HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-03-24_10a Appeal of PC Approval CUP James WayItem 10.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/ Director of Public Works
BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner
Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way;
Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: March 24, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 26 -001 and approving Conditional Use
Permit 25-001; Construction of Ninety-Two (92) Multi-Family Dwelling Units; Location –
1271 and 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande
Partners LLC and Ray B. Burnell, Revocable Trust, and Finding the Project Statutorily
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21080.66(a).
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
At the time the appeal was submitted, the appellants paid the required fee of $1,327.20 .
This fee is intended to cover costs for processing of the appeal.
BACKGROUND:
The 1.81-acre project site consists of two vacant lots, 1271 and 1281 James Way, which
form an “L” shape, located within the Office Mixed Use (OMU) district (Attachment 2).
On January 20, 20261, the project was heard by the Planning Commission, which
approved the project by resolution with a 3-0 vote (Attachment 3). On January 30, 2026,
an appeal was filed with the City Clerk (Attachment 4) within the required ten calendar
days from the date of the Planning Commission’s decision.
1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=c0ee1696-5441-432a-a40c-
e992f8f0749f&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=18&Tab=attachments
Page 391 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 2
Project Description
The proposal involves the construction of two (2) four-story residential buildings
containing a total of ninety-two (92) multi-family residential units, including a community
center and fitness area. Specifically, the project includes:
Studios: 20 units;
One-bedroom: 58 units; and
Two-bedroom: 14 units.
Parking: the project includes 31 one-car garage spaces on-site, and has described
a reciprocal parking agreement structure for additional spaces. The applicant
seeks a concession for a reduction from the required parking minimum of 99
parking spaces, which is permissible under State Density Bonus Law, and
described in additional detail below. Under Density Bonus Law, the City is severely
limited in its ability to deny the requested concession to reduce parking spaces
otherwise required by the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
The project proposes to reserve either 15% of the base density equivalent units to
very low-income households or 24% to low-income households, which makes the
Project eligible for State Density Bonus Law. Plans for the proposal are included
as Exhibit B to the Resolution. Importantly, the City will ensure the project reserves
the requisite number of affordable units via the requirement that the applicant
execute a recorded, density bonus agreement that will deed restrict those
affordable units over a 55-year term, required before the City will issue Building
Permits (See Condition of Approval No. 95).
State Law Significantly Restricts City’s Authority to Deny or Condition the Project
The proposed project is an eligible Housing Accountability Act (HAA) project because it
proposes residential units. This means that the City may only deny or condition the project
at a reduced density in the circumstances authorized by the California Legislature
pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, as explained below.
Under the HAA, if any housing development project — regardless of affordability —
complies with the City’s objective development standards2, the City cannot deny the
project or reduce its density unless the City makes certain “written findings supported by
a preponderance of the evidence.” (Id.) Those findings require a “specific adverse impact”
2 See, as example, Gov. Code § 66300(a)(7): “Objective design standard” means a design standard that
involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to
an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant
or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application.
Page 392 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 3
to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. (Id., at (j)(1)(A)-(B).) A “specific,
adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based
on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as
they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Id, emphasis added.) It
is the Legislature’s intent that such a finding is rarely made.3
Staff has evaluated the project and determined compliance with the City’s objective
development standards. The HAA exempts any inconsistency with City’s objective
standards as a result of concessions or waivers permitted under State Density Bonus
Law. (Id., at (j)(3).) Further, the HAA provides that if a city does not notify an applicant of
inconsistencies with applicable development standards before an application is deemed
complete, then the project is deemed consistent with all unidentified standards as a matter
of law. (Id., at (j)(2)(A)-(B))
Further, as an affordable housing project with either 15% of the base density units deed-
restricted to very low-income households or twenty-four percent (24%) of the base density
units restricted for low-income residents, the HAA further prohibits the City from denying
the project unless it can make one of the findings provided for in Government Code
section 65589.5(d)(1)-(6). The City does not believe it could meet those findings for denial
based on the facts included below, and that the project should be approved:
The City has not exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the
project’s income categories (including very-low or low-income units) for the current
planning period.
The City does not believe approving the project will result in unmitigable specific,
adverse impacts on the public health or safety. As defined by State law, this would
require impacts that are both “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable,”
and impacts that are based on “objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions” in effect when the project application was
deemed complete.
The approval of the project will not violate a specific state or federal law.
The project is not proposed on, or surrounded on at least two sides by, land that
is zoned for agriculture or resource preservation purposes and the project will be
served by adequate water and wastewater facilities.
Consistent with state housing law, including the allowances afforded under State
Density Bonus Law, the project is deemed consistent with the City’s objective
development standards.
The project does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project.
3 “It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon public
health and safety . . . arise infrequently.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3))
Page 393 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 4
For the above reasons, the HAA significantly limits the City’s ability to deny or reduce
project density. Staff prepared the attached Resolution that denies the appeal and
approves the project, makes the findings necessary to approve the conditional use permit
under AGMC section 16.16.050, and documents the project’s co mpliance with the
objective standards of both the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff and
responsible agencies have also added Conditions of Approval designed to ensure that
the project can meet the City’s necessary requirements for approval. As conditioned and
as described above, no evidence in the record indicates that approving the project would
have an unmitigable specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is Mixed Use, which allows
residential uses as proposed. The project is consistent with the General Plan goals to
build affordable housing, provide urban design amenities that encourage multi -modal
travel, promote the mixture of residential and commercial uses in mixed-use corridors,
facilitate affordable housing through the application of State Density Bonus Law, reduce
parking standards for affordable housing developments, and by providing a 32’ creek
setback, consistent with the 25-50 foot development setback suggested in the
Conservation and Open Space Element. A full analysis of General Plan consistency is
contained in the January 20, 2026 , Planning Commission Staff Report4. The Planning
Commission determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan through the
approval of Resolution No. 2026-02. (Attachment 3) Those same findings are contained
in the prepared Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 26-001 and Approving Conditional
Use Permit 25-001 (Attachment 1).
Development Standards
Whether by reserving 15% of the base density units for very low-income households or
24% of the base density units for low-income households, under the California
Government Code, the project is entitled to a density bonus of up to 50%5. The project
is also eligible under State law for three concessions from local, objective development
standards that the applicant may select, which result in project cost savings,6 and an
4https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=c0ee1696-5441-432a-a40c-
e992f8f0749f&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=18&Tab=attachments
5 Gov. Code, § 65915(f)(2).
6 Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(2)(C); See also Gov. Code, § 65915(k). Rejecting the concession requires a written
finding, based on substantial evidence, that the concession either (A) does not result in identifiable and
actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or for affordable rents, (B) would have an
unmitigable specific, adverse impact to public health and safety, or (C) is contrary to state or federal law.
Page 394 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 5
unlimited number of waivers from local, objective development standards that would
physically preclude the project with the affordability mix proposed by the applicant.7
For this project, the applicant originally requested three concessions and three waivers.
A housing applicant is provided wide authority under State law with respect to the specific,
objective development standards they select for concessions and waivers, in order to
reduce project costs and ensure the project can be constructed with the proposed
affordable units, respectively. Government Code section 65915(o) includes a non -
exhaustive list of local development standards that can be waived under State Density
Bonus Law, including parking, height limits, floor area ratio, and setbacks, all of which
were requested by the applicant.
Concessions (a maximum of 3 under State law):
1. Allow the project to be built ten feet higher than the maximum permitted building
height, from 35’ to 45’. See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section
16.36.020(H)(10);
2. Allow the project to provide one less parking space than the required minimum,
providing ninety-eight (98) spaces instead of ninety-nine (99). See AGMC Section
16.56.060(1)(e); City notes that while the project’s original request included a
reduction of only one parking space, the applicant would be authorized under
Density Bonus Law to seek a broader parking reduction ; and
3. Allow the project to provide roughly 2% less of the off -street parking and access
gross lot area as landscaping in the interior of the parking area, providing eight
and twenty-three hundredths of a percent (8.23%) rather than the minimum of ten
percent (10%). See AGMC Section 16.56.130(1)
Waivers (unlimited under State law):
1. AGMC Section 16.36.020(H)(10) limits maximum building size to 50,000 square
feet. The applicant is requesting allowance to construct Building A at 77,269
square feet in order to achieve the maximum allowable density;
2. AGMC Section 16.36.020(H)(10) limits floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.0. The applicant
is requesting to exceed this allowance with a proposed FAR of 1.3 in order to
achieve the maximum allowable density; and
3. AGMC Section 16.48.065 requires a minimum of 350 square feet of open space
per unit. The applicant is requesting a reduction in this requirement to
approximately 176 square feet per unit to achieve the maximum allowable density.
In addition to these three waivers, the project proposes to build within the required 50 -
foot setback from Meadow Creek. Although relief from this setback standard was not
7 Gov. Code § 65915(e). Rejecting the waiver requires an unmitigable specific, adverse impact to public
health and safety, and if a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development
standards violates Density Bonus Law, then the court must award the plai ntiff reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs of suit.
Page 395 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 6
requested by the applicant as a concession or waiver, it was not identified as an aspect
of the project that was non-compliant with the City’s development standards at the time
the project was deemed complete due to previous approvals on the project site, and
therefore cannot be enforced (see Gov. Code §§ 65944(a), 65589.5(j)(2)(A)-(B), also
described in additional detail below). Even if this local setback standard could be
enforced, the applicant would be eligible to request a waiver for relief under State Density
Bonus Law, to the extent that setback standard would physically preclude the construction
of the project.
The proposed project’s compliance with development standards is shown in Table 1
below.
Table 1: City Development Standards
8 Per General Plan Land Use Element Table LU-1. State Density Bonus Law requires the City to use the
maximum allowable residential density permitted under the City’s land use documents for the site. (Gov .
Code, § 65915(o)(6).)
Development Standard Development Code
Requirement
Proposed Notes
Maximum Density 25 units/acre8 37.3 units/acre Allowed per
Density Bonus Law
Lot Size 20,000sf 78,892sf Code Met
Setbacks:
Front 0’-10’ 15’ Code Met
Rear 0’-15’ 12’ Code Met
Side 0’-5 10’ Code Met
Building Size Limits 50,000sf 77,269sf; 25,090sf
Allowable Under
CUP Process and
Density Bonus Law
Floor-Area Ratio 1.0 1.3 Allowed per
Density Bonus Law
Lot Coverage 70% 35.5% Code Met
Height 35’ or three-stories 45’; four-stories Allowed per
Density Bonus Law
Parking Lot
Landscaping
10% of gross lot
area for off-street
parking
8.23% Allowed per
Density Bonus Law
Open Space 350sf per Unit 176sf per unit Allowed per
Density Bonus Law
Creek Setback
50’ from top of
bank (Meadow
Creek)
32’ from top of
bank
Allowed per
Density Bonus Law
Page 396 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 7
Density
Residential density for projects in mixed-use zones is calculated differently than
exclusively single- and multi-family residential zoning districts. Pursuant to AGMC Section
16.36.030(C), projects in mixed-use zones use residential density equivalencies to
calculate a project’s density. Residential density in mixed-use developments relies on
density equivalent units for compliance with density standards. The density equivalent
unit system assigns a numerical value to a unit that is determined by the number of
bedrooms in the unit, for purposes of calculating project density.
State law provides for a “bonus density” based on the percentage of total units a housing
development dedicates to affordable housing at its base density. “Base density” excludes
any units permitted by the density bonus. The maximum residential density for projects
on properties with the Mixed Use general plan land use designation is 25 dwelling units
per acre. At this density, the 1.81-acre site could accommodate 45.25 units without a
density bonus. By reserving 15% of the base density units for very low-income
households, the project is eligible for three concessions, plus waivers or reductions in
development standards pursuant to Gov. Code Section 659159. Alternatively, the project
may reserve 24% of the units for low-income households, and still qualify for up to 50%
density bonus and the three concessions plus waivers (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2).). Table
2 below illustrates how the project complies with these requirements.
Table 2: Density Equivalent Units
Residential
Dwelling Unit
Type
Density
Equivalent
Project Density
Equivalent Units Number of Units Proposed
Live/Work Unit 0.5 0 0
Studio 0.5 10 20
1-bedroom 0.75 43.5 58
2-bedroom 1.0 14 14
Total: 67.5 92
Pursuant to AGMC Section 16.48.060,10 rounding up the maximum density is applicable
for mixed-use districts.
Parking
9 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV
10https://library.municode.com/ca/arroyo_grande/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_TIT16DEC
O_CH16.48GEDEST_16.48.060DEDE
Page 397 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 8
AGMC Section 16.56.060 provides off-street parking requirements for development
projects and states that the parking required for residential uses in mixed-use projects
does not have to be covered. This project proposes to construct multi-family residential
units on two parcels that are located adjacent to the existing non-residential uses. This
project proposes to share means of ingress, egress, and parking with the existing non-
residential uses. These shared amenities would result in the existing non-residential and
proposed residential uses functioning like a mixed-use development in a practical sense,
and therefore, development standards for mixed-use projects were used for evaluating
this project for consistency with the development code . State Density Bonus Law allows
the project to be evaluated based upon mixed-use zoning with a concession.11
GC Section 65915(p)12 establishes maximum parking ratios for projects that qualify for a
density bonus based on the number of bedrooms for each unit. Studio units and one-
bedroom units are required to provide one (1) parking space per unit, while two-bedroom
units are required to provide one and one -half spaces (1.5) per unit. Using these ratios,
the project would be required to provide a total of 99 parking spaces. However, the
applicant may use State Density Bonus Law to further reduce their parking requirement
for a total of 98 parking spaces, as originally proposed, or fewer spaces. Table 3 below
provides a breakdown of the required and proposed parking, along with information
regarding the requested parking reduction.
Table 3: Parking – Required and Proposed
Unit
Type
Development
Code
Requirement
State DBL
Parking Ratio
Parking
Required
Parking
Provided with
DBL
Concession
Notes
Studio
x20 1 space per unit 1 space per
unit 20 spaces
1BR x58
1 space per unit
plus 0.5 guest
spaces per unit
1 space per
unit 58 spaces
2BR x14
2 space per unit
plus 0.5 guest
spaces per unit
1.5 spaces
per unit 21 spaces
Total 99 spaces 98 spaces
Not Met -
Allowable
under
Density
11 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2)
12 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV
Page 398 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 9
Unit
Type
Development
Code
Requirement
State DBL
Parking Ratio
Parking
Required
Parking
Provided with
DBL
Concession
Notes
Bonus
Law
Parking for the project has been proposed by applicant as follows:
1. Thirty-one (31) single-car garage spaces under building;
2. Eighteen (18) spaces shared with hotel;
3. Forty-seven (47) non-designated surface parking spaces; and
4. Two (2) designated surface parking spaces.
In total, the application indicates that there are ninety-eight (98) parking spaces available
for resident parking.
Landscaping
See Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 20, 2026.
Open Space
See Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 20, 2026.
BASIS OF APPEAL
The subject appeal is included in full in Attachment 4. A brief summary of appellant’s
assertions and staff’s responses to those assertions are provided below:
(1) Inadequate and Unenforceable Parking Provisions Due to Binding Reciprocal
Easements and Historical Overburdening
Staff Response: Staff cannot opine on the enforceability of the parking easements
between private parties; however, staff notes that these “unenforceable” parking
easements have been recorded with the Clerk-Recorder for San Luis Obispo County.
(See e.g. Appeal, Exhibit A and Exhibit B) The private parking agreements bear limited
value to City’s review over this matter and the applicant’s request. Pursuant to GC
Section 65915(b)13, a city shall grant incentives or concessions for projects meeting
certain criteria contained within this section. By reserving fifteen percent (15%) of the
base density units for very low-income household or 24% of the base density units for
low-income households, the project is entitled to up to three concessions that provide
relief from development standards. 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. Government Code section
65915(d) provides the findings required to deny a concession or incentive sought by
13 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV
Page 399 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 10
a housing applicant, and those findings cannot be made. The concession to reduce
parking will result in costs savings to the applicant, the reduction of parking will not a
have a specific or adverse impact that cannot be mitigated, and the requested
concession is not contrary to State or Federal law. Pursuant to Gov. Code §65589.514,
a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies
or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed comple te. With
the application of a parking concession, the project is deemed in compliance with state
and local requirements.
a. Proposed Parking Does Not Comply with On-Site Parking Regulations
Staff Response:
The proposed parking is not inconsistent with Government Code § 65915(p) or
AGMC § 16.56.030. A reduction in parking is a standard concession , and a
reduction from the minimum parking requirement from 99 spaces to a reduced
number of parking spaces is consistent with State Density Bonus Law. This is
a quintessential concession and expressly authorized by the Government
Code. (See Gov. Code section 65915(k)(1)[Concession or incentive means “a
reduction . . . in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be
revised. . . “], see also (p)(5)[“An applicant may request parking incentives or
concessions beyond those provided in this subdivision pursuant to subdivision
(d)[concessions/incentives]”) Irrespective of the private parking easements, the
use of reduced onsite parking is justified under State law. Gov. Code section
65915(p)(4) says that a “development may provide onsite parking through
tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking.” Thus,
in direct contrast with the appellant’s assertion, the original proposal prov ided
onsite parking in the precise manner contemplated by state law. GC Section
65915(p)(6)15 establishes maximum parking ratios for density bonus projects
and also provides the City discretion to reduce or eliminate parking
requirements for development projects of any type in any location. Moreover,
while residential projects adjacent to commercial projects have been treated as
mixed-use in the City, state law also allows the project to be evaluated with
mixed-use zoning through application of a concession.16 Therefore, the City’s
granting of a parking reduction and the applicant’s election to provide shared
onsite parking complies with applicable State and City regulations regarding
onsite parking.
b. Proposed Parking Does Not Comply with Covered Parking Regulations
14https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65589
.5
15 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV
16 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).
Page 400 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 11
Staff Response:
AGMC 16.04.070 defines mixed-use projects as those that combine
commercial and residential uses, where the residential component is typically
located above or behind the commercial use. Despite the project’s proposing
only residential units, the presence of the existing commercial uses and the
nature of the proposal’s shared ingress, egress, and parking amenities justifies
the classification of the subject project as a mixed -use development. This
interpretation has consistently been applied by City staff and the Planning
Commission on a number of projects in the recent past. State Density Bonus
Law further authorizes the applicant to have the project be treated as mixed -
use through application of a concession.17
As addressed above, a residential project located within a commercial
shopping center has historically been categorized as a mixed-use project.
AGMC §16.56.060(e) is inapplicable to a mixed -use project like the one
proposed because parking required for residential use in mixed-use projects
does not have to be covered (See Table “Off-Street Parking Requirements”,
Residential Uses Note). However, even if this were deemed a residential
project through an interpretation of AGMC §16.04.070 that is inconsistent with
past practice of the City, uncovered parking is nevertheless justified. As a
Density Bonus Law project, the housing development may provide onsite
parking through tandem or uncovered parking. (Gov. Code § 65915(p)(4).)
State law overrides the development standard that appellant identifies. Density
Bonus Law also permits a concession to evaluate the project based on mixed -
use standards.18 Finally, the applicant could seek to modify its parking
concession further and seek an additional reduction of spaces, which could
make the uncovered parking spaces argument by appellant moot.
c. Binding Easements Limit Applicant’s Ability to Deliver Parking
Staff Response:
The appellants assert that the applicant’s existing encumbrances limit their
ability to provide the required parking. First, the City is not a party to any private
parking agreements, and, therefore, is not legally obligated to enforce any that
exist. Those easements generally describe reciprocal parking easements,
allowing shared parking on the project site. Second, by dedicating at least 15%
of base density units for very low-income households, or twenty-four percent
(24%) of the base density units for low-income households, the project qualifies
for up to three concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(2)(C). The applicant may
request a parking concession to reduce the total number of required spaces,
17 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2)
18 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).
Page 401 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 12
and still be found in compliance with the City’s minimum parking requirements
for this project.
Moreover, per AGMC § 16.56.050, common parking facilities may be provided
in lieu of individual requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities
are located within five hundred (500) feet of the associated use. The appellant
has presented a number of reciprocal parking easement agreements, wh ich
demonstrate compliance with provision of individual parking as common
parking facilities, as authorized by AGMC § 16.56.050. The applicant’s own
submitted materials demonstrate the project’s consistency with the parking
requirements, with the application of the concession. It does not constitute an
abuse of discretion for the City to approve the project “without conditioning
release, amendment, or resolution” of the easements discussed in the appeal.
Instead, as an HAA project, the City may not disapprove or condition the project
at a lower density absent a “specific, adverse impact upon public health or
safety . . . based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the applicatio n
was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5) The City does not have, and
did not identify at the time the application was deemed complete, any
standards, policies, or conditions requiring modification to existing private
property agreements in order to approve a project.
d. Historical Parking Shortages and City-Acknowledged Issues
Staff Response:
The appeal states that the City has acknowledged parking issues at this shared
use site through historical entitlement reviews of the subject property. While the
City has previously analyzed parking impacts in this location, that analysis was
prepared for different applications not before the City now. State law requires
that cities make findings to approve or disapprove projects based upon the
facts of the application being reviewed. Even City “acknowledgement” of
parking “issues” at and near the site does not meet the standard for specific,
adverse impacts as defined above in the Government Code.
Moreover, the appellant’s arguments fail to apply the appropriate standard to
Council’s review and omit key conclusions of the report. The appellant relies
on a 2004 parking monitoring report prepared by Orosz Engineering Group.
Appellant merely asserts there have been “historical issues” previously
reviewed by the City, and concludes the “reduced [parking] ratios are
insufficient.” However, the same Orosz Engineering Group report appellant
relies on concluded, “The data indicated that the site overall has adequate
parking available to tenants, patients and patrons.” (Appeal, Exhibit E, p. 91 of
366). The report further discusses that the “management issues” can be
Page 402 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 13
resolved by encouraging “employees to utilize parking” in another area. (See
id.) Thus, the appellant does not present evidence that supports denial of the
project based upon the general parking assertions identified in the appeal.
(2) Improper Application of Statutory CEQA Exemption (Pub. Res. Code §21080.66)
Staff Response:
Attachment 5 provides a thorough analysis of the findings required in order to utilize
the statutory exemption provided by AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code §21080.66). Staff has
made each of the findings affirmatively and contends that the statutory CEQA
exemption does apply to this project.
a. Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat Exclusion
Staff Response:
Public Resources Code section 21080.66 does not preclude the City from
relying on this statutory exemption because it abuts Meadow Creek. Instead,
Public Resources Code section 21080.66 permits the use of this exemption
only if it meets certain criteria, including that the Project site not be located on
wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66(a)(6). Here, Exhibit 1 to Attachment 5
contains a letter written by the project’s biologist stating that no wetlands, as
defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, exist on the project site. Further,
the presence of riparian habitat alone on the site does not preclude the City’s
reliance on this statutory exemption, as it is not one of the identified criteria
under Public Resources Code section 21080.66. As identified in the June 27,
2026, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions Biological Resources
Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State
Jurisdictional Limits Determination, the Project site is mainly paved and dirt
parking lots, with a constructed basin and berm alo ng Meadow Creek
supporting upland non-native annual grassland, ruderal areas with patches of
coyote brush, and a small stand of coast live oaks and willows on the southeast
corner of the site. (Attachment 5, Exhibit 2 ) This cluster of coast live oaks and
arroyo willow trees above the top of Meadow Creek bank are in uplands, and
not associated with a riparian context. (Id., p. 2.) The project would have no
impact on any wetland or riparian habitat. (Id., p. 4.) As for the appellant’s
claims that the Project design will risk erosion and non-compliance with Fish &
Game Code section 1602, the Project Condition of Approval 76 requires the
applicant to submit improvement plans, including erosion control, and be
approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community Development
Department. Further, AGMC 13.24.120 requires the applicant to implement
erosion and sediment control measures prior to, during, and after construction.
The applicant will be required to obtain approval of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Page 403 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 14
Control Board (CCRWQCB). City staff will review the SWPPP to ensure that
the plan is consistent with City requirements prior to approval of t he
development and construction plans. Therefore, the project satisfies the
requirements in AB 130 and Public Resources Code section 21080.66.
b. Surrounding Urban Uses Criterion Not Met
Staff Response:
Public Resources Code section 21080.66(a)(3)(A)-(D) requires that the Project
site meet any of the following criteria: (1) previously developed with an urban
use, (2) at least 75 percent of the site perimeter adjoins parcels developed with
urban uses, (3) at least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius
of the site is developed with urban uses, or (4) for sites with four sides, at least
three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of
the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
As stated in Attachment 5, criterion 3, approximately 77% of the area within a
one-quarter mile radius of the project site is developed with urban uses.
California Public Resource Code Section 2107219 defines urban uses as any
residential, commercial, public institutional, transit/transportation passenger
facility, or retail use, or a combination thereof. Therefore, the surrounding urban
uses criterion is met.
c. Inconsistency with Zoning and General Plan
Staff Response:
As articulated through, State law clearly exempts any inconsistency with
General Plan or Zoning standards that are due to the application of density
bonus concessions or waivers. (Gov. Code, § 65915(j)(1); Gov. Code §
65589.5(j)(3).) Further, contrary to appellant’s reasoning, Public Resources
Code section 21080.66(a)(4)(C) states that “approval of a density bonus,
incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development stan dards,
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.”
Additionally, no evidence in the record indicates that approving the project, as
conditioned, would have an unmitigable specific, adverse impact on public
health and safety.
d. Failure to Meet other Performance Standards
Staff Response:
The City’s tribal consultation efforts regarding the project are included in
Attachment 5. Eight separate tribal representatives were notified of the project.
19 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=21072
Page 404 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 15
One tribe requested consultation, and consultation resulted in the addition of
Condition of Approval Number 143 to the Planning Commission Resolution.
This is in addition to Condition of Approval Numbers 136-142 that are required
by AB 130. Tribal consultation for the project concluded consistent with
applicable State law on January 2, 2026. As required under Public Resources
Code section 21080.66, a Phase 1 ESA has already been provided to the City
and as such, this Project satisfies Public Resources Code section
21080.66(c)(1)(A).
Based on the substantial evidence in the record of proceedings, staff has determined that
the Project qualifies for the AB 130/Public Resources Code section 21080.66 statutory
exemption.
(3) Violation of Creek Setback and Riparian Protection Standards
Staff Response:
The 32’ creek setback proposed by the applicant for the project has already been
deemed consistent with AGMC § 16.44.050. The HAA provides that if a city does not
notify an applicant of an inconsistency with an applicable development standards
before the application is deemed complete, the project is deemed consistent with
unidentified standards, as a matter of law. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)–(B).) This
standard was not identified by staff as an inconsistency at the time the application was
deemed complete because prior approvals located along Meadow Creek have been
approved with a 32’ setback or a substantially similar setback.
Furthermore, the 32’ creek setback is consistent with General Plan policy C/OS2-1.3:
“Where feasible, maintain a development setback of 25 – 50 feet from the top of
stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope, habitat and floodplain
characteristics. Locate development outside the setback.” (Agriculture, Conservation
and Open Space Element (2007), Arroyo G rande General Plan) Under the HAA, a
project is deemed consistent with zoning standards when there is an inconsistency
between the zoning code standard and the General Plan standard. (Gov. Code §
65589.5(j)(4)) As a 32’ setback is consistent with the applicable General Plan standard
of a setback of 25-50 feet.
By way of additional background, as discussed in a March 24, 2015, staff report to
City Council for a previous project at this property, a creek variance setback had
previously been approved at 35’ for this site, and staff had previously recommended
a variance for the setback at 32’. (Appeal, Ex. F, p. 104 of 366) Staff had previously
analyzed that application of the 50’ creek setback standard would “reduce the
buildable lot width significantly.” (Id. at p. 113 of 366) That staff report identified that
there would be apparent benefits to the creek habitat, where development would
“enhance the health and function of the riparian area” by removing invasive species
Page 405 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 16
and providing revegetation benefits. (Id.) While application of the creek setback
standard is now precluded by state law, if the applicant were to request a density
bonus waiver under Gov. Code § 65915(e), the applicant would be entitled to an 18’
deviation from the setback requirement to avoid physical preclusion of the project.
Thus, the proposed 32’ foot creek setback is deemed consistent with the City’s
development standard by two separate provisions of state law, and the applicant
would be entitled to a waiver from the standard because st rict application would
preclude the applicant from building at the proposed density.
(4) Inadequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis
Staff Response:
In compliance with Senate Bill 743, the City has adopted a Transportation Impact
Study Guidelines20, which are based on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric rather
than the traditional Level of Service (LOS). Based on the City’s VMT screening criteria,
the project is not screened out and was required to complete a VMT analysis.
Residential projects that conduct a VMT analysis shall calculate the project VMT per
capita using the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) travel d emand
model and compare the results to regional VMT with and without the project’s modeled
impacts. As shown in the analysis (Attachment 6), the existing home -based VMT for
Arroyo Grande is 20.2 VMT per capita, while the project is expected to result in 12 .29
VMT per capita. Per the City’s guidelines, this is more than fifteen percent (15%) below
existing VMT and thus, the project would not have a potentially significant impact on
VMT. Therefore, the project is consistent with the City’s requirements for evaluating
potential traffic and circulation impacts.
(5) The Project Does Not Qualify for Preferential Treatment
Staff Response:
This project meets the definition of a housing development project in the HAA. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(h)(2).) Staff has evaluated the project and determined that it complies
with the City’s objective standards. State law exempts any inconsistency as a result
of density bonus concessions or waivers. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Additionally,
no evidence in the record indicates that approving the project, as conditioned, would
have an unmitigable specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. The
project’s required review under applicable State law does not constitute preferential
treatment.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
20 https://arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/9851/Transportation-Impact-Study-Guidelines
Page 406 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 17
1. Adopt the prepared Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 26-001 and approving
Conditional Use Permit 25-001;
2. Modify and adopt the prepared Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 26 -001 and
approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001;
3. Do not adopt the prepared Resolution take tentative action to uphold appeal Case
No. 26-001, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate supporting
resolution including findings for denial of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; or
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Denial of the appeal will approve a housing project, provide units specifically reserved for
residents qualifying as very low income or low income, and help the City meet its RHNA
obligations under its adopted Housing Element . Furthermore, the project was processed
in accordance with the HAA and Density Bonus Law.
DISADVANTAGES:
The reduction of required parking pursuant to State law could impact the availability of
parking on the shared site. These concerns are expected to be attenuated by conditions
of approval included in the prepared Resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In July 2025, the Governor signed a budget trailer bill (AB 130) that includes new and
amended statutes, including Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which
significantly streamlined the environmental review process for housing projects.
Based on substantial evidence, City staff has determined that the Project is exempt from
further environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66 (Infill
Housing Development Exemption). A full analysis of the Project’s eligibility is included in
Attachment 5. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council find the Project
exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.66(a).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2. A public hearing notice was posted at the site and
mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site on March 12, 2026.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Project Location
3. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-002
4. January 30, 2026 Appeal Form
Page 407 of 601
Item 10.a.
City Council
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
March 24, 2026
Page 18
5. AB 130 CEQA Findings
6. Traffic and Circulation Study
Page 408 of 601
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 26-001 AND
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001;
CONSTRUCTION OF NINETY-TWO (92) MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS; LOCATION – 1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY;
APPELLANTS – PISMO MEDICAL PROPERTIES LLC, ARROYO
GRANDE PARTNERS LLC AND RAY B BUNNELL REVOCABLE
TRUST, AND FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION
21080.66(a)
WHEREAS, the existing project site incorporates two parcels with a combined size of
approximately 1.81 acre parcel located at 1271 and 1281 James Way; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 25-001 to construct ninety-two (92)
multi-family dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a density bonus and related incentives and concessions
pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code section 65915) based on the provision
of affordable housing units, where at least 15% of the total base density units are restricted as
affordable to very low income households or 24% of the base density units are restricted as
affordable to low income households, resulting in a maximum allowable density of up to ninety-
two (92) dwelling units after applying a 50% State Density Bonus Law unit increase and density
unit equivalents of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) section 16.36.030(C); and
WHEREAS, the Staff Advisory Committee considered the project on March 12, 2025, and
recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee considered the project on November 3, 2025, and
recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing on
January 20, 2026, and adopted a Resolution No. 2026-002 approving Conditional Use Permit 25-
001; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community
Development Department has determined that the proposed project is statutorily exempt pursuant
to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, a statutory exemption from CEQA review for certain
infill housing developments, as documented in the Memorandum for the project (see Attachment 3
of the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report); and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2026, Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC,
and Ray Bunnell, Trustee of the Ray B. Bunnell Revocable Trust timely filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution 2026-002 approving Conditional Use Permit 25-
001; and
Page 409 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing on March 24,
2026, in connection with all materials included in Agenda Item 10.a, and all other written and oral
testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: All recitals above are true, correct, and incorporated herein.
Section 2. CEQA Findings:
The City Council hereby finds that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.66, which became effective on June 30, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill 130,
and as documented in the Memorandum for the Project (see Attachment 5 of the March 24, 2026
City Council Staff Report), and directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk
and Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation within five business days of the adoption of this
resolution.
The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
1. Project Site Size (PRC § 21080.66(a)(1)(A-B)): The project site is 1.81 acres, and
therefore is not more than 20 acres.
2. Project Location (PRC § 21080.66(a)(2)(A-B)): The entirety of the project site lies within
the incorporated City of Arroyo Grande.
3. Urban Uses (PRC § 21080.66(a)(3)(A-D)): Approximately 77% of the area within a one-
quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses .
4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency (PRC §21080.66(a)(4)(A -C)): The project, as
proposed, is consistent with applicable general plan and zoning ordinances, including the
following General Plan Elements: Land Use; Housing; Conservation and Open Space;
and Circulation because the project proposes a density that is allowable when calculating
the base density and incorporating State Density Bonus law. The Land Use Element
establishes a maximum density of 25 dwelling units/acre and the project proposes 37.3
dwelling units per acre, using State Density Bonus Law. Pursuant to State law, a project's
density increase under the density bonus law is considered con sistent with the general
plan. Therefore, the project is consistent with the elements of the General Plan.
5. Minimum Density (PRC §21080.66(a)(5)): The project’s proposed density exceeds one-
half of the applicable density (10du/ac) by proposing a density of 37.3du/ac.
6. Environmental Conditions (PRC §21080.66(a)6)): The proposed project is not located
within the coastal zone, nor is it located on prime farmland or within a wetland or a very
Page 410 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
high fire hazard severity zone. Furthermore, the project site is not a hazardous waste site,
is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, and is not located within a special
flood hazard area or a regulatory floodway. The project site has not been identified for
conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, is not habitat for protected
species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and is not a land under
conservation easement.
7. Historic Resource (PRC § 21080.66(a)(7)): The project does not propose or require the
demolition of a historic structure.
8. Hotel or Transient Use (PRC § 21080.66(a)(8)): The proposal consists of 92 multifamily
residential units and does not include any transient lodging or short -term rentals.
Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Arroyo Grande Municipal Code §16.16.050(D)):
1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this
section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives
of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City.
The project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 1.81 acres and is located
within the Office Mixed Use (OMU) district, which allows residential uses subject to approval
of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal involves construction of ninety-two (92)
multifamily residential units within an urbanized mixed-use corridor and was processed in
accordance with the requirements of AGMC Title 16, including review by the Staff Advisory
Committee and Architectural Review Committee, both of which recommended approval.
The project is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation in the General Plan, which
encourages residential development in proximity to commercial, office, transit, and
community-serving uses. As documented in the staff report, the project implements multiple
General Plan policies, including LU-5-1, LU5-3, LU5-9, LU5-11, CT5-2, and Housing
Element policies A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, A.9, A.10-1, and A.11, by providing increased housing
density in the form of infill development, integrating residential uses into a mixed-use area,
pedestrian-oriented design, and increasing the supply of affordable housing.
The project proposes to reserve fifteen percent (15%) of the base density units as deed-
restricted units affordable to very low income households or 24% of the base density units
as deed-restricted units affordable to low income households, qualifying the development
for density increases, concessions, and wavers under Government Code § 65915.
Residential density for mixed-use projects in the OMU district is calculated using density
equivalency factors pursuant to AGMC §16.36.030(C). Based on these calculations, the
project results in ninety-two total (92) units. Increases granted under State Density Bonus
Law are deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to
be established or located.
The project site is surrounded by a variety of compatible uses, including a hotel, medical
offices, a fitness facility, shopping center, religious facility, and nearby residential
neighborhoods. The proposed multifamily development is consistent with the existing and
Page 411 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
planned character of the mixed use corridor along James Way, which will serve the existing
commercial uses and integrate with and contribute to a vibrant commercial core.
On November 3, 2025, the Architectural Review Committee evaluated the project, including
its parking, building materials, site design and accessibility. The Architectural Review
Committee supported the project’s architecture, which utilizes architectural elements
designed to reduce perceived massing through articulation, modulation, and varied
materials. Landscaping, setbacks, and screening along the eastern boundary adjacent to
Meadow Creek further ensure compatibility with nearby residential and open space areas.
As conditioned, the project will integrate appropriately into the district, without impairing its
integrity or character, through the urban-oriented site planning, share parking, internal open
space, and architectural elements described above.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed.
The site is an approximately 1.81ac parcel with existing development and the site is suitable
for additional development based on conformance with the City’s development standards
and zoning regulations. The site is currently vacant land, and the proposed project will infill
on the L-shaped lot, within an incorporated urban area of the City. Existing public
infrastructure is available to serve the development, including roadway access from James
Way, access to commercial services, and available public utilities.
The size, configuration, and zoning of the site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed
two-building, four-story multifamily development, including on-site parking, open space,
landscaping, storm water facilities, and emergency access. Accordingly, the site is suitable
for the proposed residential use and intensity of such use.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to
ensure public health and safety.
The project site is located within an urbanized area served by existing public water, sewer,
storm drainage, fire protection, police services, and transportation infrastructure. As detailed
in the staff report and conditions of approval, the project will be required to comply with all
applicable City engineering standards, fire access and flow requirements, stormwater
management regulations, and utility service prior to issuance of building permits and
certificates of occupancy. Therefore, there are adequate provisions for water, sanitation,
and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially
injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be
materially injurious to nearby properties and improvements because the use is both
compatible with adjacent uses and has been properly conditioned to limit its impacts. The
project will be developed with appropriate utility connections, curbs, sewer laterals, gutters,
and sidewalks necessary to serve the 92 unit development. Additionally, the project
proposes a residential use that is compatible with the residential uses east of the project
site. Those existing residential uses are further buffered by Meadow Creek, which runs
Page 412 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
along the eastern property boundary. Potential adverse impacts on public health and safety
will be satisfactorily mitigated by the proposed conditions such that the use will not be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Among other things, these
proposed conditions require illumination of parking spaces for safety, that trash enclosures
be screened from public view with screening materials that complement the architectural
features of the main building, and limitation on construction and operational activities in
accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the AGMC. Accordingly, the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially
injurious to nearby properties and improvements due to its compatibility and the conditions
of approval.
SECTION 4. Density Bonus Concessions: In accordance with Government Code §65915, as a
project providing either 15% of units restricted to very low income units, or 24% restricted to low
income units, the project qualifies for four concessions under Gov. Code §65915(d). The project
will receive three concessions as follows:
1. Allow the project to be built ten feet higher than the maximum permitted building height, from
35’ to 45’. See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.36.020(H)(10);
2. Allow the project to provide one less parking space than the parking minimum, providing
ninety-eight (98) spaces instead of ninety-nine (99). See AGMC Section 16.56.060(1)(e);
and
3. Allow the project to provide roughly 2% less of the off-street parking and access gross lot
area as landscaping in the interior of the parking area, providing eight and twenty-three
hundredths of a percent (8.23%) rather than the minimum of ten percent (10%). See AGMC
Section 16.56.130(1)
SECTION 5. Density Bonus Waivers: In accordance with Government Code § 65915(e), the
project is eligible for an unlimited number of waivers from development standards that would
physically preclude the construction of a development that meets the criteria of Gov. Code §
65915(b). The project will receive three waivers as follows:
1. AGMC Section 16.36.020(H)(10) limits maximum building size to 50,000 square feet. The
applicant is requesting allowance to construct Building A at 77,269 square feet in order to
achieve the maximum allowable density;
2. AGMC Section 16.36.020(H)(10) limits floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.0. The applicant is
requesting to exceed this allowance with a proposed FAR of 1.3 in order to achieve the
maximum allowable density; and
3. AGMC Section 16.48.0651 requires a minimum of 350 square feet of open space per unit.
The applicant is requesting a reduction in this requirement to approximately 176 square feet
per unit to achieve the maximum allowable density.
Page 413 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6
SECTION 5. Appeal Findings: Having considered written grounds for the appeal and the
additional oral and written testimony presented at the public hearing, and the responses to the
appeal provided by staff, the City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the
grounds raised in the appeal (appellant’s assertion is identified in italics):
Assertion 1: Inadequate and Unenforceable Parking Provision Due to Binding Reciprocal
Easements and Historical Overburdening. Contrary to the Applicant's assertions that it has the
parking rights to accommodate the Project, it cannot deliver adequate, exclusive, or enforceable
on-site parking for the 92-unit Project as represented. After applying reduced parking requirements
under Density Bonus Law (Gov't Code § 65915), the Planning Commission determined the Project
requires 99 parking spaces and granted a concession to allow 98. However, the proposed parking
fails to comply with state and local requirements, relies on unenforceable off-site and shared
arrangements, and is burdened by longstanding recorded easements.
City Response: Staff cannot opine on the enforceability of the parking easements between
private parties; however, staff notes that these “unenforceable” parking easements have been
recorded with the Clerk-Recorder for San Luis Obispo County. (See e.g. Appeal, Exhibit A and
Exhibit B) The private parking agreements bear limited value to City’s review over this matter
and the applicant’s request. Pursuant to GC Section 65915(b)2, a city shall grant incentives or
concessions for projects meeting certain criteria contained within this section. By reserving
fifteen percent (15%) of the base density units for very low-income household or 24% of the
base density units for low-income households, the project is entitled to up to three concessions
that provide relief from development standards. 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. Government Code section 65915(d)
provides the findings required to deny a concession or incentive sought by a housing applicant,
and those findings cannot be made. The concession to reduce parking will result in costs
savings to the applicant, the reduction of parking will not a have a specific or adverse impact
that cannot be mitigated, and the requested concession is not contrary to State or Federal law.
Pursuant to Gov. Code §65589.53, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable,
direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete. With the application of a parking concession, the project is deemed in compliance with
state and local requirements..
Sub-assertion (a): Proposed Parking Does Not Comply with On-Site Parking Regulations.
Government Code § 65915(p) and AGMC § 16.56.030 require that reduced parking be located
"on-site." Only 31 spaces for the proposed Project (all one-car garages) are truly on-site. The
remaining 67-68 spaces are proposed off-site, including shared spaces within the adjacent Oak
2https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GO
V
3https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=655
89.5
Page 414 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
Park Professional Plaza ("Plaza"). 4 AGMC §§ 16.56.040 and 16.56.050 allow common/shared
parking only if the total equals the sum of individual use requirements, spaces are within 500 feet,
and facilities are available without interfering with other uses. No agreements exist with Plaza
property owners (including Appellants) for shared use, nor has any such arrangement been
proposed or conditioned.
City Response: The proposed parking is not inconsistent with Government Code § 65915(p)
or AGMC § 16.56.030. A reduction in parking is a standard concession, and a reduction from
the minimum parking requirement from 99 spaces to a reduced number of parking spaces is
consistent with State Density Bonus Law. This is a quintessential concession and expressly
authorized by the Government Code. (See Gov. Code section 65915(k)(1)[Concession or
incentive means “a reduction . . . in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that woul d otherwise
be revised. . . “], see also (p)(5)[“An applicant may request parking incentives or concessions
beyond those provided in this subdivision pursuant to subdivision (d)[concessions/incentives]”)
Irrespective of the private parking easements, the u se of reduced onsite parking is justified
under State law. Gov. Code section 65915(p)(4) says that a “development may provide onsite
parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on -street parking.” Thus,
in direct contrast with the appellant’s assertion, the original proposal provided onsite parking in
the precise manner contemplated by state law. GC Section 65915(p)(6)5 establishes maximum
parking ratios for density bonus projects and also provides the City discretion to reduce or
eliminate parking requirements for development projects of any type in any location. Moreover,
while residential projects adjacent to commercial projects have been treated as mixed-use in
the City, state law also allows the project to be evaluated with mixed -use zoning through
application of a concession.6 Therefore, the City’s granting of a parking reduction and the
applicant’s election to provide shared onsite parking complies with applicable State and City
regulations regarding onsite parking.
Sub-assertion (b): Proposed Parking Does Not Comply with Covered Parking Regulations. To
avoid AGMC requirements for covered parking in residential/multi-family projects (AGMC §
16.56.060(e)), the Applicant and the Planning Commission improperly classify the Project as
"mixed-use". AGMC § 16.04.070 defines a "mixed-use project" as "a project" that combines both
commercial and residential uses. Constructing residential units adjacent to existing commercial
projects, separate from and unrelated to the proposed Project, and not modified by the proposed
Project, does not constitute a mixed-use project under the AGMC. Only 31 of the 98 spaces are
covered, rendering the Project non-compliant. (See also, Section 2(c) below for further discussion
regarding improper mixed-use classification.)
City Response: AGMC 16.04.070 defines mixed-use projects as those that combine commercial
4 At the January 20, 2026, Planning Commission hearing, there was some discussion regarding proposed parking spaces
provided across James Way in the Hope Church parking lot and contradiction regarding whether or not an agreement is in
place. While the Project may not have relied specifically on spaces across the street, they were referenced as "accessory"
parking (1/20/2026 Meeting Video, 2:02:20, pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com) and were part of the Planning
Commission discussion. Regardless, the Hope Church lot is beyond 500 feet, lacks any existing parking agreement of any
kind, and evidence will be presented that no parking at all, whether for construction or otherwise, was agreed or will be
granted. Thus, parking and staging requirements cannot be satisfied through reliance on the Hope Church lot.
5https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GO
V
6 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).
Page 415 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 8
and residential uses, where the residential component is typically located above or behind the
commercial use. Despite the project’s proposing only residential units, the presence of the existing
commercial uses and the nature of the proposal’s shared ingress, egress, and parking amenities
justifies the classification of the subject project as a mixed-use development. This interpretation
has consistently been applied by City staff and the Planning Commission on a number of projects
in the recent past. State Density Bonus Law further authorizes the applicant to have the project be
treated as mixed-use through application of a concession.7
As addressed above, a residential project located within a commercial shopping center has
historically been categorized as a mixed-use project. AGMC §16.56.060(e) is inapplicable to a
mixed-use project like the one proposed because parking required for residential use in mixed-use
projects does not have to be covered (See Table “Off-Street Parking Requirements”, Residential
Uses Note). However, even if this were deemed a residential project through an interpretation of
AGMC §16.04.070 that is inconsistent with past practice of the City, uncovered parking is
nevertheless justified. As a Density Bonus Law project, the housing development may provide
onsite parking through tandem or uncovered parking. (Gov. Code § 65915(p)(4).) State law
overrides the development standard that appellant identifies. Density Bonus Law also permits a
concession to evaluate the project based on mixed-use standards.8 Finally, the applicant could
seek to modify its parking concession further and seek an additional reduction of spaces, which
could make the uncovered parking spaces argument by appellant moot.
Sub-assertion (c): Binding Easements Limit Applicant's Ability to Deliver Parking. The proposed
Project site remains burdened by:
i. A 2000 Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement (as amended in 2008), granting non-
exclusive parking and access rights to Curl Fitness/Poma Fitness Holdings (flea Kennedy Club
Fitness) patrons, employees, and invitees, with requirements for replacement spaces if
development reduces availability. (See Exhibits A and B.)
ii. A separate easement/settlement agreement granting Best Western Casa Grande Inn primary
parking rights to approximately 18 spaces on portions of the site, including signage, towing
provisions, and priority over others (originating from a 2015 settlement resolving prior litigation).
(See Exhibit C.) There is no first right of refusal for the Applicant, as falsely claimed during the
Planning Commission meeting. (See, 1/20/2026 Meeting Video, 1:22:20-25, pub-
arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com.) Other misrepresentations regarding the 18 parking
spaces were also made during the meeting, which were contradicted by public comments (e.g.,
a chain installed by the hotel blocks the existing drive aisle and the hotel has never used the
parking spaces, both of which were refuted). (See, 1/20/2026 Meeting Video, 1:21, 2:08, 2:29.)
These 18 spaces cannot reliably count toward the Project's requirement, as hotel guests have
primary rights and can demand vehicles be moved within one hour, effectively reducing
enforceable residential parking to approximately 80 spaces. These encumbrances were not
extinguished by prior lot line adjustments and bind the Project site. Approval without
conditioning release, amendment, or resolution of these easements constitutes an abuse of
discretion and violates AGMC requirements for adequate parking.
7 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2)
8 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).
Page 416 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 9
City Response: The appellants assert that the applicant’s existing encumbrances limit their
ability to provide the required parking. First, the City is not a party to any private parking
agreements, and, therefore, is not legally obligated to enforce any that exist. Those easements
generally describe reciprocal parking easements, allowing shared parking on the project site.
Second, by dedicating at least 15% of base density units for very low-income households, or
twenty-four percent (24%) of the base density units for low-income households, the project
qualifies for up to three concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(2)(C). The applicant may request
a parking concession to reduce the total number of required spaces, and still be found in
compliance with the City’s minimum parking requirements for this project.
Moreover, per AGMC § 16.56.050, common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of
individual requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located within five
hundred (500) feet of the associated use. The appellant has presented a number of reciprocal
parking easement agreements, which demonstrate compliance with provision of individual
parking as common parking facilities, as authorized by AGMC § 16.56.050. The applicant’s
own submitted materials demonstrate the project’s consistency with the parking requirements,
with the application of the concession. It does not constitute an abuse of discretion for the City
to approve the project “without conditioning release, amendment, or resolution” of the
easements discussed in the appeal. Instead, as an HAA project, the City may not disapprove
or condition the project at a lower density absent a “specific, adverse impact upon public
health or safety . . . based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,
policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
(Gov. Code § 65589.5) The City does not have, and did not identify at the time the application
was deemed complete, any standards, policies, or conditions requiring modification to existing
private property agreements in order to approve a project.
Sub-assertion (d): Historical Parking Shortages and Citv-Acknowledged Issues. City-required
parking monitoring reports (Orosz Engineering Group) dating back to 2004 documented chronic
shortages, high occupancy (areas perceived full at 85-95%, with peaks up to 93% and certain areas
reaching 100%), misuse, and management challenges under lower-demand commercial/medical
uses. (See Exhibits D and E.) A 2015 Planning Commission memorandum for a prior lower-impact
senior project on the Project site (requiring only 59 spaces) also acknowledged these historical
issues, easements, and constraints. (See Exhibit F.) Adding 92 higher-occupancy residential units
will exacerbate displacement and spillover, rendering even reduced ratios insufficient as a practical
matter.
City Response: The appeal states that the City has acknowledged parking issues at this shared
use site through historical entitlement reviews of the subject property. While the City has previously
analyzed parking impacts in this location, that analysis was prepared for different applications not
before the City now. State law requires that cities make findings to approve or disapprove projects
based upon the facts of the application being reviewed. Even City “acknowledgement” of parking
“issues” at and near the site does not meet the standard for specific, adverse impacts as defined
above in the Government Code.
Moreover, the appellant’s arguments fail to apply the appropriate standard to Council’s review and
omit key conclusions of the report. The appellant relies on a 2004 parking monitoring report
Page 417 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 10
prepared by Orosz Engineering Group. Appellant merely asserts there have been “historical
issues” previously reviewed by the City, and concludes the “reduced [parking] ratios are
insufficient.” However, the same Orosz Engineering Group report appellant relies on concluded,
“The data indicated that the site overall has adequate parking available to tenants, patients and
patrons.” (Appeal, Exhibit E, p. 91 of 366). The report further discusses that the “management
issues” can be resolved by encouraging “employees to utilize parking” in another area. (See id.)
Thus, the appellant does not present evidence that supports denial of the project based upon the
general parking assertions identified in the appeal.
Assertion 2: Improper Application of Statutory CEQA Exemption (Pub. Res. Code 21080.66).
Despite the City Attorney's statements to the contrary, the proposed Project does not qualify for
the AB 130 statutory exemption because it fails multiple eligibility criteria and triggers exclusions
(see generally, Exhibits G and H):
City Response: Attachment 5 provides a thorough analysis of the findings required in order to
utilize the statutory exemption provided by AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code §21080.66). Staff has made
each of the findings affirmatively and contends that the statutory CEQA exemption does apply
to this project.
Sub-assertion (a): Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat Exclusion. The proposed Project site
abuts Meadow Creek along its entire eastern boundary. Similar exemptions (e.g., SB 35)
explicitly exclude projects on sites with wetlands or riparian habitat. The Project's "nesting"
design near the creekbed risks erosion, habitat disturbance, and non-compliance with Fish
& Game Code § 1602 (streambed alteration). Staff findings ignore this exclusion and fail to
demonstrate no significant environmental effects.
City Response: Public Resources Code section 21080.66 does not preclude the City from
relying on this statutory exemption because it abuts Meadow Creek. Instead, Public
Resources Code section 21080.66 permits the use of this exemption only if it meets certain
criteria, including that the Project site not be located on wetlands, as defined in the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66(a)(6). Here,
Exhibit 1 to Attachment 5 contains a letter written by the project’s biologist stating that no
wetlands, as defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, exist on the project site. Further,
the presence of riparian habitat alone on the site does not preclude the City’s reliance on
this statutory exemption, as it is not one of the identified criteria under Public Resources
Code section 21080.66. As identified in the June 27, 2026, Creekside Junction Project
Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters
of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination, the Project site is mainly paved and
dirt parking lots, with a constructed basin and berm along Meadow Creek supporting upland
non-native annual grassland, ruderal areas with patches of coyote brush, and a small stand
of coast live oaks and willows on the southeast corner of the site. (Attachment 5, Exhibit 2
) This cluster of coast live oaks and arroyo willow trees above the top of Meadow Creek
bank are in uplands, and not associated with a riparian context. (Id., p. 2.) The project would
have no impact on any wetland or riparian habitat. (Id., p. 4.) As for the appellant’s claims
that the Project design will risk erosion and non-compliance with Fish & Game Code section
1602, the Project Condition of Approval 76 requires the applicant to submit improvement
plans, including erosion control, and be approved by the Public Works Department and/or
Community Development Department. Further, AGMC 13.24.120 requires the applicant to
implement erosion and sediment control measures prior to, during, and after construction.
The applicant will be required to obtain approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Page 418 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 11
(SWPPP) from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). City
staff will review the SWPPP to ensure that the plan is consistent with City requirements
prior to approval of the development and construction plans. Therefore, the project satisfies
the requirements in AB 130 and Public Resources Code section 21080.66.
Sub-assertion (b): Surrounding Urban Uses Criterion Not Met. Less than 75% of the site
perimeter adjoins urban uses; the eastern boundary is open space/creek, reducing
effective urban adjacency below the threshold.
City Response: Public Resources Code section 21080.66(a)(3)(A)-(D) requires that the
Project site meet any of the following criteria: (1) previously developed with an urban use,
(2) at least 75 percent of the site perimeter adjoins parcels developed with urban uses, (3)
at least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with
urban uses, or (4) for sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with
urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are
developed with urban uses. As stated in Attachment 5, criterion 3, approximately 77% of the
area within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site is developed with urban uses.
California Public Resource Code Section 210729 defines urban uses as any residential,
commercial, public institutional, transit/transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or a
combination thereof. Therefore, the surrounding urban uses criterion is met.
Sub-assertion (c): Inconsistency. with Zoning and General Plan. The proposed Project
site is currently commercial-only with no existing residential component and is encumbered
by easements restricting residential uses. Premature classification as "mixed-use" (Office
Mixed Use district) creates circular reasoning. (See, AGMC § 16.04.070.) The Project
relies on post-approval mixed-use status to qualify for density incentives and exemptions,
without resolving legal barriers. This violates requirements for consistency with applicable
plans and standards.
City Response: As articulated through, State law clearly exempts any inconsistency with
General Plan or Zoning standards that are due to the application of density bonus
concessions or waivers. (Gov. Code, § 65915(j)(1); Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Further,
contrary to appellant’s reasoning, Public Resources Code section 21080.66(a)(4)(C) states
that “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.” Additionally, no
evidence in the record indicates that approving the project, as conditioned, would have an
unmitigable specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.
Sub-assertion (d): Failure to Meet Other Performance Standards. Required tribal
consultation, Phase I assessment completeness, and air quality measures all are
inadequately documented or unverified in the record.
Statutory exemptions require strict compliance; substantial evidence does not support the
findings in Attachment 3 (AB 130 Findings). (Exhibit H.) Furthermore, contrary to any
assertions by legal counsel during the January 20, 2026, Planning Commission meeting
9https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=2107
2
Page 419 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 12
that AB 130 precludes further investigation into project eligibility (see 1/20/2026 Meeting
Video, 3:02:293:03:37, pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com), the statute mandates
that the lead agency verify strict compliance with all objective criteria, including zoning
consistency, absence of legal restrictions (e.g., easements), and environmental
protections. AB 130's intent is to streamline approvals for qualifying projects, not to bypass
factual verification or allow approvals without substantial evidence supporting exemption
findings (Pub. Res: Code § 21080.66; see also, Gov't Code § 65589.5 for related housing
accountability). The Commission's failure to investigate parking encumbrances and other
issues constitutes an abuse of discretion under CEQA review standards (Pub. Res. Code
§ 21168.5), rendering the exemption invalid.
City Response: The City’s tribal consultation efforts regarding the project are included in
Attachment 5. Eight separate tribal representatives were notified of the project. One tribe
requested consultation, and consultation resulted in the addition of Condition of Approval
Number 143 to the Planning Commission Resolution. This is in addition to Condition of
Approval Numbers 136-142 that are required by AB 130. Tribal consultation for the project
concluded consistent with applicable State law on January 2, 2026. As required under
Public Resources Code section 21080.66, a Phase 1 ESA has already been provided to
the City and as such, this Project satisfies Public Resources Code section
21080.66(c)(1)(A).
Assertion 3. Violation of Creek Setback and Riparian Protection Standards. The Project
encroaches too closely on Meadow Creek, violating General Plan Element C/OS2-1.3 (25-50-foot
setback where feasible) and AGMC § 16.44.050 (50-foot enforceable setback). The proposed 32-
foot setback is insufficient and no variance was requested nor granted. The split-level design places
taller portions nearest the creek, increasing erosion, flooding, and habitat risks without adequate
mitigation, permits, or impermeable surface restrictions (per Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed
Creek Care Guide).
City Response: The 32’ creek setback proposed by the applicant for the project has already been
deemed consistent with AGMC § 16.44.050. The HAA provides that if a city does not notify an
applicant of an inconsistency with an applicable development standards before the application is
deemed complete, the project is deemed consistent with unidentified standards, as a matter of law.
(Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)–(B).) This standard was not identified by staff as an inconsistency
at the time the application was deemed complete because prior approvals located along Meadow
Creek have been approved with a 32’ setback or a substantially similar setback.
Furthermore, the 32’ creek setback is consistent with General Plan policy C/OS2-1.3: “Where
feasible, maintain a development setback of 25 – 50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of
riparian habitat depending on slope, habitat and floodplain characteristics. Locate development
outside the setback.” (Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element (2007), Arroyo Grande
General Plan) Under the HAA, a project is deemed consistent with zoning standards when there is
an inconsistency between the zoning code standard and the General Plan standard. (Gov. Code §
65589.5(j)(4)) As a 32’ setback is consistent with the applicable General Plan standard of a setback
of 25-50 feet.
By way of additional background, as discussed in a March 24, 2015, staff report to City Council for
a previous project at this property, a creek variance setback had previously been approved at 35’
for this site, and staff had previously recommended a variance for the setback at 32’. (Appeal, Ex.
F, p. 104 of 366) Staff had previously analyzed that application of the 50’ creek setback standard
would “reduce the buildable lot width significantly.” (Id. at p. 113 of 366) That staff report identified
Page 420 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 13
that there would be apparent benefits to the creek habitat, where development would “enhance the
health and function of the riparian area” by removing invasive species and providing revegetation
benefits. (Id.) While application of the creek setback standard is now precluded by state law, if the
applicant were to request a density bonus waiver under Gov. Code § 65915(e), the applicant would
be entitled to an 18’ deviation from the setback requirement to avoid physical preclusion of the
project.
Thus, the proposed 32’ foot creek setback is deemed consistent with the City’s development
standard by two separate provisions of state law, and the applicant would be entitled to a waiver
from the standard because strict application would preclude the applicant from building at the
proposed density.
Assertion 4. Inadequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Shared parking agreements and
historical shortages will cause spillover onto adjacent streets and plazas. Mitigation measures (e.g.,
shared spaces with Best Western hotel and/or Hope Church) are insufficient under SB 743 VMT
standards and the City's Circulation Element, especially given higher residential trip generation. In
addition, in preparation of the hearing, both the hotel and the church pastor have confirmed they
have no agreement with the Applicant and do not intend to enter into any such agreements.
City Response: In compliance with Senate Bill 743, the City has adopted a Transportation Impact
Study Guidelines10, which are based on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric rather than the
traditional Level of Service (LOS). Based on the City’s VMT screening criteria, the project is not
screened out and was required to complete a VMT analysis. Residential projects that conduct a
VMT analysis shall calculate the project VMT per capita using the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) travel demand model and compare the results to regional VMT with and
without the project’s modeled impacts. As shown in the analysis (Attachment 6), the existing home-
based VMT for Arroyo Grande is 20.2 VMT per capita, while the project is expected to result in
12.29 VMT per capita. Per the City’s guidelines, this is more than fifteen percent (15%) below
existing VMT and thus, the project would not have a potentially significant impact on VMT.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the City’s requirements for evaluating potential traffic and
circulation impacts.
Assertion 5. The Project Does Not Qualify for Preferential Treatment. As discussed herein, the
Project fails to comply with applicable zoning, development standards, state housing laws, and
CEQA exemption criteria. As such, the Project does not qualify for the preferential treatment under
Government Code § 65589.5 as asserted by the January 20, 2026, Memorandum or the Planning
Commission. Additional arguments related to lack of qualifications will be provided prior to and at
the hearing.
City Response: This project meets the definition of a housing development project in the HAA.
(Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).) Staff has evaluated the project and determined that it complies with
the City’s objective standards. State law exempts any inconsistency as a result of density bonus
concessions or waivers. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Additionally, no evidence in the record
indicates that approving the project, as conditioned, would have an unmitigable specific, adverse
impact on public health and safety. The project’s required review under applicable State law does
not constitute preferential treatment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Page 421 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 14
Grande hereby denies Appeal Case 26-001 and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of
Conditional Use Permit 25-001, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this th day of , 2026.
Page 422 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 15
JAMIE MARAVIGLIA, MAYOR PRO TEM
ATTEST:
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 423 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 16
EXHIBIT ‘A’
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
APPEAL CASE 26-001
1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This approval authorizes the construction of ninety-two (92) multi-family residences at
1271 and 1281 James Way.
2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for CUP 25-001.
4. This application shall automatically expire on March 24, 2028 unless a building permit is
issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for
an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration.
5. Development shall conform to the Office Mixed Use (OMU) requirements except as
otherwise approved.
6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City
Council at the meeting of March 24, 2026 and marked Exhibit B on file in the Community
Development Department. References to the vacation of the existing six-foot pedestrian
easement on the creek side of Building A shall be removed.
7. To the extent permitted by law, Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City
of Arroyo Grande, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified
parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against
the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval
for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its
actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion,
elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse
the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result
of any claim or action brought against the City related to this permit or approval. Although the
Applicant is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion,
participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not
relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition.
8. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated into all construction documents.
Page 424 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 17
9. Applicant shall submit a tabular matrix showing status of all conditions of approval prior to
first building permit submittal and again before project closeout.
10. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all development
consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations and landscape plan.
11. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, “Fences, Walls and
Hedges”; 16.48.120, “Performance Standards”; and 16.48.130 “Screening Requirements”.
12. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.60 of the Development Code.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, all illegal signs shall be removed.
13. Setbacks, building height, building size, lot coverage, floor area ratio, available parking
counts, parking lot landscaping square footage, and the total amount of private or combined
open space shall be as shown on the development plans including those specifically modified
by these conditions.
14. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.56, “Parking and Loading
Requirements” except as otherwise approved by the City or allowed by State law. All parking
spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet.
15. All parking areas of five or more spaces shall have an average of one-half foot-candle
illumination per square foot of parking area for visibility and security during hours of darkness.
16. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate
screening materials and shall be made of an exterior finish that complements the
architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area shall accommodate
recycling container(s).
17. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the standards
set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall be restricted to
the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays
and Sundays. No construction shall occur on City observed holidays.
18. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide details on any proposed
exterior lighting, if applicable. The lighting plan shall include the height, location, and intensity
of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16.48.090 of the Development Code. All lighting
fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp nor the related reflector interior surface is
visible from adjacent properties. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall
not create spill or glare to adjacent properties. All lighting shall be energy efficient (e.g. LED).
19. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded
for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and irrigation plan
shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments. The landscape plan shall be in
Page 425 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 18
conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84 (Water Efficient Landscape
Requirements) and shall include the following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment;
c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet
(5’) of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs;
ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip
irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants.
iii. An automated irrigation system using smart controller (weather based)
technology.
iv. The selection of groundcover plant species shall include native plants.
v. Linear planters shall be provided in parking areas.
vi. Turf areas shall be limited in accordance with Section 16.84.040 of the
Development Code.
20. The applicant shall provide the City with a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in
Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code.
a. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the applicant shall complete a
preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health
and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the
existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the
potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any
nearby property or activity.
b. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall
be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by
current federal and statutory and regulatory standards before the local government
issues a certificate of occupancy.
c. If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or
activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to
levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards
before the City issues a certificate of occupancy
21. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the conditions of
the Community Tree Ordinance (431 C.S.) which include but are not limited to:
a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved by the
Parks and Recreation Director.
b. No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of any tree.
c. No grading shall occur under a tree’s dripline, unless approved by the Public
Works Director.
d. A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8' from the
Page 426 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 19
trunk of each tree or at the dripline, whichever distance is greater.
e. At a minimum, all pruning shall comply with the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards and Best Management Practices. An
independent certified arborist, paid for by the developer and selected by the
Public Works Director, shall conduct all pruning on site. The independent
arborist shall report to the City’s Arborist regarding any pruning activities.
22. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards.
23. For projects approved with specific exterior building colors, the developer shall paint a test
patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted
until inspected by the Community Development Department to verify that colors are
consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required for this inspection.
24. All new electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building(s).
25. Buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system shall also have a Fire Department Connection
(FDC), which shall be located adjacent to a fire access roadway, be remote from all buildings
outside the building collapse zone and screened to the maximum extent permitted by the
Building Official or Fire Chief.
26. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, which is no closer
than 20 feet and no greater than 100 feet with no obstructions or barriers between the FDC
and the hydrant such as roads or driveways.
27. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be located directly adjacent to or within the
respective building to which they serve and screened to the maximum extent feasible.
28. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether
on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with
materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially important that
gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems be completely
screened from public view. All roof-mounted equipment which generates noise, solid
particles, odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from
residential properties.
29. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within the
time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure to comply
with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement action. If it is
determined that violation(s) of these conditions of approval have occurred, or are occurring,
this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development Code Section 16.08.100.
30. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with outside plan checks
performed at either the developer’s or City’s request.
Page 427 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 20
31. The developer shall sweep streets in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 13 -
4.03F.
32. For work requiring engineering inspections, working hours shall comply with Standard
Specification Section 5-1.01.
33. Provide trash enclosure in compliance with Engineering Standard 9060 with solid/rain-
deflecting roof. Drain of trash enclosure to tie into the sewer interceptor or the onsite water
quality BMP.
34. Trash enclosure area(s) shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other
appropriate screening materials and shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and recycling
container storage. Interior vehicle travel ways shall be designed to be capable of
withstanding loads imposed by trash trucks.
35. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non-residential project noise,
in compliance with the City’s noise regulations.
36. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most
recent version of the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Specifications and Engineering
Standards.
37. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the
Community Development Director in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 9.3
E. Provide One (1) set of paper prints and electronic documents on CD or flash drive in both
AutoCAD and PDF format. AutoCAD drawings shall be in State plane coordinates.
38. Submit an electronic PDF file of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during
construction.
39. Preserve existing survey monuments and vertical control benchmarks in compliance with
Standard Specifications Section 5-1.26A.
40. Provide one (1) new vertical control survey benchmark, per City Standard, as directed by City
Engineer.
41. Any modification to the conceptual plans that is determined not to be in substantial
conformance shall be reviewed by staff and referred to the appropriate body for a
recommendation to the Community Development Director.
BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
BUILDING CODES
42. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California Building Standards
Code, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
Page 428 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 21
FIRE LANES
43. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of
the California Vehicle Code.
44. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department
guidelines.
45. Any area that requires a red curb shall be maintained at all times. OSHA Red or similar
paint is required with a highly reflective white paint stenciled on the red paint that reads:
“FIRE LANE – NO PARKING” in repeating intervals.
FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS
46. Project shall have a fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code.
47. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards
and per the California Fire Code.
SECURITY KEY BOX
48. A Knox key box shall be installed as directed by the Fire Code Official when a building permit
is obtained for any work. The key box shall contain keys that will allow the fire department
access to all portions of the building. The keys shall have tags affixed identifying their
purpose. The nominal height of the Knox box installations shall be 5 feet above grade.
Consult with the Fire Marshal for placement and specifications.
FIRE SPRINKLER
49. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per
the California Fire Code.
50. An approved NFPA13 fire sprinkler system is required for all buildings.
51. All NFPA 13 fire sprinkler systems are to be maintained accordingly. Annual flow testing is
required and a current 5-year fire sprinkler certification is required for the life of the system.
52. All FDC’s and fire sprinkler risers shall be maintained with a protective coat of red paint
(OSHA Red or similar) to protect against marine influences and rust for the life of the
system.
53. All newly installed Fire Department connections will be required to install Knox brand FDC
caps (or substantially similar as determined by the Fire Chief).
FIRE ACCESS
Page 429 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 22
54. Provide Fire apparatus access per the California Fire Code Appendix D, as adopted by the
City of Arroyo Grande.
55. All gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with the following criteria:
a. The minimum gate width shall be twenty feet (20’) and remain unobstructed;
b. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type;
c. Construction of all gates shall be of material that allows manual operation by one
person; and
d. Gate components shall be maintained in operative condition at all times and
replaced or repaired when defective.
56. Required fire hydrants and FDCs shall be placed on the same side of the driveways with the
following standards:
a. Be located within 40 feet of an approved roadway or driveway and arranged so that
hose lines can be readily attached to the inlets without interference from any nearby
objects including buildings, fences, posts, plantings or other fire department
connections or otherwise approved by the Fire Chief or his or her designee;
b. Be located within 50 feet of an approved hydrant location;
c. Be situated so that the inlet height shall not be less than 18 inches or more than 48
inches above graed; and
d. Contain guard posts or other approved means in order to protect the devices from
vehicular damage.
57. Pedestrian gates with approved exit hardware shall be required adjacent to any gate that
crosses vehicular paths.
58. Fire hydrants and their distribution shall be in accordance with CFC Appendix CC. Any fire
hydrant located on the property shall be flow tested and maintained with minimum of annual
service or per the manufacturer’s recommendation.
59. No parking signs shall be installed and maintained at all times. Parking shall be allowed in
designated stalls and garages only. Vehicle towing procedures shall be posted along with
the relevant CVC code section.
60. Fire access roads shall be kept clear at all times.
FIRE ALARMS
61. Fire alarms shall be tested on a routine basis, including annual audible testing with the Five
Cities Fire Authority present and in accordance with NFPA 72.
FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY (FCFA) CONDITIONS
62. An approved turnaround is required on any access road that exceeds 150 feet CFC D103.3.
63. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet
Page 430 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 23
exclusive of shoulders, and a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Building
A and Building B access roads shall be 26 feet in width. This includes any carport or
canopies that may be over or near an access road. CFC 503.1.1 and D103.
64. Addressing including unit numbers shall be highly visible and illuminated in low light. A
map of the complex near the entry is required.
65. All open spaces and planned vegetation shall be maintained for the life of the development
in a manner that provides for adequate fire clearance from all structures, minimum height
clearances for fire apparatus access roads, power lines, and in accordance with all
vegetation management best practices to decrease the risk of wildfire and in accordance
with CFC Chapter 47.
66. A vegetation management plan for management of the riparian and wildland areas shall be
prepared by a licensed arborist, landscape architect, or registered forester.
67. The project location is in a high fire hazard zone and therefore shall comply with Chapter
7A CBC and WUI code construction.
68. All FDC’s for all buildings or areas of a building shall be all placed in one mani fold at one
central location and permanently labeled with signage identifying each connection to the
specific building it protects. Consult with the Five Cities Fire Authority/Fire Marshal for FDC
placement.
69. All roads and fire hydrants are required to be in place prior framing any buildings.
Combustible building materials delivered to the construction site require the Five Cities Fire
Authority’s approval prior to delivery during phase 1.
70. Wet standpipes are required in all stairwells.
71. Stairwells shall go through the roof where required by Five Cities Fire Authority.
72. Any building providing an elevator shall have at least one elevator with the capacity to hold
a gurney and emergency response personnel. The applicant shall build an elevator in
Building A and will explore incorporating an elevator into Building B.
73. Fire Cities Fire Authority shall have access to all sides of the building from a fire apparatus
access road no further than 150 feet or as otherwise permitted by Five Cities Fire Authority
and the Building Official.
ABANDONMENT / NON-CONFORMING
74. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as
septic tanks, wells, underground piping, and other undesirable conditions.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
Page 431 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 24
POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, AND ANNUAL
STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
75. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City the following:
a. Prior to a building or grading permit a Stormwater Control Plan that clearly provides
engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak
Flow Management controls complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section
5.2.2.
b. Prior to final acceptance an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance
Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water Quality Treatment,
Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering
Standard 1010 Section 5.2.3.
c. Annual Maintenance Notification indicating that all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff
Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls are being maintained and are
functioning as designed.
d. All reports must be completed by either a Registered Civil Engineer or Qualified
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD).
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
76. Public Improvement Plans, Site Civil Plans, and Maps shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department Engineering Division as a separate submittal from any vertical
construction/structures building improvement plans.
77. Improvement plans must comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 1 and shall be
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of
California and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community Development
Department. The following plan sheet shall be provided:
a. Site Plan
i. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm
drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys.
ii. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
iii. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property.
iv. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
v. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
vi. Location of 100-year flood plain and any areas of inundation within project
area.
b. Grading Plan with Cross Sections
c. Retaining Wall Plan and Profiles
d. Roadway Improvements Plan and Profiles
e. Storm Drainage Plan and Profile
f. Utilities - Water and Sewer Plan and Profile
g. Utilities – Composite Utility
Page 432 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 25
h. Signing and Striping
i. Erosion Control
j. Landscape and Irrigation Plans for Public Right-of-Way
k. Tree Protection Plan
l. Details
m. Notes
n. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
o. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo unit
cost.
78. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community Development
Director including any referenced geotechnical report.
79. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
City for inspection of the required improvements.
80. Applicant shall fund outsourced plan and map check services, as required.
81. The Developer shall provide an outlet structure for the Meadow Creek storm drain. A
stormceptor and/or clarifier for the storm drain leading to Meadow Creek shall be required.
82. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a
public right-of-way or within public easements.
83. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the turning
radiuses within the project site, including access from James Way, can accommodate a
range of vehicles from large trucks and buses to cars.
CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK
84. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Community Development
Director and Public Works Director.
85. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary or verify that existing facilities are compliant
with State and City Standards. This includes the installation of two new ADA compliant
commercial drive approaches. Ramps on James Way shall be brought up to City and State
standards including the ramps on the northeast and southeast corners at the intersection of
James Way and Oak Park Boulevard.
86. Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to
prevent damage due to root growth. Street trees are to be selected from the 2025 street tree
list included on the City’s website
87. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall
be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
Page 433 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 26
DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS
88. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate
from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard forms, and shall
include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report.
The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City
processing.
89. The applicant shall record easements for all public utility infrastructure to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.
90. Unnecessary and excess easements shall be vacated to the greatest extent possible to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.
91. The Civil plans shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate a creekside pedestrian path to the
City. The location of the creekside path shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
92. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a new non-exclusive
pedestrian trail easement. The easement instrument shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Attorney.
93. Only native riparian plants shall be planted within the 32’ creek setback area. Detailed planting
plans shall be submitted in advance of or concurrent with improvement plans.
94. Signs shall be posted prohibiting the use of herbicides or other toxic substances potentially
harmful to creek habitat.
95. Fencing shall be installed along the pedestrian path that does not prohibit migration of fauna
between the path and the riparian area.
96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a density bonus agreement
entered into with, and supplied by, the City that restricts 15% of the project’s base density
equivalent units as affordable to very low income households for at least 55 years (Gov. Code
§ 65915(f)(2), (c)(1)(A)). To comply with this requirement, seven base density equivalent units
(i.e., 15% of the project’s 45.25 base density equivalent units) shall be so restricted, with: a
live work unit counting as 0.5 units, a studio unit counting as 0.5 units, a 1-bedroom unit
counting as 0.75 units, and a 2-bedroom unit counting as 1.0 units (AGMC § 16.36.030(C)).
As an alternative to restricting 15% of the project’s base density equivalent units as affordable
to very low income households, the applicant may record a density bonus agreement, entered
into with, and supplied by the City, that restricts 24% of the project’s base density equivalent
units as affordable to lower income households for at least 55 years (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2),
(c)(1)(A)). To comply with this requirement, 11 base density equivalent units (i.e., 24% of the
project’s 45.25 base density equivalent units) shall be so restricted, with: a live work unit
counting as 0.5 units, a studio unit counting as 0.5 units, a 1-bedroom unit counting as 0.75
units, and a 2-bedroom unit counting as 1.0 units (AGMC § 16.36.030(C)). Under either
scenario, the density bonus agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building
Page 434 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 27
permit.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
97. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit one (1) copy of
the final project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Pollution
Control Plan (WPCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWCB) requirements.
98. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and Standard
Specifications and Engineering Standards.
99. Drainage facilities shall be designed in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section
5.1.2.
100. Submit a geotechnical report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be
performed in accordance with the approved soils report. The date of the soils report shall
be less than 3 years old at the time of submittal.
101. The applicant shall dedicate a pedestrian access easement for the ADA sidewalk extension
if constructed on private property outside of the right of way.
102. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil percolation tests. Infiltration test shall
include adequate borings depth and frequency to support design recommendations.
WATER
103. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public Works
Director must grant permission to dead end water mains.
104. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines to the
structures and/or landscape irrigation.
105. A Double Detector Check (DDC) backflow device is required on all new water service
connections. Fire Department Connections (FDC) must be remote and locations to be
approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief.
106. The DDC shall be placed inside the building or adjacent to the building. Other locations for
the DDC shall be approved by the Director or Community Development.
107. Each parcel shall have separate water meters.
108. Non-potable water for construction is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City of Arroyo
Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters.
Page 435 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 28
109. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections.
110. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering
Standard 6050.
SEWER
111. All sewer laterals shall comply with Engineering Standard 6810.
112. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering
Standard 6050.
113. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. Laterals shall be sized for the
appropriate use, minimum 4”.
114. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed
in accordance with Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
115. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District for the
development’s impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance.
116. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District prior to relocation
of any District facilities.
117. Submit a will-serve letter from South County Sanitary stating that the property access and
location of trash receptacles is adequate for trash collection service.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
118. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050: All projects that
involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required to place
service connections underground - existing and proposed utilities.
119. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all condi tions of
approval for project shall be satisfied.
120. Public Improvement plans and Final Map shall be submitted to the public utility companies
for review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public
Works for approval.
121. Street lighting shall comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 3.1.2.Q.
122. Upon execution of PG&E contract, submit contract to the City. Include approved PG&E
schematics in the project plan set.
TREE PRESERVATION/TREE REMOVAL PLAN
Page 436 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 29
123. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant shall comply
with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance.
124. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer shall submit a tree
preservation and tree removal plan to the Director of Public Works/City Arborist for
undeveloped parcels or lots with trees. The plan shall include the location, size and species
of all trees located on the lot or on adjoining lots, where development could affect the roots
or limbs of trees on adjacent property.
125. All significant trees to be removed as designated by the Director of Public Works/City Arborist
shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and planted on site. With the approval of the Public Works
Director, tree removal shall be mitigated by planting on site, off-site, or payment of in-lieu
fees (at the current street tree fee rate for a 15-gallon tree). Larger trees may be required to
mitigate tree removal. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all trees shall be planted,
or fees paid.
126. Prior to any work on the site, all trees to remain on site shall be marked with paint/ribbon
and protected by a five (5') foot vinyl or chain link fence. The fence shall be located at a
minimum of eight (8') foot radius from the trunk of the tree.
127. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the conditions of
the Community Tree Ordinance (431 C.S.) which include but are not limited to:
a.___ No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved by the
Parks and Recreation Director.
b.___ No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of any tree.
c.___ No grading shall occur under a trees dripline, unless approved by the Public
Works Director.
d.___ A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8' from the
trunk of each tree.
128. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards.
PUBLIC SAFETY
129. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for
Police Department approval.
130. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post accessible parking
signage, per California Building Code Section 11A and other applicable standards.
131. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary alarm
system per Police Department guidelines.
Page 437 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 30
FEES AND BONDS
The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following:
132. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL
a. Plan check for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate).
b. Plan check for improvement plans (Based on an approved construction cost
estimate).
c. Plan Review Fee (Based on the current Building Division fee schedule. NOTE:
The applicant is responsible to pay all fees associated with outside plan review
consultants)
133. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
Subject to Government Code section 65589.5(o)(2)(A):
a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time the
project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City,
involving water connection or enlargement of an existing connection.
b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that
the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the
project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the
City.
e. Fire Protection Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in
effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City
f. Police Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to
the City .
g. Park Development Impact Fee, the developer shall pay the current parks
development fee for each unit approved for construction (credit shall be provided
for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the
project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
h. Recreation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect
at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary applicatio n was
submitted to the City.
i. Transportation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in
effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
j. Storm Drain Development Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect
at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
k. Wastewater Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect
Page 438 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 31
at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
l. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that
the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
m. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection Fee, to be
based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330
preliminary application was submitted to the City .
n. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on codes and
rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application
was submitted to the City .
o. Green Building Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the
project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
p. General Plan Update Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the
City.
q. Technology Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the
project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
r. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the
project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
s. Permit Fee for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate).
t. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction plans (Based on an
approved construction cost estimate).
BONDING SURETY
134. Erosion Control, prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential
construction requires posting of a $1,200.00 performance bond for erosion control and
damage to the public right-of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful completion of the
work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining and/or restoring the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS
135. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide bicycle racks and storage
units on project plans that are sufficient to support at least 15% of the units, to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable law.
136. The proposed parking garages shall be reserved for vehicle storage, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and consistent with applicable law.
California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21080.66(b)(4)(B)
Page 439 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 32
137. The applicant shall be required to have a tribal cultural monitor on-site during all ground-
disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project. Tribal monitoring shall
occur as follows:
a. The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor;
b. The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant’s site access and workplace safety
requirements; and
c. The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined
in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource
monitoring, taking into account factors such as scope and duration of the project.
138. The applicant shall avoid any tribal cultural resources where feasible, in accordance with
Public Resources code section 21084.3, subdivision (a). In furtherance of this requirement,
where feasible, the project application shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding
access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal knowledge in the
protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.
139. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally
appropriate manner by the applicant, consistent with Public Resources Code section
21083.9.
140. The applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
archeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the project site.
Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of building permits.
141. The applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
142. The project shall comply with Health and Safety Code sections 7050.5 and 5097.98,
including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and
treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California
Native American tribe.
143. The applicant shall provide an application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat
restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental
context and conditions of the project.
144. Additional California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Requested by Santa
Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI):
a. At the discretion of the tribes, Native American monitor may be present on the
project site to observe any or all ground-disturbing activities. The Native American
monitor will be the designated lead to represent tribal interest during construction .
b. The monitor may observe all activities from a safe distance and within safely
accessible portions of the project area. During ground -disturbing activities, the
monitor may inspect back dirt piles for evidence of cultural materials, as well.
Page 440 of 601
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 33
c. The monitor may observe grading and grubbing by following the construction
equipment as it removes soil or vegetation or both, walking safely accessible areas
after the machinery has cleared, or standing to the side and observing the soil
removal activity.
d. When deeper excavation or trenching is conducted, the monitor can observe the
mechanical removal of soil and can carefully inspect the back dirt that is removed
from the trench or pit. If it is safe to do so, the monitor can inspect the sidewalls of
trenches and pits as they are exposed.
e. In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, tribal
cultural resources are uncovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery
shall be halted (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until
the discovered tribal cultural resource has been fully assessed by the SYBCI
monitor. The Native American monitor will participate in and/or observe all
archaeological investigations/fieldwork required to determine the nature and extent
(as well as documentation) of the find. SYBCI will recover and retain all discovered
tribal cultural resources in the form and/or manner SYBCI deems appropriate, in
SYBCI’s sole discretion, and for any purpose SYBCI deems appropriate, including
for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
f. The applicant’s full construction team shall receive a presentation regarding a
Worker Environmental Awareness Plan (WEAP) prior to the start of any construction
activities. The WEAP shall be presented by tribal representatives. Documentation
demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to
construction activities.
Page 441 of 601
Page 442 of 601
Page 443 of 601
Page 444 of 601
Page 445 of 601
Page 446 of 601
Page 447 of 601
Page 448 of 601
Page 449 of 601
Page 450 of 601
Page 451 of 601
Page 452 of 601
Page 453 of 601
Page 454 of 601
Page 455 of 601
Page 456 of 601
Page 457 of 601
Page 458 of 601
Page 459 of 601
Page 460 of 601
Page 461 of 601
Page 462 of 601
Page 463 of 601
Page 464 of 601
Page 465 of 601
PROJECT LOCATION
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 466 of 601
Page 467 of 601
Page 468 of 601
Page 469 of 601
Page 470 of 601
Page 471 of 601
Page 472 of 601
Page 473 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 25-001; CONSTRUCTION OF NINETY-TWO
92) MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; LOCATION — 1271
AND 1281 JAMES WAY; APPLICANT — RUSS SHEPPEL;
REPRESENTATIVE — DARIN CABRAL, RRM DESIGN
GROUP, AND FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE SECTION 21080.66(a)
WHEREAS, the existing project site incorporates two parcels with a combined size of
approximately 1.81 acre parcel located at 1271 and 1281 James Way; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 25-001 to construct ninety-two
92) multi -family dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the parcels with a Mixed Use land use designation have a maximum density of
25 dwelling units per acre, or 45.25 dwelling units on the 1.81 -acre project site; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a density bonus and related incentives and
concessions pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code section 65915)
based on the provision of affordable housing units, where at least 15% of the total units
are restricted as affordable to very low income households or 24% of the units are
restricted as affordable to low income households, resulting in a maximum allowable
density of up to ninety-two (92) dwelling units after applying a 50% State Density Bonus
Law unit increase and density unit equivalents of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC)
section 16.36.030(C); and
WHEREAS, the Staff Advisory Committee considered the project on March 12, 2025, and
recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee considered the project on November 3,
2025, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Community Development Department has determined that the proposed project is
statutorily exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, a statutory
exemption from CEQA review for certain infill housing developments, as documented in the
Memorandum for the project (see Attachment 3 of the January 20, 2026 Planning
Commission Staff Report); and.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project
at a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2026; and
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 474 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation, and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
CEQA Findings:
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21080.66, which became effective on June 30, 2025, with the
passage of Assembly Bill 130, and as documented in the Memorandum for the Project
see Attachment 3 of the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report), and
directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and Office of Land Use
and Climate Innovation within five business days of the adoption of this resolution.
The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
1. Project Site Size (PRC § 21080.66(a)(1)(A-B)): The project site is 1.81
acres, and therefore is not more than 20 acres.
2. Project Location (PRC § 21080.66(a)(2)(A-B)): The entirety of the project
site lies within the incorporated City of Arroyo Grande.
3. Urban Uses (PRC § 21080.66(a)(3)(A-D)): Approximately 779/6 of the area
within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency (PRC §21080.66(a)(4)(A-C)): The
project, as proposed, is consistent with applicable general plan and zoning
ordinances, including the following General Plan Elements: Land Use;
Housing, Conservation and Open Space; and Circulation because the
project proposes a density that is allowable when calculating the base
density and incorporating State Density Bonus law. The Land Use Element
establishes a maximum density of 25 dwelling units/acre and the project
proposes 37.3 dwelling units per acre, using State Density Bonus Law.
Pursuant to State law, a project's density increase under the density bonus
law is considered consistent with the general plan. Therefore, the project is
consistent with the elements of the General Plan.
5. Minimum Density (PRC §21080.66(a)(5)): The project's proposed density
exceeds one-half of the applicable density (10du/ac) by proposing a density
of 37.3du/ac.
6. Environmental Conditions (PRC §21080.66(a)6)): The proposed project is
not located within the coastal zone, nor is it located on prime farmland or
within a wetland or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Furthermore, the
project site is not a hazardous waste site, is not located within a delineated
earthquake fault zone, and is not located within a special flood hazard area
or a regulatory floodway. The project site has not been identified for
Page 475 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 3
conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, is not habitat for
protected species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and is
not a land under conservation easement.
7. Historic Resource (PRC § 21080.66(a)(7)): The project does not propose or
require the demolition of a historic structure.
8. Hotel or Transient Use (PRC § 21080.66(a)(8)): The proposal consists of
92 multifamily residential units and does not include any transient lodging
or short-term rentals.
Conditional Use Permit Findings (Arroyo Grande Municipal Code §16.16.050(D)):
1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the
provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this
title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the
development policies and standards of the City.
The project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 1. 81 acres and
is located within the Office Mixed Use (OMU) district, which allows residential
uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal involves
construction of ninety-two (92) multifamily residential units within an urbanized
mixed-use corridor and was processed in accordance with the requirements
of AGMC Title 16, including review by the Staff Advisory Committee and
Architectural Review Committee, both of which recommended approval.
The project is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation in the
General Plan, which encourages residential development in proximity to
commercial, office, transit, and community -serving uses. As documented in
the staff report, the project implements multiple General Plan policies,
including LU -5-1, LU5-3, LU5-9, LU541, CT5-2, and Housing Element
policies A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, A.9, A.10-1, and A. 11, by providing increased
housing density in the form of infill development, integrating residential uses
into a mixed-use area, pedestrian -oriented design, and increasing the supply
of affordable housing.
The project proposes to reserve fifteen percent (15%) of the base density units
as deed -restricted units affordable to very low income households or 24% of
the base density units as deed -restricted units affordable to low income
households, qualifying the development for density increases, concessions,
and wavers under Government Code § 65915. Residential density for mixed-
use projects in the OMU district is calculated using density equivalency factors
pursuant to AGMC §16.36.030(C). Based on these calculations, the project
results in ninety-two total (92) units. Increases granted under State Density
Bonus Law are deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning
regulations.
Page 476 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 4
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district
in which it is to be established or located.
The project site is surrounded by a variety of compatible uses, including a
hotel, medical offices, a fitness facility, shopping center, religious facility, and
nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed multifamily development is
consistent with the existing and planned character of the mixed use corridor
along James Way, which will serve the existing commercial uses and
integrate with and contribute to a vibrant commercial core.
On November 3, 2025, the Architectural Review Committee evaluated the
project, including its parking, building materials, site design and accessibility.
The Architectural Review Committee supported the project's architecture,
which utilizes architectural elements designed to reduce perceived massing
through articulation, modulation, and varied materials. Landscaping,
setbacks, and screening along the eastern boundary adjacent to Meadow
Creek further ensure compatibility with nearby residential and open space
areas. As conditioned, the project will integrate appropriately into the district,
without impairing its integrity or character, through the urban -oriented site
planning, share parking, internal open space, and architectural elements
described above.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed.
The site is an approximately 1.81ac parcel with existing development and the
site is suitable for additional development based on conformance with the
City's development standards and zoning regulations. The site is currently
vacant land, and the proposed project will infill on the L-shaped lot, within an
incorporated urban area of the City. Existing public infrastructure is available
to serve the development, including roadway access from James Way,
access to commercial services, and available public utilities.
The size, configuration, and zoning of the site are sufficient to accommodate
the proposed two -building, four-story multifamily development, including on-
site parking, open space, landscaping, storm water facilities, and emergency
access. Accordingly, the site is suitable for the proposed residential use and
intensity of such use.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure public health and safety.
The project site is located within an urbanized area served by existing public
water, sewer, storm drainage, fire protection, police services, and
transportation infrastructure. As detailed in the staff report and conditions of
approval, the project will be required to comply with all applicable City
engineering standards, fire access and flow requirements, stormwater
management regulations, and utility service prior to issuance of building
Page 477 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 5
permits and certificates of occupancy. Therefore, there are adequate
provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure
public health and safety.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare
or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be
materially injurious to nearby properties and improvements because the use is both
compatible with adjacent uses and has been properly conditioned to limit its impacts. The
project will be developed with appropriate utility connections, curbs, sewer laterals, gutters,
and sidewalks necessary to serve the 92 unit development. Additionally, the project
proposes a residential use that is compatible with the residential uses east of the project
site. Those existing residential uses are further buffered by Meadow Creek, which runs
along the eastern property boundary. Potential adverse impacts on public health and safety
will be satisfactorily mitigated by the proposed conditions such that the use will not be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Among other things, these
proposed conditions require illumination of parking spaces for safety, that trash enclosures
be screened from public view with screening materials that complement the architectural
features of the main building, and limitation on construction and operational activities in
accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the AGMC. Accordingly, the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially
injurious to nearby properties and improvements due to its compatibility and the conditions
of approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 25-001 as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the
conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
On motion by Vice Chair Martin, seconded by Commissioner Sackrison, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Martin, Sackrison, Roof
NOES: None
ABSTAIN None
ABSENT: Buchanan, Worthen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of January, 2026.
Page 478 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 6
VIRGiNI ROOF
CHAIR
ATTEST:
PATRICK HOLUB
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
BRIAN PEDROTTI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Page 479 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 7
EXHIBIT `A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This approval authorizes the construction of ninety-two (92) multi -family
residences at 1271 and 1281 James Way.
2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for CUP 25-001.
4. This application shall automatically expire on January 20, 2028 unless a building
permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant
may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration.
5. Development shall conform to the Office Mixed Use (OMU) requirements except as
otherwise approved.
6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the
Planning Commission at the meeting of January 20, 2026 and marked Exhibit B
on file in the Community Development Department. References to the vacation of
the existing six-foot pedestrian easement on the creek side of Building A shall be
removed.
7. To the extent permitted by law, Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the City of Arroyo Grande, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the
indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or
void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without
limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney's fees and costs in defense of the
litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and
attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action
brought against the City related to this permit or approval. Although the Applicant is
the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at
its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve
the Applicant of any obligation under this condition.
Page 480 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 8
8. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated into all construction documents.
9. Applicant shall submit a tabular matrix showing status of all conditions of approval
prior to first building permit submittal and again before project closeout.
10. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all
development consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations
and landscape plan.
11. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, "Fences,
Walls and Hedges"; 16.48.120, "Performance Standards"; and 16.48.130 "Screening
Requirements".
12. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.60 of the Development
Code. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all illegal signs shall be removed.
13. Setbacks, building height, building size, lot coverage, floor area ratio, available parking
counts, parking lot landscaping square footage, and the total amount of private or
combined open space shall be as shown on the development plans including those
specifically modified by these conditions.
14. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.56, "Parking and
Loading Requirements" except as otherwise approved by the City or allowed by State
law. All parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a
minimum width of 11 feet.
15. All parking areas of five or more spaces shall have an average of one-half foot-candle
illumination per square foot of parking area for visibility and security during hours of
darkness.
16. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other
appropriate screening materials and shall be made of an exterior finish that
complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area
shall accommodate recycling container(s).
17. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the
standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall
be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9 AM
to 5 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. No construction shall occur on City observed
holidays.
18. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide details on any
proposed exterior lighting, if applicable. The lighting plan shall include the height,
location, and intensity of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16.48.090 of the
Page 481 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 9
Development Code. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp nor
the related reflector interior surface is visible from adjacent properties. All lighting for
the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to adjacent
properties. All lighting shall be energy efficient (e.g. LED).
19. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or
bonded for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and
irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review
and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The
landscape plan shall be in conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84
Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) and shall include the following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground -mounted utility and mechanical
equipment;
c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five
feet (6) of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs;
ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip
irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants.
iii. An automated irrigation system using smart controller (weather based)
technology.
iv. The selection of groundcover plant species shall include native plants.
V. Linear planters shall be provided in parking areas.
vi. Turf areas shall be limited in accordance with Section 16.84.040 of the
Development Code.
20. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the
conditions of the Community Tree Ordinance (431 C.S:) which include but are not
limited to:
a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved
by the Parks and Recreation Director.
b. No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of
any tree.
C. No grading shall occur under a tree's dripline, unless approved by the
Public Works Director.
d. A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8'
from the trunk of each tree or at the dripline, whichever distance is
greater.
e. At a minimum, all pruning shall comply with the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards and Best
Page 482 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 10
Management Practices. An independent certified arborist, paid for by
the developer and selected by the Public Works Director, shall conduct
all pruning on site. The independent arborist shall report to the City's
Arborist regarding any pruning activities.
21. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards.
22. For projects approved with specific exterior building colors, the developer shall paint
a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may
not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department to verify
that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required
for this inspection.
23. All new electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building(s).
24. Buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system shall also have a Fire Department
Connection (FDC), which shall be located adjacent to a fire access roadway, be
remote from all buildings outside the building collapse zone and screened to the
maximum extent permitted by the Building Official or Fire Chief.
25. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, which is no
closer than 20 feet and no greater than 100 feet with no obstructions or barriers
between the FDC and the hydrant such as roads or driveways.
26. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be located directly adjacent to or within
the respective building to which they serve and screened to the maximum extent
feasible.
27. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment,
whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public
view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially
important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping
systems be completely screened from public view. All roof -mounted equipment which
generates noise, solid particles, odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to
be directed away from residential properties.
28. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within
the time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure
to comply with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement
action. If it is determined that violation(s) of these conditions of approval have
occurred, or are occurring, this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development
Code Section 16.08.100.
29. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with outside plan
Page 483 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 11
checks performed at either the developer's or City's request.
30. The developer shall sweep streets in compliance with Standard Specifications
Section 13-4.03F.
31. For work requiring engineering inspections, working hours shall comply with Standard
Specification Section 5-1.01.
32. Provide trash enclosure in compliance with Engineering Standard 9060 with solid/rain-
deflecting roof. Drain of trash enclosure to tie into the sewer interceptor or the onsite
water quality BMP.
33. Trash enclosure area(s) shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other
appropriate screening materials and shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and
recycling container storage. Interior vehicle travel ways shall be designed to be
capable of withstanding loads imposed by trash trucks.
34. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non-residential project
noise, in compliance with the City's noise regulations.
35. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
most recent version of the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Specifications and
Engineering Standards.
36. Submit as -built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by
the Community Development Director in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010
Section 9.3 E. Provide One (1) set of paper prints and electronic documents on CD or
flash drive in both AutoCAD and PDF format. AutoCAD drawings shall be in State
plane coordinates.
37. Submit an electronic PDF file of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes
during construction.
38. Preserve existing survey monuments and vertical control benchmarks in compliance
with Standard Specifications Section 5-1.26A.
39. Provide one (1) new vertical control survey benchmark, per City Standard, as directed
by City Engineer.
40. Any modification to the conceptual plans that is determined not to be in substantial
conformance shall be reviewed by staff and referred to the appropriate body for a
recommendation to the Community Development Director.
BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
Page 484 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 12
BUILDING CODES
41. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California Building
Standards Code, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
FIRE LANES
42. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section
22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
43. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire
Department guidelines.
44. Any area that requires a red curb shall be maintained at all times. OSHA Red or
similar paint is required with a highly reflective white paint stenciled on the red paint
that reads: "FIRE LANE — NO PARKING' in repeating intervals.
FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS
45. Project shall have a fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code.
46. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department
standards and per the California Fire Code.
SECURITY KEY BOX
47. A Knox key box shall be installed as directed by the Fire Code Official when a building
permit is obtained for any work. The key box shall contain keys that will allow the fire
department access to all portions of the building. The keys shall have tags affixed
identifying their purpose. The nominal height of the Knox box installations shall be 5
feet above grade. Consult with the Fire Marshal for placement and specifications.
FIRE SPRINKLER
48. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and
per the California Fire Code.
49. An approved NFPA13 fire sprinkler system is required for all buildings.
50. All NFPA 13 fire sprinkler systems are to be maintained accordingly. Annual flow
testing is required and a current 5 -year fire sprinkler certification is required for the life
of the system.
51. All FDC°s and fire sprinkler risers shall be maintained with a protective coat of red
paint (OSHA Red or similar) to protect against marine influences and rust for the life
Page 485 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 13
of the system.
52. All newly installed Fire Department connections will be required to install Knox brand
FDC caps (or substantially similar as determined by the Fire Chief).
FIRE ACCESS
53. Provide Fire apparatus access per the California Fire Code Appendix D, as adopted
by the City of Arroyo Grande.
54. All gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with the following
criteria:
a. The minimum gate width shall be twenty feet (20') and remain unobstructed;
b. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type;
c. Construction of all gates shall be of material that allows manual operation by
one person; and
d. Gate components shall be maintained in operative condition at all times and
replaced or repaired when defective.
55. Required fire hydrants and FDCs shall be placed on the same side of the driveways
with the following standards:
a. Be located within 40 feet of an approved roadway or driveway and arranged
so that hose lines can be readily attached to the inlets without interference
from any nearby objects including buildings, fences, posts, plantings or other
fire department connections or otherwise approved by the Fire Chief or his or
her designee;
b. Be located within 50 feet of an approved hydrant location;
c. Be situated so that the inlet height shall not be less than 18 inches or more
than 48 inches above graed; and
d. Contain guard posts or other approved means in order to protect the devices
from vehicular damage.
56. Pedestrian gates with approved exit hardware shall be required adjacent to any gate
that crosses vehicular paths.
57. Fire hydrants and their distribution shall be in accordance with CFC Appendix CC.
Any fire hydrant located on the property shall be flow tested and maintained with
minimum of annual service or per the manufacturer's recommendation.
58. No parking signs shall be installed and maintained at all times. Parking shall be
allowed in designated stalls and garages only. Vehicle towing procedures shall be
posted along with the relevant CVC code section.
59. Fire access roads shall be kept clear at all times.
Page 486 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 14
FIRE ALARMS
60. Fire alarms shall be tested on a routine basis, including annual audible testing with
the Five Cities Fire Authority present and in accordance with NFPA 72.
FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY (FCFA) CONDITIONS
61. An approved turnaround is required on any access road that exceeds 150 feet CFC
D103.3.
62. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
26 feet exclusive of shoulders, and a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6
inches. Building A and Building B access roads shall be 26 feet in width. This
includes any carport or canopies that may be over or near an access road. CFC
503.1.1 and D103.
63. Addressing including unit numbers shall be highly visible and illuminated in low light.
A map of the complex near the entry is required.
64. All open spaces and planned vegetation shall be maintained for the life of the
development in a manner that provides for adequate fire clearance from all
structures, minimum height clearances for fire apparatus access roads, power lines,
and in accordance with all vegetation management best practices to decrease the
risk of wildfire and in accordance with CFC Chapter 47.
65. A vegetation management plan for management of the riparian and wildland areas
shall be prepared by a licensed arborist, landscape architect, or registered forester.
66. The project location is in a high fire hazard zone and therefore shall comply with
Chapter 7A CBC and WUI code construction.
67. All FDC's for all buildings or areas of a building shall be all placed in one manifold at
one central location and permanently labeled with signage identifying each
connection to the specific building it protects. Consult with the Five Cities Fire
Authority/Fire Marshal for FDC placement.
68. All roads and fire hydrants are required to be in place prior framing any buildings.
Combustible building materials delivered to the construction site require the Five
Cities Fire Authority's approval prior to delivery during phase 1.
69. Wet standpipes are required in all stairwells.
70. Stairwells shall go through the roof where required by Five Cities Fire Authority.
71. Any building providing an elevator shall have at least one elevator with the capacity to
Page 487 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 15
hold a gurney and emergency response personnel. The applicant shall build an
elevator in Building A and will explore incorporating an elevator into Building B.
72. Fire Cities Fire Authority shall have access to all sides of the building from a fire
apparatus access road no further than 150 feet or as otherwise permitted by Five
Cities Fire Authority and the Building Official.
ABANDONMENT / NON -CONFORMING
73. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non -conforming items such
as septic tanks, wells, underground piping, and other undesirable conditions.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD, STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN.
AND ANNUAL STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
74. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City the following:
a. Prior to a building or grading permit a Stormwater Control Plan that clearly
provides engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff
Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering
Standard 1010 Section 5.2.2.
b. Prior to final acceptance an Operations and Maintenance Plan and
Maintenance Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water
Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls
complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.2.3.
c. Annual Maintenance Notification indicating that all Water Quality Treatment,
Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls are being maintained
and are functioning as designed.
d. All reports must be completed by either a Registered Civil Engineer or
Qualified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD).
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
75. Public Improvement Plans, Site Civil Plans, and Maps shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department Engineering Division as a separate submittal from any
vertical construction/structures building improvement plans.
76. Improvement plans must comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 1 and shall
be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State
of California and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community
Development Department. The following plan sheet shall be provided:
a. Site Plan
Page 488 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 16
i. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and
storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or
alleys.
ii. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
iii. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the
property.
iv. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
V. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
vi. Location of 100 -year flood plain and any areas of inundation within
project area.
b. Grading Plan with Cross Sections
c. Retaining Wall Plan and Profiles
d. Roadway Improvements Plan and Profiles
e. Storm Drainage Plan and Profile
f. Utilities - Water and Sewer Plan and Profile
g. Utilities — Composite Utility
h. Signing and Striping
i. Erosion Control
j. Landscape and Irrigation Plans for Public Right -of -Way
k. Tree Protection Plan
I. Details
m. Notes
n. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
o. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo
unit cost.
77. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community
Development Director including any referenced geotechnical report.
78. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the City for inspection of the required improvements.
79. Applicant shall fund outsourced plan and map check services, as required.
80. The Developer shall provide an outlet structure for the Meadow Creek storm drain. A
stormceptor and/or clarifier for the storm drain leading to Meadow Creek shall be
required.
81. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work
within a public right-of-way or within public easements.
82. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the turning
radiuses within the project site, including access from James Way, can accommodate
a range of vehicles from large trucks and buses to cars.
Page 489 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 17
CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK
83. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director.
84. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary or verify that existing facilities are
compliant with State and City Standards. This includes the installation of two new ADA
compliant commercial drive approaches. Ramps on James Way shall be brought up to
City and State standards including the ramps on the northeast and southeast comers
at the intersection of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard.
85. Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and
sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. Street trees are to be selected from
the 2025 street tree list included on the City's website
86. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach
shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS
87. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document
separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard
forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a
current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees,
including any additional required City processing.
88. The applicant shall record easements for all public utility infrastructure to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.
89. Unnecessary and excess easements shall be vacated to the greatest extent possible
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.
90. The Civil plans shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate a creekside pedestrian path
to the City. The location of the creekside path shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
91. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record anew non-exclusive
pedestrian trail easement. The easement instrument shall be to the satisfaction of the
City Attorney.
92. Only native riparian plants shall be planted within the 32' creek setback area. Detailed
planting plans shall be submitted in advance of or concurrent with improvement plans.
93. Signs shall be posted prohibiting the use of herbicides or other toxic substances
potentially harmful to creek habitat.
Page 490 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 18
94. Fencing shall be installed along the pedestrian path that does not prohibit migration of
fauna between the path and the riparian area.
95. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a density bonus
agreement entered into with, and supplied by, the City that restricts 15% of the project's
base density equivalent units as affordable to very low income households for at least
55 years (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2), (c)(1)(A)). To comply with this requirement, seven
base density equivalent units (i.e., 15% of the project's 45.25 base density equivalent
units) shall be so restricted, with: a live work unit counting as 0.5 units, a studio unit
counting as 0.5 units, a 1 -bedroom unit counting as 0.75 units, and a 2 -bedroom unit
counting as 1.0 units (AGMC § 16.36.030(C)). As an alternative to restricting 15% of
the project's base density equivalent units as affordable to very low income
households, the applicant may record a density bonus agreement, entered into with,
and supplied by the City, that restricts 24% of the project's base density equivalent
units as affordable to lower income households for at least 55 years (Gov. Code §
65915(f)(2), (c)(1)(A)). To comply with this requirement, 11 base density equivalent
units (i.e., 24% of the project's 45.25 base density equivalent units) shall be so
restricted, with: a live work unit counting as 0.5 units, a studio unit counting as 0.5 units,
a 1 -bedroom unit counting as 0.75 units, and a 2 -bedroom unit counting as 1.0 units
AGMC § 16.36.030(C)). Under either scenario, the density bonus agreement must be
recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
96. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit one (1)
copy of the final project -specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a
Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) requirements.
97. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
98. Drainage facilities shall be designed in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010
Section 5.1.2.
99. Submit a geotechnical report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading
shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. The date of the
soils report shall be less than 3 years old at the time of submittal.
100. The applicant shall dedicate a pedestrian access easement for the ADA sidewalk
extension if constructed on private property outside of the right of way.
101. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil percolation tests. Infiltration test
Page 491 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 19
shall include adequate borings depth and frequency to support design
recommendations.
WATER
102. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public
Works Director must grant permission to dead end water mains.
103. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines
to the structures and/or landscape irrigation.
104. A Double Detector Check (DDC) backflow device is required on all new water service
connections. Fire Department Connections (FDC) must be remote and locations to
be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief.
105. The DDC shall be placed inside the building or adjacent to the building. Other
locations for the DDC shall be approved by the Director or Community Development.
106. Each parcel shall have separate water meters.
107. Non -potable water for construction is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City
of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters.
108. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections.
109. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with
Engineering Standard 6050.
SFWFR
110. All sewer laterals shall comply with Engineering Standard 6810.
111. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with
Engineering Standard 6050.
112. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. Laterals shall be sized for
the appropriate use, minimum 4".
113. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be
constructed in accordance with Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
114. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District for the
development's impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance.
115. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District prior to
Page 492 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 20
relocation of any District facilities.
116. Submit a will -serve letter from South County Sanitary stating that the property access
and location of trash receptacles is adequate for trash collection service.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
117. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050: All projects
that involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required
to place service connections underground - existing and proposed utilities.
118. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all conditions
of approval for project shall be satisfied.
119. Public Improvement plans and Final Map shall be submitted to the public utility
companies for review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the
Director of Public Works for approval.
120. Street lighting shall comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 3.1.2.Q.
121. Upon execution of PG&E contract, submit contract to the City. Include approved
PG&E schematics in the project plan set.
TREE PRESERVATION/TREE REMOVAL
122. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance.
123. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer shall submit a tree
preservation and tree removal plan to the Director of Public Works/City Arborist for
undeveloped parcels or lots with trees. The plan shall include the location, size and
species of all trees located on the lot or on adjoining lots, where development could
affect the roots or limbs of trees on adjacent property.
124. All significant trees to be removed as designated by the Director of Public Works/City
Arborist shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and planted on site. With the approval of the
Public Works Director, tree removal shall be mitigated by planting on site, off-site, or
payment of in -lieu fees (at the current street tree fee rate for a 15 -gallon tree). Larger
trees may be required to mitigate tree removal. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, all trees shall be planted, or fees paid.
125. Prior to any work on the site, all trees to remain on site shall be marked with
paint/ribbon and protected by a five (6) foot vinyl or chain link fence. The fence shall
be located at a minimum of eight (8') foot radius from the trunk of the tree.
Page 493 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 21
126. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the
conditions of the Community Tree Ordinance (431 C.S.) which include but are not
limited to:
a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved
by the Parks and Recreation Director.
b. No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of
any tree.
C. No grading shall occur under a trees dripline, unless approved by the
Public Works Director.
d. A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8'
from the trunk of each tree.
127. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards.
PUBLIC SAFETY
128. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting
plan for Police Department approval.
129. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post accessible
parking signage, per California Building Code Section 11A and other applicable
standards.
130. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary
alarm system per Police Department guidelines.
FEES AND BONDS
The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following:
131. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL
a. Plan check for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate).
b. Plan check for improvement plans (Based on an approved construction
cost estimate).
c. Plan Review Fee (Based on the current Building Division fee schedule.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible to pay all fees associated with outside
plan review consultants)
132. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
Subject to Government Code section 65589.5(o)(2)(A):
a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
Page 494 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 22
time the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted
to the City, involving water connection or enlargement of an existing
connection.
b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to
the City.
c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to
the City.
d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
e. Fire Protection Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates
in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary
application was submitted to the City
f. Police Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect
at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
g. Park Development Impact Fee, the developer shall pay the current parks
development fee for each unit approved for construction (credit shall be
provided for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
h. Recreation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in
effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application
was submitted to the City.
i. Transportation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and
rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary
application was submitted to the City.
j. Storm Drain Development Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in
effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application
was submitted to the City.
k. Wastewater Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in
effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application
was submitted to the City.
i. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
m. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection Fee, to
be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete
SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
n. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on
codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330
preliminary application was submitted to the City.
o. Green Building Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
Page 495 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 23
that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to
the City .
p. General Plan Update Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted to the City.
q. Technology Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that
the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the
City .
r. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that
the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the
City.
s. Permit Fee for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate).
t. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction plans (Based on
an approved construction cost estimate).
BONDING SURETY
133. Erosion Control, prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential
construction requires posting of a $1,200.00 performance bond for erosion control and
damage to the public right-of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful
completion of the work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining and/or
restoring the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS
134. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide bicycle racks and
storage units on project plans that are sufficient to support at least 15% of the units,
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with
applicable law.
135. The proposed parking garages shall be reserved for vehicle storage, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable
law.
California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21080.66 b 4 B
136. The applicant shall be required to have a tribal cultural monitor on-site during all
ground -disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project. Tribal
monitoring shall occur as follows:
a. The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor;
b. The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant's site access and workplace
safety requirements; and
Page 496 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 24
c. The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate,
determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural
resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as scope and duration
of the project.
137. The applicant shall avoid any tribal cultural resources where feasible, in accordance
with Public Resources code section 21084.3, subdivision (a). In furtherance of this
requirement, where feasible, the project application shall provide deference to tribal
preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and
incorporate tribal knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural
resources and landscapes.
138. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a
culturally appropriate manner by the applicant, consistent with Public Resources Code
section 21083.9.
139. The applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS) archeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the
project site. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
140. The applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC). Documentation demonstrating compliance with this
condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
141. The project shall comply with Health and Safety Code sections 7050.5 and 5097.98,
including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial
grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the
affected California Native American tribe.
142. The applicant shall provide an application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat
restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific
environmental context and conditions of the project.
143. Additional California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Requested by
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI):
a. At the discretion of the tribes, Native American monitor may be present on the
project site to observe any or all ground -disturbing activities. The Native
American monitor will be the designated lead to represent tribal interest
during construction.
b. The monitor may observe all activities from a safe distance and within safely
accessible portions of the project area. During ground -disturbing activities, the
monitor may inspect back dirt piles for evidence of cultural materials, as well.
c. The monitor may observe grading and grubbing by following the construction
equipment as it removes soil or vegetation or both, walking safely accessible
Page 497 of 601
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 25
areas after the machinery has cleared, or standing to the side and observing
the soil removal activity.
d. When deeper excavation or trenching is conducted, the monitor can observe
the mechanical removal of soil and can carefully inspect the back dirt that is
removed from the trench or pit. If it is safe to do so, the monitor can inspect
the sidewalls of trenches and pits as they are exposed.
e. In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project,
tribal cultural resources are uncovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery shall be halted (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and
shall not resume until the discovered tribal cultural resource has been fully
assessed by the SYBCI monitor. The Native American monitor will participate
in and/or observe all archaeological investigations/fieldwork required to
determine the nature and extent (as well as documentation) of the find.
SYBCI will recover and retain all discovered tribal cultural resources in the
form and/or manner SYBCI deems appropriate, in SYBCI's sole discretion,
and for any purpose SYBCI deems appropriate, including for educational,
cultural and/or historic purposes.
f. The applicant's full construction team shall receive a presentation regarding a
Worker Environmental Awareness Plan (WEAP) prior to the start of any
construction activities. The WEAP shall be presented by tribal
representatives. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition
shall be submitted to the City prior to construction activities.
Page 498 of 601
Page 499 of 601
Page 500 of 601
Page 501 of 601
Page 502 of 601
Page 503 of 601
Page 504 of 601
CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
CALIFORNIA
Subject: Creekside Junction Project, Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location
1271/1281 James Way; Applicant – Russell Sheppell
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Statutory Exemption Per Public
Resources Code Section 21080.66.
The City of Arroyo Grande has conducted environmental review for the Creekside Junction
project pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66, a statute within
Assembly Bill (AB 130). Effective June 30, 2025, AB 130 made significant modifications to
CEQA, including creation of a new statutory CEQA exemption, PRC Section 21080.66, for
infill housing developments that meet certain conditions. As detailed below, City staff has
determined that the Creekside Junction project (“Project”) qualifies for statutory exemption
from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal involves the construction of two (2) new residential buildings containing a total
of ninety-two (92) multi-family residential units on a 1.81-acre site. Both buildings will be four
(4) stories in height in a split -level pad concept. The development proposes to include twenty
(20) studios, fifty-eight (58) one-bedroom units and fourteen (14) two-bedroom units. The
project also includes a community center, fitness area, and thirty-one (31) one-car garages.
Common open space areas are spread out throughout the residential community. The larger
of the buildings includes elevator access for the residents. The project proposes to reserve
fifteen percent (15%) of the base density in the form of deed-restricted units reserved for
individuals meeting San Luis Obispo County’s Affordable Housing Standards for Very Low
Income households. In order to entitle this project, the applicant is required to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit. Offsite improvements for this project include the replacement of
damaged sidewalks along the project frontage and replacement of the site’s driveway
approach.
CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION APPLICABILITY
AB 130 created a new statutory exemption for infill housing development projects that meet
the eligibility criteria under PRC Section 21080.66. The following discussion below provides
an analysis of the Project against the eligibility criteria to determine the applicability of the
infill housing development project statutory exemption.
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 505 of 601
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
1.Project site must not be greater than 20 acres. Alternatively, if a builder’s remedy
project is proposed, the project site or parcel size is not more than 5 acres. (PRC, §
21080.66(a)(1)(A)-(B).)
With an area of 1.81 acres (78,892sf), the Project site is not more than 20 acres. This Project
is not invoking builder’s remedy. Thus, this Project satisfies this criterion.
2.Project site is either located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality or
within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. (PRC,
§21080.66(a)(2)(A)-(B).)
The entirety of the Project site lies within the incorporated City of Arroyo Grande, and
therefore satisfies this criterion.
3.Project site has been previously developed with an urban use, at least 75 percent of
the site perimeter adjoins parcels developed with urban uses, at least 75 percent of
the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses, or
for sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses
and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed
with urban uses. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(3)(A)-(D).)
Approximately 77% of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with
urban uses, including a fitness facility, medical offices, hotel and shopping center, religious
facility, and residential uses. Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion.
(4) Project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as
any applicable local coastal program. The 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. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(4)(A)-(C).)
The Project, as proposed, is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning
ordinance, including the following General Plan Elements: Land Use; Housing; Conservation
and Open Space; and Circulation. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum density of
25 dwelling units/acre and the Project proposes 37.3 dwelling units per acre, pursuant to
State Density Bonus Law. Under State law, a density increase granted through the Density
Bonus Law is considered consistent with the general plan. Therefore, the Project is deemed
consistent with both the General Plan and applicable zoning ordinances. Thus, the Project
satisfies this criterion.
Page 506 of 601
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 3
(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code. (PRC §
21080.66(a)(5).)
As a suburban jurisdiction under Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), the Project requires a
density of at least 20 dwelling units/acre. Therefore, the Project must provide at least 10 du/
ac (One-half of 20 du/ac = 10 du/ac). The Project proposes 37.3 du/ac, exceeding the
applicable density requirement. Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion.
(6)The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of
Section 65913.4 of the Government Code. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(6).)
a.Not located in any of the following coastal zone areas:
i.An area between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or
within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high
tideline of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater
distance.
ii.Tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any
wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward
face of any coastal bluff.
iii.An area of the coastal zone that is not subject to a certified local
coastal program or a certified land use plan.
iv.An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable to five feet of sea level
rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States
Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s
coastal hazards vulnerability assessment.
v.On a parcel within the coastal zone that is not zoned for multifamily
housing.
vi.On a parcel in the coastal zone and located on or within a 100-foot
radius of a wetland, as defined in Section 30121 of the Public
Resources Code, or on prime agricultural land, as defined in Sections
30113 and 30241 of the Public Resources Code.
b.Not located on prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance.
c.Not located on wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual.
Page 507 of 601
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
d. Not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state
responsibility area, unless the site has adopted specified fire hazard
mitigation measures.
e. Not located on a hazardous waste site, unless either of the following apply:
i. The site is an underground storage tank site that received a uniform
closure letter based on closure criteria established by the State Water
Resources Control Board for residential use or residential mixed uses.
ii. The State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control
Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or a local agency
making a determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has otherwise determined
that the site is suitable for residential use or residential mixed uses.
f. Not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the
State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless
the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code
standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under
the California Building Standards Law, and by any local building department.
g. Not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1
percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, unless either of the following apply:
i. The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local
jurisdiction.
ii. The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements
necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the
National Flood Insurance Program
h. Not located within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no-
rise certification.
i. Not located on lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural
community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act, habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, or other adopted natural resource protection
plan.
Page 508 of 601
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
j. Not located within a habitat for protected species identified as candidate,
sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973, the California Endangered Species Act, or the Native Plant
Protection Act.
k. Not located on lands under conservation easement.
The proposed Project is not located within a coastal zone area, according
to coastal.ca.gov/maps/czb/. The Project site is classified by the California
Department of Conservation on the California Important Farmland Finder
as “Urban and Built Up Land.” See
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
No wetlands exist on the Project site. 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.
Additionally, the Project site is not classified by the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as a very high fire hazard severity
zone nor is the site within the state responsibility area. See
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-
mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones
The Project site is not identified by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board or the Department of Toxic Substances as a hazardous waste site.
See https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ and
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
The Project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone as shown
on the California Geologic Survey’s Seismic Hazards Program: Alquist-
Priolo Fault Hazard Zones map.
The Project site is not located within a special flood hazard area or a
regulatory floodway. The Project site has not been identified for
conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, does not
contain habitat for protected species pursuant to the Endangered Species
Page 509 of 601
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
Act of 1973. 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. The Project site is not located on lands under
conservation easement.
Thus, the Project satisfies these requirements.
(7) Project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a
national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was
submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the Government Code. (PRC
§ 21080.66(a)(7).)
The Project does not propose or require the demolition of a historic structure. There are no
listed historic structures on a national, state, or local historic register on the Project site.
Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion.
(8) For a project that was deemed complete on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the
project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient
lodging. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(8).)
The proposal consists of 92 multifamily residential units and does not include any transient
lodging or short-term rentals. Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion.
TRIBAL CONSULTATION
Projects eligible for the statutory infill housing development exemption must also comply
with the tribal notification requirements under PRC section 21080.66(b). On November 3,
2025, pursuant to PRC section 21080.66(b), the City provided formal notification via certified
mail and email to the following California Native American tribes that are traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the Project site to invite those tribes to consult with the City as to the
proposed Project, its location, and the Project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources:
Chumash Council of Bakersfield; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Northern Chumash
Tribal Council; Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties; Santa Ynez Band of
Chumash Indians; Tule River Indian Tribe; and yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini (Northern Chumash
Tribe).
Page 510 of 601
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
One tribe, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, requested consultation, which the City
initiated and participated in, pursuant to PRC section 21080.66(b)(3)(F). No other tribes
requested consultation, and as such, on January 2, 2026, the City determined that tribal
consultation concluded.
TRIBAL CONSULTATION
While there are no known tribal cultural resources on the Project site, per PRC section
21080.66(b)(4), the Project will be conditioned to comply with binding conditions of project
approval to protect any tribal cultural resources. In addition, the requirement for the local
government to condition the Project to conduct a phase I environmental site assessment
under PRC section 21080.66(c) will be imposed as a binding condition of project approval.
CONCLUSION
As provided above, the proposed Project qualifies for statutory exemption from CEQA
pursuant to PRC section 21080.66 (Infill Housing Development Exemption). As such, no
further environmental analysis under CEQA is required.
Exhibits
1. David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present
Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025.
2. 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.
Page 511 of 601
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
P.O. BOX 7019
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
DAVIDW.ENVIRO@GMAIL.COM
(805) 235-5223
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
September 4, 2025
Russ Sheppel
Creekside Junction
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
SUBJECT: CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PROJECT NO WETLANDS PRESENT DETERMINATION, CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA (APN: 007-711-080, -081)
Dear Mr. Sheppel:
David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is providing this no wetlands present determination in
response to the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City) request to satisfy the conditions of California
Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 (AB 130 & SB 131 respectively). This determination is
based on the existing conditions of the Creekside Junction project site as documented in the
DWE June 27, 2025 Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and supporting
background information.
The relevant sections of AB 130 and SB 131 are as follows:
California Assembly Bill 130 Section 18 Government Code 65941.1 (8)(B) states a
requirement for an applicant to document:
(8)Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following:
(B)Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part
660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
California Senate Bill 131 Section 21080.47 requires:
(c)The project meets all of the following:
(1)Does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitats as defined in the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service Manual Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993), or an
environmentally sensitive habitat area within the coastal zone, as defined in
Section 30107.5.
(NOTE: THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993) Section 2.1
Purpose states:
The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance on using definitions and
classifications of wetlands within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
EXHIBIT 1
Page 512 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC NO WETLANDS PRESENT DETERMINATION |2
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993) defines
wetlands as follows:
A.Wetlands. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following
three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes
(plants specifically adapted to live in wetlands); (2) the substrate is predominantly
undrained hydric (wetland) soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with
water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS DETERMINATION
The above USFWS definition provides the basis for the three-parameter technical wetland
determination criteria for 1) wetland vegetation; 2) wetland (hydric) soils; and 3) wetland
hydrology used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the California State Water
Resources Control Board (Water Board). While the USFWS definition only requires “one or
more” of the parameters to be a wetland, the Corps and Water Board require meeting all
three wetland criteria parameters to be considered a wetland (with some technical
exceptions that do not apply to this determination).
As documented in the record, in 2015 Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) field surveys and wetland
determination data point collection by then SII Principal Ecologist and wetland specialist
David Wolff, showed the absence of the required three-parameter wetland determination
criteria within the constructed basin. SII concluded that the constructed basin did not
support any of the three-parameter jurisdictional wetland criteria summarized as follows:
No wetland vegetation. Dominant plant species observed in the basin bottom were Bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon; FACU), long-beak stork’s bill (Erodium botrys; FACU), perennial
rye grass (Lolium perenne; FAC), and smooth brome (Bromus hordeaceus; FACU) that does
not meet the greater than 50% dominance of OBL, FACW, or FAC wetland vegetation
criteria. 75% of the dominant vegetation are not wetland indicator species.
No hydric soils. Soils test pits found sandy loam surface soils to 10 inches with a color of
10YR 4/3 with layers of 2.5YR 5/3 coarse sandy loam and fractured sandstone perhaps
indicative of the artificial construction of the basin that do not meet the hydric soil field
indicator criteria for low chroma soil color. In addition, no redoxomorphic features
(indicators of wetting and drying) meeting the criteria for hydric soils were observed.
No wetland hydrology. No evidence of ponding or runoff into or out of the basin were
observed during SII 2015 field surveys following several rain events. The contributing area
has been substantially reduced with runoff stormwater from development being directed to
drop inlet structures in the parking lot to the City’s storm drain system and not into the
constructed basin.
Page 513 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC NO WETLANDS PRESENT DETERMINATION |3
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Based on the SII 2015 findings, the Corps Regulatory Division verified the site does not
support a “waters of the U.S./wetland” designation.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings described above and detailed in the DWE 2025 BRA and supporting
background documentation, no wetlands meeting any definition or criteria are present
within the Creekside Junction project site. As such, the proposed project will not affect
wetlands as none exist on the project site.
Thank you very much for continuing with DWE for your environmental consulting services.
Please contact me directly if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
David K. Wolff
Principal Ecologist
Page 514 of 601
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
P.O. BOX 7019
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
DAVIDW.ENVIRO@GMAIL.COM
(805) 235-5223
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
June 27, 2025
Russ Sheppel
Creekside Junction
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
SUBJECT: 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
(APN: 007-711-080, -081)
Dear Mr. Sheppel:
David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is providing this Existing Conditions Biological
Resources Assessment (DWE 2025 BRA) and updated Meadow Creek waters of the U.S./State
jurisdictional limits determination for the Creekside Junction Project, City of Arroyo Grande
(City), California (APN: 007-711-080, -081). DWE has prepared this report based on the
review of available background information from previous project biological/wetland
resources evaluations and current existing conditions biological resources survey conducted
by DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff on April 4, 2025.
2025 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed Creekside Junction project site is highly modified from construction of the
adjacent development. It is composed of paved and dirt parking lots, a constructed basin and
berm along Meadow Creek supporting upland non-native annual grassland, ruderal areas
with patches of coyote brush, and a small stand of coast live oaks and willows on the
southeast corner of the site. The site is bordered by development on the south and west,
James Way on the north, and Meadow Creek to the east. The eastern property line runs
along the edge of the constructed berm as part of the adjacent development to the west
dating back before 1986 when the property was originally purchased from the developer.
The constructed basin and berm support a non-native annual grassland of mostly oats, soft
chess, rye grass, ripgut brome, six weeks grass, veldt grass, short-podded mustard, bur clover,
vetch, and ice plant. Gopher mounds, meadow mouse trails, and western fence lizards were
observed in the constructed basin area during the DWE 2025 field survey. A cluster of coast
live oaks and arroyo willow trees are at the southeast corner of the project site above the top
of Meadow Creek bank are in uplands, and not associated with a riparian context. Several
patches of coyote brush shrubs are growing in previously disturbed areas along the eastern
border of the site and on a fill slope below one of the parking areas (future Building “B”).
EXHIBIT 2
Page 515 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |2
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
In 2023 temporary emergency BMPs in uplands consisting of a rock and grouted rock
stormwater channel, and a basin with drop inlet, to collect and convey developed site runoff
upstream of a failed onsite storm drain pipe. The failure created a sink hole in the parking
lot. The temporary conveyance route was constructed in collaboration with the City. The
temporary drop inlet connects to permanent City storm drain outfall replacement
improvements constructed simultaneously under an existing City grading permit (GRA20-
000003). The permanent public drainage improvements consist of a storm drain
junction manhole, a 24" outfall pipe with flared end section and riprap slope protection. It is
planned that the revised Creekside Junction project will remove the temporary upland
BMPs, and provide a mitigating stormwater system to detain and convey the required
amount of developed runoff from the campus and future project, that leads to the permanent
replaced outfall. A set of representative photographs illustrating the 2025 existing conditions
are attached as Exhibit 1.
UPDATED JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION
The following summarizes the wetland findings information submitted into the record for
previous project applications providing evidence over a 15-year period that the constructed
basin does not support a three-parameter seasonal jurisdictional wetland as runoff from
development was mostly directed to parking lot storm drain inlets, and is now surface runoff
to the above described repaired/replaced culvert and outfall.
• 2001. A Morro Group 2001 wetland delineation report described the man-made basin
was from grading and construction of a berm just outside of the top of the Meadow
Creek bank. At that time approximately 0.09 acre of low-value/low function seasonal
wetland was observed and mapped described as a result of the man-induced grading
and berm construction that created a depressional area that retained rainfall and
runoff. Further, the 2001 Morro Group report stated the wetland does not directly
connect with Meadow Creek, and does not provide any habitat or cover for aquatic or
semi-aquatic species.
• 2010. SWCA (same staff as Morro Group purchased by SWCA) conducted a review of
the wetland conditions of the project site basin on September 17, 2010 to determine
the conditions at that time of soils, vegetation, and hydrology at the same data points
as recorded in their 2001 report. This 2010 study found the area of wetlands had
diminished to 0.006 acre in the southeast corner of the man-made basin. The 2010
SWCA report suggested the wetland area had decreased substantially because less
runoff was reaching the basin from new development, directing most of the runoff
into storm drains since the original wetland delineation and mapping had occurred.
• 2015. Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) field surveys and wetland determination data point
collection in 2015. By then SII Principal Ecologist and wetland specialist David Wolff
showed the absence of the required basic three-parameter wetland character of the
Page 516 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |3
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
man-made basin. This was likely due to the passage of an additional five years since
the prior 2010 SWCA evaluation.
SII concluded that the constructed basin no longer supported any of the three-parameter
jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S./State based on the following:
o The basin was man-made and was constructed on dry land and not a part of a
natural drainage or water course.
o Meadow Creek low-flow channel is well below the basin bottom having no
influence or connectivity to the constructed basin hydrology.
o The basin has received water only from the runoff from surrounding parking lot
uplands. The contributing area has been substantially reduced with development
directing runoff water to the storm drain system away from the basin.
o There is a constructed earthen berm separating the basin from Meadow Creek
without any established outlet location or outlet structure to Meadow Creek.
o The dominant vegetation has transitioned to mostly FACU species with only one
area of FACU/FAC dominant species that does not meet the wetland vegetation
criteria.
o Field indicators of hydric soils have been lost over time likely from the reduced
runoff saturation.
o Based on the 2015 findings, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division
verified the site does not support a “waters of the U.S./wetland” designation.
o As of 2015 the project site no longer supported a “wetland/waters of the U.S.”, or
waters of the State under the State Water Resources Control Board “Procedures,”
for wetlands that requires meeting the three-parameter wetland definition
(wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, hydric soils).
o In conclusion, documentation in the record as of 2015 determined the
constructed basin no longer supported a jurisdictional wetland by federal or state
definitions. The culvert and outfall repair/replacement, and runoff repairs were
placed through the former wetland location that was required because the
developed parking lot drainage pattern and existing underground storm drain
infrastructure. Regardless, no jurisdictional wetlands were impacted. The
regulatory compliance permits issued for the culvert repair and outfall
replacement required the planting of 10 willow sprigs around the culvert outfall
rock slope protection.
Ten (10) willow sprigs were planted in January 2025 following the completion
of the Grading permit outfall replacement improvements and emergency
repair construction. As of May 2025, there is 100 percent success of the willow
plantings at the culvert outfall rock slope protection in accordance with the
permits issued for culvert and outfall repair and replacement. This consultant
will continue to monitor the planted willow sprig area for success.
Page 517 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |4
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
UPDATED WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS
Previous evaluation of jurisdictional limits artificially assigned a top of bank (TOB) limit
along the top of the manmade basin and berm created by bulldozer activity to form flat
construction pads by the original subdivision developer prior to 1986 at approximately the
69-foot elevation contour. There was no evidence of any water surface elevation ever
reaching the 69-foot contour with any riparian vegetation rooted well below the berm along
a lower bench of Meadow Creek.
The review of updated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood
Hazard Layer FIRMette (Flood Insurance Rate Map) and associated Flood Profiles for
Meadow Creek (attached as Exhibits 2a and 2b) show the 100-year storm event (1%
frequency) water surface elevation at the 60.1-foot elevation at the downstream end of the
James Way culvert (cross section “J” on Exhibits 2a and 2b) trending down to the 58.4-foot
elevation at the downstream south end of the project parcel (cross section “I”). The 500-year
storm event (0.2% frequency) water surface elevation at the downstream end of the James
Way culvert at approximately the 61.5-foot contour (cross section “J”) trending down to
approximately the 60.0-foot contour at the downstream south end of the project parcel (cross
section “I”).
Conservatively based on the updated FEMA 500-year storm event water surface elevation:
• Prior evaluations should be conformed to the upper limits of jurisdictional waters of
the U.S./State, which is now established at the 61.5-foot contour. This elevation is
well below the prior constructed berm that follows along the project eastern
property boundary.
PROPOSED CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Assessment
• The proposed project would develop the existing paved/dirt parking lot, non-native
annual grassland in the constructed upland basin, patches of coyote brush and non-
native landscaping. The project would potentially remove four (4) single trunk and six
(6) multi-trunk coast live oak trees ranging from 3-inch to 8-inch diameter, and one
14-inch diameter and two multi-trunk (5-inch to 10-inch diameter) arroyo willow
trees.
• Based on the above, the proposed project would have no impact on any wetland,
riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
• Landscape plans for the Creekside Junction project should incorporate a minimum of
20 one-gallon to 5-gallon coast live oak trees. Preferably along the Meadow Creek
side of the project site.
Page 518 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |5
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
• In order to avoid impacts on nesting birds:
o Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between
September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation
and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31),
then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no
active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.
o If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest
sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around
active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and
protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year
are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified
biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce
potentially significant impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings described in this DWE 2025 BRA establishing the existing conditions
of the proposed project site, and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the
proposed Creekside Junction project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on
biological or botanical resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the
project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered less
than significant. Therefore, prior mitigation plans from preceding years and prior permitted
projects, would no longer apply. They should therefore not be imposed upon this current
project being proposed.
Thank you very much for continuing with DWE for your environmental consulting services.
Please contact me directly, or have any agency do so, if there are any questions or need for
additional information relevant to this updated report.
Sincerely,
David K. Wolff, Principal Ecologist
ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT 1: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
EXHIBITS 2a AND 2b: FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD FIRMETTE PLAN
AND PROFILE MAPS
Page 519 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Photo 1: View south at “Building A” site at non-native annual grassland in
constructed basin & berm (arrow) along Meadow Creel & parking lot. 4/4/2025
Photo 2: View southwest from James Way sidewalk at “Building A” site
constructed basin NW corner and parking lot. 4/4/2025
Photo 3: View north at “Building A” site, rocked stormwater drain, and
non-native annual grassland in constructed basin and berm (arrow) on
property line along Meadow Creek below parking lot. 4/4/2025
Photo 4: View north at “Building A” site from south end of project site,
developed parking lot, ruderal non-native annual grassland and coyote
brush, and non-native pines along Meadow Creek. 4/4/2025
Page 520 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Photo 5: View south at “Building B” site ruderal coyote brush and non-
native grassland on constructed parking lot berm and driveway. 4/4/2025
Photo 6: View south at “Building B” site ruderal coyote brush and non-
native grassland on constructed parking lot berm and driveway. 4/4/2025
Photo 7: View south at “Building B” site ruderal coyote brush and non-
native grassland on constructed parking lot berm and driveway. 4/4/2025
Photo 8: View east at “Building B” site developed dirt parking lot and
ruderal coyote brush shrubs on constructed berm. 4/4/2025
Page 521 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Photo 9: View east at small stand of oak trees along southern property
line, ruderal fringe non-native grassland of dirt parking lot. 4/4/2025
Photo 10: View east at small stand of willows separated from Meadow
Creek corridor along southern property line parking lot. 4/4/2025
Photo 11: View east at rocked stormwater drain capturing surface runoff
to Meadow Creek outfall (repaired/replaced in 2023), and non-native
annual grassland in constructed basin and berm. 4/4/2025
Photo 12: View west at rocked stormwater drain capturing surface runoff
from development to Meadow Creek outfall (repaired/replaced in 2023).
4/4/2025
Page 522 of 601
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Photo 13: View west at Meadow Creek outfall (arrow) and rock slope
protection with willow plantings along fiber roll at bottom. 4/4/2025
Photo 14: View south from north end of constructed basin and
constructed berm (arrow) at approximately 69-foot contour. 4/4/2025
Photo 15: View north at storm drain from south end of constructed basin
and constructed berm (arrow) at approximately 69-foot contour. 4/4/2025
Photo 16: View north from south end of constructed berm (arrow) at
approximately 69-foot contour. 4/4/2025
Page 523 of 601
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 4/21/2025 at 8:10 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
120°36'32"W 35°8'11"N
120°35'54"W 35°7'42"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
([hibit 2a
Page 524 of 601
10
20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
70 70
80 80
90 90
100
100
19,500 20,000 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 24,500 25,000 25,500 26,000
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
F
E
E
T
(
N
A
V
D
)
STREAM DISTANCE IN IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH ARROYO GRANDE CREEK
FE
D
E
R
A
L
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
C
Y
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
C
A
AN
D
I
N
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
A
R
E
A
S
FL
O
O
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
S
ME
A
D
O
W
C
R
E
E
K
37P
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
"1%+" ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATIONA
F G H I J K L M N
O P
HW
Y
1
0
1
C
U
L
V
E
R
T
JA
M
E
S
W
A
Y
C
U
L
V
E
R
T
NOTE: THE 1%+ ANNUAL CHANCE PROFILE IS SHOWN TOO CLOSE
TO THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE PROFILE TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
Exhibit 2b
Page 525 of 601
MEADOW CREEK DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY
August 23, 2024
Prepared for:
Russ Sheppel
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
ATE Project #23055
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110-1686 • (805) 687-4418 • FAX (805) 682-8509
ATTACHMENT 6
Page 526 of 601
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805)687-4418 • FAX (805)682-8509 • main@atesb.com
Since 1978
Richard L. Pool, P.E.
Scott A. Schell
August 23, 2024
Russ Sheppel
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY FOR THE
MEADOW CREEK DEVELOPMENT-CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
23055R01
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) has prepared the following traffic and circulation
study for the Meadow Creek Development in the City of Arroyo Grande. The traffic and
circulation study evaluates the Project's consistency with the policies outlined in the City's
traffic impact analysis guidelines.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this Project.
Associated Transportation Engineers
~~7(---A-Q_
Scott A. Schei I
Principal Transportation Planner
Engineering • Planning • Parking • Signal Systems • Impact Reports • Bikeways • Transit
Page 527 of 601
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 1
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS AND SCOPE OF WORl< ................................................................. 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 4
Street Network ....................................................................................................... 4
Existing Roadway Levels of Service ......................................................................... 7
Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 7
CITY IMPACT AND MITIGATION POLICIES ..................................................................... 9
Roadway Segments .............................................................................................. 1 0
Intersections ......................................................................................................... 1 0
EXISTING + PROJECT ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 11
Project Project Trip Generation Estimates .............................................................. 11
Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service ....................................................... 13
Existing + Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 13
SHORT-TERM (PROJECT OPENING YEAR) + PROJECT ANALYSIS ............................ '. .... 15
Short-Term Traffic Forecasts .................................................................................. 15
Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service .................................................. 17
Short-Term + Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. 17
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 20
Cumulative Traffic Forecasts ................................................................................. 20
Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service ................................................. 20
Cumulative + Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. 23
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ................................................................................. 24
TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ......................................................... 26
CEQA VEHICLE Ml LES TRAVELED ANALYSIS ................................................................. 28
REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ................................................................... 32
TECHNICAL APPENDIX .................................................................................................. 33
Page 528 of 601
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 1 o
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
• Figure 10
Figure 11
TABLES
Study-Area Faci I ities .................................................................................... 2
Existing Roadway Levels of Service ............................................................. 4
Existing Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................... 7
Street Segment Level of Service Definitions and Descriptions ....................... 8
City of Arroyo Grande Criteria for Signalized Intersections ........................... 8
Project Trip Generation ............................................................................... 9
P . T. D .. b . 1 roJect rip Istn utIon .............................................................................. 9
Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service ........................................... 11
Existing + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................... 11
Existing + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................... 13
Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service ...................................... 15
Short-Term + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 17
Short-Term + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 17
Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service ..................................... 18
Cumulative+ Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 21
Cumulative+ Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 21
Project Driveway Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... 24
Bicycle Level of Traffic Street (Bicycle LTS) ................................................ 26
Thresholds of Significance for Residential Development Projects ................ 28
Meadow Creek Per Capita VMT Summary ................................................. 29
FIGURES
Existing Street Network and Project Site Location ......................................... 2
Project Site Plan .......................................................................................... 3
Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ................................................. 5
Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 8
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................... 12
Existing+ Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................. 14
Short-Term Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 16
Short-Term+ Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 18
Cumulative Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 21
Cumulative + Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 22
Project Driveway Volumes ........................................................................ 25
ii
Page 529 of 601
INTRODUCTION
The following study contains an analysis of the potential traffic and circulation impacts
associated with the Meadow Creek Deve lopment (the "Project"), lo cated in the City of
Arroyo Grande. Th e study provides inform ation regarding existing and future traffic
conditions within the Proje ct study-area and recommends improvem e nts where necessary.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 1 th e Meadow
Oaks Project is located within the
existing Oak Park Professional Plaza
located at 880 Oak Park Boulevard.
The Project is proposing to develop 93
multifamily residential units consisting
of 83 market rate and 10 affordable
units. Figure 1 (attached) illustrates the
Project site plan. As shown, primary
access to the site will be provided via
an existing driveway connection to
Jam es Way that serves the Oak Park
Professional Plaza. As shown on the
site plan, a total of 91 *parking spaces are provided.
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS AND SCOPE OF WORK
The traffic study assesses potential traffic impacts for the following 6 scenarios.
Traffic Scenarios
1) Existing Conditions
2) Existing + Project Conditions
5) Cumulative Conditions
6) Cumulative + Project Conditions
The traffic analysis evaluates the weekday AM and PM peak hour periods for the study-area
roadway segments and intersections presented in Table 1. The study-area intersections were
identified based on th e City of Arroyo Grande Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
Guidelines and in consultation with City of Arroyo Grande staff. Project driveway operations
are addressed in the site access section of the traffic study. The Short-Term scenario provides
an analysis of the Project's opening year, 2025, assuming a 0.75% per year growth rate and
development of approved and pending projects expected by that time. Th e Cumulative scenario
assumes year 2035 co nditions using the same 0.75% per year growth rat e plus development of
approved and pending projects expected after 2025.
Meadow C reek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 530 of 601
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circ ul at ion Study 2
z
0
I-
<( u
0
_J
LJ...J
I-
(./)
1-u
LJ...J
0
~
0...
Associated Transportation Enginee r s
August 23, 2024 Page 531 of 601
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circul at i on Study 3
\ w
--' -.:
0
Cf) LU
0 Cl<'.
I-::::) I-~ 0 lJ z
LL
z s
0..
LJ..J
I-
V)
1-u
LU
0 a::::
0..
"' "' ~
~
I-~
~
Associated Transportation Engi neers
August 23, 2024 Page 532 of 601
Table 1
Study-Area Facilities
Study-Area Roadway Segments Study-Area Intersections
1 . James Way w/o North Oak Park Blvd. 1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way
2. James Way e/o North Oak Park Blvd. 2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St.
3. North Oak Park Blvd . n/o James Way 3. U.S . Highway 101 NB Ramps/Noth Oak Park Blvd.
4 . North Oak Park Blvd. s/o Jam es W ay 4 . North Oak Park Blvd.IE! Ca mino Real
5. U.S. Highway 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real
6. Jam es Way/Project Driveway
The scope of work and traffic assessment methodologies presented in this study were developed
based on the requirements outlined in the principles City of Arroyo Grande Multimodal
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines Uanuary 2021). A Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) outlining the traffic study scope and methodologies was provided to City staff and
included in the Technical Appendix .
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Street Network
The Project site is served by a network of highways, arterial roads and collector streets as
illustrated in Figure 3. The following text provides a brief description of the major
components of the study-area street network.
U.S. Highway 101, located south of the Project site, is a multi-lane interstate highway serving
the Pacific Coast between Los Angeles and San Francisco. U.S. Highway 101 is the principal
route between the City of Arroyo Grande and the adjacent cities of Pismo Beach, San Luis
Obispo, Atascadero and Paso Robles to the north; and the cities of Santa Maria, Buellton and
Santa Barbara to the south. Regional access between the Project site and U.S. Highway 101
is provided via the North Oak Park Boulevard interchange. The interchange ramp
intersections are signalized.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 4
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 533 of 601
~ s:
"' ro ::B ~
(") 0
g; ::f
CL (")
n ;;,
:::;· ('D
() 7'
~ 0
~-~ o ro :::, -0
V, -0
2 3
CL ro
-< ;::.
Vl
)>
V,
V,
0
(") o:;·
fii
CL
~
ClJ :::,
V,
-0
0
)> ;:::;.
C: ClJ
()'Q ~-c: 0
~ :J
Nm
w:::,
-(JQ
I',..) :3·
o ro
N '1l ~ ~
LEGE N D
0 -Signa l ized Intersection
~ -Stopped Approach
4 -Lane Geometry
3 L 1+L. ~
WBranchS I
US 10 1 NB Ramp
i tt.
A ssoCJATED
T RAN SPORTATION
E NG IN EERS
w
~
~
S;
-, ~
.1..~ ; ➔ .!-
-.-~
.:., I El Ca mino Real
~HL.
-1..~ ~
'
~ w I ~+il!I I .!-1+l. N ' NOTTO SCALE
I I J.amesWay
_J I
1 ·.,~ t I it! -itt. '
Mercado
L -.
I I El Camino Real
I
itt.
EXISTING STREET NETWORK
JH -ATE#23055
Page 534 of 601
Oak Parkway Boulevard, located west of
the Project,, is a north-south 2-to 4-lane
arterial roadway that extends north from
the City of Grover Beach through the City
of Arroyo Grande's northern limits . Oak
Park Boulevard is fully improved with
curb, gutter, sidewalk and street
lightning. In the study-area the posted
speed in 40 mph. The Traffic signals
control the Oak Park Boulevard/James
Way, Oak Park Boulevard, Oak Park
Boulevard/Branch Street and Oak Park
Boulevard/El Camino Real intersections.
James Way, located north of the
Project site, is a 2-lane east-west
collector roadway that ex tends east
from the City of Pismo Beach through
the City of Arroyo Grande. James
Way is fully improved with curb,
gutter, sidewalk and street lighting.
James Way will provide direct access
to the Project site. In the study-area
the posted speed is 40 mph. Within
the study-area, James Way is
signalized at the Oak Park Boulevard
intersection.
El Camino Real, is an east-west two-lane arterial, which serves as a frontage road on the
south side of U.S. Highway 101. The roadway extends north from Grand Avenue becoming
5 Cities Drive in the City of Pismo Beach, at the west City limits. El Camino Real is fully
improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. It serves local businesses and
residential neighborhoods east and west of Kanan Road. The Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino
Real intersection is signalized.
Branch Street, located south of the Project, is a 2-to 4-lane east-west arterial street that
extends east from Oak Park Boulevard to Grand Avenue. Branch Street is fully improved with
curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. Branch Street provides access to various businesses.
In the study-area the posted speed on Branch Street is 40 mph. The intersection of Oak Park
Boulevard/Branch Street intersection is signalized.
M eadow Creek D eve lopm ent
Traffic and Circulation Study 6
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 535 of 601
Existing Roadway Levels of Service
In rating roadway operations, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through Fare used. LOS A and LOS
B represent primarily free -flow operations, LOS C represents stable conditions, LOS D nears
unstable operations with restrictions on maneuverability within traffic streams, LOSE represents
unstable operations with maneuverability very limited, and LOS F represents breakdown or
forced flow conditions (comp lete definitions of intersection levels of service are included in
the Technical Appendix). The City of Arroyo Grande considers LOS C or better acceptable
for roadway operations.
Table 2
Existing Roadway Levels of Service
LOS C 2023
Seg. Roadway Segment Classification Lanes Capacity Volume LOS
1. Jam es W ay w/o North O ak Park Blvd . Co ll ecto r 2 -Lane 9,000 6,100 LOS B
2. Jam es W ay e/o North O ak Park Blvd. Co ll ector 2 -Lane 9,000 4,900 LOSA
3. North Oak Park Blvd . n/o Jam es Way Arterial 2 -Lane 14,500 9,000 LOSA
4 . North Oak Park Blvd. s/o James Way Arterial 4 -Lane 29 ,000 14 ,500 LOSA
Bolded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 2 show that 2 of the roadway segments currently operate at LOS
B or better meet the City's LOS C standard.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Because traffic flow on urban arterial roadways is most constrained at intersections, detailed
traffic flow analyses focus on the operating conditions of critical inte rs ec tions during peak
travel periods (7 :00 AM -9:00 AM/ 4:00 PM -6:00 PM). In rating intersection operations, the
levels of service criteria (LOS A through F) described previously in the Existing Roadway
Operations section are also used. The City of Arroyo Grande considers LOS C or bette r
acceptable for intersection operations.
Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study-area intersections were obtained
from traffic counts conducted on Thursday, September th 2023 (count data included in
Appendix). The existing lane geometries and traffic controls for the intersections are
illustrated on Figure 3. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study-area
intersections are illustrated on Figure 4.
Meadow Creek Developm ent
Traffic and Circulation Study 7
As sociated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 536 of 601
~
Cf)
---'-Zf:2
0 z
UJ
(.J
UJ
__J
t5 z
-(775)551
1 (39)70
909(628) _ 1 r
5(3)7 ~ ~
N
N "" <Xl N~
"'
i;;-~~ L(94)148
2'-'9-S -(472)241
J j l 1 (262)146
30(25) _J 7 ! r
418(323)-;:;:-R(o
52(56)7 ~~2
Q.)
E
::,
0 >
:i
0
I
-"" "' Q.) 0..
~ 0..
i
$
X
X x
X
J
Q.)
E
~
0 > u
8= "' I-'=
~ ·;;;
0
Q.)
bO "' c[j > <(
8
-n~N
~"" N
Meadow Creek Development
Traff ic and Cir culation St upy
I.O
8
l.l..J
f-
"' "~"' R~;:::,,
<"10"-
~ ""~
-1Tl
139(140) _J
649(335)-
228(155)7
~
OM
a-, N
coo
st N
-1T
638(317) _J
r-;;:i
83(52)7
~ <Xl
""' 0 N ,-_ st
L (20)32
-(611)654
1 (57)65
1!r ~;::::-R
1/).,."
~Ks
Ql/10-,
1/) N "" .,.
1! ~co
ON
1/)t(
"'0 N
§§;;; L (195)411
:!. ss -(527)409
J I l 1 (396)287
192(98) _J
605(356)-
166(188)7
(./)
LU
~
:=)
_J
0 > u
LL
LL
~
f-
(_J z
~
(./)
>< LU
z
0
0 ~ V) ~ 2 e5
0 V) Z
o 2 G "' .::i z .:f: f-w
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024 Page 537 of 601
As stipulated in the City's Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, levels of
service were calculated for the signalized and unsignalized study-area intersections using the
operations methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Levels of service
are based on the average number of seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak 15-minute
period within the overall peak hour. Table 4 lists the Existing traffic controls and levels of
service for the study-area intersections (calculation worksheets included in Technical
Appendix).
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
No. Intersection Delay/LOS
Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ij am es Way (a) Signal 24.5 Sec./LOS C 39.6 Sec./LOS D
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Bran c h St. Two W ay STOP-Sign 12 .5 Sec./LOS B 14.2 Sec./LOS B
3 . U.S. 101 NB Ramp s/North O ak Park Blvd .(a) Signal 37 .1 Sec./LOS D 25.9 Sec./LOS C
4. U.S . 101 SB Ramp s/El Camino Real (a) All Way STOP-Sign 12 .8 Sec./LOS B 23.6 Sec./LOS C
5 . North Oak Park Blvd./EI Camino Real(a) Signal 2 5 .3 Sec./LOS C 34 .1 Sec./LOS C
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
The data presented in Table 4 shows that the study-area intersections operate in the LOS A -
C range, which meets the City's LOS C standard.
CITY IMPACT AND MITIGATION POLICIES
The following sections present the City's transportation impact and mitigation policies for
intersections and roadway segments as outlined in the Multimodal Transportation Impact
Study Guidelines.
At locations where the intersection or roadway segment LOS falls below, or is anticipated to
fall below, the acceptable threshold of LOS D, feasible measures shall be identified to
mitigate the impacts. Per the General Plan, development projects shall be mitigated to
appropriate levels, but at least to the extent where the post-development level of service shal I
not be less than the LOS existing prior to development. The following sections identify
impact criteria for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway
segments.
M eadow Creek D ev e lopm e nt
Traffic and Circulation Study 9
A ss ociated Tran sportation Enginee rs
August 23, 2024
Page 538 of 601
Roadway Segments
A proposed Project is considered to result in a significant impact if:
• Degrades the LOS on a roadway segment to an unacceptable level of LOS D or
worse.
Table 4
Street Segment Level of Service Definitions and Descriptions
Volume to Capacity Ration (V/C) 0.6 0.6 -0.7 0.7 -0.8 0.8 -0.9 0.9 -1.0
Roadway Segment Type Max. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Given Service Level
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOSE
Six Lane Freeway 42 ,000 64,800 92.400 111.600 120,000
Four Lane Freeway 28,000 43,200 61.600 74,400 80,000
Four Lane Highway 4,800 9,600 15,800 27,000 45,800
Two Lane Highway 2.400 4,800 7,900 13,500 22,900
Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 22,000 25,000 29,000 33,000 36,000
Four Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000
Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 11,000 12,500 14,500 16,500 18,000
Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000
Four Lane Collector 12,000 15,000 18,000 21 ,000 24,000
Two Lane Collector 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000
Intersections
When comparing existing and cumulative conditions to "plus project" conditions, delay
changes for intersections that exceed the criteria shown in Table 5 should be identified.
Table 5
City of Arroyo Grande Criteria for Intersections
Level of Service Roundabout Delay Signal Delay All-Way STOP Delay
LOS A < 10.0 :S 10.0 :S 10.0
LOS B > 10and :S 15.0 > 10 and :s:2 0.0 > 10 and :S 1 5.0
LOS C > 15.0 and :s:2 5 .0 > 20.0 and :S 35.0 > 15.0 and :s:2 5.0
LOS D > 25.0 and <35 .0 > 35 .0 and <55.0 > 25.0 and <35.0
LOSE > 35.0 and <50.0 > 55 .0 and <80.0 > 35.0 and :S 50.0
LOS F > 50.0 > 80.0 > 50.0
A proposed Project is considered to result in a significant impact if:
• Degrades the LOS at an unsignalized intersection to an unacceptable level of LOS D
or worse.
M eadow Cr ee k Developm ent
Traffi c and Circul ation Study 10
As sociated Tran sport ation Engin ee rs
August 23, 2024
Page 539 of 601
EXISTING + PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project Trip Generation Estimates
The Project is proposing to construct 93 apartment units (83 market rates/10 affordable units)
with related resident amenities. Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project
based on the rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITEL Trip
Generation, 11 th Edition for Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise Land Use Code #221) and
Affordable Housing -Income (Land Use 223). Table 6 presents the trip generation estimates
for the Project.
Table 6
Project Trip Generation
ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips (In/Out) Rate Trips (In/Out)
Pro12osed Land Uses:
Multi-Family Residential
-M arket Rate 83 Units 4.54 377 0.37 31 (7/24) 0.39 32 (20/12)
Units 10 Units 4.81 48 0.50 5 (1/4) 0.46 5 (3/2)
-Affordable Units
Total Project Trip Generation 425 36 (8/28) 37 (23/14)
I
The data presented in Table 6 indicate that the Project is estimated to generate 425 ADT, 36
AM peak hour trips and 37 PM peak hour trips.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project-ge nerated traffic was distributed onto the study-area roadway system based on
existing traffic patterns in the study-area and our knowledge of the employment and
commercial centers in and surrounding the City of Arroyo Grande. The Project trip
distribution is presented in Table 7 and illustrated on Figure 5.
Route
U.S. Highway 101
North Oak Park Boulevard
James Way
W est Branch Street
M ea dow Cre ek Development
Traffic and Ci rc ul at ion Study
Table 7
Project Trip Distribution
Origin/Destination
North
South
North
South
East
West
East
11
Percentage
30%
20%
15%
10%
5%
10%
10%
Total: 100%
Associated Transportatiqn Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 540 of 601
:::;-l s:
OJ ro
-OJ ~ g-LEGEND =--=--=--------[ ~ 0 ~ g ~ % -Distribution Percentage
n " ~o
~-~
o ro L ::, 0 (XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak H our Volume
Vl-O
[ ~ I X I -Ave ra ge D ai ly Traffic Volume
--< ;::.
N
)>
V,
V,
0 n a:;·
i'ii
CL
:::;-l
OJ ::,
V,
1:l
0
)> ::1-c OJ
()Q "'· C 0
~::,
Nm w ::,
-()Q
t--.J 5 · o ro
N rD ~ ~
3
;!::,!=:!;::'. I L (3)7
~~~
j l L
I
0 "'
AssoCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
E NGINEERS
liJ
" ~
L
w
L (6)3 WJ-..J
§:g
Jj
7(2)_j l "'
;!:: I L (4)2 ~ -(3)1
L r (20)10
2(1)-r
§
"'
404
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
2
0 ;;:; g
l',l\ercaclo
I
§
"'
~
N
NOTTO SCALE
JH -ATE#23055
Page 541 of 601
Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area roadway assuming the Existing + Project
traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 6 . Table 8 compares the Existing and Existing + Project
levels of service and identifies impacts based on the applicable standards.
Table 8
Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service
LOSC
Seg. Roadway Segment Capacity Existing Existing + Project LOS Exceed?
1 . Jam es Way w/o North O ak Park Blvd . 9,000 6,100 6,142 LOS B NO
2. Jame s Way e/o North Oak Park Blvd. 9,000 4,900 ~ ~.,.,,tJ LOS A NO
3. North Oak Park Blvd. n/o Jam es Way 14,500 9,000 9 ,064 ' LOS A NO
4. North Oak Park Blvd . s/o Jam es Way 29 ,000 14,500 14,798 LOS A NO
Balded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 8 indicate that the Project would not have an adverse effect on
the study-area roadway segments based on City of Arroyo Grande General Plan policies.
Existing + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Existing+ Project
traffic AM and PM peak hour volumes illustrated on Figure 6. Tables 9 compare the Existing
and Existing + Project AM and PM peak hour levels of service and identify effects based on the
applicable standards.
Table 9
Exi _sting + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
No. Intersection
Existing
Delay LOS
1. North Oak Park Blvd .Ij am es W ay (a) 24.5 Sec. LOS C
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branc h St. 12.5 Sec. LOS B
3 . U.S. 101 NB Ramps/North O ak Park Blvd .(a) 37.1 Sec. LOS D
4 . U.S . 101 SB Ramp s/El Camino Re al (a) 12.8 Sec. LOS B
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Camino Real(a) 25.3 Sec. LOS C
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
M ea dow C re ek D ev e lopm e nt
Traffic and C irculation Study 1 3
Existing + Project Project-Added
Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
25.0 Sec. LOS C 0 .0 Sec. NO
12 .9 Sec. LOS B 0.0 Sec. NO
40.5 Sec . LOS D 0 .2 Sec. NO
12.7 Sec. LOS B 0.4 Sec. NO
25.3 Sec. LOS C 0 .3 Sec. NO
As so c iated Tra nsportation Engin ee rs
Au g ust 2 3 , 2024
Page 542 of 601
w
__J
<{
0
(f) .., z~
0 z
LU
(.J
LU
-'
f-
0 z
-(781)567
1 (39)70
9 19(648)-1 r
5(3)7 M g
N
N ....
0 M~
"'
~ ~~ L(1o0)164
~ ~s -(472)241
J j L 1 (262 )146
34(26) _J 1 I r
418(323)-~co"'
52(56)7 ~5;2
<lJ
E
:::,
0 >
::i
0
I
--"" "' <lJ a..
~ a..
i
~
>< >< x >< J
<lJ
E
:::,
0 > u
(E
"' t-'=
~ ·;;;
0
<lJ
bO "' <V > <(
8
-a~N
~M
N
M eado w Creek Development
Tr affi c and Circulati on Study 14
LJ.J
I-
"' ..... ~"'
R'~!=:.
MOr-...
~ M~
_Jr[_
139(140) _j
651(338)-
23 1(16 1)7
~
MM
<nN
~6 U-,N
Jj
645(319) _j
~
83(52)7
cc cc
r-...-.oo
Nr-...'<t
L (20)32
-(6 12)656
1 (57)65
1lr ~;::-r:::.-.,,..,.,....
~Ks
..... ''"'' "' N
M ....
11 moo
ON
in'K
-.00
N
~§;;; L(1 95 )411
:'!: ss -(530)418
J I L 1 (396)281
193(101)_J
6 10 (365 )-
170(196 )7
Cf)
LU
~
:)
_J
0 > u
LL
LL
<(
Q,:'.
f-
f-u
LU
0
Q,:'.
Q..
+
lJ z
~
Cf)
X
LJ.J
.,., .,.,
0
M
N ~ >---::
:!;_
Assoc iated Transportation Engineers
Augu st 23 , 20 24 Page 543 of 601
Table 1 O
Existing + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
No. Intersection
Existing Existing + Project Project-Added
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
'
1 . North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way (a) 39.6 Sec. LOS D 28.6 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. 14 .2 Sec . LOS B 14 .3 Sec. LOS B 0 .0 Sec. NO
3. U.S. 101 NB Ramp s/North Oak Park Blvd .(a) 25.9 Sec. LOS C 28 .2 Sec. LOS C 0.2 Sec. NO
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramp s/El Camino Real (a) 23 .6 Sec. LOS C 24.2 Sec. LOS C 0.4 Sec. NO
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Cam ino Real(a) 34.1 Sec. LOS C 34.0 Se c. LOS C 0.3 Sec. NO
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
The data presented in Tables 9 and 10 indicate that the study-area intersections would
operate acceptably in the LOS A -C range with Existing + Project volumes. The Project
would not have an adverse effect on the operation of the study-area intersections based on
the General Plan policies.
SHORT-TERM (PROJECT OPENING YEAR) + PROJECT ANALYSIS
Th e City's Transportation Assessment Guidelines require that roadway and intersection
operations be analyzed for the opening year of the Project, which is assumed to be 2025 for
this study.
Short-Term T raffle Forecasts
Short-Term traffic volumes were forecast for the study-area roadways and intersections
assuming an ambient growth factor of 0.75 percent applied to the Existing (2023) volumes
for a two-year period. The Short-Term (2025) forecasts also assume development of the
approved/pending projects proposed within the City of Arroyo Grande. The list of approved
and pending projects used to forecast the Short-Term traffic volumes was provided by City
staff and is included in the Technical Appendix . Trip generation estimates were developed
for approved/pending projects using the rates published in the ITE, Trip Generation, 11 th
Edition (trip generation worksheet is contained in the Technical Appendix). The trip
ass ignment for the approved/pending projects was developed based on the location of each
project, recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study-area as well as a
general knowledge of the population, employment and commercial centers in Arroyo
Grande. The Short-Term traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 7.
Meadow C reek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 1 5
Associated Transportation Engin ee rs
August 23, 2024
Page 544 of 601
~
Cf)
---'-----Z8
1---
0 z
0 z
lJ.J
{,J
lJ.J
-'
-(778)554
,(39)70
9 12(629)-1 r
5(3)7 M 25
N
M
M
<ON~
"'
~ ~g L(95)149
(::I. ~s -(473)242
j l l ,(263)147
30(25)_J 1 I r
419(323)-~RR
52(56)7 ~;;:;2
(!)
E
::,
0 >
:i
0
I
-"
"' (!)
0...
::::i
0...
i
$
X
X x
X
J
(!)
E ::,
0 > u
ii=
"' f':
~ ·;u
0
(!)
bO
"' lii > <(
B
"'~"' ~M
N
Meadow Creek Development
Tr affic and Circulation St udy 16
L.LJ
I-
0
<O "'0-,
;::::-~::._
""'o ~MN
_Ifl
142(141)_J
652(336)-
228(1 55)7
rc;i
<OM
o-, N
G,Q
"1 N
_sT
643(3 19) _J
83(52)7
r.;:i
192(98) _J
608(357)-
166(188)7
M
L(24)33
-(6 15)658
,(6 1)69
1lr
~NcO "' ... " ~Os
0,I)~
"' M
M ...
11 mco
ON
~K
"'0
N
(./') w
~
::)
_J
0 > u
LL
LL
<(
DC
I-
~
DC w
~
DC
0
I
rJ)
z
0 ;::
0 ~ ~ 2 ~
0 ll'l 2 o z G
"' ;;i z -< I-w
Associated Transportation Engin ee rs
August 23, 2024 Page 545 of 601
Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area roadway assuming the Short-Term + Project
traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 8. Table 11 compares the Short-Term and Short-Term +
Project levels of service and identifies impacts based on the applicable standards.
Table 11
Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service
LOS C
Seg . Roadway Segment Capacity Short-Term Short-Term + Project LOS Exceed?
1. James W ay w /o North O ak Park Bl vd . 9,000 6,1 3 0 6,172 LOS B NO
2 . James W ay e/o North O ak Park Blvd. 9,000 4,93 0 5,33 4 LOS A NO
3. North O ak Park Bl vd . n/o James W ay 14,500 9,030 9,094 LOSA NO
4. North Oak Park Blvd . s/o James Way 29,000 14,600 14 ,89 8 LOS A NO
Bolded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 11 indicate that the Project would not have an adverse effect on
the study-area roadway segments based on City of Arroyo Grande Gen e ral Plan policies. The
section of Kanan Road north of Agoura Road is forecast to operate at LOS D. The Project
would add 22 peak hour trips to the section of Kanan Road north of Agoura Road which
would increase the V/C ratio by 0.007. This V/C increase would be well below the City's
threshold of 0.05.
Short-Term + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Levels of service w e re calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Short-Term
and Short-T e rm + Project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes illustrated on Figures 7 and
8. Tables 12 and 13 compare the Short-Term and Short-Term + Project AM and PM peak
hour levels of service for the study-area inte rsections and identifies Short-Term effe cts based
on City of Arroyo Grande standards. The analysi s completed for the Kanan Road/Agoura
Road intersection assumes implementation of the new eastbound and northbound right-turn
lanes that will be impl emented at the inte rsection by the two adjacent deve lopment proj ects.
M ea d o w C ree k D ev elopm ent
Traffi c and C irc ul ati o n Study 1 7
A sso c iated Transportation En gin ee rs
Au gust 23 , 20 24
Page 546 of 601
-{ s: ~ (1) ~~ n o
"' :;f ~n n ;;;
--(1)
;:; "" ~o
"' (1) ~. < 0 (1)
:::, 0
Ul -0
2 3
Cl.. (1)
-< ;:!.
(X)
>-v,
V,
0 n
iii" ro
Cl..
::;'
"' :::,
V,
-0 0
>-;::;.
C OJ
O"Q ~-
c 0
~:::,
Nm
(.;.J :::,
-OQ
N s·
0 (1)
N (1)
-1:> ;;;
LEGEND
L (XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Vo lume
X -Average Dail y Traffic Volume
3 I -a---" -"' oww
~~~ I L (410)278 88 = -(103)76 J j l r (182)411
1lr os:::
'!>W'!>
'!> W'-1 ~~~
"'"' -0 -w
A ssoo ATEO
T RANSPORTATION
E N G INEE RS
w °' '-" co 0 w w u, "' L (16 1)201 ~ -j l -(120)123
65 (109)_J
207(128)-
w "'°' -"''-"-"'
~.::::~
-w -L (14 1)80 °' w ... -_,,_
-(33 )25 Jjl r (20)19
357(256)_J 1-lr 60(42 )-
431 (178)7 °' a--"' --... -a---°'-w "'a--w a--
0
...
u, "'w
t 8 t I L (26 )20
s~s -(85 )73
J I L r (150)143
66(54)_j 11 j r
11 5(38)-~:;;:-::;
233(137)7 a--'-' o w w -
-=-tv-=-...... a--
"NU,
SHORT-TERM + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2 I '° "' "' u,"' _ ...
~~
Jj
3(2)_j
60(28)7
Mercado
1!
W'Q '° co -... '-'-0 u,
" 0
~
N
NOTTO SCALE
JH -ATE#23055
Page 547 of 601
Table 12
Short-Term + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Short-Term Short-Term Project Added
No. Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North O ak Park Blvd.Ijam es Way (a) 24 .5 Sec. LOS C 23.4 Sec. LOS C 0 .0 Sec. NO
2 . North Oak Park Blvd./Branc h St. 12.5 Sec . LOS B 12 .7 Sec. LOS B 0 .0 Sec. NO
3. U.S . 101 NB Ramp s/North O ak Park Blvd .(a) 36 .9 Sec. LOS D 44.9 Sec. LOS D 0 .0 Se c. NO
4 . U.S. 101 SB Ramp s/El Camino Rea l (a) 25.5 Sec. LOS C 22 .7 Sec . LOS C 0 .0 Sr c. NO
5-. North O ak Park Blvd./EI Camino Rea l(a) 13.0 Sec. LOS B 13.1 Sec . LOS B 0.3 Sec. NO
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay
Table 13
Short-Term + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Short-Term Short-Term Project Added
No . Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ij ames W ay (a) 30 .0 Sec. LOS C 38.5 Sec. LOS D 0 .0 Sec. NO
2. North O ak Park Blvd./Branch St. 15.7 Sec. LOS C 15 .8 Sec. LOS C 0 .0 Se c. NO
'
3 . U .S. 101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd.(a) 30.1 Sec. LOS C 30.9 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
4. U .S. 101 SB Ramps/El Ca mino Real (a) 31.4 Sec. LOS D 32.5 Sec. LOS D 0.0 Sec. NO
5-. North O ak Park Blvd.IE! Camino Real(a) 38.7 Sec. LOS D 38.6 Sec. LOS D 0.3 Sec. NO
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay
The data presented in Tables 12 and 13 indicate that the study-area intersections would
operate acceptably in the LOS A -C range with Short-Term + Project volumes. The Project
would not have an adverse effect on the operation of the study-area intersections based on
the General Plan policies.
M eadow Creek D ev e lopm e nt
Traffic and Circul ation Study 19
As so c iated Tran sportation Engin ee rs
Au g ust 2 3, 2024
Page 548 of 601
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
The City's Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines require that intersections operations be
analyzed assuming Cumulative conditions.
Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
Cumulative traffi c volumes were forecast assuming an ambient growth factor of 0.75 percent
applied to the Short-Term volumes for a 10-year period to represent Cumulative traffic. The
Cumulative forecasts also include traffi c generated by development of the approved and
pending projects that will be built after the Short-Term. Figure 9 illustrates the Cumulative
traffic volume forecasts, and Figure 10 illustrates the Cumulative + Project volumes.
Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area roadway assuming the Cumulative +
Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 10. Table 14 compares the Cumulative and
Cumulative + Project levels of service and identifies impacts based on the appli cable standards.
Table 14
Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service
LOS "C"
Seg. Roadway Segment Capacity Cumulative Cumulative + Project LOS Exceed?
1 . Jame s W ay w/o North Oak Park Blvd. 9,000 6,3 00 6,3 4 2 LOS B NO
2. Jame s W ay e/o North O ak Park Blvd. 9,000 5,100 5,504 LOS A NO
3. North Oak Park Blvd . n/o James Way 14,5 00 9,3 00 9,364 LOSA NO
4. North O ak Park Blvd. s/o James Way 29 ,000 14 ,900 15,19 8 LOSA NO
Bolded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 14 indicate that the Project would not have an adverse effect on
the study-area roadway se 'gments based on City of Arroyo Grande General Plan policies.
M ea dow Cre ek D ev elopm ent
Traffi c and Circulation Study 20
A ss o c iated Transportation Engin ee rs
August 2 3, 20 24
Page 549 of 601
--, s: ..., (1) ~ PJ ::!:o._ n o
PJ ::E g_ n
n ;;;
-· (1) ;:, ~
£_0
PJ (1)
::!'. < 0 (1)
:::, 0
UJ-o -:::, C ~
0... (1)
--< a
N
> <J>
<J>
0 n o:;·
nr
0...
::;-i
PJ :::,
<J>
-0
>g
C PJ
Oil CC!".
C 0 :,!;. :::,
Nm
w :::,
-Oil
N ::i "
0 (1)
N (1)
.j:,. vi
LEGE ND
L(XX)XX -(AM )PM Peak Hour Volume
X ] -Ave rage Daily Tr affic Volume
3 I ~ "' -
" "'<.O -"'C,
~ 3 = -(106)78
~~~ I L (419)279
J j l ,,187)423
1lr
A'GiN
-... 0
-0-W ~~'i:
<.O "' "' <.O ... IJ1
A ssoc1ATED
T RAN SP ORTATION
E NG IN EERS
w "' "' C, "' V, w L(1s9)204 <Ji "' ~ 3
j l -(123 )127
67(112)_J
213 (132)-
2..l "'"'-W'-JA
V, -"' =:w=: L (145)82 "'-'--'-8~.::l -(34)26 Jjl ,,21 )19
360(262)_j 1lr 62 (43)-0\0\N 444(183)7 WW'-> -w-'-J-W -"'-'-" C,
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
A w
V, -w
&8~ I L (23)19 3 ~2' -(84)74
J I L ,,133)137
68(56)_j J 1 j r
116(38)-;;:;-.;;:'°
240(141 )7 :::i ~~
:::; r:::; Ln
V, ... w
-<.O
2 I <.0 w
<.O
V,;;:; _ ...
~~
Jj
5 (5)_j
62(30 )7
t-,\ercado
~
N
NOTTO SCALE
11 -;:a
00 ~= 0 V,
:::i
JH -ATE #230 55
Page 550 of 601
w
...J
<(
0
(f)
,,,,,., z~
I-
0 z
-(807)587
1 (40J7o
949(668) -1 r
5(5 )7 ir;' ~
"'
N
0 z
LU
CJ
LU
...J
" ..,.
~ U')~
R ~1;\ L(104)169
~ '9-s -(487)249
J I L 1 (27 1J1 5 1
35(27) _J 1 I r
43 1(333 )-;;,c,;-;:::-
54(58)7 ~i~
Q)
E
::,
0 >
~ ::,
0
I
-""
"' Q) a..
~ a..
i
~
>< >< x >< J
Q)
E ::,
0 > u
if "' ~
..?:-·;;;
0
Q)
bl) "' a;
> <(
B
-o~o ~..,.
N
M eado w Creek D eve lop ment
Tra ffi c and Cir c ul ati o n Study 22
L.LI r-
N
co"'"' in~;:_ ..,. ..,.~
~MN
_IfL
146(145 ) _J
673(349)-
238(166)7
r,;;i
" " ON
N ~
inM
-ON
Jj
669(3 30) _J
r;,
85(54)7
-,, M
CO CON N "-..,.
L (22J3 4
-(634)680
1 (63 J7 1
1lr
~MM
"'..,. co r::!Ns
""'..,. "' ..,.
M ..,.
11
NN
~M
KM "'~ N
~ igl;; L (203 J425
:'!: ss -(549)433
J I L 1 (41 1J 299
199(104) _J
63 1(377)-
1 75(202)7
M
(./)
u.J
~
=:)
.....J
0 > u
LL
LL
~
I-
1-u w
0
O!'.
0...
+
w > ~
.....J
=:)
~
=:)
u
"' "' 0
M
~ >-~
~
A ssoc iated Transportat io n Eng in ee rs
Au gust 23 , 20 24 Page 551 of 601
Cumulative + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Cumulative
and Cumulative+ Project AM and PM peak hour volumes which are illustrated in Figures 9
and 10. Tables 15 and 16 present the results of the calculations and identifies the Project's
consistency with City policies.
Table 15
Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Cumulative Cumulative Project Added
No. Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ij am es Way lal 24.9 Sec. LOS C 45.8 Se c. LOS D 0 .0 Sec. NO
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. 12 .7 Sec. LOS B 12.9 Sec. LOS B 1 .3 Sec. NO
3. U .S. 101 NB Ramp s/North Oak Park Blvd ·1aJ 50.7 Sec. LOS D 48.8 Se c. LOS D 0 .1 Sec. NO
4. U.S . 101 SB Ramp s/E l Cami no Real (a) 13 .3 Sec. LOS B 13.5 Sec. LOS B 0.4 Sec. NO
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Cam ino Real 1•1 18.9 Sec. LOS B 16.9 Se c. LOS B 2 .6 Sec. NO
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay
Table 16
Cumulative + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Cumulative Cumulative Project Added
No. Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijam es Way (a) 61 .1 Sec. LOSE 32.5 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Bran ch St. 14 .5 Se c. LOS B 14 .6 Sec . LOS B 1 .3 Sec. NO
3. U.S .'101 NB Ramp s/North Oak Park Blvd.(a) 28.6 Sec. LOS C 28.4 Sec. LOS C 0.1 Sec. NO
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramp s/El Ca mino Real (a) 26.6 Sec. LOS D 27.4 Se c. LOS D 0.4 Sec. NO
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Camino Real(a) 36.8 Sec. LOS D 45.2 Sec . LOS D 2.6 Sec. NO
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay
The data presented in Tables 15 and 16 indicate that the study-area intersections would
operate acceptably in the LOS A -C range with Cumulative + Project volumes. The Project
would not have an adverse effect on the operation of the study-area intersections based on
the General Plan policies.
Meadow Creek D ev e l opment
Traffic and Circulation Study 23
Asso c iated Transportation Engin ee rs
August 23, 2024
Page 552 of 601
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
As i 11 ustrated on the Project site plan
(Figure 2), primary access to the Project
site would be provided via an existing
driveway connection to James Way.
Th e ex isting driveway co nnection to
James Way provides full access
inbound and outbound. Secondary
access is provided through the Best
Western Casa Grande hotel property.
James Way provides primary access to
the Project site and serves the
commercial uses adjacent to the
Project. James Way is a 2-lane east-west
roadway with bike lanes. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are provided along the developed sides
of James Way. The posted speed limit on James Way is 40 MPH . James Way is flat and
straight adjacent to the proposed driveway thus good sight distance is provided for turns
entering and exiting the Project driveway. On-street parking is allowed along James Way east
of the existing Project driveway.
An internal private street system connects the Project to James Way and the existing Oak
Pa rk Professional Plaza. As i 11 ustrated on the site plan, the proposed street width of 24 feet
provides 2 travel lanes. On-site surface and garage parking will be provided to eliminate th e
need for on-street parking. The Project driveway connection to the public streets are designed
and constructed to City of Arroyo Grande design standards. A pedestrian bridge connects the
Oak Park Professional Plaza to the Oak Park Plaza. The sidewalks along North Oak
Boulevard and James Way connect the Project to the local transit service and the retail
commercial provided in the study-area.
Levels of service were calculated for the unsignalized STOP-sign q mtrolled Project driveway
intersections using the operations methodology outlined in the HCM. Levels of service are
based on the average number of seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak 15-minute
period within the overall peak hour. Table 17 lists the Cumulative + Project traffic controls
and levels of service for the driveway intersections (calculation worksheets included in
Technical Appendix). Figure 11 illustrates the Project driveway volumes.
M eadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 24
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 553 of 601
M ea dow Cree k D ev elopm ent
Tr affi c and Circul ati o n Study
,,-.
~
N .._,
,,-.
~ .._,
~
T (0) 1
~
ll.
~ z w
25
w
ll. g
(/)
I.I I_
ll.
~
UJ
CL
::)
lJ
LL
>-<( s
L.J..J >
cc
0
1-u
LU
0
~
CL
A ssoc i ated Tr ansport ati o n Eng in ee rs
Au gust 23 , 20 24 Page 554 of 601
Table 17
Project Driveway Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection Control Delay/LOS
AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour
Jam es Way/Project Driveway(a) Two Way STOP-Sign 8.9 Sec./LOS A I 8.9 Sec./LOS A
(a) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
The data presented in Table 17 shows that the Project driveway intersections would operate
in the LOS A -B range, which meets the City's LOS C standard.
TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Transit Service
SoCo Transit is the local transit
provider for the City of Arroyo
Grande. The Project site is served
by the #21 Route, the 24 Route
and the #28 Route. Each route
operates on weekdays and
weekends providing fixed route
bus service on James Way, Oak
Park Boulevard and West Brach
Street in the immediate vicinity of
the Project site. Existing transit
stops with benches are located on
James Way w est of North Oak Park
Boulevard and West Branch Street east of North Oak Park Boulevard. The Project has
connectivity to the existing ·pedestrian network, The Project has the potential to increase
ridership on the local transit routes.
M ea dow Cree k Dev elo pm ent
Traffi c and Circul ation Study 26
Asso c iated Transportation Engine e rs
Augu st 2 3, 20 24
Page 555 of 601
Pedestrian Facilities
Currently, sidewalks are
provided along North Oak Park
Boulevard and James Way. The
sidewalks along North Oak
Boulevard and James Way
connect the Project to the local
transit service and the retai I
commercial provided in the
study-area. Pedestrian
crosswalks with cal I buttons are
provided on each leg of the Oak
Park Boulevard/James Way
intersection adjacent to the
Project site. A pedestrian bridge connects the Oak Park Professional Plaza to the Oak Park
Plaza. A Class I multi-use trail will connect the Project site with the adjacent commercial and
residential areas. The Project provides connectivity to the existing pedestrian network. The
Project would not have an adverse effect on the pedestrian facilities in the study-area.
Bicycle Faci I ities
James Way and West Branch
Street are identified as part of the
existing City of Arroyo Grande
Bikeway System. Class II bike
lanes currently exist along Janes
Way and West Branch Street
through the City of Arroyo
Grande. The bike lanes on James
Way and West Branch Street
connect the Project to the
residential, commercial and
recreational areas east and west
of the Project. North Oak Park Boulevard is also identified as part of the City of Arroyo
Grande Bikeway System. Class Ill bike route exists on North Oak Park Boulevard in the study-
area. Proposed Class II bike lanes on North Oak Park Boulevard are identified in the City of
Arroyo Grande Circulation Element. The bike facilities connect the Project to the residential,
commercial and recreational areas east and west of the Project. The Project would not
obstruct implementation of the planned network. The bicycle facilities in the study-area are
• based on a "Level of Stress" score as noted in the City of Arroyo Grande "Multi modal
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines". The bicycle LTS scoring criteria is provided in
Table 18.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 27
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 556 of 601
Table 18
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (Bicycle L TS)
LTS Score
Lane Factor LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
Alongside a Parking Lan e
Street width 1 (no effect) 2 or more (no effect) (through lanes per direction)
Sum of bike lane and parking lane
Width (includ es marked buffer 1 5 ft. or more 14or14.5ft. 13. 5 ft. or less (no effect)
and pav ed gutter)
Speed limit or prevailing speed 25 mph or less 30 mph 3 5 mph 40 mph or more
Bike lane blockage (typica lly (no effect) frequent (no effect) applies in commercial areas) rare
Not Alongside a Parking Lane
Stre et width 2, if directions more than 2, or
(through lanes per direction) 1 are separated by 2 without a (no effect)
a rais ed median separating
median
Bike lane width (includes marked 6 ft. or more 5 .5 ft. or less (no effect) (no effe ct) buffer and paved gutter)
Speed limit or prevailing speed 30 mph or less (no effect) 35 mph 40 mph or more
Bike lane blockage (typically (no effect) frequent (no effect) aoolies in commercial areas) rare
Based on the scoring criteria presented in Table 18, the bicycle facilities along James Way,
West Branch Street and North Oak Park Boulevard have a LTS 4 score based on the posted
speed of 40 mph. The Meadow Creek development would participate in the enhancement
of bicycle facilities through the payment of traffic fees .
CEQA VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
The City of Arroyo Gran de has adopted a set of transportation assessment
Of PLAN
guidelines 1 , in compliance with Senate Bill 743, which are based on a ~,,_v. ~4' ~ -?~
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric rather than the traditional Level of l' * ~~
Service (LOS) metric. Per the State's Natural Resource Agency Updated ffi ...-ii. ~
Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA adopted in 2018, VMT has • i.-.. ~-.l
been designated as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. ~~---~1-.""
"Vehicle Miles Traveled" refers to the amount and distance of automobile 4
l'toFcA\.\fo~"f-
travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the
project on transit and non-motorized travel. For land use projects, vehicle miles traveled
exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.
Multi modal Tran sportation Impa ct Study Guid elin es , City of Arroyo Grand e, January 2021 .
M eadow Cr ee k Developm ent
Tr affic and Circ ulation Study 28
A ssociat ed Tr ansportation Engin ee rs
Au gust 23, 2024
Page 557 of 601
VMT Screening Criteria
The City of Arroyo Grande uses the following VMT screening criteria to determine if a project
must conduct a VMT analysis.
A. Project is consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or General Plan
and generates fewer than 110 daily trips based on the most current edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
B. Projects that are within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit route
with 15 minute or less headways . Unless project:
1. Has a floor area ration (FAR) of less than 0.75, or
2. Includ es more parking than required under the City's zoning code, or
3 . Is consistent with the region's Sustainable Comm.unities Strategy, City Zoning
code or City Land Use policies (i.e. General Plan or Specific Plan) or
4. Replaces affordable housing with smaller number of moderate-or high-income
residential units.
C. Project is Locally-serving retail defined as retail project within an urban environment
of less than 50,000 square feet. The City should consider project-specific information
such as market surveys or economic impact analysis that may more accurately
determine market geography.
D. Transportation projects that are expected to reduce or have no impact on VMT will
not require a quantitative VMT analysis. These projects include, but are not limited
to, road diets (traffic lane reduction/narrowing), roundabouts, roadway rehabilitation
and maintenance, safety improvements that do not substantially increase auto
capacity, installation, or reconfiguration of lanes not through traffic (addition of
left/right turn lanes, etc.), timing of traffic signals, removal of on-street parking,
addition or enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and services.
Based on the City of Arroyo Grande VMT screening criteria, the Project is not screened out
and will be required to complete a VMT analysis.
M ea dow Cree k D ev elopm ent
Tr affic and Circulation Study 29
Asso c iated Transportation Engin eers
Augu st 23 , 2024
Page 558 of 601
VMT Impact Criteria and Analysis Requirements
The City's adopted VMT thresholds of significance are presented in the transportation
assessment guidelines and reviewed below.
Thresholds of Significance
When a project does not meet the screening criteria described in Section 1.2 of the
guidelines, a CEQA VMT analysis will be required . This analysis is used to evaluate a
project's VMT generation against the appropriate thresholds of significance. Table 19
presents the City's thresholds of significance for residential development projects.
Table 19
Thresholds of Significance for Residential Development Projects
Land Use Basis Current Level VMT Threshold
Proje ct VMT per ca pita exceeds a level of 20.2 VMT/capita 17.2 Re side ntial 15% below exist i ng Countywide average (Countywide Average) VMT/capita VMT pe r capita.
VMT Analysis
Residential projects that require a CEQA VMT analysis shall calculate the project VMT per
capita by performing a run of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) travel
demand model and comparing to the regional VMT with and without project to determine
total project VMT. Total project VMT then shall be divided by the proposed dwelling units
multiplied by the City's average persons per household from the U.S. Census (2.54 Average
Persons per Household).
The SLOCOG traffic model provides home based VMT per capita data for the City of Arroyo
Grande as well as the various Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the County, including the
TAZ that encompasses the Project site. Traffic model data was used to establish the home-
based VMT per capita thresholds for the City of Arroyo Grande and to estimate the home-
based VMT per capita for the Project. Table 20 shows the existing home-based VMT per
capita for the City of Arroyo Grande, the VMT threshold (15% below existing home-based
VMT per capita), and the Project's home-based VMT per capita based on the SLOCOG traffic
model data.
M ea dow Cree k Dev elopm ent
Traffic and Circ ulation Study 3 0
Asso ciated Transportat ion Engin ee rs
August 23 , 20 24
Page 559 of 601
Table 20
Meadow Creek Per Capita VMT Summary
City of Arroyo VMT(a) VMT Impact Threshold(b) Project VMT Estirnate<c)
20.2 per cap ita 1 7.2 per capita 12.29 per capita
(a) City of Arroyo home-based VMT per capita based on SLOCOG traffic model.
(b) VMT Threshold is a 15% reduction from City VMT (20.2 x 0.85 = 17.2).
(c) Project home-based VMT per cap ita estimate based on SLOCOG model traffic ana lysis zones.
Impact?
No
As shown, the existing city-wide home-based VMT in the City of Arroyo Grande is 20.2 VMT
per capita. Thus, the VMT threshold is 17.2 VMT per capita (15% below existing VMT: 20.2
x 0.85 = 17.2). The SLOCOG model shows that the homes within the local TAZ generate
12.29 VMT per capita, which is below the 17.2 VMT per capita impact threshold. Thus, the
Project would not have a potentially significant VMT impact.
Meadow C reek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study
•••
31
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 560 of 601
REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
Associated Transportation Engineers
Scott A. Schell, Principal Planner
Darryl F. Nelson, Senior Transportation Planner
Glenn Manaois, Transportation Engineer I
References
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, City of Arroyo Grande, May 2021.
Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, 2016.
Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11 th Edition, 2020.
2010 Draft Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, County of Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Persons Contacted
Andrew Perez, Planning Manager, City of Arroyo Grande
Daniel Audelo, Traffic Planner, SLOCOG
Meadow C reek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 32
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Page 561 of 601