HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-04-14_10a Appeal James Way_Bunnell Revocable TrustItem 10.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Perez, Interim Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of
Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001;
Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical
Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell
Revocable Trust
DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case 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), and Categorically Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15332.
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 the appeal. The appellants were
invoiced for $531.30 to reschedule the public hearing to cover costs with re-noticing the
public hearing and additional staff time to prepare meeting materials.
BACKGROUND:
The appeal hearing was included on the March 24, 2026, City Council agenda, but was
rescheduled after the appellant requested additional time. In the interest of fairness, the
City Council was willing to grant a short extension to the April 14, 2026 , City Council
meeting. This staff report supplements and does not replace the original published staff
report, which includes staff’s recommendation and robust analysis supporting its
recommendation for project approval. That original staff report is linked and incorporated
by reference. This supplemental report addresses new arguments that the appellant
Page 79 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 2
raised after the March 24, 2026,1 staff report was published, as well as other concerns
raised by community members.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
In addition to the appellant’s appeal letter (received on January 30, 2026), the appellant
submitted two letters on March 23, 2026 , with new arguments challenging staff’s
recommendation to approve the project. A brief summary of the appellant’s new
arguments and staff’s responses are provided below.
Reliance on the Project Being Deemed Complete Pursuant to Government Code Section
65589.5(j)(2)
Appellant asserts that the application having been deemed complete pursuant to the
Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was used as a “newly advanced” basis for concluding
that certain issues are no longer subject to review, but argues that Council’s de novo
review authority under AGMC § 1.12.010 allows for “an independent, new determination
on the merits and [Council] is not bound by the Planning Commission’s findings or the
Staff Report’s legal conclusions.”
Staff Response:
De novo review does allow the City Council to independently review the project and the
Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the project. However, such review
continues to be limited by the requirements and constraints under state housing law. The
appellant’s argument understates the significant limits created by the Permit Streamlining
Act and Housing Accountability Act on the City’s review of this project. Here, the project
application received robust City review in accordance with state law requirements.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65943, the City ensured that the application
included everything required by its application checklist. The applicant was required to
submit multiple rounds of application materials, and the City issued two rounds of
deficiency letters before the application was ultimately deemed complete. The foregoing
demonstrates the degree to which the City thoroughly reviewed the application and
ensured all materials required by the City’s application checklist were submitted.
Under state law, once an application is determined to be complete, the Housing
Accountability Act requires the City, within 30 days thereof, to identify any applicable
objective development standards that the project is inconsistent with (Gov. Code, §
65589.5(j)(2)(A)). This is a mandatory state law requirement, which the City satisfied on
August 27, 2025, when it provided written notice to the applicant identifying objective
1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=14124ea9-2733-4542-ab4f-
3e33c371de81&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=47&Tab=attachments
Page 80 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 3
development standards the project did not satisfy, including building height, floor area
ratio, parking lot landscaping, and open space. With respect to the 32’ creek setback, the
underlying staff report explains both the circumstances associated with that City standard
and the history of allowing that setback on the project site.
The appellant suggests that the legal effect of Gov. Code section 65589.5(j)(2) would still
allow the City to “ensure compliance with the City’s own objective development
standards.” However, the HAA provides cities with one opportunity — immediately
following when the application is determined to be complete — to notify the applicant of
any inconsistencies with the City’s development standards. If a city misses this deadline
or does not identify an objective standard that the project is inconsistent with, state law
deems the project consistent with those standards (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(b)).
Additionally, under state law, the applicant’s use of a Density Bonus, concession, waiver,
or parking reduction is not a valid basis to deem the project inconsistent with the City’s
objective standards (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(3)). This point was not addressed in the
Planning Commission materials because it had not yet been raised on appeal. The
appellant argues that certain development standards must now be applied. The original
appeal staff report properly explains that — for purposes of state law — the project is
consistent with the City’s objective development standards. The HAA does not allow
project denial or the City to condition the project based on generalized concerns about
neighborhood character, compatibility, or other subjective concerns (Gov. Code §
65589.5(f)(9); see also Bankers Hills 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th
755,778.). The City Council’s de novo review does not change the legal effect of Gov.
Code section 65589.5(j), nor does it provide an additional (independent) basis to review
the project for consistency against newly raised standards or subjective considerations.
Inadequate Parking Supply Creates Specific Adverse Impacts to Public Health and Safety
Appellant asserts that the project does not provide adequate parking to serve future
residents because the developer is relying on shared parking to which the applicant has
no right to use. The Appellant alleges that parking shortage will result in specific, adverse
impacts such as spillover parking, increased congestion on James Way, traffic hazards,
and nuisance impacts on neighboring businesses and residents.
Staff Response:
Broadly speaking, state law is increasingly limiting in the instances where cities can
impose parking requirements on housing projects. For instance, state law generally
prohibits cities from imposing any parking requirements on projects located within a half
mile of certain major transit stops (See Gov. Code, § 65863.2(a)). Within the density
bonus law context applicable to this project, the statute establishes a minimum parking
ratio for qualifying projects, which is based on the unit mix and bedroom count (Gov.
Page 81 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 4
Code, § 65915(p)(1)). Applicants can utilize this parking ratio as a matter of right, and if
the applicant so chooses, can use one of their concessions to further reduce the parking
provided (Gov. Code, § 65915(p)(5)). On March 18, 2026, the applicant submitted a letter
formally revising the concession request to reduce the parking requirement from 98
spaces to the 31 spaces provided in garages. The private garages are reserved for
residents, so the project no longer relies on shared parking to provide the parking required
after granting the concession. Under state law, the City may only deny a requested
concession based on a statutorily specified reason (e.g. no cost reductions; unmitigable
specific, adverse impact; contrary to state or federal law).
Not providing parking in accordance with Zoning Code requirements does not constitute
a specific, adverse impact (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(d)(2)(A)). The appellant’s generalized
argument that a shortage of parking will create a specific, adverse impact to public health
and safety is not supported by evidence that the impacts will be significant and
unavoidable based on objective public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions
as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete (Id., at (d)(2), (j)(1); see
also Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1)(B)). Concerns cited about differing interpretations of
private agreements are a civil matter between private parties and not grounds for denying
the parking concession or the project.
Dispersal of Units
Appellant asserts that the project fails to comply with AGMC Section 16.82.040(E), which
requires that all affordable housing units must be “reasonably dispersed throughout the
housing development; shall be proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the
market rate units; and shall be comparable with the market-rate units in terms of the base
design, architectural appearance, building materials and finished quality.”
Staff Response:
Condition of approval No. 96 requires the applicant to record a density bonus agreement
(Agreement) with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The Agreement will
establish the number, type, affordability level, and duration of the units reserved for lower-
income households to satisfy the qualifying criteria for the density bonus under state law.
Both the number of units and their location are dependent on the level of affordability (low
or very-low income), which has not been established at this point in the process. Staff’s
review and preparation of the Agreement will ensure compliance with AGMC section
16.82.040(E), and the City’s authority pursuant to that recorded density bonus agreement
on the property, ensures that the construction and disbursement of the affordable units
will be equitable. As a policy matter, the deed -restricted, affordable units that will result
from this project significantly assist the City in meeting its required Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), which is the mandated number of affordable units that the City
Page 82 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 5
must plan for as part of its current Housing Element cycle, and which must be reported to
the State annually.
Inadequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis
Appellant asserts that the project does not qualify for the statutory exemption provided by
AB 130 and that further environmental analysis is required to evaluate traffic impacts.
Specifically, the letter from the appellant's counsel, Edwin Rambuski, claims the project’s
eligibility for the exemption is reliant on compliance with the City’s Multimodal
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (Transportation Study Guidelines).
Staff Response:
AB 130 created a new statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for infill housing development projects that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in
PRC Section 21080.66. An analysis of the project determined that the project meets the
eligibility criteria for this exemption. That analysis is provided as Attachment 5 to the
March 24, 2026, staff report. None of the criteria contemplates potential transportation-
related impacts because the exemption specifically applies to infill housing projects, which
are presumed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The City’s Transportation Study Guidelines require a project application to include a traffic
study when the projected trip generation during any peak hour is equal to or greater than
20 trips. This project is anticipated to generate approximately 36 AM peak hour trips and
37 PM peak hour trips; therefore, a Traffic and Circulation Study was done to evaluate
the project’s impacts in accordance with the City’s Transportation Study Guidelines.
The Transportation Study Guidelines also describe when a project -specific VMT analysis
is required. Pursuant to SB 743, VMT is the only metric recognized by CEQA to evaluate
the significance of transportation-related impacts. The analysis determined that this
project would not have a potentially significant VMT impact because the estimated
VMT/capita (12.29) is more than 15% below than the existing VMT (20.2). Therefore,
even in the event that the statutory exemption required a VMT analysis, the traffic analysis
demonstrates the project would not result in a potentially significant transportation -related
impact. The study also determined that the project would not result in the degradation of
level of service at any study-area intersections and is compliant with Circulation Element
policies.
Note that, as a Density Bonus Law project, the City may not condition th e submission,
review, or approval of the application on preparation of an additional report or study unless
state law otherwise requires it (Gov. Code § 65915(a)(2)). Nothing in state law, including
Density Bonus Law, authorizes the City to require additional traffic analysis as a
Page 83 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 6
precondition to acting on a qualifying concession, for instance, applicant’s requested
parking reduction.
Concessions Under Density Bonus Law
Appellant asserts that the “applicant bears the burden to prove with substantial evidence
that each waiver or concession is necessary to avoid physical preclusion” and that the
record lacks that evidence.
Staff Response:
Appellant incorrectly asserts that the applicant bears the burden of proof as to requested
concessions or waivers2. It is the opposite. State law expressly places the burden of proof
on the City to deny a requested concession or waiver (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4)). The
statutory scheme is therefore one of mandatory approval unless the City can make one
of the narrow findings authorized by law.
Case law has reinforced the high burden placed on cities seeking to deny a requested
concession or incentive, including limits on cities’ ability to ask for information regarding
cost savings (Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal. App. 5th 549). Denial of
concessions or waivers requires the City to support such a determination with substantial
evidence. Courts have recognized that granting a concession is mandatory when a
qualifying affordable housing project is proposed, unless the City can make one of the
narrow findings under statute (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 933,
941). Thus, the City faces a high burden of proof in order to deny the requested
concession. For the reasons described in the March 24, 2026, staff report, the City does
not believe any of the statutory findings can be made to deny the requested concessions.
Impacts on Sensitive Riparian Habitat and/or Threatened Species
Appellant asserts that the HAA does not compel the City to approve housing without
conducting environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Appellant further asserts that the City must analyze the project’s potential
impacts to Meadow Creek’s riparian habitat and any threate ned species before approval.
2 The appellant’s March 23, 2026, letter indicated that the parking reduction is requested as a waiver, but
staff notes it is requested as a concession. Concessions have similar, but not identical, requirements under
Density Bonus Law. Waivers also are mandatory under the law unless the required narrow findings can be
made, but the appellant has not challenged any of the three waivers requested by the applicant (i.e. building
size, FAR, open space/unit)
Page 84 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 7
Staff Response:
Appellant incorrectly claims that the fair argument standard of review should apply to this
project. Citing to Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 is
incorrect, as that case concerns a mitigated negative declaration for which the fair
argument standard of review applies, and not a statutory exemption like AB 130 utilized
by this project. Instead, when reviewing the applicability of a statutory exemption, the
nature and extent of the project’s environmental impacts are ordinarily irrelevant. This is
because the State Legislature is free to create exemptions regardless of their consistency
with CEQA’s environmental purposes (Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water
Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 956, 966, fn. 8). Thus, statutory exemptions are enacted to
lift the burden of environmental review from specified classes of projects that may have
significant effects; limiting a statutory exemption to projects that will not adverse ly affect
the environment would defeat the purpose of the exemption (See, e.g., Sunset Sky Ranch
Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento (2009) 47 Cal.4th 902, 909). Therefore, the sole
question is whether the project fits within the language of the exemption (County of
Ventura v. City of Moorpark (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 377, 386). The City’s determination of
the applicability of the statutory exemption must be affirmed if it is supported by
substantial evidence (Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., supra, at
967-968).
City staff determined that the project is statutorily exempt from further environmental
review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. Contrary to appellant’s
claim that the City only looked at general plan and zoning designations, the project was
found to be eligible for this exemption by meeting each of the enumerated criteria under
Section 21080.66 (See Attachment 5 of the March 24, 2026 staff report). With regard to
potential impacts to sensitive riparian areas and habitat for protected species, the
exemption is supported by substantial evidence. The biological resource studies confirm
that no wetlands exist on the Project site (See Exhibits 1 and 2 to Attachment 5 of the
staff report). Further, the Project’s biologist concluded that “the proposed project would
have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State” (Attachment
5, Exhibit 2, p. 4). Thus, substantial evidence supports the project’s eligibility to meet the
Public Resources Code section 21080.66 criteria.
Accordingly, based on the record of proceedings, City staff continues to find that the AB
130 statutory exemption applies to the project. In addition, because the project site is
located on an in-fill site, staff has also included findings in this supplemental report and
resolution supporting the Class 32 – Infill Development exemption under State CEQA
Guidelines section 15332 as an alternative basis for CEQA.
Page 85 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 8
Erroneous Application of Mixed Use Standards
Appellant asserts that the project is erroneously defined as a mixed -use development.
Staff Response:
The project both qualifies as a “housing development project” under state law and is
properly analyzed as a mixed-use project under the City’s Municipal Code. The HAA
defines a housing development project as a use consisting of residential units only or
mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses, with at least
two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(2)(A)-(B)). Separately, staff evaluates projects under mixed-use development
standards under the City’s Municipal Code when the project site is surrounded and served
by commercial uses, as with this development application. The project will also share
ingress, egress, and parking amenities with adjacent commercial uses, justifying its
classification as a mixed-use development. The project is treated as a housing
development project for purposes of state housing law (the HAA and Density Bonus Law),
while also being reviewed under the City’s mixed -use development standards for
purposes of local code compliance. Accordingly, the appellant has not shown an
erroneous application of mixed-use standards. The City’s analysis appropriately
distinguished between the project’s status as a housing development project under state
housing law and the proper interpretation of applicable local code designation under
mixed-use standards. Finally, since the applicant is eligible based on the deed-restricted
affordability component of the project to seek concessions under Density Bonus Law, the
applicant could choose to seek a concession associated with that mixed-use designation
under City’s Municipal Code. (Gov. Code, § 65915(k)(3).)
Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety
Appellant asserts that the HAA imposes an “obligation” on the City to make sp ecific
adverse impact findings. Appellant also asserts that if the City were to grant the requested
concession to reduce the parking requirement, the project would have an adverse impact
on public health and safety.
Staff Response:
Both assertions are meritless under state housing law. First, the HAA does not impose
an obligation on the City to make specific, adverse impact findings when approving a
housing project. Rather, when a project qualifies under the HAA, state law only allows a
city to deny that housing project (or condition approval at a lower density) when
necessary to avoid an unmitigable specific adverse impact on health and safety. Put
simply, the HAA does not require cities to make specific adverse impact findings when
approving a housing project. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1).)
Page 86 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 9
Second and finally, no evidence in the record indicates that approving the requested
concession and the project will result in a specific adverse impact on public health and
safety. The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as 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” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)). The HAA specifically provides that a project’s
inconsistency with the zoning ordinance, such as not providing parking in accordance
with local requirements, does not constitute a specific adverse impact on public health or
safety (Id., at (d)(2)(A)). The appellant’s generalized assertions regarding alleged health
and safety impacts associated with the requested parking concession do not withstand
legal scrutiny. Critically, the appellant has neither provided nor cited any objective
evidence or health and safety standards that indicate that granting the concession and
approving the project will result in a specific, adverse impact, as defined under the HAA.
Under the HAA, anecdotal generalizations about perceived impacts — that are not based
on objective public health or safety standards — do not provide a defensible basis to deny
the project or the requested parking concession.
Public Comment
In addition to the arguments made by the appellant, general public comment in opposition
to the project raised concerns about emergency access, neighborhood compatibility,
creek preservation, and impacts to nearby businesses.
Emergency Access
All applications for discretionary projects are reviewed by the Five Cities Fire Authority for
compliance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and the California State Fire Code.
In combination, these codes require that a project provide sufficient ingres s and egress
for emergency vehicles, the internal circulation allows adequate space for emergency
vehicles to maneuver, and also provides sufficient area for emergency personnel to
execute emergency operations. This project is no different. The project maintains the two
existing driveways from James Way, both of which can provide access for emergency
vehicles to serve this project and the other buildings in the plaza. Several conditions of
approval for the project require express compliance with the Fire Co de, including fire
access roads being kept clear of parking, which will be accomplished by painting red
curbs and posting no parking signs in accordance with Fire Code regulations. Importantly
and more broadly, the conditions of approval also require that the applicant will need to
demonstrate compliance with the most recent editions of the California Building
Standards Code, which includes the 2025 California Fire Code. Therefore, the project will
not adversely impact emergency access or levels of service.
Page 87 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 10
Neighborhood Compatibility
The HAA requires that the City evaluate housing projects based on the objective design
and development standards that exist when the application is deemed complete. State
law is strict in precluding the City from basing its project approval or denial on subjective
standards that involve personal judgment, or anecdotal considerations that are not
codified and are not uniformly verifiable. This does not minimize legitimate neighborhood
compatibility concerns; however, it does limit the City’s ability to address those concerns
under State law. State law also prohibits the City from requesting design changes or
otherwise conditioning a project in a way that would have the effect of reducing a project’s
density or adversely impacting the affordability or viability of providing those units. The
applicable objective development standards related to the massing and scale of the
project include those for building height, area, floor-area ratio, and lot coverage. The
application requests a concession to exceed the maximum building height standard and
waivers to allow the project to exceed the building size limitation of 50,000 square feet
and the floor-area ratio of 1.0. The project complies with the lot coverage standard.
As previously discussed, the City is obligated to grant the requested concessions and
waivers absent making one of the narrow findings codified by state statute, including a
specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that is based on objective, written
public health or safety standards. As articulated throughout the materials, City staff does
not believe any of the requisite findings can be met to deny. The City has the burden of
proof for any such denial. W ere a court to deem the City to have wrongly denied a density
bonus, incentive, concession, or waiver, the reviewing court would award attorney’s fees
and court costs to the plaintiff (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1)).
Creek Preservation
To make the determination that the project is eligible for an AB 130 statutory exemption,
the City independently reviewed the biological studies for the project , which confirms that
there would be no impacts to riparian habitat on the project site. Additionally, the prepared
Resolution includes four conditions (Nos. 66, 81, 93, and 94) for purposes of maintaining
the health of the creek. For example, condition no 81 requires surface stormwater to be
filtered to remove pollutants prior to being discharged into the creek via storm drains. A
vegetation management plan is required to both maintain the health of the riparian areas
adjacent to the project site and reduce fire hazards. The project’s landscape plan will
consist of species that are native to the riparian area. In combination, these conditions
will ensure the health of the creek is maintained.
For all of the above stated reasons, as well as those articulated in the March 24, 2026,
staff report, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and approve the project.
Page 88 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 11
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
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 director for staff to return with 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 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 P ublic Resources Code section
21080.66(a).
Additionally, and in the alternative, the Project is also categorically exempt from further
environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32 – Infill
Development). Here, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed
Use (MU) and a zoning designation of Office Mixed Use (OMU). The project would provide
multi-family housing and is therefore consistent with both MU and OMU designations. The
project site is 1.81 acres located within the City of Arroyo Grande, and is immediately
surrounded by commercial uses on three sides, which include a hotel, medical offices,
Page 89 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 12
fitness facility, and a religious facility across James Way to the north. Based on the
biological resource studies for this project, the project site also has no value as habitat
for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The traffic and circulation study for the
project determined that the project would not have a potentially significant VMT impact
because the estimated VMT/capita (12.29) is more than 15% below than the existing VMT
(20.2); thus, the project will not result in significant transportation impacts. The project will
also not result in significant construction noise impacts because the project would comply
with the City’s time restrictions on construction activities pursuant to the City’s standard
conditions for the project. Similarly, the project’s operational noise impacts would also be
less than significant because operational noise would be similar to the noise from other
nearby commercial uses. Given the size of the project, the project will also not result in
significant air quality impacts. The project will not have significant impacts relating to
water quality because the project would be required to comply with the NPDES MS4
permit during construction and operation of the project, which would require preparation
of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The project site can be adequately
served by all required utilities and public services.
Further, none of the exceptions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply
here. There will be no significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same
type in the same place, over time. There is no reasonable possibility t hat the project will
have a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances. The project may
not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic
buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated
as a state scenic highway. The project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant
to Government Code section 65962.5. The project may not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, the project also qualifies for the
Class 32 categorical exemption.
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 for the rescheduled hearing
was posted at the project site, published in the New Times on April 2, 2026, and mailed
to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site on April 2, 2026.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Project Location
3. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-002
4. January 30, 2026 Appeal Form
5. AB 130 CEQA Findings
6. Traffic and Circulation Study
Page 90 of 406
Item 10.a.
City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281
James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners
LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026
Page 13
7. Appellant Letters dated March 23, 2026
8. Public Comment received for the March 24, 2026 Agenda
9. Public Comment received prior to publishing
Page 91 of 406
ATTACHMENT 1
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) AND CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332
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 categorically exempt pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as documented in the record before City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2026, Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC,
Page 92 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
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
WHEREAS, the public hearing scheduled for March 24, 2026 was rescheduled for April 14, 2026;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing on April 14,
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).
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 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.
Page 93 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
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
conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, is not habitat for protecte d
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.
Additionally, and in the alternative, the City finds that the project is categorically exempt per
CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Infill Development Projects). The project is consistent with the
applicable General Plan and zoning designation and regulations because it is located within the
Office Mixed Use (OMU) district and has a General Plan designation of Mixed Use (MU),
involving construction of ninety-two (92) multifamily residential units within an urbanized mixed-
use corridor, including the unit increases granted under State Density Bonus Law. The project
occurs within the limits of the City of Arroyo Grande on a project site consisting of two parcels
cumulatively sized under 1.81 acres. Furthermore, the project site is substantially surrounded by
urban uses. As supported by the biological studies, no habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species exists on the project site. The City has also determined that no significant effects relating
to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality would arise from approval of the project. Existing
infrastructure ensures that the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services.
None of the exceptions outlined in State Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here. There are no
unusual circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable possibility that the project would
have a significant effect on the environment. No scenic resources would be damaged as a result
of the project. The location of the project site is not on the Cortese list of hazardous waste sites
or any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Finally, the project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Therefore, the City finds that the project would be categorically exempt from CEQA under the
Class 32 exemption.
City Council 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.
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
Page 94 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
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
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
Page 95 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
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
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 three concessions under Gov. Code §65915(d). The project
will receive three concessions as follows:
Page 96 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6
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 sixty-eight (68) less parking spaces than the parking minimum,
providing thirty-one (31) 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.
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
Page 97 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
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,
on March 18, 2026, applicant requested to modify the concession for a reduction of the parking
requirement from 99 to 31 on-site spaces provided in private garages. 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 conc ession 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
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 would otherwise
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
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.
Page 98 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 8
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 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
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
5https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GO
V
6 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).
7 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2)
Page 99 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 9
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.
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
8 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).
Page 100 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 10
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
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
Page 101 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 11
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
(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.
Page 102 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 12
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
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
9https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=2107
2
Page 103 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 13
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 standard 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
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.
Page 104 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 14
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
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.
Page 105 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 15
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 106 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 16
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 107 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 17
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 April 14, 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 April 14, 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 108 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 18
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 109 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 19
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 110 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 20
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 111 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 21
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 112 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 22
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 113 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 23
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 114 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 24
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.
Page 115 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 25
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
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
Page 116 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 26
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
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 117 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 27
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
Page 118 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 28
scenario, the density bonus agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building
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 119 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 29
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 conditions 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.
Page 120 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 30
TREE PRESERVATION/TREE REMOVAL PLAN
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 121 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 31
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 C ity,
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 p reliminary 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.
Page 122 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 32
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.
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 123 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 33
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 124 of 406
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 34
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 125 of 406
L
O
S
B
E
R
R
O
S
R
D
N
O
A
K
P ARK BLVD
S
OA
K
PA
R
K
BLV
D
N O
A
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
BRIGHTON AVE
S E
L
M
S
T
S O
A
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
VA
L
L
E
Y
R
D
S O
A
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
S H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
CHRISTMAS TREE PL
BRIGHTON AVE
TEMPLE ST
RAMONA AVE
W
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
MARIO
S
T
STA
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
CALLE DE LOS SUEI
CA
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
VIA DEL NORTE
TROUVILLE AVE
SEABRIGHT AVE
MANHATTAN AVE
23R
D
S
T
BARBADOS ST
CA
L
L
E
Q
U
A
T
R
O
OAKWAY
LA
D
U
E
S
T
SAN
D
I
E
G
OLOO
P
CIENAGA ST
24
T
H
S
T
JUD
G
E
A
V
E
ROSE
S
T
HUAS
N
A
R
D
BRAN
C
H
M
I
L
L
R
D
FARROLL RD
UNN
AMED
S
T
LE
O
-
M
A
R
I
O
S
T
VAL
L
E
Y
R
D
BEACH ST
25
T
H
S
T
ALS
ACE
PL
ME
S
E
T
A
P
L
PRI
N
T
Z
R
D
OCEAN ST
OLD
O
A
K
P
A
R
K
RD
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
PASO ROBLES ST
INDIA
NHILLS
W
A
Y
THE PIKE
22
N
D
S
T
KAREN
C
T
21S
T
S
T
DR
I
F
T
W
O
O
D
S
T
NO
R
M
A
L
N
UNNAMED ST
RIN
C
O
N
C
T
QU
A
N
A
V
E
WILMAR AVE
RE
B
E
C
C
A
ST
NOR
MA
L
N
TER
R
Y
C
T
AS
T
E
R
S
T
LA
T
I
J
E
R
A
C
T
VIA DEL CENTRO
LAZY LN
MARIANWAY
GE
N
O
V
E
N
I
R
D
CO
R
B
E
TTCANYO
NRD
PHILLIPS
R
D
TRINIDADDR
T
E
RRY
D
R
MA
R
T
I
N
I
Q
U
EDR
HE
R
M
O
S
A
C
T
TULIPST
NEWPORTAVE
DU
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
FER
N
S
T
RE
D
O
N
D
O
C
T
EL
C
AMINO
R
EAL
LA
E
N
T
R
A
D
A
L
N
CARMEL CT
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
NABAL CT
UN
N
A
M
E
DST
UNN
A
M
E
D
S
T
DARIEN CT
DUGAN
D
R
21
S
T
C
T
UNNAMED ST
LA TEEN
A
P
L
PE
A
C
O
C
KPL
VIA DEL RIO
SC
OTT
L
E
E
D
R
NEWPORT AVE
19
T
H
S
T
SYLVANRIDGE
R
D
WIND
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
CA
L
L
E
U
N
O
SAN
S
E
B
A
S
T
I
A
N
C
T
SARATOGA AVE
TERRY
D
R
SA
I
N
T
J
O
H
N
C
I
R
ALMA CT
MONA
L
E
I
C
T
MOSS
B
EACH
C
T
JENNIFER CT
S E
L
M
S
T
MENTONE
A
V
E
UNNAMEDST
TIE
R
R
A
N
U
E
V
A
L
N
JANET
D
R
COA
S
T
V
I
E
W
DR
LA SELVA AVE
RO
SE
C
T
ATLANTICCITY
A
V
E
LA JOLLA CT
ME
S
A
VIE
W
D
R
SOLANA CT
20
T
H
S
T
MO
N
A
C
O
C
T
KA
R
I
N
A
W
AY
CAPISTRANO
C
T
HELEN
A
S
T
NOYE
S
R
D
KAR
E
N
W
A
Y
RE
D
R
O
C
K
R
D
EV
Y
L
N
HASS LN
22N
D
S
T
UNNAMED
S
T
UN
N
A
M
E
D
ST
ROCKAWAY AVE
PLANCHAWAY
PAM
E
L
A
D
R
WARNER ST
VISTA ST
UNNAMED ST
ROSSLN
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
RAI
LR
O
AD
S
T
HO
N
D
O
N
A
D
A
R
D
LA
SCASITAS
FARROLL AVE
HE
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
L
N
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
ME
L
O
D
Y
L
N
BIGCANYON
C
T
TO
D
O
S
S
A
NTO
S
C
T
RIVE
RAVE
HOLDEN AVE
PEDRO ST
LA COSTA CT
IRI
S
ST
ARA
B
I
A
N
W
AY
FR
O
N
T
S
T
SHANNON
L
N
FRA
N
C
E
S
W
A
Y
LA
B
REA CT
NIPOMO ST
UNNAMEDST
TOBAGO ST
DAISEY
S
T
SHANNA PL
BEAR
C
A
N
Y
O
N
LN
ST
N
I
C
K
S
P
L
BILL
S
W
A
Y
CR
A
I
G
W
A
Y
N 1
6
T
H
S
T
NA
B
A
L
CT
H
A
W
K
V
IE
W
C
T
L O RIENDACT
ROCHE
LLEWA
Y
S 1
6
T
H
S
T
JOYCE
WAY
21
S
T
S
T
CORNERST O NE
L
N
JAMES
W
A
Y
VIA
C
ASA
VIS
T
A
ERICACT
C
A
T
H
EDRAL
LN
20THCT
UNNAM
E
D
ST
THYRRING ST
VIAPRIVADO
VIAARTURO
ROOK
E
R
R
A
N
C
H W AY
BADGER
C
A
N
Y
O
N
L
N
DOVE
C
T
MA
R
S
E
I
L
L
E
C
T
PINE
T
R
E
E
L
N
UNN
A
M
E
D
ST
GOL
D
E
N
H
A
W
K
L
N
LAGU
N
A
CT
ROYALOAKPL
QUEB
R
A
D
A
L
N
RIC
H
A
R
D
S
T
OCEAN AVE
SAVANNAH
CIR
GWEN PL
CA
L
L
E
T
R
E
S
SADDLE
RD
WILSH
I
R
E
S
T
SKYL
I
N
E
D
R
CA
L
L
E
D
O
S
LA
M
P
L
I
GHTE
R
L
N
LARA LN
PAINTE
DSKY
W
A
Y
PEACELN
LEIF LN
FALC O N CREST
DR
DO RIS
L
N
AC
EROPL
NICE AVE
TU
L
P
E
N
D
R
LABRA
D
O
R
L
N
DO
W
E
R
A
V
E
OAK
H
I
L
L
RD
UNNAM
E
D
S
T
BUCK
R
IDGELN
DO
W
E
R
A
V
E
WAYNEWAY
HIA
W
A
T
H
A
L
N
UNNAMED ST
UNNAMED ST
ANTIGUADR
EFFIE
W
A
Y
COU
N
T
RYOAK
W
A
Y
LA
V
E
R
N
E
S
T
WARNER ST
SAND
C
A
N
Y
O
N
C
T
TAN
N
E
R
L
N
UN
N
A
M
E
D
CT
CO
F
F
E
E
L
N
BASIN ST
DENN
I
S
L
N
CO
U
NTRY
H
I
L
LS
L
N
FOX
E
N
BLUFF
LN
LO
N
G
H
O
R
N
LN
UNNAMED
S
T
TORREY
P
I
N
E
P
L
CENTURY
LN
LILAC ST
CAL
L
E
V
ISTA
D
E
L
A
S
TA
NA
P
L
E
S
S
T
CHR
I
S
T
I
N
E
W
A
Y
HOL
L
Y
W
A
Y
MAR
G
O
W
A
Y
EL
S
U
E
N
O
W
A
Y
ELA
I
N
E
W
A
Y
PASE
O
L
A
D
ERALN
LA VID
A
L
N
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
IN
D
I
A
N
HEIGHTS
D
R
SEVA
D
A
L
N
HIDDEN PINELN
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
LONGBRANCH AVE
ALTA
V
I
S
TA
W
A
Y
CA
S
I
T
A
S
L
N
ECH
O
C
A
NYO
N
C
T
GRELL
L
N
PHILLIPS RD
CRE
S
T
DR
JANET AVE
ANITA AVE
SUM
M
I
T
D
R
BADEN AVE
ROSEVINE
L
N
TA
M
E
R
A
DR
PEAC
E
F
U
L
P
O
I
N
T
L
N
SILVER
W
A
Y
VI
A
E
L
C
I
E
L
O
VINT
O
N
L
N
UNNA
M
E
D
S
T
AR
R
OY
O
V
I
S
T
A
LN
LLAMA LN
C
OR
SIC
A
PL
UNNAM
ED
S
T
UNNAMED ST
PINE
V
IEW DR
NEWSOMSPRINGS
R
D
CAN
D
I
C
E
C
T
GRACIA WAY
SU
N
R
A
Y
P
L
SILVER SPUR PL
HANS
E
N
HILLRD
PLEA
S
A
N
T
L
N
UNNAMED ST
HIGH
V
I
E
W
D
R
MOORELN
K
O
D
I
A
K
L
N
VIA
M
A
R
S
O
L
BRADY LN
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
E
E
LCAMPO
R
D
QUAIL
H
I
LL
L
N
HERITAGE
L
N
UNNAMEDST
WINDERME
R
E
L
N
S H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
ER
H
A
R
T
R
D
PA
L
O
M
A
P
L
CASA PL
CO
R
B
E
R
O
S
A
D
R
UNNAMEDST
JAMES
W
Y
VA
L
L
E
Y
R
D
CR
A
N
B
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
MAPLE ST
W CHER
R
Y
A
V
GRAC
E
L
N
L
O
S
O
L
I
V
O
S
L
N
S H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
NEWPORT AV
HUASNA RD
COR
B
E
T
T
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
TR
A
F
F
IC
W
Y
FARROLL AV
THE PIKE
ALLEN
S
T
OA
K
S
T
OAK
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
W
B
R
A
N
C
H
ST
STRAFFIC
W
Y
LONGD
E
N
D
R
BENNETT
A
V
COR
B
E
T
T
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
TAYLOR
P
L
WIL
D
OAK
P
L
CA
R
M
E
L
L
A
D
R
FAIR
O
A
K
S
AV
B
E
L
L
S
T
OAK
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
HILL
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
BRIS
C
O
R
D
RANCHO PKWY
BRISCO
R
D
N H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
E BRANCH ST
CL
U
B
H
O
USE
C
R
E GRA
N
D
A
V
LE POIN
T
S
T
FAEH AV
WI
L
D
W
OOD
D
R
SY
C
A
M
O
R
E
C
T
DO
S
C
ERR
O
S
LO
N
G
D
E
NCT
GA
R
F
I
E
L
D
P
L
SUN
R
I
S
E
T
R
CRE EKVIEW
WY
JA
S
M
I
N
E
P
L
LAD
E
R
A
P
L
WILDW
O
O
D
D
R
CA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
P
L
MAR
I
P
O
S
A
C
R
LEANNA DR
S
A
L
P
I
N
E
S
T
OUTLA
N
D
C
T
CH
E
L
S
E
A
C
T
PRINT
Z
R
D
S
M
A
S
O
N
S
T
EQ
U
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
W
Y
HAWKIN
S
C
T
WILSON CT
JASMINE PL
GROVE
C
T
S E
L
M
S
T
LEI
S
U
R
E
D
R
NELSON
S
T
PLATINO
L
N
MA
YD
OCK
ST
CA
R
D
I
N
A
L
C
T
LA
P
A
Z
C
R
CERRO VISTA CR
VE
R
N
O
N
ST
W BRANCH ST
S C
O
U
R
T
L
A
N
D
S
T
JA
S
M
I
N
E
P
L
N
E
V
A
D
A
S
T
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
RICE CT
M
C
K
I
N
L
E
Y
S
T
MEADO
W
W
Y
VIA
L
A
B
A
R
RANC
A
JA
S
M
I
N
E
P
L
CROWN
H
I
L
L
TIGER
T
A
ILDR
PARAISO
GU
L
A
R
TE
R
D
S
H
O
R
T
S
T
N VIA B
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
BA
KEM
A
N
L
N
RU
T
H
A
N
N
W
Y
MILLERCR
W CHER
R
Y
A
V
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
T
BE
T
A
C
T
DIA
M
O
N
D
C
R
BRITTANY AV
OP
A
L
C
R
G
A
R
D
E
N
S
T
VI
L
L
A
G
E
C
T
WOODLAND CT
ROS
EMA
R
YLN
PLATINOLN
L
E
P
OIN
T
T
R
STA
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
ROBL
E
S
R
D
FLO
R
A
R
D
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
ASHST
P
AC
IFIC
C
O
A
S
T
RA
ILWAY
PL
CA
L
L
IECT
FO
R
TUNA
C
T
PALOS
SEC
O
S
CUE
R
D
A
C
O
R
T
E
GARFIELD
P
L
TOYON PL
C
H
A
P
A
R
R
A
L
L
N
N E
L
M
S
T
LINDA DR
BO
Y
S
E
N
B
E
R
R
Y
S
T
RUSS CT
MESQUITE
LN
PLOMO C
T
GRIEB DR
VARDLOOMIS
L
N
W
H
I
T
E
L
E
Y
S
T
S
V
I
A
A
VANT
E
C
T
ROBIN
C
R
N
M
A
S
O
N
ST
CALLE
C
A
R
M
A
N
TRAFFIC WY
CUEST A PL
SA
L
I
D
A
DEL
S
OL
ROGERS CT
PRI
N
T
Z
R
D
HILLSID E
C
T
CA
L
L
E
C
U
E
R
V
O
HID
D
E
N
OAKRD
MAGNOLIA
D
R
HAVE
N
C
T
CRO
WN
TR
OA
K
L
E
A
F
C
R
WA
L
L
A
C
E
P
L
MU
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
DE
L
MA
R
M
E
ADOWLARK
D
R
LE POIN
T
S
T
TA
Y
L
O
RPL
SWEET
P
E
A
C
T
QUAIL CT
QU AIL
R
IDGE
C
T
C
L
I
NTONCT
G
A
R
D
E
N
S
T
PA
U
L
P
L
LACRESTA
D
R
LE
D
O
P
L
GA
Y
N
F
A
I
R
T
R
POPLAR ST
HARRISO
N
S
T
WHIT
E
C
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
OAKHILLRD
HART L
N
N C
O
U
R
T
L
A
N
D
S
T
COLLAD
O
C
O
R
T
E
DODSON
W
Y
AL
D
E
R
S
T
SYCAMORE DR
E GRAN
D
A
V
DOS
C
E RROS
VIA POC
A
FA
I
R
VIE
W
D
R
MYRTLE
ST
C
R
O
S
S
S
T
AS
P
E
N
S
T
PRA
D
E
R
A
CT
TRINITY A
V
ROB
L
E
S
R
D
TALLY
H
O
RD
CLA
R
E
N
C
E
A
V
S
H
O
R
T
S
T
CAST
I
L
L
O
JE
NNY
P
L
VI
A
V
A
Q
U
E
R
O
W B
R
A
N
C
H
S
T
ALL
E
Y
GLENBROOK WY
VE
R
D
E
P
L
LOSCIE
RVOS
OR
O
D
R
IDE ST
FARROLL AV
BRIGHTON AV
CRO W NHILL
MUS
T
A
N
G
C
R
S VIA
F
I
R
E
N
Z
E
C
T
N
V
IAFIRENZE
C
T
POOLE
S
T
HODGES RD
BRIGHTON AV
VIST
A
D
R
ROSEMARY
C
T
CA
S
T
I
L
L
O
D
E
L
M
A
R
OLOHAN
A
L
L
E
Y
E
C
H
E
R
R
Y
A
V
WE
S
L
E
Y
S
T
CORNWA
L
L
A
V
N H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
SCE
N
I
C
C
R
STRAWBERRY AV
VIA
L
A
S A G U I L AS
FIE
L
D
V
I
E
W
P
L
PA
C
I
F
I
C
C
O
A
S
T
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
P
L
BA
M
B
I
C
T
O
A
K
P
ARK
BLV
D
PE
C
A
N
P
L
PLATARD
LA
C
A
NAD
A
N
R
E
N
A
S
T
N
A
L
P
I
N
E
S
T
RODE O DR
MU
L
B
E
R
R
Y
LN
N
O
G
U
E
R
A
P
L
WILTON PL
CREEKSIDE DR
WLEP
OINT ST
MAY ST
CO
R
O
N
A
D
E
L
T
E
R
R
A
LA
V
I
S
T
A
C
T
VISTA CR
FOREST GLEN DR
PLATIN
O
LN
F
A
R
M
H
OU
S
E
PL
PILG
R
I
M
W
Y
CEDAR ST
LIND
A
D
R
SRE
N
A
S
T
REFU
G
I
O
PL
EMERALD BAY DR
RASPBERRY AV
PASEO ST
BLACKBERRY AV
DEL
S
U
R
PALM CT
PARK WY
NO
E
L
S
T
ST
E
V
E
N
S
O
N
D
R
LE
E
D
H
A
M
P
L
VIA
B
A
N D O LER O
A
N
D
R
E
DR
PRISCILLALN
SIERRA
DR
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
EMAN CT
VI
A
B
E
R
R
O
S
COBREPL
COL
I
N
A
S
T
LEMO
N
L
N
MER
C
E
D
E
S
LN
LOGANBERRYAV
GARDENST
LA
N
C
A
S
T
E
R
D
R
HUCKLEBERRYAV
LI
E
R
L
Y
L
N
IKE
D
A
W
Y
BLUEBERRY AV
C LEVENGER DR
ROS
E
W
O
O
D
L
N
PAULDINGCR
CAMPANA
P
L
CERRO VISTA LN
B
E
D
L
O
E
L
N
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
S
T
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
A
V
LAUNA
L
N
NEWMAN DR
CAMINOMERCADO
NOYES
R
D
OAKW
O
OD
C
T
M
IL
L
E
R
W
Y
SAGE ST
CAMERON CT
RESE
R
V
O
I
R
R
D
CEDAR ST
JU
N
I
P
E
R
S
T
ARC
A
D
I
A
AVE
N
I
D
A
D
E
D
I
A
M
A
N
T
E
CO
A
C
H
R
D
S
VI
ABELMONT
E
AR
A
BIA
N
C
R
CA
R
O
L
P
L
A
R
R
O
Y
O
A
V
CORRALPL
PIN
E
S
T
S
T
I
L
L
W
E
L
L
D
R
M
Y
R
TL
E
D
R
GOL
D
E
N
W
EST
P
L
CL
A
R
E
N
C
E
A
V
WO
O
D
PL
SANDALWOOD AV
ASILO
LOS BERROSRD
DIA
N
A
P
L
BROA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
TA
N
N
E
R
L
N
BRANCH MILL RD
RALPHBECKLN
VIC
T
O
R
I
A
N
C
T
GR
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
ORCHID
L
N
KINGSBURY
C
T
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
EAT
O
N
D
R
DEV
O
N
S
H
IRED
R
OLIVE ST
C
A
N
Y
O
N
W
Y
PE
C
A
N
S
T
BE
E
C
H
S
T
W
ALLER
PL
DE
L
S
O
L
S
T
TODD LN
TIE
R
R
A
S
T
RID
G
E
V
I
E
W
W
Y
DIX
S
O
N
S
T
VICTORIAWY
FAR
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
DR
ST
A
R
L
I
G
H
T
L
N
DEE
R
T
R
A
I
LCR
JENNINGS
D
R
MO
R
N
I
N
G
RIS
E
L
N
WILLOWLN
GLENOAK
D
R
HACIENDA
D
R
INNESLEY D
R
ORC
H
A
RDAV
PACIFICPOI
N
TEWY
MATTHEW
W
Y
CINDY WY
ST
A
N
L
E
Y
A
V
VIRGINIA DR
T
A
L
L
Y
H
O
RD
LARCHMONTDR
SO
M
B
RILLO
W
Y
MESA
D
R
NEWPORT AV
HUEB
N
ERLN
Z
O
G
A
T
A
W
Y
MONTEGO ST
SPANISHMOSSLN
TURQUOISE DR PEARL DR
PE
A
R
W
O
O
D
A
V
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
W
Y
VILLA
G
E
GLEN
D
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
P U ESTA
D
E
L
S
O
L
ACOR
N
D
R
CHILTON
S
T
EASY
S
T
OLD
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
HILLCRES
T
D
R
SUNSE
T
D
R
TEMP U S C R
TEM
P
U
S
C
R
STO
N
E
C
R
EST D R
EL
D
E
R
B ERRY
C
T
ELDERBERRY
C
T
STO
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
¬«1 ¬«1¬«1
¬«227
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
¬«227
¬«227
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
D-2.13
D-2.20
PD 1.1
PD 1.2
PD 1.3
PD 1.4
PD 1.5
D-2.11
D-2.1
D-2.10
D-2.5
D-2.6
D-2.7
D-2.8
D-2.9
AG 2.2
I Last Updated September 2018
AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE PRESERVE
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE
RESIDENTIAL RURAL
RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
SINGLE FAMILY
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY
MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT
MOBILE HOME PARK
MULTI-FAMILY VERY HIGH DENSITY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
GATEWAY MIXED-USE
FAIR OAKS MIXED-USE
HIGHWAY MIXED-USE
VILLAGE MIXED USE
VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN
TRAFFIC WAY MIXED-USE
INDUSTRIAL MIXED-USE
OFFICE MIXED-USE
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
PUBLIC FACILITY
DESIGN OVERLAY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLIC FACILITY
Berry Gardens
D-2.4D-2.4
1 in = 800 ft
ZONING CATEGORIES ZONING OVERLAYS CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
17 MARCH 2026 T1TITLE SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
PERSPECTIVE VIEW - LOBBY ENTRY
PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER:SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC
C/O RUSSELL M. SHEPPEL
1202 SHORELINE DRIVE
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109
EMAIL: RSHEPPEL@GMAIL.COM
PROJECT ADDRESS:1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420
APN:007-771-080 AND 007-771-081
ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUP
3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: DARIN CABRAL
PHONE: (805)-543-1794
EMAIL: DJCABRAL@RRMDESIGN.COM
CIVIL ENGINEER:COAST ENGINEERING & DESIGN
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: LYDIA LYNCH
PHONE: (805)242-6365
EMAIL: LYDIA@COAST-INC.COM
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
187 TANK FARM ROAD, SUITE 230
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: LINDSAY CORSIA
PHONE: (805)781-9800
EMAIL: LINDSAY@FIRMACONSULTANTS.
COM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF UP TO 92 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
BUILT ON TWO VACANT LOTS TOTALING 1.81 ACRES COMBINED. THESE
UNITS ARE PROVIDED IN TWO BUILDINGS, BUILDING A AND BUILDING
B. BUILDING A IS THE LARGER OF THE BUILDINGS AND WILL INCLUDE
AN ELEVATOR. BOTH BUILDINGS WILL BE FOUR STORIES IN A SPLIT-LEVEL
PAD CONCEPT. TO ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED 92 UNITS, AND BASED
ON THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PARCEL, THE PROJECT IS
REQUESTING A 50% DENSITY BONUS. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE
(3) CONCESSIONS: REMOVAL OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS, REDUCTION OF REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES, AND REMOVAL OF REQUIRED PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING.
THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT VACATION,
PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATH VACATION, A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC
WATER EASEMENT VACATION AND A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WATER
MAIN ADANDONEMENT,
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” OF CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLIANCE TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE 16-001, CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PER INST. NO. 2019-
029358 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY
SHEET INDEX
T1 TITLE SHEET
A2 EXISTING SITE SURVEY
A3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A4 LEVEL 1 AND 2 - BASEMENT FLOOR PLANS
A5 LEVEL 3 - SECOND FLOOR BLDG A & GROUND FLOOR BLDG B
A6 LEVEL 4 - THIRD FLOOR BLDG A & SECOND FLOOR BLDG B
A7 LEVEL 5 - ROOF BLDG A & THIRD FLOOR BLDG B
A8 LEVEL 6 - ROOF PLAN
A9 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
A10 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
A11 ELEVATIONS
A12 SITE SECTIONS
A13 ENLARGED SITE SECTIONS
A14 BIRD’S EYE PHOTO MATCH
A15 VIEW ANALYSIS PHOTO MATCH PERSPECTIVES FROM JAMES WAY
A16 COLOR AND MATERIALS
A17 DETAIL VIGNETTES
A18 TRASH ENCLOSURE
C0 TITLE SHEET
C1 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C3 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS
C4 BOUNDARY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS
L1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROJECT STATISTICS
ZONING OFFICE MIXED USE
PARCEL SIZE:1.81 ACRES (78,892 SF)
DENSITY:25 DENSITY UNIT/ACRE
BUILDING A GROSS AREA 77,269 SF
BASEMENT 13,921 SF
GROUND FLOOR 21,116 SF
SECOND FLOOR 21,116 SF
THIRD FLOOR 21,116 SF
BUILDING B GROSS AREA 25,090 SF
BASEMENT 4,429 SF
GROUND FLOOR 6,887 SF
SECOND FLOOR 6,887 SF
THIRD FLOOR 6,887 SF
MAX LOT COVERAGE:70% (55,224 SF)
PROPOSED COVERAGE:35.5% (GROUND FLOOR/PARCEL SIZE)
MAX. F.A.R.1.0 (78,892 SF)
PROPOSED F.A.R.1.30 (BUILDING GROSS/ PARCEL SIZE)
DISTURBED AREA:+/- 76,600 SF
PERVIOUS PAVERS +/- 7,900 SF
NEW/REPLACEMENT IMPER-
VIOUS SURFACE (BLDG, AC
PAVING & CONCRETE)
+/- 56,500 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA:+/- 12,200 SF (15.5%)
MAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35 FT.
MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT:45 FT.
YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSED
FRONT 0-10
SIDE 0-5
REAR 0-15
VICINITY MAP
ZONING MAP PARKING
AUTO
PARKING
CALCULATION SPACE
COUNT
PARKING
REQUIRED:
TOTAL REQUIRED FOR
PROPOSED PROJECT
99 SPACES
RESIDENTIAL SPACE PER UNIT TYPE
20 STUDIOS (1 EA)
58 1BEDS (1 EA)
14 2BEDS (1.5 EA)
20+58+21
PARKING
PROVIDED
GARAGE SPACES UNDER BUILDING
31 SPACES
31 SPACES
EV PARKING
AUTO
PARKING
CALCULATION SPACE
COUNT
MINIMUM
PARKING
REQUIRED:
1 SPACE PER UNIT 99 SPACES
EV CAPABLE 10% OF PARKING 10
EV READY 25% OF PARKING 25
EV CHARGES 5% OF PARKING 5
40
DENSITY/UNIT COUNT
DENSITY 25/ACRE COUNT
PROPOSED:
UNIT MIX STUDIOS 20
1 BEDROOMS 58
2 BEDROOMS 14
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 92
PROPOSED DENSITY STUDIOS = .5 DU EACH 10 DU
1 BED = .75 DU EACH 43.5 DU
2 BED = 1 DU EACH 14 DU
TOTAL DENSITY UNITS 67.5 DU
ALLOWED DENSITY 1.81AC * 25 DU/AC= 45.25 DU
AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS 50% = 1.5 * 45.5 = 67.875 DU
SITE
JAMES
W
A
Y
BRANCH S
T
.
OA
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
.
LO
S
B
E
R
R
O
S
R
D
N
O
A
K
PARK BLVD
SOA
K
PA
R
K
BL
V
D
N O
A
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
BRIGHTON AVE
S E
L
M
S
T
S O
A
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
VA
L
L
E
Y
R
D
S O
A
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
S H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
CHRISTMAS TREE PL
BRIGHTON AVE
TEMPLE ST
RAMONA AVE
W
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
M ARIO
S
T
STA
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
CALLE DE LOS SUEI
CA
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
VIA DEL NORTE
TROUVILLE AVE
SEABRIGHT AVE
MANHATTAN AVE
23
R
D
S
T
BARBADOS ST
CA
L
L
E
Q
U
A
T
R
O
OAKWAY
LA
D
U
E
S
T
SAN
D
I
E
G
OLOOP
CIENAGA ST
24
T
H
S
T
JUD
G
E
A
V
E
ROSE
S
T
HUAS
N
A
R
D
BRAN
C
H
M
I
L
L
R
D
FARROLL RD
UNN
AMED
S
T
LE
O
-
M
A
R
I
O
S
T
VAL
L
E
Y
R
D
BEACH ST
25
T
H
S
T
ALS
ACE
PL
ME
S
E
T
A
P
L
PRI
N
T
Z
R
D
OCEAN ST
OL
D
O
A
K
P
A
R
KRD
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
PASO ROBLES ST
INDIA
N
H
I
LLS
W
A
Y
THE PIKE
22
N
D
S
T
KARE
N
C
T
21
S
T
S
T
DR
I
F
T
W
O
O
D
S
T
NO
R
M
A
L
N
UNNAMED ST
RIN
C
O
N
C
T
QU
A
N
A
V
E
WILMAR AVE
REBECC
AST
NORMA
L
N
TER
R
Y
C
T
AS
T
E
R
S
T
LA
T
I
J
E
R
A
C
T
VIA DEL CENTRO
LAZY LN
MARIAN
WAY
GE
N
O
V
E
N
I
R
D
CO
R
B
E
T
T
CANYO
NRD
PHILLIP
S
R
D
TRINIDAD
D
R
T
E
RRY
DR
MAR
T
I
N
I
Q
U
EDR
HE
R
M
O
S
A
C
T
TULIP ST
NEWPORTAVE
DU
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
FER
N
S
T
RE
D
O
N
D
O
C
T
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
LA
E
N
T
R
A
D
A
L
N
CARMEL CT
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
NABAL CT
UN
N
A
M
E
DST
UNN
A
M
E
D
S
T
DARIEN CT
DUGAN
D
R
21
S
T
C
T
UNNAMED ST
LA TEENA
P
L
PEA
C
O
C
KPL
VIA DEL RIO
SC
OTT
L
E
E
D
R
NEWPORT AVE
19
T
H
S
T
SYLVANRIDGE
R
D
WIND
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
CA
L
L
E
U
N
O
SAN
S
E
B
A
S
T
I
A
N
C
T
SARATOGA AVE
TERRY
D
R
SA
I
N
T
J
O
H
N
C
I
R
ALMA CT
MONA
L
E
I
C
T
MOSS
B
EACH
C
T
JENNIFER CT
S E
L
M
S
T
MENTONE
A
V
E
UNNAMED ST
TIE
R
R
A
N
U
E
V
A
L
N
JANETDR
CO
A
S
T
V
I
E
W
DR
LA SELVA AVE
RO
SE
C
T
ATLANTICCITY
A
V
E
LA JOLLA CT
ME
S
A
VIE
W
D
R
SOLANA CT
20T
H
S
T
MO
N
A
C
O
C
T
KA
R
I
N
A
W
AY
CAPISTRANO
C
T
HE
LEN
A
S
T
NOYES
R
D
KAR
E
N
W
A
Y
RE
D
R
O
C
K
R
D
EV
Y
L
N
HASS LN
22
N
D
S
T
UNNAMED
S
T
UN
N
AM
E
D
ST
ROCKAWAY AVE
PLANCHAWAY
PA
M
E
L
A
D
R
WARNER ST
VISTA ST
UNNAMED ST
ROSSLN
UNN
A
M
E
D
S
T
RAI
LR
O
AD
S
T
HO
N
D
O
N
A
D
A
R
D
LA
SCASITAS
FARROLL AVE
HE
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
L
N
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
ME
L
O
D
Y
L
N
BIGCANYON
C
T
TO
D
O
S
S
A
NTO
S
C
T
RIVE
RAVE
HOLDEN AVE
PEDRO ST
LA COSTA CT
IR
I
S
ST
ARAB
I
A
N
W
AY
FR
O
N
T
S
T
SHANNON
L
N
FRA
N
C
E
S
W
A
Y
LA
B
REA CT
NIPOMO ST
UNNAMEDST
TOBAGO ST
DAISEY
S
T
SHANNA PL
BEAR
C
A
N
Y
O
N
LN
ST
N
I
C
K
S
P
L
BILLS
W
A
Y
C
R
A
I
G
W
A
Y
N 1
6
T
H
S
T
NA
B
A
L
CT
H
A
W
K
V
IEW
C
T
L ORIENDACT
ROCHE
LLEWA
Y
S 1
6
T
H
S
T
JOYCE
WAY
21
S
T
S
T
CORNER ST O NE
L
N
JAME
S
W
A
Y
VIA
C
ASA
VIS
T
A
E
RICACT
C
A
T
H
EDRAL
LN
20TH
CT
UNNAM
E
D
ST
THYRRING ST
VIAPRIVAD
O
VI
AARTURO
R OOKER
R
A
NC H W AY
BADGER
C
A
N
Y
O
N
L
N
DOVE C
T
MA
R
S
E
I
L
L
E
C
T
PINE
T
R
E
E
L
N
UNN
A
M
E
D
ST
GOL
D
E
N
H
A
W
K
L
N
LAGU
N
A
CT
ROYAL
O
A
KPL
QUE
B
R
A
D
A
L
N
RIC
H
A
R
D
S
T
OCEAN AVE
SAVANNAHCIR
GWEN PL
CAL
L
E
T
R
E
S
SADDLE
RD
WILS
H
I
R
E
S
T
SKYL
I
N
E
D
R
CA
L
L
E
D
O
S
LA
M
P
L
I
GHTER
L
N
LARA LN
PAI
N
T
E
DSKY
W
A
Y
PEACELN
LEIF LN
FALCON CREST
DR
DORIS
L
N
AC
EROPL
NICE AVE
TU
L
P
E
N
D
R
LABR
A
D
O
R
L
N
DO
W
E
R
A
V
E
OAK
H
I
L
L
RD
UNNAM
E
D
S
T
BUCK
R
IDGELN
DO
W
E
R
A
V
E
WAYNEWAY
HIA
W
A
T
H
A
L
N
UNNAMED ST
UNNAMED ST
ANTIGUADR
EFFIE WAY
COU
N
T
RYOAK
W
A
Y
LA
V
E
R
N
E
S
T
WARNER ST
SAND
C
A
N
Y
O
N
C
T
TA
N
N
E
R
L
N
UN
N
A
M
E
D
CT
CO
F
F
E
E
L
N
BASIN ST
DENNI
S
L
N
CO
U
N
T
R
Y
H
I
LLS
LN
FO
X
E
N
BLUFFLN
LO
N
G
H
O
R
NLN
UNNAMED
S
T
TORREY
P
I
N
E
P
L
CENTURY
LN
LILAC ST
CAL
L
E
V
I
S
T
A
D
E
L
A
S
TA
NA
P
L
E
S
S
T
CHR
I
S
T
I
N
E
W
A
Y
HOL
L
Y
W
A
Y
MAR
G
O
W
A
Y
EL
S
U
E
N
O
W
A
Y
ELA
I
N
E
W
A
Y
PASE
O
L
A
D
ERA
L
N
LA VID
A
L
N
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
IN
D
IAN
HEIGHTS
D
R
SEVA
D
A
L
N
HIDDENPINELN
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
LONGBRANCH AVE
ALTA
V
I
S
T
A
W
A
Y
CA
S
I
T
A
S
L
N
ECH
O
C
A
NYON
C
T
GRELL
L
N
PHILLIPS
R
D
CRE
S
T
DR
JANET AVE
ANITAAVE
SUM
M
I
T
D
R
BADEN AVE
ROSEVINE
L
N
TAM
E
R
A
DR
PEAC
E
F
U
L
P
O
I
N
T
L
N
SILVER
W
A
Y
VIA
E
L
C
I
E
L
O
VIN
T
O
N
L
N
UNN
A
M
E
D
S
T
AR
R
OY
O
V
ISTA
L
N
LLAMA LN
COR
S
ICA
PL
UNNAM
ED
S
T
UNNAMED ST
PINE
V
I
E
W
DR
NEWSOMSPRINGS
R
D
CAN
D
I
C
E
C
T
GRACIA WAY
SU
N
R
A
Y
P
L
SILVER SPUR PL
HANS
ENHIL
LRD
PLEA
S
A
N
T
L
N
UNNAMED ST
HIGH
V
I
E
W
D
R
MOORELN
K
O
D
I
A
K
L
N
VIA
M
A
R
S
O
L
BRADY LN
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
E
E
LCAM
P
O
R
D
QUAIL
H
I
LL
L
N
HERITAGE
L
N
UNNAMEDST
WINDERME
R
E
L
N
S H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
ER
H
A
R
T
R
D
PA
L
O
M
A
P
L
CASA PL
CO
R
B
E
R
O
S
A
D
R
UNNAMED
ST
JAMES
W
Y
VA
L
L
E
Y
R
D
CR
A
N
B
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
MAPLE ST
W CHER
R
Y
A
V
GRAC
E
L
N
LO
S
O
L
I
V
O
S
L
N
S H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
NEWPORT AV
HUASNA RD
CORB
E
T
T
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
TR
A
F
F
I
C
W
Y
FARROLL AV
THE PIKE
ALLEN
S
T
OA
K
S
T
OAK
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
W
B
R
A
N
C
H
ST
STRAFFIC
W
Y
LONGD
E
N
D
R
BENNETT
A
V
COR
B
E
T
T
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
TAYLOR
P
L
WILDOAK
P
L
CA
R
M
E
L
L
A
D
R
FAIR
O
A
K
S
AV
B
E
L
L
S
T
OA
K
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
HILL
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
BRIS
C
O
R
D
RANCHO PKWY
BRISCO
R
D
N H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
E BRANCH ST
CL
U
B
H
O
USE
C
R
E GRA
N
D
A
V
LE POIN
T
S
T
FAEH AV
WILD
WOOD
D
R
SY
C
A
M
O
R
E
C
T
DO
S
C
ERRO
S
LO
N
G
D
E
NCT
GA
R
F
I
E
L
D
P
L
SUN
R
I
S
E
T
R
CREEKVIEW
WY
JA
S
M
I
N
E
P
L
LAD
E
R
A
P
L
WILDW
O
O
D
D
R
CA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
P
L
MARI
P
O
S
A
C
R
LEANNA DR
S
A
L
P
I
N
E
S
T
OUTLAN
D
C
T
CHE
L
S
E
A
C
T
PRINT
Z
R
D
S
M
A
S
O
N
S
T
EQ
U
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
W
Y
HAWKIN
S
C
T
WILSON CT
JASMINE PL
GROVE
C
T
S E
L
M
S
T
LEI
S
U
R
E
D
R
NELSON
S
T
PLATINO
L
N
MA
YD
OCK
S
T
CA
R
D
I
N
A
L
C
T
LA P
A
Z
C
R
CERRO VISTA CR
VE
RNO
N
ST
W BRANCH ST
S C
O
U
R
T
L
A
N
D
S
T
JA
S
M
I
N
E
P
L
N
E
V
A
D
A
S
T
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
RICE CT
M
C
K
I
N
L
E
Y
S
T
MEADO
W
W
Y
V
I
A
LA
B
A
R
RANCA
JA
S
M
I
N
E
P
L
CROWN
H
I
L
L
TIGER
T
A
ILDR
PARAISO
GU
L
A
R
TE
R
D
SH
O
R
T
S
T
N VIA B
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
BA
KEM
A
N
L
N
RU
T
H
A
N
N
W
Y
MILLERCR
W CHER
R
Y
A
V
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
T
BE
T
A
C
T
DIA
M
O
N
D
C
R
BRITTANY AV
OP
A
L
C
R
G
A
R
D
E
N
S
T
VI
L
L
A
G
E
C
T
WOODLAND CT
ROS
EMA
R
YLN
PLATINOLN
L
E
P
O
I
N
T
T
R
STA
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
ROB
L
E
S
R
D
FLO
R
A
R
D
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
ASHST
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
C
O
A
S
T
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
PL
CA
L
L
I
ECT
FO
R
TUNA
C
T
PALOS
SEC
O
S
CUER
D
A
C
O
R
T
E
GARFIELD
P
L
TOYON PL
C
H
A
P
A
R
R
A
L
L
N
N E
L
M
S
T
LINDA DR
BO
Y
S
E
N
B
E
R
R
Y
S
T
RUSS CT
MESQUITELN
PLOMO C
T
GRIEB DR
VARDLOOMIS LN
W
H
I
T
E
L
E
Y
S
T
S
V
I
A
A
VANT
ECT
ROBIN
C
R
N
M
A
S
O
N
ST
CALLE
C
A
R
M
A
N
TRAFFIC WY
CUESTA PL
SAL
I
D
A
DEL
S
O
L
ROGERS CT
PRI
N
T
Z
R
D
HILLSID E
C
T
CA
L
L
E
C
U
E
R
V
O
HIDD
E
N
OAKRD
MAGNOLIA
D
R
HAVE
N
C
T
CR
OWN
T
R
OA
K
L
E
A
F
C
R
WA
L
L
A
C
E
P
L
MU
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
DELMA
R
M
E
ADOWLARKDR
LE POIN
T
S
T
TA
Y
L
O
RPL
SWEET
P
E
A
C
T
QUAIL CT
QUAIL
R
IDGE CT
C
L
I
NTONCT
G
A
R
D
E
N
S
T
PA
U
L
P
L
LACRES
T
A
D
R
LE
D
O
P
L
GA
Y
N
F
A
I
R
T
R
POPLAR ST
HARRISO
N
S
T
WHI
T
E
C
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
OAKHILLRD
HART L
N
N C
O
U
R
T
L
A
N
D
S
T
COLLADO
C
O
R
T
E
DODSON
W
Y
AL
D
E
R
S
T
SYCAMORE DR
E GRAN
D
A
V
DOS
C
E RROS
VIA PO
C
A
FA
I
R
VIE
W
D
R
MYRTLE
ST
C
R
O
S
S
S
T
AS
P
E
N
S
T
PRADE
RACT
TRINITY
A
V
ROB
L
E
S
R
D
TALLY
H
O
RD
CLA
R
E
N
C
E
A
V
S
H
O
R
T
S
T
CAST
I
L
L
O
JE
NNY
P
L
VI
A
V
A
Q
U
E
R
O
W BR
A
N
C
H
S
T
ALL
E
Y
GLENBROOKWY
VE
R
D
E
P
L
LOSCIERVOS
OR
O
D
R
IDE ST
FARROLL AV
BRIGHTON AV
CRO WNHIL
L
MUS
T
A
N
G
C
R
S VIA
F
I
R
E
N
Z
E
C
T
N
V
IAFIRENZE
C
T
POOLE
S
T
HODGES RD
BRIGHTON AV
VIST
A
D
R
RO
S
EMARY
C
T
CAS
T
I
L
L
O
D
E
L
M
A
R
OLOHA
N
A
L
L
E
Y
E
C
H
E
R
R
Y
A
V
WE
S
L
E
Y
S
T
CORNWA
L
L
A
V
N H
A
L
C
Y
O
N
R
D
SCEN
I
C
C
R
STRAWBERRY AV
VIA
L
A
S AGU I L AS
FIEL
D
VIE
W
P
L
PA
C
I
F
I
C
C
O
A
S
T
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
P
L
BA
M
B
I
C
T
O
AK
P
ARK
BLV
D
PE
C
A
N
P
L
PLATA RD
LA
C
A
NAD
A
N
R
E
N
A
S
T
N
A
L
P
I
N
E
S
T
R ODEO DR
MU
L
B
E
R
R
Y
LN
N
O
G
U
E
R
A
P
L
WILTON PL
CREEKSIDE DR
WLEP
OINT ST
MAY ST
CO
R
O
N
A
D
E
L
T
E
R
R
A
LA
V
I
S
T
A
C
T
VISTA CR
FOREST GLEN DR
PLATINO
LN
FA
R
M
H
OU
S
E
P
L
PILG
R
I
M
W
Y
CEDAR ST
LIN
D
A
D
R
SRE
N
A
S
T
REFU
G
I
O
PL
EMERALD BAY DR
RASPBERRY AV
PASEO ST
BLACKBERRY AV
DEL
S
U
R
PALM CT
PARK WY
NO
E
L
S
T
ST
E
V
E
N
S
O
N
D
R
L
E
E
D
H
A
M
P
L
VIA
B
A
N
D
O LE R O
AN
D
R
E
DR
PRISCILLALN
SIERRA
DR
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
EMAN CT
VI
A
B
E
R
R
O
S
COBR
EPL
COLI
N
A
S
T
LEMO
N
L
N
MER
C
E
D
E
S
LN
LOGANBERRYAV
GAR
DENST
LA
N
C
A
S
T
E
R
D
R
HUCKLEBERRY A V
LI
E
R
L
Y
L
N
IK
E
D
A
W
Y
BLUEBERRY AV
CLEVE NGER DR
ROS
E
W
O
O
D
L
N
PAULDING CR
CAMPANA
P
L
CERRO VISTA LN
BE
D
L
O
E
L
N
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
S
T
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
A
V
LAUNA
L
N
NEWMAN DR
CAMINOMERCADO
NOYES
R
D
OAKW
O
OD
C
T
M
I
L
L
E
R
W
Y
SAGE ST
CAMERON CT
RES
E
R
V
O
I
R
R
D
CEDAR ST
JU
N
I
P
E
R
S
T
ARC
A
D
I
A
AVE
N
I
D
A
D
E
D
I
A
M
A
N
T
E
CO
A
C
H
R
D
S
VI
ABELMONTE
AR
A
BIA
N
C
R
CA
R
O
L
P
L
A
R
R
O
Y
O
A
V
CORRALPL
PIN
E
S
T
ST
I
L
L
W
E
L
L
D
R
M
Y
R
T
L
E
D
R
GOL
D
E
N
W
EST
P
L
CL
A
R
E
N
C
E
A
V
WO
O
D
PL
SANDALWOOD AV
ASILO
LOS BERROSRD
DIA
N
A
P
L
BROA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
TA
N
N
E
R
L
N
BRANCH MILL RD
RALPHBECKLN
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
N
C
T
GR
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
ORCHID L
N
KINGSBURY
C
T
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
EAT
O
N
D
R
DEV
O
NSHIRED
R
OLIVE ST
CA
N
Y
O
N
W
Y
PE
C
A
N
S
T
BE
E
C
H
S
T
W
ALLER
PL
DE
L
S
O
L
S
T
TODD LN
TIE
R
R
A
S
T
RID
G
E
V
I
E
W
W
Y
DIX
S
O
N
S
T
VICTORIAWY
FAR
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
DR
ST
A
R
L
I
G
H
T
L
N
DEE
R
T
R
A
I
LCR
JENNINGS D
R
MO
R
N
I
N
G
RI
S
E
L
N
WILLOWLN
GLENOAK
D
R
HACIENDA
D
R
INNESLEY D
R
ORCH
ARD
AV
PACIFICPOI
N
T
EWY
MATTHEW
W
Y
CINDY WY
ST
A
N
L
E
Y
A
V
VIRGINIA DR
T
A
L
L
Y
H
O
RD
LARCHMONTDR
SO
M
B
RILLO
W
Y
MESA
D
R
NEWPORT AV
HUE
B
N
ERLN
Z
O
G
A
T
A
W
Y
MONTEGO ST
SPANISHMOSS
L
N
TURQUOISE DR PEARL DR
PEA
R
W
O
O
D
A
V
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
W
Y
VILLA
G
E
GLEN
D
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
P U ESTA
D
E
L
S
O
L
ACOR
N
D
R
CHILTON
S
T
EAS
Y
S
T
OLD
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
HILLCRES
T
D
R
SUNSE
T
D
R
TEMP U S C R
TEM
P
U
S
C
R
STONECRESTD R
EL
D
E
R
B ERRY
C
T
ELDERBERRY
C
T
STON
E
C
R
E
ST
D
R
¬«1 ¬«1¬«1
¬«227
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
¬«227
¬«227
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
D-2.13
D-2.20
PD 1.1
PD 1.2
PD 1.3
PD 1.4
PD 1.5
D-2.11
D-2.1
D-2.10
D-2.5
D-2.6
D-2.7
D-2.8
D-2.9
AG 2.2
I Last Updated September 2018
AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE PRESERVE
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE
RESIDENTIAL RURAL
RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
SINGLE FAMILY
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY
MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT
MOBILE HOME PARK
MULTI-FAMILY VERY HIGH DENSITY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
GATEWAY MIXED-USE
FAIR OAKS MIXED-USE
HIGHWAY MIXED-USE
VILLAGE MIXED USE
VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN
TRAFFIC WAY MIXED-USE
INDUSTRIAL MIXED-USE
OFFICE MIXED-USE
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
PUBLIC FACILITY
DESIGN OVERLAY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLIC FACILITY
Berry Gardens
D-2.4D-2.4
1 in = 800 ft
ZONING CATEGORIES ZONING OVERLAYS
SITE
(;+H%H7 %
Page 126 of 406
OPEN SPACE
EXISTING DRIVE ISLE
HOPE
CHURCH
BEST WESTERN
CASA GRANDE INN
20'0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
10'20'40'60'
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
17 MARCH 2026 A2
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
EXISTING SITE SURVEY
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
JA
M
E
S
W
A
Y
EXISTING CREEK
KENNEDY
CLUB
FITNESS
EXISTING ENTRY
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
PROPOSED
BUILDING A
MEDICAL OFFICES MEDICAL OFFICES
PROPOSED
PARKING
N. OAK PARK BLVD.
PROPOSED
BUILDING B
Page 127 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
17 MARCH 2026 A3
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ENTRY PLAZA
BUILDING A
BUILDING B
ENTRY PLAZA
RAMP
SLOPE
TRASH
TRASH
LOBBY
Page 128 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A4LEVEL 1 AND 2 - BASEMENT FLOOR PLANS
LOWEST BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN BUILDING A
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN BLDG B, GROUND LEVEL BUILDING A
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
Page 129 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A5LEVEL 3 - SECOND FLOOR BLDG A & GROUND FLOOR BLDG B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
Page 130 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A6LEVEL 4 - THIRD FLOOR BLDG A & SECOND FLOOR BLDG B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
Page 131 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A7LEVEL 5 - ROOF BLDG A & THIRD FLOOR BLDG B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
Page 132 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A8LEVEL 6 - ROOF PLAN
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
Page 133 of 406
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"2 1-BEDROOM PLAN B
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"3 1-BEDROOM PLAN C
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"1 1-BEDROOM PLAN A - 712 SF - 752 SF - 712 SF
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A9
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
Page 134 of 406
BEDROOM
KITCHEN / DINING
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
BATHROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN / DINING
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
BATHROOM
STUDIO
KITCHEN / DINING
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"4 2-BEDROOM PLAN A
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"5 2-BEDROOM PLAN B
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"6 STUDIO PLAN - 603 SF- 1052 SF- 1097 SF
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A10
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
Page 135 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A11ELEVATIONS
WEST ELEVATION -WITHOUT BUILDING B
1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2
NORTH ELEVATION
1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)3 SOUTH ELEVATION
1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)4
EAST ELEVATION
1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)5
WEST ELEVATION - WITH BUILDING B
1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1
89’-6”
100’-0”
110’-6”
119’-6”
79’-0” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
126’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG B ROOF
BUILDING B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
83’-6” F.F.
94’-0” F.F.
104’-6” F.F.
113’-6” F.F.
71’-6” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
120’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG A ROOF
BUILDING A
Page 136 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A12
0 15 30 60
1” = 30’-0”24X36 SHEET
SITE SECTIONS
CROSS SECTION THROUGH BLDG A AND BLDG B LOOKING NORTH
1" = 30'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2
CROSS SECTION THROUGH BLDG A LOOKING SOUTH
1" = 30’-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1
N OAK PARK BLVD
(N) BUILDING A
(N) BUILDING A
(N) PARKING (E) PARKING
KENNEDY CLUB
KENNEDY CLUB
BEYOND
MEDICAL OFFICE
MEDICAL OFFICE
BEYOND (N) BUILDING B
(N) BUILDING B BEYOND
CREEK
(E) TOWNHOMES
BEYOND
(E) TOWNHOMES
CREEK
N OAK PARK BLVD
(N) PARKING
71’-6”
71’-6”
83’-6”
83’-6”
120’-0”
120’-0”
126’-0”
126’-0”
BLDG A
BASEMENT F.F.
BLDG A
BASEMENT F.F.
BLDG B BASEMENT F.F.
BLDG B BASEMENT F.F.
T.O. BLDG A
T.O. BLDG A
T.O. BLDG B
T.O. BLDG B
Page 137 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A13
MECH.
HALL
1 BED B
1 BED B
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIODECK
DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
MECH.
HALL
1 BED B
1 BED B
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIODECK
DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
(N) BUILDING B BEYOND
(N) BUILDING B BEYOND
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
ENLARGED SITE SECTIONS
CROSS SECTION 1 ENLARGED (RIGHT)
1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)4
CROSS SECTION 1 ENLARGED (LEFT)
1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)3
(E) TOWNHOMES
N OAK PARK BLVD
MEDICAL OFFICE
KENNEDY CLUB
CREEK
(N) BUILDING A
(N) BUILDING A
(N) PARKING
(N) PARKING (E) PARKING
(E) PARKING 83’-6” F.F.
94’-0” F.F.
104’-6” F.F.
113’-6” F.F.
71’-6” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
120’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG A ROOF
BUILDING A
89’-6”
100’-0”
110’-6”
119’-6”
79’-0” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
126’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG B ROOF
BUILDING B
Page 138 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A14BIRD’S EYE PHOTO MATCH
BIRD’S EYE VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER
NTS1
Page 139 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A15VIEW ANALYSIS PHOTO MATCH PERSPECTIVES FROM JAMES WAY
PROJECT ENTRY FROM JAMES WAY1
APPROACH FROM KENNEDY CLUB3APPROACH FROM BOTTOM OF JAMES WAY2
Page 140 of 406
Image Location Image Location Image LocationImage Location Image Location Image Location
BOARD & BATTEN
FIBER CEMENT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
MS WHITE SNOW SW 9541
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
CHARCOAL GREY
WINDOWS & DOORS
ANDERSON
BLACK FRAMES
RAILINGS
BLACK WOOD FASCIA
FIBER CEMENT
SW 7674 PEPPERCORN
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A16COLOR AND MATERIALS
A B C D E F G
EL DORADO STONE
SAN MARINO LIMESTONE
A
A
B
D
D
C
C
E
F
WOOD ACCENT
SEMI-TRANSPARENT STAIN
CEDAR - NATURALTONE
Page 141 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 A17
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
DETAIL VIGNETTES
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
LOBBY ENTRY - BUILDING A1
PROJECT ENTRY ON JAMES WAY2 ELEVATION OF BUILDING A FROM CREEK3
Page 142 of 406
BROADSTONE VILLAGE PrOJECT nuMBEr
18 January 2023TRASH ENCLOSURE, TYPICAL L7
SEE L1 FOR LOCATION
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-rS23
30 JunE 2025 A18
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0”24X36 SHEET
TRASH ENCLOSURE
Page 143 of 406
TITLE SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 C0
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
Page 144 of 406
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 C1
785 HIGH STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
Page 145 of 406
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 C2PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
785 HIGH STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
Page 146 of 406
PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 C3
785 HIGH STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
Page 147 of 406
BOUNDARY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 C4785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
Page 148 of 406
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
B U I L D I N G 'A'
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 1 OF 2
EXISTING FITNESS CENTER
AND PARKING LOT
REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
J
A
M
E
S
W
A
Y
B U I L D I N G 'B'
RIPARIAN ZONE
NATIVE PLANTS
WITHIN SETBACK32
'
-
0
"
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 2 OF 2
Me
a
d
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Sc
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
JOB NO:22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L1
12
7
1
&
1
2
8
1
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
,
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
DATE
firma
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
LAST MODIFIED:12/13/23
Me
a
d
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Sc
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
JOB NO:22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L1
12
7
1
&
1
2
8
1
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
,
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
DATE
firma
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
LAST MODIFIED:12/13/23
LEGEND
Landscape Area: Trees, Grounfcover & Ornamental Shrubs
4" layer bark mulch or decorative rock
Riparian Zone : Native riparian plants wthin Creek Setback
Hardscape: Refer to Architect Site and Civil
Decorative Paver :
Vehicular Surface: Refer to Civil Engineering PlanMYRICA CALIFORNICA LOMONDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY'SALVIA 'ALAN CHICKERING'
ARBUTUS APTENIADWARF OLIVE
20'0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
10'20'40'60'
WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. The following factors have
been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape:
1. Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either
low-precipitation bubblers and drip emitters. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated
with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones.
2. Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically
adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather
conditions change.
3. Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site
conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance.
4. All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout.
5. Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants
with similar water needs.
6. Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS
Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species). The project shall be in
complaince with MWELO (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).
PRELIMINARY PLANT MATERIALS
The proposed landscape scheme is a drought tolerant landscape.
Low maintenance shrubs, riparian zone natives, spreading evergreen
groundcover, and trees will be selected from the list below.
BBOOTTAANNIICCAALL NNAAMMEE // CCOOMMMMOONN NNAAMMEE
TREES - 36" BOX SIZE. SEE IMAGERY BELOW.
*AESCULUS CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE
* ARBUTUS 'MARINA' / MARINA ARBUTUS
* CHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOW (MULTI-TRUNK)
JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA / JACARANDA
MELALEUCA QUINQUINERVIA / CAJEPUT TREE
* PLATANUS RACEMOSA / CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
* QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK (LOW BRANCHING)
TIPUANA TIPU / TIPU TREE
TRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX
RIPARIAN ZONE SHRUBS- CALIFORNIA NATIVE SPECIES
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITA
CEANOTHUS GLORROSUS ANCHOR BAY / CEANOTHUS
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' / CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY
ROSA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE
SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING' / SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING'
LONICERA HISPIDULA/ CALIFORNIA HONEYSUCKLE(VINE)
MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI/CAT'S CLAW (VINE)
MYRICA CALIFORNICA / MYRICA
SHRUBS - 5gallon-15gallon
ANIGOZANTHOS 'BIG RED' / RED KANGAROO PAW
DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY
FEIJOA SELLOWIANA / PINEAPPLE GUAVA
LOMONDRA 'PLATIMUN BEAUTY'/ LOMONDRA
OLEA EUROPA'LITTLE OLLIE' / DWARF OLIVE
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (WHITE)
GROUNDCOVER 5gallon-15gallon
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITAL
CISTUS 'SUNSET' / SUNSET ROCKROSE
LIRIOPE MUSCARI / BIG BLUE LILY TURF
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (PINK)
PENNISETUM 'ORIENTALE' / ORIENTAL FOUNTAIN GRASS
*CALIFORNIA NATIVE TREE APPROPRIATE FOR RIPARIAN ZONE
PROPOSED TREE: DESERT WILLOW PROPOSED TREE: CAJEPUT TREE PROPOSED TREE: TIPU TREEPROPOSED TREE: BRISBANE BOX
PARKING LOT SECURITY LIGHTING:
-PARKING AREA LIGHTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT
AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND MOTORISTS.
-LIGHTING DESIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF .
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
-LIGHTING SHALL BE OF AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT TYPE LIGHT
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
B U I L D I N G 'A'
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 1 OF 2
EXISTING FITNESS CENTER
AND PARKING LOT
REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
J
A
M
E
S
W
A
Y
B U I L D I N G 'B'
RIPARIAN ZONE
NATIVE PLANTS
WITHIN SETBACK32
'
-
0
"
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 2 OF 2
Me
a
d
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Sc
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
JOB NO:22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L1
12
7
1
&
1
2
8
1
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
,
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
DATE
firma
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
LAST MODIFIED:12/13/23
Me
a
d
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Sc
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
JOB NO:22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L1
12
7
1
&
1
2
8
1
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
,
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
DATE
firma
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
LAST MODIFIED:12/13/23
LEGEND
Landscape Area: Trees, Grounfcover & Ornamental Shrubs
4" layer bark mulch or decorative rock
Riparian Zone : Native riparian plants wthin Creek Setback
Hardscape: Refer to Architect Site and Civil
Decorative Paver :
Vehicular Surface: Refer to Civil Engineering PlanMYRICA CALIFORNICA LOMONDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY'SALVIA 'ALAN CHICKERING'
ARBUTUS APTENIADWARF OLIVE
20'0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
10'20'40'60'
WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. The following factors have
been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape:
1. Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either
low-precipitation bubblers and drip emitters. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated
with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones.
2. Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically
adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather
conditions change.
3. Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site
conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance.
4. All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout.
5. Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants
with similar water needs.
6. Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS
Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species). The project shall be in
complaince with MWELO (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).
PRELIMINARY PLANT MATERIALS
The proposed landscape scheme is a drought tolerant landscape.
Low maintenance shrubs, riparian zone natives, spreading evergreen
groundcover, and trees will be selected from the list below.
BBOOTTAANNIICCAALL NNAAMMEE // CCOOMMMMOONN NNAAMMEE
TREES - 36" BOX SIZE. SEE IMAGERY BELOW.
*AESCULUS CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE
* ARBUTUS 'MARINA' / MARINA ARBUTUS
* CHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOW (MULTI-TRUNK)
JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA / JACARANDA
MELALEUCA QUINQUINERVIA / CAJEPUT TREE
* PLATANUS RACEMOSA / CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
* QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK (LOW BRANCHING)
TIPUANA TIPU / TIPU TREE
TRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX
RIPARIAN ZONE SHRUBS- CALIFORNIA NATIVE SPECIES
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITA
CEANOTHUS GLORROSUS ANCHOR BAY / CEANOTHUS
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' / CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY
ROSA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE
SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING' / SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING'
LONICERA HISPIDULA/ CALIFORNIA HONEYSUCKLE(VINE)
MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI/CAT'S CLAW (VINE)
MYRICA CALIFORNICA / MYRICA
SHRUBS - 5gallon-15gallon
ANIGOZANTHOS 'BIG RED' / RED KANGAROO PAW
DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY
FEIJOA SELLOWIANA / PINEAPPLE GUAVA
LOMONDRA 'PLATIMUN BEAUTY'/ LOMONDRA
OLEA EUROPA'LITTLE OLLIE' / DWARF OLIVE
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (WHITE)
GROUNDCOVER 5gallon-15gallon
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITAL
CISTUS 'SUNSET' / SUNSET ROCKROSE
LIRIOPE MUSCARI / BIG BLUE LILY TURF
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (PINK)
PENNISETUM 'ORIENTALE' / ORIENTAL FOUNTAIN GRASS
*CALIFORNIA NATIVE TREE APPROPRIATE FOR RIPARIAN ZONE
PROPOSED TREE: DESERT WILLOW PROPOSED TREE: CAJEPUT TREE PROPOSED TREE: TIPU TREEPROPOSED TREE: BRISBANE BOX
PARKING LOT SECURITY LIGHTING:
-PARKING AREA LIGHTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT
AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND MOTORISTS.
-LIGHTING DESIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF .
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
-LIGHTING SHALL BE OF AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT TYPE LIGHT
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
B U I L D I N G 'A'
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 1 OF 2
EXISTING FITNESS CENTER
AND PARKING LOT
REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
J
A
M
E
S
W
A
Y
B U I L D I N G 'B'
RIPARIAN ZONE
NATIVE PLANTS
WITHIN SETBACK32
'
-
0
"
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 2 OF 2
Me
a
d
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Sc
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
JOB NO:22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L1
12
7
1
&
1
2
8
1
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
,
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
DATE
firma
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
LAST MODIFIED:12/13/23
Me
a
d
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Sc
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
JOB NO:22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L1
12
7
1
&
1
2
8
1
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
,
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
DATE
firma
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
LAST MODIFIED:12/13/23
LEGEND
Landscape Area: Trees, Grounfcover & Ornamental Shrubs
4" layer bark mulch or decorative rock
Riparian Zone : Native riparian plants wthin Creek Setback
Hardscape: Refer to Architect Site and Civil
Decorative Paver :
Vehicular Surface: Refer to Civil Engineering PlanMYRICA CALIFORNICALOMONDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY'SALVIA 'ALAN CHICKERING'
ARBUTUS APTENIADWARF OLIVE
20'0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
10'20'40'60'
WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. The following factors have
been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape:
1. Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either
low-precipitation bubblers and drip emitters. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated
with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones.
2. Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically
adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather
conditions change.
3. Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site
conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance.
4. All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout.
5. Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants
with similar water needs.
6. Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS
Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species). The project shall be in
complaince with MWELO (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).
PRELIMINARY PLANT MATERIALS
The proposed landscape scheme is a drought tolerant landscape.
Low maintenance shrubs, riparian zone natives, spreading evergreen
groundcover, and trees will be selected from the list below.
BBOOTTAANNIICCAALL NNAAMMEE // CCOOMMMMOONN NNAAMMEE
TREES - 36" BOX SIZE. SEE IMAGERY BELOW.
*AESCULUS CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE
* ARBUTUS 'MARINA' / MARINA ARBUTUS
* CHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOW (MULTI-TRUNK)
JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA / JACARANDA
MELALEUCA QUINQUINERVIA / CAJEPUT TREE
* PLATANUS RACEMOSA / CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
* QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK (LOW BRANCHING)
TIPUANA TIPU / TIPU TREE
TRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX
RIPARIAN ZONE SHRUBS- CALIFORNIA NATIVE SPECIES
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITA
CEANOTHUS GLORROSUS ANCHOR BAY / CEANOTHUS
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' / CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY
ROSA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE
SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING' / SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING'
LONICERA HISPIDULA/ CALIFORNIA HONEYSUCKLE(VINE)
MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI/CAT'S CLAW (VINE)
MYRICA CALIFORNICA / MYRICA
SHRUBS - 5gallon-15gallon
ANIGOZANTHOS 'BIG RED' / RED KANGAROO PAW
DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY
FEIJOA SELLOWIANA / PINEAPPLE GUAVA
LOMONDRA 'PLATIMUN BEAUTY'/ LOMONDRA
OLEA EUROPA'LITTLE OLLIE' / DWARF OLIVE
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (WHITE)
GROUNDCOVER 5gallon-15gallon
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITAL
CISTUS 'SUNSET' / SUNSET ROCKROSE
LIRIOPE MUSCARI / BIG BLUE LILY TURF
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (PINK)
PENNISETUM 'ORIENTALE' / ORIENTAL FOUNTAIN GRASS
*CALIFORNIA NATIVE TREE APPROPRIATE FOR RIPARIAN ZONE
PROPOSED TREE: DESERT WILLOW PROPOSED TREE: CAJEPUT TREE PROPOSED TREE: TIPU TREEPROPOSED TREE: BRISBANE BOX
PARKING LOT SECURITY LIGHTING:
-PARKING AREA LIGHTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT
AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND MOTORISTS.
-LIGHTING DESIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF .
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
-LIGHTING SHALL BE OF AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT TYPE LIGHT
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025 L1SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
Page 149 of 406
PROJECT LOCATION
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 150 of 406
Page 151 of 406
Page 152 of 406
Page 153 of 406
Page 154 of 406
Page 155 of 406
Page 156 of 406
Page 157 of 406
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 158 of 406
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 159 of 406
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 160 of 406
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 161 of 406
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 162 of 406
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 163 of 406
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 164 of 406
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 165 of 406
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 166 of 406
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 167 of 406
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 168 of 406
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 169 of 406
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 170 of 406
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 171 of 406
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 172 of 406
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 173 of 406
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 174 of 406
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 175 of 406
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 176 of 406
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 177 of 406
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 178 of 406
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 179 of 406
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 180 of 406
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 181 of 406
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 182 of 406
Page 183 of 406
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 184 of 406
Page 185 of 406
Page 186 of 406
Page 187 of 406
Page 188 of 406
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 189 of 406
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 190 of 406
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 191 of 406
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 192 of 406
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 193 of 406
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 194 of 406
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 195 of 406
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 196 of 406
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 197 of 406
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 198 of 406
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 199 of 406
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 200 of 406
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 201 of 406
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 202 of 406
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 203 of 406
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 204 of 406
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 205 of 406
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 206 of 406
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 207 of 406
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 208 of 406
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 209 of 406
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
.=§II
.,.____.......-
ATE Project #23055
Page 210 of 406
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 211 of 406
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 212 of 406
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 213 of 406
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 214 of 406
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 215 of 406
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 216 of 406
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 217 of 406
~ 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 218 of 406
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 219 of 406
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 220 of 406
~
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 221 of 406
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 222 of 406
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 223 of 406
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 224 of 406
:::;-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 225 of 406
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 226 of 406
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 227 of 406
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 228 of 406
~
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 229 of 406
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 230 of 406
-{ 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 231 of 406
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 232 of 406
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 233 of 406
--, 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 234 of 406
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 235 of 406
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 236 of 406
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 237 of 406
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 238 of 406
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 239 of 406
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 240 of 406
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 241 of 406
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 242 of 406
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 243 of 406
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 244 of 406
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 245 of 406
R JE LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
edwin@rambuskilaw.com
www.rambuskilaw.com
March 23, 2026
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
aloe@arroyogrande.org
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Motion to Continue Appeal Hearing – Submitted on Behalf of All Appellant
Parties
Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants respectfully move for a 30-day continuance of the above-described hearing. The Staff
Report for Tuesday’s agenda item No. 10.a, which was not posted to the City’s website until Friday
afternoon giving Appellants and the public literally one business day (or less) to review it before
the March 24, 2026 hearing, introduces and heavily emphasizes the Housing Accountability Act’s
(“HAA”) “deemed complete” lock-in under Government Code § 65589.5(j)(2) as the basis for
concluding that certain issues are no longer subject to review.
This new position appears repeatedly in the Staff Report and is used as the City’s primary basis
for concluding that the project cannot be challenged on the very issues raised in the appeal:
1. Parking adequacy and enforceability (Staff Report p. 10: “With the application of a parking
concession, the project is deemed in compliance…”);
2.Creek setbacks and riparian protections (Staff Report pp. 15-16: “The 32’ creek setback …
has already been deemed consistent … The HAA provides that … the project is deemed
consistent with unidentified standards, as a matter of law”); and
3.All objective development standards generally (Staff Report pp. 2-3, 6, 12: “if a city does
not notify an applicant of inconsistencies with applicable development standards before an
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 246 of 406
application is deemed complete, then the project is deemed consistent with all unidentified
standards as a matter of law”).
None of this “deemed complete” analysis or reliance on the lock-in was raised or relied upon at
the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Appellants’ original appeal detailed extensive,
evidence-based challenges to parking (binding easements, lack of enforceable agreements,
historical shortages), creek setbacks, zoning consistency, and CEQA exemption eligibility, without
any rebuttal from staff that these issues were forever “deemed consistent” and off-limits.
The AB 130 statutory exemption findings (Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission Resolution)
mention completeness only generically and never deploy the HAA lock-in as a substantive defense.
This late disclosure deprives Appellants, adjacent property owners, and the public of any
meaningful opportunity to respond. To address the Staff Report’s new position, we need immediate
access to the basic administrative record that should have been produced months ago when one of
property owners made its public records request. Whether the records were intentionally omitted
or the City chose to review the request in as limited a manner as possible, non-production suggests
a lack of transparency. At a minimum, Appellants require:
1. The actual application “deemed complete” letter, checklist, and date;
2. Any and all HAA inconsistency notifications (or lack thereof) sent to the applicant within
the statutory 30-day window;
3. All parking agreement, easement, and shared-parking documents submitted (or claimed)
by the applicant prior to completeness; and
4. Any internal City memos or analyses addressing shared-parking enforceability, reciprocal
easements, or specific adverse impacts under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1).
Without these documents, neither the Council nor the Appellants can evaluate whether the City
actually performed the required early review or whether the “deemed complete” finding was itself
based on incomplete or inaccurate information (e.g., the applicant’s representations about parking
that the appeal proves are unenforceable).
The HAA was never intended to prevent the City from providing the public and the appellate body
(this Council exercising de novo review under AGMC § 1.12.010) with a fair opportunity to
address issues at this stage of the proceedings.
While HAA § 65589.5(j)(2) protects applicants from late-moving goalposts, it does not:
1. Strip the Council of its independent obligation to make specific adverse impact findings on
public health and safety (§ 65589.5(j)(1));
2. Prevent the Council from reviewing whether the City’s own early review process was
adequate; or
3. Eliminate basic due process protections in an administrative appeal that directly affects
neighboring businesses and residents.
Granting a short continuance is the only fair and prudent course. It allows Appellants to renew our
Public Records Act request (assuming no voluntary production) so the Council can decide this
Page 247 of 406
appeal on a complete, transparent record, not on a novel legal position raised for the first time at
this late stage.
Denying the continuance risks reversible error on judicial review and undermines public
confidence that the Council is exercising independent judgment. Council should not be required
to overlook these objective standards simply because the Staff Report now asserts that the City did
not address them at the completeness stage. A 30-day pause ensures that the City’s own process
was followed which is what the HAA and due process require.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk (jmatson@arroyogrande.org)
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney (Isaac.Rosen@bbklaw.com)
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel (jferro@nanoknee.com)
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel (sean.varner@varnerbrandt.com)
Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel (scott.heil@varnerbrandt.com)
Page 248 of 406
From:Edwin Rambuski
To:City Council; Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie; Matt Downing; Jessica
Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Appeal Case 26-002-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001, Appellants" Additional Briefing -
Submitted on Behalf of all the Named Appellants
Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 1:47:07 PM
Attachments:City Council Letter - Additional Briefing (2).pdf
March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
aloe@arroyogrande.org
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached hereto a letter dated March 23, 2026 from the Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski regarding the above-referenced Appeal. Mr. Rambuski’s letter shall constitute an
item to be included in the record for Appeal Case 26-002.
If you have any questions whatsoever regarding this submission, please telephone Mr.
Rambuski at .
Very truly yours,
Trina Baumsteiger
Assistant
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not
intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J.
Page 249 of 406
Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law
Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to edwin@rambuskilaw.com and destroy all copies of this
message and any attachments.
Page 250 of 406
R J E LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
edwin@rambuskilaw.com
www.rambuskilaw.com
March 23, 2026
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
aloe@arroyogrande.org
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants
Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants submitted a request to continue the hearing for Appeal Case 26-002 regarding the appeal
of the Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP 25-001 on March 23, 2026. If reasonable continuance
is not granted, Appellants hereby submit additional briefing on the issues surrounding the CUP
approval. These issues supplement the original appeal and directly address the Staff Report’s newly
advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and Density
Bonus Law. Even accepting that theory arguendo, the City Council’s de novo review authority
(AGMC § 1.12.010) requires it to address the following violations of objective standards and specific
adverse impacts on public health and safety.
a. Inadequate Parking Supply and Unenforceable Shared Parking Arrangements Create
Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Health and Safety
The developer is relying on parking he has no right to in seeking his approvals. At a minimum, an
applicant should have to show the right to property they claim ownership or rights in. The project
provides only 31 dedicated on-site garage parking spaces for 92 residential units and relies heavily
on reciprocal shared parking with the existing medical-office and fitness-center uses on the Sheppel-
Curl Fitness site. This constitutes a specific adverse impact on public health and safety under HAA
§ 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council is required to address regardless of any parking concession or
“deemed complete” finding.
Page 251 of 406
The record contains the 2004 OEG parking monitoring reports for the same site (Attachment 6 to
prior CUP proceedings), which documented chronic shortages, overflow parking onto neighboring
properties, conflicts between medical patients, fitness-club patrons/employees, and tenants, and the
need for ongoing mitigation measures (signage, employee directives, driveway modifications, off-
site parking, and physical separations). Many of those measures were never permanently
implemented or are no longer effective. The Best Western Casa Grande park ing easement settlement
documents likewise provide only limited, short-term relief that does not bind future owners or
guarantee availability during peak residential hours.
The Staff Report acknowledges the parking concession but asserts “deemed compliance.” However,
the record contains no binding, recorded, long-term reciprocal easement agreements enforceable
against successors and assigns that ensure adequate spaces during overlapping peak periods. Shared
parking in this mixed-use context, on a site with a documented history of deficiencies, cannot be
presumed adequate. This deficiency will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased congestion
on James Way, traffic hazards, and nuisance impacts on neighboring businesses and residents. These
are specific adverse impacts the Council must find do not exist before any approval.
b. The Project Does Not Meet the Density Bonus Requirements Because It Cannot Show
The Required Dispersal of Affordable Housing Units
The project fails to comply with the City’s own objective standards in AGMC § 16.82.040(E), which
requires that all affordable housing units “shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project [and]
proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the market-rate units.” The Conditions of
Approval address only recording a 55-year density bonus agreement (COA No. 96) and are silent on
dispersal. The written application likewise fails to include the required “site plan showing … number
and location of affordable housing units” mandated by AGMC § 16.82.120(A)(1).
The project consists of 20 studios (21.7%), 58 one-bedroom units (63%), and 14 two-bedroom units
(15.2%). With approximately 14 very-low-income units required for the density bonus,
proportionality demands roughly 3 studios, 9 one-bedroom, and 2 two-bedroom affordable units
dispersed throughout both buildings. Instead, the applicant appears to intend to assign all very-low-
income units to the 20 studios. This segregated “poor door” approach violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E)
and exposes the City to fair-housing and consistency challenges.
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the Council’s de novo review authority
allows it to impose mandatory dispersal conditions without violating state law. Failure to do so leaves
the project non-compliant with local objective standards.
c. Inadequate Traffic And Circulation Analysis Was Conducted.
The project fails to qualify for the AB 130 statutory exemption’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”)
presumption because it does not satisfy the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
Page 252 of 406
Guidelines (May 2021, p. 8). Those Guidelines expressly limit the presumption to projects located
within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit routes with 15-minute or less
headways.
Current SLO RTA Routes 27 and 28 (the only James Way corridor routes) operate on hourly headways
only. The Traffic Study (Attachment 6) and AB 130 Findings (Attachment 5) contain no analysis of
actual headways, no project-specific VMT calculation showing at least 15% below baseline, and no
mitigation measures. Staff’s reliance on generic “proximity” alone is unsupported by substantial
evidence and creates a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, and regional air quality that
the Council is required to address.
d. The Record Does Not Indicate That Waivers Under HAA and the Density Bonus Laws
are Proper.
Government Code § 65915(e)(1) prohibits a city from applying any development standard that would
physically preclude the density bonus project “at the densities or with the concessions or incentives
permitted.” The applicant bears the burden to prove with substantial evidence that each waiver or
concession is necessary to avoid physical preclusion. The record contains no such evidence for the
parking reduction, height waivers, creek setbacks, or other modifications requested; mere assertions
are insufficient.
e. The HAA And AB 130 Does Not Eliminate The Need To Complete Baseline Studies To
Ensure No Impact On Sensitive Riparian Habitat And/Or Threatened Species.
The HAA does not relieve a local agency from complying with CEQA. It is not the policy of the
HAA to compel a local agency to approve housing without conducting environmental review
appropriate to the situation. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(e) and Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated
Plan v. City Council of City of Pacifica, No. A170704, 2025 WL 3764279 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30,
2025).) The Council cannot end its site-suitability analysis at general plan and zoning designations.
The “fair argument” standard for requiring CEQA review remains a low threshold, with all doubts
resolved in favor of environmental review. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124
Cal.App.4th 903, 928.)
The City must analyze potential impacts to Meadow Creek’s riparian habitat and any threatened
species before approval.
f. Staff Erroneously Analyzed The Bonus Density Under The “Mixed-Use” Rules
The staff report provides that because the project is located adjacent to existing non-residential uses,
the project will function like a mixed-use development in a practical sense, and the development
standards for mixed-use projects were used. The project is not a “mixed-use” project within the
meaning of the HAA as provided for in Government Code §65589.5 (h)(2). The project can only
qualify as a “mixed-use” development if at least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage
is designated for residential use, and no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel. The
project fails both of these elements. The project includes the Casa Grande Inn Hotel and the
residential portion falls far short of two-thirds of the combined existing commercial and new
Page 253 of 406
residential usage.
g. The Project will have an Adverse Impact On Public Health or Safety
The Staff report argues that the City must approve the project with either the proposed thirty-one (31)
parking spaces or absolutely no private parking whatsoever. This conclusion is based on the argument
that the City allowed the project to be “deemed complete” without addressing the parking issues and
the applicant can simply request a waiver of any objective parking requirements and construct the
project with zero parking.
However, these legal arguments are still subject to the public health and safety standard and policy
set forth in the HAA. Approving a 92-unit multi-family project with only thirty-one (31) onsite
parking spaces will in fact have an adverse impact on public health and safety. The project will almost
certainly be occupied by between 125-150 residents. If any of the residents or their visitors park in
the Casa Grande Inn hotel parking spaces, their vehicles will be towed. Much of the parking in the
adjacent commercial space is reserved to specific tenants. Residence and visitors will be towed from
those spaces as well.
There is absolutely no public parking for the residents for more than one-half mile from the project.
There is exactly one way into the project, James Way, and one exit. No additional emergency access
will be provided by the Casa Grande Inn Hotel.
California Code of Regulations Title 17 §7977 defines Public Health and Safety as “maintenance of
an environment that contributes to human wellbeing, in which there is an absence of human disease,
ill health or injury.” In the event of an emergency, evacuation, public emergency, or medical
emergency, at least three-quarters of the residents of the pr oject will need to travel more than one-half
mile to reach their vehicles.
h. Conclusion
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the project fails multiple objective
standards and creates specific adverse impacts on parking, traffic, public safety, and the environment
that HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) expressly requires the Council to address. Based on the original appeal and
this additional briefing, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s approval, deny
CUP 25-001, and direct appropriate CEQA review (at minimum, a focused review if streamlining
applies).
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk (jmatson@arroyogrande.org)
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney (Isaac.Rosen@bbklaw.com)
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel (jferro@nanoknee.com)
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel (sean.varner@varnerbrandt.com)
Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel (scott.heil@varnerbrandt.com)
Page 254 of 406
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a - March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James
Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo
Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: March 23, 2026
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced item.
Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Planning Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
ATTACHMENT 8
Page 255 of 406
From:Edwin Rambuski
To:City Council; Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie; Matt Downing; Jessica
Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Appeal Case 26-002-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001, Appellants" Additional Briefing -
Submitted on Behalf of all the Named Appellants
Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 1:47:07 PM
Attachments:City Council Letter - Additional Briefing (2).pdf
March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
aloe@arroyogrande.org
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached hereto a letter dated March 23, 2026 from the Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski regarding the above-referenced Appeal. Mr. Rambuski’s letter shall constitute an
item to be included in the record for Appeal Case 26-002.
If you have any questions whatsoever regarding this submission, please telephone Mr.
Rambuski at .
Very truly yours,
Trina Baumsteiger
Assistant
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not
intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J.
Page 256 of 406
Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law
Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to edwin@rambuskilaw.com and destroy all copies of this
message and any attachments.
Page 257 of 406
R J E LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
edwin@rambuskilaw.com
www.rambuskilaw.com
March 23, 2026
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
aloe@arroyogrande.org
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants
Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants submitted a request to continue the hearing for Appeal Case 26-002 regarding the appeal
of the Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP 25-001 on March 23, 2026. If reasonable continuance
is not granted, Appellants hereby submit additional briefing on the issues surrounding the CUP
approval. These issues supplement the original appeal and directly address the Staff Report’s newly
advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and Density
Bonus Law. Even accepting that theory arguendo, the City Council’s de novo review authority
(AGMC § 1.12.010) requires it to address the following violations of objective standards and specific
adverse impacts on public health and safety.
a. Inadequate Parking Supply and Unenforceable Shared Parking Arrangements Create
Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Health and Safety
The developer is relying on parking he has no right to in seeking his approvals. At a minimum, an
applicant should have to show the right to property they claim ownership or rights in. The project
provides only 31 dedicated on-site garage parking spaces for 92 residential units and relies heavily
on reciprocal shared parking with the existing medical-office and fitness-center uses on the Sheppel-
Curl Fitness site. This constitutes a specific adverse impact on public health and safety under HAA
§ 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council is required to address regardless of any parking concession or
“deemed complete” finding.
Page 258 of 406
The record contains the 2004 OEG parking monitoring reports for the same site (Attachment 6 to
prior CUP proceedings), which documented chronic shortages, overflow parking onto neighboring
properties, conflicts between medical patients, fitness-club patrons/employees, and tenants, and the
need for ongoing mitigation measures (signage, employee directives, driveway modifications, off-
site parking, and physical separations). Many of those measures were never permanently
implemented or are no longer effective. The Best Western Casa Grande park ing easement settlement
documents likewise provide only limited, short-term relief that does not bind future owners or
guarantee availability during peak residential hours.
The Staff Report acknowledges the parking concession but asserts “deemed compliance.” However,
the record contains no binding, recorded, long-term reciprocal easement agreements enforceable
against successors and assigns that ensure adequate spaces during overlapping peak periods. Shared
parking in this mixed-use context, on a site with a documented history of deficiencies, cannot be
presumed adequate. This deficiency will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased congestion
on James Way, traffic hazards, and nuisance impacts on neighboring businesses and residents. These
are specific adverse impacts the Council must find do not exist before any approval.
b. The Project Does Not Meet the Density Bonus Requirements Because It Cannot Show
The Required Dispersal of Affordable Housing Units
The project fails to comply with the City’s own objective standards in AGMC § 16.82.040(E), which
requires that all affordable housing units “shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project [and]
proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the market-rate units.” The Conditions of
Approval address only recording a 55-year density bonus agreement (COA No. 96) and are silent on
dispersal. The written application likewise fails to include the required “site plan showing … number
and location of affordable housing units” mandated by AGMC § 16.82.120(A)(1).
The project consists of 20 studios (21.7%), 58 one-bedroom units (63%), and 14 two-bedroom units
(15.2%). With approximately 14 very-low-income units required for the density bonus,
proportionality demands roughly 3 studios, 9 one-bedroom, and 2 two-bedroom affordable units
dispersed throughout both buildings. Instead, the applicant appears to intend to assign all very-low-
income units to the 20 studios. This segregated “poor door” approach violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E)
and exposes the City to fair-housing and consistency challenges.
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the Council’s de novo review authority
allows it to impose mandatory dispersal conditions without violating state law. Failure to do so leaves
the project non-compliant with local objective standards.
c. Inadequate Traffic And Circulation Analysis Was Conducted.
The project fails to qualify for the AB 130 statutory exemption’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”)
presumption because it does not satisfy the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
Page 259 of 406
Guidelines (May 2021, p. 8). Those Guidelines expressly limit the presumption to projects located
within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit routes with 15-minute or less
headways.
Current SLO RTA Routes 27 and 28 (the only James Way corridor routes) operate on hourly headways
only. The Traffic Study (Attachment 6) and AB 130 Findings (Attachment 5) contain no analysis of
actual headways, no project-specific VMT calculation showing at least 15% below baseline, and no
mitigation measures. Staff’s reliance on generic “proximity” alone is unsupported by substantial
evidence and creates a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, and regional air quality that
the Council is required to address.
d. The Record Does Not Indicate That Waivers Under HAA and the Density Bonus Laws
are Proper.
Government Code § 65915(e)(1) prohibits a city from applying any development standard that would
physically preclude the density bonus project “at the densities or with the concessions or incentives
permitted.” The applicant bears the burden to prove with substantial evidence that each waiver or
concession is necessary to avoid physical preclusion. The record contains no such evidence for the
parking reduction, height waivers, creek setbacks, or other modifications requested; mere assertions
are insufficient.
e. The HAA And AB 130 Does Not Eliminate The Need To Complete Baseline Studies To
Ensure No Impact On Sensitive Riparian Habitat And/Or Threatened Species.
The HAA does not relieve a local agency from complying with CEQA. It is not the policy of the
HAA to compel a local agency to approve housing without conducting environmental review
appropriate to the situation. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(e) and Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated
Plan v. City Council of City of Pacifica, No. A170704, 2025 WL 3764279 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30,
2025).) The Council cannot end its site-suitability analysis at general plan and zoning designations.
The “fair argument” standard for requiring CEQA review remains a low threshold, with all doubts
resolved in favor of environmental review. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124
Cal.App.4th 903, 928.)
The City must analyze potential impacts to Meadow Creek’s riparian habitat and any threatened
species before approval.
f. Staff Erroneously Analyzed The Bonus Density Under The “Mixed-Use” Rules
The staff report provides that because the project is located adjacent to existing non-residential uses,
the project will function like a mixed-use development in a practical sense, and the development
standards for mixed-use projects were used. The project is not a “mixed-use” project within the
meaning of the HAA as provided for in Government Code §65589.5 (h)(2). The project can only
qualify as a “mixed-use” development if at least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage
is designated for residential use, and no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel. The
project fails both of these elements. The project includes the Casa Grande Inn Hotel and the
residential portion falls far short of two-thirds of the combined existing commercial and new
Page 260 of 406
residential usage.
g. The Project will have an Adverse Impact On Public Health or Safety
The Staff report argues that the City must approve the project with either the proposed thirty-one (31)
parking spaces or absolutely no private parking whatsoever. This conclusion is based on the argument
that the City allowed the project to be “deemed complete” without addressing the parking issues and
the applicant can simply request a waiver of any objective parking requirements and construct the
project with zero parking.
However, these legal arguments are still subject to the public health and safety standard and policy
set forth in the HAA. Approving a 92-unit multi-family project with only thirty-one (31) onsite
parking spaces will in fact have an adverse impact on public health and safety. The project will almost
certainly be occupied by between 125-150 residents. If any of the residents or their visitors park in
the Casa Grande Inn hotel parking spaces, their vehicles will be towed. Much of the parking in the
adjacent commercial space is reserved to specific tenants. Residence and visitors will be towed from
those spaces as well.
There is absolutely no public parking for the residents for more than one-half mile from the project.
There is exactly one way into the project, James Way, and one exit. No additional emergency access
will be provided by the Casa Grande Inn Hotel.
California Code of Regulations Title 17 §7977 defines Public Health and Safety as “maintenance of
an environment that contributes to human wellbeing, in which there is an absence of human disease,
ill health or injury.” In the event of an emergency, evacuation, public emergency, or medical
emergency, at least three-quarters of the residents of the pr oject will need to travel more than one-half
mile to reach their vehicles.
h. Conclusion
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the project fails multiple objective
standards and creates specific adverse impacts on parking, traffic, public safety, and the environment
that HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) expressly requires the Council to address. Based on the original appeal and
this additional briefing, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s approval, deny
CUP 25-001, and direct appropriate CEQA review (at minimum, a focused review if streamlining
applies).
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk (jmatson@arroyogrande.org)
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney (Isaac.Rosen@bbklaw.com)
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel (jferro@nanoknee.com)
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel (sean.varner@varnerbrandt.com)
Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel (scott.heil@varnerbrandt.com)
Page 261 of 406
Page 262 of 406
50903974.1
Christopher R. Guillen
805.882.1452 direct
cguillen@bhfs.com
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
March 23, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
publiccomment@arroyogrande.org
RE: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001 for
the Creekside Junction Project
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable City Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, Russell Sheppel, the owner of 1271 and 1281 James Way (“Property”) in
support of his development of a 92-unit multi-family housing project (“Project”) on the Property. The
Project will consist of two residential buildings with 20 studios, 58 one-bedroom units, and 14 two-
bedroom units, with either 15 percent of the base density units deed restricted as affordable for very
low income households, 24 percent for low income households, or a potential blend of the two .
The Project was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2026 and
subsequently appealed to this Council by Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC
and Ray Bunnell (collectively, “Appellants”). This letter responds to each issue raised in the appeal in
turn.
II. The Project Utilizes a Density Bonus Law Concession to Reduce Parking Requirements
Appellants argue that the Project does not comply with the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) and Municipal
Code’s parking requirements because it only provides 31 covered parking spaces “truly on site,” while
the remainder are provided offsite and are uncovered. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issues 1, 1(a)-(d).) Appellants
clearly misunderstand application of the DBL in multiple facets.
The DBL sets maximum parking standards for DBL projects. (Gov. Code, 65915(p)(1).) The DBL, however,
states there is nothing precluding a city from “reducing or eliminating a parking requirement for
development projects of any type in any location” including through applicant requested incentives or
concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(p)(5), (8).) The DBL then explicitly provides that an applicant can
request a concession, under its provisions, to reduce the “ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
Page 263 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 2
50903974.1
otherwise be required” so long as it results in identifiable and actual costs reduction. (Gov. Code,
§65915(k)(1).)
That is precisely what Mr. Sheppel has done here. Given Appellants’ claim relating to parking
requirements and request that Mr. Sheppel provide more offsite parking, which would in turn increase
the costs of the Project, Mr. Sheppel has requested the City reduce the Project’s required parking to 31
spaces. Although Mr. Sheppel previously used a concession to reduce the required parking spaces from
99 to 98, he has revised the concession request on March 18, 2026 to reduce the number of required
parking spaces to 31 covered parking spaces without reconfiguration of the Project. The City must
approve that concession request under DBL. The Project need only provide the garages that Appellants
concede are onsite parking to satisfy the Project’s parking requirements. (Staff Report, pp. 9-10
[“Irrespective of the private parking easements, applicant would be eligible to seek a modified
concession for a reduction of the parking requirement from 99 to the number of on-site spaces.”].)
The City also cannot rely on alleged conflicts with parking easements, which are completely unfounded,
as a valid basis to deny a housing project with protections under DBL and the Housing Accountability
Act. Again, a misapplication of DBL as the Appellants have proposed, will lead to a misapplication of
California housing law.
III. The Project Does Not Impinge Upon Any Parking Rights Provided By Recorded Easements
Appellants cite to three documents recorded against the Property that provide various access and
parking rights to Mr. Sheppel and his neighbors. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(c).) The Project is consistent
with the obligations provided in these easements.
The Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement recorded on June 5, 2000 and amended in August 2008
by the Amendment to Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement provide certain access and parking
rights to Mr. Sheppel and Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC (the gym). The Project complies with the
obligations in these documents. In particular, Section 2(c) states that if development of the Project site
causes parking spaces that benefit Arroyo Grande Partners to be separated from that entity’s property,
Mr. Sheppel shall locate those parking spaces on areas of Mr. Sheppel’s property that allow for
pedestrian access to Arroyo Grande Partners’ property. The Project has done just that, creating new
parking spaces that may be used by Arroyo Grande Partners’ customers in front of Building B and on
the western side of Building A.
As to the 2021 Grant of Easement for Parking, the only parking provided in that document is to Mr.
Bunnell’s property. The easement is non-exclusive, but with a primary right to use for Mr. Bunnell’s
customers, meaning Mr. Sheppel’s tenants may use the parking, which lies on his parcel. That parking
is maintained and provided for in the row of parking running north/south on the eastern edge of
Building B. In sum, Appellants’ accusations about violating parking easements are entirely unfounded.
Page 264 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 3
50903974.1
IV. Appellants’ Arguments About Historical Parking Shortages Do Not Raise an Appeal Issue
Appellants identify alleged historical parking shortages at the Project site. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(d).)
However, Appellants fail to argue how these parking shortages render the Planning Commission’s
approval invalid in any manner. As explained above, the DBL permits a concession of the City’s parking
standards, while, as explained below, the Project is exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Any historical parking shortages are not relevant to this
appeal, nor whether the City must approve the Project under applicable law.
V. The Project Is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA Under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66
The Planning Commission properly found that the Project met all the criteria to qualify for the statutory
infill exemption in AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). The Staff Report, and Attachment 5 (AB 130
Findings), explain how substantial evidence supports findings that the Project meets each and every AB
130 criterion. The following addresses each of the Appellants’ AB 130 arguments. (See Appeal, Ex. 1,
Issues 2(a)-(d), 3-5.)
The Site is Not a Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat. Appellants posit that the Project’s adjacency to the
Meadow Creek precludes use of Section 21080.66. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(a).) As noted in the Staff
Report, the Project is not located on a “site” that contains “Wetlands, as defined in the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).” (Staff Report, pp. 13-14; Gov. Code, §
65913.4(a)(6)(C).) As identified by the Project’s biologist, no wetlands exist on the Project site.1 Section
21080.66 also does not include riparian habitat as a disqualifying site criteria. (See Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66; Gov. Code, § 65913.4(a)(6).) Even if it did, the Project’s biologist concluded that “the
proposed project would have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State.”2
(See also Staff Report, pp. 13-14.) The Staff Report, based on the biologist’s expert analysis, explains the
absence of riparian habitat on the site, which is mainly a paved dirt parking lot. (Ibid.) Appellants present
mere speculation to the contrary. Accordingly, the evidence supports that the Project meets this
criterion.
Surrounding Urban Use Criterion Are Met. Appellants mislead the Council as to the applicable criteria.
(Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(b).) A qualifying project site need only meet one of the following criteria: (1) has
been developed with an urban use; (2) at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels
that are developed with urban uses; (3) at least 75 percent of the area within one-quarter mile radius
1 See David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande,
California, dated September 4, 2025; David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination,
City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025.
2 David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande,
California, dated September 4, 2025, p. 4.
Page 265 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 4
50903974.1
of the site is developed with urban uses; or (4) for four sided sites, three of the four sides are developed
with urban uses and at least two-third of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed
with urban uses. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(3) [emphasis added].) Under AB 130, “‘Urban use’
means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park
that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger
facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” (See also Pub. Res. Code, § 21072.) Staff
concludes that the Project meets criteria (3) above because 77 percent of the area within one-quarter
mile radius of the site qualifies as urban uses. (Staff Report, p. 14.) The Project thus meets this criterion.
The Project is Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Appellants assert that the Project does not
qualify as a mixed-use project, since the existing adjacent commercial development cannot be relied
upon to support the mixed-use status. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(c).) Appellants are simply wrong. The City’s
Office Mixed Use (OMU) District includes “multi-family housing” as one of its primary purposes, along
with other office and commercial uses. (See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”), § 16.36.020(H).)
As noted above in Section I, City staff determined that the Project “complied with applicable, objective
general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect
at the time that the application was deemed complete” on July 27, 2025. (Staff Report, p. 3.) The
Planning Commission affirmed this determination when approving the Project based on staff’s
consistency analysis. (Staff Report, pp. 1, 4.) Under the Housing Accountability Act, this determination
is conclusive that the Project “combines both commercial and residential uses” by adding multi-family
housing next to existing office and commercial buildings. (AGMC, § 16.04.07; Gov. Code, §
65589.5(j)(2)(A)-(B) [If a local agency fails to provide the required documentation on time, a project
“shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy,
ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.”].)3
Moreover, nothing in AGMC section 16.04.07 requires a Project to construct both commercial and
residential uses as part of a single project. The City reasonably interprets that this Project meets the
OMU zone district because the existing non-residential and residential uses will function like a mixed-
use development due to the shared ingress and egress, making application of these standards
reasonable. (Staff Report, p. 8; Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) [agencies must find a project consistent with
a standard if a reasonable person could do so], (j)(2)(A)-(B).) As a reminder, all development(s) on this
site are a CUP which supports the mixed-use category. In fact, the Staff Report notes that this
interpretation has been consistently applied by City staff and the Planning Commission. (Staff Report,
p. 11.) Indeed, this approach is consistent with the residential mixed-use entitlement of 2006 authorized
by the City of Arroyo Grande. Therefore, the Council has substantial evidence to find the Project
3 Further, “approval of a density bonus incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and
reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the
project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program” for the purposes of AB
130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(C).)
Page 266 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 5
50903974.1
consistent with the OMU District and the Project otherwise has been deemed consistent with this
requirement as a matter of law.4
The City Has Met All Other Performance Standards in AB 130. Appellants speculate that the City failed
to meet tribal consultation, Phase I assessment completeness, air quality measures, and repeat other
generalized concerns not relevant to the City’s AB 130 analysis. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(d).) The Staff
Report explains that the City completed AB 130’s tribal consultation process. (Staff Report, pp. 14-15.)
The conditions of approval require the Project to comply prepare a phase I environmental site
assessment as required by AB 130. (Condition 20.) A Phase I ESA also was completed for the site in 2021.
The Project is located over 900 feet from the freeway, as shown in the attached figure, so AB 130’s air
quality measures do not apply. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(c)(2).) Appellants other generalized
concerns (e.g., parking) are not relevant to qualifying for AB 130, addressed in this letter, and/or
otherwise unsubstantiated by Appellants.
The Project Does Not Violate Creek Setbacks or Riparian Protection Standards. Appellants assert that the
Project conflicts with applicable Meadow Creek setbacks. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 3.) Not so. The City’s
General Plan Element C/OS2-1.3 states that “where feasible, [the city shall] maintain development
setback of 25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope,
habitat and floodplain characteristics.” (Emphasis added.) The Project provides a 32-foot creek setback
and therefore is consistent with this standard. (Staff Report, p. 4, 6.) Three prior times in over a 20-year
period, Staff has consistently applied a 32-foot setback to this site when approving a mixed-use project
on the site in 2006, and senior care facility projects in both 2015 and 2021. (Staff Report, p. 6.)
Appellants’ accusation is baseless.
The Staff Report also acknowledges that the 50-foot setback requirement was not previously identified
and therefore cannot be enforced. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §§ 65944(a), 65589.5(j)(2)(A)-
(B).) As such, this standard is not “applicable” to the project for the purposes of AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21080.66(a)(4)(A).) Further, in the event of conflict between zoning and the general plan, AB 130
mandates that the Project be found consistent with both if it is consistent with one. (Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66(a)(4)(B); Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(4).) Finally, as noted in the Staff Report, even if this standard
could be applied, the City would have to waive it under DBL. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §
65915(e)(1) [“In no case may a city … apply any development standard that will have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of a [qualifying housing] development…”].)
4 In addition, the Project could revise its requested DBL concessions and waivers or reductions in development standards to
use a concession to eliminate any alleged mixed use requirement. DBL allows an applicant to require a concession to reduce
a site development standards or modify a zoning code requirement or other regulatory incentives or concessions to provide
for affordable housing. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1), (k)(1).) As such, the Project could modify its concessions and waivers or
reductions in development standards to apply a concession to this mixed use component. (See also Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66(e).)
Page 267 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 6
50903974.1
For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the applicable creek setback standards for the
purposes of AB 130.
The Project Provides Adequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Appellants assert without evidence or
citation that the Project does not comply with the SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) standards and
the City’s Circulation Element. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 4.) Appellants are wrong for many reasons. First, this
is irrelevant for whether the Project qualifies for AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Second, Mr.
Sheppel prepared a traffic study for the Project (Attachment 6). Based on these analyses, Staff
concluded that the Project would have no impact on traffic and circulation because the Project is below
the City’s VMT thresholds. (Staff Report, p. 16.) Third, the Project’s further reduction of required
parking spaces to 31 total onsite covered parking spaces is permissible under DBL, and has no impact
on whether the Project qualifies for the AB 130 exemption. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(e) [“This section
does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or
concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to
Section 65915 of the Government Code.”].) Fourth, even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA under
AB 130, CEQA does not require an analysis of parking shortages, nor can a parking shortage alone
constitute an environmental impact. (See Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed
Conserv. Auth. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, 26 [rejecting that a reduction in parking spaces constituted an
environmental impact; Pub. Res. Code, § 21099(b)(3) [“[T]he adequate of parking for a project shall not
support a finding of significance [under CEQA].”].) Appellants arguments resoundingly fail.
The Project Receives Protections under State Law, Not Preferential Treatment. In closing, Appellants
make unsupported claims that the Project does not qualify for state housing laws and CEQA. (Appeal,
Ex. 1, Issue 5.) For the reasons explained herein, Appellants have failed to carry their burden of proof to
show that the Project—unanimously approved by the Planning commission—does not qualify for AB
130 or protections under State housing laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act and DBL.
VI. The State Housing Law and the City’s Housing Element Support Approval of the Project
The City’s Housing Element sets forth the goals and policies to achieve the City’s regional housing needs
allocation, including through the development of multifamily housing in the City’s OMU zone.5 (Housing
Element, Program A.10-2.) The City is tasked with building 692 housing units, including 277 housing
units for very low and low-income households, between 2020-2028. (Housing Element, Table 4-2.)
While the City has made progress in meeting its targets, it has failed to meet these goals. By providing
deed restricted affordable units, the Project helps the City make progress toward achieving its regional
housing needs allocation.
5 The City’s Housing Element is available at https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/475/Housing-Element-.
Page 268 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 7
50903974.1
Recent Legislation further helps protects cities from meritless NIMBY litigation against housing projects.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a court “shall rarely, if ever” award attorney fees and costs to a
petitioner challenging a housing project when the project is approved in good faith by the local agency
and meets certain criteria. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(p)(1).) The Project at issue here is one such qualifying
Project for two reasons: it meets the AB 130 criteria and provides more than 15 units per acre. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5.1(a)(1), (3).) As a result, the City Council can rest assured that their good faith reliance
on the Staff Report, the unanimous approval through all City hearing bodies to date, and this letter,
should insulate the City from Appellants’ attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of any litigation.
For the last decade, the Legislature has consistently passed and amended State housing laws, including
the Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, and AB 130, to facilitate and streamline residential
development. The Planning Commission’s guidance by the City Attorney, understanding of State law,
and approval of this Project reflects proper implementation of State housing laws and AB 130
specifically designed to streamline approvals of housing projects to ensure that these projects are built
and help address the City’s and State’s housing needs.
* * * * *
In closing, we respectfully request that the Council reject this meritless appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s approval of the Project as required by applicable California Housing Law and AB 130.
Approving this Project will create critically needed new housing opportunities in a key area of the City
and generate new, deed restricted, low and/or very-low income housing units for the City’s most
economically vulnerable residents.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Guillen
With copy to:
Mack Carlson, mcarlson@bhfs.com; Russell Sheppel, ; Isaac Rosen,
isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com
32543661.1
Page 269 of 406
Page 270 of 406
Page 271 of 406
Page 272 of 406
Page 273 of 406
Page 274 of 406
Page 275 of 406
misses a deadline]; 65589.5(h)(6)(B), (E), (K) [failing to meet certain deadlines means the
agency has “disapproved a housing development project”].) For example, if granted, any
time a project opponent appeals a project in the future, the opponent can claim
ignorance of the law as a grounds for a continuance request to achieve the desired delay
of the project. That cannot be the policy the City intends to create.
Finally, Appellants ask for “immediate access to the basic administrative record” for the
Project. However, Appellants have not submitted a formal Public Records Act request
for such documents and there is no obligation for staff to produce that record absent
such a request. Moreover, none of these records are relevant for the appeal before the
Council since—as noted by the Appellants in their letter—the Planning Commission
already heard Appellants’ arguments at the January 20, 2026 meeting and rejected them
by unanimously approving the Project as consistent with the applicable City standards.
Staff providing additional legal bases to support the Planning Commission’s
determination and refute Appellants’ contentions is hardly grounds to delay the hearing.
For each of these reasons, this Council should deny the continuance request and hold
the hearing on Appellants’ appeal tomorrow. In considering the continuance request, we
request the opportunity to provide public comment on this matter as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
Chris
Christopher R. Guillen
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1452 tel
909.518.8435 cell
cguillen@bhfs.com
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
From: Malone, Caitlin K. <CMalone@BHFS.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:46 AM
To: publiccomment@arroyogrande.org
Cc: Guillen, Christopher R. <cguillen@bhfs.com>; Carlson, Mack <mcarlson@bhfs.com>; Russ
Sheppel ; Isaac Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>
Subject: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002
Page 276 of 406
Good morning,
Please see attached letter from Chris Guillen’s office on behalf of Russell Sheppel. This
pertains to Item 10a on the agenda for tomorrow’s City Council meeting, Appeal Case 26-002;
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location –
1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande
Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust.
Caitlin K. Malone
Legal Practice Assistant
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1462 tel
CMalone@BHFS.com
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in
this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling
(303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you.
Page 277 of 406
Page 278 of 406
50903974.1
Christopher R. Guillen
805.882.1452 direct
cguillen@bhfs.com
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
March 23, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
publiccomment@arroyogrande.org
RE: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001 for
the Creekside Junction Project
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable City Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, Russell Sheppel, the owner of 1271 and 1281 James Way (“Property”) in
support of his development of a 92-unit multi-family housing project (“Project”) on the Property. The
Project will consist of two residential buildings with 20 studios, 58 one-bedroom units, and 14 two-
bedroom units, with either 15 percent of the base density units deed restricted as affordable for very
low income households, 24 percent for low income households, or a potential blend of the two .
The Project was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2026 and
subsequently appealed to this Council by Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC
and Ray Bunnell (collectively, “Appellants”). This letter responds to each issue raised in the appeal in
turn.
II. The Project Utilizes a Density Bonus Law Concession to Reduce Parking Requirements
Appellants argue that the Project does not comply with the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) and Municipal
Code’s parking requirements because it only provides 31 covered parking spaces “truly on site,” while
the remainder are provided offsite and are uncovered. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issues 1, 1(a)-(d).) Appellants
clearly misunderstand application of the DBL in multiple facets.
The DBL sets maximum parking standards for DBL projects. (Gov. Code, 65915(p)(1).) The DBL, however,
states there is nothing precluding a city from “reducing or eliminating a parking requirement for
development projects of any type in any location” including through applicant requested incentives or
concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(p)(5), (8).) The DBL then explicitly provides that an applicant can
request a concession, under its provisions, to reduce the “ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
Page 279 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 2
50903974.1
otherwise be required” so long as it results in identifiable and actual costs reduction. (Gov. Code,
§65915(k)(1).)
That is precisely what Mr. Sheppel has done here. Given Appellants’ claim relating to parking
requirements and request that Mr. Sheppel provide more offsite parking, which would in turn increase
the costs of the Project, Mr. Sheppel has requested the City reduce the Project’s required parking to 31
spaces. Although Mr. Sheppel previously used a concession to reduce the required parking spaces from
99 to 98, he has revised the concession request on March 18, 2026 to reduce the number of required
parking spaces to 31 covered parking spaces without reconfiguration of the Project. The City must
approve that concession request under DBL. The Project need only provide the garages that Appellants
concede are onsite parking to satisfy the Project’s parking requirements. (Staff Report, pp. 9-10
[“Irrespective of the private parking easements, applicant would be eligible to seek a modified
concession for a reduction of the parking requirement from 99 to the number of on-site spaces.”].)
The City also cannot rely on alleged conflicts with parking easements, which are completely unfounded,
as a valid basis to deny a housing project with protections under DBL and the Housing Accountability
Act. Again, a misapplication of DBL as the Appellants have proposed, will lead to a misapplication of
California housing law.
III. The Project Does Not Impinge Upon Any Parking Rights Provided By Recorded Easements
Appellants cite to three documents recorded against the Property that provide various access and
parking rights to Mr. Sheppel and his neighbors. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(c).) The Project is consistent
with the obligations provided in these easements.
The Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement recorded on June 5, 2000 and amended in August 2008
by the Amendment to Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement provide certain access and parking
rights to Mr. Sheppel and Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC (the gym). The Project complies with the
obligations in these documents. In particular, Section 2(c) states that if development of the Project site
causes parking spaces that benefit Arroyo Grande Partners to be separated from that entity’s property,
Mr. Sheppel shall locate those parking spaces on areas of Mr. Sheppel’s property that allow for
pedestrian access to Arroyo Grande Partners’ property. The Project has done just that, creating new
parking spaces that may be used by Arroyo Grande Partners’ customers in front of Building B and on
the western side of Building A.
As to the 2021 Grant of Easement for Parking, the only parking provided in that document is to Mr.
Bunnell’s property. The easement is non-exclusive, but with a primary right to use for Mr. Bunnell’s
customers, meaning Mr. Sheppel’s tenants may use the parking, which lies on his parcel. That parking
is maintained and provided for in the row of parking running north/south on the eastern edge of
Building B. In sum, Appellants’ accusations about violating parking easements are entirely unfounded.
Page 280 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 3
50903974.1
IV. Appellants’ Arguments About Historical Parking Shortages Do Not Raise an Appeal Issue
Appellants identify alleged historical parking shortages at the Project site. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(d).)
However, Appellants fail to argue how these parking shortages render the Planning Commission’s
approval invalid in any manner. As explained above, the DBL permits a concession of the City’s parking
standards, while, as explained below, the Project is exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Any historical parking shortages are not relevant to this
appeal, nor whether the City must approve the Project under applicable law.
V. The Project Is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA Under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66
The Planning Commission properly found that the Project met all the criteria to qualify for the statutory
infill exemption in AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). The Staff Report, and Attachment 5 (AB 130
Findings), explain how substantial evidence supports findings that the Project meets each and every AB
130 criterion. The following addresses each of the Appellants’ AB 130 arguments. (See Appeal, Ex. 1,
Issues 2(a)-(d), 3-5.)
The Site is Not a Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat. Appellants posit that the Project’s adjacency to the
Meadow Creek precludes use of Section 21080.66. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(a).) As noted in the Staff
Report, the Project is not located on a “site” that contains “Wetlands, as defined in the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).” (Staff Report, pp. 13-14; Gov. Code, §
65913.4(a)(6)(C).) As identified by the Project’s biologist, no wetlands exist on the Project site.1 Section
21080.66 also does not include riparian habitat as a disqualifying site criteria. (See Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66; Gov. Code, § 65913.4(a)(6).) Even if it did, the Project’s biologist concluded that “the
proposed project would have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State.”2
(See also Staff Report, pp. 13-14.) The Staff Report, based on the biologist’s expert analysis, explains the
absence of riparian habitat on the site, which is mainly a paved dirt parking lot. (Ibid.) Appellants present
mere speculation to the contrary. Accordingly, the evidence supports that the Project meets this
criterion.
Surrounding Urban Use Criterion Are Met. Appellants mislead the Council as to the applicable criteria.
(Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(b).) A qualifying project site need only meet one of the following criteria: (1) has
been developed with an urban use; (2) at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels
that are developed with urban uses; (3) at least 75 percent of the area within one-quarter mile radius
1 See David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande,
California, dated September 4, 2025; David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination,
City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025.
2 David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande,
California, dated September 4, 2025, p. 4.
Page 281 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 4
50903974.1
of the site is developed with urban uses; or (4) for four sided sites, three of the four sides are developed
with urban uses and at least two-third of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed
with urban uses. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(3) [emphasis added].) Under AB 130, “‘Urban use’
means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park
that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger
facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” (See also Pub. Res. Code, § 21072.) Staff
concludes that the Project meets criteria (3) above because 77 percent of the area within one-quarter
mile radius of the site qualifies as urban uses. (Staff Report, p. 14.) The Project thus meets this criterion.
The Project is Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Appellants assert that the Project does not
qualify as a mixed-use project, since the existing adjacent commercial development cannot be relied
upon to support the mixed-use status. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(c).) Appellants are simply wrong. The City’s
Office Mixed Use (OMU) District includes “multi-family housing” as one of its primary purposes, along
with other office and commercial uses. (See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”), § 16.36.020(H).)
As noted above in Section I, City staff determined that the Project “complied with applicable, objective
general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect
at the time that the application was deemed complete” on July 27, 2025. (Staff Report, p. 3.) The
Planning Commission affirmed this determination when approving the Project based on staff’s
consistency analysis. (Staff Report, pp. 1, 4.) Under the Housing Accountability Act, this determination
is conclusive that the Project “combines both commercial and residential uses” by adding multi-family
housing next to existing office and commercial buildings. (AGMC, § 16.04.07; Gov. Code, §
65589.5(j)(2)(A)-(B) [If a local agency fails to provide the required documentation on time, a project
“shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy,
ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.”].)3
Moreover, nothing in AGMC section 16.04.07 requires a Project to construct both commercial and
residential uses as part of a single project. The City reasonably interprets that this Project meets the
OMU zone district because the existing non-residential and residential uses will function like a mixed-
use development due to the shared ingress and egress, making application of these standards
reasonable. (Staff Report, p. 8; Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) [agencies must find a project consistent with
a standard if a reasonable person could do so], (j)(2)(A)-(B).) As a reminder, all development(s) on this
site are a CUP which supports the mixed-use category. In fact, the Staff Report notes that this
interpretation has been consistently applied by City staff and the Planning Commission. (Staff Report,
p. 11.) Indeed, this approach is consistent with the residential mixed-use entitlement of 2006 authorized
by the City of Arroyo Grande. Therefore, the Council has substantial evidence to find the Project
3 Further, “approval of a density bonus incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and
reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the
project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program” for the purposes of AB
130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(C).)
Page 282 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 5
50903974.1
consistent with the OMU District and the Project otherwise has been deemed consistent with this
requirement as a matter of law.4
The City Has Met All Other Performance Standards in AB 130. Appellants speculate that the City failed
to meet tribal consultation, Phase I assessment completeness, air quality measures, and repeat other
generalized concerns not relevant to the City’s AB 130 analysis. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(d).) The Staff
Report explains that the City completed AB 130’s tribal consultation process. (Staff Report, pp. 14-15.)
The conditions of approval require the Project to comply prepare a phase I environmental site
assessment as required by AB 130. (Condition 20.) A Phase I ESA also was completed for the site in 2021.
The Project is located over 900 feet from the freeway, as shown in the attached figure, so AB 130’s air
quality measures do not apply. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(c)(2).) Appellants other generalized
concerns (e.g., parking) are not relevant to qualifying for AB 130, addressed in this letter, and/or
otherwise unsubstantiated by Appellants.
The Project Does Not Violate Creek Setbacks or Riparian Protection Standards. Appellants assert that the
Project conflicts with applicable Meadow Creek setbacks. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 3.) Not so. The City’s
General Plan Element C/OS2-1.3 states that “where feasible, [the city shall] maintain development
setback of 25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope,
habitat and floodplain characteristics.” (Emphasis added.) The Project provides a 32-foot creek setback
and therefore is consistent with this standard. (Staff Report, p. 4, 6.) Three prior times in over a 20-year
period, Staff has consistently applied a 32-foot setback to this site when approving a mixed-use project
on the site in 2006, and senior care facility projects in both 2015 and 2021. (Staff Report, p. 6.)
Appellants’ accusation is baseless.
The Staff Report also acknowledges that the 50-foot setback requirement was not previously identified
and therefore cannot be enforced. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §§ 65944(a), 65589.5(j)(2)(A)-
(B).) As such, this standard is not “applicable” to the project for the purposes of AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21080.66(a)(4)(A).) Further, in the event of conflict between zoning and the general plan, AB 130
mandates that the Project be found consistent with both if it is consistent with one. (Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66(a)(4)(B); Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(4).) Finally, as noted in the Staff Report, even if this standard
could be applied, the City would have to waive it under DBL. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §
65915(e)(1) [“In no case may a city … apply any development standard that will have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of a [qualifying housing] development…”].)
4 In addition, the Project could revise its requested DBL concessions and waivers or reductions in development standards to
use a concession to eliminate any alleged mixed use requirement. DBL allows an applicant to require a concession to reduce
a site development standards or modify a zoning code requirement or other regulatory incentives or concessions to provide
for affordable housing. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1), (k)(1).) As such, the Project could modify its concessions and waivers or
reductions in development standards to apply a concession to this mixed use component. (See also Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66(e).)
Page 283 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 6
50903974.1
For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the applicable creek setback standards for the
purposes of AB 130.
The Project Provides Adequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Appellants assert without evidence or
citation that the Project does not comply with the SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) standards and
the City’s Circulation Element. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 4.) Appellants are wrong for many reasons. First, this
is irrelevant for whether the Project qualifies for AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Second, Mr.
Sheppel prepared a traffic study for the Project (Attachment 6). Based on these analyses, Staff
concluded that the Project would have no impact on traffic and circulation because the Project is below
the City’s VMT thresholds. (Staff Report, p. 16.) Third, the Project’s further reduction of required
parking spaces to 31 total onsite covered parking spaces is permissible under DBL, and has no impact
on whether the Project qualifies for the AB 130 exemption. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(e) [“This section
does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or
concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to
Section 65915 of the Government Code.”].) Fourth, even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA under
AB 130, CEQA does not require an analysis of parking shortages, nor can a parking shortage alone
constitute an environmental impact. (See Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed
Conserv. Auth. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, 26 [rejecting that a reduction in parking spaces constituted an
environmental impact; Pub. Res. Code, § 21099(b)(3) [“[T]he adequate of parking for a project shall not
support a finding of significance [under CEQA].”].) Appellants arguments resoundingly fail.
The Project Receives Protections under State Law, Not Preferential Treatment. In closing, Appellants
make unsupported claims that the Project does not qualify for state housing laws and CEQA. (Appeal,
Ex. 1, Issue 5.) For the reasons explained herein, Appellants have failed to carry their burden of proof to
show that the Project—unanimously approved by the Planning commission—does not qualify for AB
130 or protections under State housing laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act and DBL.
VI. The State Housing Law and the City’s Housing Element Support Approval of the Project
The City’s Housing Element sets forth the goals and policies to achieve the City’s regional housing needs
allocation, including through the development of multifamily housing in the City’s OMU zone.5 (Housing
Element, Program A.10-2.) The City is tasked with building 692 housing units, including 277 housing
units for very low and low-income households, between 2020-2028. (Housing Element, Table 4-2.)
While the City has made progress in meeting its targets, it has failed to meet these goals. By providing
deed restricted affordable units, the Project helps the City make progress toward achieving its regional
housing needs allocation.
5 The City’s Housing Element is available at https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/475/Housing-Element-.
Page 284 of 406
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
Page 7
50903974.1
Recent Legislation further helps protects cities from meritless NIMBY litigation against housing projects.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a court “shall rarely, if ever” award attorney fees and costs to a
petitioner challenging a housing project when the project is approved in good faith by the local agency
and meets certain criteria. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(p)(1).) The Project at issue here is one such qualifying
Project for two reasons: it meets the AB 130 criteria and provides more than 15 units per acre. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5.1(a)(1), (3).) As a result, the City Council can rest assured that their good faith reliance
on the Staff Report, the unanimous approval through all City hearing bodies to date, and this letter,
should insulate the City from Appellants’ attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of any litigation.
For the last decade, the Legislature has consistently passed and amended State housing laws, including
the Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, and AB 130, to facilitate and streamline residential
development. The Planning Commission’s guidance by the City Attorney, understanding of State law,
and approval of this Project reflects proper implementation of State housing laws and AB 130
specifically designed to streamline approvals of housing projects to ensure that these projects are built
and help address the City’s and State’s housing needs.
* * * * *
In closing, we respectfully request that the Council reject this meritless appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s approval of the Project as required by applicable California Housing Law and AB 130.
Approving this Project will create critically needed new housing opportunities in a key area of the City
and generate new, deed restricted, low and/or very-low income housing units for the City’s most
economically vulnerable residents.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Guillen
With copy to:
Mack Carlson, mcarlson@bhfs.com; Russell Sheppel, ; Isaac Rosen,
isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com
32543661.1
Page 285 of 406
Page 286 of 406
Page 287 of 406
Page 288 of 406
Page 289 of 406
From: Edwin Rambuski <edwin@rambuskilaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:50 AM
To: City Council <citycouncil@arroyogrande.org>; Caren Ray Russom
<crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Jamie Maraviglia <jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>; Kate Secrest
<ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>; Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Guthrie
<jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: Jessica Matson <jmatson@arroyogrande.org>; Isaac Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>; James
Ferro <jferro@nanoknee.com>; Sean Varner, Esq. <sean.varner@varnerbrandt.com>; Scott Heil
<scott.heil@varnerbrandt.com>
Subject: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’
SECOND ADDITIONAL Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants
March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
aloe@arroyogrande.org
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
Page 290 of 406
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to edwin@rambuskilaw.com and destroy all
copies of this message and any attachments.
RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Appellants’ SECOND ADDITIONAL Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached hereto a letter dated March 23, 2026 from the Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
regarding the above-referenced Appeal. Mr. Rambuski’s letter shall constitute an item to be included in the
record for Appeal Case 26-002.
If you have any questions whatsoever regarding this submission, please telephone Mr. Rambuski at
(805) 215-4004.
Very truly yours,
Trina Baumsteiger
Assistant
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect,
absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or
acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
Page 291 of 406
LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET SAN
LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
edwin@rambuskilaw.com
www.rambuskilaw.com
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council 215
E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
EJ R
March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY: citycouncil@arroyogrande.org
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
aloe@arroyogrande.org
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 SECOND
ADDITIONAL Appellants’ Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants
Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants submitted a request to continue the hearing for Appeal Case 26-002 regarding the appeal of the
Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP 25-001 on March 23, 2026. Appellants further submitted additional
briefing to address issues raised in the City’s Staff Report. If reasonable continuance is not granted, Appellants
hereby submit this SECOND ADDITIONAL BRIEFING and object to have less than on business day to
address these important issues.
Even accepting arguendo the Staff Report’s newly advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)), the City Council retains full de novo review
authority under Arroyo Grande Municipal Code § 1.12.010. De novo review means the Council conducts
an independent, new determination on the merits and is not bound by the Planning Commission’s findings
or the Staff Report’s legal conclusions.
The HAA expressly preserves the Council’s independent obligation to make specific adverse impact
findings on public health and safety (HAA § 65589.5(j)(1)) and to ensure compliance with the City’s own
objective development standards. The “deemed complete” lock-in does not strip the Council of these
duties, nor does it eliminate basic due process or the requirement for substantial evidence. (See also, Gov.
Code § 65589.5(e) [HAA does not override CEQA or site-suitability analysis]; Coalition of Pacificans
for an Updated Plan v. City Council of Pacifica (2025) [HAA does not compel approval without
appropriate environmental review].)
Page 292 of 406
Critical new evidence confirms the project fails multiple objective standards and creates specific adverse
impacts the Council must address:
a. Parking & the 2000 Reciprocal Easement (see Section (a) of Additional Briefing):
The 2000 Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement (recorded June 9, 2000 as Doc. No. 2000-030755)
(See Appeal Exhibit A), as amended in 2008 (recorded as Doc. No. 2008-043791) (See highlighted
portions of Appeal Exhibit B attached here), grants and maintains reciprocal parking, access, and utility
easements across defined Areas A–D and E. As shown on the approved site plan for CUP 25-001 (Planning
Commission Packet, Exhibit B, sheets A2 and A3) Proposed Building B is located directly within the area
subject to these reciprocal easements. The 2008 Amendment did not eliminate or relocate those easements;
it merely authorized Applicant to restrict up to 22 spaces in Area A for its own medical tenants during
business hours and required replacement parking only if development in Area E separated spaces. No new
binding, recorded reciprocal easement has been provided that ensures adequate shared parking for the
residential project during overlapping peak periods. Further, the former Assessor Parcel Number ending
in -053 (the proposed site of Building A), was not included in the original 2000 Reciprocal Easement.
While it was referenced in the 2008 Amendment, that amendment did not modify the original reciprocal
easements nor grant any reciprocal easement rights in favor of that parcel. Therefore, Proposed Building
A cannot claim the benefits of the reciprocal easement for parking.
This physical placement of the new residential buildings on or over the historic shared easement areas,
when combined with the 2004 OEG monitoring reports (chronic overflow and conflicts), the limited Best
Western Casa Grande settlement agreement, and the priority parking rights already granted to commercial
tenants in the 2008 Amendment, renders the Applicant’s claimed shared-parking arrangement
unenforceable and physically inadequate. The project will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased
congestion and traffic hazards on James Way, routine towing of resident and visitor vehicles, and impaired
emergency access/evacuation for approximately 125–150 residents. These constitute specific adverse
impacts on public health and safety under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council must address in its de
novo review.
b. Density Bonus and Affordable Unit Dispersal
As addressed in Section b of our additional briefing, the project violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E)
(mandatory proportional dispersal). Staff’s Conditions of Approval are silent on this objective standard.
c. Incorrect Mixed-Use Application
Even if Section b of our additional briefing does not address appropriate analysis, it does highlight that
staff erroneously applied “mixed-use” density bonus rules. Using the square footages confirmed by First
American ClarityFirst and Applicant’s own information provided to the owners in seeking
reimbursements:
− Existing commercial: 39,551 sf
− New residential (Buildings A + B): 102,359 sf (100% of new construction)
Page 293 of 406
− Even if the City forces-inclusion of existing commercial buildings, the residential
component is 72.1% of total — exceeding the HAA’s two-thirds threshold (§ 65589.5(h)(2)). However,
the project is properly a 100% new residential project and cannot lawfully receive mixed-use waivers or
bonuses.
d. Traffic, CEQA, Waivers, and Public Safety
As addressed in Sections c–g of the prior supplemental submittal, the project fails AB 130 VMT
presumption, lacks required riparian/habitat analysis, and has no evidence supporting the requested
waivers. Approving only 31 spaces (or zero) for 92 units creates an undeniable public health and safety
hazard under Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17 § 7977.
We disagree with Staff’s deemed complete argument. Because the Council is exercising de novo review,
it is not only authorized, but required, to reverse the Planning Commission approval, deny CUP 25-001,
impose dispersal and parking conditions, or direct required CEQA review. The “deemed complete” theory
does not override the Council’s independent duty to protect public health, safety, and objective local
standards.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk (jmatson@arroyogrande.org)
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney (Isaac.Rosen@bbklaw.com)
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel (jferro@nanoknee.com)
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel (sean.varner@varnerbrandt.com)
Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel (scott.heil@varnerbrandt.com)
Page 294 of 406
Page 295 of 406
Page 296 of 406
Page 297 of 406
Page 298 of 406
Page 299 of 406
Page 300 of 406
Page 301 of 406
Page 302 of 406
Page 303 of 406
Page 304 of 406
Page 305 of 406
Page 306 of 406
Page 307 of 406
Page 308 of 406
Page 309 of 406
Page 310 of 406
Page 311 of 406
Page 312 of 406
Page 313 of 406
Page 314 of 406
Page 315 of 406
Page 316 of 406
Page 317 of 406
Page 318 of 406
Page 319 of 406
Page 320 of 406
Page 321 of 406
Page 322 of 406
Page 323 of 406
Page 324 of 406
Page 325 of 406
Page 326 of 406
Page 327 of 406
Page 328 of 406
Page 329 of 406
Page 330 of 406
Page 331 of 406
Page 332 of 406
Page 333 of 406
Page 334 of 406
Page 335 of 406
Page 336 of 406
Page 337 of 406
Page 338 of 406
Page 339 of 406
Page 340 of 406
Page 341 of 406
Page 342 of 406
Page 343 of 406
Page 344 of 406
Page 345 of 406
Page 346 of 406
Page 347 of 406
Page 348 of 406
Page 349 of 406
Page 350 of 406
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a -March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location -1271 & 1281 James
Way; Appellants -Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo
Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: March 24, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received for the above referenced item.
Cc: City Manager
Enc
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Planning Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Page 351 of 406
Page 352 of 406
2. It is highly presumptuous to push things out further. The project has already been
delayed 2 months for no good reason. To push this further imperils the project. I will show
the Council 5 different entitled projects I have had approved over the past 25 years. The
enemy of each was time and consequently, market conditions.
3. I do not ever make anything out of my physical disability. However, I have traveled
2,000 miles at noticeable personal difficulty. It is something that an able-bodied person
cannot understand, but should weigh and consider; whether it is reasonable to require
repeatedly. In addition, just to appear this evening and defend a sizeable investment of both
a monetary amount as well as a year and a half of time for both myself and the City of
Arroyo Grande, I am here to speak.
The credibility of the City of Arroyo Grande is at stake. Giving the time opportunity for the
appellant to go out and find a hired gun/biologist to try and make a potentially invalidating
claim (such as a protected species) onsite, or whatever the case might be, would be unfair to
the City's interests of addressing the need for affordable housing and staff time processing this
potential asset to the City. The appeal was granted and scheduled in order to be heard. Let it
then be heard without further delay or complication.
Respectfully,
Russell M. Sheppel, DDS
Project Owner and submitter
Page 353 of 406
Page 354 of 406
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a - March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James
Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo
Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: March 24, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received prior to 2 p.m. for the above
referenced item.
Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Planning Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
Page 355 of 406
From:Linda Busek
To:City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject:Request to Revisit Proposed 92 unit RRM Development Plans (Oak Park & James Way)
Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:34:16 PM
Dear Arroyo Grande City Councilmembers,
I’m writing to urge you—and the Planning Commission—to revisit the approved plans for the
proposed 92-unit RRM development behind the medical buildings, Curl Fitness, and Best
Western near Oak Park and James Way.
This area is already experiencing significant parking strain. As a regular patron of both the
medical offices and fitness center, I can attest that parking is often insufficient today—
overflowing into informal areas due to earlier planning limitations. Adding a 92-unit
residential project without clearly adequate parking will only intensify this problem, creating
daily conflicts between residents and existing businesses.
I’m also concerned about the impact on the adjacent green open space. This area provides both
visual relief and practical breathing room for an already dense cluster of uses. The current
plans appear to push development up against the hillside in a way that risks diminishing this
valuable space.
Traffic is another serious concern. Access to James Way is already constrained, and increased
density at this location could lead to congestion and safety issues given the limited ingress and
egress.
I want to be clear: I support the need for additional housing in Arroyo Grande. However, this
particular site—at the proposed scale—does not appear to be a good fit.
I encourage the City to consider alternative infill opportunities along Grande Avenue and on
Halcyon Avenue (such as the area behind the Fair Oaks Theatre), where underutilized parcels,
better proximity to services, and stronger transit access could support housing more
successfully and with fewer unintended consequences.
At a minimum, I respectfully ask that you pause further action until the project is substantially
revised—specifically to reduce density and ensure adequate, realistic parking for both
residents and surrounding businesses.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Linda Busek
, AG
Page 356 of 406
From: "Carlson, Mack" <mcarlson@bhfs.com>
Date: March 24, 2026 at 12:25:05 PM PDT
To: Isaac Rosen <Isaac.Rosen@bbklaw.com>
Cc: "Guillen, Christopher R." <cguillen@bhfs.com>
Subject: FW: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a -
Appeal Case 26-002
Isaac,
As a follow up to this email and our prior conversations, we believe that a
continuance tonight will count toward one of the City’s five allowed hearings
on the project for the reason explained below. Since Chris’ email was sent,
we also note that legal counsel for two of the appellants have submitted
substantive comment letters and appear ready to present their appeal
tonight. We see do not believe that one appellant’s request for a
continuance is sufficient to push out the hearing after the Project applicant
and other appellants have expended substantial sums of money to present
their cases.
Government Code section 65905.5(a), in relevant part states: “after the
application is deemed complete, a city . . . shall not conduct more than
five hearings pursuant to Section 65905, or any other law, ordinance, or
regulation requiring a public hearing in connection with the approval of
that housing development project. If the city, county, or city and county
continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the
Page 357 of 406
continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under
this section. The city, county, or city and county shall consider and either
approve or disapprove the application at any of the five hearings allowed
under this section consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit
Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section
65920)).”(Emphasis added.) Under Government Code section 65905, a
public hearing shall be held on various types of applications, including a CUP
application at issue here, and any appeals of those applications. Section
65905.5(b)(2) defines “hearing” broadly to include “any public hearing,
workshop, or similar meeting, including any appeal, conducted by the city
or county with respect to the housing development project, including any
meeting relating to Section 65915, whether by the legislative body of the city
or county, the planning agency established pursuant to Section 65100, or
any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other designated
hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any committee or
subcommittee thereof.”
As noted in the staff report, the Project application is complete and
consistent with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards as
determined by the Planning Commission and staff consistent with state law.
(See Gov. Code, § 65905.5((c)(1)-(2).) By agendizing this appeal hearing, the
City Council must act on the item to continue it to “another date.” (See Gov.
Code, § 54955.1.) This Council action necessarily “shall count as one of the
five hearings” since otherwise local agencies would be able to endless
continue items without a public hearing in direct conflict with the purposes
of this section to limit a project to no more than five public hearings.
This interpretation aligns with various state laws designed to protect housing
development project applicants from delays. The Housing Accountability Act
clarifies that violations of Government Code section 65905.5 constitute a
disapproval of a housing development project (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(h)
(6)(F).) The Housing Accountability Act and SB 330, which enacted Section
65905.5, are to be construed liberally to expedite and promote the
development of housing. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(L); Chap 654, Stat.
2019 § 2 [SB 330’s legislative intent].) The Courts further interpret the effect
of the Permit Streamlining Act, and laws like Section 65905.5, in the context
of the Housing Accountability Act to reduce local governments capacity to
deny or render infeasible affordable housing development projects. (See
Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 842, 855.)
Page 358 of 406
In summary, the City must treat tonight’s hearing as one of the five allowable
hearings under Government Code section 65905.5. Based on the staff
materials, we understand that the City has already conducted at least three
qualifying hearings on this project, thus any tonight’s meet will constitute the
fourth hearing on this project regardless of whether the City continues it or
holds the appeal hearing as requested by three of the four interest parties
(i.e., two appellants and the Project applicant).
We appreciate you advising the Council of this interpretation at the meeting
tonight so they can understand the effect of a potential continuance on
processing this application.
Best,
Mack Carlson
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1485 tel
mcarlson@bhfs.com
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA
93101
From: Guillen, Christopher R. <cguillen@bhfs.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 6:19 PM
To: publiccomment@arroyogrande.org
Cc: Carlson, Mack <mcarlson@bhfs.com>; Russ Sheppel <rsheppel@gmail.com>; Isaac
Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>; Scott Martin <samartin@rrmdesign.com>; Linda
Blackbern <lblackbern@rrmdesign.com>; Malone, Caitlin K. <CMalone@BHFS.com>
Subject: RE: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-
002
Dear Mayor Russom and members of the City Council,
We understand the Appellants for this item on the City Council meeting
agenda tomorrow have requested a 30-day continuance of the hearing
because they allegedly only received the staff report for the hearing on Friday
afternoon “with only one business day of notice before the hearing.” In
addition to the fact that this statement is inaccurate—the agenda and staff
materials were publicly available on Thursday afternoon, a full five full days
Page 359 of 406
before the hearing consistent with AGMC 1.12.030 —we have reviewed the
letter requesting the continuance and see no legal basis to grant the
continuance.
The basis for the request amounts to a complaint about the normal land use
appeal process that affords the Appellants and Project applicant all the due
process required by law. As with any land use appeal, Appellants submitted
their written grounds for appeal after the Planning Commission’s approval of
the Project, City staff responded to the appeal in their staff report, which was
posted and made publicly available beyond the time required by the Brown
Act (i.e., 72 hours), and now Appellants and the Project applicant will be
allowed to present to this Council tomorrow evening. In fact, the Project
team has already provided their response to the Appellants as well, giving
Appellants ample notice of the issues. Appellants’ frustration about only
finding the staff report on Friday is not grounds for an appeal; rather, it is a
request to be treated differently than all other appellants that have come
before this Council. Indeed, it is telling that the law firm that submitted the
request on behalf of Appellants cites no law requiring such a continuance.
Granting a continuance on this matter would establish a dangerous
precedent by allowing any appellant to delay any project based on solely on
the Appellants’ inaction and inattention.
The request also claims that Appellants’ ignorance of the Housing
Accountability Act is justification for the continuance. That is an absurd
request and if granted would set additional dangerous precedent for the City.
This precedent is acutely problematic for housing development projects
where the Legislature has created various statutory deadlines and penalties
to agencies that delay action on housing projects. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§
65956 [a project is “deemed approved” without a hearing if an agency
misses a deadline]; 65589.5(h)(6)(B), (E), (K) [failing to meet certain
deadlines means the agency has “disapproved a housing development
project”].) For example, if granted, any time a project opponent appeals a
project in the future, the opponent can claim ignorance of the law as a
grounds for a continuance request to achieve the desired delay of the
project. That cannot be the policy the City intends to create.
Finally, Appellants ask for “immediate access to the basic administrative
record” for the Project. However, Appellants have not submitted a formal
Public Records Act request for such documents and there is no obligation for
Page 360 of 406
staff to produce that record absent such a request. Moreover, none of these
records are relevant for the appeal before the Council since—as noted by the
Appellants in their letter—the Planning Commission already heard
Appellants’ arguments at the January 20, 2026 meeting and rejected them by
unanimously approving the Project as consistent with the applicable City
standards. Staff providing additional legal bases to support the Planning
Commission’s determination and refute Appellants’ contentions is hardly
grounds to delay the hearing.
For each of these reasons, this Council should deny the continuance request
and hold the hearing on Appellants’ appeal tomorrow. In considering the
continuance request, we request the opportunity to provide public comment
on this matter as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
Chris
Christopher R. Guillen
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1452 tel
909.518.8435 cell
cguillen@bhfs.com
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA
93101
From: Malone, Caitlin K. <CMalone@BHFS.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:46 AM
To: publiccomment@arroyogrande.org
Cc: Guillen, Christopher R. <cguillen@bhfs.com>; Carlson, Mack
<mcarlson@bhfs.com>; Russ Sheppel <>; Isaac Rosen
<isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>
Subject: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002
Good morning,
Please see attached letter from Chris Guillen’s office on behalf of Russell
Sheppel. This pertains to Item 10a on the agenda for tomorrow’s City Council
meeting, Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants
Page 361 of 406
– Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC and Ray B
Bunnell Revocable Trust.
Caitlin K. Malone
Legal Practice Assistant
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1462 tel
CMalone@BHFS.com
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA
93101
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information
contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-
1300 and delete the message. Thank you.
Page 362 of 406
Page 363 of 406
Page 364 of 406
Page 365 of 406
Page 366 of 406
Page 367 of 406
Page 368 of 406
Page 369 of 406
Page 370 of 406
Page 371 of 406
Page 372 of 406
Page 373 of 406
Page 374 of 406
professionals enter and leave the lot all day long, not to mention the frequent street
construction/maintenance crews making it more dangerous. There is no parking on the
street, nor should there be as it limits visibility. I do not care how many parking spaces
that huge development will allot, it will NEVER be enough since most families typically
have 2 to three cars. This is way too big a development for this cramped area!
The residents of our area will be shouldering the traffic and noise problems that
colossal, eye sore HASLO building at the 101 frwy. and Oak Park will bring, yet you ask
us to approve another one in the immediate area. This is ruining our city, not
enhancing it.
Nobody is disputing the need for housing. But with all the open acreage in Arroyo
Grande, find somewhere else more logical to put this and please everyone.
Michele Norwood
Arroyo Grande
Michele
From: MICHELE NORWOOD <
Date: March 26, 2026 at 2:01:01 PM PDT
To: Kate Secrest <ksecrest@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Ccreekside
Dear Council Members,
The newly proposed, massive Creekside Junction development proposed for James
Way and Oak Park Blvd. is poorly thought out. I hope that you will all consider this
when it comes time to vote.
As you know, the parking situation on that corridor is already at capacity with days of
obvious overflow. I can’t ever get a space for my doctor appointments though they
have specifically designated spaces for their office. Getting around the daily congestion
at that intersection is always an accident waiting to happen as gym members and
ATTACHMENT 9
Page 375 of 406
Page 376 of 406
Page 377 of 406
A Collaborative Path Forward: I support responsible housing growth. My request is simply that
the project be reduced in size or redesigned to ensure: adequate on‑site parking for new
residents; preservation of existing parking for medical and fitness facilities; safe, unobstructed
emergency‑vehicle access; and protection of the red‑legged frog habitat and creek ecosystem.
These adjustments would allow the project to move forward in a way that supports housing
needs while maintaining safety, accessibility, and environmental stewardship.
Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns ahead of Tuesday’s vote. I would
welcome the opportunity to discuss this further or participate in any community meetings
related to the project.
Warm regards,
Catherine Farley
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Sent from my Subject Subject
Page 378 of 406
Page 379 of 406
Page 380 of 406
Page 381 of 406
Page 382 of 406
Page 383 of 406
From:Edwin Rambuski
To:Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie
Cc:Jessica Matson
Subject:Appeal Case 26-002-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001
Date:Thursday, April 9, 2026 1:22:35 PM
Attachments:Bunnell 04-01-26 Sheppel.pdf
April 9, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY:
crayrussom@arroyogrande.org
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org
Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
ksecrest@arroyogrande.org
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
aloe@arroyogrande.org
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
RE: APPEAL CASE 26-002-APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
OF CUP 25-001
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached, for inclusion in the record for this matter, an email dated April 1, 2026,
from the Applicant, Russ Sheppel, to Ray Bunnell, owner of Casa Grande Inn. I respectfully
request that this correspondence be included as part of the official record.
I also trust that Mr. Sheppel will address, at the April 14 hearing, his plans regarding the
“potential modifications and reduction in the building overall volume,” as referenced in his
email.
Thank you for your continued professional courtesy and cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
EJR:knb
Attachment
cc: Client via email
Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services / City Clerk
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 384 of 406
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not
intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law
Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to edwin@rambuskilaw.com and destroy all copies of this
message and any attachments.
Page 385 of 406
From: Russ Sheppel <
Date: Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 3:42 PM
Subject: 2 Parking studies
To: ray bunnell
Ray,
It was indeed a pleasure speaking with you last week. I appreciate you picking up the phone and giving
me a call. I really enjoyed hearing all about the amazing rodeo program at Cal Poly. I truly had no idea!
As promised, I am sending you a copy of two parking studies performed within the past month. I hope you
find them revealing as I did, of the main issue being onsite management of the parking. We need help
there. The site actually appears to have sufficient parking inventory even at peak demands.
Also, I appreciated understanding that it is your preference to have a rolling gate actually function at our
mutual property line. I agree. I didn’t realize that your existing gate is manual, and once I understood that,
it is easy to see why it is always open. What would you think if we used the existing rolling gate, installed
a motor and dual keypads, running the electrical off the corner of Casa Grande? I think it could also be
solar if we wanted. We could place the motor on a small pad in the dogleg on my side if you want. I have
a separate agreement with you regarding all this that is tied to my existing Grading Permit GRA 20-0003
which is current and active, so we wouldn’t have to incur any excessive costs.
As I mentioned, I am reviewing potential modifications and reduction in the building overall volume but
cannot go into much detail until we get past April 14th hearing.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss and communicate as needed more freely in the future. You
certainly are a local SLO developer/expert without question.
Give a shout out to Edwin Rambuski, you probably will float some of these ideas by him and get back to
me with your thoughts. I have nothing against attorneys, but to the extent we can deal directly, that would
be my preference.
Best,
Russ Sheppel
Page 386 of 406
From:Curl Fitness Arroyo Grande
To:City Council; Jessica Matson; Aileen Loe; Jamie Maraviglia; Jim Guthrie; Kate Secrest
Subject:Creekside Junction application
Date:Thursday, April 9, 2026 1:36:21 PM
Hello Council,
Please see the attached map.
This map and application was presented to the Planning Commission and was online (&
is logo'd RRM Design Group) with false information.
I was present in front of the Planning Commission when Russ Sheppel's application was
being presented in a Public Hearing and I informed The Commission that Russ does not
have a "Parking Agreement With Church", he knows that he doesnt and he also doesn't
have first parking rights to a number of areas he was presenting as the "98" parking spots
that the City deemed necessary for this project. The Planning Commission approved the
application anyways. I understand that they may not have had proof then that it was
misinformation & falsified data. However, the Church presented at the last Public
Hearing and stated for the record that Russ was aware that he has no parking agreement
with them, confirmed there is no parking being made available to him in their parking lot
for any reason: proposed tenants, lay down area, or construction for this project. IF the
City was to approve this further, wouldn't it open the City up to lengthy and costly
lawsuits and in-turn us citizens incurring some of the cost of those lawsuits? Based on
the fact that the Planning Commission & Council now know he falsified information and
it's been confirmed. We don't know what else there is that has been presented that is
inaccurate.
I am curious why this wouldn't be grounds for the Planning Commission and/or Council
to revoke the approval and require Russ Sheppel re-apply with accurate/honest
information and data?
Thank you for your time and any information you can share regarding this.
Catherine Judge
General Manager
Curl Fitness-Arroyo Grande
1299 James Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805)481-2888 ext.305
Page 387 of 406
Page 388 of 406