Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-04-14_10a_Supplemental 3_Redacted MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item 10.a – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants– Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust DATE: April 14, 2026 Attached is additional correspondence received for the above referenced Item. Cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Interim Community Development Director City Attorney City Clerk City Website and Public Review Binder Enc From:Malone, Caitlin K. To:public comment Cc:Russ Sheppel; Isaac Rosen; Carlson, Mack; Guillen, Christopher R. Subject:Agenda Item No. 10.a: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 10:13:05 AM Attachments:2026.04.14 Letter to City Council re Response to Appeal(51164390.2).pdf Good morning, Please see attached correspondence related to Agenda Item No. 10.a for tonight’s City Council Meeting. 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. 51164390.2 Christopher R. Guillen 805.882.1452 direct cguillen@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 805.963.7000 main 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 April 14, 2026 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL City Council City of Arroyo Grande 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 publiccomment@arroyogrande.org RE: Agenda Item No. 10.a: 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: This letter is submitted on behalf of our 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. Since the hearing on March 24, 2026, Appellants Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC (“Curl Fitness”) and Ray Bunnell (collectively, “Appellants”) have submitted further written opposition to the Project. The written opposition raises no legal flaws; the Project complies with all applicable law and the City Council should proceed to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval and deny the appeal. Rather, Appellants are attempting to use this City land use process to solve alleged parking problems of their own making. Customers to Pismo Medical Properties and Curl Fitness have been parking illegally on Mr. Sheppel’s property, and Appellants are attempting to use this entitlement to extract concessions from Mr. Sheppel to continue the practice. This is NIMBYism at its core—subverting the land use and planning process to develop affordable housing at taxpayers’ expense.1 The vast majority of public comments received are from Curl Fitness gym members, who have been incited to carry this NIMBYism torch elevating their claimed right to park over housing opportunities. This is precisely the reason the State is in a housing crisis—local agencies cannot make housing decisions based on the business interests of a few to the detriment of the City as a whole. The fact is that Mr. Sheppel is attempting to help the City alleviate housing burdens on its current and future residents. We urge the City to deny the appeal and permit Mr. Sheppel to continue with this worthwhile endeavor. 1 As noted in the Staff Report, Appellants paid a total of $1,858.30 for the two appeal hearings on this Project, which certainly does not cover the City’s legal and administrative costs to hear this Appeal. VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL April 14, 2026 Page 2 51164390.2 To address any concerns this Council may have, this letter responds to each of Appellants’ baseless objections and other stated opposition to the Project. 1. Mr. Bunnell argues that the Project would encroach on access easements to the Casa Grande Inn. That is not the case. The Project continues to provide access to the Casa Grande Inn as shown in Sheet A3 of the Site Plan and consistent with Exhibit C-1 of the 2021 Grant of Easement for Ingress and Egress (Doc. No. 2021071093) that creates the easement. 2. Mr. Bunnell also argues that the Project allows access to the Project through the Casa Grande Inn. That is not the case. Access to the Project will be off James Way. 3. Mr. Bunnell also submitted an email from Mr. Sheppel to Mr. Bunnell wherein Mr. Sheppel stated that he was “reviewing potential modifications and reduction in the building.” That comment was made in the spirit of compromise with Mr. Bunnell, an attempt to negotiate a resolution of Mr. Bunnell’s concerns. Mr. Sheppel has made similar outreach to Pismo Medical Properties and Curl Fitness. Mr. Sheppel’s good faith efforts to compromise have been rebuffed by each; Appellants prefer the public spectacle to actually solving their alleged concerns. 4. Public commenters have offered, without evidence, that the Project site sits on a creek bed, contains riparian habitat, and that it is home to red-legged frog. None of that is true. The Project site does not include any portion of the creek or its banks and contains no riparian habitat. The Project’s expert biologist, David Wolff, has visited the site numerous times over the past decade, visited it again on April 6, 2026, and confirmed the prior reporting of the site that it is highly modified and lacks any habitat for special status species. Mr. Wolff’s technical report summarizing his April 6, 2026 site visit is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. Pismo Medical Properties and public commenters argue that the Project will cause “spillover onto James Way [] and Oak Park Boulevard.” Appellants have no evidence to support this statement. First, Associated Transportation Engineers (“ATE”) prepared a study for the Project to analyze whether the Project would cause spillover into James Way, and concluded that would not be the case; the Project would operate within acceptable standards. Second, ATE also prepared a study in March 2026 to analyze the current parking demands on the properties neighboring the Project site. (See Exhibit B.) The study shows that the existing parking provided on site meets the City’s parking ratios, minus one space. The study then analyzes peak parking demands for each of the businesses in the Oak Park Professional Plaza and concludes that at peak demand only 151 spaces is required, while the Project site presently contains 157 spaces. The study then concludes that, given the adequacy of the site’s existing parking, a parking management plan amongst the various Oak Park Professional Plaza owners VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL April 14, 2026 Page 3 51164390.2 would solve the alleged parking issues on site as they are seemingly caused by mismanagement of the parking supply, which include, but are not limited to, Appellants’ unauthorized parking on Mr. Sheppel’s property. Parking and operational mismanagement by neighboring businesses does not constitute an impact from the Project. Third, ATE prepared an April 2026 study to analyze whether the Project’s added parking demand would be met with onsite parking. (See Exhibit C.) The study calculated peak demand for all existing uses plus peak demand for the Project and concluded that the parking provided would be sufficient to meet demand—172 spaces at peak demand in Oak Park Professional Plaza with the Project, with 192 parking spaces provided throughout the Plaza and Project site. Fourth, Mr. Sheppel has owned the site for nearly forty years and is not aware of any traffic incidents on James Way, Oak Park Boulevard, or in the parking lot caused by the Oak Park Professional Plaza’s customers. Indeed, there have been safety improvements made to the entrance of James Way since 2004 (relocation of a fire hydrant closer to Oak Park Boulevard, modification of the change of the radius turn into the Oak Park Plaza, and improvement of two driveways off of James Way, etc.). Appellants unsubstantiated claims of traffic hazards are not evidence. Fifth, the Legislature has declared that conditions that would create “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety” arise infrequently. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(3).) A “specific, adverse impact” is defined 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 complete.” (Id. at (d)(2) [emphasis added].) An “objective” standard means one “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Id. at (o)(9).) Notably, inconsistency with a zoning ordinance is expressly not a specific, adverse impact. (Id. at (d)(2)(A).) Appellants also must show the “specific, adverse impact upon public safety” based on a preponderance of the evidence; a standard that favors finding no impact. (Id. at (d), (j)(1); id. at § 65589.6.) Any speculation about parking shortages falls far short of meeting this threshold. The California Environmental Quality Act (“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].”]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a) [speculation is not evidence].) The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) further sent the City an email concurring with staff and our legal analysis on these issues. VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL April 14, 2026 Page 4 51164390.2 Appellants also do not identify an inconsistency with a single “objective” City standard that was in effect when the Project’s application was complete. Rather, Appellants cite to subjective General Plan standards that staff and the Planning Commission found the Project consistent with, or draft General Plan standards that have not yet been adopted and were not even published when the Project application was determined to be complete in July 29, 2025. For example, General Plan Policy S5-1, cited by Appellants, asks that the City “maintain a high level of emergency preparedness and information about radiation levels[,]” which is not an objective requirement on the Project, nor supported with any relevant evidence. Simply put, the Appellants and commenters unsubstantiated claims of traffic, parking, and fitness center operation hazards do not—and cannot—support a finding that the Project has a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety based on an objective standard as required by the Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law. 6. Pismo Medical Properties asserts that there is “no dedicated secure bicycle storage (residents must carry bikes up four stories — a hazard, especially for seniors/mobility impaired; impractical in a bike-friendly community).” This speculative assertion ignores (a) the City does not require dedicated secure bicycle storage; (b) the Project provides first floor storage that will be dedicated to bicycles; and, (c) the primary building contains an elevator that minimizes any speculative hazards associated with residents that choose to store their bicycles in their apartments. 7. Pismo Medical Properties also seemingly asserts that the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan because James Way and Oak Park Boulevard are identified as “high-stress corridors.” Nonsense. The Project promotes the General Plan’s policies, in particular Policy CT5- 1, which calls for “transit oriented developments” and multiple family residential projects near office, regional commercial, and business park. We also note that the City’s Supplemental Report for Reschedule Appeal Case 26-002 staff report further highlights that the Project qualifies for multiple CEQA exemptions designed to promote infill housing development. In addition to complying with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a), the staff report acknowledges that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline 15332. As explained in the staff report, the Project meets all the qualifying criteria for the infill exemption. (See also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1347–1350 [approving a Density Bonus Law project pursuant to the infill exemption]; Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 833, 851 [upholding staff’s determination that the infill exemption applied to a grocery store within a small city].) To supplement the staff report finding that the Project qualifies for the infill exemption because it will not have significant air quality impacts, the Project team evaluated the development based on the San 51164390.2 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL April 14, 2026 Page 5 Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook.2 Based on APCD’s spreadsheet tool, the 92 unit low rise residential project with an estimated completion date of 2029 falls below the operational threshold criteria for CO, Diesel, greenhouse gas, and ozone precursor emissions (ROG + NOx).3 The Project will only involve 2,600 cubic yards of cut, 3,200 cubic yards of fill, and 7,700 cubic yards of removal and re-compaction, which are not anticipated to trigger air quality impacts associated with the construction based on generally applicable APCD requirements and conditions. In closing, we ask that City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval and deny the appeal. Despite asking for three additional weeks to prepare, Appellants submitted less than five pages of substantive analysis to support their Appeals and instead dumped hundreds of pages of irrelevant documents in attempts to distract from the issue at hand—whether the Planning Commission and staff properly approved the Project in accordance with State law and applicable Arroyo Grande policies and standards. The Planning Commission did so unanimously and that decision should be upheld. 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; Russel Sheppel, Isaac Rosen, isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com 2 APCD, A GUIDE FOR ASSESSING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FOR PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CEQA REVIEW (2023) https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA%20Handbook%202023 Final.pdf (accessed on Apr. 13, 2026). 3 Id. at p.1-3, Tab. 1-1. 32543661.1 EXHIBIT A 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 April 13, 2026 Russ Sheppel Creekside Junction 1202 Shoreline Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93109 SUBJECT: CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS & SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ASSESSMENT, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA (APN: 007-711-080, -081) Dear Mr. Sheppel: David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is providing this Existing Conditions and Special-Status Species Assessment for the Creekside Junction Project in the 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 site surveys and evaluations, established current existing conditions of biological resources and no wetlands present verification by DWE in 2025 included in the staff report, a field survey conducted by DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff on April 6, 2026, and the search and review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). DWE established the proposed Creekside Junction project site as a highly modified site from construction of the adjacent development lacking native species habitat. It is composed of paved and dirt parking lots, a constructed basin and berm along Meadow Creek supporting upland non-native annual grassland and ruderal (disturbed) areas. The site is bordered by development on the south and west, James Way on the north, and Meadow Creek offsite 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. Based on observations of the project site during the survey on April 6, 2026, the property remains in similar condition to those established in the Morro Group, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment in 2001 (2001 BRA). No wetlands or other waters of the U.S./State are present within the project site. Agency verified upper limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S./State of Meadow Creek is offsite on City property at the 61.5-foot contour well below the constructed berm that follows along 69-foot contour of the project eastern property boundary. The search and review of the CNDDB for the Arroyo Grande region revealed 12special-status wildlife species and 20 special-status plant species with recorded occurrences in the region of Arroyo Grande. The species with recorded occurrence in the region of Arroyo Grande are listed in the attached Table 1 along with habitat requirements and potential to occur onsite. SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC EXISTING CONDITIONS SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ASSESSMENT |2 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST None of these occurrences are on the project site, none of these species have been observed on the project site, and the property does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status species listed in Table 1. In particular, there are no CNDDB recorded occurrences of the California red-legged frog within Meadow Creek. The nearest CNDDB California red-legged frog recorded occurrence is approximately 1.7 miles away across urban development to the southeast in Tally Ho Creek, a tributary to Arroyo Grande Creek. Further, no creek impacts would result from project development with implementation of the required SWPPP. The existing conditions observed during the DWE April 6, 2026 field survey confirm the lack of native species habitat with no observations of special-status plants or wildlife within the project area. The developed ruderal project site lacks habitat for any upland or aquatic special-status wildlife species. Overall status of the property based on multiple surveys conducted on the property since 2001, including the field survey conducted by DWE on April 6, 2026, indicate there have not been significant changes to the quality of the habitat on the project site since the 2001 BRA, and the findings in that study are still valid conclusions as to the likely presence of the referenced special status species. Therefore, there is no evidence that any special status plant or wildlife species occur on the project site or that the project site represents habitat for any such species. The attached Figure 1 Representative Photographs from the DWE April 6, 2026 survey of the site continue to establish the existing conditions in the record of the developed ruderal project site lacking native species habitat. Thank you very much for continuing with DWE for your environmental consulting services. Please contact me directly if there are any questions or need for additional information. Sincerely, David K. Wolff, Principal Ecologist ATTACHMENTS: TABLE 1: CNDDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES RECORDED OCCURRENCES FIGURE 1: APRIL 6, 2026 REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS David Wolff Environmental, LLC Professional Resume David K. Wolff Principal Ecologist, Owner DavidW.Enviro@gmail.com (805) 235-5223 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 2021 to Present; 2003 to 2007 Principal Ecologist/Owner David Wolff Environmental (DWE) 2008 to 2021 President, Principal Ecologist Sage Institute, Inc. 2007 to 2008 SoCal Director of Biology ESA 2000 to 2003 Manager, Biological Resources Group Rincon Consultants 1998 to 2000 Sr. Biologist, Central Coast Foothill Associates 1989 to 1998 Senior Biologist, Sacramento EIP Associates EDUCATION, PERMITS, Bachelor of Arts, Ecology and Systematic Biology, San Francisco State University USFWS/NMFS project approved California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, steelhead, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and San Joaquin kit fox for surveys and construction monitoring. Fairy Shrimp Survey Permit (Recovery Permit ES090849-4) FERC Environmental Review and Compliance Training Certification Association of Environmental Professionals Chapter President and Chapter Director CDFW Plant Collection permit Santa Barbara County & San Luis Obispo County approved biological consultant. Morro Shoulderband Snail Identification and Protocol Survey Training Expert Testimony David Wolff is an ecologist, wetland scientist, and regulatory compliance specialist with over 35 years of professional experience. Mr. Wolff has special expertise in both flora and fauna, including terrestrial, freshwater aquatic, estuarine, and marine environments. He is knowledgeable in many bioregions of California including Southern California coastal, inland, and desert regions, Central California coastal & inland areas, Great Valley, and Sierra Nevada foothills. Along with his regional and landscape-scale resources planning experience, he is also an accomplished wetland scientist, botanist, wildlife biologist, & restorationist, well versed in endangered species issues. David Wolff has conducted and managed studies, prepared reports, obtained regulatory compliance permits, monitored project implementation, and managed projects for a diverse group of energy, utility, general aviation airports, public, and private sector projects. David Wolff has conducted and managed endangered plant and wildlife species surveys, holds vernal pool fairy shrimp survey Recovery Permit ES090849-4, and is a USFWS/NMFS approved California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, steelhead, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and San Joaquin kit fox construction monitor. He has facilitated ESA Section 7 Formal Consultations and has managed the preparation and implementation of project-specific and large-scale regional multi- species Habitat Conservation Plans that have involved city and county land use approval processes and agency/public consensus building programs. He is experienced in CEQA/NEPA and California Coastal Act compliance. David Wolff is a highly trained and experienced wetland scientist whose skills include the delineation of wetlands and jurisdictional determinations, Clean Water Act Section 404/401 permitting, CDFW 1600 Notifications, mitigation planning, and the creation, restoration, and monitoring of wetland, riparian, and upland habitats. He has assisted clients with obtaining Individual and Nationwide Permits, and Regional General Permits from the Corps, and Coastal Development Permits for utility, energy, public and private development, and infrastructure projects. David Wolff Environmental, LLC SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE • City of Arroyo Grande East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan. Prepared biological resources assessment, rare plant survey, and waters of the U.S./State jurisdictional determination for proposed 13-acre residential subdivision. • City of Arroyo Grande Branch Street Market (Hotel) Project. Prepared biological resources assessment and jurisdictional determination/permitting for proposed Village Walk/Market/Hotel project in the Village. • City of Arroyo Grande East Neighborhood Plan (Cherry Creek) Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Prepared biological resources assessment, Newsome Springs watershed analysis, and waters of the U.S./State jurisdictional determination in support of CEQA Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Santa Maria Public Airport District Runway Extension, Business Park Development, Specific Plan, Master Plan. CA tiger salamander, CA red-legged frog, and vernal pool fairy shrimp FESA Section 7 Consultation, rare plant surveys, protocol fairy shrimp surveys, and runway extension construction environmental monitoring & reporting. Prepared CA tiger salamander and vernal pool fairy shrimp pond creation feasibility study with interdisciplinary team of biologists, hydrologist, and engineers. USFWS approved CRLF & CTS monitor for runway extension project. Supported project team in FESA Section 7 Consultations for Business Park Biological Opinion & USFWS/CDFW settlement agreement for long term development FESA/CESA compliance. • Scannell Properties FedEx Ground Center Project, Santa Maria Airport. Coordinated environmental review, regulatory compliance, and construction monitoring and reporting between the Airport and project proponent. Approved California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog construction monitor under USFWS/FAA Biological Opinion 08EVEN-2016-F-0568. Captured and relocated 30 adult CA red-legged frogs and 10 egg masses. • San Luis Obispo County Airports – Runway extension, and hotel and rental car facility development projects fairy shrimp surveys, wetland delineation, USFWS consultation, pre-construction CA red-legged frog surveys, environmental construction monitoring and reporting. • Brown Field Municipal Airport, City of San Diego – Metropolitan Airpark Project. Airport development project San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp surveys (wet and dry season), rare plant surveys, burrowing owl surveys, jurisdictional determination and wetland delineation, managed Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys, Section 7 FESA Biological Assessment and agency consultation. • UC Santa Barbara North Campus Open Space Devereux Slough Restoration Project. Conducted studies to establish baseline biological/wetland existing conditions and jurisdictional determination for the ecosystem restoration of tidal and freshwater wetlands and upland habitats. The 136-acre project to remove historic golf course fill and restore tidal influence to Devereux Slough required collaboration and permitting with multiple local, state and federal agencies. Caltrans funding of pedestrian bridges required the preparation of a NES/BA for project approvals, along with Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW permitting. • Southern California Gas Company, Line 80/Goleta Storage Facility, Goleta. Coastal Development Permit compliance for hydrostatic testing, maintenance, construction monitoring, and habitat restoration planning. Belding’s savannah sparrow survey and monitoring. Three-year salt marsh restoration monitoring and reporting for Coastal Development Permit compliance. Prepared and monitored successful Habitat Restoration Plan. • Morro Bay National Estuary Program, San Luis Obispo County. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Morro Bay restoration feasibility study. Los Osos Creek bank restoration, steelhead and CA red-legged frog & construction monitoring; Walters Creek restoration biological assessment; Maino Ranch invasive weed species study; • City of Grover Beach. Grand Avenue bridge replacement and storm drain modification project regulatory compliance authorizations, mitigation planning, pre-construction CA red-legged frog and nesting bird surveys, and construction environmental monitoring. • City of San Luis Obispo. Damon-Garcia Sports Complex project Clean Water Act Individual Permit and riparian habitat restoration planning. • Caltrans District 5. Janet Creek Highway 101 culvert replacement project California red-legged frog USFWS approved construction monitor. Captured and relocated one juvenile during dewatering for culvert replacement. • Ch2MHill – Vandenberg Air Force Base Canyon Fire Natural Resources Support. Managed biological resources monitors for UXO surveys. • Unocal/Chevron Corporation, San Luis Obispo County. Rare, threatened, and endangered species surveys, fairy shrimp surveys, wetland regulatory compliance, & California Coastal Act compliance, for remediation & facility reuse projects at the SLO Tank Farm, Avila Terminal, & Guadalupe Dunes sites. David Wolff Environmental, LLC • City of Santa Maria Utilities Department. Drainage facilities maintenance program Corps Regional General Permit and approved CA red-legged frog and CA tiger salamander construction monitor under USFWS Section 7 Biological Opinion. • Plains All American Pipeline Line 901/903 Replacement Project. Managed and conducted biological, botanical, and special-status species baseline data field surveys over 123 miles of pipeline alignment from the Gaviota Coast, through northern Santa Barbara County, Los Padres National Forest, Cuyama Valley in San Luis Obispo County, to San Joaquin Valley in Kern County. Prepared CWA Section 404 permit application package for over 140 crossing of waters of the U.S./State, threatened and endangered species Biological Assessment for FESA Section 7 Consultation. • Solomon Hills Specific Plan, Solstra California, Santa Barbara County. Conducted rare plant surveys, wildlife surveys, habitat mapping, and preparation of a biological resources assessment for a 1,600 acre mixed use development Specific Plan project, and Conditional Use Permits around Solomon Mountain south of the community of Orcutt in northern Santa Barbara County. • Cat Canyon Resources, Foxen Petroleum Pipeline, Santa Barbara County. Prepared jurisdictional determination, obtained CWA 404/401 permits, FESA Section 7 Biological Opinion, CDFW CESA 2080 CA tiger salamander incidental take permit, CDFW 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Cat Canyon Oil Field, northern Santa Barbara County land use planning biological assessments, California tiger salamander analysis, California red-legged frog surveys, agency coordination, environmental awareness training. • Pacific Coast Energy Company, Orcutt Hill, Santa Barbara County. Northern Santa Barbara County land use planning biological assessments, rare plant surveys, habitat identification and GIS analysis/mapping, California tiger salamander analysis. • Southern California Gas Company, Line 36-1032 Relocation, San Julian Ranch, North Santa Barbara County: Regulatory compliance and permitting for multiple HDD crossings in highly sensitive habitat with difficult drilling conditions. USFWS protocol surveys for Least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Approved California red-legged frog, steelhead, least Bell’s vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher monitor. Lead construction monitor. Macroinvertebrate analysis water quality assessment. • Southern California Gas Company, Line 1010 PIP Maintenance Digs. Prepared FESA Section 10 low-effect Habitat Conservation Plan for Incidental Take Permit issuance for potential effects on the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. Facilitated CDFW 2080.1 CESA Consistency Determination for CTS take authorization. • Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Student housing & education facilities Clean Water Act permitting, CA red-legged frog surveys, riparian habitat restoration & monitoring. Facilitated obtaining NMFS Biological Opinion for steelhead needed for bridge replacement and construction. • Morro Bay High School Master Plan Update. Conducted a biological resources analysis including monarch butterfly and morro shoulderband snail surveys. Identification, delineation, and mapping update of Coastal Act Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). • Sempra Energy (Southern California Gas Company / San Diego Gas and Electric). Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, SWPPP, CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreements, local agency environmental compliance, and expert witness for operation, maintenance, repair and replacement projects thoughout southern California for pipeline Integrity/enhancement projects. o Programmatic Compliance Efforts: Programmatic permit compliance efforts in Southern California, San Joaquin Valley, and Coastal California. Performed as key team member for regional Biological Opinion implementation and HCP preparation for San Joaquin Valley Northern Service Territory. Botanical and wildlife technical assistance team member for Coastal HCP preparation. o Transmission and Distribution Services: Biological impact assessments, permit facilitation, agency negotiations, construction monitoring, site restoration, and compliance assistance for State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and CDFW Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreements. o Construction Monitoring: Lead construction monitor for various Capital Improvement and maintenance projects (Transmission, Distribution, Pipeline Integrity, PSEP). Duties include permit compliance oversight and construction monitor coordination and reporting. o Expert Testimony: Provided expert analyses on habitat recovery following the Witch Fire for legal mediation proceedings. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C 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 Engineering • Planning • Parking • Signal Systems • Impact Reports • Bikeways • Transit April 13, 2026 26013L01 Russ Sheppel 1202 Shoreline Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93109 PARKING STUDY FOR THE CREEKSIDE JUNCTION RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) has prepared the following parking study for the Creekside Junction residential development located in the City of Arroyo Grande. The following parking study determines the number of parking spaces and the parking demand estimates for the Creekside Junction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As shown on Figure 1 the Creekside Junction Project is located within the existing Oak Park Professional Plaza. The Project is proposing to develop 92 multifamily residential 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 James Way that serves the Oak Park Professional Plaza. As part of the Major Modification application, the City has requested a parking study to determine the adequacy of the existing on-site parking spaces. The parking study will identify the number of proposed parking spaces and the parking demand estimates for the Creekside Junction Residential Development. Russ Sheppel Page 2 April 13, 2026 PARKING ANALYSIS A total of 31 on-site garage parking spaces are provided as part of the Creekside Junction as shown in Table 1. Table 1 summarizes the number of units and unit types included as part of the Creekside Junction development and the number of parking spaces available for the Creekside Junction. Table 1 Creekside Junction - On-Site Parking Space Summary Unit Type Units Parking Spaces Provided Studio 20 Units 31 spaces 1-Bedroom 58 Units 2-Bedroom 14 Units Peak Parking Demand Analysis Peak parking demand estimates were calculated for Creekside Junction based on empirical parking demand rates for multifamily housing land uses published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition.1 Table 2 shows the peak parking demand forecasts based on the number of 1- and 2-bedroom units in the proposed Creekside Junction development. Table 2 Creekside Junction Peak Parking Demand Land Use Units Rate Peak Demand Spaces Provided Multifamily Residential: Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 20 Units 58 Units 14 Units 0.68 0.68 1.23 14 spaces 39 spaces 17 spaces 31 spaces Total Parking Demand: 70 spaces The data presented in Table 2 shows that the estimated peak parking demand forecast for Creekside Junction is 70 spaces based on the number of residential units and bedrooms. The Project will maintain the existing number of parking spaces provided to Oak Park Professional Plaza and provide an additional 4 parking spaces. These 4 spaces are not accounted for in the 31 spaces identified in Table 2. In total, after construction of the Project, there will be 192 parking spaces at the Oak Park Professional Plaza. 1 Parking Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6th Edition, October 2023. Russ Sheppel Page 3 April 13, 2026 Shared Parking Demand Analysis It is noted that the ITE empirical parking demand rates don’t account for the “shared parking” due to the varying peak parking demands of the tenants and land uses within the Oak Park Professional Plaza. A shared weekday parking demand estimate was developed based on parking surveys conducted on Thursday March 5, 2026 and empirical parking demand data. The weekday shared parking summary is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Oak Park Professional Plaza Weekday Shared Parking Demand Time of Day Existing Parking Demand Creekside Parking Demand Parking Demand Parking Supply Vacant/Reserve 5:00 AM 36 67 103 192 89 6:00 AM 49 61 110 192 82 7:00 AM 45 54 99 192 95 8:00 AM 82 46 128 192 64 9:00 AM 123 42 165 192 31 10:00 AM 121 40 161 192 31 11:00 AM 134 38 172 192 20 12:00 PM 91 37 128 192 64 1:00 PM 94 36 130 192 62 2:00 PM 94 37 131 192 61 3:00 PM 91 36 127 192 65 4:00 PM 100 40 140 192 52 5:00 PM 70 44 114 192 78 6:00 PM 63 45 108 192 84 7:00 PM 49 48 97 192 95 8:00 PM 31 53 84 192 108 9:00 PM 21 57 78 192 114 10:00 PM 14 61 75 192 117 The data presented in Table 3 show that the existing peak weekday parking demand and parking turnover for the Oak Park Professional Plaza is 134 spaces. With the addition of the Creekside Junction development, the peak weekday demand is 172 spaces and occurs between the hours of 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The 192 parking spaces provided in the various on-site lots are adequate to meet the shared parking demands and provide a reserve of 20 vacant parking spaces. A shared weekend parking demand estimate was developed based on parking surveys conducted on Saturday March 7, 2026 and empirical parking demand data. The weekend shared parking summary is presented in Table 4. Russ Sheppel Page 4 April 13, 2026 Table 4 Oak Park Professional Plaza Weekend Shared Parking Demand Time of Day Existing Parking Demand Creekside Parking Demand Parking Demand Parking Supply Vacant/Reserve 7:00 AM 67 53 120 192 72 8:00 AM 75 45 120 192 72 9:00 AM 92 41 133 192 59 10:00 AM 90 39 129 192 63 11:00 AM 62 37 99 192 93 12:00 PM 62 36 98 192 94 1:00 PM 37 35 72 192 120 2:00 PM 38 36 74 192 118 3:00 PM 31 35 66 192 12 4:00 PM 23 39 62 192 130 5:00 PM 22 42 64 192 128 6:00 PM 26 44 70 192 122 7:00 PM 18 46 64 192 128 The data presented in Table 4 show that the existing peak weekend parking demand and parking turnover for the Oak Park Professional Plaza is 92 spaces. With the addition of the Creekside Junction development, the peak weekend demand is 133 spaces and occurs between the hours of 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM. The 196 parking spaces provided in the various on-site lots are adequate to meet the shared parking demands and provide a reserve of 59 vacant parking spaces RECOMMENDATIONS ATE recommends that the Oak Park Professional Plaza management routinely monitors the on- site parking supply and implements a TDM/Parking Management Plan. A TDM/Parking Management Plan would provide needed on-site support if performed as a shared site responsibility. Due to the number of unauthorized/illegally parked vehicles on the dirt/unmarked asphalt of the Sheppel property, a site monitoring strategy combined with towing of illegally parked vehicles in accordance with the California Vehicle Code. Associated Transportation Engineers By: Scott A. Schell Vice President SAS/DFN Attachments: Figure 1 – Project Site Plan Weekday Shared Parking Worksheet Weekend Shard Parking Worksheet From: Dana Allen < Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 9:52 PM To: Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org> Subject: Opposition to Adoption of Prepared Resolution Denying Appeal Case 26-001 and Approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001 (Creekside Junction – 92 Multifamily Units at 1271/1281 James Way) I respectfully submit this opposition to the staff-recommended Resolution denying Appeal Case 26-001 and approving CUP 25-001 for the proposed 92-unit Creekside Junction project. While I recognize California's housing needs and the project's 15% very low-income component, state law — including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA, Gov. Code §65589.5) and the AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption (PRC §21080.66) — still requires strict compliance with objective standards and prohibits approval when a project would cause specific, unmitigable adverse impacts on public health and safety. After reviewing the March 24, 2026 staff report, supplemental materials, the prepared Resolution, and the HCD letter, I urge the City Council to exercise its de novo review authority and select Alternative 3: tentatively uphold the appeal and direct staff to return with a resolution denying the CUP, supported by detailed written findings. 1. The Project Does Not Qualify for the AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption (PRC §21080.66) The Resolution relies on the one-quarter-mile radius test (~77% urban uses) to satisfy PRC §21080.66(a)(3). However, the exemption is intended for projects substantially surrounded by urban development. Meadow Creek forms the entire eastern boundary — a natural riparian corridor, not an "urban use" as defined in PRC §21072 (residential, commercial, institutional, retail, etc.). This major natural feature breaks urban continuity along a full side of the site perimeter. The biological studies claim "no impact" on riparian habitat by labeling features "upland," yet the buildings sit only 32–35 feet from the creek edge. Increased impervious surfaces will generate additional runoff, creating indirect risks of erosion, sedimentation, and water-quality degradation. The Resolution's mitigation conditions (e.g., stormwater filtration and vegetation management) acknowledge potential effects rather than eliminate them. Statutory exemptions must be strictly construed; the project does not meet the "substantially surrounded by urban uses" intent. At minimum, an Initial Study is required. The Class 32 categorical exemption fallback also fails due to unusual circumstances (creek adjacency and documented parking/traffic strain). 2. The 32–35 Foot Creek Setback Creates a Specific Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety (HAA §65589.5(j)(1)) AGMC §16.44.050 imposes a minimum 50-foot setback from the top of bank or edge of vegetation to protect against erosion, flooding, and riparian degradation. The project proposes only 32–35 feet, with taller building sections closest to the creek. As the HCD letter correctly reminds the City, HAA §65589.5(j)(1) allows denial or approval at lower density when the project would cause a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety — defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective written public health or safety standards existing when the application was deemed complete (objective = uniformly verifiable by external benchmark, per HAA §65589.5(h)(9)). Specific adverse impacts, while intended to arise infrequently (HAA §65589.5(a)(3)), are precisely what objective safety standards like the 50-foot creek setback are designed to prevent. The reduced buffer is quantifiable via site plans. It will measurably increase runoff velocity and bank instability in the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed, posing a direct risk to the creek, downstream properties, and public infrastructure. This is not subjective neighborhood character — it is a verifiable safety concern tied to an objective code standard. The "deemed complete" lock-in and prior 2015 variance history do not override the resulting unmitigable impact. Mitigation conditions do not fully cure the encroachment. Council therefore has authority — and the evidentiary basis — to deny or condition the project at lower density. 3. The Parking Concession (Reduction to 31 Garages) Creates Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Safety The Resolution now relies on the applicant's late March 18 revision to 31 private garages only. However, even this reduced supply is inadequate for 92 units (residents + visitors + service needs). Historical evidence — including the 2004 Orosz Engineering report (chronic 85–95%+ occupancy and management issues under lower-demand uses) and the 2015 staff memo acknowledging site constraints — demonstrates longstanding parking shortages at this shared location. Adding high-occupancy residential use will exacerbate spillover onto James Way and adjacent properties (Curl Fitness, medical offices, Best Western). This creates quantifiable safety impacts: blocked emergency vehicle access, congestion, and pedestrian hazards, particularly for older adults at nearby medical and fitness facilities. These tie directly to objective Fire Code and circulation standards. Recorded easements (2000/2008 reciprocal agreement benefiting Curl Fitness; 2015 Best Western settlement granting primary rights to ~18 spaces with towing/signage) burden the site. Confirmed lack of agreements with the hotel and church further undermines enforceability. Per HAA §65589.5(j)(1) and the HCD letter, when a concession causes a specific adverse impact based on objective standards that cannot be mitigated short of denial or conditions, the City may act. The record provides the required preponderance of evidence. 4. Density Bonus Concessions and Waivers Cannot Override Specific Adverse Impacts; Mixed-Use Classification Is Improper Concessions (height, parking reduction, landscaping) and waivers (building size, FAR, open space) are mandatory only if no specific adverse impact or other statutory exception applies (§65915(d)(4) & (e)). The creek setback and parking issues meet those exceptions. Additionally, treating the 100% residential project as "mixed-use" under AGMC §16.04.070 is incorrect. The definition requires an on-site combination of commercial and residential uses. Mere adjacency to existing commercial buildings plus shared access does not qualify — especially without enforceable parking agreements. This misclassification affects covered parking requirements (§16.56.060(e)) and the intent of the Office Mixed Use (OMU) zone. Recommendation I respectfully request that the City Council not adopt the prepared Resolution and instead: Tentatively uphold Appeal Case 26-001 (Alternative 3); and Direct staff to return with a denial resolution containing detailed written findings that (1) the project fails PRC §21080.66 eligibility due to the Meadow Creek boundary, and (2) it would cause specific adverse impacts on public safety (creek erosion/flood risk and parking/emergency access) that cannot be mitigated short of denial or redesign at lower density. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of these objective, evidence-based concerns. Sincerely, Dana Allen Mallett JD MLS On Apr 13, 2026, at 10:13 PM, Dana Allen > wrote: Just be clear you are not going to be winning any votes by supporting this project. Truthfully, you are mayor by default. You would not implement a discount on the water for residents that are low income but you support an illegal project that claims to benefit low income residents. I respectfully submit this opposition to the staff-recommended Resolution denying Appeal Case 26-001 and approving CUP 25-001 for the proposed 92-unit Creekside Junction project. While I recognize California's housing needs and the project's 15% very low-income component, state law — including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA, Gov. Code §65589.5) and the AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption (PRC §21080.66) — still requires strict compliance with objective standards and prohibits approval when a project would cause specific, unmitigable adverse impacts on public health and safety. After reviewing the March 24, 2026 staff report, supplemental materials, the prepared Resolution, and the HCD letter, I urge the City Council to exercise its de novo review authority and select Alternative 3: tentatively uphold the appeal and direct staff to return with a resolution denying the CUP, supported by detailed written findings. 1. The Project Does Not Qualify for the AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption (PRC §21080.66) The Resolution relies on the one-quarter-mile radius test (~77% urban uses) to satisfy PRC §21080.66(a)(3). However, the exemption is intended for projects substantially surrounded by urban development. Meadow Creek forms the entire eastern boundary — a natural riparian corridor, not an "urban use" as defined in PRC §21072 (residential, commercial, institutional, retail, etc.). This major natural feature breaks urban continuity along a full side of the site perimeter. The biological studies claim "no impact" on riparian habitat by labeling features "upland," yet the buildings sit only 32–35 feet from the creek edge. Increased impervious surfaces will generate additional runoff, creating indirect risks of erosion, sedimentation, and water-quality degradation. The Resolution's mitigation conditions (e.g., stormwater filtration and vegetation management) acknowledge potential effects rather than eliminate them. Statutory exemptions must be strictly construed; the project does not meet the "substantially surrounded by urban uses" intent. At minimum, an Initial Study is required. The Class 32 categorical exemption fallback also fails due to unusual circumstances (creek adjacency and documented parking/traffic strain). 2. The 32–35 Foot Creek Setback Creates a Specific Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety (HAA §65589.5(j)(1)) AGMC §16.44.050 imposes a minimum 50-foot setback from the top of bank or edge of vegetation to protect against erosion, flooding, and riparian degradation. The project proposes only 32–35 feet, with taller building sections closest to the creek. As the HCD letter correctly reminds the City, HAA §65589.5(j)(1) allows denial or approval at lower density when the project would cause a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety — defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective written public health or safety standards existing when the application was deemed complete (objective = uniformly verifiable by external benchmark, per HAA §65589.5(h)(9)). Specific adverse impacts, while intended to arise infrequently (HAA §65589.5(a)(3)), are precisely what objective safety standards like the 50-foot creek setback are designed to prevent. The reduced buffer is quantifiable via site plans. It will measurably increase runoff velocity and bank instability in the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed, posing a direct risk to the creek, downstream properties, and public infrastructure. This is not subjective neighborhood character — it is a verifiable safety concern tied to an objective code standard. The "deemed complete" lock-in and prior 2015 variance history do not override the resulting unmitigable impact. Mitigation conditions do not fully cure the encroachment. Council therefore has authority — and the evidentiary basis — to deny or condition the project at lower density. 3. The Parking Concession (Reduction to 31 Garages) Creates Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Safety The Resolution now relies on the applicant's late March 18 revision to 31 private garages only. However, even this reduced supply is inadequate for 92 units (residents + visitors + service needs). Historical evidence — including the 2004 Orosz Engineering report (chronic 85–95%+ occupancy and management issues under lower-demand uses) and the 2015 staff memo acknowledging site constraints — demonstrates longstanding parking shortages at this shared location. Adding high-occupancy residential use will exacerbate spillover onto James Way and adjacent properties (Curl Fitness, medical offices, Best Western). This creates quantifiable safety impacts: blocked emergency vehicle access, congestion, and pedestrian hazards, particularly for older adults at nearby medical and fitness facilities. These tie directly to objective Fire Code and circulation standards. Recorded easements (2000/2008 reciprocal agreement benefiting Curl Fitness; 2015 Best Western settlement granting primary rights to ~18 spaces with towing/signage) burden the site. Confirmed lack of agreements with the hotel and church further undermines enforceability. Per HAA §65589.5(j)(1) and the HCD letter, when a concession causes a specific adverse impact based on objective standards that cannot be mitigated short of denial or conditions, the City may act. The record provides the required preponderance of evidence. 4. Density Bonus Concessions and Waivers Cannot Override Specific Adverse Impacts; Mixed-Use Classification Is Improper Concessions (height, parking reduction, landscaping) and waivers (building size, FAR, open space) are mandatory only if no specific adverse impact or other statutory exception applies (§65915(d)(4) & (e)). The creek setback and parking issues meet those exceptions. Additionally, treating the 100% residential project as "mixed-use" under AGMC §16.04.070 is incorrect. The definition requires an on-site combination of commercial and residential uses. Mere adjacency to existing commercial buildings plus shared access does not qualify — especially without enforceable parking agreements. This misclassification affects covered parking requirements (§16.56.060(e)) and the intent of the Office Mixed Use (OMU) zone. Recommendation I respectfully request that the City Council not adopt the prepared Resolution and instead: Tentatively uphold Appeal Case 26-001 (Alternative 3); and Direct staff to return with a denial resolution containing detailed written findings that (1) the project fails PRC §21080.66 eligibility due to the Meadow Creek boundary, and (2) it would cause specific adverse impacts on public safety (creek erosion/flood risk and parking/emergency access) that cannot be mitigated short of denial or redesign at lower density. These are objective and evidence based concerns. Sincerely, Dana Allen Mallett JD MLS had to drive around the parking lot areas for 10 minutes. It wasn't until someone was leaving the parking lot that I was able to park! Not only was that frustrating to me. I also realized that getting in and out of the Parking lot is very challenging. We have a lot of Seniors who work out at at Curl Fitness and visit their Doctors & have Medical appointments in the Medical Buildings located in the adjacent areas. Many of them have physical conditions, yet they are working out at Curl Fitness to better their health. However, more frequently than we wish, an Ambulance must be called to help out someone at Curl Fitness. When an Ambulance is called, the Fire Department also arrives with it's Large Fire Engine Truck, Emergency vehicles & personnel. Unfortunately, Curl Fitness members have had Heart Attacks, Strokes, Fainting episodes, Falls with injuries to various areas of the body which require a Paramedic, EMT's & Firemen with a potential trip to the Emergency Room for further evaluation, treatment & Hospitalization. Unfortunately, sometimes (although rare) someone may even Die! I believe that the proposal of a 92 Housing Development would make our current parking lot even more crowded, difficult to find parking Safely and even harder for an Ambulance, Big Fire Truck & Paramedic Unit to help someone in need of Emergent Medical help! So, please listen to my plea and the alarm of others concerning the potential negative effects of the proposed 92 Housing Unit Development. Including major increased difficulty and safety when trying to park but also, the safety of all those extra families packed in an already very busy & full Parking lot! I understand that the Developer doesn't even live here! What is his motive? He doesn't appear to really care about the Safety and Life Style of living in Arroyo Grande but, he does seem interested in making money! Please vote No to this Huge 92 Housing Unite Development. Thank you for your Service and your time. Sincerely, Julia Korba - a concerned resident of Arroyo Grande and member at Curl Fitness.