Arroyo Grande City Council
December 9, 2025

• Internet-based Cal-Adapt tool
• Internet-based Healthy Places Index tool to
identify vulnerable populations
• San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan (October 2019), of
which Arroyo Grande is a participating
jurisdiction
• California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment,
Regional Report
• Existing development in identified at-risk areas,
including structures, roads, utilities, and
essential public facilities
• Arroyo Grande local land use plans and
implementing documents
A key component of the Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment will be an evaluation of the
potential for climate change to disproportionately
impact vulnerable population groups (e.g., seniors,
children, low-income communities, outdoor workers).

The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
will rely on modeling scenarios per the California
Adaptation Planning Guide and the Office of
Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines.

The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment will be
a qualitative analysis and will not include quantitative asset analysis by hazard area.

Subtask 5.5-2: SB 99 Analysis
SB 99 requires all cities and counties, upon the next
revision of the Housing Element on or after January
1, 2020, to update the Safety Element to include
information identifying residential development in
any hazard areas identified in the Safety Element
that do not have at least two emergency evacuation
routes. We will coordinate with City staff to identify
residential developments in any hazard area
identified in the Safety Element that do not have at
least two emergency evacuation routes. Our team
will coordinate with City staff to develop a citywide
map using ESRI that identifies communities with fewer
than two ingress/egress and provide a narrative
description of the implications for evacuation
planning. We will use the analysis to determine if
the City should consider specific goals or policies
to address any identified access limitations or and
incorporate these into the Safety Element.

Subtask 5.5-3: AB 747 Evacuation Capacity
Analysis
We will conduct an emergency evacuation
analysis, consistent with AB 747, that will evaluate
the capacity of evacuation routes under the City’s
identified evacuation scenarios. Our team will
confer with City staff to confirm the City’s key
evacuation scenarios. We will assess the capacity
of evacuation routes, taking into account population
and employment in specific zones of the city using
the SLOCOG model, under several emergency
evacuation scenarios. Based on this assessment, we
will provide recommendations for strategic measures
to be implemented during evacuation where relevant.

We will then summarize the results in a memorandum
with accompanying maps for City review.

Subtask 5.5-4: Administrative Draft Safety
Element
Our team will identify goals, policies, and
implementation programs to address climate change
risks and identified evacuation risks. The Safety
Element will be updated with additional background
descriptions and maps and the constrained parcel
group analysis and the evacuation capacity
assessment. Goals and policies will aim to minimize
risk associated with climate change and evacuation
capacity constraints and build capacity to respond
to the projected impacts of climate change, working
towards creating a resilient, sustainable Arroyo
Grande community. The Safety Element will also be
updated to include a discussion of how it aligns with
other General Plan elements. As requested in the RFP,
the Countywide Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be
incorporated into the updated Element.

Task 5.6: Agriculture, Conservation,
and Open Space Element
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft
Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element.

The updated Element will reflect any changes resulting
from the Land Use Element, especially if the City intends on annexing unincorporated county land or expanding
the existing Sphere of Influence. The updated Element
will identify policies for protecting and conserving open spaces, agricultural lands, and other natural resources.

Additionally, the Element will consider mitigation
measures when agricultural properties are proposed for
conversion to urban uses.

Task 5.7: Parks and Recreation Element
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft Parks
and Recreation Element. The updated Element will
reflect any changes resulting from the Land Use Element and feedback received from City Council, Planning
Commission, and the community. We will establish
goals and policies to ensure the city meets the parkland and recreation needs of the community, and offer
strategies for City staff to consider.

Task 5.8: Economic Development
Element
Subtask 5.8-1: Economic Opportunities
Analysis
As background for the updated Economic
Development Element, our team will complete
an Economic Opportunities Analysis focused on
Arroyo Grande’s business growth and job creation
potentials. This analysis will ensure that the General
Plan land use alternatives are optimized from a job
creation perspective. The economic opportunities
analysis will include the following sub-tasks:
• Location quotient analysis to identify industries/
business types for which Arroyo Grande and
the larger Central Coast region have a
competitive advantage relative to national
benchmarks;
• Analysis of recent historic job growth by
industry (Arroyo Grande and Central Coast
region), including a “shift share” comparison to
national trends;
62 63
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

• Review of relevant studies and strategies
prepared by regional economic development
organizations (i.e., REACH and the Economic
Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo
County);
• Profile of current regional initiatives focused on
targeted growth industries; and
• Profile of current initiatives focused on
addressing the potential economic impacts and
repositioning opportunities related to the
pending (but delayed) decommissioning of the
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

Based on the above sources of information, we
will identify the industry types likely to offer the most significant growth potentials for Arroyo Grande over
the next 10-20 years. Our team will also identify
any specific land use policies that would enhance
the City’s potential for attracting and growing target
industries.

Subtask 5.8-2: Administrative Draft
Economic Development Element
We will prepare a General Plan Economic
Development Element that addresses the City’s
development, job creation, tourism, and fiscal
stability goals. The element will include the following:
• The City’s goals and policies for Economic
Development, presented in a format consistent
with other elements of the Plan
• Polices to retain local businesses and attract
head-of-household jobs
• Goals, policies, and programs aimed at
addressing the impacts from the
decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon Power
Plant
• A summary of the issues and opportunities
identified during the economic opportunities
analysis
• Policies aimed at supporting the City’s business
retention/expansion/attraction and
entrepreneurial development potentials
• Specific strategies for attracting targeted land
uses (e.g., retail, industrial, hotels)
Task 5.9: Environmental Justice Element
Subtask 5.9-1: Environmental Justice
Community Analysis
All people, regardless of race, culture, or income,
deserve the right to live, work, play, and pray in
a healthy and safe environment. Unfortunately,
across the United States, residents of low-income
communities, communities of color, and indigenous
communities are disproportionately impacted by
environmental pollution and experience higher rates
of related health problems. Conditions in these
communities can be traced to a variety of factors
including, but not limited to, a history of inequitable land use and zoning policies, underinvestment, and
lack of meaningful engagement with community
residents in planning and policy decisions. In each of
these communities, there is often a history of residents coming together to advocate for and achieve
environmental justice.

With the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 1000,
California Government Code Section 65302(h)
requires local jurisdictions to incorporate
environmental justice in their general plans. The
statute requires local governments to develop
policies to reduce the disproportionate exposure
to pollution in neighborhoods that also experience
increased social and economic challenges.

California law refers to communities with high levels
of environmental and socioeconomic vulnerability as
“disadvantaged communities.”
Our team will use at least two geospatial screening
tools with socioeconomic, environmental, and health
information to identify potential “disadvantaged
communities” in Arroyo Grande. These tools include:

CalEnviroScreen 4.0. The California Environmental
Health and Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) 4.0
is a science-based mapping tool that ranks each
census tract in the State using a series if indicators
to identify communities most affected from multiple
pollutants and who are vulnerable to pollution’s
effects.

EJSCREEN. The US Environmental Protection
Agency’s (USEPA) Environmental Justice Screening
and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN) similarly uses
environmental and demographic data to rank each
census block group’s environmental health risks
nationally.

Subtask 5.9-2: Environmental Justice
Working Session
From the research and findings gained during the
Environmental Justice analysis (Subtask 5.9-1), we
will facilitate a working session with City staff to
discuss potential findings. This working session will
be held virtually via Zoom (or another City preferred
platform). As part of this working session, our team
will strategize with City staff on the materials and
exercises to be presented during the Environmental
Justice Community Workshops (Subtask 5.9-3).

Subtask 5.9-3: Community Workshops:

Environmental Justice Element
Our team will work with City staff and local
community organizations to facilitate up to two
community workshops on the Environmental Justice
Element. We will work with City staff to determine
both locations and times for these workshops that
allow those with non-traditional work schedules to
attend and provide feedback. We and community
group representatives will make a presentation on
the Environmental Justice Element and facilitate an
interactive discussion.

Consistent with the City’s adopted DEIJ Policy,
all discussions could include simultaneous verbal
translation. All workshop materials and presentations
can be fully translated into whatever language City
staff feel would be beneficial. For those unable to
join the workshops in person, all materials and a
video recording of the workshops will be posted on
the project website. We will summarize the results
of the input received in the Administrative Draft
Environmental Justice Element.

Subtask 5.9-4: Administrative Draft
Environmental Justice Element
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft
Environmental Justice Element that aligns with
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Guidelines. We will use CalEnviroscreen 4.0 and
EJSCREEN to determine areas of concern regarding
environmental justice issues consistent with SB 1000.

The Environmental Justice Element at a minimum will
address goals, policies, and programs pertaining
to educational attainment, pollution burden of
disadvantaged communities, and identification of
burdensome quality of life metrics including poverty,
unemployment, linguistic isolation, and health.

The Element will include an introduction describing
racial, social, and environmental injustices in
historical planning practices and how the General
Plan includes planning practices that promote
healthy, diverse, and equitable communities. We will
focus goals, policies, and implementation programs
for:
• Racial and Social Justice
• Environmental Justice
• Civic Engagement in the Public DecisionMaking Process 64 65
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task 5.10: Prepare Land Use and
Circulation Diagrams
Our team will prepare an updated Land Use Diagram
as part of the Administrative Draft General Plan.

We will discuss options for streamlining the land use
designations and graphic design options for making
the land use diagram more user-friendly.

Based on the distribution of land uses on the Land
Use Diagram, we will develop and prepare a Draft
Circulation Diagram. The classifications and diagram
will indicate the distribution, location, and standards for city roadways. The classifications could also expand
upon the functional classifications to consider street
context and non-auto travel modes. This definition
ensures that street standards are not uniformly applied, but consider a street’s relation to surrounding land uses, appropriate travel speeds, and need to accommodate
multiple travel modes. Roadway standards could also
be developed to use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
instead of or in addition to LOS standards.

Task 5.11: Preliminary Public Review
Draft General Plan
Our team will revise the Administrative Draft General
Plan based on City staff comments and prepare a
Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
step of reviewing the Preliminary Public Review Draft
General Plan with advisory bodies and decision-makers
is important to ensure the Draft Plan meets expectations before conducting the CEQA analysis.

Task 5.12: Planning Commission Study
Session: Preliminary Public Review Draft
General Plan
Our team will facilitate a virtual study session via Zoom with the Planning Commission to review and confirm
the Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan. The
Planning Commission will recommend any revisions or
adjustments to the Plan to the City Council, which we
will show in Word track changes.

Task 5.13: City Council Study Session:

Preliminary Public Review Draft General
Plan
Our team will facilitate a virtual study session via
Zoom with the City Council to review and confirm
the Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan. The
City Council will provide direction on revisions or
adjustments to the Plan prior to our team conducting the CEQA analysis.

Task 5.14: Public Review Draft General
Plan
Based on direction from the City Council, our team
will prepare the Public Review Draft General Plan for
publication and environmental review.

Phase 6 - Program
Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR)
Based on review of the RFP and our experience
preparing General Plan EIRs, we recommend the
preparation of a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168. Although the legally
required contents of a Program EIR are technically
the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs
are by necessity more general and may contain a
broader discussion of impacts, alternatives, and
mitigation measures than a Project EIR. A Program
EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that may
be characterized as one large project. Use of a
Program EIR provides the City with the opportunity to
consider broad policy alternatives and programwide
mitigation measures and greater flexibility to address
environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a
comprehensive basis. Once a Program EIR has been
certified, subsequent activities within the program may be evaluated to determine what, if any, additional
CEQA documentation needs to be prepared. If
the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as
specifically and comprehensively as possible, many
subsequent activities could be found to be consistent
with the Program EIR mitigation parameters and
additional environmental documentation may not be
required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). In
this case, the Program EIR serves a valuable purpose
as the first-tier environmental analysis that will assist in streamlining and possibly exempting future projects
from CEQA with the idea that the General Plan’s
Program EIR can be used for such exemptions when
projects are consistent with the General Plan.

Task 5.15: General Plan Consultation
and Referrals
State law requires consultation with a variety of
Federal, State, regional, and local agencies whenever
a jurisdiction updates or amends its general plan (e.g., Native American Tribes, Military Branches, water
agencies). These statutes are located throughout the
Government Code and have varying requirements
for when draft and final documents must be submitted
and how long agencies have to review and provide
comments. We maintain a checklist of agency
consultation requirements that we will use to ensure the City provides the Public Review Draft General Plan to
the appropriate agencies.

Phase 5 Deliverables
• General Plan organizational options
• Land Use Density and Intensity Evaluation
Memorandum
• Evacuation Analysis – Technical Memorandum
• Draft and Final Vulnerability Assessments
• Draft and Final Evacuation Maps
• Economic Opportunity Analysis
• Environmental Justice Analysis Memorandum
• Environmental Justice Working Session agenda
and materials
• Environmental Justice Community Workshops
Guide
• Environmental Justice Community workshops
materials
• Land Use Diagram
• Circulation Diagrams
• Administrative Draft General Plan
• Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan
• Planning Commission Study Session Presentation
and Materials
• City Council Study Session Presentation and
Materials
• Public Review Draft General Plan
• General Plan Consultation Checklist
66 67
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task 6.1: CEQA Kick-off Meeting
Our team will facilitate a work session with City staff on preparing the Program EIR and completing the
adoption process. Because the Program EIR Phase will
follow later in the schedule than the Draft General Plan Update, the anticipated scope of work for this Phase
is based on reasonable assumptions about the scope
and scale of the General Plan update. The CEQA
kick-off meeting will provide an opportunity for the city and the project team to evaluate these initial scoping
assumptions and update the scope of work for this
phase if necessary. The kick-off meeting will also allow the City/consultant team an opportunity to discuss
the approach to the environmental evaluation and
possible project alternatives. Community concerns that
have surfaced to date will be discussed. We will also
have an opportunity to confirm the cumulative impact
analysis approach. The work session, or CEQA kick-off
meeting, will cover the following topics:
• Strategies for CEQA compliance
• Coordination of environmental document with
general plan update preparation
• Developing a reasonable range of alternatives
• Cumulative impact analysis
• Using new or revised policies as mitigation
measures
• Agency consultation
• Public notice
• Hearings
• Adoption
• Final documents
Task 6.2: Program EIR Project
Description and Notice of Preparation
Our team will work with City staff to develop a
Program EIR project description and will prepare a
draft EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) for City staff
to review. The NOP is intended to alert other public
agencies about the undertaking, and to solicit their
input on the scope of the study. We will submit a final PDF copy of the NOP to City staff for posting on its
website, filing with the County Clerk, and distributing to public agencies. It is assumed that the City will
distribute the NOP using the City’s NOP distribution list.

We will review and make suggestions regarding the
list. Our team would be responsible for filing the NOP
with the State Clearinghouse/Office of Planning and
Research.

Task 6.3: Program EIR Scoping Meeting
Our team will facilitate a public and agency scoping
meeting associated with the release of the NOP. The
Scoping Meeting will be held during the 30-day NOP
period to introduce the community to the Program EIR
process and obtain input on the EIR scope of work. It
will include a brief presentation, followed by public
comment and input from meeting attendees. We will
prepare a summary of input gathered, which will
be included in the Draft Program EIR along with any
written public comments received by the City during the NOP comment period.

Task 6.4: Transportation and Traffic
Impact Analysis
Our team will evaluate potential transportation
impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan
consistent with CEQA requirements. We will prepare
the Transportation/Traffic section of the environmental document, to include a description of the impact
analysis, findings, and any recommended mitigations.

We will assess vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts
using the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) Regional Travel Demand Model VMT
post-processor. The model’s VMT post- processor
includes residential VMT, work VMT, and retail VMT.

The SLOCOG model forecast land use data will be
modified to include updated development potential for
the General Plan horizon year.

In addition, we will provide a forecast of daily traffic volumes during the General Plan horizon year, derived
from the SLOCOG model, relevant to other EIR
chapters that analyze impacts to air quality and noise.

The daily traffic volume forecast will also be relevant to potential street modification recommendations. At the
conclusion of the CEQA public review period, we will
prepare responses to written comments received by the
city, as well as oral comments received during public
hearings, that pertain to transportation impacts.

Task 6.5: Administrative Draft Program
EIR
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft Program
EIR (ADPEIR) in compliance with CEQA requirements
using information gathered as part of the General
Plan update effort and comments on the NOP, as well
as information from other relevant CEQA documents
completed by the City in recent years. We will be
responsible for development of a legally adequate and
appropriate Program EIR for the General Plan.

We will prepare the ADPEIR based on the project
description approved by City staff. We will base the
description of the environmental and regulatory setting for the General Plan primarily on the data available
online, Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook (see
Task 3.7), and information from other relevant CEQA
documents completed by the City in recent years, any
information received during the General Plan Update
process, as well as information from recent City plans
such as the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans.

Our team will introduce each topical section in the
environmental analysis with a brief statement of its
context in the ADPEIR and the development of the
General Plan. This effort may include interpretive
information for the reader to better understand how the General Plan affects the environment, as well as the
sources of data used in the analysis.

The setting for each topical section will describe
existing conditions relevant to the topic and provide
the groundwork for impact analysis. The number of
impacts to be analyzed and the depth of analysis will
be determined based on areas of concern identified
by our team and City staff, as well as responses to
the NOP. We will clearly state thresholds used to
determine the significance of project impacts and
will include thresholds in the CEQA Guidelines,
Appendix G, as well as existing regulatory standards,
if applicable. Impacts will be identified, and mitigation measures will be prepared to reduce significant
impacts to a less-than-significant level, when feasible.

For each potentially significant impact identified in
the ADPEIR, we would identify mitigation measures or
policy statements proposed by the City as part of the
General Plan Update to avoid or reduce identified
impacts. We will construct mitigation measures as
policy statements or revised or additional programs to
facilitate incorporation into the final General Plan. In order to prepare an ADPEIR that meets the needs of
the City and regulatory requirements of the State, the
ADPEIR will comprise of the following sections:

Executive Summary
This section will provide a summary of the entire
ADPEIR and include the following:
• A discussion of the Project objectives;
• A brief description of the proposed Project;
• A summary of the environmental setting for the
Planning Area;
• A summary of impacts;
• A summary of mitigation measures (mitigating
policies);
• A discussion of alternatives considered; and
• Areas of controversy, and issues remaining to
be resolved.
68 69
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Introduction
The ADPEIR will contain an introductory chapter that
provides an overview of the project and context,
summarizes CEQA requirements and the environmental
review process, describes the legal purpose of the
ADPEIR, outlines the environmental issues being
addressed, and presents the organization of the report.

Project Description and Environmental Setting
These sections will contain the City objectives for the General Plan and a summary of the General Plan
components. It will also outline the Planning Area
boundaries and summarize existing conditions and
any new land uses proposed under the project. The
information will be described in a mix of text, tabular, and graphic form (i.e., maps and diagrams).

Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
The environmental analysis section will include four
main components:
• Setting – description of current conditions with
respect to the issue in question, including the
existing regulatory environment
• Impact analysis – statement of significance
thresholds and discussion of potentially
significant effects of the proposed project
• Programmatic mitigation measures – methods
by which significant effects can be reduced or
eliminated, presented as General Plan policies
to be introduced back into the plan
• Level of significance after mitigation –
discussion of whether or not proposed
mitigation measures reduce impacts to below
the adopted significance threshold
Adverse impacts that meet or exceed significance
thresholds will be considered significant. Additionally, all impacts will be characterized in terms of shortor long-term effects and presented in a logical discussion that the general public can understand. Any
inconsistencies with local or regional plans will be
discussed. Issues to be analyzed in a programmatic
framework will include:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture/Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Our team will discuss approaches to the impact
analysis for the Program EIR with City staff and will
be consistent with the assumptions and methodologies
used in recent EIRs in the city of Arroyo Grande to the extent possible. In general, the impact analysis will
focus on the issues present in the Planning Area and
likely to be affected or impacted by the General Plan
Update. Some issues, such as mineral resources, may
not require a detailed analysis relative to other issues because they do not occur in Arroyo Grande or would
be unaffected by the plan updates.

Alternatives Analysis
A range of EIR alternatives will be considered in the
ADPEIR. CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the
“No Project” Alternative. For purposes of this Program
EIR, the No Project Alternative would be a continuation of the existing General Plan without any updates or
additions. In addition to the “No-Project” Alternative, we will consider other alternatives (such as alternative land use scenarios) that will be developed during the
General Plan Update. Evaluation of alternatives will be in less detail than that for the proposed plans, though the analysis will provide decision-makers and the public adequate information to decide between alternatives.

This section will also identify the “environmentally
superior alternative.” If the “No Project” Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the ADPEIR
will identify the environmentally superior alternative
among the remaining scenarios.

Cumulative Impacts
The document will evaluate cumulative impacts based
on planning documents for the City’s Planning Area.

The contribution of the proposed plan updates to the
overall cumulative impact will also be estimated and
discussed. It is anticipated that cumulative analyses will be included at the end of each EIR topical section.

Other CEQA Sections
The ADPEIR will provide, in addition to the sections
discussed above, all other required CEQA sections,
including areas of known controversy, growth
inducement effects, and significant unavoidable
impacts. We will provide the ADPEIR to City staff in
digital (word) format. City staff will conduct one review of the ADPEIR and provide consolidated comments and
edits.

Task 6.6: Staff Review/Screen Check
Draft Program EIR
Our team will incorporate City input into the ADPEIR
and provide City staff with digital versions of the
ADPEIR in both Word and PDF formats. City staff
will conduct one review of the ADPEIR and provide
consolidated comments and edits. We will incorporate
appropriate revisions and prepare a Screen Check
Draft Program EIR (SDPEIR). The Screen Check version
will be provided in digital format.

Task 6.7: Draft Program EIR
Once City staff approve the SDPEIR, we will prepare
the Draft Program EIR (DPEIR) for public circulation.

We would file the DPEIR with the State Clearinghouse,
including all required accompanying forms, such as
the Notice of Completion (NOC), through the digital
CEQASubmit platform. We assume that City staff will
file the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DPEIR with the County Clerk and distribute the NOA of the DPEIR
to responsible agencies, and interested agencies,
organizations, and persons. We also assume that City
staff will be responsible for required newspaper ads
and other public noticing of the document’s availability, such as radius label mailing or on-site posting. As
required by State law, the DPEIR will require at least a 45- day public review period.

Task 6.8: Draft and Final Response to
Comments
Within four weeks of receipt of comment letters
received on the DPEIR, our team will submit a draft
Response to Comments to City staff for review. The
Response to Comments document will include a list of
commenters, comment letters, responses to comments,
and any added or revised text of the DPEIR that may
be necessary. Responses to Comments will include
reasoned analysis and, as necessary, will include
additional analysis. The final version of the Response
to Comments will be incorporated as an appendix to
the Final Program EIR. The scope and budget assume
a level of effort that would include 100 hours of
70 71
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

consultant time for this task. This assumes receipt of
approximately 15-25 comment letters. If the number
of comment letters and the effort to prepare responses
is greater than anticipated, we will notify City staff
immediately and discuss options to amend our scope
of work and budget as necessary. Following receipt of
City staff comments, we will finalize the Response to
Comments.

Task 6.9: Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Concurrent with the Response to Comments, our team
will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan (MMRP), which we will include in the Final
Program EIR. We will provide the MMRP in a format
designed for use by planners, environmental monitors,
or code enforcement officers. Essentially, this plan will take the form of a detailed table that describes:
• Persons/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance with each condition
• Timing when monitoring must occur
• Frequency of monitoring
• Criteria to be used to determine compliance
with conditions
We will incorporate the final version of the MMRP as
an appendix to the Final Program EIR.

Task 6.10: Final Program EIR
We will complete the Final Program EIR after the review period has closed and all comments submitted during
that period have been received. The Final Program
EIR will include corrections to the Draft Program EIR (if warranted), comments received, and responses (Task

6.7) as well as the MMRP (Task 6.9). Our team will
prepare a Screencheck Final Program EIR for City staff
review and confirmation followed by a Final Program
EIR after incorporating consolidated comments received
from City staff. Within one day of Final Program EIR
certification and project approval, we will submit the
draft Notice of Determination (NOD) to City staff.

We assume that City staff will file the NOD with the
County Clerk and be responsible for payment of filing
fees. We would then file the NOD with the State
Clearinghouse.

Phase 6 Deliverables
• Draft PEIR Project Description
• Final PEIR Project Description
• NOP (digital files and filing with State
Clearinghouse)
• Scoping Meeting materials
• Administrative Draft Program EIR
• Screencheck Draft Program EIR
• Draft Program EIR
• NOC/NOA (digital files and filing with State
Clearinghouse)
• Draft Response to Comments
• Final Response to Comments
• Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
• Screencheck Final Program EIR
• Final Program EIR (digital version, 10 hard
copies, and 10 CD copies to the City)
• NOD (digital files and filing with State
Clearinghouse)
Phase 7 - Public Review and
Adoption
Task 7.1: Planning Commission Hearing
Our team will attend one public hearing with the
Planning Commission to review the Draft General Plan
and Final PEIR. The Planning Commission will consider
the comments made during the public hearing and
make recommendations to the City Council.

Task 7.2: City Council Hearing
Our team will attend one public hearing with the City
Council to review the Draft General Plan and Final
PEIR. At these hearings, the City Council will consider the Planning Commission recommendations and the
comments made at the public hearings. After the
hearings, the City Council will certify the Final PEIR and direct our team to incorporate their recommendations
and prepare the Final General Plan.

Task 7.3: Final General Plan Documents
Following City Council direction, we will prepare the
Final General Plan for adoption.

Task 7.4: City Council Adoption
Hearing
Our team will attend one hearing with the City Council
for adoption of the Final General.
72 73
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Existing Conditions
and Trends Evaluation
Workshop #2
Workshops
2023 2024 2025
Phase 1: Project Initiation
Phase 2: Public Outreach
Strategy
Phase 3: Gather and Analyze
Data
Phase 5: General Plan
Phase 4: Visioning and
Guiding Principles
Phase 7: Public Review and
Adoption
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan | Two-Year Proposed Schedule Phase 6: Program
Environmental
Impact Report 45-day Public Review
Study SessionMar
Apr
Oct
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Aug
Sept
Jul
Oct
Aug
Sept
Jun
Jul
May
Feb
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jan
Feb
Study Sessions
Workshop #1
Stakeholder Interviews
GIS Data/
Basemap
General
Plan Audit
Project Website, Branding, and Logo
Kick-off Meeting
VMT Analysis
Existing Conditions
and Trends Workbook
Vision and Guiding Principles
Administrative Draft
General Plan Public Review
Draft General Plan
Administrative Draft
Program EIR
Draft Program EIR Final Program EIR
Response to
Comments
Planning Commission
Hearing
City Council
Hearing
City Council
Adoption
Final
General Plan
Final Work Plan and Schedule
SB 99 Analysis
Outreach Strategy
Kick-off Meeting
AB 747 Analysis
Land Use Analysis
Study Sessions
Existing Conditions
and Trends Evaluation
Workshop #2
Workshops
2023 2024 2025
Phase 1: Project Initiation
Phase 2: Public Outreach
Strategy
Phase 3: Gather and Analyze
Data
Phase 5: General Plan
Phase 4: Visioning and
Guiding Principles
Phase 7: Public Review and
Adoption
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan | Two-Year Proposed Schedule Phase 6: Program
Environmental
Impact Report 45-day Public Review
Study SessionMar
Apr
Oct
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Aug
Sept
Jul
Oct
Aug
Sept
Jun
Jul
May
Feb
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jan
Feb
Study Sessions
Workshop #1
Stakeholder Interviews
GIS Data/
Basemap
General
Plan Audit
Project Website, Branding, and Logo
Kick-off Meeting
VMT Analysis
Existing Conditions
and Trends Workbook
Vision and Guiding Principles
Administrative Draft
General Plan Public Review
Draft General Plan
Administrative Draft
Program EIR
Draft Program EIR Final Program EIR
Response to
Comments
Planning Commission
Hearing
City Council
Hearing
City Council
Adoption
Final
General Plan
Final Work Plan and Schedule
SB 99 Analysis
Outreach Strategy
Kick-off Meeting
AB 747 Analysis
Land Use Analysis
Study Sessions
74 75
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES

TWO-YEAR SCHEDULE
ATTACHMENT 2

THREE-YEAR WORK SCOPE
The following three-year work scope builds upon the two-year work scope. Given the additional flexibility in schedule, the three-year scope offers more robust community engagement opportunities, an alternatives analysis, and a technical Development Code update for General Plan consistency. Several tasks described in the RFP are listed as optional tasks (e.g., additional public outreach, Climate Action Plan Update, objective design standards, and East Grand Avenue overlay district). While these tasks can certainly be added to the project work program, they have cost and timing implications that the three-year schedule would not accommodate fully and adequately.

If selected for the General Plan update, we will discuss with City staff the specific costs and time implications and include additional tasks as appropriate.

Phase 1 - Project Initiation
Task 1.1: Kick-Off Meeting and City
Tour
We will facilitate a kick-off meeting with City staff at the outset of the General Plan update. This meeting
will provide an opportunity to discuss ideas and
expectations for the project, confirm roles and
responsibilities, refine the work program and schedule, establish communication protocols, review, and discuss
overall format and organization of products, and meet
with key City department staff. We also initially discuss the public outreach strategy with City staff to ensure that a diverse group of community members, stakeholders,
and organizations participate in the General Plan
update process. This conversation will also include
identifying underrepresented or marginalized groups
in the city. Following this meeting, we will tour the city with City staff to examine key issue and opportunity
sites that will be addressed in the General Plan update program.

Task 1.2: Joint Study Session
Given the significance of the General Plan update,
it will be important for the City Council and Planning
Commission to meet our team early in the process.

We will facilitate an all-hands study session with
key City staff, City Council members, and Planning
Commissioners. This study session will provide a
common understanding of the need for and purpose
of the General Plan update, the key steps in the
process, public outreach, legislative mandates, and
contemporary planning issues. We will facilitate a
discussion on the major issues facing Arroyo Grande
and then solicit feedback on the several topical areas
that will be carried thematically through the General
Plan. The study session will be widely publicized and
open to interested community members. We will post
the session presentation, support materials, and results on the City’s and project website.

Task 1.3: Develop Final Work Program
Based on information exchanged during Tasks 1.1
and 1.2, we will refine the scope of work and project
schedule to address City input. The schedule will be
detailed to show:
• Proposed time frames for each phase;
• The timing for all major documents;
• Time frame for each joint Planning Commission
and City Council workshop; and
• Timing of various community engagement
activities.

The project schedule will include coordination and
community outreach components that will occur in
association with major milestones in the development of the General Plan update.

Phase 1 Deliverables
• Kick-Off meeting agenda and materials
• Joint Study Session presentation
• Joint Study Session materials
• Project schedule
• Final work program
Phase 2 - Public Outreach
Strategy
Task 2.1: Public Outreach Strategy
We will work with City staff to organize a
comprehensive Public Outreach Strategy that we will
use throughout the General Plan update. The intent is to implement robust, meaningful, and inclusive outreach
methods and events that transcend traditional public
outreach barriers. The Public Outreach Strategy will
detail outreach responsibilities and describe how the
engagement will be structured to ensure residents,
businesses, property owners, non-English speakers,
and underrepresented groups are aware of and
engaged in the project. The Strategy will adhere to
the tenants of City’s DEIJ Policy. As part of this strategy, we will develop and use the following engagement
components:

Business Cards. Business cards with the project
logo and website link are an easy way to get the
word out about the project. Agency staff, decisionmakers, and others can hand out the business cards to interested community members. This is an
effective way of creating interest in the project and
getting people to visit the website.

Press Releases. Prior to every community workshop
and document release, we will prepare and
distribute news releases to inform media outlets
serving the community about upcoming meetings.

Press releases describing the project meetings and
milestone documents can help educate and inform
community members about the planning process.

They also help ensure accurate project coverage
and eliminate confusion.

Online Engagement. As part of the project
website, we will set up an online engagement
platform to provide the community with an easy
method to provide input on the project. The online
engagement tool provides a suite of listening,
information, analysis, reporting, and relationship
management features that enables us to mix and
match precisely the right online tools for effective
community engagement. we will regularly update
the engagement site with new questions, surveys,
and opinion polls. These platforms have been used
successfully on several general plan projects to
engage the community.

Email Blasts. Within the first month of the project,
we will develop a template for email blasts that is
consistent with the overall project brand. We will
work with the City to develop a project-specific
email contact list and/or use the City’s existing
e-notifier to send regular email announcements.

PLEASE NOTE:

In an effort to better differentiate between the two- and three-year work scopes, we have highlighted additional three-year phases and tasks in red. These additional items are only applicable to the three-year work scope, otherwise all remaining tasks are included in both work scopes as provided in this proposal.

NOTE:

We have included a number of additional community
engagement activities in the Optional Tasks section
for City staff consideration.
76 77
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Newsletters. We will prepare newsletters at key
milestones in the project. The newsletters will
provide easy access to information and keep the
community up-to-date on the development of the
General Plan.

City Hall Displays. We will periodically provide
materials for City staff to display at City Hall.

These displays will provide timely information on
the update process, provide posters on current
developments, and provide opportunities for
interactive displays designed to gain community
input.

Pop-Up Events. We will work with City staff to
develop interactive materials that can be used by
City staff and community volunteers at various
community events (such as the Arroyo Grande
Farmers Market), providing a great way to
educate the community about the Update and
to gain their input at key stages of the Update
project.

In-Person and Virtual Community Workshops.

In-person workshops are a traditional, time-tested
community engagement activity. They should
be held at convenient places where people feel
comfortable gathering. Workshop sponsors should
offer food, translation services, and childcare to
make the meetings more accessible to families
and non-English speakers. Typically, we use one of
two workshop formats: open house or interactive.

The open house format is most useful to provide
information and getting high-level feedback. The
interactive workshops may include some or all
the open house components but will emphasize
participant interaction in either facilitated
discussion groups or exercises designed to gain
information about topics, such as the community
vision; issues, opportunities, and assets; and
alternatives and options. We will work with City
staff to determine the best location and time of
these events to ensure those with non-traditional
work schedules can provide their feedback.

Task 2.2: General Plan Website and
Branding
We will create and host a project specific website and
project branding unique to this General Plan update
and Arroyo Grande:

Project Branding. We will develop an overall
brand for the General Plan update with input from
City staff. This brand will be carried through all
materials, the project website, and presentations
to build enthusiasm about the project and ensure
that this effort is distinct in the minds of the public and other stakeholders. As part of this effort, we
will develop three branding options for the City’s
selection.

Project Website. We will design, develop, and
maintain a project website during the project.

The website will be fully translatable to over 50
languages for the benefit of all in the community
and will include the following:

Pop-Up Events
Pop-up booths are a great way to gain community
feedback in an informal an relaxed environment.
• Project information and overview and
purpose of the General Plan Process
• Listing of all meetings
• All presentations and materials produced for
public meetings and workshops
• Fact sheets regarding the planning process
• All materials produced for the Plan
• Library with all relevant documents
• Online surveys
• Social pinpoint (interactive online comment
capture and community conversation board)
• Email sign-ups
Click or visit the following links to view examples:
• Los Gatos General Plan
www.losgatos2040.com
• Pleasant Hill General Plan
www.pleasanthill2040.com
• Solvang General Plan
www.plansolvang.com
• San Ramon General Plan
www.plansanramon.com
Translation Services. Translation services are
essential to ensure effective, inclusive, and
accurate communication to all community
members. There are two basic types of translation
services for the project: verbal translation and
translation of written materials. Presentations,
posters, handouts, and all other written materials
should be produced in all languages that are
prominent in the community. Verbal translation
services should be provided at all public meetings
and workshops and advertised as such. Sometimes
individuals are more comfortable participating
in the planning process when a local community
group or organization is involved. If appropriate,
agency staff should work closely with local
organizations and individuals to reach out to nonEnglish speaking communities and ensure they are engaged in the process.
78 79
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task 2.3: Stakeholder Interviews
We team will conduct up to 12 one-on-one and group
meetings with key stakeholders and community groups
to solicit input on issues and expectations for the
General Plan update. The purpose of these interviews
is to identify areas of concern and opportunity for
the city and ensure that we are incorporating broad
community support. We will develop the list of
stakeholders in consultation with City staff, but could include the Mayor, City Council members, and key
stakeholders that should include the representatives
from the school district, Bike Coalition, Chamber
of Commerce, Diversity Coalition of SLO County,
R.A.C.E. Matters, local developers, and others as
suggested by the city. This will also include specific
outreach to non-English speakers, seniors, and youth
within the community. These interviews will be virtual
via Zoom.

Task 2.4: Newsletter: General Plan
Update Overview
We will prepare a newsletter that describes what a
general plan is, how and why it is being revised,
the project schedule, and how the community can
participate. We will use the newsletter to promote the
online engagement and opportunities to be involved in
the Update process.

Phase 2 Deliverables
• Public Outreach Strategy
• Project branding style guide
• Project logo
• Project business cards
• Project website
• Stakeholder interview materials
• Stakeholder Interview Summary
• Newsletter: General Plan Update Overview
Newsletters
Our newsletters are high-graphical and help keep
community members and up-to-date on project phases.

Phase 3 - Gather and Analyze
Data
Task 3.1: Existing Data Collection and
Compilation
Knowledge of existing conditions within Arroyo
Grande will provide us and the community with a more
thorough understanding of what has changed since
the last General Plan was prepared and the trends
that will be shaping the community’s future. At the
beginning of the project, we will prepare a Request for Information (RFI), which will list the data items needed to understand the city on data level. Our team will
initially collect as much of this information as possible from online and external resources. The items requested (including native format files whenever possible)
typically include the following:
• Current City planning and development efforts
• Municipal Code and Development Code
• Any other pertinent information, documents,
plans, and other items identified by City staff
• Infrastructure and utilities plans
Task 3.2: Assemble GIS Data and
Prepare the Base Map
We will work with City staff to obtain existing City
and County GIS data and review City mapping
protocol and requirements. We will prepare base
maps for reports and display presentation, including
establishing a uniform legend and title block for use
on all maps prepared. We will then develop all GIS
data and mapping prepared for the General Plan
Update consistent with City protocols and data formats
to ensure easy integration into the City’s information
system. At the conclusion of the General Plan update
project, we will provide to the City all original data as well as project specific data layers modified or created by our team.

Task 3.3: General Plan Audit
We will work with City staff to evaluate the existing
General Plan to determine what works, what does not
work, and where the plan is not providing adequate
or current guidance. This will be done using our
proprietary General Plan Audit Tool. This tool will help City staff gain insights on the existing General Plan
clarity, linkages to other plans, progress in achieving desired outcomes, and whether goals, policies, and
programs should be carried forward, modified, or
removed. The Audit will also consider the General Plan
additions needed to address changes in State law,
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
General Plan Guidelines, and contemporary planning
practice. The results of this review will be documented in a General Plan Audit Report. At a minimum, the
Audit Report will address the following questions:

Completion. Has a policy or program been
achieved or carried out?
Clarity. Is the policy or program language clear
and easily interpreted?
Progress. Can policy or program implementation
be easily monitored?
Outcome. Did the policy or program result in the
desired outcome and achieve the vision or goals
of the General Plan.

Continuation. Is the goal, policy, or program
still relevant and can be carried forward into the
updated General Plan?
Current. Does the goal, policy, or program
adequately address current issues?
Modification. How should the goal, policy, or
program be modified to provide better direction or
address current issues and trends?
Task 3.4: Existing Conditions Evaluation
We will collect, research, and assess existing
conditions and trends for the following topics. A
summary of key information from this evaluation will
be presented in the Existing Conditions and Trends
Workbook (Task 3.8) while the full data assessment will be included in the EIR.

Land Use. We will analyze the existing General
Plan land uses and adopted plans that affect
development in Arroyo Grande. We will map and
analyze existing land uses based on available City
GIS data and identify opportunities and constraints
for future development and reuse. We will also
describe regional planning efforts affecting the
city. This section will also summarize the community
character of Arroyo Grande neighborhoods.

Population, Employment, and Housing. We
will collect and assess historical, current, and
projected population, employment, and housing
characteristics in the Planning Area. We will work
with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) to obtain the most current demographic
and housing data, including US Census data, and
data available from the California Department of
Finance.
80 81
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Circulation and Transportation. Our team will
compile data and information on roadway
segments, transit services, and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. This evaluation will build
on work performed during the 2021 Circulation
Element update that included updates to the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), nexus study and
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines,
as well as the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

We will prepare a concise summary of existing
mobility conditions, including updating available
background data where relevant, U.S. Census
travel mode data, and summarizing collision data
and safety recommendations from the LRFP. Our
evaluation analyzes multi-modal travel, vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) reductions and the provision
of complete streets, including opportunities and
constraints for bicycle, pedestrian, motor vehicle,
and transit travel. We will summarize key data and
information on roadway segments, transit services,
and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We will
prepare a detailed description accompanied with
maps and graphics illustrating the roadway system,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, peak hour traffic
counts, and transit routes and stops.

Biological Resources. Our team will compile data
on sensitive habitats, principal vegetation cover
types, and special-status and endangered species.

This will include primary source material from the
local and regional habitat plans, supplemented
with limited windshield surveys and review of
existing biology studies completed for the city.

Cultural Resources. Our team will compile
data on historic structures and locations and
conduct an archaeological sensitivity analysis for
both prehistoric and historic sites using records
maintained at the regional information center and
published in research papers. We will ensure
that appropriate individuals are contacted with
the surrounding Native American Tribes to ensure
sensitive cultural resources are documented
appropriately consistent with recent State mandates
(SB 18).

Economics. Our team will update the City’s
economic and market data. The update will
cover key demographic, economic, and real
estate factors affecting the city and its role in the
broader region. We will identify the strengths of
the local economy, key competitive attributes and
positioning, and challenges and opportunities
related to an economy heavily reliant on tourism.

Additionally, we will summarize retail trends by
major business category, existing commercial and
industrial vacancies, fiscal revenue sources, and
City General Fund expenditures (broken down by
major budget category).

Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure. Our
team will compile data on infrastructure, resources,
services, and facilities related to water supply
and delivery, wastewater collection and disposal,
stormwater drainage, solid waste and recycling,
energy and telecommunications, law enforcement,
fire protection, health care, schools, and
education, and government services. We will also
assess if the General Plan must include information
related to recent State mandates that require
cities to identify service needs for unincorporated
disadvantaged communities (SB 244).

Noise. Our team will review existing noise data,
including recent EIRs and studies, and summarizes
the existing noise environment in Arroyo Grande
resulting from major roadways and highways, and
stationary noise sources and activities. We will
also document existing noise-sensitive areas and
sites. We will also summarize current information
on ground vibration.

Air Quality. Our team will compile data on
existing air quality conditions within Arroyo Grande
and the nearby vicinity. This will specifically
include the location of existing sensitive receptors
and emission sources, existing mass emissions,
ambient air quality concentration data from the
most applicable monitoring station(s), attainment
designations and natural factors that relate to the
transport and dispersion of air pollutants.
82 83
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Climate Change. Our team will prepare a
climate change section that includes a discussion
of climate change and how the General Plan
Update will address this issue, including both the
reduction of GHG emissions and climate change
vulnerability and adaptation. The report will
briefly summarize relevant background information
regarding these topics and lay out a framework
for the General Plan Update to address climate
change.

Hazards and Safety (including geology). Our
team will compile data on existing natural and
manmade hazards. As part of this evaluation,
we will summarize the geological environment
and associated hazards. This section will
address Seismic Hazard Zones (and soil strength
properties. We will summarize the latest FEMA
floodplain mapping to illustrate potential safety and
development constraints. We will summarize urban
and wildland fire risks, fire hazard risk areas,
and fire protection resources. Our team will also
describe major users and producers of hazardous
materials within or adjacent to the city.

Hydrology and Water Quality. Our team will
summarize sources of groundwater and surface
water, water consumption rates, measures used
to conserve water, and renewable water facilities
and resources. This section will document potential
pollution sources, areas susceptible to water quality
degradation, and source issues and capacity
constraints.

Social and Environmental Justice. Our team will
prepare a section that provides a background on
social and environmental Justice. The discussion
will focus on exposure to environmental hazards,
healthy and affordable housing, access to job
markets, access to health care and healthy foods,
community equality, and community empowerment.

The information gathered will be used to draft the
new Environmental Justice Element (see Task 6.9).

Task 3.5: Community Workshop #1:

Assets, Issues, and Opportunities
Identification
We will facilitate a community workshop to address
assets, issues, and opportunities facing the community.

The community workshop will be a two-part event.

During the first part of the event, our team will provide the community with an overview of the information
developed for Existing Conditions and Trends
Workbook (Task 3.8). This component will highlight
the existing conditions and trends that will influence
the future of the community. The second part of the
event will involve interactive exercises designed to gain input on the assets, issues, and opportunities that the public would like to see addressed in the General Plan
update. We will use a combination of informational
boards, group and individual engaging exercises,
breakout sessions, surveys, and online. The intent
of this workshop is to get community input on what
they think about Arroyo Grande, what they want to
preserve, and what they want to change. Workshop
materials can be provided in both English and nonEnglish languages.

Task 3.6: Assets, Issues, and
Opportunities Workshop Summary
Report
Based on input collected from City staff and Assets,
Issues, and Opportunities Community Workshop, we
will prepare a summary report that categorizes, and
reports all input received. This input will be further
synthesized and reported in the Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook (Task 3.8).

Task 3.7: Newsletter: Existing
Conditions and Trends
We will prepare a newsletter summarizing the results
of the major findings from the Existing Conditions
and Trends Workbook. We will use the newsletter to
publicize the upcoming workshop in Phase 4.

Task 3.8: Existing Conditions and
Trends Workbook
We will prepare an Existing Conditions and Trends
Workbook. The Workbook will be written in an
engaging way to tell a thought-provoking story of
Arroyo Grande – where it has been, where it is today,
and the trends that will shape its future. The Workbook will also identify the significant problems, issues, and concerns facing the community that were identified in
Community Workshop #1 (Task 3.5). The Workbook
will be highly graphical and will use infographics,
charts, maps, and photographs combined with
storytelling techniques. While the content will largely depend on the direction provided by City staff,
decision-makers, and the community during the initial
outreach efforts, we assume the workbook, at a
minimum, will cover the following topics:
• Purpose of the General Plan Update
• All topics analyzed in the Existing Conditions
and Trends Evaluation (see Task 3.4)
• Location and geographic boundary
description, including the regional setting,
Sphere of Influence, and City limits
• A description of the city’s history, including a
graphic timeline of significant events, places,
and people in Arroyo Grande’s past
• A description of what has changed since
Arroyo Grande last updated its General
Plan, including local trends as well as national
and global trends that have shaped our lives
and will continue to shape the future (e.g., the
internet, social networking, online shopping,
car sharing, self-driving cars, sustainable
communities initiatives)
• A snapshot of current conditions and trends,
including a demographic profile, housing
characteristics, economic and market
conditions, transportation infrastructure and
travel patterns, health and environmental
justice, climate change and adaptation,
community design and character description,
and population and development trends
• A description of quality-of-life characteristics,
including parks and open space, arts and
culture, and public realm improvements that
have made Arroyo Grande an exceptional
place to live
This task includes preparation of an initial outline, an administrative draft for staff review, and a final draft that incorporates edits following one round of review
by City staff. The final Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook could be fully translated into non-English
languages.

Phase 3 Deliverables
• Request for Information (RFI)
• GIS Base Maps
• General Plan Audit Report
• Community Workshop #1 Guide
• Community Workshop #1 Materials
• Newsletter: Existing Conditions and Trends
• Assets, Issues, and Opportunities Summary
Report
• Administrative Draft Existing Conditions and
Trends Workbook
• Final Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook
84 85
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Phase 4 - Visioning and
Guiding Principles
A General Plan vision statement and guiding principles
are designed to reflect what community members value
most about their community and the shared aspirations
of what they envision their community being in the
future. The vision statement should be inspirational
and set the key values and aspirations for the General
Plan guiding principles. The guiding principles
should provide more specific guidance that provides
the fundamental doctrine that will be used to guide
development of the General Plan goals and policies.

During this phase, we will work with community
members and leaders, the Planning Commission, and
the City Council to form Arroyo Grande’s vision for the future and guiding principles.

Task 4.1: Community Workshop #2:

Community Visioning Workshop
Our team will facilitate an in-person community
visioning and guiding principles workshop. This
workshop will have three parts. First, as participants
arrive, they can visit a variety of informational
stations, based on the Existing Conditions and Trends
Workbook. These stations will inform participants on
the key planning issues in the Update. Second, we
will present status reports on our progress to date and answer questions about the General Plan Update.

Third, we will have a series of interactive exercise that will solicit feedback from the community on a collective vision and set of guiding principles. These activities
could include the following:

Opportunities and Enhancements. The goal of this
station is to help participants identify the places or
features of Arroyo Grande that offer opportunities
for improvement or enhancement. It will help
identify participant’s priorities. This exercise would
include a large wall map of the city with generic
images that represent things that participants would
like to see in the city. Participants would then
participate in a series of mini-exercises to identify
which features they feel would reflect the kind of
improvements that would benefit Arroyo Grande
over the next 25 years.

Postcards from the Future. In this exercise,
participants would be asked to pretend they are
sending a postcard from Arroyo Grande from the
future. Participants draw a picture to illustrate their vision and write a message to someone describing
their experience in Arroyo Grande.
“Mad Libs” Vision Game. In this exercise,
participants would be asked to develop their
ideal vision for the city. Participants would be
encouraged to brainstorm words, phrases, and
ideas with other participants to come up with the
most creative and inspirational vision. From this
exercise, we obtain the key descriptors that are
used to describe people’s aspirations for the future
of the community. These inputs help identify what
aspects are the most important and are used to
frame the vision statement.

Task 4.2: Visioning Pop-Up Event
We will provide materials for City staff to set up
a visioning “pop-up” booth at up to two events in
Arroyo Grande. The booths would feature boards and
hand-outs that provide an overview of the General
Plan update and gain feedback on a General Plan
Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. While it is
assumed that City staff will attend and run the booth,
if selected for this project, we can discuss having a
member of the our team present at these events.

Task 4.3: Public Outreach Summary
Report: Workshop #2
We will prepare an outreach summary summarizing
the feedback received during Community Visioning
Workshop (Workshop #2). The summary report
will include an overview of the visioning process, a
discussion of input received in the process, and an
outline of next steps in the update project.

Task 4.4: Draft Vision Statement and
Guiding Principals
Our team will prepare the Administrative Draft Vision
Statement and Guiding Principles that represent the
ideal future for the city. We will create the draft Vision Statement and Guiding Principles based on input
gathered at the Community Visioning Workshop and
input from City staff. Following review by City staff,
we will revise the Administrative Draft and prepare
Draft Vision and Guiding Principles for review by the
Planning Commission and City Council.

Task 4.5: Planning Commission Study
Session: Vision and Guiding Principles
We will attend a Planning Commission meeting to
present the community and Commission the Draft
Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. We will
facilitate a discussion of the results of the public
outreach activities that lead to the development of
the Statement, present the Draft Vision Statement and
Guiding Principles, and solicit feedback from the
Commission. Based on that feedback received, we will
refine the Draft Vision Statement for presentation to
the City Council.

Task 4.6: City Council Study Session:

Vision and Guiding Principles
We will attend a City Council meeting to present the
Planning Commission recommended Draft Vision
Statement and Guiding Principles. We will facilitate a
discussion of the Vision Statement and get direction
from the City Council. Based on that direction, we
will prepare the Final Vision Statement and Guiding
Principles.

Task 4.7: Final Vision Statement and
Guiding Principles
Following review by the Planning Commission and
City Council, we will revise and prepare a Final Vision Statement and Guiding Principles that we will use to
guide development of the General Plan Update.

Phase 4 Deliverables
• Community Workshop #2 Guide
• Community Workshop #2 materials
• Community Workshop #2 presentation
• Visioning Pop-Up Events Guide
• Visioning Pup-Up Events materials
• Community Workshop #2 Outreach Summary
• Administrative Draft Vision Statement and
Guiding Principles
• Planning Commission Vision and Guiding
Principles Study Session Presentation
• Planning Commission Vision and Guiding
Principles Study Session Materials
• City Council Vision and Guiding Principles Study
Session Presentation
• City Council Vision and Guiding Principles Study
Session Materials
• Final Vision Statement and Guiding Principles
86 87
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

UrbanFootprint is the world’s first urban
intelligence platform — a comprehensive
urban, climate, and community resilience
data system that serves mission-critical
insights to the institutions that are rebuilding,
financing, and insuring the world’s physical
and social infrastructure.

UrbanFootprint’s data and web-based
geospatial software unifies previously siloed
climate, environmental, urban, and socioeconomic data and helps governments, utilities, financial institutions, and urban
planners answer fundamental resource
questions — where to invest, where to
deploy resources, and where to optimize
for risk, return, resilience, and community.

Learn More Here:
https://urbanfootprint.com/
Phase 5 - Alternative Choices
During this phase, our team will facilitate dialogue
with the community and decision-makers to establish
community priorities for future growth and change.

We will use the results the Existing Conditions and
Trends Workbook, Community Workshops #1 and
#2, input from online exercises, the General Plan
Audit, Vision Statement, and Guiding Principles to
develop land use alternatives. These alternatives will
be reviewed by the community, Planning Commission,
and City Council. Out of this dialogue we expect
to emerge with a consensus on future growth and
change. As indicated in the RFP, this change may
include an expansion of the City’s Sphere of Influence.

Task 5.1: Initial Growth Alternatives
Based on the initial direction from the City staff, City Council, and Planning Commission, we will prepare
issue and opportunity area maps and a potential
development areas map that will form a framework for
the discussion of land use alternatives.

Task 5.2: Consultant Team/Staff Work
Session
We and City staff will have a work session to discuss
the initial alternative options developed by our team.

The outcome of this work session will be refined land
use alternatives for discussion at the Alternatives
Community Workshop #3.

To better facilitate this working session, we will use
UrbanFootprint’s intelligent geospatial analysis
platform. UrbanFootprint will allow us to develop
several realistic alternatives and explore the impacts
of each in real time. Among other things, the
UrbanFootprint platform allows our team to analyze:
• Population increase
• Housing burden
• Energy consumption
• Water consumption
• Transit accessibility
• Green house gas emissions
Task 5.3: Community Workshop #3:

Developing Growth Alternatives
We will assist City staff to organize and facilitate a
Community Workshop to present our team’s findings to
date and to present land use alternatives. Following a
presentation of the alternatives, we and City staff will facilitate breakout sessions with community members
organized around development opportunity sites.

Using maps, graphics, and three-dimensional building
blocks, community members will provide their ideas
about potential land use changes. Questions we might
ask the participants are:
• What is your big idea for the future
development of each area?
• Which types of development and uses should
be part of this area’s future?
• How should each area be connected to the rest
of the city? What’s the best way to get in, out,
and around here? Would changes need to be
made to make this area more accessible?
• Are there other areas of the city you would
like to see reimagined? How would you like to
see them change?
Our team and City staff will then use the results
of Workshop #2 to refine the Alternatives for
presentation at a joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission.

Task 5.4: City Council/Planning
Commission Joint Study Session
Our team will assist City staff to facilitate a joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission
to present the results of the Community Workshop #2
and discuss our recommendations to City staff for their feedback and direction. We will ask the City Council
to provide direction on their preferred alternative.

Phase 5 Deliverables
• Draft Growth Alternatives
• Consultant Team/Staff Working Session agenda
• Consultant Team/Staff Working Session materials
• Community Workshop #3 materials
• Community Workshop #3 Summary
• Study Session materials
• Preferred Growth Alternatives
88 89
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Phase 6 - General Plan
Preparing the General Plan is the most enduring part
of the Update process. The goals, policies, and
implementation strategies will serve as the City’s
blueprint for growth and development for the next
20 plus years. It memorializes all the decisions and
directions made to this point in the update process and acts as the guide for how the City and community can
achieve the vision for the future. The updated General
Plan will be crafted as an effective tool for staff
implementation and will be a highly-graphic, engaging
plan that is easy for everyone in the community to use
and understand.

We will prepare an Administrative Review Draft
General Plan. Our team will format the General Plan
to be attractive, contemporary, and user-friendly, using extensive photos, illustrations, and maps. As part of
this coordination, we will propose solutions for the
organization and layout of the General Plan elements.

This will be based on a review of the current element
structure and the need to cover a wide range of new
State requirements enacted since the General Plan was
last updated. As part of the design, the separation or
combination of topics into various elements will be
discussed.

As part of the Update, we will ensure that all the
requirements of State law, such as complete streets,
flood risk reduction, adaptation, resiliency, safety,
noise, and environmental justice are covered. We
will also ensure full compliance with the State’s
General Plan Guidelines. Our team will prepare
a comprehensive implementation strategy that
includes tangible actions the City will undertake to
implement the goals, policies, and objectives. The
implementation strategy will include an updated
economic development strategy. As part of developing
this strategy, a key task will be ensuring that the City understands the implications, resource needs, and fiscal impacts of the implementation strategy. This ensures that the City makes an informed decision about the work it
is signing up to complete.

Task 6.1: General Plan Design, Format,
and Organization Options
In close consultation with City staff, we will prepare
optional approaches for the General Plan design,
format, and organization. We will provide for the
overall look and presentation of the Plan, including
font size and style, page layout, maps, graphics, and
illustrations. Our team will prepare sample table of
contents to accompany the organizational options.

Following City staff review, we will refine the options as necessary.

Task 6.2: Land Use Element
Subtask 6.2-1:Land Use Density and
Intensity Evaluation
As part of preparing the Draft Land Use Element,
we will evaluate existing residential density and
intensity requirements in the City’s mixed-use zoning
districts. From this evaluation, our team will strategize with City staff on possible solutions to adjust these
densities and intensities to better achieve the desired community vision.

Subtask 6.2-2: Administrative Draft Land
Use Element
We will update the Land Use Element to integrate
the feedback provided by the community, Planning
Commission, City Council, and City staff. Our team
and City staff will collaborate to develop land use
designations and prepare a draft Land Use Diagram
(Task 5.10). We will review existing citywide land
use designations and determine a concise set of land
use designations that fit the needs of all areas of
the city. The designations and Diagram will indicate
the distribution, location, and standards for the use
of land for housing, commerce, industry, public
facilities, waste disposal, recreation, agriculture,
natural resources, and open space. The land use
designations will broadly define the purpose of
each land use category as well as allowed uses.

Land use designations will also include standards
of population density and building intensity. These
designations will promote public health, reduce
infrastructure costs, enhance the local economy, and
address environmental issues.

Task 6.3: Circulation Element
The Circulation Element describes the existing
and future transportation network, articulates the
City’s mobility vision, addresses State and regional
requirements, and anticipates future mobility needs.

While the existing Circulation Element was recently
updated in 2021, our team will review the Element
to determine areas that may need to be updated.

Updates to the Circulation Element may include those
resulting from:
• Findings form AB 747 Analysis (see Task 6.5)
• Updates to the planned mobility network at
buildout to accommodate changes to the Land
Use Element
• Increased prioritization of a non-vehicular travel
and complete streets improvements, including
incorporation recommendations from the
upcoming Active Transportation Plan that will
be conducted concurrently
90 91
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

• Mobility and access recommendations to
support the optional East Grand Avenue
Overlay District
• Provision of a reformatted Circulation Element
that converts the current stand-alone Circulation
Element to serve as one chapter of the larger
General Plan document, to match the updated
format of the other (chapter) elements
• Refinements to goal, policy, and
implementation program language to be
consistent with the overall General Plan update
and priorities of other updated elements
• Changes in land use patterns and policies
established in the Land Use and Safety
Elements
• Potential changes resulting for the City’s update
to the Active Transportation Plan
Task 6.4: Noise Element
Based on the findings from the Existing Conditions and
Trends Workbook, will identify major stationary and
mobile sources of noise in the City and visually identify traffic noise contours based on data from the traffic
report. For this analysis, we will prepare noise contour maps and descriptions of existing noise conditions.

At City staff discretion, we may conduct up to four
noise measurements at key locations in the city for the purpose of validating the noise models.

Our team will also identify goals, policies, and
implementation programs to address noise consistent
with legislative requirements and changing conditions
since the last update to the City’s General Plan. Goals and policies will consider type, location, and extent of noise incompatibility in the community.

Task 6.5: Safety Element
Subtask 6.5-1: Vulnerability Assessment
In accordance with California Government Code
65302(g) and SB 379, our team will complete a
Climate Vulnerability Assessment which will detail
the anticipated climate impacts on the city of Arroyo
Grande, such as increases in temperature, more
intense and frequent extreme heat events, more
intense and frequent drought, higher frequency of
catastrophic floods, and more severe and frequent
wildfires. At a qualitative level, we will evaluate
the locations of the city’s critical facilities and
services (such as fire stations and evacuation routes)
in relation to potential climate change impacts
based on readily available geospatial data. We
will prepare the Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment consistent with the latest (2020)
California Adaptation Planning Guide, as described
in California Government Code 65302(g) and the
Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan
Guidelines. We will produce maps using data from
existing plans and available geospatial data sources,
including:
• Internet-based Cal-Adapt tool
• Internet-based Healthy Places Index tool to
identify vulnerable populations
• San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional\
Hazard Mitigation Plan (October 2019), of
which Arroyo Grande is a participating
jurisdiction
• California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment,
Regional Report
• Existing development in identified at-risk areas,
including structures, roads, utilities, and
essential public facilities
• Arroyo Grande local land use plans and
implementing documents
A key component of the Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment will be an evaluation of the
potential for climate change to disproportionately
impact vulnerable population groups (e.g., seniors,
children, low-income communities, outdoor workers).

The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
will rely on modeling scenarios per the California
Adaptation Planning Guide and the Office of
Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines.

The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment will be
a qualitative analysis and will not include quantitative asset analysis by hazard area.

Subtask 6.5-2: SB 99 Analysis
SB 99 requires all cities and counties, upon the next
revision of the Housing Element on or after January
1, 2020, to update the Safety Element to include
information identifying residential development in
any hazard areas identified in the Safety Element
that do not have at least two emergency evacuation
routes. We will coordinate with City staff to identify
residential developments in any hazard area
identified in the Safety Element that do not have at
least two emergency evacuation routes. Our team
will coordinate with City staff to develop a citywide
map using ESRI that identifies communities with fewer
than two ingress/egress and provide a narrative
description of the implications for evacuation
planning. We will use the analysis to determine if
the City should consider specific goals or policies
to address any identified access limitations or
constraints and incorporate these into the Safety
Element.

Subtask 6.5-3: AB 747 Evacuation Capacity
Analysis
We will conduct an emergency evacuation
analysis, consistent with AB 747, that will evaluate
the capacity of evacuation routes under the City’s
identified evacuation scenarios. Our team will
confer with City staff to confirm the City’s key
evacuation scenarios. We will assess the capacity
of evacuation routes, taking into account population
and employment in specific zones of the city using
the SLOCOG model, under several emergency
evacuation scenarios. Based on this assessment, we
will provide recommendations for strategic measures
to be implemented during evacuation where relevant.

We will then summarize the results in a memorandum
with accompanying maps for City review.

Subtask 6.5-4: Administrative Draft Safety
Element
Our team will identify goals, policies, and
implementation programs to address climate change
risks and identified evacuation risks. The Safety
Element will be updated with additional background
descriptions and maps and the constrained parcel
group analysis and the evacuation capacity
assessment. Goals and policies will aim to minimize
risk associated with climate change and evacuation
capacity constraints and build capacity to respond
to the projected impacts of climate change, working
towards creating a resilient, sustainable Arroyo
Grande community. The Safety Element will also be
updated to include a discussion of how it aligns with
other General Plan elements. As requested in the RFP,
the Countywide Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be
incorporated into the updated Element.

Subtask 6.5-5: Safety Technical Advisory
Committee Meeting
We will assist City staff with facilitating a Safety
Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) meeting to
discuss the Administrative Draft Safety Element.

The STAC should include staff from police, fire,
emergency services, and perhaps County and State
public safety agencies. We can discuss the STAC
membership further at the kick-off meeting. This
will be a virtual meeting via Zoom or other on-line
technology.
92 93
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task 6.6: Agriculture, Conservation,
and Open Space Element
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft
Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element.

The updated Element will reflect any changes resulting
from the Land Use Element, especially if the City intends on annexing unincorporated county land or expanding
the existing Sphere of Influence. The updated Element
will identify policies for protecting and conserving open spaces, agricultural lands, and other natural resources.

Additionally, the Element will consider mitigation
measures when agricultural properties are proposed for
conversion to urban uses.

Task 6.7: Parks and Recreation Element
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft Parks
and Recreation Element. The updated Element will
reflect any changes resulting from the Land Use Element and feedback received from City Council, Planning
Commission, and the community. We will establish
goals and policies to ensure the city meets the parkland and recreation needs of the community, and offer
strategies for City staff to consider.

Task 6.8: Economic Development
Element
Subtask 6.8-1: Economic Opportunities
Analysis
As background for the updated Economic
Development Element, our team will complete
an Economic Opportunities Analysis focused on
Arroyo Grande’s business growth and job creation
potentials. This analysis will ensure that the General
Plan land use alternatives are optimized from a job
creation perspective. The economic opportunities
analysis will include the following sub-tasks:
• Location quotient analysis to identify industries
business types for which Arroyo Grande and
the larger Central Coast region have a
competitive advantage relative to national
benchmarks;
• Analysis of recent historic job growth by
industry (Arroyo Grande and Central Coast
region), including a “shift share” comparison to
national trends;
• Review of relevant studies and strategies
prepared by regional economic development
organizations (i.e., REACH and the Economic
Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo
County);
• Profile of current regional initiatives focused on
targeted growth industries; and
• Profile of current initiatives focused on
addressing the potential economic impacts and
repositioning opportunities related to the
pending (but delayed) decommissioning of the
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

Based on the above sources of information, we
will identify the industry types likely to offer the most significant growth potentials for Arroyo Grande over
the next 10-20 years. Our team will also identify
any specific land use policies that would enhance
the City’s potential for attracting and growing target
industries.

Subtask 6.8-2: Small Business Workshop
Consistent with the City’s DEIJ and economic
development priorities, our team will conduct a
workshop with Arroyo Grande’s small business
community. The purposes of this meeting will be
to better understand existing conditions from the
perspective of local small businesses, identify any
pressing barriers or threats to their continued
operation in the city, discuss potential opportunities
for small business growth, and define specific
policies or programs (within the context of the
updated General Plan Economic Development
Element) the City could implement to foster small
business development.

Subtask 6.8-3: Administrative Draft
Economic Development Element
We will prepare a General Plan Economic
Development Element that addresses the City’s
development, job creation, tourism, and fiscal
stability goals. The element will include the following:
• The City’s goals and policies for Economic
Development, presented in a format consistent
with other elements of the Plan
• Polices to retain local businesses and attract
head-of-household jobs
• Goals, policies, and programs aimed at
addressing the impacts from the
decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon Power
Plant
• A summary of the economic opportunities
analysis
• Policies aimed at supporting the City’s business
retention/expansion/attraction and
entrepreneurial development potentials
• Specific strategies for attracting targeted land
uses (e.g., retail, industrial, hotels)
94 95
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task 6.9: Environmental Justice Element
Subtask 6.9-1: Environmental Justice
Community Analysis
All people, regardless of race, culture, or income,
deserve the right to live, work, play, and pray in
a healthy and safe environment. Unfortunately,
across the United States, residents of low-income
communities, communities of color, and indigenous
communities are disproportionately impacted by
environmental pollution and experience higher rates
of related health problems. Conditions in these
communities can be traced to a variety of factors
including, but not limited to, a history of inequitable land use and zoning policies, underinvestment, and
lack of meaningful engagement with community
residents in planning and policy decisions. In each of
these communities, there is often a history of residents coming together to advocate for and achieve
environmental justice.

With the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 1000,
California Government Code Section 65302(h)
requires local jurisdictions to incorporate
environmental justice in their general plans. The
statute requires local governments to develop
policies to reduce the disproportionate exposure
to pollution in neighborhoods that also experience
increased social and economic challenges.

California law refers to communities with high levels
of environmental and socioeconomic vulnerability as
“disadvantaged communities.”
Our team will use at least two geospatial screening
tools with socioeconomic, environmental, and health
information to identify potential “disadvantaged
communities” in Arroyo Grande. These tools include:

CalEnviroScreen 4.0. The California Environmental
Health and Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) 4.0
is a science-based mapping tool that ranks each
census tract in the State using a series if indicators
to identify communities most affected from multiple
pollutants and who are vulnerable to pollution’s
effects.

EJSCREEN. The US Environmental Protection
Agency’s (USEPA) Environmental Justice Screening
and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN) similarly uses
environmental and demographic data to rank each
census block group’s environmental health risks
nationally.

Subtask 6.9-2: Environmental Justice
Working Session
From the research and findings gained during the
Environmental Justice analysis (Subtask 5.9-1), we
will facilitate a working session with City staff to
discuss potential findings. This working session will
be held virtually via Zoom (or another City preferred
platform). As part of this working session, our team
will strategize with City staff on the materials and
exercises to be presented during the Environmental
Justice Community Workshops (Subtask 5.9-3).

Subtask 6.9-3: Community Workshops #4
and #5: Environmental Justice Element
Our team will work with City staff and local
community organizations to facilitate up to two
community workshops on the Environmental Justice
Element. We will work with City staff to determine
both locations and times for these workshops that
allow those with non-traditional work schedules to
attend and provide feedback. We and community
group representatives will make a presentation on
the Environmental Justice Element and facilitate an
interactive discussion.

Consistent with the City’s adopted DEIJ Policy,
all discussions could include simultaneous verbal
translation. All workshop materials and presentations
can be fully translated into whatever language City
staff feel would be beneficial. For those unable to
join the workshops in person, all materials and a
video recording of the workshops will be posted on
the project website. We will summarize the results
of the input received in the Administrative Draft
Environmental Justice Element.

Subtask 6.9-4: Environmental Justice
Pop-Up Events
We will provide materials for City staff to set up an
Environmental Justice “pop-up” booth at up to two
events in Arroyo Grande. The booths would feature
boards and hand-outs that provide an overview of
the General Plan update and gain feedback on the
Environmental Justice Element. While it is assumed
that City staff will attend and run the booth, if
selected for this project, we can discuss having a
member of our team present at these events.

Subtask 6.9-5: Administrative Draft
Environmental Justice Element
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft
Environmental Justice Element that aligns with
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Guidelines. We will use CalEnviroscreen 4.0 and
EJSCREEN to determine areas of concern regarding
environmental justice issues consistent with SB 1000.

The Environmental Justice Element at a minimum will
address goals, policies, and programs pertaining
to educational attainment, pollution burden of
disadvantaged communities, and identification of
burdensome quality of life metrics including poverty,
unemployment, linguistic isolation, and health.

The Element will include an introduction describing
racial, social, and environmental injustices in
historical planning practices and how the General
Plan includes planning practices that promote
healthy, diverse, and equitable communities. We will
focus goals, policies, and implementation programs
for racial and social justice, environmental justice,
and civic engagement in the public decision-making
process.
96 97
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task 6.10: Prepare Land Use and
Circulation Diagrams
Our team will prepare an updated Land Use Diagram
as part of the Administrative Draft General Plan.

We will discuss options for streamlining the land use
designations and graphic design options for making
the land use diagram more user-friendly.

Based on the distribution of land uses on the Land
Use Diagram, we will develop and prepare a Draft
Circulation Diagram. The classifications and diagram
will indicate the distribution, location, and standards for city roadways. The classifications could also expand
upon the functional classifications to consider street
context and non-auto travel modes. This definition
ensures that street standards are not uniformly applied, but consider a street’s relation to surrounding land uses, appropriate travel speeds, and need to accommodate
multiple travel modes. Roadway standards could also
be developed to use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
instead of or in addition to LOS standards.

Task 6.11: Preliminary Public Review
Draft General Plan
Our team will revise the Administrative Draft General
Plan based on City staff comments and prepare a
Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
step of reviewing the Preliminary Public Review Draft
General Plan with advisory bodies and decision-makers
is important to ensure the Draft Plan meets expectations before conducting the CEQA analysis.

Task 6.12: Community Workshop #6:

Draft General Plan
We will facilitate an open house style community
workshop to present the Preliminary Public Review
Draft General Plan. We will host stations for each of
the General Plan Elements with a member of our team
and City staff at each station to answer questions. We
will provide opportunities for written comments that we will compile into a report to the Planning Commission
and City Council.

Task 6.13: Planning Commission Study
Session: Preliminary Public Review Draft
General Plan
Our team will facilitate a virtual study session via Zoom with the Planning Commission to review and confirm
the Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan. The
Planning Commission will recommend any revisions or
adjustments to the Plan to the City Council, which we
will show in Word track changes.

Task 6.14: City Council Study Session:

Preliminary Public Review Draft General
Plan
Our team will facilitate a virtual study session via
Zoom with the City Council to review and confirm
the Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan. The
City Council will provide direction on revisions or
adjustments to the Plan prior to our team conducting the CEQA analysis.

Task 6.15: Public Review Draft General
Plan
Based on direction from the City Council, our team
will prepare the Public Review Draft General Plan for
publication and environmental review.

Task 6.16: General Plan Consultation
and Referrals
State law requires consultation with a variety of
Federal, State, regional, and local agencies whenever
a jurisdiction updates or amends its general plan (e.g., Native American Tribes, Military Branches, water
agencies). These statutes are located throughout the
Government Code and have varying requirements
for when draft and final documents must be submitted
and how long agencies have to review and provide
comments. We maintain a checklist of agency
consultation requirements that we will use to ensure the City provides the Public Review Draft General Plan to
the appropriate agencies.

Phase 5 Deliverables
• General Plan organizational options
• Land Use Density and Intensity Evaluation
Memorandum
• Evacuation Analysis – Technical Memorandum
• Draft and Final Vulnerability Assessments
• Draft and Final Evacuation Maps
• Safety Element Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
• Safety Element Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda and Materials
• Economic Opportunity Analysis
• Small Business Workshop Presentation
• Small Business Workshop Agenda and Materials
• Environmental Justice Analysis Memorandum
• Environmental Justice Working Session agenda
and materials
• Environmental Justice Community Workshops
Guide
• Environmental Justice Community workshops
materials
• Environmental Justice Pop-Up Events Guide
• Environmental Justice Pup-Up Events Materials
• Land Use Diagram
• Circulation Diagrams
• Administrative Draft General Plan
• Preliminary Public Review Draft General Plan
• Draft General Plan Workshop Guide
• Draft General Plan Workshop Agenda and
Materials
• Planning Commission Study Session Presentation
and Materials
• City Council Study Session Presentation and
Materials
• Public Review Draft General Plan
• General Plan Consultation Checklist
98 99
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Phase 7 - Program
Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR)
Based on review of the RFP and our experience
preparing General Plan EIRs, we recommend the
preparation of a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168. Although the legally
required contents of a Program EIR are technically
the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs
are by necessity more general and may contain a
broader discussion of impacts, alternatives, and
mitigation measures than a Project EIR. A Program
EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that may
be characterized as one large project. Use of a
Program EIR provides the City with the opportunity to
consider broad policy alternatives and programwide
mitigation measures and greater flexibility to address
environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a
comprehensive basis. Once a Program EIR has been
certified, subsequent activities within the program may be evaluated to determine what, if any, additional
CEQA documentation needs to be prepared. If
the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as
specifically and comprehensively as possible, many
subsequent activities could be found to be consistent
with the Program EIR mitigation parameters and
additional environmental documentation may not be
required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). In
this case, the Program EIR serves a valuable purpose
as the first-tier environmental analysis that will assist in streamlining and possibly exempting future projects from CEQA with the idea that the General Plan’s Program
EIR can be used for such exemptions when projects are
consistent with the General Plan.

Task 7.1: CEQA Kick-off Meeting
Our team will facilitate a work session with City staff on preparing the Program EIR and completing the
adoption process. Because the Program EIR Phase will
follow later in the schedule than the Draft General Plan Update, the anticipated scope of work for this Phase
is based on reasonable assumptions about the scope
and scale of the General Plan update. The CEQA
kick-off meeting will provide an opportunity for the city and the project team to evaluate these initial scoping
assumptions and update the scope of work for this
phase if necessary. The kick-off meeting will also allow the City/consultant team an opportunity to discuss
the approach to the environmental evaluation and
possible project alternatives. Community concerns that
have surfaced to date will be discussed. We will also
have an opportunity to confirm the cumulative impact
analysis approach. The work session, or CEQA kick-off
meeting, will cover the following topics:
• Strategies for CEQA compliance
• Coordination of environmental document with
general plan update preparation
• Developing a reasonable range of alternatives
• Cumulative impact analysis
• Using new or revised policies as mitigation
measures
• Agency consultation
• Public notice
• Hearings
• Adoption
• Final documents
Task 7.2: Program EIR Project
Description and Notice of Preparation
Our team will work with City staff to develop a
Program EIR project description and will prepare a
draft EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) for City staff
to review. The NOP is intended to alert other public
agencies about the undertaking, and to solicit their
input on the scope of the study. We will submit a final PDF copy of the NOP to City staff for posting on its
website, filing with the County Clerk, and distributing to public agencies. It is assumed that the City will
distribute the NOP using the City’s NOP distribution list.

We will review and make suggestions regarding the
list. Our team would be responsible for filing the NOP
with the State Clearinghouse/Office of Planning and
Research.

Task 7.3: Program EIR Scoping Meeting
Our team will facilitate a public and agency scoping
meeting associated with the release of the NOP. The
Scoping Meeting will be held during the 30-day NOP
period to introduce the community to the Program EIR
process and obtain input on the EIR scope of work. It
will include a brief presentation, followed by public
comment and input from meeting attendees. We will
prepare a summary of input gathered, which will
be included in the Draft Program EIR along with any
written public comments received by the City during the NOP comment period.

Task 7.4: Transportation and Traffic
Impact Analysis
Our team will evaluate potential transportation impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan consistent
with CEQA requirements. We will prepare the
Transportation/Traffic section of the environmental
document, to include a description of the impact
analysis, findings, and any recommended mitigations.

We will assess vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts
using the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) Regional Travel Demand Model VMT
post-processor. The model’s VMT post- processor
includes residential VMT, work VMT, and retail VMT.

The SLOCOG model forecast land use data will be
modified to include updated development potential for
the General Plan horizon year.

In addition, we will provide a forecast of daily traffic volumes during the General Plan horizon year, derived
from the SLOCOG model, relevant to other EIR
chapters that analyze impacts to air quality and noise.

The daily traffic volume forecast will also be relevant to potential street modification recommendations. At the
conclusion of the CEQA public review period, we will
prepare responses to written comments received by the
city, as well as oral comments received during public
hearings, that pertain to transportation impacts.

Task 7.5: Administrative Draft Program
EIR
Our team will prepare an Administrative Draft Program
EIR (ADPEIR) in compliance with CEQA requirements
using information gathered as part of the General
Plan update effort and comments on the NOP, as well
as information from other relevant CEQA documents
completed by the City in recent years. We will be
responsible for development of a legally adequate and
appropriate Program EIR for the General Plan.

We will prepare the ADPEIR based on the project
description approved by City staff. We will base the
description of the environmental and regulatory setting for the General Plan primarily on the data available
online, Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook (see
Task 3.8), and information from other relevant CEQA
documents completed by the City in recent years, any
information received during the General Plan Update
process, as well as information from recent City plans
such as the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans.

Our team will introduce each topical section in the
environmental analysis with a brief statement of its
context in the ADPEIR and the development of the
General Plan. This effort may include interpretive
information for the reader to better understand how the General Plan affects the environment, as well as the
sources of data used in the analysis.

The setting for each topical section will describe
existing conditions relevant to the topic and provide
the groundwork for impact analysis. The number of
impacts to be analyzed and the depth of analysis will
be determined based on areas of concern identified
by our team and City staff, as well as responses to
the NOP. We will clearly state thresholds used to
determine the significance of project impacts and
will include thresholds in the CEQA Guidelines,
ATTACHMENT 2

Appendix G, as well as existing regulatory standards,
if applicable. Impacts will be identified, and mitigation measures will be prepared to reduce significant
impacts to a less-than-significant level, when feasible.

For each potentially significant impact identified in
the ADPEIR, we would identify mitigation measures or
policy statements proposed by the City as part of the
General Plan Update to avoid or reduce identified
impacts. We will construct mitigation measures as
policy statements or revised or additional programs to
facilitate incorporation into the final General Plan. In order to prepare an ADPEIR that meets the needs of
the City and regulatory requirements of the State, the
ADPEIR will comprise of the following sections:

Executive Summary
This section will provide a summary of the entire
ADPEIR and include the following:
• A discussion of the Project objectives;
• A brief description of the proposed Project;
• A summary of the environmental setting for the
Planning Area;
• A summary of impacts;
• A summary of mitigation measures (mitigating
policies);
• A discussion of alternatives considered; and
• Areas of controversy, and issues remaining to
be resolved.

Introduction
The ADPEIR will contain an introductory chapter that
provides an overview of the project and context,
summarizes CEQA requirements and the environmental
review process, describes the legal purpose of the
ADPEIR, outlines the environmental issues being
addressed, and presents the organization of the report.

Project Description and Environmental Setting
These sections will contain the City objectives for the General Plan and a summary of the General Plan
components. It will also outline the Planning Area
boundaries and summarize existing conditions and
any new land uses proposed under the project. The
information will be described in a mix of text, tabular, and graphic form (i.e., maps and diagrams).

Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
The environmental analysis section will include four
main components:
• Setting – description of current conditions with
respect to the issue in question, including the
existing regulatory environment
• Impact analysis – statement of significance
thresholds and discussion of potentially
significant effects of the proposed project
• Programmatic mitigation measures – methods
by which significant effects can be reduced or
eliminated, presented as General Plan policies
to be introduced back into the plan
• Level of significance after mitigation –
discussion of whether or not proposed
mitigation measures reduce impacts to below
the adopted significance threshold
Adverse impacts that meet or exceed significance
thresholds will be considered significant. Additionally, all impacts will be characterized in terms of shortor long-term effects and presented in a logical discussion that the general public can understand. Any
inconsistencies with local or regional plans will be
discussed. Issues to be analyzed in a programmatic
framework will include:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture/Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Our team will discuss approaches to the impact
analysis for the Program EIR with City staff and will
be consistent with the assumptions and methodologies
used in recent EIRs in the city of Arroyo Grande to the extent possible. In general, the impact analysis will
focus on the issues present in the Planning Area and
likely to be affected or impacted by the General Plan
Update. Some issues, such as mineral resources, may
not require a detailed analysis relative to other issues because they do not occur in Arroyo Grande or would
be unaffected by the plan updates.

Alternatives Analysis
A range of EIR alternatives will be considered in the
ADPEIR. CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the
“No Project” Alternative. For purposes of this Program
EIR, the No Project Alternative would be a continuation of the existing General Plan without any updates or
additions. In addition to the “No-Project” Alternative, we will consider other alternatives (such as alternative land use scenarios) that will be developed during the
General Plan Update. Evaluation of alternatives will be in less detail than that for the proposed plans, though the analysis will provide decision-makers and the public adequate information to decide between alternatives.

This section will also identify the “environmentally
superior alternative.” If the “No Project” Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the ADPEIR
will identify the environmentally superior alternative
among the remaining scenarios.

Cumulative Impacts
The document will evaluate cumulative impacts based
on planning documents for the City’s Planning Area.

The contribution of the proposed plan updates to the
overall cumulative impact will also be estimated and
discussed. It is anticipated that cumulative analyses will be included at the end of each EIR topical section.

Other CEQA Sections
The ADPEIR will provide, in addition to the sections
discussed above, all other required CEQA sections,
including areas of known controversy, growth
inducement effects, and significant unavoidable
impacts. We will provide the ADPEIR to City staff in
digital (word) format. City staff will conduct one review of the ADPEIR and provide consolidated comments and
edits.

Task 7.6: Staff Review/Screen Check
Draft Program EIR
Our team will incorporate City input into the ADPEIR
and provide City staff with digital versions of the
ADPEIR in both Word and PDF formats. City staff
will conduct one review of the ADPEIR and provide
consolidated comments and edits. We will incorporate
appropriate revisions and prepare a Screen Check
Draft Program EIR (SDPEIR). The Screen Check version
will be provided in digital format.
102 103
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task 7.7: Draft Program EIR
Once City staff approve the SDPEIR, we will prepare
the Draft Program EIR (DPEIR) for public circulation.

We would file the DPEIR with the State Clearinghouse,
including all required accompanying forms, such as
the Notice of Completion (NOC), through the digital
CEQASubmit platform. We assume that City staff will
file the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DPEIR with the County Clerk and distribute the NOA of the DPEIR
to responsible agencies, and interested agencies,
organizations, and persons. We also assume that City
staff will be responsible for required newspaper ads
and other public noticing of the document’s availability, such as radius label mailing or on-site posting. As
required by State law, the DPEIR will require at least a 45- day public review period.

Task 7.8: Draft and Final Response to
Comments
Within four weeks of receipt of comment letters
received on the DPEIR, our team will submit a draft
Response to Comments to City staff for review. The
Response to Comments document will include a list of
commenters, comment letters, responses to comments,
and any added or revised text of the DPEIR that may
be necessary. Responses to Comments will include
reasoned analysis and, as necessary, will include
additional analysis. The final version of the Response
to Comments will be incorporated as an appendix to
the Final Program EIR. The scope and budget assume
a level of effort that would include 100 hours of
consultant time for this task. This assumes receipt of
approximately 15-25 comment letters. If the number
of comment letters and the effort to prepare responses
is greater than anticipated, we will notify City staff
immediately and discuss options to amend our scope
of work and budget as necessary. Following receipt of
City staff comments, we will finalize the Response to
Comments.

Task 7.9: Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Concurrent with the Response to Comments, our team
will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan (MMRP), which we will include in the Final
Program EIR. We will provide the MMRP in a format
designed for use by planners, environmental monitors,
or code enforcement officers. Essentially, this plan will take the form of a detailed table that describes:
• Persons/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance with each condition
• Timing when monitoring must occur
• Frequency of monitoring
• Criteria to be used to determine compliance
with conditions
We will incorporate the final version of the MMRP as
an appendix to the Final Program EIR.

Task 7.10: Final Program EIR
We will complete the Final Program EIR after the review period has closed and all comments submitted during
that period have been received. The Final Program
EIR will include corrections to the Draft Program EIR (if warranted), comments received, and responses (Task

7.7) as well as the MMRP (Task 7.9). Our team will
prepare a Screencheck Final Program EIR for City staff
review and confirmation followed by a Final Program
EIR after incorporating consolidated comments received
from City staff. Within one day of Final Program EIR
certification and project approval, we will submit the
draft Notice of Determination (NOD) to City staff.

We assume that City staff will file the NOD with the
County Clerk and be responsible for payment of filing
fees. We would then file the NOD with the State
Clearinghouse.

Phase 7 Deliverables
• Draft PEIR Project Description
• Final PEIR Project Description
• NOP (digital files and filing with State
Clearinghouse)
• Scoping Meeting materials
• Administrative Draft Program EIR
• Screencheck Draft Program EIR
• Draft Program EIR
• NOC/NOA (digital files and filing with State
Clearinghouse)
• Draft Response to Comments
• Final Response to Comments
• Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
• Screencheck Final Program EIR
• Final Program EIR (digital version, 10 hard
copies, and 10 CD copies to the City)
• NOD (digital files and filing with State
Clearinghouse)
Phase 8 - Public Review and
Adoption
Task 8.1: Planning Commission Hearing
Our team will attend one public hearing with the
Planning Commission to review the Draft General Plan
and Final PEIR. The Planning Commission will consider
the comments made during the public hearing and
make recommendations to the City Council.

Task 8.2: City Council Hearing
Our team will attend one public hearing with the City
Council to review the Draft General Plan and Final
PEIR. At these hearings, the City Council will consider the Planning Commission recommendations and the
comments made at the public hearings. After the
hearings, the City Council will certify the Final PEIR and direct our team to incorporate their recommendations
and prepare the Final General Plan.

Task 8.3: Final General Plan Documents
Following City Council direction, we will prepare the
Final General Plan for adoption.

Task 8.4: City Council Adoption
Hearing
Our team will attend one hearing with the City Council
for adoption of the Final General.
104 105
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Phase 9 - Technical
Development Code Update
Once the updated General Plan is adopted by City
Council, our team will update the Development Code
through a series of technical amendments to reflect the implementation of the General Plan.

Task 9.1: Work Session
We will facilitate a work session with City staff to
discuss the preparation of a technical update to the
Arroyo Grande Development Code. The technical
update will include the following: • Updates to the zoning districts and associated densities and purpose statements for
consistency with the new General Plan.
• Evaluation and update to development
standards such as height, parking, and
setbacks.
• Preparation of graphics, photo simulations,
and illustrations to graphically depict
standards.

Task 9.2: Administrative Draft Technical
Development Code Update
We will coordinate with City staff to refine a list
of topic areas to update and include them in a
comprehensive fix-it list. Based on the fix-it list,
we will prepare an Administrative Draft Technical
Development Code Amendments.

Task 9.3: Preliminary Review
Draft Technical Development Code
Amendments
Our team will revise the Administrative Draft Technical Development Code Amendments based on City staff
direction and prepare the remaining graphics and
illustrations to assist users in visualizing the meaning and applicability of development standards.

Task 9.4: Public Review Draft Technical
Development Code Amendments
Based on results from testing the Preliminary Draft
Technical Development Code Amendments, we will
prepare a Public Review Draft Technical Development
Code Amendments which we will provide to the City
for review by the Planning Commission and approval
by the City Council.

Task 9.5: CEQA Compliance
Our team will include the technical development
code amendments, which are considered part of the
implementation of the General Plan, in the Project
Description and impact analysis in the Program EIR.

We will prepare a memorandum describing that
analysis and supporting a determination that the
potential significant environmental impacts of the
Technical Development Code Amendments are fully
assessed and required, mitigated in the General Plan
PEIR.

Task 9.6: Planning Commission Hearing
We will attend and assist City staff with facilitating
one Planning Commission public hearing to consider
recommending the City Council adopt the Final Draft
Technical Development Code Amendments.

Task 9.7: City Council Hearing
We will attend and assist City staff with facilitating one City Council hearing to consider adopting the Final
Draft Technical Development Code Amendments.

Task 9.8: Final Documents to the City
Our team will prepare and send all final documents
and native files to the City.

Phase 9 Deliverables • Staff fix-it list • Administrative Review Draft Technical Development Code Amendments
• Preliminary Review Draft Technical Development
Code Amendments
• Public Review Draft Technical Development
Code Amendments
• Memorandum regarding CEQA analysis in the
General Plan PEIR
• Planning Commission hearing materials • City Council hearings materials 106 107
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

108 109
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES

THREE-YEAR SCHEDULE
Existing Conditions
and Trends Evaluation
Workshop #2
Workshop #3
Workshops #3,4,5, and 6
2023 2024 2025
Phase 1: Project Initiation
Phase 9: Technical Development
Code Update
Phase 2: Public Outreach
Strategy
Phase 3: Gather and Analyze
Data
Phase 5: Alternative Choices
Phase 4: Visioning and
Guiding Principles
Phase 7: Program
Environmental
Impact Report
Phase 8: Public Review and
Adoption
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan | Three-Year Proposed Schedule Phase 6: General Plan
45-day Public Review
Study SessionMar
Apr
Oct
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Aug
Sept
Jul
Oct
Aug
Sept
Jun
Jul
May
Feb
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Aug
Jul
Jan
Feb
Apr
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mar
May
Sept
Jun
Work Session
Study Sessions
Workshop #1
Stakeholder Interviews
GIS Data/
Basemap
General
Plan Audit
Project Website, Branding, and Logo
Kick-off Meeting
VMT Analysis
Existing Conditions
and Trends Workbook
Vision and Guiding Principles
APreferred Alternative
Administrative Draft
General Plan Public Review
Draft General Plan
Staff Work
Session
Administrative Draft
Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Administrative Draft
Program EIR
Draft Program EIR Final Program EIR
Response to
Comments
Planning Commission
Hearing
City Council
Hearing
City Council
Adoption
City Council
Adoption
Final
General Plan
Final Work Plan and Schedule
SB 99 Analysis
Outreach Strategy
Initial Alternatives
Kick-off Meeting
Study Session
AB 747 Analysis
Final
Development
Code
Land Use Analysis
Study Sessions
Existing Conditions
and Trends Evaluation
Workshop #2
Workshop #3
Workshops #3,4,5, and 6
2023 2024 2025
Phase 1: Project Initiation
Phase 9: Technical Development
Code Update
Phase 2: Public Outreach
Strategy
Phase 3: Gather and Analyze
Data
Phase 5: Alternative Choices
Phase 4: Visioning and
Guiding Principles
Phase 7: Program
Environmental
Impact Report
Phase 8: Public Review and
Adoption
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan | Three-Year Proposed Schedule Phase 6: General Plan
45-day Public Review
Study SessionMar
Apr
Oct
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Aug
Sept
Jul
Oct
Aug
Sept
Jun
Jul
May
Feb
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Aug
Jul
Jan
Feb
Apr
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mar
May
Sept
Jun
Work Session
Study Sessions
Workshop #1
Stakeholder Interviews
GIS Data/
Basemap
General
Plan Audit
Project Website, Branding, and Logo
Kick-off Meeting
VMT Analysis
Existing Conditions
and Trends Workbook
Vision and Guiding Principles
APreferred Alternative
Administrative Draft
General Plan Public Review
Draft General Plan
Staff Work
Session
Administrative Draft
Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Administrative Draft
Program EIR
Draft Program EIR Final Program EIR
Response to
Comments
Planning Commission
Hearing
City Council
Hearing
City Council
Adoption
City Council
Adoption
Final
General Plan
Final Work Plan and Schedule
SB 99 Analysis
Outreach Strategy
Initial Alternatives
Kick-off Meeting
Study Session
AB 747 Analysis
Final
Development
Code
Land Use Analysis
Study Sessions
ATTACHMENT 2

OPTIONAL TASKS
We have included several optional tasks here that could be included in place of or addition to the suggested tasks proposed in the two- and three-year work scopes. These tasks include those related to public outreach, economic development, Development Code update, land use assessment, and Climate Action Plan. Our intent is to provide City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council a broad range of choices for the City’s General Plan Update program.

Optional Public Outreach
Activities
Meetings with Agency Committees and Commissions.

Members of local government commissions and
committees represent some of the most engaged,
committed residents and businesspersons, given
their willingness to devote time and energy to the
community. Depending on the planning project subject
matter, some or all the standing commissions and
committees should be periodically engaged in the
process. These meetings would be held virtually via
Zoom.

Technical Advisory Groups. Technical advisory groups
are typically comprised of city, county, regional, State, or Federal staff with expertise is specific topical areas.

Cities and counties may form such groups with staff
from each department to facilitate internal review or
project documents. These groups meet periodically
to provide document review and comment on interim
project products, such as existing condition report,
technical analysis, and policy documents. These
meetings would be held virtually via Zoom.

Focus Groups. Focus groups are typically comprised
of community members and agency staff with expertise
or interest in a specific topical area, such as mobility, economic development, housing, natural resources, or
climate change. These groups meet periodically to help
identify issues and opportunities, discuss options, and provide feedback on policies and programs. These
meetings would be held virtually via Zoom.

Speaker Series. As part of the initial community
engagement, our team could present a Speaker Series
(on-line/in-person format) that will bring creative and knowledgeable speakers to engage the community
in big-picture discussions about issues facing Arroyo
Grande. While the specific topics to be addressed in
the Speaker Series to be refined through discussions
with City staff, and decision-makers, potential topics
might include climate change, housing, urban design
and infill development, adaptation, health, social
equity, or economic development. Each speaker will
be an experienced, well-known expert in their field.

The speaker series format will consist of an initial
PowerPoint presentation followed by a question-andanswer session.

Optional Alternatives Report
Based on input received from the community as well as
ideas from City staff and our team, we could prepare
an Alternatives Report for review by City staff. This
Report would contain a mix of land use and circulation
alternatives, as well as key policy alternatives.

The Alternatives Report could map and describe
each land use alternative. We could group these
location-specific alternatives into alternative packages that achieve the Vision Statement. For each policy
alternative, we could identify the issues for which there is clear policy choice and direction, as well as issues where choice and direction is not as clear. We could
complete a qualitative comparative assessment of the
policy implications of each alternative based on clarity and congruence with key issues.

From this report, our team could prepare an Alternatives Report that clearly communicates the potential
implications of each alternative, supporting a more
informed choice. We could base the assessment of
each alternative primarily on a qualitative look at
factors that can be used to differentiate the alternatives and their potential impacts on the community relative to achieving the Vision Statement.

Optional Land Use Tasks
Comprehensive Development Standards
Evaluation
Our team could comprehensively evaluate land uses,
density and intensity, development forms, parking
policies, and complete streets architecture on the East Grand Avenue corridor. From this evaluation, we
would strategize with City staff on possible solutions to adjust these densities and intensities to better achieve the desired community vision. The findings from this
evaluation could then be used as the basis for a
potential zoning overlay district for the East Grand
Avenue Corridor. The creation of this potential overlay district is provided in this proposal as an optional task.

East Grand Avenue Corridor Overlay
District
Our team could assist City staff in the creation of an
overlay district for the East Grand Avenue Corridor.

East Grand Avenue is a major thoroughfare in
Arroyo Grande and provides direct access to Grover
Beach and the Oceano Dunes Natural Preserve. The
Corridor hosts a variety of land uses including large
commercial strips, offices, restaurants, personal service establishments, and varying residential typologies. As
part of this process, our team could conduct a thorough land use analysis of the Corridor and work with City
staff to establish a collective vision. We would also
analyze existing densities, intensities, development
forms, and street architecture to make recommendations
to help the city achieve this collective vision. From this evaluation, we would prepare a draft Grand Avenue
Corridor Overlay District that, at a minimum, establishes the following:
• A purpose and intent statement for the overlay
district
• Allowed land uses and corresponding permit
requirements
• Development standards (e.g., setbacks, height,
parcel coverage)
• Objective Design Standards
Objective Design Standards
California State Senate Bill 35 (Government Code
Section 65913.4), which went into effect on January
1, 2018, was part of a comprehensive bill package
aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage
and high costs. SB 35 requires the availability of a
streamlined ministerial approval process for multifamily residential developments in jurisdictions that have not yet made sufficient progress toward meeting their
regional housing need allocation (RHNA). Included in
the streamlining process, cities are required to establish objective design standards for multifamily residential
development. SB 35 defines an objective design
standard as one that involves “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark
or criterion available and knowable by both the
development applicant… and the public official prior to submittal.”
Our team could work with City staff to research and
develop objective design and development standards.

We could conduct a comprehensive review of the
City’s Development Code and existing design/
development standards, and diagnosis portions thereof
that are inconsistent with the SB 35. This analysis and corresponding recommendations would be summarized
in a Diagnosis and Considerations Report. The
findings from this report, along with close consultation with City staff, could be used to draft new objective
design and development standards.
110 111
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Comprehensive Development
Code Update
Our team could prepare a comprehensive update
of the City’s Development Code. This optional task
would be multifaceted and go far beyond the technical
Development Code update proposed in Three-Year
Work Scope. Among other things, a comprehensive
update would include a kick-off meeting with City
staff, Development Code Amendments Diagnosis,
Development Code and Map Amendments Report,
staff fix-it list, a potential complete reorganization of the Development Code format, revised table of contents,
and Administrative and Public Review Drafts of the
new Development Code chapters. We could facilitate
a seminar on modernizing the Development Code to
City Council and Planning Commission, stakeholder
interviews with the local development community, and
additional community workshops.

Should Arroyo Grande staff be interested in this
optional task, we suggest the preparation and delivery
of an Administrative Draft Development Code in several
segments, rather than in a single deliverable. Our
experience is that it is easier for City staff to give timely feedback and review of the Draft Development Code
when presented in segments. The order and content of
the segments can be modified as desired by City staff.

As an alternative, if City staff prefers, we could prepare a complete Administrative Draft Development Code
prior to City staff review.

Optional Economic
Development Related Tasks
Retail Market Analysis
As an optional supplement to the Economic
Development Element, our team could prepare a
retail Market Opportunities Analysis. The Analysis
would reflect recent/ongoing changes in the retail
industry, including the growing influence of ecommerce
and recent shifts in shopping patterns related to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Analysis would involve the
following steps:
• Define the geographic market areas from
which retail facilities in Arroyo Grande could
be expected to draw market support.
• Inventory and document conditions in Arroyo
Grande’s existing shopping centers and
districts.
• Estimate current vacancy levels based on
available published data and discussions with
local realtors.
• Compile updated data on existing retail
sales (by major category) in Arroyo Grande
and neighboring cities.
• Use our proprietary retail demand model to
evaluate future growth in retail sales potential
in the market area, broken down by major
retail sales category (e.g., apparel, furniture,
general merchandise, home improvements. The
projections will be expressed in terms of both
dollars and square footages supportable and
will cover a 20-year forecast period (in annual
increments).
• Identify major existing and planned retail
districts (outside the city) that would compete
with Arroyo Grande for future regional
demand.
• Estimate the shares of future retail demand that
could potentially be captured in Arroyo
Grande, given the inventory of competitive
development.
• Express “bottom line” findings in terms of the
square feet of retail space that could potentially
be absorbed in Arroyo Grande over the
planning horizon (in annual increments), with
the total numbers broken down as appropriate
by major retail category and facility type.
• Match projected demand to available
“opportunity sites” for new and/or reconfigured
retail development, with this supply/demand
comparison providing a basis for projecting
the potential allocation of future development
opportunities by major sub-area within the city.

Market Demand Studies for Other Land
Uses
In addition to the optional retail market analysis, our team could also complete market demand studies for
the following additional land use categories:
• Residential
• Professional office space
• Industrial/R&D/tech space
• Hotel/motel facilities
While these market studies would be citywide in scope
and, therefore, be useful for a variety of City decisionmaking processes, the findings would ultimately be applied to identify sub-area and site-specific
development potentials. In addition to providing
a citywide framework for quantifying demand for
development in individual sub-areas, the analysis would also consider qualitative issues (and related policy
recommendations) affecting each area’s development
potentials.

Optional Climate Action Plan
Update
Task CAP-1: Project Management
High-quality project management during each task is
an integral component related to the success of the
CAP and is even more critical when considered in
light of the broader General Plan Update. Our team
has worked together on multiple General Plan/CAP
projects and will leverage that shared experience
to integrate these two programs. This task involves
directly coordinating between the City, committees,
and our team over the proposed project. The final
project timeline can be adjusted during a kick-off
meeting and will be reviewed throughout the process
to ensure timely completion of all deliverables. Project management encompasses internal oversight of staff
as well as bi-weekly meetings with City staff and
integration with the General Plan team.

CAP-1 Deliverables
• Bi-weekly coordination calls and related meeting
minutes
• Monthly progress reports and invoices
Task CAP-2: Virtual Project Kick-off
Meeting
Our team would work with City staff to organize an
initial kick-off meeting with the City’s Project Team
and discuss project goals and objectives. Our core
management team would attend the kick-off meeting.

The kick-off meeting would provide an opportunity to
refine the scope of work and proposed schedule, as
well as identify existing documents, existing policies, and key stakeholder groups. This meeting would also
serve to establish the project management procedures,
including invoicing terms and communication protocols.

Following this kick-off meeting, our team would provide an adjusted schedule as well as final list of existing
applicable documents, data, and policies for City
review and confirmation.
112 113
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

CAP-2 Deliverables
• Kick-off meeting agenda and minutes
• Final list of existing documents/data/policies to
review
• Adjusted schedule
• Meetings
• Attend one virtual kick-off meeting
Task CAP-3: Greenhouse Gas Inventory
We would conduct a new communitywide GHG
inventory for the latest, most appropriate year for the City. The GHG inventory will focus on communitywide
emissions from residents and businesses operating
within the city and organized by the appropriate
emission source sectors. The inventory will be prepared to be consistent with Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) guidance and the U.S. Community Protocol
for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Additionally, the inventory will
incorporate global warming potential (GWP) values
for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) consistent
with the latest version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 5 (IPCC AR5).

Our team would provide the City with the latest
communitywide GHG inventory in an excel
spreadsheet. This spreadsheet would provide the City
with a replicable process and clear understanding
of what data was included in the inventory, the
source, the rationale for its inclusion, and how the
inventory was calculated. Our team assumes all data,
calculations, and references will be provided to us
for review. We also assume GHG communitywide
inventory data, including the VMT data, for the GHG
communitywide inventory and forecast will be provided
by the City’s traffic consultant.

CAP-3 Deliverables
• GHG inventory
Task CAP-4: Forecast and Target Setting
GHG emissions forecasts provide an estimate of future
GHG emission based on the continuation of current
activities and the projected growth and change in
a community over time. Forecasts also account for
existing State legislation that are designed to reduce
future emissions. Forecasts provide insights into the
scale of local reductions needed to achieve the GHG
emissions reduction while accounting for both potential growth and legislative actions.

Our team would conduct a GHG emission forecast in
a CEQA defensible manner consistent guidance from
the OPR and current best practices. We would provide
all activity data, emission factors and methodologies
in a transparent manner and specify milestone years
for the inventory. We would also work collaboratively
to confirm the population, jobs, and housing values
used in the forecast are consistent and allow for CEQA
streamlining in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
section 15183.5. For purposes of using the CAP as
a CEQA streamlining tool, we recommend that at a
minimum, targets are established for the years 2030
and 2045. GHG reduction targets help to define
measurable benchmarks to guide the community’s
commitment to achieve emissions reductions in the
future. GHG targets are generally developed in a local
context and consistent with the State goals as directed in Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Assembly Bill 1279. The
State aims to reduce annual statewide emissions to:
• 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and
• Requires statewide carbon neutrality “as soon as
possible,” but no later than 2045 and a reduction
in California’s anthropogenic GHG emissions to
at least 85 percent below 1990 levels.

We would create a technical appendix that combines
the data, methodology, and results of the most recent
communitywide GHG inventory, forecast, and targets
that would provide transparency to the inventory and
the ability to recalculate emissions easily. This would be an attachment for the Climate Action Plan Update.

CAP-4 Deliverables
• Forecast and target calculations (Excelspreadsheet)
• GHG Inventory, Forecast, and Target Technical Appendix • One-hour presentation with project manager and
technical staff
Task CAP-5: GHG Measure
Development
Once the provisional GHG emission reduction targets
have been established, our team would shift to
developing specific actions that will allow the City to reach these targets. To support this process, we have
developed a suite of tools and assessment strategies
to support what we have found to be the most critical
portion of the work plan. We would begin the process
by providing a core suite of measures that are tied
to the City’s GHG emissions inventory and forecast.

Examples of a measures is electrify “X” percent of
vehicles by 2030 and “Y” percent by 2045. The
measures will cover each of the sectors in which the
City generates emissions. These measures will then
be linked to the Scenario Planning and Reductions
Quantification (SPARQ) Tool. Using the SPARQ tool,
the City and our team will be able to calculate the
GHG reduction potential of each measure and
develop scenarios in real time that demonstrate the
most cost effective and feasible reduction pathways.

The SPARQ tool could also allow to quickly iterate
on the various approaches and how changes in the
emphasis of specific measures impact the ability to
meet specific GHG reduction target levels. Then,
once the higher-level measures and level of actions
are better understood, we would collaborate with City
staff to develop actions that will support and implement each measure. This task assumes these measures will
be integrated into the General Plan by our team and
separate Climate Action Plan will not be required.

Once a final list of measures and actions is developed, we would develop a substantial evidence technical
appendix which will quantify the GHG reductions
of each measure and provide references for each
assumption made to reach the GHG reduction
claimed. We also assume the generation of a power
point outlining the overall measure strategy and
attendance at one council/commission meeting to
present and answer any questions related to measure
development.

CAP-5 Deliverables
• Provisional GHG strategy/measures
• SPARQ tool (excel-based)
• Three (3) staff working group meetings on
provisional GHG strategy/measures
• Draft and Final GHG strategy/measures and
actions
Task CAP-6: Measure Quantification
and CEQA Defensibility Analysis
After the final measure scenario has been reviewed
and approved by the City, our team will conduct
a GHG quantification and substantial evidence
analysis. This analysis would quantify the reductions
associated with the measures (i.e., Reduce natural gas
consumption 50 percent by 2030 through existing
building electrification) as well as provide substantial evidence that the actions identified can achieve
that measure (i.e., Adopt a time of replacement
electrification ordinance for hot water heaters and
HVAC units). Our team would prepare a measure
technical appendix that will serve as the defensibility of the CAP and allow for CEQA streamlining. The
technical appendix would include all calculations,
references for all assumptions, and total reduction
potential of the measures and actions.

CAP-6 Deliverables
• Measure GHG reduction quantification (excel
spreadsheet)
• CEQA Defensible Measure Technical Appendix
• CEQA checklist to support staff and development
applicant awareness of Plan requirements
114 115
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

Task CAP-7: Implementation and
Monitoring Tool – CAPDash
To support future data collection and analysis, we
would provide the City with its proprietary and awardwinning inventory tool and dashboard, CAPDash.

In our experience, the data collection process can
take the greatest amount of time for reporting GHG
emissions because data comes from multiple sources
such as various utility providers. The CAPDash
implementation and monitoring tool would allow the
City to track emissions and implementation progress
over time as well as communicate progress to the
community. CAPDash allows jurisdictions to manage
their own data so they can update their GHG inventory
and track CAP implementation success without needing
to rely on an outside consultant or expert. CAPDash
provides a central place to track and quantify progress and share that progress with stakeholders, ensuring that the implementation and monitoring aspects required
under CEQA section 15183.5 are met. We would
provide training and present an overview of CAPDash
to the City.

CAP-7 Deliverables
• Implementation and Monitoring Tool – CAPDash
• Annual reporting templates and tracking
guidance document
Task CAP-8: Implementation and
Monitoring Strategy
The updated CAP would contain a comprehensive
Implementation and Monitoring Strategy Table that
summarizes how the CAP measures and associated
actions would be implemented, monitored, and
adjusted over time to ensure that the City stays on track to achieve the CAP’s targets for emissions reductions
and adaptation goals. The table would identify
agencies, divisions, and organizations responsible for
implementation of action steps, anticipated time frames to implement actions, and indicators to assess actions
and goal progress, funding availability, potential
partnerships, and timelines.

Based on the results of working with City staff as
part of identification, evaluation, and quantification
of measures, our team would specifically include
the following indicators for each action in the
Implementation and Monitoring Strategy Table:

Quantified GHG reduction potential
Qualitative environmental co-benefits
Implementation cost scale estimates
Administrative feasibility and enforceability
Based on the above prioritization effort the following
would then be identified:

Required reductions needed to meet target
Highest impact areas for potential reductions
Comprehensive list of potential GHG reduction
measures, prioritized based on specific metrics
(including GHG reduction potentials, costs, and
savings)
The implementation plan would be linked to the
CAPDash where metrics would be tracked to prove
implementation of measures and regular GHG
inventories would be completed to monitor and track
progress with actual GHG reductions.

CAP-8 Deliverables
• Draft Implementation and Monitoring Strategy
Table that would include the following elements:
• Identify lead agencies and partners
• Identify community-based programs to
achieve GHG reduction targets and
adaptation measures
• Implementation of cost scale estimates
• Time frame
• Funding mechanisms
• Final Implementation and Monitoring
Strategy
Task CAP-9: Climate Action Plan
Summary Document (appendix)
The CAP would be completed through an iterative
process that is inspired by the findings of the GHG
inventory and community feedback received during
community outreach and facilitation. The CAP would
be included as an appendix to the General Plan
Update and summarize the processes completed
prior to this task. Our team would develop a user
friendly and readable CAP appendix document that
aligns with current legislation (e.g. Senate Bill 32 and AB 1279) and leverages infographics, photos, and
other visuals. The CAP would provide a creative and
innovative roadmap for the City to achieve emission
reductions and would include both near-term and longterm reduction measures as well as the departments and community partners who would generally be
responsible for implementing them. The CAP would
also set key performance indicators (KPI) that would
help define a successful implementation of the CAP
strategy as well as measure progress over time.

Our team would prepare a comprehensive CAP that
would be consistent with the State Attorney General’s
recommendations and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines’ definition of a
“Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy”
(Section 15183.5). To do this, the CAP would include
clear measures for implementation and targets to ensure that the City and community are on track to achieve
established goals. Specifically, the CAP would:
• Serve as a mechanism to tie together the City’s
existing and developing sustainability initiatives,
strategies, and plans with the community’s goals;
• Establish a set of cohesive and specific
sustainability strategies, implementation plans,
and metrics for regional and State strategies and
initiatives;
• Activate and engage residents, businesses, and
institutions with positive actions and tangible
benefit;
• Be designed to include simple yet effective
procedures for minor updates every two years,
and significant updates every five years (to be
refined based on the goals of the City).
• Meet the requirements of CEQA guidelines
section 15183.5 for CEQA streamlining
CAP-9 Deliverables
• Administrative Draft CAP (electronically in Word
and PDF)
• Public review Draft CAP (electronically in Word
and PDF)
• Final CAP (electronically in Word and PDF)
116 117
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2

8 COST PROPOSAL
COST

PROPOSAL
In compliance with the Request for Proposals, our Cost Proposal for this Project is submitted concurrently but under separate cover. The amount of time key personnel will be involved in the respective portions of the project is shown in the Cost Proposals. We have included cost proposals for the following:
• Two-Year Work Scope
• Three-Year Work Scope
• Optional Tasks
118 119
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ATTACHMENT 2

ADETAILED RESUMES
APPENDIX A:

DETAILED RESUMES
Appendix A includes the detailed resumes of our Team for the City of Arroyo Grande Comprehensive General Plan Update.
120 A-1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE | COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ATTACHMENT 2

BRENT GIBBONS, AICP

PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Brent Gibbons has been a planner in both the public and private sectors since 2013. He specializes in architectural applications, urban design, site design, land use planning, public policy, geographic information systems, regulatory code and ordinances, CEQA analysis, and community engagement.

Brent started his professional career as a Planner I with Madera County, which included the review of project plans with the zoning administrator, operating the front planning counter, and regularly evaluating setback variances and zoning permits. Brent was promoted to Planner II after a year, and managed projects with greater responsibility. His overall experience at Madera County included the intake of permits, zoning ordinance development, presentations to the Planning Commission, formation of community/area plans, and serving as the lead on solar facility and wireless tower projects. Brent also had the opportunity to serve on several committees pertaining to the drought and well water demand, as well as community park planning and design in conjunction with public health agencies.

Additionally, Brent worked as an Assistant Planner for the City of Turlock where he conducted project permitting, development of maps, the General Plan Annual Report, and project management. His work included interfacing with a multitude of stakeholders ranging from community members to real estate developers.

Prior experience includes an internship with Hathaway Dinwiddie (Santa Clara office) in 2008 on the Solyndra Project, where Brent served as the onsite contact between the City of Milpitas and the Project Engineer. Tasks delegated included project permitting, editing plans, and construction administration. Brent also interned for the Housing Authority of San Mateo County, where he amended the HOME Affordability Covenant, performed HOME rent reviews for 2004-2009, and evaluated year-end fiscal performance data.

Brent holds a Bachelor’s Degree in City and Regional Planning from California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo. While at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Brent served as the Associated Students in Planning (ASP) President, and the American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) President, where he sat on a national board that provided student connection to the American Institute of Architects (AIA). He represented Cal Poly at two international student architecture conferences in Minneapolis in 2009 and Toronto, Ontario, in 2010.

Brent also was part of the project team that took 1st Place in the Bank of America Low Income Housing Challenge in 2012 for the Alere development.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science,
City and Regional Planning
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

CERTIFICATIONS/

AFFILIATIONS
American Institute of Certified Planners
American Planning Association,
Sacramento Valley Section
enCode user Certification

EXPERIENCE
Mintier Harnish
Principal Planner, Senior Project
Manager, Project Manager, Associate
City of Turlock
Assistant Planner
Madera County
Planner II
San Mateo County Housing Authority
Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Intern
Hathaway Dinwiddie, Santa Clara
Project Engineer Intern

PROJECTS
General plans for the City of Gilroy,
the Town Los Gatos, the Town of
Windsor, and the Counties of Fresno,
Sierra County, and Ventura
SB244: Disadvantaged Communities
Report for Merced County
Zoning Ordinance updates for the
Counties of Fresno, Merced, and Sierra,
the Cities of Folsom, Gilroy and Santa
Clara, and the Placer County Sunset Area
Plan Implementing Zoning Regulations
Objective Design and Development
Standards for the Cities of Folsom, Gilroy,
South Lake Tahoe, and Ukiah, the town
of Windsor, and the county of Mariposa
Town of Windsor Housing Element Update
[email protected]
Jim Harnish is the Principal/Owner of Mintier Harnish. He has been a planner and project manager since 1970. He is also an attorney with extensive experience in land use and CEQA. He has managed public agencies and private consulting firms.

He specializes in project management for general plans, specific plans, and large private planning projects; CEQA compliance and environmental document peer review; zoning and regulatory ordinance preparation; and public outreach and consensus-building.

Jim is currently Project Director on general plan updates for the cities of American Canyon, Livingston, Los Gatos, Millbrae, Rohnert Park, and the counties of Fresno, Kern, and Ventura, and zoning code updates for the cities of Folsom, Gilroy, and Santa Clara, and the counties of Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, and Sierra.

Jim’s broad experience, in both the public and private sector, in land use planning, regulatory codes and ordinances, permit processing, environmental analysis, toxics and hazardous materials, wetlands and endangered species, and legal analysis enables him to bring a wealth of experience to every project.

Jim has extensive experience in supervising large planning staffs and managing interdisciplinary consultant teams on complex planning projects. Jim has managed or prepared general plans for the cities of Alturas, American Canyon, Folsom, Galt, Gilroy, Hayward, Healdsburg, Isleton, Livingston, Millbrae, Rohnert Park, Sacramento, South San Francisco, Ukiah, Union City, Wheatland, and Windsor, and the counties of Calaveras, Fresno, Kern, Merced, Modoc, San Benito, San Joaquin, and Ventura.

He has managed the preparation of specific plans for Southwest Live Oak, the Mountain House New Town in San Joaquin County, and the Gold Rush Ranch in Sutter Creek. He also assisted Genentech with the preparation and approval of its South San Francisco Campus Master Plan and EIR. Jim has also prepared zoning ordinance updates for several jurisdictions, including, Kern, Merced, and San Joaquin Counties and the cities of Santa Rosa, and South San Francisco.

Jim has been principal-in-charge of several regional planning projects in the San Joaquin Valley, including the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint implementation project, which included the Valley Planners Toolkit. He also managed the Metro Rural Loop Study for the Fresno Council of Governments and the San Joaquin Valley Greenprint II program.

Jim has managed the preparation of or conducted critical third party review of numerous EIRs and negative declarations. As Environmental Coordinator for the City of Sacramento, he led the restructuring of the City’s environmental review procedures. He has worked extensively with State and Federal regulatory agencies in creating and negotiating Habitat Conservation Plans (Coalinga), 404 permits, and wetland mitigation plans.

EDUCATION
Juris Doctor
McGeorge School of Law,
University of the Pacific
Bachelor of Arts, History
University of California, Davis

CERTIFICATIONS/

AFFILIATIONS
California State Bar Association
(Bar No. 99326)
American Planning Association

EXPERIENCE
Mintier Harnish
Principal/Owner
City of South San Francisco
Chief Planner
Sugnet & Associates
Vice President
City of Folsom
Community Development Director
City of Sacramento
Environmental Coordinator
Balfrey & Abbott
Attorney
Mintier Harnish & Associates
Partner
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Planner
County of Sacramento
Planner

PROJECTS
General plans for over 25 cities and
counties throughout California
Environmental impact reports for over
100 general plans and other projects
Zoning and subdivision ordinance
revisions for 10 cities and counties
[email protected]

JIM HARNISH, JD

PRINCIPAL/OWNER
A-2 A-3
ATTACHMENT 2

NIKKI ZANCHETTA

PLANNER
Nikki Zanchetta is a Planner with Mintier Harnish. She specializes in housing policy and planning, community development, community engagement, public policy, regional planning, and land use planning. Prior to working for Mintier Harnish, Nikki was a Regional Planner for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) where she worked on the 2021 San Diego Regional Plan and standing up the Housing Acceleration Program developed using Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant funding from the state.

Her experience includes Sustainable Communites Strategies, interpreting housing policy and law, drafting housing and land use documents, community engagement, and creating regional programs to accelerate the production of affordable housing. Nikki has a strong background in writing both technical and public facing planning documents and emphasizes writing styles that allow complicated planning concepts to be easily understandable by various audiences.

As a regional planner at SANDAG she was the lead drafter of the Housing Acceleration Program Strategy for the San Diego region, various sections of the 2021 Regional Plan, and public comment responses regarding the Regional Plan.

Nikki is an advocate of place-based planning strategies and building walkable, bikeable, and sustainable communities. She believes that communities can implement higher density housing to meet housing needs while maintaining unique community character.

Nikki holds a Master’s degree in City Planning from San Diego State University where she served as the City Planning Student Association and was the recipient of the 2021 California Planning Foundation San Diego Section Scholarship, the 2021 WTS Paulette Duve Memorial Scholarship, and the 2020 San Diego APA Student Scholarship. Nikki also received a Bachelor’s Degree in Community & Regional Development and Minor in Professional Writing from UC Davis. [email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of City Planning
San Diego State University
Bachelor of Science in Community
& Regional Development
University of California, Davis
Minor in Professional Writing
University of California, Davis

AFFILIATIONS
American Planning Association,
Sacramento Valley Section

EXPERIENCE
Mintier Harnish
Planner
San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)
Regional Planner
San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)
Regional Planning Intern

PROJECTS
General Plan Update for Trinity County
Housing Elements for the Cities of Visalia,
St. Helena, and Lompoc

MICHAEL GIBBONS

PROJECT MANAGER
Michael Gibbons is a Project Manager at Mintier Harnish specializing in land use planning, regulatory compliance, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), urban design, and community outreach. He has prepared and managed a variety of projects throughout California, including general plans, zoning and development codes, housing elements, specific plans, and design guidelines.

Michael has a unique perspective having worked as planner in both the private and public sector, as well as serving as a police officer. Through this lens, Michael understands the innerworkings of local government and the important role that planning has in addressing the everchanging needs of communities. Michael’s work is driven by his hands on experience in all levels of land use planning and a passion for quality design and community engagement.

Prior to working at Mintier Harnish, Michael was an Assistant Planner for the City of Napa. As part of the Current Planning team, Michael facilitated the filing and processing of a range of projects, including multi-family housing, subdivisions, mixed-use developments, cannabis dispensers, and historic preservation projects.

Most notably, Michael assisted in the preparation and implementation of the City’s first accessory dwelling unit and cannabis ordinances. Additionally, he developed the City of Napa’s first development and impact fee assessment calculator.

During his tenure with the City of Napa, Michael decided to serve the community in a different capacity. Working in the community he served and lived in fueled his desire to transition into law enforcement, where he became a City of Napa Police Officer. Michael received his California POST Peace Officer Certification from the Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center. Using his experience in planning and community engagement, Michael implemented a holistic approach to policing by working alongside community groups and other law enforcement agencies to address the needs of local concern (e.g., homelessness, addiction, mental health). Michael transitioned back into land use planning in 2019.

Michael’s prior experience includes working as a Community Development Intern for the City of Hollister and City of Gilroy. In these roles, Michael performed site and architectural review, processed use permits and variances, and assisted in preparing staff reports.

Michael graduated with honors from California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo, and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in City and Regional Planning. While at Cal Poly, Michael minored in both Real Estate Development and Sustainable Environments, and served two terms as the Associated Students in Planning (ASP) President. Michael also holds an Associate of Science in Mathematics with a concentration in Architecture from Cuesta College in San Luis Obispo.
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in City
and Regional Planning
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Associate of Science in Mathematics
with a Concentration in Architecture
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo
California Peace Officer
Standards and Training Certificate
Napa Valley Police Academy, Napa

AFFILIATIONS
American Planning Association,
Sacramento Valley Section

EXPERIENCE
Mintier Harnish
Associate, Planner, Intern
City of Napa
Police Officer
City of Napa
Assistant Planner

PROJECTS
General Plans for the Cities of American
Canyon, Bakersfield, Gilroy, Livingston,
Lompoc, Los Gatos, Pleasant Hill,
Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Solvang,
Susanville, Ukiah, Visalia, and the
Counties of Kern, Siskiyou, and Trinity
Zoning Ordinances/Codes for the Cities
of Folsom, Gilroy, Kerman, Pleasant
Hill, Reedley, Santa Clara, Selma,
Stockton, Town of Windsor, Visalia,
and the Counties of Calaveras, Madera,
Mariposa, Sierra, Siskiyou, and Trinity
Objective Design and Development
Standards for the Cities of Gilroy,
Santa Clara, Hayward, Kerman, Ukiah,
Town of Windsor, and Counties
of El Dorado, and Madera
Additional Projects:

SJV REAP Housing Study and Technical
Assistance Team, San Joaquin
A-4 A-5
ATTACHMENT 2

MATTHEW JUMAMOY

PLANNER
Matthew is a Planner with Mintier Harnish. He specializes in updating housing elements and designing informative municipal websites. Matthew is an advocate for affordable housing with notable experience promoting Accessory Dwelling Unit expansion in the City of San Jose. Matthew believes in a holistic community-based approach to planning and enjoys working with and learning from community stakeholders of diverse backgrounds. Matthew graduated from Stanford University with a Bachelor of Arts in Urban Studies with a focus on Environmental Sustainability and has an interest in the interrelated nature of transit opportunity, wealth inequality, and environmental sustainability.

Matthew has contributed to the general plans for the cities of Ukiah, Rohnert Park, Millbrae, and American Canyon. He has also contributed significantly to the sixth cycle housing elements of Solvang, Pleasant Hill, and St. Helena. [email protected]

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts in Urban Studies
Stanford University

AFFILIATIONS
American Planning Association,
Sacramento Valley Section

EXPERIENCE
Mintier Harnish
Planner
Stanford University,
Department of Sociology
Undergraduate Research Assistant

PROJECTS
General Plans for the Cities of
Ukiah, Rohnert Park, Millbrae,
American Canyon, the Town of Los
Gatos, and the County of Trinity
6th Cycle Housing Elements for the Cities
of Pleasant Hill, Solvang, Lompoc, St.

Helena, and the County of Stanislaus
Zoning Ordinance Update
for the City of Reedley
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
MESM, Bren School of
Environmental Science and
Management, University of
California, Santa Barbara
BA, Political Science, Cal PolySan Luis Obispo

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATIONS
American Planning Association
– AICP Certified (No. 02663)
Accredited Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Lead Verifier –
California Air Resources Board

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE
17 Matt Maddox, AICP
Principal
Mr. Maddox serves as Principal within Rincon’s Environmental Planning and Sustainability Consulting Group and oversees Rincon’s Sacramento office. In this capacity, he is involved in a wide range of urban planning and land use studies, sustainable, resilient and adaptation policy development, air quality and greenhouse gas analysis, CEQA/NEPA environmental documentation, as well as community involvement and permitting activities. Mr. Maddox has a strong background in long range planning, policy, and environmental planning. He has contributed to successful environmental and planning projects ranging from general plans to focused inner city redevelopment studies, to climate action and adaptation plans and documentation for compliance with environmental regulations, to greenhouse gas emissions analysis for industrial facilities. Mr. Maddox has developed a focus in the area of urban planning, sustainable design and resiliency policy, and greenhouse gas analysis.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Regional Plans and Programmatic Environmental Review
 Principal-in-Charge, City of Port Hueneme – General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Review, Port Hueneme
 Principal-in-Charge, City of Novato – General Plan Technical Studies and Environment Impact Report, Novato
 Principal-in-Charge, City of San Luis Obispo – CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds/Guidance and Climate Action Plan/Greenhouse Gas Thresholds Initial Study-Negative Declaration, San Luis Obispo
 Principal-in-Charge, County of Sonoma – Housing Element, Environmental Justice and Safety Element Update, Sonoma County
 Project Manager, City of Avalon – Avalon 2030 General Plan and EIR, Avalon  Project Manager, City of Calipatria – Calipatria 2035 General Plan, Calipatria  Principal-in-Charge, County of Fresno – General Plan Update, Fresno County Principal-in-Charge, Mintier Harnish, Various Counties/Cities  Principal-in-Charge, Mintier Harnish – Town of Windsor 2040 General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report, Sonoma County
 Principal-in-Charge, Mintier Harnish – General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report, Union City
 Principal-in-Charge, Mintier Harnish/City of Livingston – Livingston General Plan Update 2035 and EIR, Merced County
 Principal-in-Charge, Mintier Harnish/Town of Los Gatos – Los Gatos General Plan Update EIR, Los Gatos
 Principal-in-Charge, Mintier Harnish/City of Millbrae – Millbrae General Plan Update EIR, San Mateo County
 Environmental Project Manager, Mintier Harnish/City of Lompoc – Lompoc Housing and Safety Element Update and CEQA, Santa Barbara County  Environmental Project Manager, Mintier Harnish/City of Solvang – Solvang General Plan Update and EIR, Santa Barbara County
A-6 A-7
ATTACHMENT 2

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
MESM, Conservation Planning;
Bren School of Environmental
Science & Management,
University of California, Santa
Barbara
BA, Psychology; Brandeis
University

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE
15 Chris Bersbach, MESM
Supervising Environmental Planner/Program Manager
Mr. Bersbach manages and prepares CEQA and NEPA documentation in the California central coast region and technical air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise analyses for public agencies and private sector clients throughout California. He has 15 years of planning experience with an emphasis on environmental planning and technical environmental analysis. His experience includes a wide range of technical environmental and planning studies, including land and infrastructure development projects, urban redevelopment projects, general plans and specific plans, solar power facilities and other energy projects, waste and wastewater management facilities, and other long-range planning projects.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
General, Specific, and Community Planning
 Project Manager, City of Pismo Beach – Pismo Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update Program EIR, Pismo Beach
 Project Manager, City of Morro Bay – Morro Bay General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update and EIR, Morro Bay
 Project Manager, City of Paso Robles – Olsen-South Chandler Ranch Specific Plan EIR, Paso Robles
 Project Manager, City of San Luis Obispo – San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Project EIR, San Luis Obispo
CEQA and NEPA Compliance
 Project Manager, City of Morro Bay – Embarcadero Road Battery Electric Storage System Project EIR, Morro Bay
 Project Manager, City of San Luis Obispo – 600 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project & AASP Amendment EIR, San Luis Obispo
 Project Manager, City of Goleta – Heritage Ridge Residential Project EIR, Goleta  Project Manager, City of Arroyo Grande – Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo Oak Park Affordable Housing Project, Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Arroyo Grande
 Project Manager, Cannon Engineering – Leanna Drive Creek Crossing Waterline Project IS-MND and Biological Permitting, City of Arroyo Grande Transportation Infrastructure
 Project Manager, City of San Luis Obispo (subconsultant to GHD) – Prado RoadU.S. 101 Interchange Project; Caltrans PEAR, CEQA/NEPA Environmental Technical Studies, and IS-MND/EA, City of San Luis Obispo, CA
 Project Manager, Santa Barbara County (subconsultant to TYLin) – San Ysidro Road/North Jameson Lane/U.S. 101 Roundabout Project; Caltrans NEPA Environmental Technical Studies and CEQA Analysis, Santa Barbara County  Project Manager, County of San Luis Obispo (subconsultant to Wallace Group) – Avila Beach Drive/U.S. 101 Interchange Connection Visual Impact Assessment, San Luis Obispo County
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
MESM, Bren School of
Environmental Science &
Management, University of
California, Santa Barbara
BS, Ecology, Evolution and
Behavior, University of
California, Los Angeles

INSTRUCTOR
ESM 275 Principles and
Practice of Environmental
Planning, Bren School of
Environmental Science &
Management, University of
California, Santa Barbara
Lexi Journey, MESM
Senior Environmental Planner/CAP Specialist
Lexi Journey is a Senior Environmental Planner with Rincon’s Environmental and Land Use Planning Group. Ms. Journey’s experience includes project management, planning policy analyses, technical analyses, and outreach for assignments such as General Plans, Community Plans, CAPs, and Local Coastal Plans as well as CEQA environmental assessments. She has managed various projects including the Port Hueneme General Plan Update, Avila Community Plan, Local Oxnard Coastal Plan Update, and the County of Santa Barbara Climate Action Plan. Her passions and specialties are climate vulnerability and adaptation, community engagement, and environmental justice. She uses her wide breadth of planning expertise to teach Principles and Practice of Environmental Planning at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management during the fall quarter.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Climate Action Plans
 Program Manager, Santa Barbara 2030 County Climate Action Plan and EIR, Santa Barbara County
 Project Manager, City of Santa Barbara Climate Action Plan and IS-MND, Santa Barbara
 Project Manager, City of Camarillo Climate Action Plan, Camarillo  Project Manager, County of Merced Climate Action Plan, City of Merced  Project Manager, City of South Pasadena Climate Action Plan, South Pasadena  Project Manager, City of La Cañada Flintridge Climate Action Plan, La Cañada Flintridge
General, Local Coastal, Wildfire, and Community Plans
 Project Manager, Avila Community Plan, County of San Luis Obispo  Program Manager, Port Hueneme General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan and EIR, Port Hueneme
 Project Manager, City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Update, Rancho Mirage  Project Manager, City of Alhambra General Plan Update, Alhambra  Project Manager, City of Ventura General Plan Update, Raimi and Associates  Project Manager, City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Update, Raimi and Associates
 Project Manager, City of Palmdale General Plan Update, Raimi and Associates  Project Manager, City of Ojai General Plan Updates and EIR, Raimi and Associates
 Project Manager, Garland Ranch Regional Park Fuel Mitigation and Fire Management Plan, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District  Project Manager, Peer Review of Ventura County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council
 Project Manager, City of Oxnard Local Coastal Program (LCP) Update, Oxnard A-8 A-9
ATTACHMENT 2

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
M.S., City and Regional
Planning, California Polytechnic
State University San Luis
Obispo, 2017
B.S., Field and Wildlife:

Biological Sciences, California
Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, 2012

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE
6 Ryan Russell, MCRP
Senior Planner/Project Manager
Ryan Russell is a Senior Planner within Rincon’s Environmental and Land Use Planning group. Ryan’s experience includes project management, environmental analysis, stakeholder and community outreach, planning and policy development for long range plans, entitlement processing, and public presentations. Ryan has experience with all aspects of the environmental review process including preparing CEQA documents such as Initial Studies, IS-MNDs, complex programmatic and project-level EIRs. Ryan has managed and supported environmental analysis of numerous longrange planning documents such as Port Hueneme General Plan and Housing Element and EIR, City of Lompoc Housing Element and associated CEQA analysis, and Paso Robles Olson South Chandler Ranch Specific Plan EIR. Ryan is knowledgeable in land use planning, Coastal Act, CEQA regulations, and municipal entitlement processing.

Between his project experience and technical expertise, Ryan is uniquely positioned to provide quality environmental review for complex, long-range planning projects.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
 Project Manager, City of Goleta – Goleta Train Depot Master Plan EIR, City of Goleta
 Project Manager, City of West Hollywood – West Hollywood Housing Element Update and EIR, West Hollywood
 Project Manager, City of Lompoc Housing Element Update and CEQA, Lompoc  Project Manager, City of Lompoc – Organic Liberty and Mustang Cannabis ISMNDs  Project Manager, City of St. Helena – Housing Element Update and CEQA, St.

Helena
 Assistant Project Manager, City of Port Hueneme – Port Hueneme Housing Element and General Plan Update and EIR, Port Hueneme
 Assistant Project Manager, City of Paso Robles – Olsen-South Chandler Ranch Specific Plan EIR, City of Paso Robles
 Assistant Project Manager, City of Arroyo Grande – Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo Oak Park Affordable Housing Project, Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Arroyo Grande
 Assistant Project Manager, City of San Luis Obispo – 600 Tank Farm, San Luis Obispo
 Assistant Project Manager, City of Riverside, The Exchange EIR, Riverside  Assistant Project Manager, City of Berkeley – 3100 San Pablo Avenue Office and R&D Project, Supplemental EIR, Berkeley, CA
 Assistant Project Manager, Antelope Valley College Master Plan EIR, Lancaster Todd Tregenza, AICP
Senior Project Manager
Qualified: BS, Community and Regional Development, University of California, Davis, CA, 2007; AICP Certified Planner #29678
Connected: Young Professionals in Transportation Sacramento Chapter, CoFounder; American Planning Association Professional Summary: Todd Tregenza has 15 years of professional experience in various areas of transportation consulting with an emphasis on transportation planning projects. He has assisted dozens of agencies on short and long-range planning efforts, including the development of travel demand models, general plan circulation elements, specific plans and master plans, corridor studies, capital improvement programs, nexus and fee studies, transportation operational analysis, and impact analyses. His experience spans public and private sector work for a broad range of projects that require circulation, safety, and operational analysis from a transportation perspective. Todd also has extensive experience as an On-Call transportation planner for local agencies, assisting in the preparation of transportation studies and grant applications, performing peer reviews of impact studies, and developing CEQA impact analyses for development projects of all sizes.

Project Manager | Circulation Element, CIP, and
TIF Update | City of Arroyo Grande | Arroyo
Grande, CA | Managed preparation of adopted 2021
Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update. Project
includes update of City’s Capital Improvement
Program and Transportation Impact Fee programs,
using a local area model developed and maintained
by GHD that has been updated to be consistent with
the most recent version of the SLOCOG regional
model. The City’s Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines were also updated to include VMT
policies and guidelines in compliance with SB 743.

Project Manager | US 101 Broadway Multimodal
Corridor Plan | Humboldt County Association of
Governments | Eureka, CA | Managed the
preparation of a multimodal corridor plan for US 101 in the City of Eureka, following the Caltrans Corridor
Planning Guidelines. The corridor suffers a lack of
multimodal accessibility, poor travel reliability, and
high rates of severe and fatal pedestrian and bicycle
collisions. The corridor plan proposes major
reconfiguration of the roadway including provision of
robust Class IV bikeways, transit prioritization through dedicated lanes and queue jump pockets, shortened
pedestrian crossings, and new couplets to redistribute
traffic. The study includes close coordination with City and Caltrans partners, and seeks to inform
competitive grant applications including Solutions for
Congested Corridors Program.

Project Manager | Circulation Element, CIP, and
TIF Update | City of Galt | Galt, CA | Managing
preparation of third consecutive update to the City’s
AB 1600 TIF and nexus study, concurrent with a
focused updated to the City’s Circulation Element.

Led update to capacity needs assessment based on
full buildout of the City’s General Plan with an updated 2020 travel demand model. As part of this contract,
also developed low-VMT screening maps and SB 743
policies to guide the City’s development review.

Project Manager | Imola Corridor Complete
Streets Improvement Plan | Napa Valley
Transportation Authority | Napa, CA | Managed the
development of a 3.5-mile multimodal complete
streets plan for Imola Avenue in the City and County
of Napa. The plan primarily addressed safety
improvements for all road users and improved
pedestrian and bicyclist mobility. Coordinated plan
development with agency and community
stakeholders to ensure a community-driven process.

Improvements were prioritized and programmed
according to various measures of effectiveness,
including benefit-cost, constructability, and
environmental stewardship.

Project Manager | Comprehensive Development
Impact Fee Update | Economic & Planning
Systems | Benicia, CA | Managed the preparation of
transportation impact fee update for the City. Led
evaluation of various fee structures that could
address VMT, and defensible methodologies for
incorporating bicycle and pedestrian projects, without
using LOS, from the Solano Transportation Authority
regional ATP. Oversaw revisions to the Solano Napa
Activity-Based Model travel demand model to better
reflect anticipated land use growth.

Transportation Planner | General Plan Update |
City of Turlock | Turlock, CA | Responsible for
preparation of the Circulation Element update,
including policies and planned improvements.

Assisted in the preparation of the CEQA document
for the update, including all technical analysis for the transportation and alternatives sections of the EIR.

As part of the General Plan update, responsible for
development of new Travel Demand Model, updated
to current conditions, used to evaluate proposed land
use and circulation alternatives. Technical analysis
included various traditional and new performance
metrics such as vehicle-miles traveled, Vehicle
Hours Traveled, volume-to-capacity ratio, and delay.

A-10 A-11
ATTACHMENT 2

Colin Burgett
Project Manager
Qualified: MCRP, City & Regional Planning, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 1998; BS, Political Science, University of Oregon, 1993.

Professional Summary: Colin has over two decades of professional experience with expertise in multimodal transportation and integrated transportation/land use planning.

He specializes in strategic planning for large-scale projects, including citywide transportation plans, large area plans, campus plans, bicycle and pedestrian master plans, EIR transportation studies, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) policy development and assessments, bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor studies, and transit station area plans.

Colin has extensive experience with projects that emphasize corridor revitalization, transit-oriented development, and complete streets planning. He manages projects that place a strong emphasis on facilitating the interactions between transportation systems, land use patterns and urban design components.

Project Manager | Redding 2045 General Plan
Transportation Element | City of Redding |
Redding, CA | Prepared a comprehensive update to
Redding’s Transportation Element incorporating
revisions to Redding’s planned complete streets
network and an emphasis on providing low-stress
bicycling and walking routes, and continuing the
trend of implementing “road diets” on arterials with
excess capacity.

Project Manager | Ukiah 2040 General Plan
Mobility Element | City of Ukiah | Ukiah, CA |
Prepared a comprehensive update to Ukiah’s
Circulation Element incorporating complete streets
components and recommended vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) methodology and performance
metrics.

Project Manager | American Canyon 2045
General Plan Circulation Element | City of
American Canyon | American Canyon, CA |
Updated American Canyon’s Circulation Element
incorporating complete streets components and
refined street improvement plans.

Project Manager | Seaside 2040 General Plan
Mobility Element | City of Seaside | Seaside, CA |
Prepared a Mobility Element incorporating complete
streets components, revisions to citywide bikeway
network, identification of pedestrian priority focus
areas, and related land use and mobility projects.

The bikeway network component included a
comprehensive revision to the City’s planned
bikeway network to include bicycle boulevard
corridors and protected bike lanes. Facilitated public
workshops and advisory committee meetings.

Project Manager | Create Tiburon 2040 General
Plan Mobility Element | Town of Tiburon |
Tiburon, CA | Developed an updated Mobility
Element with an implementation-focus as part of a
comprehensive General Plan update. Facilitated
community input concerning transportation topics.

Project Manager | Brisbane Baylands Specific
Plan EIR | City of Brisbane | Brisbane, CA |
Developed transit-oriented development plan
alternatives for a large brownfield site, including a
former railyard and commuter rail station, adjacent to
the San Francisco Bay.

Project Manager | Development Parking Studies |
Town of Windsor | Windsor, CA | Project Manager
for parking studies conducted for the Bell Village,
Windsor Mill, Shiloh Mixed Use and Windsor Town
Green Hotel projects in the Town of Windsor.

Provided recommendations concerning shared
parking to increase the efficient supply of parking.

Task Leader | Downtown Development Cap
Study | City of Palo Alto | Palo Alto, CA |
Assessed parking supply/demand, parking
management, and traffic conditions, as part of a
larger effort to review developmental trends and
calculate potential developmental capacity in
Downtown Palo Alto.

Task Leader | Comprehensive Pedestrian &
Bicycle Plan | City of Belmont | Belmont, CA |
Prepared a citywide pedestrian and bicycle master
plan, and the first such plan adopted by the City of
Belmont. Developed citywide bikeway network and
pedestrian priority improvement recommendations.

Worked with team on cost estimates. Worked closely
with City staff and technical advisory committee and
led walking tour. Prepared strategic implementation
plan and CIP list with recommended phasing.

Project Manager | Active Transportation Plan |
City of Scotts Valley | Scotts Valley, CA |
Developed bicycle and pedestrian improvement
options and concept designs as a subconsultant to
Ecology Action. Conducted community outreach,
facilitated workshop discussions to gather input on
key needs, and presented improvement options to
community members.

Project Manager | Active Transportation Plan |
City of Patterson | Patterson, CA | Managed
initiation of a citywide Active Transportation Plan
(ATP) that focuses on non-motorized forms of travel,
identifies challenges to the current non-motorized
network, proposes solutions and identifies potential
funding sources. Oversaw development of a project
website to facilitate community outreach and led
discussions with the citizens’ advisory committee.

Rosanna Southern, EIT
Transportation Planner

Qualified: BS, Civil, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 2012; Engineer-in-Training, VA #420063509 Connections: Young Professionals in Transportation, Sacramento Chapter; Women in Transportation Seminar, Sacramento Chapter
Professional Summary: Rosanna Southern is a transportation engineer with 10 years of experience who specializes in traffic engineering and transportation planning, assisting dozens of agencies on short and long-range planning efforts, including the development of travel demand models, general plan circulation elements, traffic impact fee studies, corridor studies, and complete street plans.

Rosanna provides multi-modal operational analysis and traffic impact studies for a variety of projects aimed at analyzing traffic operations. The support she provides includes utilizing various software, such as VISSIM, Synchro, SimTraffic, Sidra, HCS, TransCAD, and Cube.

Transportation Planner | City of Pismo Beach
Circulation Element | City of Pismo Beach | Pismo
Beach, CA | Prepared an update to the City’s
General Plan Circulation Element consistent with
regional, statewide, and federal legislation -
specifically related to multimodal transportation.

Mapped existing multimodal conditions and proposed
circulation improvements in GIS format. Prepared the
Multimodal Circulation Plan. Assisted the City to
develop active transportation goals and policies,
including citywide and downtown LOS policies.

Transportation Planner | McSwain Community
Transportation Circulation Study and Traffic
Impact Fee Update | Merced County | Merced,
CA | Prepared the circulation study, including a
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Nexus, and fee
study. Created a nested community-level travel
demand model within the regional travel demand
model. Baseline socio-economic data was
aggregated at the parcel level using GIS data
obtained from the County in addition to field surveys
and observations. Utilized the model to forecast
General Plan buildout conditions, establish Nexus
and regional share, develop a CIP, and propose a
fee schedule. Prepared figures using GIS software.

Prepared reports and memorandums including
existing and forecasted intersection and roadway
traffic volumes, LOS analysis using Synchro
software, and documenting multi-modal facilities and
plans, the traffic impact fee Nexus and CIP.

Transportation Planner | Franklin-Beachwood
Transportation Circulation Study and Traffic
Impact Fee Update | Merced County | Merced,
CA | Prepared the circulation study, including a CIP,
Nexus, and fee study. Created a nested communitylevel travel demand model within the regional travel demand model. Baseline socio-economic data was
aggregated at the parcel level using GIS data
obtained from the County in addition to field surveys
and observations. Utilized the model to forecast
general plan buildout conditions, establish Nexus
and regional share, develop a CIP, and propose a
fee schedule. Prepared figures using GIS software.

Prepared reports and memorandums including
existing and forecasted intersection and roadway
traffic volumes, LOS analysis using Synchro
software, documenting multi-modal facilities and
plans, the traffic impact fee Nexus, and CIP.

Transportation Planner | Templeton Area Travel
Demand Model and Circulation Study Update |
County of San Luis Obispo | San Luis Obispo,
CA | Comprehensively updated Templeton
community travel demand model to current baseline
conditions. Baseline socio-economic data was
aggregated at the parcel level using GIS. TAZ
structure was comprehensively overhauled to
increase the resolution of the model and to be
consistent with the boundaries of the community’s
three distinct fee areas. Utilized the model to
forecast General Plan buildout conditions, establish
Nexus and regional share, developed a CIP, and
propose fee schedule.

Transportation Planner | Avila Circulation Study
and Traffic Impact Fee Update | San Luis Obispo
County | San Luis Obispo, CA | Prepared the
circulation study, including a CIP, Nexus, and Fee
Study. Created a new area-wide travel demand model
for the Avila Beach community. Baseline socioeconomic data was aggregated at the parcel level using GIS data obtained from the County in addition to
field surveys and observations. Utilized the regional
travel demand model to calibrate the XX and IX/XI trip
information for the base and forecast models. Utilized
the model to forecast General Plan buildout conditions, establish Nexus and regional share, develop a CIP,
and propose a fee schedule. Prepared figures using
GIS software. Prepared reports and memorandums
including existing and forecasted intersection and
roadway traffic volumes, LOS analysis using Synchro
software, documenting multi-modal facilities and plans, the traffic impact fee Nexus, and CIP.

A-12 A-13
ATTACHMENT 2

TNDG – Roger A. Dale, Managing Principal
Education: MA, Resource and Environmental Economics, UC Riverside BA, Economics, Claremont McKenna College
Mr. Dale has been affiliated with TNDG for 34 years (since 1988) and currently serves as the firm’s managing principal. His background encompasses the fields of real estate development, economic development, regional economic analysis, environmental and land use policy, financial forecasting, and renewable energy. His project experience with TNDG includes real estate market forecasting, pro forma financial analysis, demographic research and modeling, fiscal impact analysis, cost/benefit assessment, redevelopment/revitalization strategies, business retention/attraction, workforce development program assessments, and preparation of regional-scale economic development strategic plans. Selected project experience is listed below.  Market study and Economic Development Element for City of San Ramon General Plan Update  Fiscal impact modeling and land use forecasts for County of San Luis Obispo negation of citycounty tax sharing agreements  Market and pro forma financial analysis for City of Calabasas General Plan update  Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Monterey Park General Plan update  Market, fiscal impact, and pro forma financial analysis of City of Alhambra General Plan update  Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Costa Mesa General Plan update  Market and pro forma financial analysis for Fullerton Downtown Core/Corridors Specific Plan  Market study and development strategy for City of Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan  Demographic forecasting and economic analyses for Cambria Community Services District  Retail market analysis and fiscal impact studies for proposed hotel and automobile dealership projects (City of San Luis Obispo)
 Hotel market analysis for City of Port Hueneme General Plan Update  Retail demand analysis for City of Carpenteria
 Fiscal analysis for County of Ventura 2040 General Plan  Land use and cost/benefit forecasts for City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework Study  County of Ventura Economic Vitality Strategic Plan
 City of Camarillo Economic Development Strategic Plan (including real estate market study)  Market and fiscal impact studies for proposed reconfiguration of Camarillo Springs Golf Course  Real estate market study (including hotel demand forecast) and pro forma financial analysis for Downtown Oxnard
 Developer outreach and pro forma financial analysis for Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (City of Rosemead)
 City of Beaumont Economic Development Strategic Plan
 City of Menifee Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy  City of Escondido Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy  City of Palm Desert Economic Development Strategic Plan TNDG – Joseph E. McClure, Senior Associate
Education: MS, Urban Planning, University of Arizona
BS, Architecture, University of Cincinnati
Mr. McClure has served as principal or manager of land economics research and advisory-services organizations for over 35 years. Mr. McClure’s multidisciplinary background incorporates many phases of the community and real estate development process: economic analysis and strategy development, market and financial feasibility assessment, and planning and design. McClure completed additional post-graduate work in economic geography at UA. He is a registered architect in Arizona. Joe’s organizational affiliations include the Western Regional Science Association, the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and the Arizona Association for Economic Development (AAED). McClure helps coordinate the firm’s technical focus on regional/land economic services and creative activities within the firm that include promoting innovation in community development strategic planning and fiscal and economic impact assessments. McClure has served both private developers and public agencies at all levels of government, for projects in small and large cities, undeveloped and heavily developed regions, and regions with special demographic and cultural characteristics. Selected project experience is listed below.
 Market study and Economic Development Element for City of San Ramon General Plan Update  Fiscal impact modeling and land use forecasts for County of San Luis Obispo negation of citycounty tax sharing agreements  Market and pro forma financial analysis for City of Calabasas General Plan update  Market and pro forma financial analysis for Fullerton Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan
 Market study and development strategy for City of Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan  Retail market analysis and fiscal impact studies for proposed hotel and automobile dealership projects (City of San Luis Obispo)
 Fiscal analysis for County of Ventura 2040 General Plan  Market, fiscal impact, and pro forma financial analysis of City of Alhambra General Plan update  County of Ventura Economic Vitality Strategic Plan
 City of Camarillo Economic Development Strategic Plan (including real estate market study)  Market and fiscal impact studies for proposed reconfiguration of Camarillo Springs Golf Course  City of Beaumont Economic Development Strategic Plan
 City of Menifee Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy  City of Escondido Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy  City of Palm Desert Economic Development Strategic Plan  An economic impact of bicycle tourism in Arizona (AZ Department of Transportation)  Market assessment and benefits analysis for major tourist-oriented, destination retail centers, and estimates of tourist spending (in Phoenix, AZ and Sparks, NV)  Metropolitan area siting and economic/fiscal impact study for major league sports facility (in metro Phoenix)
A-14 A-15
ATTACHMENT 2

TNDG – Alan Levenson, Senior Associate
Education: MBA, University of California, Los Angeles
BA, Economics and Political Science, UC Riverside
Alan Levenson has been affiliated with TNDG for 22 years. His areas of expertise include economic development strategic planning, regional economic analysis, fiscal impact analysis, retail market evaluation, and real estate development feasibility assessment. He has completed over 80 economic impact studies as part of CEQA/NEPA processes, and has been involved in range of complex fiscal and economic impact studies for residential and mixed-use development projects. He has also been a principal participant in the preparation of a number of economic development strategic plans, many of which have featured tourism as a targeted economic activity. His MBA from UCLA included a concentration in real estate development and finance. Selected project experience is listed below.  Market study and Economic Development Element for City of San Ramon General Plan Update  Fiscal impact modeling and land use forecasts for County of San Luis Obispo negation of citycounty tax sharing agreements  Market and pro forma financial analysis for Fullerton Downtown Core/Corridors Specific Plan  Market study and development strategy for City of Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan  Retail market analysis and fiscal impact studies for proposed hotel and automobile dealership projects (City of San Luis Obispo)
 Hotel market analysis for City of Port Hueneme General Plan Update  Retail demand analysis for City of Carpenteria  Fiscal analysis for County of Ventura 2040 General Plan  Market and pro forma financial analysis for City of Calabasas General Plan update  Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Monterey Park General Plan update  Market, fiscal impact, and pro forma financial analysis of City of Alhambra General Plan update  Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Costa Mesa General Plan update  County of Ventura Economic Vitality Strategic Plan  City of Camarillo Economic Development Strategic Plan (including real estate market study)  Market and fiscal impact studies for proposed reconfiguration of Camarillo Springs Golf Course  City of Beaumont Economic Development Strategic Plan  City of Menifee Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy  City of Escondido Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy  City of Palm Desert Economic Development Strategic Plan  Assessment of recreational and amenity benefits associated with County of Los Angeles watershed management programs
 Simi Valley Restaurant Site Review (Rancho Simi Park and Recreation District)  Economic Development Asset Assessment: comprehensive data-mapping documentation of public/private tourism assets for inventory, analysis, and visual mapping (Larimer County, CO) A-17
MINTIER HARNISH | PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES
A-16
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

Item 9.k.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development BY: Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
DATE: December 9, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt the Ordinance amending Section 16.52.150 to Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; and
2) Find that the Ordinance is statutorily exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.17.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

No financial impact is projected.

BACKGROUND:

In recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). In 2025, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, four new bills that further amend state ADU law. Additionally, in accordance with Government Code section 66326, the City received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with comments regarding the ADU Ordinance adopted by the City Council on December 10, 2024. The proposed ordinance amends AGMC Section

16.52.150 in response to both recent changes to state law and HCD’s comment letter.

The Planning Commission reviewed the development code amendments at its meeting on November 4, 20251. The Planning Commission was supportive of the amendments as proposed and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the

1 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=16291

Item 9.k.

City Council
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
December 9, 2025

proposed Ordinance. At a public hearing on November 25, 20252, the City Council introduced the Ordinance as proposed.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Ordinance amendments are now ready for adoption. The Ordinance amendments will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Once adopted by the City Council, the Community Development staff will forward a copy of the updated ADU ordinance to HCD within 60 days for certification.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Adopt the Ordinance as proposed;

2. Modify the Ordinance amendments and direct staff to return at a future public hearing to introduce the modified amendments; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Adoption of the Ordinance will establish a process for the development of supportive housing, transitional housing, and low-barrier navigation centers that would serve a vulnerable segment of the population. It will also implement two housing programs from the City’s Housing Element related to special needs housing.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, which is California’s ADU law.

Therefore, the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements state ADU law.

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.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=16455

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 16.52.150 OF THE

ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE

EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21080.17
WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that, among other things, amend various sections of the Government Code to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, in 2025, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, further amendments to state ADU law; and
WHEREAS, the new updates to state ADU law take effect on January 1, 2026, and for the City’s ADU ordinance to remain valid, it must be amended to reflect the most recent changes to state law
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme for the construction of ADUs and JADUs to reflect the most recent changes to state law; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has duly initiated amendments to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, after giving notices thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on November 4, 2025 concerning the attached AGMC Section 16.52.150 code amendments and carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on November 25, 2025, concerning the attached amendments to AGMC Section 16.52.150; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on November 25, 2025 introduced this attached ordinance amending AGMC Section 16.52.150; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
staff report, its attachments and all supporting materials referenced therein or offered in the matter as presented at the public hearing.

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

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

SECTION 2. Environmental. The City Council finds that, under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, which is California’s ADU law. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that it implements state ADU law.

SECTION 3. Required Findings. In accordance with AGMC section

16.16.040(E) , the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. General Plan. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan as a matter of law under Government Code section 66314(c).

2. Health, Safety, and Welfare; Illogical Land Use Pattern. Adoption of the ordinance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare as it updates the AGMC as required by State law. Finally, this ordinance will not result in an illogical land use pattern as it is not amending the City’s zoning map.

3. Consistency with Title 16. This ordinance is consistent with the purpose and intent of AGMC Title 16 because it amends regulations for the development of ADUs and JADUs promoted by and consistent with the City’s Housing Element.

4. Environmental. See Section 2 above.

SECTION 5. Code Amendment. AGMC Section 16.52.150 is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as provided in “Exhibit A-1,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

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

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3
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. HCD Submittal. In accordance with Government Code section 66326, the City Clerk is directed to submit a copy of this Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.

SECTION 9. 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 10. 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

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 5
Exhibit A-1
Section 16.52.150 Accessory Dwelling Units
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code.

B. Effect of Conforming. An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this section will not be:

1. Deemed to be inconsistent with the city’s general plan and zoning designation for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

2. Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

3. Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

4. Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in subsection C.8 below. This does not prevent the city from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17980.12.

C. Definitions. As used in this section, terms are defined as follows:

1. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined by section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code; and
b. A manufactured home, as defined by section 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code.

2. “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.

3. “Complete independent living facilities” means permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.

4. “Efficiency kitchen” means a kitchen that includes all of the following:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 6
a. A cooking facility with appliances.
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.

5. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential unit that satisfies all of the following:
a. It is no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space in size. b. It is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. An enclosed use within the residence, such as an attached garage, is considered to be a part of and contained within the single-family structure.
c. It includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure. d. If the unit does not include its own separate bathroom, then it contains an interior entrance to the main living area of the existing or proposed single-family structure in addition to an exterior entrance that is separate from the main entrance to the primary dwelling.
e. It includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in subsection C.4 above.

6. “Livable space” means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.

7. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

8. “Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.

9. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.

10. “Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.

11. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 7

12. “Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.

D. Approvals. The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs created under this section:

1. Ministerial ADU and Building Permits Required. Every ADU and JADU requires an ADU permit and a building permit. The city will review and approve permit applications in accordance with subsection D.3 below.

2. Processing Fee. The city may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred in processing ADU permits, including the costs of adopting or amending the city’s ADU ordinance. The ADU-permit processing fee is determined by the most recent fee schedule approved by city council resolution.

3. Process and Timing.
a. Completeness.
i. Determination in 15 days. The city will determine whether an application to create or serve an ADU or JADU is
complete and will provide written notice of the determination to the applicant within 15 business days after the city receives the application submittal.
ii. Incomplete Items. If the city’s determination under subsection D.3.a.i above is that the application is
incomplete, the city’s notice must list the incomplete items and describe how the application can be made complete.
iii. Cure. After receiving a notice that the application is incomplete, the applicant may cure and address the items that were deemed by the city to be incomplete.
iv. Subsequent Submittals. If the applicant submits additional information to address incomplete items, within 15 business days of the subsequent submittal the city will determine in writing whether the additional information remedies all the incomplete items that the city identified in its original notice.

The city may not require the application to include an item that was not included in the original notice.
v. Deemed Complete. If the city does not make a timely
determination as required by this subsection a, the
application or resubmitted application is deemed complete for the purposes of subsection D.3.c below.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 8
vi. Appeal of Incompleteness. An applicant may appeal the city’s determination that the application is incomplete by submitting a written appeal to the city clerk. The planning commission will review the written appeal and affirm or reverse the completeness determination and provide a final written determination to the applicant within 60 business days after receipt of the appeal.
b. No Discretion or Hearing. Ministerial permits for an ADU or JADU are considered and approved without discretionary review or a hearing.
c. Deadline to Approve or Deny Ministerial Approvals. The city must approve or deny an application to create an ADU or JADU within 60 days from the date that the city receives a complete application. If the city has not approved or denied the complete application within 60 days, the application is deemed approved unless either:
i. The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay, or ii. When an application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the city may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or JADU until the city acts on the permit application to create the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU will still be considered ministerially without
discretionary review or a hearing.
d. Denial. If the city denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the city must provide the applicant with comments that include, among other things, a list of all the defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant within the 60-day time period established by subsection D.3.c above.
e. Appeal of Denial. An applicant may appeal the city’s denial of the application by submitting a written appeal to the city clerk. The planning commission will review the written appeal and affirm or reverse the denial and provide a final written determination to the applicant within 60 business days after receipt of the appeal.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 9
f. Concurrent Review of Demolition. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU is reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

E. Classes.

1. Class 1: Statutorily Regulated. Class 1 ADUs and JADUs are approved under Government Code section 66323. If an ADU or JADU complies with each of the general requirements in subsection F below, it is allowed in each of the following scenarios provided in this subsection E.1. An ADU and JADU approved under subsection E.1.a may be combined with an ADU approved under subsection E.1.b, and ADUs approved under subsection E.1.c may be combined with ADUs approved under subsection E.1.d.
a. Converted on Lot with Single-Family: One ADU as described in this subsection E.1.a and one JADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling on it, where the ADU or JADU:
i. Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; within the existing space of an existing singlefamily dwelling; or (in the case of an ADU only) within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to 150 additional square feet if the expansion is limited to
accommodating ingress and egress; and
ii. Has exterior access that is independent of that for the single-family dwelling; and
iii. Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
iv. The JADU complies with the requirements of Government Code sections 66333 through 66339.
b. Limited Detached on Lot with Single-Family: One detached, new-construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing singlefamily dwelling, if the detached ADU satisfies each of the following limitations:
i. The side- and rear-yard setbacks are at least four feet. ii. The total floor area is 800 square feet of livable space or smaller.
iii. The peak height above grade does not exceed the
applicable height limit in subsection F.2 below.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 10
c. Converted on Lot with Multifamily: One or more ADUs within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU complies with state building standards for dwellings. Under this subsection E.1.c, at least one converted ADU is allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling, up to a quantity equal to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. d. Limited Detached on Lot with Multifamily: No more than two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling, or up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, if each detached ADU satisfies all of the following:
i. The side- and rear-yard setbacks are at least four feet. If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side yard setback of less than four feet, the city will not require any
modification to the multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the ADU.
ii. The peak height above grade does not exceed the
applicable height limit provided in subsection F.2 below. iii. If the lot has an existing multifamily dwelling, the quantity of detached ADUs does not exceed the number of primary
dwelling units on the lot.

2. Class 2: Locally Regulated. Class 2 ADUs are approved under Government Code sections 66314-66322. Except for Class 1 ADUs approved under subsection E.1 above, all ADUs are subject to the standards set forth in subsections F and G below.

F. General ADU and JADU Requirements. The following requirements apply to all Class 1 and Class 2 ADUs and JADUs:

1. Zoning.
a. A Class 1 ADU subject only to a building permit under subsection E.1 above may be created on a lot in a residential or mixed-use zone.
b. A Class 2 ADU subject to an ADU permit under subsection E.2 above may be created on a lot that is zoned to allow single-family dwelling residential use or multifamily dwelling residential use. c. In accordance with Government Code section 66333(a), a JADU may only be created on a lot zoned for single-family residences.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 11

2. Height.
a. Except as otherwise provided by subsections F.2.b and F.2.c below, a detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit may not exceed 18 feet in height.
b. A detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is located within onehalf mile walking distance of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
c. An ADU that is located as a second story above an existing or proposed detached garage may be up to 25 feet in height. d. An ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may not exceed 25 feet in height. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ADUs subject to this subsection F.2.d may not exceed two stories.
e. For purposes of this subsection F.2, height is determined by measuring the vertical distance from the average finished grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest point of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof, but exclusive of vents, air conditioners, chimneys, or other such incidental appurtenances.

3. Fire Sprinklers.
a. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU or JADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence.
b. The construction of an ADU or JADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

4. Rental Term. No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days. This prohibition applies regardless of when the ADU or JADU was created.

5. No Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU may be rented, but, except as otherwise provided in Government Code section 66341, no ADU or JADU may be sold o otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 12
primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot).

6. Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an onsite wastewatertreatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.

7. Owner Occupancy.
a. ADUs. ADUs are not subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. b. JADUs.
i. Generally. As required by state law, JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with
legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence.
ii. Exceptions. The owner-occupancy requirement in this subsection F.7.b does not apply in either of the following situations:
(I) The JADU has separate sanitation facilities (i.e., does not share sanitation facilities with the existing primary dwelling unit structure).
(II) The property is entirely owned by another
governmental agency, land trust, or housing
organization.

8. Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder’s office and a copy filed with the Community Development Department. The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the city and must provide that:
a. The JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling. b. The JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 13
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the Community Development Director, providing evidence that the JADU has in fact been eliminated. The Community Development Director may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the JADU has been eliminated.

Appeal may be taken from the Community Development Director’s determination consistent with other provisions of this Code. If the JADU is not entirely physically removed, but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Code.
e. The deed restriction is enforceable by the Community Development Director or his or her designee for the benefit of the city. Failure of the property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the city is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit.

9. Building & Safety.
a. Must comply with building code. Subject to subsection F.9.b below, all ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code requirements.
b. No change of occupancy. Construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in Section 310 of the California Building Code, unless the building official, in consultation with the Community Development Director, makes a written finding based on
substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the ADU could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.

Nothing in this subsection F.9.b prevents the city from changing the occupancy code of a space that was uninhabitable space or that was only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use in accordance with this section.

10. Certificate of Occupancy Timing.
a. Generally. No certificate of occupancy for an ADU or JADU may be issued before the certificate of occupancy is issued for the primary dwelling unit.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 14
b. Limited Exception for State-Declared Emergencies.

Notwithstanding subsection F.10.a above, a certificate of occupancy for an ADU may be issued before a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling if each of the following requirements are met:
i. The county is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the California Governor on or after
February 1, 2025.
ii. The primary dwelling was substantially damaged or
destroyed by an event referenced in the Governor’s state of emergency proclamation.
iii. The ADU has been issued construction permits and has passed all required inspections.
iv. The ADU is not attached to the primary dwelling.

G. Specific ADU Requirements. The following requirements apply only to Class 2 ADUs that are approved under subsection E.2 above. This subsection G does not apply to Class 1 ADUs or JADUs approved under subsection E.1 above.

1. Maximum Size.
a. The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU subject to this subsection G is 1,200 square feet of interior livable space. b. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling.
c. Application of other development standards in this subsection G, might further limit the size of the ADU, but no application of the percent-based size limit in subsection G.1.b above or front setback may require the ADU to be less than 800 square feet of interior livable space.

2. Setbacks.
a. ADUs that are subject to this subsection G must conform to 4-foot side and rear setbacks. ADUs that are subject to this subsection G must conform to 20-foot front setbacks, subject to subsection G.1.c above.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 15
b. No setback is required for an ADU that is subject to this subsection G if the ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

3. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by subsection C.9 above, is required for an ADU.

4. Parking.
a. Generally. One paved off-street parking space is required for each ADU or bedroom, whichever is less. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking, as defined by subsection C.12 above.
b. Exceptions. No parking under subsection G.4.a is required in the following situations:
i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined in subsection C.11 above.
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
iii. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.
iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
v. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU.
vi. When the permit application to create an ADU is submitted with an application to create a new single-family or new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the lot satisfies any other criteria listed in subsections G.4.b.i through v above.
c. No Replacement. When a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those offstreet parking spaces are not required to be replaced.

5. Architectural Requirements.
a. The materials and colors of the exterior walls, roof, and windows and doors must match the appearance and architectural design of

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 16
those of the primary dwelling. Projects utilizing the City’s predesigned ADU plans or factory building housing are not subject to this standard.
b. The exterior lighting must be limited to down lights or as otherwise required by the building or fire code.
c. When a garage is converted to an ADU, the garage door opening shall be replaced with exterior wall coverings, or residential windows and doors, to match the existing exterior garage wall covering and detailing.
d. The ADU must have an independent exterior entrance, apart from that of the primary dwelling.
e. No window or door of the ADU may have a direct line of sight to an adjoining residential property. Each window or door must either be located where there is no direct line of sight or screened using fencing, landscaping, or privacy glass to prevent a direct line of sight.
f. Second floor living area shall be setback five feet from the ground floor footprint.
g. Window sashes and doorframes shall be made of wood or vinyl.

Unfinished aluminum is not allowed.
h. All windows and doors in an ADU less than 30 feet from a property line that is not a public right-of-way line must either be (for windows) clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor, or (for windows and for doors) utilize frosted or obscure glass.
i. Rooftop decks are prohibited on all detached ADUs.

H. Fees. The following requirements apply to all Class 1 ADUs and JADUs and Class 2 ADUs that are approved under subsections E.1 or E.2 above.

1. Impact Fees.
a. No impact fee is required for a JADU or an ADU that has less than 800 square feet of interior livable space. For purposes of this subsection H.1, “impact fee” means a “fee” under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code § 66000(b)) and a fee under the Quimby Act (Gov. Code § 66477). “Impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 17
b. A JADU or ADU with less than 500 square feet of interior livable space does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet for purposes of Education Code section 17620(a)(1)(C), and is therefore not subject to school fees under Education Code section 17620.
c. Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that has 800 square feet or more of interior livable space must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. (E.g., the floor area of the ADU, divided by the floor area of the primary dwelling, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling.)

2. Utility Fees.
a. If an ADU or JADU is constructed concurrently with a new singlefamily home, a separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility and payment of the normal connection fee and capacity charge for a new dwelling are required.
b. Except as described in subsection H.2.a, JADUs and converted ADUs on a single-family lot that are created under subsection E.1.a above are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the JADU or ADU and the utility. Nor is a connection fee or capacity charge required.
c. Except as described in subsection H.2.a, all ADUs that are not covered by subsection H.2.b require a new, separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility for any utility that is provided by the city. All utilities that are not provided by the city are subject to the connection and fee requirements of the utility provider.
i. The connection is subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the burden created by the ADU based on either the floor area or the number of
drainage-fixture units (DFU) values, as defined by the
Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system.
ii. The portion of the fee or charge that is charged by the city may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this
service.

I. Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

1. Generally. The city will not deny an ADU or JADU application due to a nonconforming zoning condition, building code violation, or unpermitted

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 18
structure on the lot that does not present a threat to the public health and safety and that is not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU.

2. Unpermitted ADUs and JADUs constructed before 2020.
a. Permit to Legalize. As required by state law, the city may not deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
i. The ADU or JADU violates applicable building standards, or ii. The ADU or JADU does not comply with state ADU or JADU law or this ADU ordinance (section 16.52.150).
b. Exceptions:
i. Notwithstanding subsection I.2.a above, the city may deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020, if the city makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.
ii. Subsection I.2.a above does not apply to a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California
Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.

J. Nonconforming ADUs and Discretionary Approval. Any proposed ADU or JADU that would otherwise be allowed under this section but that does not conform to the objective design or development standards set forth in subsections A through I of this section may be allowed by the city with a conditional use permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this title.

Item 9.l.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development BY: Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit
Development
DATE: December 9, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt the Ordinance amending Sections 16.20.180 and 16.32.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) relating to urban lot splits and two-unit development; and
2) Find that the Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3)).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

No financial impact is projected.

BACKGROUND:

SB 9 was signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, and became effective January 1, 2022. SB 9 can be broken into two primary components: 1) provisions that allow subdivisions of a single-family zoned lot into two lots; and 2) provisions that allow construction of two units on a single-family zoned property (“two-unit development”). Lot splits proposed under the provisions of SB 9 are referred to as Urban Lot Splits (ULS).

These provisions can be used in concert, so that an applicant could subdivide an existing parcel and build a two-unit development on each parcel.

Effective as of January 1, 2025, SB 450 limits a city’s ability to impose objective standards on dwelling units proposed as part of a two-unit development, prohibits standards for urban lot splits that are not related to the design or to improvements of a parcel, and establishes a 60-day deadline for a city to take action on a complete application for an urban lot split or two-unit development proposed pursuant to SB 9. Furthermore, on

Item 9.l.

City Council
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Development December 9, 2025

October 10, 2025, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1061, which requires additional amendments to the City’s urban lot split and two-unit development ordinances regarding historic resources. On that same date, the Governor also signed Senate Bill (SB) 543, which impacts two-unit project regulations by clarifying the quantity of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) that may be permitted on a lot with a two-unit development (that was not created by an urban lot split). The proposed ordinance amends AGMC Sections 16.20.180 and 16.32.060 as necessary to ensure compliance recent changes to state law.

The Planning Commission reviewed the development code amendments at its meeting on November 4, 20251. The Planning Commission was supportive of the amendments as proposed and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance. At a public hearing on November 25, 20252, the City Council introduced the Ordinance as proposed.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Ordinance amendments are now ready for adoption. The Ordinance amendments will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Adopt the Ordinance as proposed;

2. Modify the Ordinance amendments and direct staff to return at a future public hearing to introduce the modified amendments; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Adoption of the Ordinance will establish a process for the development of supportive housing, transitional housing, and low-barrier navigation centers that would serve a vulnerable segment of the population. It will also implement two housing programs from the City’s Housing Element related to special needs housing.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed AGMC amendments are exempt from CEQA because they do not qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(2),(3)) and

1 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=16296 2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=16424

Item 9.l.

City Council
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Development December 9, 2025

15061(b)(3)). Additionally, adoption of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(k) and 66411.7(n) in that it is a local ordinance implementing the provisions of these Government Code sections.

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.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTIONS 16.20.180 AND

16.32.060 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT

DEVELOPMENTS
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 9 that, among other things, added Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 and amended Government Code Section 66452.6 allowing additional housing units on properties within residential zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 went into effect on January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 allows a local jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance that provides ministerial approval of 1) no more than two housing units on a lot within a single-family residential zoning district (two-unit developments); and 2) urban lot splits; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 716 to implement SB 9 by adding Sections 16.20.180 and 16.32.060 to Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2024, the Governor signed into law SB 450 amending Government Code Sections 65585, 65852.21, and 66411.7 related to two-unit developments and urban lot splits. SB 450 took effect on January 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2025, the Governor signed into law AB 1061 related to urban lot splits and two-unit developments and historic resources. AB 1061 will take effect on January 1, 2026. Additionally, on October 10, 2025, the Governor signed into law SB 543 related to ADUs and JADUs. Among other things, SB 543 clarifies the quantity and combinations of ADUs and JADUs that are permitted. Like AB 1061, SB 543 will take effect on January 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) implement the requirements of SB 450 and AB 1061 and bring Sections 16.20.180 and

16.32.060 of Title 16 into conformance with State law. In light of SB 543, the amendments also include clarifications to Sections 16.20.180 and 16.32.060 related to ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has duly initiated amendments to the AGMC; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, after giving notices thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on November 4, 2025 concerning this code amendment and carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
offered in the case as presented; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on November 25, 2025, concerning the amendments to AGMC Sections 16.20.180 and 16.32.060; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on November 25, 2025 introduced this attached ordinance amending AGMC Sections 16.20.180 and 16.32.060; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report, its attachments and all supporting materials referenced therein or offered in the matter as presented at the public hearing.

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

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The above recitals and findings 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 section 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. Development consistent with the regulations of SB 9 are approved ministerially and therefore, not subject to the provisions of CEQA.

Further, the Ordinance would assure that the City’s development code is consistent with applicable State law. As a result, there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, adoption of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(k) and 66411.7(n) in that it is a local ordinance implementing the provisions of these Government Code sections.

SECTION 3. Required Findings. In accordance with section 16.16.040(E) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. General Plan. The ordinance’s amendments to the AGMC are consistent with the General Plan and necessary and desirable to implement the provisions thereof.

Specifically, Housing Element policy A.1 which encourages the adoption of programs, and procedures to attempt to meet the present and future needs of residents of the City, and to aim at providing the fair-share regional housing need allocated for each income classification, within identified governmental, market, economic, and natural constraints. Additionally, Housing Element policy A.10 directs the City to review and revise its development regulations, standards, and procedures to encourage increased housing supply, as needed. This ordinance effectuates and implements policies A.1

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3
and A.10 by amending standards for urban lot splits and two-unit developments to encourage residential development. For these reasons, the ordinance’s amendments to the AGMC are consistent with the General Plan and necessary and desirable to implement the provisions thereof.

2. Health, Safety, and Welfare; Illogical Land Use Pattern. Adoption of the ordinance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare as it updates the AGMC to allow ministerial review of urban lot splits and two-unit developments as required by State law. Finally, this ordinance will not result in an illogical land use pattern as it is not amending the City’s zoning map.

3. Consistency with Title 16. This ordinance is consistent with the purpose and intent of AGMC Title 16 because it does not alter or revise the type or intensity of allowed uses and ensures that the provisions thereof are consistent with the City’s Housing Element.

4. Environmental. See Section 2 above.

SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 16.20.180 of Title 16, Chapter 20 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown in the attached “Exhibit A1,” and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Section 16.32.060 of Title 16, Chapter 32 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown in the attached “Exhibit A2,” and incorporated by reference.

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.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4
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 5
___________________________________

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

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 6
EXHIBIT A-1

16.20.180 Parcel Maps for Urban Lot Splits
A. Purpose and Scope.

1. This section implements Government Code Section 66411.7 to provide an owner of property in a single-family zoning district a method to subdivide a parcel for the purpose of housing development.

2. Urban lot split means the subdivision of an existing legal parcel in a single-family zoning district to create no more than two new parcels in accordance with the requirements of this section and Government Code Section 66411.7, as it may be amended.

3. In the event of conflict between state law and this section, state law shall control.

B. Application and Approval.

1. A parcel map for an urban lot split must be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with Government Code Sections 66444—66450 and this section, and submitted for approval to the city engineer. A fee in an amount established by city council resolution must be paid concurrently with the submission of the parcel map.

2. The city engineer is the approval authority for parcel maps for an urban lot split under this section. The city engineer shall approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the engineer determines that it meets all of the requirements of this section and Government Code Section 66411.7, as it may be amended.

3. The City shall approve or deny an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review. a. An application for an urban lot split shall be considered and approved or denied within 60 days from the date the city receives a completed application. If the city has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
b. If the city denies an application for an urban lot split, the city shall, within 60 days, return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.

4. The owner and applicant shall hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval within this section and its subject matter

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 7

5. The owner and applicant shall reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements within this section.

C. The following supplemental information is required to be submitted with a parcel map to establish compliance with the construction plans and all provisions of this code and applicable state law:

1. A map of appropriate size and to scale showing all of the following:
a. Total area (in acreage and square feet) of each proposed lot; b. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed property lines; c. Zoning district;
d. The location and use of all existing structures;
e. All setbacks for the existing and proposed lots;
f. The location of all existing water, sewer, electricity, storm drain, or gas service lines, pipes, systems, or easements;
g. The location of all proposed new water, sewer, storm drain, lines, pipes, or systems;
h. The location of any proposed easements for access or public utilities to serve a lot created by the subdivision;
i. The location of any existing trees larger than four inches in diameter measured four feet six inches above the base and any such trees proposed for removal;
j. Any area of the parcel that has a slope of twenty-five (25) percent or greater by way of contours at five-foot intervals;
k. Name and dimensions, including right-of-way and improved area, of public and private streets or public alleys adjoining the parcel; l. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, parkway, and street trees: type, location, and dimensions;
m. Location of existing or proposed driveway dimensions, materials, and slope (including cross slope); and
n. Location of existing or proposed pedestrian pathway access to the public right of way.

2. An affidavit signed by the owner, under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, that:
a. The proposed urban lot split would not require or authorize demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 8
i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
ii. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power. iii. A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner's rights under Section

12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code to withdraw accommodations
from rent or lease within fifteen (15) years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
iv. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
b. The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split under this section.
c. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel under the provisions of this section.
d. The owner intends to occupy one of the housing units located on a lot created by the parcel map as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the recording of the parcel map. This requirement does not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

D. Rental Term. Rental terms of any unit created pursuant to this Section shall be for a term longer than thirty (30) days.

E. Residential Uses. The uses allowed on a lot created by this section are limited to residential uses.

F. Subdivision Map Act Compliance

1. The urban lot split must conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code § 66410 et. seq., “SMA”), and all objective, implementing requirements within this Code, including within this Title 16, Land Divisions, except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.

2. If an urban lot split violates any part of the SMA, the city’s land division regulations, including this section, or any other legal requirement:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 9
a. The buyer or grantee of a lot that is created by the urban lot split has all the remedies available under the SMA, including but not limited to an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract.
b. The city has all the remedies available to it under the SMA, including but not limited to the following:
i. An action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property.
ii. An action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.
iii. Criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars, or both; or a misdemeanor.
iv. Record a notice of violation.
v. Withhold any or all future permits and approvals.
c. Notwithstanding Section 66411.1 of the SMA, no dedication of rights-of-way or construction of offsite improvements is required for an urban lot split.

G. Design and Improvement Requirements.

1. A parcel map may subdivide an existing legal parcel to create no more than two parcels of approximately equal lot area. One parcel shall not be smaller than forty (40) percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision and neither parcel shall be smaller than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet.

2. Each parcel must be served by a separate water service meter and a separate sewer connection.

3. Each parcel shall either drain to a developed drainage easement or in accordance with the city's standard specification and engineering standards.

4. Easements as required for public services and facilities along all natural watercourses as necessary for flood control, maintenance, and improvement shall be dedicated.

5. The parcel must satisfy the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K) inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 65913.4 as that section read on September 16, 2021.

6. The parcel may not be located within a historical landmark property included in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 10
5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark pursuant to a city or county ordinance.

Additionally, the proposed urban lot split may not require demolition or alteration of either of the following:
a. A contributing structure located within either a historic district that is included on the California Register of Historical Resources or within a historic district listed or designated pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
b. An existing exterior structural wall of a structure located within either a historic district that is included on the California Register of Historical Resources or within a historic district listed or designated pursuant to a city or county ordinance.

7. The location and orientation of new lot lines shall meet the following standards:
a. Front lot lines shall conform to the minimum public street frontage requirements of the Development Code.
b. Each parcel shall have equal lot width and lot depth, consistent with the minimum lot sizes described in subsection G.1, above. Lot depth shall be measured at the midpoint of the front lot line. Lot width shall be measured by a line connecting two points on opposite interior lot lines that will result in a line parallel to the front lot line.
c. New lot lines must be straight lines, unless there is a conflict with existing improvements or the natural environment in which case the line may not be straight but shall follow the natural contours. d. Lot lines shall be located within physical locations such as the top of creek banks, at appropriate topographical changes (top or bottom of slopes etc.) or at locations which separate existing and proposed land uses.
e. Lot lines shall be contiguous with existing zoning boundaries. f. The placement of lot lines shall not result in an existing accessory building or accessory use on a lot without a main building or primary use on the same lot, as defined in the Development Code. g. Lot lines shall not render an existing structure as nonconforming in any respect (e.g. setbacks, floor area ratio, parking), nor increase the nonconformity of an existing nonconforming structure. This requirement does not apply if the setback requirement relates to an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 11

8. In accordance with Government Code section 66411.7(j)(1)-(2), no more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this subsection, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to a unit or units created pursuant to Government Code section 65852.21 (AGMC, § 16.32.060), a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).

H. Access Standards.

1. Each lot shall front upon or have access to a public street, or be served by an access easement. Access shall be provided in compliance with these standards:
a. Vehicle access easements serving a maximum of two units shall meet the following standards:
i. Easement width shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet and a maximum of sixteen (16) feet, unless a wider driveway is required by the California Fire Code due to distance of the structure from the easement, or as needed to meet the
driveway and parking standards in the city's standards. ii. The minimum length for a vehicle access easement is twenty (20) feet. No maximum easement length shall be set.

If easement length is more than seventy-five (75) feet, a vehicle turnaround shall be provided.
iii. No residential structure shall be closer than three feet to the easement.
b. Where a lot does not abut a public street, and where no automobile parking spaces are required or proposed for the residential development, a vehicle access easement is not required. An easement providing pedestrian access to a street from each lot shall be provided meeting the following standards:
i. Easement width shall be a minimum of five feet;
ii. Pedestrian access easements shall not exceed two hundred (200) feet in length.

2. Vehicle access easements shall not be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an intersection.

3. Access and provisions for fire protection consistent with the California Fire Code shall be provided for all structures served by an access easement.

4. Surfacing of easements, pedestrian walkways required within easements, and turnaround dimensions shall meet the requirements of the California

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 12
Fire Code, the city's engineering standards, and the parking design standards in the Development Code.

5. Lots taking access by an easement must record a shared maintenance agreement for the driveway. The agreement shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with the final map.

I. Map Requirements.

1. The content and form of a parcel map shall meet all the requirements of Government Code Sections 66444—66450.

2. The parcel map shall show all easements for public utilities necessary to serve each lot created by the subdivision.

3. The parcel map shall show all easements necessary to provide each lot with access to the public or private street or alley abutting the original parcel.

4. The parcel map shall contain a declaration that:
a. Each lot created by the parcel map shall be used solely for residential dwellings;
b. That rental of any dwelling unit on a lot created by the parcel map shall be for a term longer than thirty (30) days.
c. The lot is formed by an urban lot split and is therefore subject to the city’s urban lot split regulations and Government Code section 66411.7.

J. Concurrent Processing With Other Ministerial Permits for Housing Development.

1. No development, including grading or vegetation removal, shall commence on either lot, concurrent or subsequent to an urban lot split, unless it is approved with a valid building permit for the construction of a housing development and complies with all the objective development standards set forth in this code.

2. A building permit for development on an urban lot split cannot be issued until the parcel map is recorded.

3. The city engineer shall deny an urban lot split if the building official has made a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

K. Prohibition of Further Subdivision.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 13

1. A lot created by a parcel map under this section shall not be further subdivided under the authority of Gov. Code Section 66411.7, as it may be amended.

L. As required by Government Code section 66411.7(c)(2)-(3), the objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards set forth above shall yield to the extent necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of two dwelling units on either of the resulting parcels or resulting in a unit size of less than eight hundred (800) square feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. In all other circumstances, no structure may be less than four feet from the side and rear lot lines.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 14
EXHIBIT A-2

16.32.060 Two-Unit Residential Development.

A. Purpose and Intent.

1. It is the intent of these regulations to provide opportunities for applicants to propose housing development projects of up to two residential units on one legal parcel, within single-family residential zones, consistent with state law and local regulations. Such proposed housing developments will be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, provided that the requirements of this section are met. In the event of an inconsistency between this section and Government Code Section 65852.21, Government Code Section 65852.21 shall prevail.

2. The city may deny an application for a proposed housing project submitted under this section if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. If the building official does not make such written finding, the city shall ministerially approve, without discretionary review or a hearing, an application for a proposed housing development project under this section if the proposed housing development is located within the city, and meets the requirements set forth in this section, including the following:
a. The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K) inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 65913.4 as that section read on September 16, 2021:
b. The proposed development would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to moderate, low, or very low incomes;
ii. A unit that has been occupied by a tenant within the past three years; and
iii. A rent-controlled unit.
c. The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is not a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 15
or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
d. The proposed development is not located in either of the following:
i. A contributing structure within a historic district included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
ii. A parcel individually listed as a historical resource included in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a property individually designated or listed as a city or county landmark under a city or county ordinance.

B. Rental Term. The rental term for any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term longer than thirty (30) days.

C. Ministerial Approval of Two-Unit Residential Development Projects.

1. The community development director or his/her designee shall ministerially review and approve or deny an application submitted under this section within sixty (60) days from the date the city receives a completed application. If the community development director or his/her designee has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. No public hearing shall be required.

2. If the community development director or his/her designee denies an application for a proposed housing development, the permitting agency shall, within the 60-day time period, return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.

3. The applicant shall be required to obtain a building permit and comply with other applicable construction permit requirements prior to the construction of the dwelling units.

D. Unit Configurations. A lot that results from an urban lot split under Section

16.20.180 may have no more than two dwelling units of any kind. See Section

16.20.180(E)(8). A lot that is not created by an urban lot split may have up to two residential units created under this section plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed under State Law and the City’s ADU ordinance.

E. Parking.

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(c), one off-street parking space is required for each new primary dwelling unit, unless the parcel is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor as defined in

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 16
subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code or a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.

2. All required parking spaces, driveways, and maneuvering areas shall be paved and permanently maintained with asphalt or concrete to applicable requirements as codified in AGMC Section 16.56.070.

F. Front Setbacks.

1. Structures must conform to the front setback that is imposed through the underlying zone, provided that this requirement shall yield to the extent necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on the lot or physically precluding either of the two units from being at least eight hundred (800) square feet.

G. Rear and Side Setbacks.

1. No setback shall be applied to an existing structure or structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

2. For projects not meeting the requirements of subsection (G)(1) above, a minimum four-foot setback shall be provided from side and rear lot lines.

H. All objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone apply to housing development projects proposed under this section, provided that the standards shall yield to the extent necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units or physically precluding either of the two units from being at least eight hundred (800) square feet.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in accordance with subsection (G) above, no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. In all other circumstances, no structure may be less than four feet from the side and rear lot lines.

I. Building and Safety

1. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards.

J Utility and Service Areas.

1. All new dwelling units must connect to city utilities in accordance with Section 13.12.060 of Title 13.

Item 10.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development BY: Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Recommendations for Year 2026
DATE: December 9, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve funding recommendations for the City’s allocation of 2026 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as shown in Table 1; and 2) Find that this action is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 subd. (b)(3).

Table 1: Recommended 2026 CDBG Allocations
Project and Category
2025
Allocation
2026
Requested
Proposed
2026
Allocation
Public Service (15% Cap - $9,688)
5 Cities Homeless Coalition $9,600 $9,688 $9,688
Subtotal $9,600 $9,688 $9,688
Public Facilities (No Cap)
Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project $46,302 $46,504 $46,504 Subtotal $46,302 $46,504 $46,504
Housing Rehabilitation (No Cap)
Community Action Partnership of San Luis
Obispo County, Inc. (CAPSLO) $0 $15,075 $0
Subtotal $0 $0 $0
Administration (20% Cap - $12,917)
City Administration $0 $0 0