Arroyo Grande City Council
April 8, 2025

ATTACHMENT 6
(2) The permit holder or applicant has failed to maintain the premises in a clean, sanitary condition and poses an unreasonable risk to the health, safety and welfare of the animals residing at the premises; or
(3) The permit holder or applicant has failed to provide appropriate care, housing, or confinement for the animals in his or her keeping; or
(4) The permit holder, applicant, or other resident of the property for which the permit is sought has been convicted of any offence involving a violation of Section 597 of the California State Penal Code or any other equivalent municipal, county, or state law or code.
(5) The permit holder or applicant is maintaining or breeding animals in violation of municipal, county, or state law or code.
(c) In the event a hobby breeder permit is suspended or revoked, the holder of the permit shall be given an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer from outside of the division, within forty eight business hours of the time of suspension.

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer may decide to:
(1) Dismiss the suspension or revocation and reinstate the permit with or without conditions; or
(2) Suspend or revoke the permit.

This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with procedures adopted by the division and the hearing officer's decision shall be final.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.05.005 - Hobby breeder permit—Term, fee, and delinquency. (a) Hobby breeder permits shall be issued for the calendar year, or any part thereof, during which the operation is maintained. Each permit shall expire on December 31 of the current year.
(b) The division may assess a fee for the issuance or the annual renewal of a hobby breeder permit. No proration of the fee shall be made for new permit or renewal applications submitted after January 1, provided that permits issued for new applications submitted after October 1 shall be valid until December 31 of the following year.
(c) A renewal application may be submitted at any time during the calendar year without penalty, provided that such application is made prior to the breeding of the animals to be covered by the permit. In the event that a renewal application is not submitted prior to the breeding, the division may assess a penalty fee.

ATTACHMENT 6
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.05.006 - Report of animal sales.

Any holder of a hobby breeder permit shall report in writing the sale of any dog or cat to the division within thirty days of the event. Such report shall include:
(a) Date of sale;
(b) Species, breed, age, sex, and color of the animal; and (c) Name and physical address of purchaser.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)
Chapter 9.06 - COMMERCIAL ANIMAL OPERATIONS

9.06.001 - Commercial animal operation—Permit required. (a) No person shall conduct any commercial breeding, kennel, stable, pet shop or other commercial animal operation as defined in this title without first obtaining the appropriate permit from the division.
(b) Issuance of a permit to operate under this section does not supersede, negate, or otherwise eliminate the requirement of an animal owner or keeper to comply with all other municipal and or county regulations and ordinances related to the sale or keeping of animals.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.06.002 - Commercial animal operation permit—Operational standards. (a) The division shall establish minimum standards of sanitation, animal care, and animal housing for the operation of a commercial animal facility. In the event that another law or regulation sets forth different standards regarding the sanitation, care and housing of animals at the facility, the more restrictive law or regulation shall control. (b) Failure of a permit holder to correct a deficiency in operational standards upon notification by the division constitutes an infraction. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.06.003 - Commercial animal operation permit—Inspection required.

ATTACHMENT 6
(a) The division shall conduct an inspection of the associated animal facility upon receipt of an application for a new commercial animal operation permit and from time to time as may be deemed necessary by the chief animal control officer to ensure appropriate animal care and management.
(b) Routine commercial animal operation permit inspections may be conducted without prior notification during the normal business hours of the permitted animal facility. (c) Inspections conducted in conjunction with an investigation of alleged or suspected animal welfare concerns or permit violations may be conducted as necessary for that purpose.
(d) Refusal of an applicant or permit holder to allow an inspection may be grounds for denial or revocation of the permit.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.06.004 - Business license required.
(a) Unless exempted by county or municipal code, no person, firm, corporation, or association may erect, establish, or maintain any commercial animal operation without first obtaining a business license from the jurisdiction wherein the operation is located. (b) Such business license shall be issued in a form and for a duration prescribed by the issuing authority.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.06.005 - Emergency notification.

The owner or operator of a commercial animal operation shall post in a conspicuous location, where it may be seen outside the locked premises, a notice listing the names and telephone numbers of persons who may be contacted in the case of any emergency.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.06.006 - Commercial animal operation permit—Issuance, suspension and revocation.
(a) An applicant shall be granted a commercial animal operation permit by the chief animal control officer upon submittal of a complete application, successful completion of an inspection of the associated animal facility and payment of any associated fees as may be established by resolution or ordinance by the board of supervisors.

ATTACHMENT 6
(b) Any permit issued under this title may be suspended or revoked by the chief animal control officer upon the determination that:
(1) The permitted operation creates, is likely to create, or promotes a public nuisance; or (2) The permittee, their agents or employees have failed to maintain the premises in a clean, sanitary condition; or
(3) The permittee, their agents or employees have failed to provide appropriate care or housing for the animals in their keeping; or
(4) The permittee, their agent, or employee has been convicted of any offense involving a violation of Section 597 of the California State Penal Code; or (5) The division determines that the application included any materially false information; or
(6) The permittee, their agents or employees have failed to meet the operational standards established by the division for a commercial animal operation or have otherwise violated any other rule or regulation related to the operation of a commercial animal operation.
(c) Prior to the suspension or revocation of any permit issued under this title, the division shall conduct a hearing into the basis for such suspension or revocation. (1) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the permittee or posted at the location of the permitted operation at least five days prior to the date of the hearing. (2) Written notice of the hearing findings shall be mailed to the permittee or posted at the location of the permitted operation.
(3) Any order to suspend or terminate a permitted operation shall become effective no sooner than seven, nor more than thirty, calendar days from the date of issuance. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.06.007 - Commercial animal operation permit—Appeal of denial, suspension, or revocation.
(a) The applicant or holder of a commercial animal operation permit which has been denied, suspended, or revoked may appeal the decision to the board of supervisors by submitting a written request to the clerk of the board within seven days of the issuance of such decision. The clerk shall set the matter for hearing at the earliest possible date and shall give reasonable notice of the time and place thereof to the applicant or permitee and to the division.

ATTACHMENT 6
(b) The board of supervisors, or their designee, shall hear the evidence offered by the division and by the applicant or permitee and shall forthwith decide the issue. (c) The decision of the board of supervisors, or their designee, shall be final. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.06.008 - Commercial animal operation permit—Term, fee, delinquency, fee exemption.
(a) Commercial animal operation permits shall be issued for the calendar year, or any part thereof during which the operation is maintained. Each permit shall expire on December 31 of the current year, provided that such permit may be renewed without penalty on or before January 1 of the next year.
(b) The division may assess a fee for the issuance or the annual renewal of a permit which shall be established by resolution or ordinance by the board of supervisors. No proration of the fee shall be made for new permit or renewal applications submitted after January 1, provided that permits issued for new applications submitted after October 1 shall be valid until December 31 of the following year. (c) A penalty fee may be assessed for permit renewal applications submitted after January 31. The penalty fee shall be established by resolution or ordinance by the board of supervisors.
(d) Non-profit humane organization conducting a commercial animal operation are exempt from the assessment of permit fees provided that they submit documentation of their Internal Revenue Service designation as a 501(c)3 organization at the time of application and that they submit their renewal application prior to January 31. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)
Chapter 9.07 - LICENSING

9.07.001 - Dog license—Required.
(a) All dogs, including dog hybrids, over the age of four months and being kept or maintained in the county of San Luis Obispo for more than thirty days in any one year period shall be licensed through the division.
(b) The owner, or the owner's agent, of any properties upon which a tenant keeps, harbors, or maintains a dog subject to the licensing requirements established by this section may, along with the animal owner, be jointly and severally liable for penalties related to violations of subsection (a).

ATTACHMENT 6
(c) It shall be the responsibility of the division to administer those processes related to the issuance of such license, including, but not limited to, the:
(1) Receipt and processing of applications for licensure; (2) Distribution of license tags; and
(3) Maintenance of all records related thereto.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.07.002 - Dog license—Exemptions.

The provisions of this title requiring the licensing of dogs shall not apply to:
(a) Dogs on sale in a duly licensed and permitted pet shop or commercial animal operation.
(b) Dogs owned by a duly licensed and permitted commercial animal operation, provided that the animal is housed or maintained at the permitted facility. (c) Every dog that is exempt from licensing requirements shall still be vaccinated against rabies infection with a vaccine approved by the California Department of Public Health for use in dogs, unless such animal would otherwise be exempt from the vaccination requirement as provided in Section 9.08.003. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.07.003 - Dog license—Vaccination required.

The division shall not license any dog which has not been vaccinated against rabies infection with a vaccine approved by the California Department of Public Health for use in dogs or which has not been issued an exemption to the requirement for rabies vaccination as provided for in Section 9.08.003.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.07.004 - Dog license term.

Each dog license shall be valid for a period of up to three years from the date of issuance, provided that the term of validity may not extend beyond the expiration date of the animal's rabies vaccination. In the event that a dog has been exempted from rabies vaccination as provided for in Section 9.08.003, the term of the license shall be for one year.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

ATTACHMENT 6

9.07.005 - Rabies deposit fee required.

Any person procuring a dog license without a valid rabies vaccination for reason of redeeming an impounded animal or clearing a citation will pay a rabies deposit fee which shall be established by resolution or ordinance by the board of supervisors. This deposit is refundable upon proof of current vaccination through normal county refund procedures. Proof of rabies vaccination shall be made to the division within thirty days or the license will be void and the deposit forfeit.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.07.006 - Dog license tags.

Upon exhibition of the proper evidence of vaccination and payment of the license fee, the division shall deliver to the person making such payment a metal tag with a unique identification number and the words "San Luis Obispo County, CA" stamped thereon.

This tag shall be worn at all times by the dog for which it was issued. If the dog is exempted from vaccination as established by Section 9.08.003, the dog tag shall have a distinguishing mark as evidence of such fact.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.07.007 - Assistance animal tags.

Any assistance animal identification tag issued by the division in compliance with California Food and Agriculture Code Section 30850 shall also serve as the license tag for the dog to which it was issued.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.07.008 - License fees.
(a) The division shall assess a fee for each license issued. Such fee shall be established by resolution or ordinance by the board of supervisors. (b) A late penalty may be assessed in addition to the standard licensing fee for any license renewal which is more than thirty days delinquent or for any new license application which is submitted more than thirty days after the requirements established in Section 9.07.001(a). Such fee shall be established by resolution or ordinance by the board of supervisors.
(c) A reduced fee shall be assessed to senior citizens providing proof of age, provided that the licensed animal has been altered. For the purposes of this section, "senior citizen" shall be interpreted to mean any person over the age of sixty-five. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

ATTACHMENT 6

9.07.009 - License fee—Waived.

The licensing fee shall be waived for:
(a) Dogs which have been issued an assistance animal identification tag as established by California Food and Agriculture Code Section 30850; and (b) Dogs owned, appropriately trained and utilized by a public agency for the purpose of assisting in law enforcement, search and rescue, or military activities; dogs being trained for such purpose; dogs kept as breeding stock for such purpose; or dogs previously utilized and retired from such purpose.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.07.010 - Counterfeiting prohibited.

It is a misdemeanor for any person to counterfeit a license tag, to remove a valid tag from a dog with the intent of affixing that tag to another dog or transferring that tag to another person, or to knowingly possess or place on a dog any such tag. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)
Chapter 9.08 - RABIES CONTROL

9.08.001 - Rabies vaccination required—Dogs.
(a) The owner or custodian of any dog or dog hybrid over the age of four months shall procure its vaccination against rabies virus infection. (b) Every dog so vaccinated shall be revaccinated at an interval consistent with the labeling directions for the specific vaccine and as approved by the California Department of Public Health.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.08.002 - Rabies vaccination required—Cats.
(a) The owner or custodian of any cat or cat hybrid over the age of four months which is allowed to roam at large shall procure its vaccination against rabies virus. (b) Every cat so vaccinated shall be revaccinated at an interval consistent with the labeling directions for the specific vaccine and as approved by the California Department of Public Health for so long as it is allowed to roam at large. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

ATTACHMENT 6

9.08.003 - Exemptions from rabies vaccination requirements. (a) The requirement for rabies vaccination for any dog or cat may, upon the approval of the chief animal control officer, be waived for a period of up to one year following the submission of a certification by a veterinarian listing a specific medical diagnosis or condition affecting the animal and stating that due to such condition the administration of a rabies vaccination poses a grave or life-threatening risk to the animal. The form of such certification is to be specified by the chief animal control officer. (b) Advanced age alone does not constitute a basis for the waiver of rabies vaccination requirements.
(c) Any animal so exempted from rabies vaccination shall be restricted to the enclosed yard or premises of the owner or keeper unless it is securely constrained by a leash no more than six feet in length.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.08.004 - Rabies vaccination—Administration, certificates, and reporting. (a) Vaccination against rabies infections shall be performed by a duly qualified and licensed veterinarian using a vaccine of a type approved for use in that species of animal by the California Department of Public Health.
(b) The veterinarian performing the vaccination shall issue to the owner or custodian of the animal a certificate of vaccination which shall include:
(1) The manufacturer and type of vaccine used;
(2) The date of the vaccination;
(3) The duration of vaccination;
(4) A true description of the animal to which the vaccination was administered, including species, age, breed, sex and color; and
(5) The name and address of the owner or custodian of the animal. (c) A copy of the vaccination certificate shall be sent by the veterinarian to the division within thirty days of said vaccination.
(Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.08.005 - Reporting of bites.

ATTACHMENT 6
Any person bitten by a dog, cat, raccoon, skunk, bat, fox, coyote, bobcat, or other animal of a species subject to rabies infection, any parent or guardian of a minor child so bitten, any physician or healthcare provider treating a person so bitten, and any other person having knowledge of a person so bitten shall, within twenty-four hours, notify the division and report, if known:
(a) The name, address, and phone number of the person bitten; (b) The type of animal inflicting the bite;
(c) The name, address, and phone number of the owner of the animal; and (d) The time, date, and circumstances under which the bite occurred. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.08.006 - Biting animals—Penalty.

It is a misdemeanor for any person to permit any animal owned, harbored or controlled by him or her, to inflict upon any human being a bite that penetrates the skin while the person bitten is on any public place, or lawfully upon any private property. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.08.007 - Isolation of biting and rabies exposed animals. (a) Any domestic animal of a species subject to infection by the rabies virus and which has bitten a person shall be quarantined for a period of time as established by Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations Section 2606. The location and manner of the quarantine shall be at the discretion of the chief animal control officer. In the event that no time period for the quarantine is established by the California Code of Regulations, the duration of quarantine shall be set by the chief animal control officer in his or her reasonable discretion.
(b) Any domestic animal of a species subject to infection by the rabies virus and which has been exposed to a known or suspected rabid animal shall be quarantined for a period of time as established by Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations Section 2606. The location and manner of quarantine shall be at the discretion of the chief animal control officer. In the event that no time period for the quarantine is established by the California Code of Regulations, the duration of quarantine shall be set by the chief animal control officer in his or her reasonable discretion. (c) Any hybrid animal which has been vaccinated against rabies infection shall, for the purposes of administration of this section, be considered unvaccinated unless such vaccine was specifically labeled and approved by the California Department of Public Health for administration to hybrid animals.

ATTACHMENT 6
(d) Upon the request and consent of the owner or custodian, an animal subject to quarantine under the provisions of this section may be euthanized prior to the conclusion of the quarantine period provided that the animal's remains are submitted for diagnostic testing in a manner consistent with established medical practice for the assessment of rabies infection.
(e) The chief animal control officer or his or her duly authorized agent is hereby empowered to enter upon any private property, including the home or residence where an animal is kept or has strayed, to inspect, and if necessary to seize and impound any animal for the purpose of enforcing this section.
(f) Any person who fails to produce and relinquish upon demand of the division any animal subject to isolation under the terms of this section, disobeys any isolation order issued by the division, or removes from its place of confinement any animal under quarantine without the consent of the division is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

9.08.008 - Suspicion of rabies.
(a) Any person having ownership or custody of an animal demonstrating symptoms indicative and suggestive of rabies infection, or any veterinarian treating such an animal, shall immediately notify the division.
(b) Upon certification by a veterinarian that an animal is demonstrating signs indicative and suggestive of rabies infection, the division may cause the animal to be humanely euthanized and the remains submitted for diagnostic testing in a manner consistent with established medical practice for the assessment of rabies infection. (Ord. No. 3498, 11-7-23)

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a – April 8, 2025 City Council Meeting
Amendments to Title 6 (Animals) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
DATE: April 8, 2025
Attached is public comment received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Chief of Police
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

As you may know, there is a countywide Central Coast Dog Park Alliance.

We are working with them to work with the other city councils. Our goal is to get all 7 cities onboard with adopting the above changes. Since Grover Beach and SLO already adopted the regulations, we will go to them and ask for an amendment. Once accomplished, this presents a united front to the Board of Supervisors to augment the language.

In soliciting support for these changes, we have received no negative feedback. In fact, some residents remember when the Holding Period was 2 weeks. Thus, we feel 7 days is a good compromise from 3 days.

Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
Morro Bay

From: betty winholtz
To: Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jamie Maraviglia; Jim Guthrie; Caren Ray Russom Cc: public comment
Subject: Re: city council agenda item 10a
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 7:40:26 AM
Dear City Council,
I have been asked the following questions. I thought you would be interested in my responses in red. AS is Animal Services.

Also, if Animal Services states they are already or close to no-kill, then they shouldn't mind the new language because they are already practicing it.

Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
Who would administer medical care? If AS, would they need to hire new staff or could existing staff handle this? Could qualified outside help be used and are such individuals available? AS has a budget; it also has a foundation that receives monetary gifts to pay for medical treatment of impounded animals. I have donated to this foundation. I do not know for certain, but I believe they have vets outside AS do the serious operations, and minor concerns taken care of in-house.
- Who would conduct behavioral training? If AS, would they need to hire new staff or need to pay for staff training classes? Are there outside groups willing to offer such training at no cost to the County? A long-time volunteer developed a routine for small animals to socialize them, thus making them more adoptable. I don't know, but maybe professional trainers already volunteer. Since volunteers do most of the work, if it is not part of volunteer training already, a non- or low cost training could be done. I'm not thinking elaborate training here.
- How long does such training take to be effective and how much time needs to be spent with each dog each day? Does AS have capacity to keep dogs this much longer, and would they then reach capacity that much quicker due to the longer stays? Overcrowding is the issue, but there is not overcrowding all year round. The new language doesn't dictate a certain amount of training or a certain level of success. It says "may" be employed.
- How many non-profit rescue groups are in county? Are they willing to foster and/or qualified to train Animal Service dogs? Do they have the ability to take on more dogs to foster/train? Are these rescue groups certified in some way so the dogs will be in conditions equal to or better than the AS facilities? From my experience, some of the rescue groups keep close tabs on the shelter's population and others do not. Without knowing the answer, perhaps this is something that can be reinforced or strengthened.

On Monday, April 7, 2025 at 12:13:37 PM PDT, betty winholtz

< wrote:

Dear City Council,
Like Arroyo Grande, the City of Morro Bay is holding a public hearing Tuesday evening on the County's Animal Regulations for adoption. It is a 25-page document. We, Morro Bay cat and dog owners, find the sections on Holding Periods and Euthanasia too narrow. Besides asking that the Holding Period for domestic animals be 7 days across the board rather than 3 days, Section 9.04.002 and Section 9.04.006, we are asking the Morro Bay city council to expand the Euthanasia section to read as follows (blue text added):

9.04.010 Euthanasia of animals.
(a) Before any impounded animal which, upon the conclusion of its holding period, has not been redeemed by its owner should be put up for adoption. To enhance adoptability, medical care and behavior training may be employed. If overcrowding occurs, fostering and utilizing nonprofit animal rescue organizations should be employed. Only as a last resort may the impounded animal be humanely euthanized in the manner recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association, specifically the use of veterinarianprescribed sedatives and FDA-approved euthanasia solutions. (b) Before any owner surrendered animal which has not been reclaimed by its owner within a period of time equivalent
to the holding period for impounded stray animals as set forth in Section

9.04.006 should be put up for adoption. To enhance adoptability, medical care and behavior training may be employed. If
overcrowding occurs, fostering and contacting nonprofit animal rescue organizations should be employed. Only as a last resort may the impounded animal be humanely euthanized in the manner recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association, specifically the use of veterinarian-prescribed sedatives and FDAapproved euthanasia solution.

While the current shelter administration may practice the above intent, if the language is not codified, a new administration is not directed to practice humane procedures. Please note the language says "may" and not "shall."
As you may know, there is a countywide Central Coast Dog Park Alliance.

We are working with them to work with the other city councils. Our goal is to get all 7 cities onboard with adopting the above changes. Since Grover Beach and SLO already adopted the regulations, we will go to them and ask for an amendment. Once accomplished, this presents a united front to the Board of Supervisors to augment the language.

In soliciting support for these changes, we have received no negative feedback. In fact, some residents remember when the Holding Period was 2 weeks. Thus, we feel 7 days is a good compromise from 3 days.

Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
Morro Bay

Item 11.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendments to Titles 2 and 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Bylaws for the City’s Advisory Bodies
DATE: April 8, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Introduce an Ordinance amending Titles 2 and 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to the bylaws for various City bodies, titled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLES 2 AND 3 OF THE

ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BYLAWS FOR VARIOUS CITY

BODIES AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; and
2) Find that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2); 15061(b)(3)).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

No financial impact is anticipated.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has established various advisory and decision-making bodies by resolution, including:
 The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is authorized by AGMC Chapter 2.19, and is responsible for reviewing and making architectural review recommendations on certain development projects.
 The Planning Commission (PC) is authorized by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Chapter 2.18, and is responsible for reviewing and approving various planning and development projects.
 The Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) is authorized by AGMC Chapter 3.46 and is responsible for providing revenue to defray the costs of services, activities and programs promoting lodging businesses in the district through the

Item 11.a.

City Council
Amendments to Titles 2 and 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Bylaws for the City’s Advisory Bodies
October 8, 2024

promotion of scenic, recreational, cultural and other attractions in the district as a tourist destination.
 The Downtown Parking Advisory Committee (DPAB) is authorized by AGMC Section 3.28.090 and is responsible for advising the City Council and making recommendations as to how the revenue derived from the additional levy of license taxes on parking shall be used and other parking-related issues.  The Community Services Grant Program Committee (CSGPC) is responsible for advising the City Council on the issuance of Community Service Grant Program funds.

All of the City’s bodies consist of five members appointed by each City Councilmember.

Currently, these bodies have inconsistencies in the development of their bylaws and contain differing amendment provisions. PC and ARC operate under their own bylaws without formal City Council approval while the TBID includes the requirement that all amendments must be approved by the City Council. The DPAB and CSGPC operate without adoption of by-laws.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

To ensure alignment with City policies and goals, the proposed Ordinance would establish a formal process whereby the bylaws of all bodies must be approved by the City Council.

This change would:

1. Enhance consistency between these bodies and overall City policies.

2. Provide greater transparency in the operation of these committees.

3. Allow for Council input on the governance of these important advisory and decision-making bodies.

ARC Bylaws. The ARC bylaws were adopted by the ARC in August of 2016, and have been historically amended by the ARC themselves. Approval by the City Council of the ARC bylaws will be a different process and represents the first time that the City Council has taken action on these. AGMC Section 2.19.060 currently states:
“The committee shall adopt bylaws, which shall establish rules, regulations, and procedures to conduct meetings. The bylaws shall include provisions for selection of a chairperson and vice-chairperson.”
The proposed change is provided below with changes indicated by strikethrough and underlined text:
“The committee city council shall adopt bylaws, which shall establish rules, regulations, and procedures to conduct meetings. The bylaws shall include provisions for selection of a chairperson and vice-chairperson.” PC Bylaws. The current PC bylaws were adopted in 2009. Approval by the City Council of the PC bylaws will also be different from this historical amendment process. AGMC

Item 11.a.

City Council
Amendments to Titles 2 and 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Bylaws for the City’s Advisory Bodies
October 8, 2024

Chapter 2.18 currently is silent on the authority for approval of bylaws. The proposed addition to this AGMC Chapter is to include a new Section 2.18.110 stating:
“The city council shall adopt bylaws governing the membership and operations of the advisory board.”
TBID Bylaws. The current TBID by-laws were adopted by the City Council in 2023. No action from the City Council is needed on the TBID bylaws.

DPAB Bylaws. Section 3.28.090 of the AGMC references the DPAB but is silent on the authority for bylaws. Further, the DPAB does not have adopted bylaws. The proposed change to this AGMC Chapter is to include a new Section 3.28.090.C stating:
“The city council shall adopt bylaws governing the membership and operations of the advisory board.”
The CSGPC was established by City Council policy in 2014, does not have adopted bylaws, and are not referenced in the AGMC. Any future creation of by-laws or amendments to existing by-laws of any advisory body would also require Council approval.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Introduce the Ordinance as recommended; or

2. Modify as necessary and introduce the Ordinance; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

A formal process whereby the bylaws of all City bodies are approved by the City Council enhances consistency and greater transparency in the governance of these bodies.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3) because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment; and the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The code amendments would only establish the approval process for the bylaws of the City’s bodies, which is not an authorization for any development or construction. Thus, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Item 11.a.

City Council
Amendments to Titles 2 and 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Bylaws for the City’s Advisory Bodies
October 8, 2024

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. A public hearing notice was published in the New Times on March 27, 2025.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLES 2 AND 3 OF THE

ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO

BYLAWS FOR VARIOUS CITY BODIES
WHEREAS, AGMC Section 2.19.060 establishes the rules of adoption of bylaws for the Architectural Review Committee; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance amends AGMC Section 2.19.060 so that the City Council shall adopt the bylaws of the Architectural Review Committee; and WHEREAS, AGMC Chapter 2.18 establishes the rules and procedures for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance adds AGMC Section 2.18.110 so that the City Council shall adopt the bylaws of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, AGMC Section 3.28.090 establishes the rules and procedures for the Downtown Parking Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance adds AGMC Section 3.28.090.C so that the City Council shall adopt the bylaws of the Downtown Parking Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on April 8, 2025 introduced this Ordinance to amend Section 2.19.060, add Section 2.18.110 and add Section 3.28.090.C; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing to consider the ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports prepared in connection with the ordinance; and (2) the policy considerations discussed therein; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Environmental. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3) because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment; and the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
a significant effect on the environment. The code amendments would only establish the approval process for the bylaws of the City’s advisory bodies, which is not an authorization for any development or construction. Thus, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 3. Code Amendment. Section 2.19.060 of Chapter 2.19 of Title 2 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“2.19.060 – Rules
The city council shall adopt bylaws, which shall establish rules, regulations, and procedures to conduct meetings. The bylaws shall include provisions for selection of a chairperson and vice-chairperson.”
SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 2.18.110 of Chapter 2.18 of Title 2 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby added to read in its entirety as follows:
“2.18.110 – Bylaws
The city council shall adopt bylaws, which shall establish rules, regulations, and procedures to conduct meetings.”
SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Section 3.28.090 of Chapter 3.28 of Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“3.28.090 – Downtown Parking Advisory Board
A. For the purpose of advising the council and making recommendations as to how the revenue derived from the additional levy of license taxes imposed by this chapter shall be used within the scope of the purposes set forth in Section 3.28.080, and to have and perform such other powers and duties as the council may determine, there shall be created a downtown parking advisory board consisting of five members to be appointed by the council and to serve at its pleasure and without compensation, such members to be persons who have businesses within the area and pay an additional levy of license taxes as provided for by this chapter. Appointments for the board and the filling of vacancies shall be made in the manner provided by resolution of the council. Vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms only.

The council may annually approve a budget to include an estimate of the expenditures to be made to carry out the purposes of the area.

B. The members of the downtown parking advisory board shall serve for a term as specified by resolution of the council.

C. The city council shall adopt bylaws governing the membership and operations of the advisory board.”

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3
SECTION 6. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within 15 days after adoption of the ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted ordinance.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after adoption.

SECTION 8. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this ordinance or the application of this ordinance to any other person or circumstance, and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted all the provisions of this ordinance that remain valid if any provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid.

SECTION 9. Records. The documents and materials associated with this ordinance that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council’s findings and determinations are based are located at 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

On motion by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this ____ day of _______, 2025

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4
___________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Item 11.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development BY: Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update DATE: April 8, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a preferred land use scenario for the General Plan Update, or a hybrid thereof; and
2) Find that the adoption of a land use scenario is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because adoption has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378.).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The financial and personnel impacts associated with the recommendation of a preferred land use scenario are included in the budget for the comprehensive General Plan Update.

BACKGROUND:

Adopting a preferred land use scenario for the General Plan Update represents the conclusion of the project’s fifth phase. The previous phase resulted in the selection of a vision statement1 and guiding principles for the project. The preferred land use scenario, along with community input and the City’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles (prepared during Phase 4), will then guide the rest of the General Plan Update, including policy and program development and environmental analysis.

At this critical phase of the project, there were extensive outreach efforts to obtain community input. An online mapping exercise was made available in October and November 2024. Respondents were asked to identify areas, or specific sites, within the City where land use changes are appropriate and areas where growth should, or should not, occur. Specifically, the mapping exercise asked the community to identify their

1 https://planarroyogrande.com/images/AGGPU_VGP_V1_ENGLISH%20AND%20SPANISH_2024%2008%2016%20MG.pdf

Item 11.b.

City Council
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update April 8, 2025

preferred land use for three focus areas that were identified through previous public outreach efforts. Those three focus areas are the E. Grand Avenue corridor, the North Fair Oaks agricultural parcels, and the Fredrick’s property. Changes could include increases in residential density, changes in land uses (residential, commercial, institutional, etc.), or development intensity.

Postcards were mailed to every postal customer in the city to publicize and encourage participation in the survey. Community members who signed up to receive notifications (approximately 320) about the project were also sent an email about the survey.

Additionally, staff was present at the Soto Sports Complex on Saturday, November 9, 2024, during the AYSO Tournament to educate residents about the survey and project in general. Finally, the City’s social media accounts also posted about the survey.

Feedback from these outreach efforts directly informed the development of four land use scenarios for consideration by the community, Planning Commission, and City Council:
 Scenario 1: Existing General Plan
 Scenario 2: Infill Focus
 Scenario 3: Residential and Complimentary Uses Focus; and  Scenario 4: Commercial Focused Approach.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The City Council is being asked to adopt a preferred land use scenario based on the scenarios described in this staff report and the Land Use Scenarios Memorandum2 (Attachment 1), public comment, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The preferred land use scenario may be one of the four scenarios presented or a hybrid scenario that pulls select features from the various land use scenarios. The preferred land use scenario can be thought of as the City’s preferred land use and growth strategy for the duration of the General Plan. It will be used to establish a new land use map and assign a land use designation for every parcel within city boundaries. This designation identifies the type, intensity, and general distribution of uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public facilities, and other categories of public and private uses. The map becomes the general framework and road map to allow the drafting of the various policy elements of the General Plan.

Land Use Scenarios
The primary distinctions between these scenarios, which can also be thought of as growth strategies, are the proposed densities across residential land use designations, the locations of future developments, and differences in mixed-use and commercial land use designations. The statistics included with each scenario indicate the growth potential if the City were developed to its maximum under those densities.

2 https://planarroyogrande.com/images/AGGPU_Scenarios%20Analysis%20Memo_Clean_2025%2002%2 004.pdf

Item 11.b.

City Council
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update April 8, 2025

Scenario 1 serves as the baseline scenario, maintaining the status quo with no changes to the existing General Plan land uses, city limits, or sphere of influence. No modifications to current land use designations would be updated except to comply with changes in State law, such as to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, remove housing constraints, or other updates consistent with the current Housing Element. It reflects how the city would evolve over the next 20-30 years without significant adjustments to accommodate growth or emerging trends.

Outcomes at Full Buildout:
 Population: 23,650 residents
 Jobs: 15,407
 Single-Family Units: 9,052
 Multi-Family Units: 3,103
Scenario 2 emphasizes densification within the existing city boundaries, focusing on infill development of vacant and underutilized land to increase housing and population capacity while preserving agricultural and open space lands with no changes to their current designations. No city expansion or annexation is proposed under this scenario.

To accommodate additional housing units, this scenario proposes to increase maximum densities for residential and mixed-use designations (e.g., from 25 du/ac to 30 du/ac for Mixed Use), and introduces a new Corridor Mixed Use designation that would allow even greater residential densities. This scenario offers the highest population and housing growth, with modest job creation, and avoids land consumption by focusing on infill development.

Outcomes at Full Buildout:
 Population: 34,325 residents (+10,675 from Scenario 1)  Jobs: 18,507 (+3,100 from Scenario 1)
 Single-Family Units: 11,167 (+2,114 from Scenario 1)
 Multi-Family Units: 6,787 (+3,684 from Scenario 1)
Scenario 3 would permit the conversion of existing agricultural land within city limits to residential uses and complementary amenities (e.g., parks, open space) to accommodate anticipated growth. rather than increasing densities allowed in most other land use designations. Development within the existing agriculturally zoned areas would require a specific plan to guide development within the North Fair Oaks and Frederick’s focus areas. This scenario also introduces a new Corridor Mixed Use designation (30 du/ac,

2.0 FAR) for higher-density infill throughout the E. Grand Avenue corridor.

Outcomes at Full Buildout:
 Population: 26,801 residents (+3,151 from Scenario 1)  Jobs: 15,780 (+373 from Scenario 1)
 Single-Family Units: 9,798 (+746 from Scenario 1)
 Multi-Family Units: 4,124 (+1,020 from Scenario 1)

Item 11.b.

City Council
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update April 8, 2025

Scenario 4 prioritizes economic growth by expanding commercial and employmentgenerating land uses within existing boundaries, primarily through the conversion of agricultural land via Specific Plans. Similar to Scenario 3, specific plans would be required to guide development of existing agricultural lands; however, in this scenario the land uses would emphasize commercial and mixed-use development. Increased density for commercial development and residential development in mixed-use zones would also be included in this scenario.

Outcomes at Full Buildout:
 Population: 31,607 residents (+7,957 from Scenario 1)  Jobs: 28,199 (+12,792 from Scenario 1)
 Single-Family Units: 10,770 (+1,718 from Scenario 1)
 Multi-Family Units: 5,562 (+2,458 from Scenario 1)
These scenarios provide a spectrum of options for the City to balance growth, accommodate housing and economic development needs, and land preservation. The focus areas and land use scenarios are described in greater detail in the Land Use Scenarios Memorandum.

Public Outreach and Preferences
After the four land use scenarios were developed, the project team sought public input on its preferences. The scenarios were introduced at the community workshop held on February 5, 2025. The objective of the workshop was to introduce various land use scenarios, along with their anticipated impacts on jobs, housing, and the built environment. At the workshop, attendees were asked to select their preferred land use scenario. Those who supported Scenarios 3 and 4 were asked to identify their preferred combination and location of land uses within the associated focus areas. After the workshop, an online survey was released to solicit feedback on each of the scenarios for community members who were unable to attend.

The community’s preferred scenario is essentially a hybrid of Scenarios 1, 2, and 3.

Intensification of the development along the East Grand Corridor was preferred by the largest proportion of respondents (39%) because this scenario would increase both housing and commercial development without creating sprawl or requiring development of existing agricultural areas. The other three scenarios received less support (between 18-23%), with similar amounts of support to each other from respondents.

Scenario 1 received a majority of the support from respondents (54%) with regards to the North Fair Oaks focus area. Supporters emphasized the importance of preserving prime farmland for future generations, food production, and environmental sustainability.

Commenters also highlight Arroyo Grande’s agricultural heritage and the value of maintaining its rural character, scenic beauty, and historical ties to farming. It should be noted that the property owner of the North Fair Oaks focus area has indicated that they are not looking to continue the history of farming on the property. Scenario 3, which

Item 11.b.

City Council
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update April 8, 2025

proposes residential development, received the second most support because of the opportunity to provide a range of housing options and connectivity to E. Grand Avenue to the north and the Village to the east.

A majority of respondents were supportive of Scenario 3 and the potential for residential development for the Frederick’s focus area, albeit with differing opinions on the residential density. Those in favor of this scenario were enthusiastic about the potential to expand the City’s parks and recreational facilities that could accompany the residential development. A summary of the feedback received at the community workshop and from the online surveys is described in the Land Use Scenarios Workshop and Survey Results memorandum (Attachment 2).

General Plan Citizens Advisory Group (CAG)
The CAG consists of five residents from a wide range of professional backgrounds, one Planning Commissioner, and one City Council Member. The CAG meets approximately one time per month to review administrative drafts of deliverables and be consulted during initial policy development. The CAG met on two occasions to discuss the proposed land use scenarios, on February 24, and March 10, 2025. The focus areas and the corresponding four land use scenarios were presented to the group during the February meeting. At the following meeting, CAG members identified their preferred land use scenario. There was a strong preference for a hybrid scenario consisting of Scenarios 2 and 3. The CAG identified the redevelopment potential for the E. Grand Avenue corridor as a whole, as modeled by Scenario 2. The group was also largely supportive of Scenario 3, although there were varying opinions about what future residential development should entail. Aspects of Scenario #4 were also favored, particularly the emphasis on the redevelopment of the E. Grand Avenue corridor and the potential of providing small commercial/industrial incubator spaces. The one area of consensus was support for the inclusion of recreational facilities to support future development, and the city at large.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The land use scenarios were presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 18, 20253. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is a hybrid of Scenarios 2 and 3, which reads:

The recommended scenario emphasizes densification within the existing city boundaries, focusing on infill development of vacant and underutilized land to increase housing and population capacity. This scenario introduces a new Corridor Mixed Use designation that allows higher residential densities. This scenario would also permit the conversion of existing agricultural land within city limits to residential uses and complementary amenities, such as parks and open space.

Development within the agriculturally zoned areas would require a specific plan to guide development within the North Fair Oaks and Frederick’s focus areas.

3 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=14125

Item 11.b.

City Council
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update April 8, 2025

The Planning Commission recommended scenario would increase densities across the spectrum of residential land use designations and more intense commercial development by increasing the allowable floor-area ratio and lot coverage standards.

Next Steps
Staff is requesting that the City Council identify their preferred scenario or hybrid thereof based on the various input provided through initial community surveys, workshops, online comments, pop-up events, Citizens Advisory Group, and Planning Commission. The preferred land use scenario will be the foundation of the new General Plan elements, while also being influenced by the vision statement and guiding principles. The next phase of the project consists of drafting the goals, policies, and implementation strategies that will serve as the City’s blueprint for growth for the duration of the General Plan. This phase will include community meetings to address specific topics such as safety, economic development, and environmental justice, and culminate with a community workshop to unveil the draft General Plan.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt a preferred land use scenario for the General Plan Update, or a hybrid thereof; or

2. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Selection of a preferred land use scenario will guide the development of General Plan’s goals, policies, and implementation strategies, which will ultimately dictate how many people could feasibly live in the city and guide the growth of the local economy.

DISADVANTAGES:

The preferred land use scenario may result in the development of undeveloped agricultural land to accommodate anticipated growth in the housing and economic sectors.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The adoption of a land use scenario is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because adoption has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378.)
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. An email has been sent to everyone who has signed up to receive project notifications through the project's website, www.planarroyogrande.com.

Item 11.b.

City Council
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update April 8, 2025

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Land Use Scenarios Memorandum

2. Land Use Scenarios Workshop and Survey Results Memorandum

1415 20TH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95811
(916) 446-0522
FAX (916) 446-7520
[email protected]
www.mintierharish.com
1 M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande Andrew Perez, Planning Manager, City of Arroyo Grande
FROM: Michael Gibbons, Project Manager | Mintier Harnish CC: Brent Gibbons, Nikki Zanchetta, Hannah Woolsey | Mintier Harnish DATE: February 5, 2025
RE: Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Introduction Phase 5 of the General Plan Update project focuses on analyzing land use and growth scenarios. This analysis aims to create an updated land use diagram for the General Plan, reflecting the community’s vision for the next 20 to 30 years.

The first step in this strategy involved early community engagement through an interactive mapping questionnaire and direct outreach at City events. Feedback from these efforts directly informed the development of four land use scenarios. These concepts will help guide the creation of land use diagram maps, providing City staff and the community with a clear understanding of the implications of different land use approaches.

How Should This Memo Be Used?
This memorandum presents a comparative analysis of the anticipated changes to jobs and housing capacity and the built environment under each scenario. This analysis evaluates land use scenarios using various indicators to help community members and decision-makers understand the implications of development under each scenario. Decisions about future land uses will influence how many people could feasibly live in the city and guide the location of jobs and businesses.

Decision-makers will weigh the costs and benefits of each scenario presented in this memorandum and select a “preferred land use scenario.” The preferred land use scenario may be one of the three scenarios or a combination of features from each. The preferred land use scenario, along with the citywide vision statement and guiding principles, will then guide the preparation of General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.

The remainder of this memorandum presents the preliminary analysis of the developed land use scenario concepts to prompt feedback from City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council.

ATTACHMENT 1

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
2 Community Feedback and Key Topics The Consultant Team gathered community feedback on key focus areas across the city to identify opportunities for land use redesignations and areas of future development. This feedback was collected using the Maptionnaire platform, which engages participants through interactive, map-based questions.

A total of 354 survey responses with meaningful data were gathered, including both submitted surveys and partially completed ones where respondents answered at least one question but did not submit the survey.

The demographic profile of respondents shows that over half were over the age of 55 and/or reported an annual income of $100,000 or more. Furthermore, nearly 75 percent of respondents identified as white/European American, while approximately five percent identified as Hispanic American/Latinx.

A thorough review of the survey feedback revealed several key topics and community priorities. Below are the most prominent themes identified from the responses.

Recreation, Open Space, and Agricultural Land Preservation • Open space and recreational opportunities for families and high school students • Preservation of productive agricultural land
• Preserve, enhance, and create new multi-use trail systems • Develop additional recreation-oriented land uses and community facilities Housing Needs
• Create more housing capacity for different housing types, including:
o Starter homes
o Townhomes
o Denser, mixed-use developments
o Multifamily
• Improve availability of affordable housing
• Create cohesive neighborhoods
• Reduce impacts to traffic
Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Developments
• Commercial infill developments in vacant/underutilized properties • Create welcoming, lively retail corridors
• Mixed-use developments, including retail, restaurants, entertainment venues, offices, and residential uses
• Bring some light industrial uses to city
Active Transportation
• Improve bicycle infrastructure
• Improve pedestrian infrastructure and safety, especially along major corridors and in the Village
• Expand public transportation options
• Lane reduction and roadway reconfiguration to reduce car speeds

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
3 City Expansion
• Approximately 40 percent of respondents were in favor of expanding the City limits or Sphere of Influence. Approximately 33 percent of respondents were not in favor of expansion and 27 percent were undecided.
• Encourage denser infill development to reduce need to expand City limits • If the City expands, ideal areas for expansion include:
o Agricultural areas south of the city, near the Arroyo Grande High School o Northeast of the city
o Southeast of the Frederick property
• Preference for expansion into non-prime or non-productive agricultural land • Utility service expansion through annexation
Focus Areas As outlined in the introduction of this memorandum, a key step in the General Plan Update process is to analyze various scenarios that will eventually lead to the selection of a “preferred land use scenario.” To help guide the creation of the various scenarios to be developed for this key step, a series of “focus areas” were developed. These focus areas help to identify sections of the community that are likely to change based on the needs and expectations of residents. Having focus areas is important because it narrows down where likely changes should be prioritized and provides the City with a starting point to develop policies to support these changes.

Focus Areas Overview
Three focus areas were identified for the Arroyo Grande scenarios process. These areas were selected based on their potential to accommodate growth and development over the planning period and were informed by initial feedback from earlier project engagement. Each focus area has unique characteristics, opportunities, and challenges in regards to future development potential. Analyzing each of the scenarios in these focus areas will identify the potential outcomes in the context of each focus area. These three focus areas apply across all four scenarios, as shown in Figure 1. Below, each focus area is described along with public feedback received regarding development preferences.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
4 Figure 1. City of Arroyo Grande Land Use Scenarios Focus Areas East Grand Corridor Focus Area
The East Grand Corridor focus area is located within city limits, in the central and western portions of the city. Currently, this area’s primary land uses include commercial, office, mixed-use, light industrial, some multi-family residential, and some single-family residential. This focus area primarily includes developed properties along Grand Avenue with some vacant and underutilized parcels, offering the potential for a variety of different development and redevelopment patterns.

Just under 90 percent of survey respondents were in favor of redevelopment in this focus area.

Preferred types of developments include:
• Improved pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure to see this area become more lively, vibrant/engaging, walkable, and safe
• Lower car speeds and lane reduction
• Mix of denser infill developments, including retail (small and big businesses), restaurants, live music venues, office, mixed use, and multi-family residential • Prioritize developments in vacant and underutilized properties • Affordable housing options, including single family homes, multi-family, and tiny homes

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
5 Some respondents noted various considerations for future developments in this area. Some expressed that this area needs to be "spruced up" and made to feel like a cohesive corridor/neighborhood. Others noted that densifying in this area of town could allow the population to grow without the need to expand the City limits.

Figure 2: East Grand Corridor Focus Area
North Fair Oaks Focus Area
The North Fair Oaks focus area is located in the southern portion of the city, across from Arroyo Grande High School and southwest of the Village. Currently, this area’s main land uses include agriculture and some single-family residential. The working agricultural land in this focus area could accommodate future development which could complement the existing residential and commercial developments in the surrounding area.

Just over half of survey respondents were in favor of redevelopment in this focus area. Preferred types of developments include:
• Open space and recreational uses for families and high schoolers • Developments should focus on youth and high schooler needs (due to proximity to schools) • Improve pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit options/infrastructure

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
6 • If housing is developed, respondents have a preference for starter single-family homes, dense mixed-use developments, multi-family residences, and co-housing However, some respondents noted potential issues and considerations for future developments in this area. Some expressed that existing, productive agricultural land should be preserved as much as possible to keep this aspect of the city's heritage. Others noted that increased traffic should be mitigated if developments occur in this area.

Figure 3: North Fair Oaks Focus Area
Frederick Focus Area
The Frederick focus area is located in the eastern portion of the city, southeast of residential neighborhoods and north of Highway 101. Currently, this area’s main land uses include agriculture, single-family residential, and some public facilities. The undeveloped land in this focus area could accommodate developments that complement the existing surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Several respondents of the mapping survey noted that the agricultural areas just north of the current Frederick Focus Area boundary could be incorporated into this focus area.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
7 Just under 75 percent of survey respondents were in favor of redevelopment in this focus area.

Preferred types of developments include:
• Mix of affordable and middle class housing (including small single family, townhome, and multifamily)
• Open space, park, recreation, and trails, including recreational uses for youth/high schoolers • Some interest in bringing light industrial uses to this area • Some interest in bringing retail to area, assuming that existing, vacant retail in this area is filled • If city needs to expand, some respondents believe that this is the best area for expansion (in non-prime ag. areas)
However, some respondents noted potential issues and considerations for future developments in this area. There was a significant concern over developing and losing open space, with some expressing a desire to restrict any new developments in this area. Additionally, some expressed concern that housing developed in this area would be costly due to costs incurred from expanding utilities and other City services.

Figure 4: Frederick Focus Area

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
8 Land Use Scenarios This memorandum highlights concepts for land use changes in three identified focus areas and overall preferences for citywide growth and development. Based on community feedback, four land use scenarios were developed: Scenario 1: Existing General Plan, Scenario 2: Infill Focus, Scenario 3: Residential and Complimentary Uses Focus, and Scenario 4: Commercial Focused Approach. This section provides a general concept of each proposed scenario, including a description of land use designations, development standards, and allowed land uses.

Table 1 offers a summary of the land use designations and their corresponding density/floor area ratio (FAR) for non-residential designations under each scenario scenario. Under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4, the Mobile Home Park (MHP) designation is proposed to be eliminated and collapsed into the Medium High Density Multi-Family Residential (MHD) designation. Additionally, under these same scenarios, the Very Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-VLD) designation is proposed to be eliminated and collapsed into the Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-LD) designation. A new Parks and Recreation (PR) General Plan land use designation is proposed to designate all current and future parks and recreational facilities within the city. A new, higher-intensity mixed use designation named “Corridor Mixed Use” is proposed under Scenarios 2 and 3.

The primary distinctions between these Scenarios are the proposed densities across all remaining residential land use designations, the proposed locations of future developments, and differences in mixed use and commercial land use designations. Scenario 2 proposes the highest increases in allowed densities for new developments, particularly for residential and mixed use land use designations. These increases in density would allow the city to accommodate infill developments and grow its population without the need to develop agricultural or open space lands within city limits. Scenario 3 proposes no changes to a majority of the existing General Plan land use designations and instead proposes to accommodate new residential units and complimentary uses through specific plans for various agricultural and open space parcels in the city. Scenario 4 proposes to increase the densities of certain designations, primarily commercial ones, to expand commercial and employment-generating land uses.

Similarly to Scenario 3, Scenario 4 proposes a specific plan process for various agricultural and open space parcels in the city.

Table 1: Scenarios Land Use Designations
Designation
Maximum Density
Allowed Land Uses in
Scenario Scenarios
Scenario 1:

Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2:

Infill Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused
Approach
Agriculture (Ag) 1 du/10 ac Agriculture, single-family
Conservation/Open
Space (C/OS)
1 du/20 ac
1 du/10 ac Open space, preserve
Parks and
Recreation (PR) N/A - Parks and recreation(New land use designation) Very Low Density
Single Family
Residential
(SFR-VLD)
1 du/2.5 ac Eliminated – collapsed into SFR-LD Estate-size lot, single-family Low Density Single
Family Residential
(SFR-LD)
1 du/1.5 ac
1 du/ac 1 du/ac Low density, large lot, singlefamily

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
9 Table 1: Scenarios Land Use Designations
Designation
Maximum Density
Allowed Land Uses in
Scenario Scenarios
Scenario 1:

Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2:

Infill Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused
Approach
Low Medium
Density Single
Family Residential
(SFR-LM)

2.5 du/ac 4 du/ac No change* 4 du/ac Moderate sized lot, singlefamily Medium Density
Single Family
Residential
(SFR-MD)

4.5 du/ac 8 du/ac No change* 6 du/ac Common sized lots, singlefamily Multi-Family
Residential (MFR) 9 du/ac Eliminated – collapsed into MHD No change* Multifamily, planned unit
developments,
condominiums, and senior
housing
Mobile home parks and
subdivisions
Medium High
Density MultiFamily Residential
(MHD)
9 du/ac 12 du/ac No change*
Townhouse/Condo 9 du/ac Eliminated – collapsed into MHD No change* Mobile Home Park
(MHP) 12 du/ac Eliminated – collapsed into MHD
High Density MultiFamily Residential
(HD)
14 du/ac 16 du/ac No change*
Single-family attached,
multifamily attached, and
senior housing
Very High Density
Multi-Family
Residential (VHD)
25 du/ac 28 du/ac No change* Very high density multifamily, senior housing
Mixed Use (MU) 25 du/ac
30 du/ac
FAR: 2.0
Lot Coverage:
80%
No change*
28 du/ac
FAR: 1.75
Lot Coverage:
80%
Mixed uses
Corridor Mixed Use
(CMU) N/A
36 du/ac
FAR: 2.5
Lot Coverage:
100%
30 du/ac
FAR: 2.0
Lot Coverage:
80%
N/A Mixed uses
(New land use designation)
Village Core (VC) 15 du/ac
26 du/ac
FAR: 2.0
Lot Coverage:
75%
No change* Mixed uses
Office (O) 0.5 FAR
FAR: 2.0
Lot Coverage:
100%
Mixed uses
Regional
Commercial (RC) -
FAR: 2.0
Lot Coverage:
100%
Regional commercial
* The corresponding scenario proposes no changes from the existing standard.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
10 Scenario 1: Existing General Plan
Scenario 1 serves as a baseline scenario, providing a benchmark for evaluating the impacts of other proposed scenarios. Under this scenario, no changes are made to the existing General Plan land uses, City limits, or Sphere of Influence. While any existing policies in the General Plan would be updated to reflect changes in State law, General Plan land use designations, development standards, and zoning would remain unchanged.

This Scenario is critical for analysis as it provides a snapshot of how the city would evolve if no major adjustments were made to accommodate growth or address emerging trends. It assumes the continuation of current development patterns, infrastructure, and service provisions, offering a clear understanding of the city's trajectory over the next 20 to 30 years. By comparing Scenario 1 to the other scenarios, stakeholders can assess the potential benefits and trade-offs of different strategies for managing growth, enhancing community character, and addressing infrastructure needs.

Figure 5. Scenario 1: Existing General Plan
RESIDENTS = 23,650 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS = 9,052
JOBS = 15,407 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS = 3,103

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
11 Scenario 2: Infill Focus
Scenario 2 is an infill-focused scenario that encourages densification of the existing built environment, development of existing vacant and underutilized land in the city, and the preservation of productive agricultural land and open space. Proposed development in Scenario 2 would rely on the city’s existing infrastructure and concentrate on increasing development intensities to increase capacity in existing developed areas. Scenario 2 encourages the development of a variety of higher density housing types, mixed-uses, commercial uses, and other infill development. This Scenario does not propose any city expansion or annexation of land and assumes there will be no development beyond the City’s existing Sphere of Influence within the upcoming planning period. Under this Scenario, the City would prioritize improvements to bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure that would improve the safety of these active transportation modes. As a part of this, the City would prioritize lane reduction and roadway reconfiguration projects to reduce car speeds and improve safety along major corridors. Key features of Scenario 2 include:
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards. Establish floor area ratio (FAR) standards for nonresidential, mixed-use development to increase intensity • Increase Density. Increase the maximum density/intensity for the following land use designations:
 Single Family Residential (Low Density)
 Single Family Residential (Low Medium Density)
 Single Family Residential (Medium Density)
 Medium High Density Multi-Family Residential (MHD)
 High Density Multi-Family Residential (HD)
 Very High Density Multi-Family Residential (VHD)
 Mixed Use (MU)
 Village Core (VC)
• New Mixed-Use Land Use Designation. Create a new Corridor Mixed Use designation with focus on higher-density, infill style development and corresponding development and design standards
• Preserve Agriculture. Preservation of existing agriculture land and open space • Keep Existing Agricultural Standards. No change to the Agriculture and Conservation or Open Space land use designations
• Land Use Flexibility. Incentivize and allow for a greater flexibility in allowed land uses so properties can accommodate a multitude of uses
• Complete Streets. Design roads to accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit.

Key Takeaways: At full buildout...

1. Highest population growth. Scenario 2 has the highest capacity to increase the city’s population.

2. Largest housing growth. Scenario 2 offers the highest capacity to increase the city's stock of both single- and multi-family housing units.

3. Modest job creation. Scenario 2 creates some jobs; however, Scenario 4 creates a much larger capacity for employment opportunities.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
12 Figure 6. Scenario 2: Infill Focus
RESIDENTS = 34,325
+ 10,675 from Existing General Plan
+ 7,524 from Scenario 3
+ 2,718 from Scenario 4
SINGLE FAMILY UNITS = 11,167
+2,114 from Existing General Plan
+ 1,369 from Scenario 3
+ 397 from Scenario 4
JOBS = 18,507
+ 3,100 from Existing General Plan
+ 2,727 from Scenario 3
- 9,692 from Scenario 4
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS = 6,787
+ 3,684 from Existing General Plan
+ 2,663 from Scenario 3
+ 1,225 from Scenario 4

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
13 Scenario 3: Residential and Complimentary Uses Focus Scenario 3 focuses on the conversion of existing agricultural land within the City limits to accommodate new residential development and growth. Under Scenario 3, agricultural and open space land conversion will require the expansion of utilities, services, and infrastructure to accommodate any future development. Scenario 3 does not propose any city expansion or annexation of land and assumes there will be no development beyond the City’s existing Sphere of Influence within the upcoming planning period. This Scenario does not propose increasing the density or intensity of most existing General Plan land use designations. Scenario 3 encourages development at existing intensities, developing additional housing, and increasing opportunities for retail, commercial, office, and other employment-based land uses. Key features of Scenario 3 include:
• Specific Plans. Require the development of a Specific Plan to guide development in the North Fair Oaks and Frederick focus areas
• Discourage Density Increases. Most existing General Plan land use designations’ densities and intensities do not change
• New Mixed-Use Land Use Designation. Potential to create a new Corridor Mixed Use designation with focus on higher-density, infill style development and corresponding development standards
• Convert Agricultural Land. Conversion of existing agriculture land to residential land uses with a mix of open space and parks.
• Complete Streets. Design roads to accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit.

Key Takeaways: At full buildout...

1. Moderate population growth. Scenario 3 offers some capacity to increase the city’s population.

2. Moderate housing growth. Scenario 3 increases the number of housing units from the existing General Plan, but offers far less housing than Scenarios 2 and 4.

3. Minor job creation. Scenario 3 maintains a similar capacity for job creation as the existing General Plan.

RESIDENTS = 26,801
+ 3,151 from Existing General Plan
- 7,524 from Scenario 2
- 4,806 from Scenario 4
SINGLE FAMILY UNITS = 9,798
+ 746 from Existing General Plan
- 1,369 from Scenario 2
- 972 from Scenario 4
JOBS = 15,780
+ 373 from Existing General Plan
- 2,727 from Scenario 2
- 12,419 from Scenario 4
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS = 4,124
+ 1,020 from Existing General Plan
- 2,663 from Scenario 2
- 1,438 from Scenario 4

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
14 Figure 7. Scenario 3: Residential and Complimentary Uses Focus Scenario 4: Commercial Focused Approach
Scenario 4 prioritizes expanding opportunities for commercial and employment-generating land uses.

This approach seeks to enhance economic growth, reduce reliance on neighboring employment centers, and diversify the City’s economic base. Growth is focused within the city’s existing boundaries and Sphere of Influence, with no annexation proposed during the upcoming planning period. New development and growth is supported through the conversion of existing agricultural land within the City limits under a specific plan. The strategy emphasizes targeted land use changes and density increases to attract businesses and create a vibrant local economy. Key features of Scenario 4 include:
• Specific Plans. Require the development of a Specific Plan to guide development in the North Fair Oaks and Frederick focus areas
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards. Establish a floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage standards for non-residential development
• Encourage Denser Commercial Development. Increase the allowed intensity of existing commercial land use designations
• Convert Agricultural Land. Conversion of existing agricultural and open space land to more developed, urban land uses

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
15 • Strategic Mixed-Use Nodes. Designate key areas within the city for mixed-use development, encouraging walkable centers with retail, office, and residential uses • Increase Regional Commercial. Increase the amount of land designated as Regional Commercial to allow for the development of larger commercial establishments Key Takeaways: At full buildout...

1. High population growth. Scenario 4 offers capacity to increase the city’s population.

2. High housing growth. Scenario 4 would increase the city's stock of both single- and multi-family housing units; however, Scenario 2 would create a higher capacity for new housing units in the city.

3. Highest job creation. Scenario 4 creates the highest capacity for new jobs in the city and emphasizes commercial expansion.

RESIDENTS = 31,607
+ 7,957 from Existing General Plan
- 2,718 from Scenario 2
+ 4,806 from Scenario 3
SINGLE FAMILY UNITS = 10,770
+ 1,718 from Existing General Plan
- 397 from Scenario 2
+ 972 from Scenario 3
JOBS = 28,199
+ 12,792 from Existing General Plan
+ 9,692 from Scenario 2
+ 12,419 from Scenario 3
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS = 5,562
+ 2,458 from Existing General Plan
- 1,225 from Scenario 2
+ 1,438 from Scenario 3

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
16 Figure 8. Scenario 4: Commercial Focused Approach
Summary Results
Methodology
The Project Team used Urban Footprint, a GIS-based application used to analyze the implications of changes to land uses, to model Arroyo Grande’s four land use Scenarios. Urban Footprint uses a curated, enriched dataset of existing land uses in the United States to calculate insights and implications of different theoretical models of planning areas. The program looks at several topics, including general city statistics, land consumption, energy use, water use, pedestrian accessibility, transit accessibility, transportation, emissions, and household costs. The following analysis uses the data provided by Urban Footprint to form an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario to give decisionmakers an understanding of the implications of selecting one scenario over another. Often, this process results in a City Council selecting a hybrid scenario, selecting the best features of each scenario.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
17 Summary of Metrics
Table 2 provides a summary of the overall comparative metrics between the four land use Scenarios.

Table 2: Summary of Metrics
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Range of Housing Types
45% Single
Family, detached
43% Single
Family, detached
39% Single
Family, detached
46% Single
Family, detached
30% Single
Family, attached
19% Single
Family, attached
32% Single
Family, attached
20% Single
Family, attached
26% Multifamily 38% Multifamily 30% Multifamily 34% Multifamily Single-family Housing Unit
Capacity 9,052 11,167 9,798 10,770
Multifamily Housing Unit
Capacity 3,103 6,787 4,124 5,562
Employment Capacity 15,407 18,507 15,780 28,199
Population Capacity 23,650 34,325 26,801 31,607
Total Consumed Open
Space and Agricultural
Land at Buildout (acres)
N/A N/A 138.7 143.3
Evaluation of Metrics
Range of Housing
In 2023, approximately 69 percent of the 8,086 housing units in Arroyo Grande were single-family, detached homes and approximately eight percent of units were single-family, attached homes. The remaining 23 percent of units consisted of multifamily housing. At full buildout, all Scenarios would create an increased capacity for all housing types in the city, with Scenarios 2 and 4 proposing the highest total capacity for both single-family and multifamily housing types. Scenarios 2 and 4 also propose a larger proportion of multifamily housing compared to Scenarios 1 and 3, potentially better serving the housing needs for individuals and families in varied income groups.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
18 Table 3: Range of Housing
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Range of Housing Types
45% Single
Family, detached
43% Single
Family, detached
39% Single
Family, detached
46% Single
Family, detached
30% Single
Family, attached
19% Single
Family, attached
32% Single
Family, attached
20% Single
Family, attached
26% Multifamily 38% Multifamily 30% Multifamily 34% Multifamily Number of Single Family
Dwelling Units 9,052 11,167 9,798 10,770
Number of Multi-family
Dwelling Units 3,103 6,787 4,124 5,562
Total Dwelling Units 12,156 17,953 13,922 16,332
Population Capacity
In 2020, Arroyo Grande’s population was approximately 18,441 residents. At full buildout, all Scenarios would provide for a higher population capacity due to their increased capacity for new housing units; however, Scenarios 2 and 4 would provide for the highest future population capacity compared to other Scenarios at 34,325 residents and 31,607 maximum residents, respectively.

Table 4: Range of Housing
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Population 23,650 34,325 26,801 31,607
Housing Accessibility and Affordability
Arroyo Grande was assigned a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the period from 2020 to 2028, as detailed in Table 5. This allocation mandates the city must plan for the development of 692 new dwelling units during its 2020 to 2028 RHNA. All proposed Scenarios exceed this requirement significantly, ensuring ample capacity for housing growth.

Specifically, Scenarios 2 and 4 offer a range of housing options, including both single-family and multifamily units. This capacity for a variety of housing types positions the city to better accommodate diverse future housing demands.

Although the RHNA only projects out to 2028, the planning horizon for the General Plan extends over the next 20 to 30 years. The housing capacity provided by Scenarios 2 and 4 in excess of the current RHNA would ensure that Arroyo Grande will be well-prepared to meet its future RHNA cycles. This

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
19 proactive approach supports the city’s long-term growth and housing strategy, aligning with both current and future residential needs.

Table 5: City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element RHNA Allocation by Income Level Jurisdiction Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Arroyo Grande 170 107 124 291 692
Consistent development of new housing may reduce the gap between supply and demand, and therefore keeps housing costs from escalating. Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 all provide for a higher housing capacity than the City’s existing General Plan. The proposed increase in housing capacity under Scenarios 2 and 4, specifically, would make housing more affordable due to increased supply.

Table 6: Housing Accessibility
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Net New Single Family
Dwelling Units (Compared
to Scenario 1)
- + 2,114 + 746 + 1,718
Net New Multi-family
Dwelling Units (Compared
to Scenario 1)
- + 3,684 + 1,020 + 2,458
Net New Total Dwelling
Units (Compared to
Scenario 1)
- + 5,797 + 1,766 + 4,176
In addition to the overall cost of housing, which includes mortgage and rent, affordability for residents is also influenced by residential water and energy usage costs. Scenarios 2 and 4 offer the lowest annual average residential water cost at $512 and $558 per unit, respectively, compared to $642 for Scenario 1 and $603 for Scenario 3. However, Scenarios 2 and 3 provide for the lowest annual average residential energy cost at $2,373 and $2,399 per unit, respectively, compared to $2,468 for Scenario 1 and $2,437 for Scenario 4. It is important to note that despite the lower per-unit water and energy costs in certain scenarios, overall citywide annual residential water and energy costs increase under Scenarios 2, 3, and

4. This increase is due to the overall rise in the number of housing units in these Scenarios, reflecting their broader capacity of development.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
20 Table 7: Housing Unit Affordability
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Annual Residential Water
Costs (Total) $7.8 M $9.2 M $8.4 M $9.1 M
Annual Average Residential
Water Costs Per Unit $641.66 $512.45 $603.36 $557.19
Annual Residential Energy
Costs (Total) $ 30 M $ 42.6 M $33.4 M $ 39.8 M
Annual Average Residential
Energy Costs Per Unit $2,467.92 $2,372.86 $2,399.08 $2,436.93 Land Use Efficiency
Land Use Efficiency measures how effectively a city’s development capacity can be expanded while minimizing the development of vacant greenfield land, including the undeveloped agricultural and open space parcels found in the southeastern portion of the city. Scenario 2 demonstrates higher land use efficiency than all other scenarios, as this Scenario promotes infill developments and avoids consuming any agricultural or open space lands, all while providing the largest capacity for new residential development at 5,797 new units.

Conversely, Scenarios 3 and 4 propose the consumption of approximately 139 and 143 acres of open space and agricultural land, respectively, to accommodate additional residential development and employment capacity. No agricultural or open space lands would be consumed under Scenarios 1 and 2.

Although Scenario 3 and 4 propose a similar amount of land consumption, Scenario 4 is much more efficient in terms of its capacity for new housing units and jobs created per acres of agricultural land consumed. Under Scenario 4, for each acre of land consumed, the city would increase its capacity for housing by 29 units and its capacity for employment by 89 jobs.

Although Scenario 2 does not consume as much land as other Scenarios, it does not nearly have the capacity for employment that Scenario 4 offers. Scenario 4 creates capacity for up to 12,792 additional jobs, whereas Scenario 2 would accommodate 3,100 new jobs.

Table 8: Land Use Efficiency
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Total Consumed Open
Space and Agricultural
Land at Buildout (acres)
N/A N/A 138.7 143.3
Net New Total Dwelling
Units (Compared to
Scenario 1)
- + 5,797 + 1,766 + 4,176

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
21 Table 8: Land Use Efficiency
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Net New Employment
(Compared to
Scenario 1)
- + 3,100 + 373 + 12,792
Land Use Efficiency (new
housing unit capacity per
acres Ag land consumed)
No Ag land
consumed
No Ag land
consumed + 12.7 + 29.1
Land Use Efficiency (new
jobs capacity per acres Ag
land consumed)
No Ag land
consumed
No Ag land
consumed + 2.7 + 89.3
Nonresidential Development and Employment Capacity
This metric assesses the anticipated number of new jobs each scenario can support at full buildout, assuming all designated employment-generating lands are fully developed or redeveloped. Scenario 4 forecasts the highest net increase in employment at 12,792 new jobs, compared to 3,100 new jobs under Scenario 2 and 373 new jobs under Scenario 3.

Scenario 4 would create the highest capacity for job creation out of all scenarios through the consumption of approximately 143 acres of agricultural and open space lands using a specific plan process as well as increasing the allowable FAR and lot coverage for General Plan land use designations such as Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Office. Scenario 4 also offers the highest total job creation per capita out of all scenarios. Scenario 2 provides some capacity for new employment-generating spaces through denser infill development, avoiding the need to convert agricultural and open space lands to urban uses.

Several land use changes are proposed across the various scenarios to create a higher capacity for nonresidential development. Scenarios 2 and 4 propose increasing the allowable density for the City’s Mixed Use designation from 25 du/acre to 30 du/acre and 28 du/acre, respectively. Under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4, floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage standards would be established for non-residential, mixed-use development. Additionally, Scenarios 2 and 3 introduce a new Corridor Mixed Use land designation that allows a higher intensity of mixed use developments along key corridors such as E Grand Avenue. Under Scenario 2, the Corridor Mixed Use designation would allow a higher density of developments (up to 36 du/acre and 2.5 FAR) than Scenario 3 (up to 30 du/acre and 2.0 FAR). Finally, Scenario 4 proposes to establish dense FAR and lot coverage standards for commercial land use designations.

Across all scenarios, including the existing General Plan buildout, there is a relatively consistent distribution of retail, office, public, and industrial jobs, comprising 60 percent to 70 percent retail, 13 percent to 21 percent office, 10 to 23 percent public, and less than one percent industrial.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
22 Table 9: Nonresidential Development and Employment Capacity Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Employment Capacity 15,407 18,507 15,780 28,199
Percent Retail Jobs 60% 70% 65% 68%
Percent Office Jobs 17% 13% 16% 22%
Percent Public Jobs 23% 16% 19% 10%
Percent Industrial Jobs 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% <0.1%
Total Employment Per
Capita 0.65 0.54 0.59 0.89
Total Retail, Office, and
Industrial Building Area
(acres)
230.62 280.72 236.18 372.67
Net New Employment - + 3,100 + 373 + 12,792
Net New Retail, Office, and
Industrial Building Area
(acres)
- + 50.10 + 5.56 + 142.05
Trip Generation Analysis
Creating capacity for new land uses can also influence daily trips generated, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gases emitted within the City limits. Scenarios 2 and 4 would likely prompt the largest increase in total annual vehicle miles traveled and annual passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions compared to Scenarios 1 and 3. This is likely a direct response to the higher population capacities under these Scenarios, and not necessarily as a result of the density and proximity of residential and nonresidential developments.

Across all Scenarios, approximately 86 to 89 percent of travel mode share would consist of private vehicles, just under four percent would consist of public transportation, and between seven and ten percent would consist of pedestrians and bicyclists. Although there were no substantial differences in mode share across the Scenarios, Scenario 2 offered the highest ratio of residents travelling via public transportation or as pedestrians and bicyclists. These differences in travel mode share between Scenarios is only as a result of changes in the built environment such as new building development, and not as a result of improved active transportation infrastructure. Improvements to public transportation access, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and more might further encourage modes of active transportation amongst residents.

Memorandum to the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan update
Land Use Scenarios Analysis
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
23 Table 10: Trip Generation and Mode Share
Metric Scenario 1: Existing
General Plan
Scenario 2: Infill
Focus
Scenario 3:

Residential and
Complimentary
Uses Focus
Scenario 4:

Commercial
Focused Approach
Annual Vehicle Miles
Travelled (passenger
vehicles in millions of miles
travelled)

85.5 116.2 94.5 130.11
Per Capita Annual
Residential Vehicle Miles
Travelled
(miles/year/person)
2,713.6 2,559.8 2,672.5 2,732.4
Annual Passenger Vehicle
GHG Emissions (metric tons
of CO₂ equivalent)
33,558.2 45,600.0 37,078.6 51,073.5
Travel Mode Share
Auto 88% 86% 88% 89%
Public Transportation 4% 4% 4% 4%
Pedestrian and Bicyclist 9% 10% 9% 7%

1415 20TH STREET
Sacramento, California 95811
(916) 446-0522
FAX (916) 446-7520
[email protected]
www.mintierharish.com

M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande Andrew Perez, Planning Manager, City of Arroyo Grande
FROM: Michael Gibbons, Project Manager | Mintier Harnish CC: Brent Gibbons, Nikki Zanchetta | Mintier Harnish
DATE: March 12, 2025
RE: Land Use Scenarios Workshop and Survey Results
Introduction On February 5, 2025, the City held a community workshop to introduce four potential land use scenarios for the General Plan Update. The workshop included a presentation, informational posters, and interactive activities to solicit community feedback on each land use scenario in relation to each of the three focus areas. Following the workshop, the city released a community survey with questions similar to those included in the workshop activities. The survey was available online from February 6, 2025, through March 10, 2025, and was promoted via the City of Arroyo Grande social media channels, the project website, and eblasts sent to the project email list.

Workshop Activities and Survey Questions
Workshop Activities
The workshop included three activities for participants to complete:

Land Use Scenarios Preference Worksheet
Each workshop attendee was given a one-page (front and
back) worksheet to gather feedback on their preferred land use scenarios for each of the three focus areas. One side of the worksheet included a brief description of each land use scenario. The other side of the worksheet included three sections, one for each focus area. Participants were asked to select which scenario they prefer for each focus area and provide a brief explanation for their decision. A total of 28 worksheets were collected during the workshop.

ATTACHMENT 2

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
2 Frederick Focus Area Lego Activity
The goal of this activity was for participants to provide their input on how they would distribute land uses within a
theoretical specific plan using the specific plan land use percentages allocated for Scenarios 3 and 4. Each
participant received a set of pre-assigned Lego pieces
representing the ratio of area dedicated to each land uses for the scenario the participant indicated as their preferred scenario for the Frederick Focus Area. The ratios were
derived from prior outreach efforts that asked about the land use preferences for this area. Participants were
asked to arrange the Legos on a gridded map of the focus area to reflect their preferred development pattern. A copy of each activity response is included at the end of this memo.

North Fair Oaks Focus Area Lego Activity
This activity was the same as the Frederick Focus Area Lego activity described above, but for the North Fair Oaks Focus Area, using the specific plan land use percentages allocated for Scenarios 3 and 4. Each participant received a set of pre-assigned Lego pieces representing the ratio of area dedicated to each land use for the scenario the participant indicated as their preferred scenario for the North Fair Oaks Focus Area. The ratios were derived from prior outreach efforts that asked about the land use preferences for this area. Participants were asked to arrange the Legos on a gridded map of the focus area to reflect their preferred development pattern. A copy of each activity response is included at the end of this memo.

Online Survey Questions
The online survey included a total of eight questions, plus four optional demographic questions. The first two questions asked respondents if they attended the community workshop on February 5th, and if so, did they submit a Land Use Scenarios Preference Worksheet during the workshop.

The remaining six survey questions were identical to those on the Land Use Scenarios Preference Worksheet, asking respondents to select which land use scenario they prefer for each focus area and provide a brief explanation for their decision. The front end of the survey included a brief description of each proposed land use scenario and the three focus areas. Additionally, respondents were encouraged review the workshop materials and land use scenarios information posted on the project website or to contact a project team member with questions before completing the survey.

A total of 92 survey responses were received, nine of which indicated they attended the community workshop on February 5th. Of those nine respondents, four indicated that they completed and submitted the activity worksheet. To ensure that responses from community members are not double counted, these four responses are excluded from the survey results evaluation in the following section Example of Frederick Focus Area Lego activity.

Example of North Fair Oaks Focus Area Lego activity.

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
3 with the assumption that these responses are accounted for in the evaluation of the worksheet responses from the workshop.

Survey Demographics The following demographic information was collected as part of the online survey. Demographic information was not collected during the community workshop and is not reflected in the data reported in this section.

Age. A majority of respondents are older adults, with about 34 percent aged 65 and over and 24 percent aged 55 to 64 years. Middle-aged adults (35-54 years old) account for 25 percent of respondents, while younger adults (18-34 years old make up nine percent of respondents. Only about one percent of respondents are under 18 years of age. Eight percent of respondents did not provide a response regarding their age.

Race/Ethnicity. A majority of respondents (70 percent) are White/European American. Thirteen percent of respondents preferred not to provide race/ethnicity information and five percent reported “other”.

Household Income. A majority of respondents reported a household income of $100,000 or more, with 27 percent making between $100,000 and $150,000 and 27 percent making over $150,000. About 13 percent of respondents reported making between $50,000 and $74,999, and 12 percent reported making between $75,000 and $99,999. About five percent of respondents reported making less than $50,000. Fifteen percent of respondents did not provide income information.

Gender. About 45 percent of respondents identify as male and 37 percent of respondents identify as female. The remaining 18 percent of respondents did not provide gender identity information.

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
4 Preferred Land Use Scenarios by Focus Area This section includes an overview of community input received on preferred land use scenarios for each focus area identified as part of the land use scenarios process. These summaries include responses from both the worksheet from the community workshop and the online community survey.

East Grand Corridor
Community members prefer Scenario 2 (Infill Development) for the East Grand Corridor Focus Area accounting for 39 percent of responses, followed by Scenario 1 (Baseline) with a 23 percent response rate. Scenarios 3 (Residential and Complimentary Uses) and 4 (Commercial Focused Approach) received similar response rates of 18 and 20 percent respectively.

Scenario #1 (Baseline) Response Summary
Respondents that selected Scenario 1 as their preferred land use scenario for the East Grand Corridor Focus Area expressed strong support for preserving Arroyo Grande’s rural and agricultural character and expressed concern over increasing commercial and residential density and its impact on the community’s character. These respondents value that Arroyo Grande isn’t overdeveloped and expressed opposition to any significant growth or population increases. Concerns were raised about potential negative impacts of growth, including increased traffic congestion, loss of agricultural land, and potential environmental consequences such as increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Scenario #2 (Infill Development) Response Summary – COMMUNITY PREFFERED Respondents that selected Scenario 2 as their preferred land use scenario for the East Grand Corridor Focus Area favor a balanced approach to growth, emphasizing the need for more housing while preserving agricultural land and open space. Many appreciate its focus on mixed-use and infill development to create a walkable, bikeable, and vibrant community while minimizing sprawl. There is strong interest in revitalizing underutilized properties along East Grand Avenue, enhancing pedestrian and bike access, and maintaining its role as a key commercial corridor. Commenters also stress the need to mitigate traffic congestion and ensure new housing remains affordable.

Supporters highlight the benefits of adding condos and apartments rather than single-family homes, noting that increased density could boost local businesses and minimize the need to expand the reach of public services and infrastructure.
23%
39%
18%
20%
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
5 Scenario #3 (Residential and Complimentary Uses) Response Summary Respondents that selected Scenario 3 as their preferred land use scenario for the East Grand Corridor Focus Area expressed the potential for mixed-use developments that combine residential and commercial spaces in a well-connected area with good access to Highway 101. There is a strong focus on increasing housing, particularly multi-family units or condos, by repurposing vacant commercial properties. Commenters emphasize the need for walkable, livable neighborhoods with features like bike paths, walking trails, parks, and even a trolley to connect residents and tourists to the beach. Although respondents generally advocate for more housing along East Grand Avenue, there is a desire to maintain and encourage commercial development to meet the needs of residents and visitors, especially low-income groups, and create a more walkable neighborhood.

Scenario #4 (Commercial Focused Approach) Response Summary Respondents that selected Scenario 4 as their preferred land use scenario for the East Grand Corridor Focus Area expressed support for enhancing the Grand Avenue corridor as a commercial center of the City. Respondents liked that this scenario focuses on employment opportunities and generating more tax revenue for the City. There is strong support for maintaining Grand Avenue’s commercial character, with a minimal increase in housing development in this area. Commenters highlight the importance of attracting tourists and local visitors by developing underutilized properties into attractive, upscale venues, boosting the city’s economic growth. Respondents also emphasized the importance of improvements to pedestrian and bike infrastructure to support dining, shopping, and public facing spaces as part of this Scenario.

North Fair Oaks Focus Area
Community members prefer Scenario 1 (Baseline) for the North Fair Oaks Focus Area accounting for 54 percent of responses, followed by Scenario 3 (Residential and Complimentary Uses) with a 22 percent response rate. Scenario 2 (Infill Development) had a 13 percent response rate, and Scenario 4 (Commercial Focused Approach) was the least preferred, accounting for 11 percent of responses. The following sections include an overview of why respondents selected their preferred scenario. 54%
13%
22%
11%
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
6 Scenario #1 (Baseline) Response Summary – COMMUNITY PREFFERED Respondents that selected Scenario 1 as their preferred land use scenario for the North Fair Oaks Focus Area strongly advocate for preserving this agricultural land and avoiding housing development. Many emphasize the importance of prime farmland for future generations, food production, and environmental sustainability. Commenters also highlight Arroyo Grande’s agricultural heritage and the value of maintaining its rural character, scenic beauty, and historical ties to farming. Additionally, many respondents are concerned about increased traffic if this area is developed, particularly near the high school and major roads like Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue, which already experience serious traffic congestion. Some commenters were open to increased recreational access.

Scenario #2 (Infill Development) Response Summary
Similar to those that selected Scenario 1, respondents that selected Scenario 2 as their preferred land use scenario for the North Fair Oaks Focus Area emphasize the importance of preserving prime agricultural and open space to maintain Arroyo Grande’s character and heritage. Respondents in support of Scenario 2 recognize the need for housing and commercial development but feel infill development should be prioritized over converting farmland. Additional concerns include increased traffic and congestion near the high school, flood risks, and infrastructure improvements.

Scenario #3 (Residential and Complimentary Uses) Response Summary Respondents that selected Scenario 3 as their preferred land use scenario for North Fair Oaks Focus Area recognize the opportunity this area presents for development in the future and feel this scenario balances growth without overwhelming existing infrastructure, compromising native open space, or changing Arroyo Grande’s character. Respondents like that this scenario provides opportunity for diverse housing options, including apartments, townhomes, and single-family residences, but minimizes commercial development in this area. Many respondents feel developing this area could present opportunities for better connectivity throughout the community, linking neighborhoods to schools, downtown, and the Village. Some respondents expressed concerns regarding traffic, infrastructure improvements, connectivity enhancements, and maintaining the Arroyo Grande Creek riparian area. Some respondents feel this area is an ideal location for community amenities such as a multi-use trail along the creek, sports fields, an exercise park, a permanent farmer’s market square, and community spaces.

Scenario #4 (Commercial Focused Approach) Response Summary Respondents that selected Scenario 4 as their preferred land use scenario for the North Fair Oaks Focus Area envision a vibrant, multi-use development near the high school that serves families and teenagers with affordable food options, convenience stores, and recreational spaces. Many feel the area’s central location is optimal for community events, concerts, and holiday celebrations. There is strong interest in a mix of housing and jobs rather than single-family homes or strip malls, with some advocating for commercial development that enhances tourism and economic growth. Overall, respondents emphasize the need for thoughtful development that strengthens the city’s identity and promotes economic development.

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
7 Frederick Focus Area
Survey respondents prefer Scenario 3 (Residential and Complimentary Uses) for the Frederick Focus Area accounting for 41 percent of responses, followed by Scenario 1 (Baseline) with a 31 percent response rate. Scenarios 4 (Commercial Focused Approach) and 2 (Infill Development) received similar response rates, at approximately 14 percent. The following sections include an overview of why respondents selected their preferred scenario.

Scenario #1 (Baseline) Response Summary
Respondents that selected Scenario 1 as their preferred land use scenario for the Frederick Focus Area emphasize the importance of preserving agricultural land, open space, and Arroyo Grande’s rural character. Concerns include urban sprawl, negative traffic impacts, infrastructure limitations, and environmental harm to local ecosystems and wildlife. While a few respondents suggest limited or carefully planned development, most advocate for focusing growth within existing residential areas rather than expanding outward. Some suggested making part of this area improved open space.

Scenario #2 (Infill Development) Response Summary
Respondents that selected Scenario 2 as their preferred land use scenario for the Frederick Focus Area support infill development in other areas of the city to accommodate growth and preserving existing farmland and open space. Respondents expressed concerns that developing this area would stress infrastructure demands, increase costs of City services, and cause traffic congestion issues.

Scenario #3 (Residential and Complimentary Uses) Response Summary – COMMUNITY PREFFERED Respondents that selected Scenario 3 as their preferred land use scenario for the Frederick Focus Area support residential development in the area, but with differing views on density. Many favor a mix of uses focused primarily on residential development with smaller lot sizes and affordable housing options, emphasizing walkability and a balanced approach to growth. Others prefer new residential development in this area to be lower-density, estate-style housing to preserve the rural character of the area while still providing additional housing options. Most respondents feel any development in the area should be accompanied by parks, recreational areas, or open space areas. 31%
14%
41%
14%
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
8 Concerns about future development in this area include traffic flow, city services, and resource availability. Several comments highlight the need for thoughtful planning to ensure new development enhances the city's livability, tax base, and long-term sustainability.

Scenario #4 (Commercial Focused Approach) Response Summary Respondents that selected Scenario 4 as their preferred land use scenario for the Frederick Focus Area like that this scenario provides opportunities for new types of commercial, manufacturing, and light industrial uses in Arroyo Grande. Some see the location as ideal for large-scale manufacturing, business centers, and retail due to its freeway access and does not infringe on already congested roadways. Others suggest a self-contained neighborhood with housing and small retail and personal services businesses (e.g., restaurants, barber shops, pet grooming). There is an interest in using the area to improve truck routing, reducing traffic impacts on the Village. Some respondents expressed concerns about the strain on infrastructure and traffic congestion, especially in connection with Highway 101.

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
9 Frederick Focus Area Lego Exercise Responses

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
10 Frederick Focus Area Lego Exercise Responses Continued

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
11 Frederick Focus Area Lego Exercise Responses Continued

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
12 North Fair Oaks Focus Area Lego Exercise Responses

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
13 North Fair Oaks Focus Area Lego Exercise Responses Continued

City of Arroyo Grande Geneal Plan Update
Land Use Scenarios Survey Results
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
14 North Fair Oaks Focus Area Lego Exercise Responses Continued

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 11.b – April 8, 2025 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update DATE: April 8, 2025
Attached is public comment received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:04 PM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Land Use Alternatives ‎
Name: Sean
E-mail:

Comments:

As an Arroyo Grande resident and long term member of the south county area, I agree with Alternative 2. I also agree with the option for agriculture residents in the Fair Oaks Avenue corridor to be able to develop their land for other uses, such as residential or commercial. I am not in agreement with the development of Frederick’s at this time. There are too many unknowns for traffic, drainage, and environmental impact.

Page title: Land Use Alternatives

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 3:55 PM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
‎
Name: Paul Provence
E-mail:

Comments:

I have multiple concerns regarding the General Plan Update. I question the methodology used to survey the communities and specifically the neighborhoods that would be affected. I am a resident that would directly be affected by the Fredricks project and Fair Oaks proposed projects.

1. New Local High Fire Severity Zoning and existing State Very High Severity Zoning.

2. Traffic impact to already over stressed areas

3. Lack of increase water storage or procurement since last drought cycle

4. Neighborhoods directly affected should have been directly contacted to survey their concerns about said project.

5. Appears that the methodology used to survey High School students was a failure. With a body of over 2k students responses of only 3 is directly contrary to the Consultants own admission that a sample size of at least 30 constitutes valid statistics.

Based on review of the plan options 1 or 2 are the only appropriate options for Arroyo Grande.

Please contact me for further.

Page title: Home

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 3:52 PM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
‎
Name: Frederick Lewis
E-mail:

Comments:

I'm hopeful that the city planning staff and city council members do consider the impact on existing neighborhoods on any of the land use alternatives. It's been my experience that both developers and builders do not take into consideration such things as the impact of traffic, noise, and construction debris on neighborhoods that are already established and will do what's in their best interest for the sake of minimizing capital outlays. Please, please give a higher priority to the needs of the good people of Arroyo Grande over the needs of developers looking to just satisfy their stakeholders. Thanks for listening.

Page title: Home

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 3:46 PM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
‎
Name: Steve Howarth
E-mail:

Comments:

I attended the Planning Commission meeting on March 18, 2025 and listened to the proposed land use changes to the General Plan. I reside in the Creekstone neighborhood that is located closely to the Frederick property that is one of the focus areas of the General Plan. I am concerned that the proposed recommendation for this focus area lacks information and/or investigation into the traffic flow and congestion consequences of any moderate or high density residential use, and I do not understand how a decision can be made without a prior understanding of these consequences. Of course, one reason for my concern is that one potential traffic path from focus area is a [currently] small road that runs through our neighborhood and adjacent to a small neighborhood park. One specific concern that I have is that a prospective developer of the property apparently believes that its current plan for a 200-home residential development is a "done deal" and may have a prelim approval from AG.

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 3:17 PM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
‎
Name: Pamela Lewis
E-mail:

Comments:

I am very concerned about the possibility of a Waller Street extension. As a homeowner at the base of the hill where the road would be extended we will lose our privacy and quality of life. Headlights from cars coming downhill will shine directly into our windows in the darkened hours. Car exhaust, noise and air pollution, are just a few of the destroying of our quality of life. Neighborhood children will be put at risk at our park from cars going too fast right near them playing on the sidewalk. Let's remember the recent tragic death of a student in Atascadero walking on the sidewalk by a drunk driver.

The possible extension of Waller was considered well before a neighborhood and park was built and it became a quiet community loved by residents. If the road is allowed we will all be negatively impacted and harmed.. Please ask yourself if it were you, would you want to see your home and neighborhood ruined?

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:36 PM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
‎
Name: Tori Perkins
E-mail:

Comments:

It is plain and simple. We don’t want to look like LA. Heck, at this point, we don’t want to look like Grover. They are packing buildings in so tight in Grover that it looks horrible. That is not why you or anyone else choose to live in the five cities. We live here because of the farmland, empty lots, and the lack of tall buildings, and the trees and trails everywhere. Please do not ruin Arroyo Grande by putting homes on the ag land across from the high school.

Page title: Home

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 7:18 AM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
‎
Name: Shannon Kessler
E-mail:

Comments:

Thank you for seeking public input. Please choose the plan that allows for the most dense housing, especially in already developed areas/infill. Also, please consider converting empty commercial/industrial spaces or lots and land currently zoned commercial to change to multifamily residential
Page title: Home

Comments/Notes on General Plan Update Options and Public Input • For all the evaluation criteria, except jobs, there was essentially not a great deal of variation (see spreadsheet which specifically includes population, jobs, and single & multi family units). ◦ Jobs were approximately doubled under scenario 4 versus scenarios 1-3. ▪ Aspects of scenario 4 should be incorporated as much as possible in a hybrid proposal based upon the following:
• Sales tax was determined to be needed to be increased and was increased by 1% per Measure E-24 passed during the November 5, 2024 election. ◦ Expected to generate approximate $6 million annually
• 5-year financial forecast presented at January 28, 2025 meeting:
◦ Projected revenue growing 3.2% annually while expenditures growing 3.7% annually
◦ 9% increase in unfunded accrued liability (UAL) for pensions per CalPERS ◦ Note Mintier Harnish had multiple errors (5 boxes with a yellow background on spreadsheet) in regards to their differential numbers from scenario 1. ▪ Calculated numbers are shown in the spreadsheet, incorrect Mintier Harnish numbers are in the notes for each cell.
• Long term planning includes planning use of existing agricultural lands, hence Scenarios 1 and 2 really not options.
◦ Scenario 1 is actually a baseline analysis with no changes and certainly NOT an option ▪ Mintier Harnish apparently did a poor job noting it was a baseline and not a real option based upon the number of public respondents choosing it as an option Housing Accessibility and Affordability
RHNA projects out to only 2028 while horizon for the General Plan extends over the next 20-30 years.

Scenario 1 is insufficient.

Scenario 3 covers housing capacity out to 2028 projections; however, far lower maximum than 2 or 4 which would ensure that Arroyo Grande will be well-prepared to meet its future RHNA cycles.

Land Use Efficiency
Scenarios 3 and 4 propose a similar amount of land consumption; however, Scenario 4 more efficient.

Scenario 4 increases housing capacity by 29.1 units/acre of land versus 12.7 for scenario 3.

Scenario 4 increases capacity for employment by 89.3 jobs/acre of land versus 2.7 for scenario 3.

Nonresidential Development and Employment Capacity
Scenario 4 is by far superior as already noted at the beginning.

Respondents that liked scenario 4 focused on employment opportunities and generating more tax revenue for the City as I did at the beginning.

Frederick Area
This area definitely provides opportunities for new types of commercial, manufacturing, and light industrial uses in Arroyo Grande including potential large-scale manufacturing, business centers, and retail due to its freeway access and hence would not infringe on already congested roadways.

The area could also include a self-contained neighborhood with housing and small retail and personal services businesses (e.g., restaurants, barber shops, pet grooming).

There is an interest in using the area to improve truck routing and reducing traffic impacts on the Village. Some respondents expressed concerns about the strain on infrastructure and traffic congestion, especially in connection with Highway 101.
• Note proposed language in draft comprehensive hybrid scenario for potential of a future inland 101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the SLO airport.

• While ALL input gathered should be considered, it needs to be noted that the public input that was gathered is:
◦ statistically not valid based upon the low number of responses ▪ 2023 population of 18,243
▪ Only 354 survey responses for the initial phase to develop scenarios ▪ Only 28 worksheets were collected during the workshop to choose scenario preferences
▪ Only 92 survey responses were received, 9 which indicated they attended the community workshop on February 5th, to choose scenario preferences ▪ Only 3 responses in regards to the high school response for scenario preferences ◦ skewed based upon the demographics of those that did respond ▪ Half were over the age of 55 for the initial phase to develop scenarios ▪ In regards to scenario preferences:
• 34% aged 65+
• 24% aged 55-64
• 25% aged 35-54
• 9% aged 18-34
• 1% aged under 18
• 8% did not provide a response regarding their age
▪ Older people are statistically more resistant to change than younger people and hence more likely express opposition to any significant growth or population increases Methodology
• The Project Team used Urban Footprint, a GIS-based application used to analyze the implications of changes to land uses, to model Arroyo Grande’s four land use Scenarios.

Urban Footprint uses a curated, enriched dataset of existing land uses in the United States to calculate insights and implications of different theoretical models of planning areas. The program looks at several topics, including general city statistics, land consumption, energy use, water use, pedestrian accessibility, transit accessibility, transportation, emissions, and household costs.

Link: https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/explorer/
Note: 30 day free demo
• Pretty sure AG could have bought a license to use the software for far less than hiring Mintier Harnish
• Pretty sure I could become proficient with the software in short time to analyze hybrid scenarios, especially if all current data/iterations were obtained from Mintier Harnish which I hope was included as part of the contract as the property of AG

Outcomes at Full Buildout
Scenario Population
+ from
Scenario
1 Jobs
+ from
Scenario 1 Single-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
1 – Existing General Plan 23,650 15,407 9,502
2 – Infill Focus 34,325 10,675 18,507 3,100 11,167 1,665 3 – Residential and Complimentary Focus 26,801 3,151 15,780 373 9,798 296 4 – Commercial Focused Approach 31,607 7,957 28,199 12,792 10,770 1,268

Outcomes at Full Buildout
Multi-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
3,103
6,787 3,684
4,124 1,021
5,562 2,459

Proposed Hybrid Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update The initial focus shall be to emphasize densification within the existing city boundaries, focusing on infill development of vacant and underutilized land to increase housing, population, employment capacity and tax revenue. In other words, to increase densities across the spectrum of residential land use designations (e.g., from 25 du/ac to 28-30 du/ac for Mixed Use) and more intense commercial development by increasing the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage standards. The following specifics shall be done:
• Very Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-VLD) designation shall be eliminated and collapsed into the Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-LD) designation. • Multi-Family Residential (MFR), Townhouse/Condo, and Mobile Home Park (MHP) designations shall be eliminated and collapsed into the Medium High Density Multi-Family Residential (MHD) designation.
◦ Note: 1st and 2nd designations were proposed for elimination under Scenario 2 & 3, but not 4 • A new Parks and Recreation (PR) General Plan land use designation shall be used for all current and future parks and recreational facilities within the city. • A new, higher-intensity mixed use designation named “Corridor Mixed Use” shall be used. • Designate key areas for mixed-use development, encouraging walkable centers with retail, office, and residential uses.
• Increase the amount of land designated as Regional Commercial to allow for the development of larger commercial establishments.

The maximum increase in densities shall take into the account the overall projected future growth in population needs as well as additional housing included in the specific plans for the North Fair Oaks and Frederick’s focus areas. In other words, the maximum figures listed in Table 1 for Scenario 2 of the Mintier Harnish February 5, 2025 Memorandum (Attachment 1) shall be adjusted down accordingly.

Additional recreational facilities to support future development shall be included as recommended by the CAG.

The primary area of the initial focus shall be the redevelopment potential for the E. Grand Avenue corridor as a whole based upon the new Corridor Mixed Use designation that allows higher residential densities (30 du/ac, 2.0 FAR) with the potential of providing small commercial/industrial incubator spaces.

In regards to other 2 focus areas (North Fair Oaks agricultural parcels and Frederick’s property), agricultural land will be kept as an existing land use option since it is important to preserve prime farmland for future generations, food production, and environmental sustainability and it highlights Arroyo Grande’s agricultural heritage and the value of maintaining its rural character, scenic beauty, and historical ties to farming. Since it has been noted that the property owner of the North Fair Oaks focus area has indicated that they are not looking to continue the history of farming on the property, specific plans will be established to guide future development within the currently agriculturally zoned areas to permit the conversion to residential uses and complementary amenities, such as parks and open space. Complementary (including commericial) amenities in the North Fair Oaks area shall include the consideration of the schools, especially the high school students (e.g. so they have closer options for lunch).

Specifically in regards to the Frederick’s focus area, specific plans shall also include potential economic growth and employment in addition to residential development in mixed-use zones and light industrial use. The potential of a future inland 101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the San Luis Obispo airport shall be considered.

While no city expansion or annexation is proposed, plans for future annexation shall be considered for the following areas:
◦ Agricultural areas south of the city, near the Arroyo Grande High School ◦ Northeast of the city
◦ Southeast of the Frederick property
Lastly, any additional modifications to remaining current land use designations shall be made to comply with changes in State law, such as to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, remove housing constraints, and/or to be consistent with the current Housing Element.

From: m lee <
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:33:11 AM
To: Jamie Maraviglia <[email protected]>; Caren Ray Russom <[email protected]>; Jim Guthrie <[email protected]>; Kate Secrest <[email protected]>; Aileen Loe <[email protected]> Subject: April 8 City Council Hearing for General Plan - Dear Mayor and City Council
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Attached is a Discussion on the General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives.

I look forward to your input.

Date: April 5, 2025
RE: City Council Hearing April 8, 2025
General Plan Update —a Density Discussion
Dear Arroyo Grande Mayor and City Council,

Since density and intensity affects the visual character as well as the utilities and infrastructure of Arroyo Grande, I submit the following and seek your input.

To better visualize how the densities shown on Table 1, Alternative #3, for the Fair Oaks Focus Area, I went to Grover Beach planning and asked for the densities for projects that are under construction on Grand Avenue.

Grover Beach allows up to 20 du/ac on Grand Avenue.

1. The market rate Palladium condo project at Grand Ave at 4th Street is 35 du/ac using the Fractional Density Program*. This is a 75% increase in density from 20 du/ac to 35 du/ac.

2. The Cleaver and Clark affordable housing project on Grand Ave at 13th Street is 34 du/ac using the 80% density bonus law. This is a 70% increase from 20 u/ac to 35 du/ac.

What are the actual maximum densities for North Fair Oaks, using bonuses? The Fair Oaks project area is 90 total acres. The Ratio of Uses calls for 60% Medium High Density (MHD) on 54 acres at a density of 12 du/ac. And 10% for Mixed Use (MU) on 9 acres at 25 du/ac. This is 873 total dwelling units.

However, using 75% bonuses the Medium High Density Multi Family (MHD) at 12 du/ac would be 21 du/ac. Using 75% bonuses the Mixed Use (MU) at 25 du/ac density would actually be 43.75 du/ac. This would result in 1527 total dwelling units, compared to 873 total dwelling units without bonuses.

How would Bonuses affect the densities of East Grand Corridor Mixed Use? Alternative #3 for Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) is 30 du/ac. The existing Mixed Use zoning is 25 du/ac. (Currently there are no projects in Arroyo Grande on Grand Avenue at 25 du/ac.) Do we want a base density at 25 or 30 un/ac when 70% - 80% bonuses would yield an actual density of 42 - 51 un/ac. Seems high looking at new buildings in Grover Beach at 35 units per acre with the allowed bonuses.

Questions:

1. Will the EIR for the Final General Plan use the densities shown on Table 1 “Land Use Designations” or the actual densities which are higher using bonuses? (With the understanding that the General Plan needs to determine the maximum buildout for evaluation by the EIR, and the Specific Plan needs to be consistent with the General Plan.)

2. How do we want to see and experience our community? Do we want to be like Grover Beach or LA or do we want to be the beautiful small town on the Central Coast that we and visitors love?
Please consider keeping the Prime Agricultural soils in Agriculture for our children and grandchildren's “sustainable “food. . Grand Avenue has good freeway access, local services, and vacant/underutilized parcels for both affordable housing projects and market rate housing. Fredricks is perfect for Planned Community with a mix of uses.

I look forward to your input.

Thank you,
Marsha Lee
*Fractional Density Program allocates density as a fraction based on the size of the dwelling unit, (ie. <600 square feet = 0.5 DU, 600-1000 square feet = 0.66 DU, & 1000 == 1DU). If not law now in AG, can be added by the City.

Bonus Density Law - 80% for affordable housing
Also, cities can use the center of road to calculate land area, which also increases the density.

From: Arroyo Grande General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 7:33 AM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment from PlanArroyoGrande.com Home
‎
Name: Raymond Berguia
E-mail:

Comments:

I do not want housing build on Fairoaks/Valley Road, across AG High School! I was born and raised in Arroyo Grande, and worked on a farm as a child. I do not was our city crowded with thousands of houses. Keep Arroyo Grande rural!!!
Page title: Home

some new roads. I have reviewed the consultants' reports, findings, and recommendations. I have watched and reviewed the Planning Commission meeting from last week. After educating myself on the project and talking with my neighbors along our street I wish to voice my concerns about the proposal of a new development above us. I recognize the need for growth in our community and the lack of available housing. This is a known issue throughout the State of California and with the lasting impacts of COVID and catastrophic wildfire, Arroyo Grande is a very favorable place to move.

Concerns

1. Water has been a long standing issue for the City and San Luis Obispo County as a whole.

While we have had a few favorable years of rain and our water stores have been filled, little to nothing has been done to increase storage capacity to ensure there is enough water for the already existing residents. Not long ago water restrictions were in place and our primary source of water, Lopez lake, was critically low. With the addition of more housing units that will increase consumption, new roads which will lead to more uncaptured runoff our water supply will continue to be taxed.

2. Fire Hazard Severity zones. The County area that is part of the Frederick property is in the State Responsible Area for fire protection, this area is already classified as a high fire hazard severity zone and the new Local fire hazard severity zone maps now put our neighborhood into that same classification. Our neighborhood only has one way in and one way out, if the need for evacuation arose we would be challenged to get out on the existing roads and additional homes would add to this issue. The Five Cities Fire Authority is limited in their resources and additional resources would be needed from the County Fire Department and CAL FIRE to mitigate a fire in this area. The additional responding CAL FIRE resources would be coming from Nipomo, Camp San Luis, Shell Beach, Parkhill, and Cayucos to support our Fire Department. Without the bolstering of our Five Cities Fire Authority our aging community could potentially be put at greater risk.

3. Traffic. Traffic in this part of town is already heavily impacted. Trying to get to the main parts of town during morning and afternoon commutes is terrible. Our roads in this part of town are already at capacity with little to no room for growth to handle more traffic. Looking at the Commission's recommendations based on the Consultants report discussing the options for the Frederick property and maps of conceptual development there is little to no realistic road expansion to hold the type of traffic development of the Frederick property would cause.

4. Community input methodology. I am highly troubled by the methodology of the Consultant and the Planning Department on the gathering of Community input on this General Plan. As were briefed by staff, surveys were conducted as to which there were less than 400 replies and to my amazement this constituted a successful survey. I can assure you that there was at best a feeble attempt to reach out to our neighborhood to ask for our input. I never received a mailer, I never received an email, I grow my own vegetables so I do not go to farmers market, and my work commitments typically keep me from attending Planning Meetings. I have been interested in development of the Frederick property since the Creekstone development went in off of Cherry Ln. When that development was up for approval at the Planning Commission we were sold on water saving and gateways to our city, and a Japanese Memorial Garden (never completed). In that project there was a proposed road stub out at the end of Waller Pl. As a plan for a future road going up to the Frederick property, coincidently this road would go right through the neighborhood's backyard. Our neighborhood

development in all three areas should be addressed together as far as traffic and water resources are concerned.

We first learned of the potential for General Plan changes directly impacting our neighborhood from people who attended a developer’s presentation at the St. Barnabas church. The developer’s meetings showed members of the congregation how its 200-home plan is going to be built in a way that convinced some attendees that there was nothing to be done to oppose the development. There was also nothing to indicate how the additional 3,000 plus car trips would be handled past the Waller/Sweet Pea intersection and onto Cherry and Traffic. Although nothing has been “formally submitted” there is still cause for concern because:

Mr. Perez attended one of the meetings at the church which some people took as an official imprimatur of the development.

At the recent Planning Commission meeting we learned of surveys done regarding alternatives for the General Plan. But the survey process seemed to aiming at a specific conclusion.

Neither my husband nor I nor multiple neighbors in the
Creekstone neighborhood recall seeing information about the surveys; given how many were unaware of the survey, the process feels like an effort to minimize public input, not maximize.

The consultants used vague terms like many and most in
describing the results. One number, 67%, was used to
describe a favorable result provided by respondents from AG High School. The audience learned after a question from a commissioner that consultants used 67% to gloss over that only 3 students had responded to the survey. You can
understand why this caused even more skepticism of the
entire survey effort and conclusions.

That water and traffic issues are not part of the decision to amend the General Plan when at least one developer is working to make their plan for at least 200 homes (9.5 round trips per household daily) inevitable, suggests that the developers are driving the process and the ultimate decision making. And that concerns me greatly.

If the City is not prepared to restart the process and determine what the City can actually support from a traffic and resource perspective, then at a minimum, the adoption of changes to the General Plan should require that any work to develop the necessary Special Plans, work from the assumption that all the building will be done to the maximum that could be contemplated so that we can have a holistic view of AG’s water and traffic issues going forward.

Regards,
Sabrina Stanley
Arroyo Grande CA

April 8, 2025
Trish Avery Caldwell, , AG,
I’m not here to talk about NO growth. I’m here to talk about responsible growth.

The flow of traffic within the city limits is terrible and people are racing around our neighborhood to get from point A to point B.

We need good infrastructure and roads to support additional large-scale growth. We need roads and highways that can handle cars and people safely.

I walk many miles in the City of AG every week, and monthly I can say with confidence, I almost get hit by a car moving too fast to avoid having to stop for on-coming cars. The corner of Traffic Way and E. Cherry is horrific. I can count on more than two hands the number of times I have almost been hit while in the middle of the crosswalk. YES, in the middle of the crosswalk on E. Cherry Ave. This has become worse over the years.

Based on this alone, adding a collector road to Waller Place Street doesn’t make sense.

Why would you direct traffic into a neighborhood that already has traffic problems? Waller Place is a street that has kids playing in a park, grass where animals are playing, and neighbors that care about each other. Why would you add traffic to this high liability (accidents, injuries) area that would cause traffic issues at both the bottom and the top of the road?
The thought of adding a 2-lane collector road with enough room for a car on both sides to pull off in an emergency, a bike-lane, and room for people to walk, between two neighborhoods seems like a stretch.

Not to mention the impact on the new houses in the E. Cherry Ave development on Haven Court. Having to contend with car lights shining through their homes every evening, or worse, a car loses control when it comes down the little collector road and goes through a fence/house. Which brings me to what kind of lighting is going to be needed to keep cars and people safe and how will that affect homes that are so close to the road? And I just can’t get over the church parking lot entrance and the collector road coming out at the same spot. There must be something better.

As a reminder, this topic was discussed on September 6, 2016, at the City of Arroyo Grande, Planning Commission meeting, when the E. Cherry Development was being proposed. The issue then was to have church property used for a collector road.

Fortunately, this suggestion was not accepted. However, my understanding is that the developer has always planned to get this approved, regardless of it not being part of the 2001 Circulation Element or the revised 2021 Circulation Element.

We the people are asking the City of AG to make the right decisions when considering placing a collector road bridging Waller Place to Trinity Avenue. The right action is to require a highway interchange to get people to the Freddricks homes. Or at the very least, make improvements to Traffic Way Extension and Trinity Ave so it can handle additional traffic that would be created by this development. Thank you for your time

From: Mike Harris
To: public comment
Cc: Andrew Perez; Brian Pedrotti; Matt Downing
Subject: Re: Public Comment on City Council April 8, 2025 Agenda Item 11.b. Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 6:40:24 AM
Attachments: 2025-04-08 Proposed Hybrid Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update.odt 2025-04-08 Comments on General Plan Update Options and Public Input.pdf Land Use Scenario Statistics at Full Buildout.ods
The attached revised documents replace the versions previously sent.

On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 1:24 PM Mike Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

FYI - Felt it important to get out as much as possible as early as possible so as many as possible had more time to review.

I plan on submitting revised documents tomorrow morning and am still planning on attending via Zoom.

Mike P. Harris
On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 7:48 PM Mike Harris > wrote:

Attached are the following as my public comment on City Council April 8, 2025 Agenda Item 11.b. Adoption of a Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update:

Spreadsheet of Land Use Scenario Statistics at Full Buildout Note Corrections to Mintier Harnish numbers
Proposed (DRAFT) Comprehensive Hybrid Land Use Scenario for General Plan Update
Comments/Notes on General Plan Update Options and Public Input I'm happy to talk in depth with any city council members and/or city staff.

Note: Prior commitments prevent me from being at this meeting in person; however, I'll make an effort to attend via Zoom and have already registered.

Mike P. Harris

Proposed Hybrid Land Use Scenario for the General Plan Update The initial focus shall be to emphasize densification within the existing city boundaries, focusing on infill development of vacant and underutilized land for increased population and housing capacity AND employment capacity and tax revenue. In other words, to increase densities across the spectrum of residential land use designations (e.g., from 25 du/ac to 28-30 du/ac for Mixed Use) and more intense commercial development by increasing the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage standards. The following specifics shall be done:
• Very Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-VLD) designation shall be eliminated and collapsed into the Low Density Single Family Residential (SFR-LD) designation. • Multi-Family Residential (MFR), Townhouse/Condo, and Mobile Home Park (MHP) designations shall be eliminated and collapsed into the Medium High Density Multi-Family Residential (MHD) designation. ◦ Note: 1st and 2nd designations were proposed for elimination under Scenario 2 & 3, but not 4. • A new Parks and Recreation (PR) General Plan land use designation shall be used for all current and future parks and recreational facilities within the city.
• A new, higher-intensity mixed use designation named “Corridor Mixed Use” shall be used. • Designate key areas for mixed-use development, encouraging walkable centers with retail, office, and residential uses.
• Increase the amount of land designated as Regional Commercial to allow for the development of larger commercial establishments.

The maximum increase in densities shall take into the account the overall projected future growth in population needs as well as additional housing included in the specific plans for the North Fair Oaks and Frederick’s focus areas. In other words, the maximum figures listed in Table 1 for Scenario 2 of the Mintier Harnish February 5, 2025 Memorandum (Attachment 1) shall be adjusted down accordingly.

Incorporate additional commercializable recreational facilities to support future development as recommended by the CAG. (PC member elaborated the concept well at the March 18 PC meeting.) The primary area of the initial focus shall be the redevelopment potential for the E. Grand Avenue corridor as a whole based upon the new Corridor Mixed Use designation that allows higher residential densities (30 du/ac,

2.0 FAR) with the potential of providing small commercial/industrial incubator spaces.

In regards to other 2 focus areas (North Fair Oaks agricultural parcels and Frederick’s property), agricultural land will be kept as an existing land use option since it is important to preserve prime farmland for future generations, food production, and environmental sustainability and it highlights Arroyo Grande’s agricultural heritage and the value of maintaining its rural character, scenic beauty, and historical ties to farming. (Recommend specifically preserving some acreage for both potential use by the high school for class/students AND more community gardens like those near the Elm Street Dog Park). Since it has been noted that the property owner of the North Fair Oaks focus area has indicated that they are not looking to continue the history of farming on the property, specific plans shall be established to guide future development within the currently agriculturally zoned areas to permit the conversion to residential uses and complementary amenities, such as parks and open space. Complementary (including commericial) amenities in the North Fair Oaks area shall include the consideration of the schools, especially the high school students (e.g. so they have closer options for lunch).

Specifically in regards to the Frederick’s focus area, specific plans shall also include potential economic growth and employment in addition to residential development in mixed-use zones and light industrial use. The potential of a future inland 101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the San Luis Obispo airport shall be considered.

While no city expansion or annexation is currently proposed, plans for future annexation shall consider the following areas:
◦ Agricultural areas south of the city, near the Arroyo Grande High School ◦ Northeast of the city
◦ Southeast of the Frederick property, especially in regards to previous paragraph.

Lastly, any additional modifications to remaining current land use designations shall be made to comply with changes in State law, such as to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, remove housing constraints, and/or to be consistent with the current Housing Element. (Leftover from scenario 1, probably unnecessary.

Comments/Supporting Highlighted Notes on/from General Plan Update Options and Public Input • For all the evaluation criteria, except jobs, there was essentially not a great deal of variation (see spreadsheet which specifically includes population, jobs, and single & multi family units). ◦ Jobs were approximately doubled under scenario 4 versus scenarios 1-3. ▪ Aspects of scenario 4 should be incorporated as much as possible in a hybrid proposal based upon the following:
• Sales tax was determined to be needed to be increased and was increased by 1% per Measure E-24 passed during the November 5, 2024 election. ◦ Expected to generate approximate $6 million annually
• 5-year financial forecast presented at January 28, 2025 meeting:
◦ Projected revenue growing 3.2% annually while expenditures growing 3.7% annually
◦ 9% increase in unfunded accrued liability (UAL) for pensions per CalPERS ◦ Note spreadsheet apparently shows 3 roundoff differences from Mintier Harnish numbers (3 boxes with a yellow background on spreadsheet) in regards to their differential numbers from scenario 1.
• Long term planning includes planning use of existing agricultural lands, hence Scenarios 1 and 2 really not options for North Fair Oaks and Frederick focus areas. ◦ Scenario 1 is actually a baseline analysis with no changes and certainly NOT an option ▪ Mintier Harnish apparently did a poor job noting it was a baseline and not a real option based upon the number of public respondents choosing it as an option Housing Accessibility and Affordability
RHNA projects out to only 2028 while horizon for the General Plan extends over the next 20-30 years.

Scenario 1 is insufficient.

Scenario 3 covers housing capacity out to 2028 projections; however, far lower maximum than 2 or 4 which would ensure that Arroyo Grande will be well-prepared to meet its future RHNA cycles.

Land Use Efficiency
Scenarios 3 and 4 propose a similar amount of land consumption; however, Scenario 4 more efficient.

Scenario 4 increases housing capacity by 29.1 units/acre of land versus 12.7 for scenario 3.

Scenario 4 increases capacity for employment by 89.3 jobs/acre of land versus 2.7 for scenario 3.

Nonresidential Development and Employment Capacity
Scenario 4 is by far superior as already noted at the beginning.

Respondents that liked scenario 4 focused on employment opportunities and generating more tax revenue for the City as I did at the beginning.

Frederick Area
This area definitely provides opportunities for new types of commercial, manufacturing, and light industrial uses in Arroyo Grande including potential large-scale manufacturing, business centers, and retail due to its freeway access and hence would not infringe on already congested roadways.

The area could also include a self-contained neighborhood with housing and small retail and personal services businesses (e.g., restaurants, barber shops, pet grooming).

There is an interest in using the area to improve truck routing and reducing traffic impacts on the Village. Some respondents expressed concerns about the strain on infrastructure and traffic congestion, especially in connection with Highway 101.
• Note proposed language in draft comprehensive hybrid scenario for potential of a future inland 101 by-pass along/around this area connecting to the 227 towards the SLO airport.

• While ALL input gathered should be considered, it needs to be noted that the public input that was gathered is:
◦ statistically not valid based upon the low number of responses ▪ 2023 population of 18,243
▪ Only 354 survey responses for the initial phase to develop scenarios ▪ Only 28 worksheets were collected during the workshop to choose scenario preferences
▪ Only 92 survey responses were received, 9 which indicated they attended the community workshop on February 5th, to choose scenario preferences ▪ Only 3 responses in regards to the high school response for scenario preferences ◦ skewed based upon the demographics of those that did respond ▪ Half were over the age of 55 for the initial phase to develop scenarios ▪ In regards to scenario preferences:
• 34% aged 65+
• 24% aged 55-64
• 25% aged 35-54
• 9% aged 18-34
• 1% aged under 18
• 8% did not provide a response regarding their age
▪ Older people are statistically more resistant to change than younger people and hence more likely to express opposition to any significant growth or population increases • Personnally, I do represent an exception to this statistic. • Personally, I could have gone door to door and gotten far more public feedback than has been obtained to date.

Methodology
• “The Project Team used Urban Footprint, a GIS-based application used to analyze the implications of changes to land uses, to model Arroyo Grande’s four land use Scenarios.

Urban Footprint uses a curated, enriched dataset of existing land uses in the United States to calculate insights and implications of different theoretical models of planning areas. The program looks at several topics, including general city statistics, land consumption, energy use, water use, pedestrian accessibility, transit accessibility, transportation, emissions, and household costs.”
Link: https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/explorer/
Note: 30 day free demo
• AG entered into a contract for $1,254,545 with Mintier Harnish as approved by Council on March 28, 2023.
◦ 115 page RFP/contract (10 page body – pages 11-115 Exhibits) expires March 28, 2026 ▪ Page 19 – initially budgeted $500K per the RFP which had a Decemer 22, 2022 deadline (page 20 – page 10 of Exhibit A)
▪ Exhibit B (pages 38-39) has detailed breakdown of costs ($896,771 + $430,034 optional = $1,326,805)
◦ Contract via 10.b. does create a “non-exclusive and perpetual license for City” to all current data/iterations of work by Mintier Harnish and/or subcontractors • Recommend going forward that AG (perhaps along with the others of the “Five Cities”) buy its own license to use the software in order to continually be able to update the General Plan rather than paying consultants for periodic updates
◦ Personally, submitted request via link to find out cost of software and/or license for its use ▪ Response still pending
◦ Pretty sure I can become proficient with the software in short time to analyze hybrid scenarios and happy to donate my time to train city personnel going forward

Outcomes at Full Buildout
Scenario Population
+ from
Scenario
1 Jobs
+ from
Scenario 1 Single-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
1 – Existing General Plan 23,650 15,407 9,052
2 – Infill Focus 34,325 10,675 18,507 3,100 11,167 2,115 3 – Residential and Complimentary Focus 26,801 3,151 15,780 373 9,798 746 4 – Commercial Focused Approach 31,607 7,957 28,199 12,792 10,770 1,718

Outcomes at Full Buildout
Multi-Family Units
+ from
Scenario 1
3,103
6,787 3,684
4,124 1,021
5,562 2,459

From: Rachel Mann
To: public comment
Subject: [Spam] 2025-04-08 AG City Council Agenda Item 11b Land Use support for density, mixed-use, transit, and bike infrastructure
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:06:43 AM
Dear Council,
I'm writing to support land use changes to ensure folks at all income levels can be live well as neighbors in the city of Arroyo Grande.

I'd like to specifically support two areas described in tonight's agenda packet. 1) East Grand Corridor Focus Area
I live along Grand Avenue in Grover Beach, where we are seeing more mixed-use developments pencil out and get built following changes we approved in 2022. This included increasing heights to 55', reducing setbacks, and reducing parking minimums.

Joining us in allow more density along Grand Avenue will support our shared goals of vibrancy, walkability, and increased transit ridership. Perhaps even a future trolley circulating from AG to the beach!
2) Frederick Focus Area
I am a member of St Barnabas Episcopal Church, which sits on 8.5 acres adjacent to the Frederick Focus Area. Currently the Frederick parcel is zoned Hillside Residential, which limits development to very expensive types of single-detached homes on large lots -- essentially car-dependent sprawl for rich people. My faith compels me to advocate for legalizing home-types and car-free amenities for folks who are not that rich.

I would encourage you to consider land uses for the Frederick property, (and should the county allow it, any annexed property south of it), as an opportunity for another pedestrian and bike-friendly 'Village' area. This would mean smaller lots, more attached home types like courtyard apartments or apartments over shops, perhaps even a small grocery store/pharmacy.

Including commercial amenities will reduce car trips to other parts of the city and make it safer for children to bike to school.

Finally, per California Senate Bill 4, which passed in 2023, it's my understanding that St.

Barnabas' land is now streamlined for deed-restricted Affordable housing, over-riding the city's current zoning. I hope you will consider this as context for your decision-making.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Rachel Mann
District 2, Grover Beach