The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 2026-03-24_10a_Supplemental 2 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 23, 2026 Attached is correspondence received 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:Edwin Rambuski To:City Council; Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson Subject:Appeal Case 26-002-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001, Appellants" Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all the Named Appellants Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 1:47:07 PM Attachments:City Council Letter - Additional Briefing (2).pdf March 23, 2026 VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org crayrussom@arroyogrande.org Caren Ray Russom, Mayor City of Arroyo Grande City Council jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem, District 3 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council ksecrest@arroyogrande.org Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council aloe@arroyogrande.org Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council jguthrie@arroyogrande.org Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member City of Arroyo Grande City Council RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ 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 ( 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. 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. R J E LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI 1401 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284 FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489 edwin@rambuskilaw.com www.rambuskilaw.com March 23, 2026 City of Arroyo Grande Mayor Russom Members of the City Council 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org crayrussom@arroyogrande.org jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org ksecrest@arroyogrande.org aloe@arroyogrande.org jguthrie@arroyogrande.org Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ Additional 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. If reasonable continuance is not granted, Appellants hereby submit additional briefing on the issues surrounding the CUP approval. These issues supplement the original appeal and directly address the Staff Report’s newly advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and Density Bonus Law. Even accepting that theory arguendo, the City Council’s de novo review authority (AGMC § 1.12.010) requires it to address the following violations of objective standards and specific adverse impacts on public health and safety. a. Inadequate Parking Supply and Unenforceable Shared Parking Arrangements Create Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Health and Safety The developer is relying on parking he has no right to in seeking his approvals. At a minimum, an applicant should have to show the right to property they claim ownership or rights in. The project provides only 31 dedicated on-site garage parking spaces for 92 residential units and relies heavily on reciprocal shared parking with the existing medical-office and fitness-center uses on the Sheppel- Curl Fitness site. This constitutes a specific adverse impact on public health and safety under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council is required to address regardless of any parking concession or “deemed complete” finding. The record contains the 2004 OEG parking monitoring reports for the same site (Attachment 6 to prior CUP proceedings), which documented chronic shortages, overflow parking onto neighboring properties, conflicts between medical patients, fitness-club patrons/employees, and tenants, and the need for ongoing mitigation measures (signage, employee directives, driveway modifications, off- site parking, and physical separations). Many of those measures were never permanently implemented or are no longer effective. The Best Western Casa Grande park ing easement settlement documents likewise provide only limited, short-term relief that does not bind future owners or guarantee availability during peak residential hours. The Staff Report acknowledges the parking concession but asserts “deemed compliance.” However, the record contains no binding, recorded, long-term reciprocal easement agreements enforceable against successors and assigns that ensure adequate spaces during overlapping peak periods. Shared parking in this mixed-use context, on a site with a documented history of deficiencies, cannot be presumed adequate. This deficiency will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased congestion on James Way, traffic hazards, and nuisance impacts on neighboring businesses and residents. These are specific adverse impacts the Council must find do not exist before any approval. b. The Project Does Not Meet the Density Bonus Requirements Because It Cannot Show The Required Dispersal of Affordable Housing Units The project fails to comply with the City’s own objective standards in AGMC § 16.82.040(E), which requires that all affordable housing units “shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project [and] proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the market-rate units.” The Conditions of Approval address only recording a 55-year density bonus agreement (COA No. 96) and are silent on dispersal. The written application likewise fails to include the required “site plan showing … number and location of affordable housing units” mandated by AGMC § 16.82.120(A)(1). The project consists of 20 studios (21.7%), 58 one-bedroom units (63%), and 14 two-bedroom units (15.2%). With approximately 14 very-low-income units required for the density bonus, proportionality demands roughly 3 studios, 9 one-bedroom, and 2 two-bedroom affordable units dispersed throughout both buildings. Instead, the applicant appears to intend to assign all very-low- income units to the 20 studios. This segregated “poor door” approach violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E) and exposes the City to fair-housing and consistency challenges. Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the Council’s de novo review authority allows it to impose mandatory dispersal conditions without violating state law. Failure to do so leaves the project non-compliant with local objective standards. c. Inadequate Traffic And Circulation Analysis Was Conducted. The project fails to qualify for the AB 130 statutory exemption’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) presumption because it does not satisfy the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (May 2021, p. 8). Those Guidelines expressly limit the presumption to projects located within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit routes with 15-minute or less headways. Current SLO RTA Routes 27 and 28 (the only James Way corridor routes) operate on hourly headways only. The Traffic Study (Attachment 6) and AB 130 Findings (Attachment 5) contain no analysis of actual headways, no project-specific VMT calculation showing at least 15% below baseline, and no mitigation measures. Staff’s reliance on generic “proximity” alone is unsupported by substantial evidence and creates a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, and regional air quality that the Council is required to address. d. The Record Does Not Indicate That Waivers Under HAA and the Density Bonus Laws are Proper. Government Code § 65915(e)(1) prohibits a city from applying any development standard that would physically preclude the density bonus project “at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted.” The applicant bears the burden to prove with substantial evidence that each waiver or concession is necessary to avoid physical preclusion. The record contains no such evidence for the parking reduction, height waivers, creek setbacks, or other modifications requested; mere assertions are insufficient. e. The HAA And AB 130 Does Not Eliminate The Need To Complete Baseline Studies To Ensure No Impact On Sensitive Riparian Habitat And/Or Threatened Species. The HAA does not relieve a local agency from complying with CEQA. It is not the policy of the HAA to compel a local agency to approve housing without conducting environmental review appropriate to the situation. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(e) and Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of City of Pacifica, No. A170704, 2025 WL 3764279 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2025).) The Council cannot end its site-suitability analysis at general plan and zoning designations. The “fair argument” standard for requiring CEQA review remains a low threshold, with all doubts resolved in favor of environmental review. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) The City must analyze potential impacts to Meadow Creek’s riparian habitat and any threatened species before approval. f. Staff Erroneously Analyzed The Bonus Density Under The “Mixed-Use” Rules The staff report provides that because the project is located adjacent to existing non-residential uses, the project will function like a mixed-use development in a practical sense, and the development standards for mixed-use projects were used. The project is not a “mixed-use” project within the meaning of the HAA as provided for in Government Code §65589.5 (h)(2). The project can only qualify as a “mixed-use” development if at least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use, and no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel. The project fails both of these elements. The project includes the Casa Grande Inn Hotel and the residential portion falls far short of two-thirds of the combined existing commercial and new residential usage. g. The Project will have an Adverse Impact On Public Health or Safety The Staff report argues that the City must approve the project with either the proposed thirty-one (31) parking spaces or absolutely no private parking whatsoever. This conclusion is based on the argument that the City allowed the project to be “deemed complete” without addressing the parking issues and the applicant can simply request a waiver of any objective parking requirements and construct the project with zero parking. However, these legal arguments are still subject to the public health and safety standard and policy set forth in the HAA. Approving a 92-unit multi-family project with only thirty-one (31) onsite parking spaces will in fact have an adverse impact on public health and safety. The project will almost certainly be occupied by between 125-150 residents. If any of the residents or their visitors park in the Casa Grande Inn hotel parking spaces, their vehicles will be towed. Much of the parking in the adjacent commercial space is reserved to specific tenants. Residence and visitors will be towed from those spaces as well. There is absolutely no public parking for the residents for more than one-half mile from the project. There is exactly one way into the project, James Way, and one exit. No additional emergency access will be provided by the Casa Grande Inn Hotel. California Code of Regulations Title 17 §7977 defines Public Health and Safety as “maintenance of an environment that contributes to human wellbeing, in which there is an absence of human disease, ill health or injury.” In the event of an emergency, evacuation, public emergency, or medical emergency, at least three-quarters of the residents of the pr oject will need to travel more than one-half mile to reach their vehicles. h. Conclusion Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the project fails multiple objective standards and creates specific adverse impacts on parking, traffic, public safety, and the environment that HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) expressly requires the Council to address. Based on the original appeal and this additional briefing, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s approval, deny CUP 25-001, and direct appropriate CEQA review (at minimum, a focused review if streamlining applies). 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 ( From:Malone, Caitlin K. To:public comment Cc:Guillen, Christopher R.; Carlson, Mack; Russ Sheppel; Isaac Rosen Subject:Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002 Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 11:46:35 AM Attachments:2026.03.23 Letter to City Council re Response to Appeal(50903974.1) - Copy.pdf IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender CMalone @ BHFS.com 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 L O S B E R RO S R D N O AK P A R K BLVD S OAKPA R K BLV D N O A K P A R K B L V D BRIGHTON AVE S E L M S T S O A K P A R K B L V D VA L L E Y R D S O A K P A R K B L V D S H A L C Y O N R D CHRISTMAS TREE PL BRIGHTON AVE TEMPLE ST RAMONA AVE WGRAND A V E MARIO S T STA G E C O A C H R D CALLE DE LOS SUEI CA R P E N T E R C A N Y O N R D VIA DEL NORTE TROUVILLE AVE SEABRIGHT AVE MANHATTAN AVE 23R D S T BARBADOS ST CA L L E Q U A T R O OAKWAY LA D U E S T SAN D I E G OLOO P CIENAGA ST 24 T H S T JUD G E A V E ROSE S T HUAS N A R D BRAN CHMILL R D FARROLL RD UNNAMEDST LE O - M A R I O S T VAL L E Y R D BEACH ST 25 T H S T ALSACEPL ME S E T A P L PRI N T Z R D OCEAN ST OLD O AK P ARKRD UN N A M E D S T PASO ROBLES ST INDIANHILLSWAY THE PIKE 22 N D S T KAREN C T 21S T S T DR I F T W O O D S T NO R M A L N UNNAMED ST RIN C O N C T QU A N A V E WILMAR AVE REBECC AST NORMALN TER R Y C T AS T E R S T LA T I J E R A C T VIA DEL CENTRO LAZY LN MARIANWAY GE N O V E N I R D CO R BETTCANYO NRD PHILLIPS R D TRINIDADDR T E RRY DR MAR T I N I QU EDR HE R M O S A C T TULIPST NEWPORTAVE DU N A V I S T A D R FER N S T RE D O N D O C T ELCAMINOREAL LA E N T R A D A L N CARMEL CT UN N A M E D S T NABAL CT UN N A M E DST UNN A M E D S T DARIEN CT DUGANDR 21 S T C T UNNAMED ST LA TEENA PL PE A COCKPL VIA DEL RIO SC OTT L EE D R NEWPORT AVE 19 T H S T SYLVANRIDGERD WIND R I D G E P L CA L L E U N O SAN S EBASTIANCT SARATOGA AVE TERRYDR SA I N T J O H N C I R ALMA CT MONA L E I C T MOSS B EACHCT JENNIFER CT S E L M S T MENTONE A V E UNNAMEDST TIE R R A N U E V A L N JANETDR COASTVIEWDR LA SELVA AVE RO SE C T ATLANTICCITY A VE LA JOLLA CT MESAVIEW DR SOLANA CT 20 T H S T MO N A C O C T KA R INA WAY CAPISTRANOCT HELEN A S T NOYE S R D KAR E N W A Y RE D R O C K R D EV Y L N HASS LN 22N D S T UNNAMED S T UN N AM E D ST ROCKAWAY AVE PLANCHAWAY PAM E L A D R WARNER ST VISTA ST UNNAMED ST ROSSLN UN N A M E D S T RAI LROAD S T HO N D O N A D A R D LASCASITAS FARROLL AVE HE N D E R S O N L N EGRAND A V E ME L O D Y L N BIGCANYON C T TODOS S A NTO S C T RIVERAVE HOLDEN AVE PEDRO ST LA COSTA CT IRI S ST ARA BIAN WAY FR O N T S T SHANNON LN FRA N C E S W A Y LA B REA CT NIPOMO ST UNNAMEDST TOBAGO ST DAISEY S T SHANNA PL BEAR C AN Y ONLN ST N I C K S P L BILLSWAY CR A I G W A Y N 1 6 T H S T NAB A L CT H AW K V IE W C T L O RIENDACT ROCHELLEWAY S 1 6 T H S T J O YCE WAY 21 S T S T CORNERS T O NE L N JAMES W A Y VIACASA VISTA ERICACT C A T H EDRALLN 20THCT UNNAMED ST THYRRING ST VIAPRIVADO VIAARTURO ROO K ER R A N C H W AY BADGER CANYO N L N DOVE C T MA R S E I L L E C T PINE T R E E L N UNN AMEDST GOL D E N H A W K L N LAGUN A CT ROYALOAKPL QUEB R A D A L N RIC H A R D S T OCEAN AVE SAVANNAHCIR GWEN PL CA L L E T R E S SADDLERD WILSH I R E S T SKYL I N E D R CA L L E D O S LAMPLIGHTE R LN LARA LN PAINTEDSKYWAY PEACELN LEIF LN FALC O N C RE ST DR D O RISLN ACEROPL NICE AVE TU L P E N D R LABRA D O R L N DO W E R A V E OAKHILLRD UNNAM E D S T BUCKRIDGELN DO W E R A V E WAYNEWAY HIA W A T H A L N UNNAMED ST UNNAMED ST ANTIGUADR EFFIE WAY COUNTRYOAKWAY LA V E RNEST WARNER ST SAND C A N Y O N C T TANNERLN UN N A M E D CT CO FFEE LN BASIN ST DENN I S L N COUNTRY HIL LS LN FOXENBLUFFLN LONGHORNLN UNNAMED ST TORREYPINE P L CENTURY LN LILAC ST CALLEVISTADELASTA NA P L E S S T CHR I S T I N E W A Y HOL L Y W A Y MAR G O W A Y ELSUENO W AY ELA I N E W A Y PASEOLADERALN LA VID A L N UN N A M E D S T INDIANHEIGHTS DR SEVA D A L N HIDDENPINELN UN N A M E D S T LONGBRANCH AVE ALTAVISTAWAY CA S I T A S L N ECHO C ANYON CT GRELL L N PHILLIPS RD CRE S TDR JANET AVE ANITA AVE SUM M I T D R BADEN AVE ROSEVINELN TA M E R A DR PEACEFULPOINT L N SILVERWAY VI A E L C I E L O VINTONLN UNNA M E D S T ARROY O VISTA LN LLAMA LN C OR SICA PL U NN AM ED ST UNNAMED ST PINE VIE W DR NEWSOMSPRINGS R D CAN D I C E C T GRACIA WAY SU N R A Y P L SILVER SPUR PL HANSENHILLRD PLEA S A N T L N UNNAMED ST HIGHVIEWDR MOORELN K O D I A K L N VIAMARSOL BRADY LN UN N A M E D S T E E LCAMPORD QUAILHILLLN HERITAGE LN UNNAMEDST WIND E R M E R E L N S H A L C Y O N R D ER H A R T R D PA L O M A P L CASA PL CO R BE R O SA DR UNNAMEDST JAMESWY VA L L E Y R D CR A N B E R R Y S T SP R U C E S T MAPLE ST W CHER R Y A V GRAC E L N L O S O L I V O S L N S H A L C Y O N R D NEWPORT AV HUASNA RD COR B E T T C A N Y O N R D TRAFFIC W Y FARROLL AV THE PIKE ALLEN S T OA K S T OAK P A R K B L V D W BRANCH S T STRAFFIC W Y LONGD E N D R BENNETT A V COR B E T T C A N Y O N R D TAYLOR P L WILDOAK P L CA R M E L L A D R FAIROAKSAV B E L L S T OAK P A R K B L V D HILL C R E S T D R BRIS C O R D RANCHO PK W Y BRISCO R D N H A L C Y O N R D E BRANCH ST CL U B HOUSE C R E GRA N D A V LE POIN T S T FAEH AV WILDWOOD DR SY C A M O R E C T DO S C ERROS LO N GDENCT GA R F I E L D P L SUN R I S E T R CRE EKVIEW WY JA S M I N E P L LAD E R A P L WILDW O O D D R CA R R I N G T O N P L MAR I P O S A C R LEANNA DR S A L P I N E S T OUTLA N D C T CH E L S E A C T PRINT Z R D S M A S O N S T EQ U E S T R I A N W Y HAWKIN S C T WILSON CT JASMINE PL GROVE C T S E L M S T LEI S U R E D R NELSON S T PLATINOLN MAYD OCK ST CA R D I N A L C T LA P A Z C R CERRO VISTA CR VERNONST W BRANCH ST S C O U R T L A N D S T JA S M I N E P L N E V A D A S T W O O D L A N D D R RICE CT M C K I N L E Y S T MEADO W W Y VIA LA BARRANC A JA S M I N E P L CROWN H I L L TIGER T A ILDR PARAISO GULARTERD S H O R T S T N VIA B E L M O N T E BA KEM A N LN RU T H A N N W Y MILLERCR W CHER R Y A V B R I D G E S T BE T A C T DIA M O N D C R BRITTANY AV OP A L C R G A R D E N S T VI L L A G E C T WOODLAND CT ROSEMA RYLN PLATINOLN L E P OIN T T R STA G E C O A C H R D ROBL E S R D FLO R A R D EL C A M I N O R E A L ASHST P ACIFIC CO A S T RAILWAY PL CAL L IECT FO RTUNACT PALOS SEC O S CUE R D A C O R T E GARFIELD P L TOYON PL C H A P A R R A L L N N E L M S T LINDA DR BO Y S E N B E R R Y S T RUSS CT MESQUITELN PLOMO C T GRIEB DR VARDLOOMIS LN W H I T E L E Y S T S VIA A VANTECT ROBIN C R N M A S O N ST CALLE C A R M A N TRAFFIC WY CUEST A PL SALIDA DELSOL ROGERS CT PRI N T Z R D HILLSID E C T CA L L E C U E R V O HIDDEN OAKRD MAGNOLIA DR HAVE N C T CRO WN TR OA K L E A F C R WA L L A C E P L MU I R F I E L D D R DELMAR M E ADOWLARKDR LE POIN T S T TA YLO RPL SWEET P E A C T QUAIL CT QU AILRIDGE CT C LINTONCT G A R D E N S T PA U L P L LACRESTADR LE D O P L GA Y N F A I R T R POPLAR ST HARRISO N S T WHIT E C T WA L N U T S T OAKHILLRD HART L N N C O U R T L A N D S T COLLAD O C O R T E DODSON WY AL D E R S T SYCAMORE DR E GRAN D A V D OS CE RROS VIA POC A FA I R VIEW D R M Y RTLE ST C R O S S S T AS P E N S T PRADERACT TRINITY A V ROB L E S R D TALLYHORD CLA R E N C E A V S H O R T S T CAST I L L O JENNYPL VI A V A Q U E R O W B R A N C H S T ALL E Y GLENBROOK WY VE R D E P L LOSCIERVOS OR O D R IDE ST FARROLL AV BRIGHTON AV CRO W NHILL MUS T A N G C R S VIA F I R E N Z E C T NVIAFIRENZECT POOLE S T HODGES RD BRIGHTON AV VIST A D R ROSEMARYCT CA S T I L L O D E L M A R OLOHAN A L L E Y E C H E R R Y A V WE S L E Y S T CORNWA L L A V N H A L C Y O N R D SCE N I C C R STRAWBERRY AV VIA LA S A G U I L AS FIEL D VIE W P L PA C I F I C C O A S T R A I L W A Y P L BA M B I C T O A K P ARK BLV D PE C A N P L PLATARD LACA NADA N R E N A S T N A L P I N E S T RO DE O D R MULBERR YLN N O G U E R A P L WILTON PL CREEKSIDE DR WLEP OINT S T MAY ST CO R O N A D E L T E R R A LA V I S T A C T VISTA CR FOREST GLEN DR PLATINOLN F A R M H OU S E PL PILG R I M W Y CEDAR ST LIND A D R SRE N A S T REFUGIO PL EMERALD BAY DR RASPBERRY AV PASE O ST BLACKBERRY AV DEL S U R PALM CT PARK WY NO E L S T ST E V E N S O N D R LE E D H A M P L VI A B A N D O LE R O A NDRE DR PRISCILLALN SIERRADR WA L N U T S T EMAN CT VI A B E R R O S COBREPL COL I N A S T LEMO N L N MERCEDESLN LOGANBERRYAV GARDENST LA N C A S T E R D R HUCKLEBERRYAV LI E R L Y L N IKE DA W Y BLUEBERRY AV C LEVENGER DR ROS E W O O D L N PAULDINGCR CAMPANA P L CERRO VISTA LN B E D L O E L N C A L I F O R N I A S T O R C H A R D A V LAUNA L N NEWMAN DR CAMINOMERCADO NOYES R D O AK W OODCT M IL L E R W Y SAGE ST CAMERON CT RESE R V O I R R D CEDAR ST JU N I P E R S T ARC A D I A AVE N I D A D E D I A M A N T E CO A C H R D S VIABELMONTE ARABIA N C R CA R O L P L A R R O Y O A V CORRALPL PIN E S T S T I L L W E L L D R M Y R TLE D R GOL D E N W EST P L CL A R E N C E A V WOODPL SANDALWOOD AV ASILO LOS BERROSRD DIA N A P L BROA DM OOR D R TA N N E R L N BRANCH MILL RD RALPHBECKLN VIC T O R I A N C T GR E E N W O O D D R ORCHID L N KINGSBURY C T CO V I N G T O N D R EAT O N D R DEVO NSHIRED R OLIVE ST C A N Y O N W Y PE C A N S T BE E C H S T W ALLERPL DE L S O L S T TODD LN TIE R R A S T RID G E V I E W W Y DIX S O N S T VICTORIAWY FARNS WORTHDR STARLIGH T LN DEERTRA ILCR JENNINGS D R MO RN I N GRISE L N WILLOWLN GLENOAK D R HACIENDA D R INNESLEY D R ORCHARDAV PACIFICPOI N TEWY MATTHEW W Y CINDY WY ST A N L E Y A V VIRGINIA DR T A L L Y H O RD LARCHMONTDR SOMBRILLOWY MESA D R NEWPORT AV HUEBNERLN Z O G A T A W Y MONTEGO ST SPANISHMOSSLN TURQUOISE DR PEARL DR PE A R W O O D A V S T A T I O N W Y VILLAGEGLEN DR V A L L E Y R D P U E ST A D E L S O L ACOR N D R CHILTONST EASY S T OLD R A N C H R D HILLCREST D R SUNSE T D R TEMP U S C R TEM P U S C R STONECREST D R ELD E R B ERRYCT ELDERBERRY C T STO N ECRESTDR ¬«1 ¬«1¬«1 ¬«227 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 ¬«227 ¬«227 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 D-2.13 D-2.20 PD 1.1 PD 1.2 PD 1.3 PD 1.4 PD 1.5 D-2.11 D-2.1 D-2.10 D-2.5 D-2.6 D-2.7 D-2.8 D-2.9 AG 2.2 I Last Updated September 2018 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT MOBILE HOME PARK MULTI-FAMILY VERY HIGH DENSITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GATEWAY MIXED-USE FAIR OAKS MIXED-USE HIGHWAY MIXED-USE VILLAGE MIXED USE VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC WAY MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL MIXED-USE OFFICE MIXED-USE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PUBLIC FACILITY DESIGN OVERLAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC FACILITY Berry Gardens D-2.4D-2.4 1 in = 800 ft ZONING CATEGORIES ZONING OVERLAYS CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23 17 MARCH 2026 T1TITLE SHEET CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PERSPECTIVE VIEW - LOBBY ENTRY PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER:SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC C/O RUSSELL M. SHEPPEL 1202 SHORELINE DRIVE SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109 EMAIL: RSHEPPEL@GMAIL.COM PROJECT ADDRESS:1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 APN:007-771-080 AND 007-771-081 ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUP 3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: DARIN CABRAL PHONE: (805)-543-1794 EMAIL: DJCABRAL@RRMDESIGN.COM CIVIL ENGINEER:COAST ENGINEERING & DESIGN 785 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: LYDIA LYNCH PHONE: (805)242-6365 EMAIL: LYDIA@COAST-INC.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC 187 TANK FARM ROAD, SUITE 230 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: LINDSAY CORSIA PHONE: (805)781-9800 EMAIL: LINDSAY@FIRMACONSULTANTS. COM PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF UP TO 92 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT ON TWO VACANT LOTS TOTALING 1.81 ACRES COMBINED. THESE UNITS ARE PROVIDED IN TWO BUILDINGS, BUILDING A AND BUILDING B. BUILDING A IS THE LARGER OF THE BUILDINGS AND WILL INCLUDE AN ELEVATOR. BOTH BUILDINGS WILL BE FOUR STORIES IN A SPLIT-LEVEL PAD CONCEPT. TO ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED 92 UNITS, AND BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PARCEL, THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING A 50% DENSITY BONUS. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE (3) CONCESSIONS: REMOVAL OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, REDUCTION OF REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND REMOVAL OF REQUIRED PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING. THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT VACATION, PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATH VACATION, A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT VACATION AND A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WATER MAIN ADANDONEMENT, PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE 16-001, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PER INST. NO. 2019- 029358 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY SHEET INDEX T1 TITLE SHEET A2 EXISTING SITE SURVEY A3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A4 LEVEL 1 AND 2 - BASEMENT FLOOR PLANS A5 LEVEL 3 - SECOND FLOOR BLDG A & GROUND FLOOR BLDG B A6 LEVEL 4 - THIRD FLOOR BLDG A & SECOND FLOOR BLDG B A7 LEVEL 5 - ROOF BLDG A & THIRD FLOOR BLDG B A8 LEVEL 6 - ROOF PLAN A9 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS A10 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS A11 ELEVATIONS A12 SITE SECTIONS A13 ENLARGED SITE SECTIONS A14 BIRD’S EYE PHOTO MATCH A15 VIEW ANALYSIS PHOTO MATCH PERSPECTIVES FROM JAMES WAY A16 COLOR AND MATERIALS A17 DETAIL VIGNETTES A18 TRASH ENCLOSURE C0 TITLE SHEET C1 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C3 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS C4 BOUNDARY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS L1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECT STATISTICS ZONING OFFICE MIXED USE PARCEL SIZE:1.81 ACRES (78,892 SF) DENSITY:25 DENSITY UNIT/ACRE BUILDING A GROSS AREA 77,269 SF BASEMENT 13,921 SF GROUND FLOOR 21,116 SF SECOND FLOOR 21,116 SF THIRD FLOOR 21,116 SF BUILDING B GROSS AREA 25,090 SF BASEMENT 4,429 SF GROUND FLOOR 6,887 SF SECOND FLOOR 6,887 SF THIRD FLOOR 6,887 SF MAX LOT COVERAGE:70% (55,224 SF) PROPOSED COVERAGE:35.5% (GROUND FLOOR/PARCEL SIZE) MAX. F.A.R.1.0 (78,892 SF) PROPOSED F.A.R.1.30 (BUILDING GROSS/ PARCEL SIZE) DISTURBED AREA:+/- 76,600 SF PERVIOUS PAVERS +/- 7,900 SF NEW/REPLACEMENT IMPER- VIOUS SURFACE (BLDG, AC PAVING & CONCRETE) +/- 56,500 SF LANDSCAPE AREA:+/- 12,200 SF (15.5%) MAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35 FT. MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT:45 FT. YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT 0-10 SIDE 0-5 REAR 0-15 VICINITY MAP ZONING MAP PARKING AUTO PARKING CALCULATION SPACE COUNT PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT 99 SPACES RESIDENTIAL SPACE PER UNIT TYPE 20 STUDIOS (1 EA) 58 1BEDS (1 EA) 14 2BEDS (1.5 EA) 20+58+21 PARKING PROVIDED GARAGE SPACES UNDER BUILDING 31 SPACES 31 SPACES EV PARKING AUTO PARKING CALCULATION SPACE COUNT MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED: 1 SPACE PER UNIT 99 SPACES EV CAPABLE 10% OF PARKING 10 EV READY 25% OF PARKING 25 EV CHARGES 5% OF PARKING 5 40 DENSITY/UNIT COUNT DENSITY 25/ACRE COUNT PROPOSED: UNIT MIX STUDIOS 20 1 BEDROOMS 58 2 BEDROOMS 14 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 92 PROPOSED DENSITY STUDIOS = .5 DU EACH 10 DU 1 BED = .75 DU EACH 43.5 DU 2 BED = 1 DU EACH 14 DU TOTAL DENSITY UNITS 67.5 DU ALLOWED DENSITY 1.81AC * 25 DU/AC= 45.25 DU AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS 50% = 1.5 * 45.5 = 67.875 DU SITE JAMES W A Y BRANCH S T . OA K P A R K B L V D . LO S B E R R O S R D N O A K PA R K BLVD SOAK PA R K BL V D N O A K P A R K B L V D BRIGHTON AVE S E L M S T S O A K P A R K B L V D VA L L E Y R D S O A K P A R K B L V D S H A L C Y O N R D CHRISTMAS TREE PL BRIGHTON AVE TEMPLE ST RAMONA AVE WGRAND A V E M ARIO S T STA G E C O A C H R D CALLE DE LOS SUEI CA R P E N T E R C A N Y O N R D VIA DEL NORTE TROUVILLE AVE SEABRIGHT AVE MANHATTAN AVE 23 R D S T BARBADOS ST CA L L E Q U A T R O OAKWAY LA D U E ST SAN D I E G OLOOP CIENAGA ST 24 T H S T JUD G E A V E ROSE S T HUAS N A R D BRAN CHMILL R D FARROLL RD UNNAMEDST LE O - M A R I O S T VAL L E Y R D BEACH ST 25 T H S T ALSACEPL ME S E T A P L PRI N T Z R D OCEAN ST OL D O AK P ARKRD UN N A M E D S T PASO ROBLES ST INDIANHILLSWAY THE PIKE 22 N D S T KARE N C T 21 S T S T DR I F T W O O D S T NO R M A L N UNNAMED ST RIN C O N C T QU A N A V E WILMAR AVE REBECC AST NORMALN TER R Y C T AS T E R S T LA T I J E R A C T VIA DEL CENTRO LAZY LN M ARIAN WAY GE N O V E N I R D CO R BE TTCANYO NRD PHILLIP S R D TRINIDADDR T E RRY DR MAR T I N I QU EDR HE R M O S A C T TULIP ST NEWPORTAVE DU N A V I S T A D R FER N S T RE D O N D O C T ELCAMINOREAL LA E N T R A D A L N CARMEL CT UN N A M E D S T NABAL CT UN N A M E DST UNN A M E D S T DARIEN CT DUGANDR 21 S T C T UNNAMED ST L A TE ENA PL PEA COCKPL VIA DEL RIO SC OTT L EE D R NEWPORT AVE 19 T H S T SYLVANRIDGERD WIND R I DGE PL CA L L E U N O SAN S EBASTIANCT SARATOGA AVE TERRYDR SA I N T J O H N C I R ALMA CT MONA L E I C T MOSS B EACHCT JENNIFER CT S E L M S T MENTONE A V E UNNAMED ST TIE R R A N U E V A L N JANETDR COASTVIEWDR LA SELVA AVE RO SE C T ATLANTICCITY A VE LA JOLLA CT MESAVIEWDR SOLANA CT 20T H S T MO N A C O C T KA R INA WAY CAPISTRANOCT HELEN A S T NOYES RD KAR E N W A Y RE D R O C K R D EV Y L N HASS LN 22 N D S T UNNAMEDST UN N AM E D ST ROCKAWAY AVE PLANCHAWAY PA M E L A D R WARNER ST VISTA ST UNNAMED ST ROSSLN UNN A M E D S T RAI LROAD S T HO N D O N A D A R D LASCASITAS FARROLL AVE HE N D E R S O N L N EGRANDAVE ME L O D Y L N BIGCANYON C T TODOS S A NTO S C T RIVERAVE HOLDEN AVE PEDRO ST LA COSTA CT IR I S ST ARABIAN WAY FR O N T S T SHANNON LN FRA N C E S W A Y LA B REA CT NIPOMO ST UNNAMEDST TOBAGO ST DAISEY S T SHANNA PL BEAR C ANYON LN ST N I C K S P L BILLSWAY C R A I G W A Y N 1 6 T H S T NAB A L CT H AW K V IEW C T L ORIENDACT ROCHELLEWAY S 1 6 T H S T JO YCE WAY 21 S T S T CORN ER ST O N E L N JAMES W A Y VIACASA VISTA E RICACT C AT HEDRAL LN 20TH CT UNNAMED ST THYRRING ST VIAPRIVAD O VI AARTURO R OOKE R R A NC H W AY BADGER C A N Y O N LN DOVE C T MA R S E I L L E C T PINE T R E E L N UNN AMEDST GOL D E N H A W K L N LAGUN A CT ROYALOAKPL QUE B R A DA LN RIC H A R D S T OCEAN AVE SAVANNAHCIR GWEN PL CAL L E T R E S SADDLERD WILS H I R E S T SKYL I N E D R CA L L E D O S LAMPLIGHTER LN LARA LN PAINTEDSKYWAY PEACELN LEIF LN FALC ON C RE ST DR D O RISLN ACEROPL NICE AVE TU L P E N D R LABR A D O R L N DO W E R A V E OAKHILLRD UNNAM E D ST BUCKRIDGELN DO W E R A V E WAYNEWAY HIA W A T H A L N UNNAMED ST UNNAMED ST ANTIGUADR EFFIE WAY COUNTRYOAKWAY LA V E RNEST WARNER ST SAND C A N Y O N C T TA NNERLN UN N A M E D CT CO FFEE LN BASIN ST DENNIS L N COUNT R Y HILLS LN FOXENBLUFFLN LONGHORNL N UNNAMED ST TORREYPINE P L CENTURY LN LILAC ST CALLEVISTADELASTA NA P L E S S T CHR I S T I N E W A Y HOL L Y W A Y MAR G O W A Y ELSUENO W AY ELA I N E W A Y PASEOLADERALN LA VID A L N UN N A MED S T INDIANHEIGHTS DR SEVA D A LN HIDDENPINELN UN N A M E D S T LONGBRANCH AVE ALTAVISTAWAY CA S I T A S L N ECHO C ANYON CT GRE LL L N PHILLIPS RD CRE S TDR JANET AVE ANITA AVE SUM M I T D R BADEN AVE ROSEVINELN TAM E R A DR PEACEFULPOINT L N SILVERWAY VIA E L C I E L O VINTONLN UNN A M E D S T ARROY O VISTALN LLAMA LN COR SICA PL UNNA MED S T UNNAMED ST PINE VIEW DR NEWSOMSPRINGS R D CAN D I C E C T GRACIA WAY SU N R A Y P L SILVER SPUR PL HANSENHILLRD PLEA S A N T L N UNNAMED ST HIGHVIEWDR MOORELN K O D I A K L N VIAMARSOL BRADY LN UN N A M E D S T E E LCAMPORD QUAILHILLLN HERITAGELN UNNAMEDST WINDE R M E R E L N S H A L C Y O N R D ER H A R T R D PA L O M A P L CASA PL CO R B E R O S A D R UNNAMED ST JAMESWY VA L L E Y R D CR A N B E R R Y S T SP R U C E S T MAPLE ST W CHER R Y A V GRAC E L N LO S O L I V O S L N S H A L C Y O N R D NEWPORT AV HUASNA RD CORB E T T C A N Y O N R D TRAFFIC W Y FARROLL AV THE PIKE ALLEN S T OA K S T OAK P A R K B L V D W BRANCH ST STRAFFIC W Y LONGD E N D R BENNETT A V COR B E T T C A N Y O N R D TAYLOR P L WILDOAK P L CA R M E L L A D R FAIR OAKS AV B E L L S T OA K P A R K B L V D HILL C R E S T D R BRIS C O R D RANCHO PK W Y BRISCO R D N H A L C Y O N R D E BRANCH ST CL U B HOUSE C R E GRA N D A V LE POIN T S T FAEH AV WILDWOOD DR SY C A M O R E C T DO S C ERROS LO NG DENCT GA R F I E L D P L SUN R I S E T R CREEKVIEW WY JA S M I N E P L LAD E R A P L WILDW O O D D R CA R R I N G T O N P L MARI P O S A C R LEANNA DR S A L P I N E S T OUTLAN D C T CHE L S E A C T PRINT Z R D S M A S O N S T EQ U E S T R I A N W Y HAWKIN S C T WILSON CT JASMINE PL GROVE C T S E L M S T LEI S U R E D R NELSON S T PLATINOLN MAYD OCKST CA R D IN A L C T LA P A Z C R CERRO VISTA CR VERNONST W BRANCH ST S C O U R T L A N D S T JA S M I N E P L N E V A D A S T W O O D L A N D D R RICE CT M C K I N L E Y S T MEADO W W Y V IA LA BARRANCA JA S M I N E P L CROWN H I L L TIGER T A ILDR PARAISO GULARTERD SH O R T S T N VIA BELMON T E BA KEM A N LN RU T H A N N W Y MILLERCR W CHER R Y A V B R I D G E S T BE T A C T DIA M O N D C R BRITTANY AV OP A L C R G A R D E N S T VI L L A G E C T WOODLAND CT ROSEMA RYLN PLATINOLN L E P OIN T T R STA G E C O A C H R D ROB L E S R D FLO R A R D EL C A M I N O R E A L ASHST P ACIFIC C OA ST R AILWAYPL CAL L IECT FO RTUNACT PALOS SEC O S CUER D A C O R T E GARFIELD P L TOYON PL C H A P A R R A L L N N E L M S T LINDA DR BO Y S E N B E R R Y S T RUSS CT MESQUITELN PLOMO C T GRIEB DR VARDLOOMIS LN W H I T E L E Y S T S VIA A VANTECT ROBIN C R N M A S O N ST CALLE C A R M A N TRAFFIC WY C UES TA PL SALIDA DELSOL ROGERS CT PRI N T Z R D HILLSID E C T CA L L E C U E R V O HIDDENOAKRD MAGNOLIADR HAVE N C T CROWN T R OA K L E A F C R WA L L A C E P L MU I R F I E L D D R DELMAR M E ADOWLARKDR LE POINT S T TA YLO RPL SWEET P E A C T QUAIL CT Q UAILRIDG E CT C LINTONCT G A R D E N S T PA U L P L LACRESTADR LE D O P L GA Y N F A I R T R POPLAR ST HARRISO N S T WHI T E C T WA L N U T S T OAKHILLRD HART L N N C O U R T L A N D S T COLLADO CORTE DODSONWY AL D E R S T SYCAMORE DR E GRAN D A V D OS C E RROS VIA PO C A FA I R VIEW D R M Y RT LE ST C R O S S S T AS P E N S T PRADERACT TRINITY A V ROB L E S R D TALLY H ORD CLA R E N C E A V S H O R T S T CAST I L L O JENNYPL VI A V A Q U E R O W BR A N C H S T ALL E Y GLENBROOKWY VE R D E P L LOSCIERVOS OR O D R IDE ST FARROLL AV BRIGHTON AV CRO WNHILL MUS T A N G C R S VIA F I R E N Z E C T NVIAFIRENZECT POOLE S T HODGES RD BRIGHTON AV VIST A D R ROSEMARYCT CAS T I L L O D E L M A R OLOHA N A L L E Y E C H E R R Y A V WE S L E Y S T CORNWA L L A V N H A L C Y O N R D SCEN I C C R STRAWBERRY AV VIA LA S A G U I L AS FIEL D VIE W P L PA C I F I C C O A S T R A I L W A Y P L BA M B I C T O AK P ARK BLV D PE C A N P L PLATA RD LACANADA N R E N A S T N A L P I N E S T R ODEO D R MULBERR YLN N O G U E R A P L WILTON PL CREEKSIDE DR WLEP OINT S T MAY ST CO R O N A D E L T E R R A LA V I S T A C T VISTA CR FOREST GLEN DR PLATINOLN FA R M H OU S E PL PILG R I M W Y CEDAR ST LIN D A D R SRE N A S T REFUGIO PL EMERALD BAY DR RASPBERRY AV PASEO ST BLACKBERRY AV DEL S U R PALM CT PARK WY NO E L S T ST E V E N S O N D R L E E D H A M P L VIA B A N D O L E R O ANDRE DR PRISCILLALN SIERRADR WA L N U T S T EMAN CT VI A B E R R O S COBREPL COLI N A S T LEMO N L N MERCEDESLN LOGANBERRYAV GARDENST LA N C A S T E R D R HUCKLEBERRY A V LI E R L Y L N IKE DA W Y BLUEBERRY AV CLEVE NGE R DR ROS E W O O D L N PAULDING CR CAMPANA P L CERRO VISTA LN BE D L O E L N C A L I F O R N I A S T O R C H A R D A V LAUNA L N NEWMAN DR CAMINOMERCADO NOYES R D OAK W OODCT M I L L E R W Y SAGE ST CAMERON CT RES E R V O I R R D CEDAR ST JU N I P E R S T ARC A D I A AVE N I D A D E D I A M A N T E CO A C H R D S VIABELMONTE ARABIA N C R CA R O L P L A R R O Y O A V CORRALPL PIN E S T ST I L L W E L L D R M Y R T L E D R GOL D E N W EST P L CL A R E N C E A V WOODPL SANDALWOOD AV ASILO LOS BERROSRD DIA N A P L BROA DM OOR D R TA N N E R L N BRANCH MILL RD RALPHBECKLN VI C T O R I A N C T GR E E N W O O D D R ORCHID L N KINGSBURY C T CO V I N G T O N D R EAT O N D R DEVONSHIRED R OLIVE ST CA N Y O N W Y PE C A N S T BE E C H S T W ALLERPL DE L S O L S T TODD LN TIE R R A S T RID G E V I E W W Y DIX S O N S T VICTORIAWY FARNS WORTHDR STARLIGH T LN DEERTR A ILCR JENNINGS D R MO RN I N GRISE L N WILLOWLN GLENOAK D R HACIENDA D R INNESLEY D R ORCHARD AV PACIFICPOI N T EWY MATTHEW W Y CINDY WY ST A N L E Y A V VIRGINIA DR T A L L Y H O RD LARCHMONTDR SOMBRILLOWY MESA D R NEWPORT AV HUEBNERLN Z O G A T A W Y MONTEGO ST SPANISHMOSSLN TURQUOISE DR PEARL DR PEA R W O O D A V S T A T I O N W Y VILLAGEGLEN DR V A L L E Y R D P U E ST A D E L S O L ACOR N D R CHILTONST EAS Y S T OLD R A N C H R D HILLCREST D R SUNSE T D R TEMP U S C R TEM P U S C R STONECRESTD R ELD E R B ERRYCT ELDERBERRY C T STON ECRESTDR ¬«1 ¬«1¬«1 ¬«227 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 ¬«227 ¬«227 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 D-2.13 D-2.20 PD 1.1 PD 1.2 PD 1.3 PD 1.4 PD 1.5 D-2.11 D-2.1 D-2.10 D-2.5 D-2.6 D-2.7 D-2.8 D-2.9 AG 2.2 I Last Updated September 2018 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT MOBILE HOME PARK MULTI-FAMILY VERY HIGH DENSITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GATEWAY MIXED-USE FAIR OAKS MIXED-USE HIGHWAY MIXED-USE VILLAGE MIXED USE VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC WAY MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL MIXED-USE OFFICE MIXED-USE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PUBLIC FACILITY DESIGN OVERLAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC FACILITY Berry Gardens D-2.4D-2.4 1 in = 800 ft ZONING CATEGORIES ZONING OVERLAYS SITE OPEN SPACE EXISTING DRIVE ISLE HOPE CHURCH BEST WESTERN CASA GRANDE INN 20'0 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 10'20'40'60' CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23 17 MARCH 2026 A2 0 2 4 8 1/4” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET EXISTING SITE SURVEY EXISTING PARKING LOT JA M E S W A Y EXISTING CREEK KENNEDY CLUB FITNESS EXISTING ENTRY EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING PARKING LOT PROPOSED BUILDING A MEDICAL OFFICES MEDICAL OFFICES PROPOSED PARKING N. OAK PARK BLVD. PROPOSED BUILDING B CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23 17 MARCH 2026 A3 0 8 16 32 1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET PROPOSED SITE PLAN ENTRY PLAZA BUILDING A BUILDING B ENTRY PLAZA RAMP SLOPE TRASH TRASH LOBBY Creekside Junction Multifamily Development March 18, 2026 Transmitted via email: pholub@arroyogrande.org; aperez@arroyogrande.org; brobeson@arroyogrande.org City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Request for Modification to Parking Concession APN: 007-711-080 and 007-771-081 Dear City of Arroyo Grande Planning Staff, On behalf of our Client, Russell Sheppel, RRM Design Group requests a modification to the proposed parking concession to reduce the required number of parking spaces and provide thirty-one (31) parking spaces. Sincerely, RRM Design Group Linda Blackbern Principal Planner