the property, specific plans shall be established to guide future development within the currently agriculturally
zoned areas to permit the conversion to residential uses and complementary amenities, such as parks and open
space. Complementary (including commericial) amenities in the North Fair Oaks area shall include the
consideration of the schools, especially the high school students (e.g. so they have closer options for lunch).
Specifically in regards to the Frederick’s focus area, specific plans shall also include potential economic
growth and employment in addition to residential development in mixed-use zones and light industrial use. The
potential of a future inland 101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the San Luis Obispo
airport shall be considered.
While no city expansion or annexation is currently proposed, plans for future annexation shall consider the
following areas:
◦ Agricultural areas south of the city, near the Arroyo Grande High School
◦ Northeast of the city
◦ Southeast of the Frederick property, especially in regards to previous paragraph.
Lastly, any additional modifications to remaining current land use designations shall be made to comply
with changes in State law, such as to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, remove housing
constraints, and/or to be consistent with the current Housing Element. (Leftover from scenario 1, probably
unnecessary.
Comments/Supporting Highlighted Notes on/from General Plan Update Options and Public Input
•For all the evaluation criteria, except jobs, there was essentially not a great deal of variation
(see spreadsheet which specifically includes population, jobs, and single & multi family units).
◦Jobs were approximately doubled under scenario 4 versus scenarios 1-3.
▪Aspects of scenario 4 should be incorporated as much as possible in a hybrid proposal
based upon the following:
•Sales tax was determined to be needed to be increased and was increased by 1%
per Measure E-24 passed during the November 5, 2024 election.
◦Expected to generate approximate $6 million annually
•5-year financial forecast presented at January 28, 2025 meeting:
◦Projected revenue growing 3.2% annually while expenditures growing 3.7%
annually
◦9% increase in unfunded accrued liability (UAL) for pensions per CalPERS
◦Note spreadsheet apparently shows 3 roundoff differences from Mintier Harnish numbers (3
boxes with a yellow background on spreadsheet) in regards to their differential numbers
from scenario 1.
•Long term planning includes planning use of existing agricultural lands, hence Scenarios 1 and
2 really not options for North Fair Oaks and Frederick focus areas.
◦Scenario 1 is actually a baseline analysis with no changes and certainly NOT an option
▪Mintier Harnish apparently did a poor job noting it was a baseline and not a real option
based upon the number of public respondents choosing it as an option
Housing Accessibility and Affordability
RHNA projects out to only 2028 while horizon for the General Plan extends over the next 20-30 years.
Scenario 1 is insufficient.
Scenario 3 covers housing capacity out to 2028 projections; however, far lower maximum than 2 or 4
which would ensure that Arroyo Grande will be well-prepared to meet its future RHNA cycles.
Land Use Efficiency
Scenarios 3 and 4 propose a similar amount of land consumption; however, Scenario 4 more efficient.
Scenario 4 increases housing capacity by 29.1 units/acre of land versus 12.7 for scenario 3.
Scenario 4 increases capacity for employment by 89.3 jobs/acre of land versus 2.7 for scenario 3.
Nonresidential Development and Employment Capacity
Scenario 4 is by far superior as already noted at the beginning.
Respondents that liked scenario 4 focused on employment opportunities and generating more tax
revenue for the City as I did at the beginning.
Frederick Area
This area definitely provides opportunities for new types of commercial, manufacturing, and light
industrial uses in Arroyo Grande including potential large-scale manufacturing, business centers, and
retail due to its freeway access and hence would not infringe on already congested roadways.
The area could also include a self-contained neighborhood with housing and small retail and personal
services businesses (e.g., restaurants, barber shops, pet grooming).
There is an interest in using the area to improve truck routing and reducing traffic impacts on the
Village. Some respondents expressed concerns about the strain on infrastructure and traffic
congestion, especially in connection with Highway 101.
•Note proposed language in draft comprehensive hybrid scenario for potential of a future inland
101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the SLO airport.
•While ALL input gathered should be considered, it needs to be noted that the public input that
was gathered is:
◦statistically not valid based upon the low number of responses
▪2023 population of 18,243
▪Only 354 survey responses for the initial phase to develop scenarios
▪Only 28 worksheets were collected during the workshop to choose scenario
preferences
▪Only 92 survey responses were received, 9 which indicated they attended the
community workshop on February 5th, to choose scenario preferences
▪Only 3 responses in regards to the high school response for scenario preferences
◦skewed based upon the demographics of those that did respond
▪Half were over the age of 55 for the initial phase to develop scenarios
▪In regards to scenario preferences:
•34% aged 65+
•24% aged 55-64
•25% aged 35-54
•9% aged 18-34
•1% aged under 18
•8% did not provide a response regarding their age
▪Older people are statistically more resistant to change than younger people and hence
more likely to express opposition to any significant growth or population increases
•Personnally, I do represent an exception to this statistic.
•Personally, I could have gone door to door and gotten far more public feedback than has been
obtained to date.
Methodology
•“The Project Team used Urban Footprint, a GIS-based application used to analyze the
implications of changes to land uses, to model Arroyo Grande’s four land use Scenarios.
Urban Footprint uses a curated, enriched dataset of existing land uses in the United States to
calculate insights and implications of different theoretical models of planning areas. The
program looks at several topics, including general city statistics, land consumption, energy
use, water use, pedestrian accessibility, transit accessibility, transportation, emissions, and
household costs.”
Link: https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/explorer/
Note: 30 day free demo
•AG entered into a contract for $1,254,545 with Mintier Harnish as approved by Council on
March 28, 2023.
◦115 page RFP/contract (10 page body – pages 11-115 Exhibits) expires March 28, 2026
▪Page 19 – initially budgeted $500K per the RFP which had a Decemer 22, 2022
deadline (page 20 – page 10 of Exhibit A)
▪Exhibit B (pages 38-39) has detailed breakdown of costs ($896,771 + $430,034 optional
= $1,326,805)
◦Contract via 10.b. does create a “non-exclusive and perpetual license for City” to all current
data/iterations of work by Mintier Harnish and/or subcontractors
•Recommend going forward that AG (perhaps along with the others of the “Five Cities”) buy its
own license to use the software in order to continually be able to update the General Plan
rather than paying consultants for periodic updates
◦Personally, submitted request via link to find out cost of software and/or license for its use
▪Response still pending
◦Pretty sure I can become proficient with the software in short time to analyze hybrid
scenarios and happy to donate my time to train city personnel going forward
Outcomes at Full Buildout
Scenario Population
+ from
Scenario
1 Jobs
+ from
Scenario 1 Single-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
1 – Existing General Plan 23,650 15,407 9,052
2 – Infill Focus 34,325 10,675 18,507 3,100 11,167 2,115
3 – Residential and Complimentary Focus 26,801 3,151 15,780 373 9,798 746
4 – Commercial Focused Approach 31,607 7,957 28,199 12,792 10,770 1,718
Page 1
Outcomes at Full Buildout
Multi-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
3,103
6,787 3,684
4,124 1,021
5,562 2,459
Page 2
From:Rachel Mann
To:public comment
Subject:[Spam] 2025-04-08 AG City Council Agenda Item 11b Land Use support for density, mixed-use, transit, and bike
infrastructure
Date:Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:06:43 AM
Dear Council,
I'm writing to support land use changes to ensure folks at all income levels can be live well as
neighbors in the city of Arroyo Grande.
I'd like to specifically support two areas described in tonight's agenda packet.
1) East Grand Corridor Focus Area
I live along Grand Avenue in Grover Beach, where we are seeing more mixed-use
developments pencil out and get built following changes we approved in 2022. This included
increasing heights to 55', reducing setbacks, and reducing parking minimums.
Joining us in allow more density along Grand Avenue will support our shared goals of
vibrancy, walkability, and increased transit ridership. Perhaps even a future trolley circulating
from AG to the beach!
2) Frederick Focus Area
I am a member of St Barnabas Episcopal Church, which sits on 8.5 acres adjacent to the
Frederick Focus Area. Currently the Frederick parcel is zoned Hillside Residential, which
limits development to very expensive types of single-detached homes on large lots --
essentially car-dependent sprawl for rich people. My faith compels me to advocate for
legalizing home-types and car-free amenities for folks who are not that rich.
I would encourage you to consider land uses for the Frederick property, (and should the
county allow it, any annexed property south of it), as an opportunity for another pedestrian and
bike-friendly 'Village' area. This would mean smaller lots, more attached home types like
courtyard apartments or apartments over shops, perhaps even a small grocery store/pharmacy.
Including commercial amenities will reduce car trips to other parts of the city and make it
safer for children to bike to school.
Finally, per California Senate Bill 4, which passed in 2023, it's my understanding that St.
Barnabas' land is now streamlined for deed-restricted Affordable housing, over-riding the
city's current zoning. I hope you will consider this as context for your decision-making.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rachel Mann
District 2, Grover Beach
From:SLOCo YIMBY
To:SLOCo YIMBY; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Cc:public comment; City Council; Andrew Perez
Subject:General Plan - 4/8/25 Agenda Item 11b
Date:Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:44:03 AM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
To City Councilmembers and staff,
We at SLO County YIMBY are writing to urge you to adopt Planning Commission's
recommended General Plan alternative, which includes real solutions for the selected focus
areas. We also urge you to more broadly allow for incremental, small-scale growth citywide,
so that no single neighborhood is forced to bear the brunt of change. More growth is long
overdue. Arroyo Grande’s high housing costs continue to push out the very people who make
this community thrive—teachers, nurses, service workers, young families, and others who can
no longer afford to stay.
Our group of community advocates gathered last month to share our struggles and sorrows
over housing. Our members include Arroyo Grande residents whose families are hundreds or
thousands of miles away because they can't find an affordable place to rent. We are young
people who grew up here but have no hope of ever affording a home in the city we love. We
commute long hours to work or shuttling our children to school or our parents to the doctor's
office because walking or take the bus anywhere in Arroyo Grande is nearly impossible.
Our stories aren’t rare—they’re the reality of a city that has chosen, again and again, to limit
new housing and price people out.
This is a critical moment. If Arroyo Grande obstructs new housing, it will not only deepen the
affordability crisis but also put the city in violation of California state law. The state has made
it clear that cities must plan for growth, allow housing at all income levels, and comply with
new legislation. Cities that fail to do so face serious consequences, including lawsuits, loss of
funding, and state intervention in local zoning.
Please use your power to ensure AG’s future includes homes for everyone—not just those who
can afford million-dollar price tags.
SLO County YIMBY