OPEN SPACE
EXISTING DRIVE ISLE
HOPE
CHURCH
BEST WESTERN
CASA GRANDE INN
20' 0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
10' 20' 40' 60'
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
17 MARCH 2026
A2
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
EXISTING SITE SURVEY
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
JAMES WAY
EXISTING CREEK
KENNEDY
CLUB
FITNESS
EXISTING ENTRY
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
PROPOSED
BUILDING A
MEDICAL OFFICES MEDICAL OFFICES
PROPOSED
PARKING
N. OAK PARK BLVD.
PROPOSED
BUILDING B
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
17 MARCH 2026
A3
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ENTRY PLAZA
BUILDING A
BUILDING B
ENTRY PLAZA
RAMP
SLOPE
TRASH
TRASH
LOBBY
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A4 LEVEL 1 AND 2 - BASEMENT FLOOR PLANS
LOWEST BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN BUILDING A 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN BLDG B, GROUND LEVEL BUILDING A 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) 0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A5 LEVEL 3 - SECOND FLOOR BLDG A & GROUND FLOOR BLDG B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A6 LEVEL 4 - THIRD FLOOR BLDG A & SECOND FLOOR BLDG B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A7 LEVEL 5 - ROOF BLDG A & THIRD FLOOR BLDG B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A8 LEVEL 6 - ROOF PLAN 0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
2 SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"
1-BEDROOM PLAN B 3 SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"1-BEDROOM PLAN C 1 SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"1-BEDROOM PLAN A - 712 SF - 752 SF - 712 SF CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A9
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
BEDROOM
KITCHEN / DINING
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
BATHROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN / DINING
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
BEDROOM
BATHROOM
STUDIO
KITCHEN / DINING
BATHROOM
LIVING
DECK
4 SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"
2-BEDROOM PLAN A 5 SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"2-BEDROOM PLAN B 6 SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0" - 1097 SF - 1052 SF STUDIO PLAN - 603 SF
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A10
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A11 ELEVATIONS
WEST ELEVATION -WITHOUT BUILDING B 2 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) NORTH ELEVATION 3 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)SOUTH ELEVATION 4 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) EAST ELEVATION 5 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
WEST ELEVATION - WITH BUILDING B 1 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) 89’-6”
100’-0”
110’-6”
119’-6”
79’-0” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
126’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG B ROOF
BUILDING B
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
83’-6” F.F.
94’-0” F.F.
104’-6” F.F.
113’-6” F.F.
71’-6” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
120’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG A ROOF
BUILDING A
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A12
0 15 30 60
1” = 30’-0” 24X36 SHEET
SITE SECTIONS
CROSS SECTION THROUGH BLDG A AND BLDG B LOOKING NORTH 2 1" = 30'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) CROSS SECTION THROUGH BLDG A LOOKING SOUTH 1 1" = 30’-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
N OAK PARK BLVD
(N) BUILDING A
(N) BUILDING A
(N) PARKING (E) PARKING
KENNEDY CLUB
KENNEDY CLUB
BEYOND
MEDICAL OFFICE
MEDICAL OFFICE
BEYOND (N) BUILDING B
(N) BUILDING B BEYOND
CREEK
(E) TOWNHOMES
BEYOND
(E) TOWNHOMES
CREEK
N OAK PARK BLVD
(N) PARKING
71’-6”
71’-6”
83’-6”
83’-6”
120’-0”
120’-0”
126’-0”
126’-0”
BLDG A
BASEMENT F.F.
BLDG A
BASEMENT F.F.
BLDG B BASEMENT F.F.
BLDG B BASEMENT F.F.
T.O. BLDG A
T.O. BLDG A
T.O. BLDG B
T.O. BLDG B
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A13
MECH.
HALL
1 BED B
1 BED B
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
DECK STUDIO
DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
MECH.
HALL
1 BED B
1 BED B
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
DECK STUDIO
DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
(N) BUILDING B BEYOND
(N) BUILDING B BEYOND
0 8 16 32
1/16” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
ENLARGED SITE SECTIONS
CROSS SECTION 1 ENLARGED (RIGHT) 4 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) CROSS SECTION 1 ENLARGED (LEFT) 3 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) (E) TOWNHOMES
N OAK PARK BLVD
MEDICAL OFFICE
KENNEDY CLUB
CREEK
(N) BUILDING A
(N) BUILDING A
(N) PARKING
(N) PARKING (E) PARKING
(E) PARKING 83’-6” F.F.
94’-0” F.F.
104’-6” F.F.
113’-6” F.F.
71’-6” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
120’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG A ROOF
BUILDING A
89’-6”
100’-0”
110’-6”
119’-6”
79’-0” FF
BASEMENT FLOOR FINISH
GROUND FLOOR FINISH
SECOND FLOOR FINISH
THIRD FLOOR FINISH
ROOF PLATE
126’-0” F.F.
T.O. BLDG B ROOF
BUILDING B
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A14 BIRD’S EYE PHOTO MATCH
BIRD’S EYE VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER 1 NTS
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A15 VIEW ANALYSIS PHOTO MATCH PERSPECTIVES FROM JAMES WAY PROJECT ENTRY FROM JAMES WAY 1
APPROACH FROM KENNEDY CLUB 3 APPROACH FROM BOTTOM OF JAMES WAY 2
Image Location Image Location Image Location Image Location Image Location Image Location
BOARD & BATTEN
FIBER CEMENT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
MS WHITE SNOW SW 9541
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
CHARCOAL GREY
WINDOWS & DOORS
ANDERSON
BLACK FRAMES
RAILINGS
BLACK
WOOD FASCIA
FIBER CEMENT
SW 7674 PEPPERCORN
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A16 COLOR AND MATERIALS
A B C D E F G
EL DORADO STONE
SAN MARINO LIMESTONE
A
A
B
D
D
C
C
E
F
WOOD ACCENT
SEMI-TRANSPARENT STAIN
CEDAR - NATURALTONE
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A17
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
DETAIL VIGNETTES
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
LOBBY ENTRY - BUILDING A 1
PROJECT ENTRY ON JAMES WAY 2 ELEVATION OF BUILDING A FROM CREEK 3
BROADSTONE VILLAGE PrOJECT nuMBEr
TRASH ENCLOSURE, TYPICAL 18 January 2023
L7
SEE L1 FOR LOCATION
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
A18
0 2 4 8
1/4” = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET
TRASH ENCLOSURE
TITLE SHEET
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
C0
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
C1
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
C2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
C3
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
BOUNDARY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
C4
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
B U I L D I N G 'A'
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 1 OF 2
EXISTING FITNESS CENTER
AND PARKING LOT
REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
J A M E S W A Y
B U I L D I N G 'B'
RIPARIAN ZONE
NATIVE PLANTS
WITHIN SETBACK
32'-0"
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 2 OF 2
Meadow Creek
Schematic Landscape Plan
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PROJECT:
JOB NO: 2230
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L11271 & 1281 James Way, Arroyo Grande
DAT
firma SHEET TITLE:
LAST MODIFIED: 12/13/2
Meadow Creek Schematic Landscape Plan
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PROJECT:
JOB NO: 2230
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L11271 & 1281 James Way, Arroyo Grande
DAT
firma SHEET TITLE:
LAST MODIFIED: 12/13/2
LEGEND
Landscape Area: Trees, Grounfcover & Ornamental Shrubs
4" layer bark mulch or decorative rock
Riparian Zone : Native riparian plants wthin Creek Setback Hardscape: Refer to Architect Site and Civil
Decorative Paver :
MYRICA CALIFORNICA LOMONDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY' SALVIA 'ALAN CHICKERING' Vehicular Surface: Refer to Civil Engineering Plan
ARBUTUS DWARF OLIVE APTENIA
20' 0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
10' 20' 40' 60'
WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. The following factors have been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape:
1. Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either low-precipitation bubblers and drip emitters. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones.
2. Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather conditions change.
3. Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance.
4. All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout.
5. Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants with similar water needs.
6. Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species). The project shall be in complaince with MWELO (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).
PRELIMINARY PLANT MATERIALS
The proposed landscape scheme is a drought tolerant landscape.
Low maintenance shrubs, riparian zone natives, spreading evergreen groundcover, and trees will be selected from the list below.
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
TREES - 36" BOX SIZE. SEE IMAGERY BELOW.
* AESCULUS CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE
* ARBUTUS 'MARINA' / MARINA ARBUTUS
* CHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOW (MULTI-TRUNK)
JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA / JACARANDA
MELALEUCA QUINQUINERVIA / CAJEPUT TREE
* PLATANUS RACEMOSA / CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
* QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK (LOW BRANCHING)
TIPUANA TIPU / TIPU TREE
TRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX
RIPARIAN ZONE SHRUBS- CALIFORNIA NATIVE SPECIES
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITA
CEANOTHUS GLORROSUS ANCHOR BAY / CEANOTHUS
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' / CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY
ROSA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE
SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING' / SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING'
LONICERA HISPIDULA/ CALIFORNIA HONEYSUCKLE(VINE)
MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI/CAT'S CLAW (VINE)
MYRICA CALIFORNICA / MYRICA
SHRUBS - 5gallon-15gallon
ANIGOZANTHOS 'BIG RED' / RED KANGAROO PAW
DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY
FEIJOA SELLOWIANA / PINEAPPLE GUAVA
LOMONDRA 'PLATIMUN BEAUTY'/ LOMONDRA
OLEA EUROPA'LITTLE OLLIE' / DWARF OLIVE
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (WHITE)
GROUNDCOVER 5gallon-15gallon
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITA L
CISTUS 'SUNSET' / SUNSET ROCKROSE
LIRIOPE MUSCARI / BIG BLUE LILY TURF
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (PINK)
PENNISETUM 'ORIENTALE' / ORIENTAL FOUNTAIN GRASS
*CALIFORNIA NATIVE TREE APPROPRIATE FOR RIPARIAN ZONE
PROPOSED TREE: BRISBANE BOX PROPOSED TREE: CAJEPUT TREE PROPOSED TREE: TIPU TREE PROPOSED TREE: DESERT WILLOW PARKING LOT SECURITY LIGHTING:
-PARKING AREA LIGHTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT
AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND MOTORISTS.
-LIGHTING DESIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF .
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
-LIGHTING SHALL BE OF AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT TYPE LIGHT
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
PH: (805) 242-6365
B U I L D I N G 'A'
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
CREEK HABITAT
"NO PESTICIDES"
LOCATION 1 OF 2
EXISTING FITNESS CENTER
AND PARKING LOT
REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
J A M E S W A Y
B U I L D I N G 'B'
RIPARIAN ZONE
NATIVE PLANTS
WITHIN SETBACK
32'-0"
ED SIGNAGE
ABITAT
TICIDES"
N 2 OF 2
Meadow Creek
Schematic Landscape Plan
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PROJECT:
JOB NO: 22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L11271 & 1281 James Way, Arroyo Grande
DATE
firma SHEET TITLE:
LAST MODIFIED: 12/13/23 Meadow Creek Schematic Landscape Plan
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
REVISION
PROJECT:
JOB NO: 22305
PLAN CHECK:
SHEET
L11271 & 1281 James Way, Arroyo Grande
DATE
firma SHEET TITLE:
LAST MODIFIED: 12/13/23
LEGEND
Landscape Area: Trees, Grounfcover & Ornamental Shrubs
4" layer bark mulch or decorative rock
Riparian Zone : Native riparian plants wthin Creek Setback Hardscape: Refer to Architect Site and Civil
Decorative Paver :
MYRICA CALIFORNICA LOMONDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY' SALVIA 'ALAN CHICKERING' Vehicular Surface: Refer to Civil Engineering Plan
ARBUTUS DWARF OLIVE APTENIA
20' 0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
10' 20' 40' 60'
WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. The following factors have been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape:
1. Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either low-precipitation bubblers and drip emitters. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones.
2. Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather conditions change.
3. Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance.
4. All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout.
5. Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants with similar water needs.
6. Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species). The project shall be in complaince with MWELO (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).
PRELIMINARY PLANT MATERIALS
The proposed landscape scheme is a drought tolerant landscape.
Low maintenance shrubs, riparian zone natives, spreading evergreen groundcover, and trees will be selected from the list below.
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
TREES - 36" BOX SIZE. SEE IMAGERY BELOW.
* AESCULUS CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE
* ARBUTUS 'MARINA' / MARINA ARBUTUS
* CHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOW (MULTI-TRUNK)
JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA / JACARANDA
MELALEUCA QUINQUINERVIA / CAJEPUT TREE
* PLATANUS RACEMOSA / CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
* QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK (LOW BRANCHING)
TIPUANA TIPU / TIPU TREE
TRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX
RIPARIAN ZONE SHRUBS- CALIFORNIA NATIVE SPECIES
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITA
CEANOTHUS GLORROSUS ANCHOR BAY / CEANOTHUS
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' / CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY
ROSA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE
SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING' / SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING'
LONICERA HISPIDULA/ CALIFORNIA HONEYSUCKLE(VINE)
MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI/CAT'S CLAW (VINE)
MYRICA CALIFORNICA / MYRICA
SHRUBS - 5gallon-15gallon
ANIGOZANTHOS 'BIG RED' / RED KANGAROO PAW
DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY
FEIJOA SELLOWIANA / PINEAPPLE GUAVA
LOMONDRA 'PLATIMUN BEAUTY'/ LOMONDRA
OLEA EUROPA'LITTLE OLLIE' / DWARF OLIVE
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (WHITE)
GROUNDCOVER 5gallon-15gallon
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / MANZANITA L
CISTUS 'SUNSET' / SUNSET ROCKROSE
LIRIOPE MUSCARI / BIG BLUE LILY TURF
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA' / INDIA HAWTHORN (PINK)
PENNISETUM 'ORIENTALE' / ORIENTAL FOUNTAIN GRASS
*CALIFORNIA NATIVE TREE APPROPRIATE FOR RIPARIAN ZONE
PROPOSED TREE: BRISBANE BOX PROPOSED TREE: CAJEPUT TREE PROPOSED TREE: TIPU TREE PROPOSED TREE: DESERT WILLOW PARKING LOT SECURITY LIGHTING:
-PARKING AREA LIGHTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT
AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND MOTORISTS.
-LIGHTING DESIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF .
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
-LIGHTING SHALL BE OF AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT TYPE LIGHT
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
firma
FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Environmental Studies
Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA
CA Registration No. 6359
Phone: 805.781.9800
187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
firmaconsultants.com
firma
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23
30 JUNE 2025
L1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROJECT LOCATIONATTACHMENT
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 25- 001; CONSTRUCTION OF NINETY- TWO
92) MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; LOCATION — 1271
AND 1281 JAMES WAY; APPLICANT — RUSS SHEPPEL;
REPRESENTATIVE — DARIN CABRAL, RRM DESIGN
GROUP, AND FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE SECTION 21080.66(a)
WHEREAS, the existing project site incorporates two parcels with a combined size of approximately 1. 81 acre parcel located at 1271 and 1281 James Way; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 25-001 to construct ninety-two 92) multi -family dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the parcels with a Mixed Use land use designation have a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre, or 45.25 dwelling units on the 1. 81 -acre project site; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a density bonus and related incentives and concessions pursuant to State Density Bonus Law ( Government Code section 65915) based on the provision of affordable housing units, where at least 15% of the total units are restricted as affordable to very low income households or 24% of the units are restricted as affordable to low income households, resulting in a maximum allowable density of up to ninety- two ( 92) dwelling units after applying a 50% State Density Bonus Law unit increase and density unit equivalents of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) section 16. 36.030(C); and
WHEREAS, the Staff Advisory Committee considered the project on March 12, 2025, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee considered the project on November 3, 2025, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed project is statutorily exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, a statutory exemption from CEQA review for certain infill housing developments, as documented in the Memorandum for the project ( see Attachment 3 of the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report); and.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2026; and ATTACHMENT 3 Page 163 of 843
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the following circumstances exist:
CEQA Findings:
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which became effective on June 30, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill 130, and as documented in the Memorandum for the Project see Attachment 3 of the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report), and directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation within five business days of the adoption of this resolution.
The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
1. Project Site Size ( PRC § 21080. 66( a)( 1)( A- B)): The project site is 1. 81 acres, and therefore is not more than 20 acres.
2. Project Location ( PRC § 21080. 66( a)( 2)( A-B)): The entirety of the project site lies within the incorporated City of Arroyo Grande.
3. Urban Uses ( PRC § 21080. 66( a)( 3)( A- D)): Approximately 779/6 of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency ( PRC § 21080. 66( a)( 4)( A- C)): The project, as proposed, is consistent with applicable general plan and zoning ordinances, including the following General Plan Elements: Land Use; Housing, Conservation and Open Space; and Circulation because the project proposes a density that is allowable when calculating the base density and incorporating State Density Bonus law. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum density of 25 dwelling units/acre and the project proposes 37.3 dwelling units per acre, using State Density Bonus Law.
Pursuant to State law, a project's density increase under the density bonus law is considered consistent with the general plan. Therefore, the project is consistent with the elements of the General Plan.
5. Minimum Density ( PRC § 21080. 66( a)( 5)): The project's proposed density exceeds one-half of the applicable density ( 10du/ac) by proposing a density of 37. 3du/ ac.
6. Environmental Conditions ( PRC § 21080. 66( a) 6)): The proposed project is not located within the coastal zone, nor is it located on prime farmland or within a wetland or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Furthermore, the project site is not a hazardous waste site, is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, and is not located within a special flood hazard area or a regulatory floodway. The project site has not been identified for
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 3
conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, is not habitat for protected species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and is not a land under conservation easement.
7. Historic Resource ( PRC § 21080. 66( a)( 7)): The project does not propose or require the demolition of a historic structure.
8. Hotel or Transient Use ( PRC § 21080.66(a)( 8)): The proposal consists of 92 multifamily residential units and does not include any transient lodging or short- term rentals.
Conditional Use Permit Findings (Arroyo Grande Municipal Code § 16. 16. 050( D)):
1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City.
The project site consists oftwo parcels totaling approximately 1. 81 acres and is located within the Office Mixed Use ( OMU) district, which allows residential uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal involves construction ofninety-two (92) multifamily residential units within an urbanized mixed-use corridor and was processed in accordance with the requirements of AGMC Title 16, including review by the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee, both of which recommended approval.
The project is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation in the General Plan, which encourages residential development in proximity to commercial, office, transit, and community -serving uses. As documented in the staff report, the project implements multiple General Plan policies, including LU -5- 1, LU5- 3, LU5- 9, LU541, CT5- 2, and Housing Element policies A. 1, A.2, A. 3, A. 5, A.9, A. 10- 1, and A. 11, by providing increased housing density in the form of infill development, integrating residential uses into a mixed-use area, pedestrian -oriented design, and increasing the supply of affordable housing.
The project proposes to reserve fifteen percent (15%) ofthe base density units as deed -restricted units affordable to very low income households or 24% of the base density units as deed -restricted units affordable to low income households, qualifying the development for density increases, concessions, and wavers under Government Code § 65915. Residential density for mixeduse projects in the OMU district is calculated using density equivalency factors pursuant to AGMC § 16.36.030( C). Based on these calculations, the project results in ninety-two total ( 92) units. Increases granted under State Density Bonus Law are deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 4
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located.
The project site is surrounded by a variety of compatible uses, including a hotel, medical offices, a fitness facility, shopping center, religious facility, and nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed multifamily development is consistent with the existing and planned character of the mixed use corridor along James Way, which will serve the existing commercial uses and integrate with and contribute to a vibrant commercial core.
On November 3, 2025, the Architectural Review Committee evaluated the project, including its parking, building materials, site design and accessibility.
The Architectural Review Committee supported the project' s architecture, which utilizes architectural elements designed to reduce perceived massing through articulation, modulation, and varied materials. Landscaping, setbacks, and screening along the eastern boundary adjacent to Meadow Creek further ensure compatibility with nearby residential and open space areas. As conditioned, the project will integrate appropriately into the district, without impairing its integrity or character, through the urban -oriented site planning, share parking, internal open space, and architectural elements described above.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed.
The site is an approximately 1. 81ac parcel with existing development and the site is suitable for additional development based on conformance with the City's development standards and zoning regulations. The site is currently vacant land, and the proposed project will infill on the L-shaped lot, within an incorporated urban area of the City. Existing public infrastructure is available to serve the development, including roadway access from James Way, access to commercial services, and available public utilities.
The size, configuration, and zoning of the site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed two -building, four-story multifamily development, including onsite parking, open space, landscaping, storm water facilities, and emergency access. Accordingly, the site is suitable for the proposed residential use and intensity of such use.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety.
The project site is located within an urbanized area served by existing public water, sewer, storm drainage, fire protection, police services, and transportation infrastructure. As detailed in the staff report and conditions of approval, the project will be required to comply with all applicable City engineering standards, fire access and flow requirements, stormwater management regulations, and utility service prior to issuance of building
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 5
permits and certificates of occupancy. Therefore, there are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to nearby properties and improvements because the use is both compatible with adjacent uses and has been properly conditioned to limit its impacts. The project will be developed with appropriate utility connections, curbs, sewer laterals, gutters, and sidewalks necessary to serve the 92 unit development. Additionally, the project proposes a residential use that is compatible with the residential uses east of the project site. Those existing residential uses are further buffered by Meadow Creek, which runs along the eastern property boundary. Potential adverse impacts on public health and safety will be satisfactorily mitigated by the proposed conditions such that the use will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Among other things, these proposed conditions require illumination of parking spaces for safety, that trash enclosures be screened from public view with screening materials that complement the architectural features of the main building, and limitation on construction and operational activities in accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 9. 16 of the AGMC. Accordingly, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to nearby properties and improvements due to its compatibility and the conditions of approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 25- 001 as set forth in Exhibit " B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit " A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Vice Chair Martin, seconded by Commissioner Sackrison, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Martin, Sackrison, Roof
NOES: None
ABSTAIN None
ABSENT: Buchanan, Worthen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of January, 2026.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 6
VIRGiNI ROOF
CHAIR
ATTEST:
PATRICK HOLUB
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
BRIAN PEDROTTI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 7
EXHIBIT `A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25- 001
1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This approval authorizes the construction of ninety-two ( 92) multi -family residences at 1271 and 1281 James Way.
2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.
3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for CUP 25-001.
4. This application shall automatically expire on January 20, 2028 unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one ( 1) year from the original date of expiration.
5. Development shall conform to the Office Mixed Use ( OMU) requirements except as otherwise approved.
6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 20, 2026 and marked Exhibit B on file in the Community Development Department. References to the vacation of the existing six-foot pedestrian easement on the creek side of Building A shall be removed.
7. To the extent permitted by law, Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents ( the indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including ( without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney' s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney' s fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City related to this permit or approval. Although the Applicant is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 8
8. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated into all construction documents.
9. Applicant shall submit a tabular matrix showing status of all conditions of approval prior to first building permit submittal and again before project closeout.
10. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all development consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations and landscape plan.
11. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16. 48. 070, " Fences, Walls and Hedges"; 16.48. 120, "Performance Standards"; and 16. 48. 130 " Screening Requirements".
12. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16. 60 of the Development Code. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all illegal signs shall be removed.
13. Setbacks, building height, building size, lot coverage, floor area ratio, available parking counts, parking lot landscaping square footage, and the total amount of private or combined open space shall be as shown on the development plans including those specifically modified by these conditions.
14. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16. 56, " Parking and Loading Requirements" except as otherwise approved by the City or allowed by State law. All parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet.
15. All parking areas of five or more spaces shall have an average of one- half foot-candle illumination per square foot of parking area for visibility and security during hours of darkness.
16. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials and shall be made of an exterior finish that complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area shall accommodate recycling container(s).
17. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the standards set forth in Chapter 9. 16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. No construction shall occur on City observed holidays.
18. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide details on any proposed exterior lighting, if applicable. The lighting plan shall include the height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16. 48. 090 of the
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 9
Development Code. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp nor the related reflector interior surface is visible from adjacent properties. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to adjacent properties. All lighting shall be energy efficient ( e. g. LED).
19. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The landscape plan shall be in conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84 Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) and shall include the following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground -mounted utility and mechanical equipment;
c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet ( 6) of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs;
ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants.
iii. An automated irrigation system using smart controller ( weather based) technology.
iv. The selection of groundcover plant species shall include native plants.
V. Linear planters shall be provided in parking areas.
vi. Turf areas shall be limited in accordance with Section 16. 84. 040 of the Development Code.
20. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the conditions of the Community Tree Ordinance ( 431 C.S:) which include but are not limited to:
a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved by the Parks and Recreation Director.
b. No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of any tree.
C. No grading shall occur under a tree's dripline, unless approved by the Public Works Director.
d. A five foot ( 5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8' from the trunk of each tree or at the dripline, whichever distance is greater.
e. At a minimum, all pruning shall comply with the American National Standards Institute ( ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards and Best
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 10
Management Practices. An independent certified arborist, paid for by the developer and selected by the Public Works Director, shall conduct all pruning on site. The independent arborist shall report to the City's Arborist regarding any pruning activities.
21. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Arboriculture ( ISA) Pruning Standards.
22. For projects approved with specific exterior building colors, the developer shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department to verify that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48- hour notice is required for this inspection.
23. All new electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building( s).
24. Buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system shall also have a Fire Department Connection ( FDC), which shall be located adjacent to a fire access roadway, be remote from all buildings outside the building collapse zone and screened to the maximum extent permitted by the Building Official or Fire Chief.
25. Fire Department Connections ( FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, which is no closer than 20 feet and no greater than 100 feet with no obstructions or barriers between the FDC and the hydrant such as roads or driveways.
26. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be located directly adjacent to or within the respective building to which they serve and screened to the maximum extent feasible.
27. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems be completely screened from public view. All roof -mounted equipment which generates noise, solid particles, odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from residential properties.
28. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within the time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement action. If it is determined that violation( s) of these conditions of approval have occurred, or are occurring, this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development Code Section 16.08. 100.
29. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with outside plan
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 11
checks performed at either the developer' s or City's request.
30. The developer shall sweep streets in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 13- 4.03F.
31. For work requiring engineering inspections, working hours shall comply with Standard Specification Section 5- 1. 01.
32. Provide trash enclosure in compliance with Engineering Standard 9060 with solid/raindeflecting roof. Drain of trash enclosure to tie into the sewer interceptor or the onsite water quality BMP.
33. Trash enclosure area( s) shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials and shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and recycling container storage. Interior vehicle travel ways shall be designed to be capable of withstanding loads imposed by trash trucks.
34. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non- residential project noise, in compliance with the City's noise regulations.
35. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recent version of the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
36. Submit as -built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Community Development Director in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 9. 3 E. Provide One ( 1) set of paper prints and electronic documents on CD or flash drive in both AutoCAD and PDF format. AutoCAD drawings shall be in State plane coordinates.
37. Submit an electronic PDF file of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction.
38. Preserve existing survey monuments and vertical control benchmarks in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 5- 1. 26A.
39. Provide one ( 1) new vertical control survey benchmark, per City Standard, as directed by City Engineer.
40. Any modification to the conceptual plans that is determined not to be in substantial conformance shall be reviewed by staff and referred to the appropriate body for a recommendation to the Community Development Director.
BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 12
BUILDING CODES
41. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California Building Standards Code, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
FIRE LANES
42. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500. 1 of the California Vehicle Code.
43. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines.
44. Any area that requires a red curb shall be maintained at all times. OSHA Red or similar paint is required with a highly reflective white paint stenciled on the red paint that reads: " FIRE LANE — NO PARKING' in repeating intervals.
FIRE FLOW/ FIRE HYDRANTS
45. Project shall have a fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code.
46. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards and per the California Fire Code.
SECURITY KEY BOX
47. A Knox key box shall be installed as directed by the Fire Code Official when a building permit is obtained for any work. The key box shall contain keys that will allow the fire department access to all portions of the building. The keys shall have tags affixed identifying their purpose. The nominal height of the Knox box installations shall be 5 feet above grade. Consult with the Fire Marshal for placement and specifications.
FIRE SPRINKLER
48. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code.
49. An approved NFPA13 fire sprinkler system is required for all buildings.
50. All NFPA 13 fire sprinkler systems are to be maintained accordingly. Annual flow testing is required and a current 5 -year fire sprinkler certification is required for the life of the system.
51. All FDC°s and fire sprinkler risers shall be maintained with a protective coat of red paint ( OSHA Red or similar) to protect against marine influences and rust for the life
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 13
of the system.
52. All newly installed Fire Department connections will be required to install Knox brand FDC caps (or substantially similar as determined by the Fire Chief).
FIRE ACCESS
53. Provide Fire apparatus access per the California Fire Code Appendix D, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
54. All gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with the following criteria:
a. The minimum gate width shall be twenty feet (20') and remain unobstructed; b. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type;
c. Construction of all gates shall be of material that allows manual operation by one person; and
d. Gate components shall be maintained in operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective.
55. Required fire hydrants and FDCs shall be placed on the same side of the driveways with the following standards:
a. Be located within 40 feet of an approved roadway or driveway and arranged so that hose lines can be readily attached to the inlets without interference from any nearby objects including buildings, fences, posts, plantings or other fire department connections or otherwise approved by the Fire Chief or his or her designee;
b. Be located within 50 feet of an approved hydrant location; c. Be situated so that the inlet height shall not be less than 18 inches or more than 48 inches above graed; and
d. Contain guard posts or other approved means in order to protect the devices from vehicular damage.
56. Pedestrian gates with approved exit hardware shall be required adjacent to any gate that crosses vehicular paths.
57. Fire hydrants and their distribution shall be in accordance with CFC Appendix CC.
Any fire hydrant located on the property shall be flow tested and maintained with minimum of annual service or per the manufacturer' s recommendation.
58. No parking signs shall be installed and maintained at all times. Parking shall be allowed in designated stalls and garages only. Vehicle towing procedures shall be posted along with the relevant CVC code section.
59. Fire access roads shall be kept clear at all times.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 14
FIRE ALARMS
60. Fire alarms shall be tested on a routine basis, including annual audible testing with the Five Cities Fire Authority present and in accordance with NFPA 72.
FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY ( FCFA) CONDITIONS
61. An approved turnaround is required on any access road that exceeds 150 feet CFC D103. 3.
62. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet exclusive of shoulders, and a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Building A and Building B access roads shall be 26 feet in width. This includes any carport or canopies that may be over or near an access road. CFC 503. 1. 1 and D103.
63. Addressing including unit numbers shall be highly visible and illuminated in low light.
A map of the complex near the entry is required.
64. All open spaces and planned vegetation shall be maintained for the life of the development in a manner that provides for adequate fire clearance from all structures, minimum height clearances for fire apparatus access roads, power lines, and in accordance with all vegetation management best practices to decrease the risk of wildfire and in accordance with CFC Chapter 47.
65. A vegetation management plan for management of the riparian and wildland areas shall be prepared by a licensed arborist, landscape architect, or registered forester.
66. The project location is in a high fire hazard zone and therefore shall comply with Chapter 7A CBC and WUI code construction.
67. All FDC' s for all buildings or areas of a building shall be all placed in one manifold at one central location and permanently labeled with signage identifying each connection to the specific building it protects. Consult with the Five Cities Fire Authority/ Fire Marshal for FDC placement.
68. All roads and fire hydrants are required to be in place prior framing any buildings.
Combustible building materials delivered to the construction site require the Five Cities Fire Authority' s approval prior to delivery during phase 1.
69. Wet standpipes are required in all stairwells.
70. Stairwells shall go through the roof where required by Five Cities Fire Authority.
71. Any building providing an elevator shall have at least one elevator with the capacity to
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 15
hold a gurney and emergency response personnel. The applicant shall build an elevator in Building A and will explore incorporating an elevator into Building B.
72. Fire Cities Fire Authority shall have access to all sides of the building from a fire apparatus access road no further than 150 feet or as otherwise permitted by Five Cities Fire Authority and the Building Official.
ABANDONMENT / NON -CONFORMING
73. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non -conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping, and other undesirable conditions.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN.
AND ANNUAL STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
74. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City the following:
a. Prior to a building or grading permit a Stormwater Control Plan that clearly provides engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5. 2. 2.
b. Prior to final acceptance an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5. 2. 3. c. Annual Maintenance Notification indicating that all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls are being maintained and are functioning as designed.
d. All reports must be completed by either a Registered Civil Engineer or Qualified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD).
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
75. Public Improvement Plans, Site Civil Plans, and Maps shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Engineering Division as a separate submittal from any vertical construction/ structures building improvement plans.
76. Improvement plans must comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 1 and shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of California and approved by the Public Works Department and/ or Community Development Department. The following plan sheet shall be provided:
a. Site Plan
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 16
i. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys.
ii. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. iii. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property.
iv. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
V. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. vi. Location of 100 -year flood plain and any areas of inundation within project area.
b. Grading Plan with Cross Sections
c. Retaining Wall Plan and Profiles
d. Roadway Improvements Plan and Profiles
e. Storm Drainage Plan and Profile
f. Utilities - Water and Sewer Plan and Profile
g. Utilities — Composite Utility
h. Signing and Striping
i. Erosion Control
j. Landscape and Irrigation Plans for Public Right -of -Way k. Tree Protection Plan
I. Details
m. Notes
n. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
o. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo unit cost.
77. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community Development Director including any referenced geotechnical report.
78. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements.
79. Applicant shall fund outsourced plan and map check services, as required.
80. The Developer shall provide an outlet structure for the Meadow Creek storm drain. A stormceptor and/or clarifier for the storm drain leading to Meadow Creek shall be required.
81. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right- of-way or within public easements.
82. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the turning radiuses within the project site, including access from James Way, can accommodate a range of vehicles from large trucks and buses to cars.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 17
CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK
83. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director.
84. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary or verify that existing facilities are compliant with State and City Standards. This includes the installation of two new ADA compliant commercial drive approaches. Ramps on James Way shall be brought up to City and State standards including the ramps on the northeast and southeast comers at the intersection of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard.
85. Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. Street trees are to be selected from the 2025 street tree list included on the City' s website
86. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS
87. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/ 2 x 11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing.
88. The applicant shall record easements for all public utility infrastructure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.
89. Unnecessary and excess easements shall be vacated to the greatest extent possible to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.
90. The Civil plans shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate a creekside pedestrian path to the City. The location of the creekside path shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
91. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record anew non- exclusive pedestrian trail easement. The easement instrument shall be to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.
92. Only native riparian plants shall be planted within the 32' creek setback area. Detailed planting plans shall be submitted in advance of or concurrent with improvement plans.
93. Signs shall be posted prohibiting the use of herbicides or other toxic substances potentially harmful to creek habitat.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 18
94. Fencing shall be installed along the pedestrian path that does not prohibit migration of fauna between the path and the riparian area.
95. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a density bonus agreement entered into with, and supplied by, the City that restricts 15% of the project' s base density equivalent units as affordable to very low income households for at least 55 years (Gov. Code § 65915( f)(2), ( c)( 1)( A)). To comply with this requirement, seven base density equivalent units (i. e., 15% of the project' s 45.25 base density equivalent units) shall be so restricted, with: a live work unit counting as 0. 5 units, a studio unit counting as 0. 5 units, a 1 - bedroom unit counting as 0. 75 units, and a 2 -bedroom unit counting as 1. 0 units ( AGMC § 16.36.030(C)). As an alternative to restricting 15% of the project' s base density equivalent units as affordable to very low income households, the applicant may record a density bonus agreement, entered into with, and supplied by the City, that restricts 24% of the project' s base density equivalent units as affordable to lower income households for at least 55 years ( Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2), ( c)( 1)( A)). To comply with this requirement, 11 base density equivalent units ( i. e., 24% of the project's 45.25 base density equivalent units) shall be so restricted, with: a live work unit counting as 0. 5 units, a studio unit counting as 0. 5 units, a 1 - bedroom unit counting as 0. 75 units, and a 2 -bedroom unit counting as 1. 0 units AGMC § 16. 36. 030( C)). Under either scenario, the density bonus agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
96. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit one ( 1) copy of the final project -specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) or a Water Pollution Control Plan ( WPCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWCB) requirements.
97. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
98. Drainage facilities shall be designed in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5. 1. 2.
99. Submit a geotechnical report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. The date of the soils report shall be less than 3 years old at the time of submittal. 100. The applicant shall dedicate a pedestrian access easement for the ADA sidewalk extension if constructed on private property outside of the right of way. 101. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil percolation tests. Infiltration test
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 19
shall include adequate borings depth and frequency to support design recommendations.
WATER
102. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public Works Director must grant permission to dead end water mains. 103. A Reduced Pressure Principle ( RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines to the structures and/ or landscape irrigation.
104. A Double Detector Check ( DDC) backflow device is required on all new water service connections. Fire Department Connections ( FDC) must be remote and locations to be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief.
105. The DDC shall be placed inside the building or adjacent to the building. Other locations for the DDC shall be approved by the Director or Community Development. 106. Each parcel shall have separate water meters.
107. Non -potable water for construction is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters. 108. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. 109. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050.
SFWFR
110. All sewer laterals shall comply with Engineering Standard 6810. 111. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050.
112. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. Laterals shall be sized for the appropriate use, minimum 4".
113. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 114. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District for the development' s impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance. 115. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District prior to
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 20
relocation of any District facilities.
116. Submit a will -serve letter from South County Sanitary stating that the property access and location of trash receptacles is adequate for trash collection service.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
117. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16. 68. 050: All projects that involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required to place service connections underground - existing and proposed utilities. 118. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all conditions of approval for project shall be satisfied.
119. Public Improvement plans and Final Map shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval.
120. Street lighting shall comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 3. 1. 2. Q. 121. Upon execution of PG& E contract, submit contract to the City. Include approved PG& E schematics in the project plan set.
TREE PRESERVATION/ TREE REMOVAL
122. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C. S., the Community Tree Ordinance. 123. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer shall submit a tree preservation and tree removal plan to the Director of Public Works/City Arborist for undeveloped parcels or lots with trees. The plan shall include the location, size and species of all trees located on the lot or on adjoining lots, where development could affect the roots or limbs of trees on adjacent property. 124. All significant trees to be removed as designated by the Director of Public Works/ City Arborist shall be replaced at a 3: 1 ratio and planted on site. With the approval of the Public Works Director, tree removal shall be mitigated by planting on site, off-site, or payment of in -lieu fees ( at the current street tree fee rate for a 15 -gallon tree). Larger trees may be required to mitigate tree removal. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all trees shall be planted, or fees paid.
125. Prior to any work on the site, all trees to remain on site shall be marked with paint/ ribbon and protected by a five ( 6) foot vinyl or chain link fence. The fence shall be located at a minimum of eight ( 8') foot radius from the trunk of the tree.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 21
126. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the conditions of the Community Tree Ordinance ( 431 C.S.) which include but are not limited to:
a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved by the Parks and Recreation Director.
b. No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of any tree.
C. No grading shall occur under a trees dripline, unless approved by the Public Works Director.
d. A five foot ( 5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8' from the trunk of each tree.
127. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Arboriculture ( ISA) Pruning Standards.
PUBLIC SAFETY
128. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval.
129. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post accessible parking signage, per California Building Code Section 11A and other applicable standards.
130. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary alarm system per Police Department guidelines.
FEES AND BONDS
The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following:
131. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL
a. Plan check for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate). b. Plan check for improvement plans ( Based on an approved construction cost estimate).
c. Plan Review Fee ( Based on the current Building Division fee schedule.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible to pay all fees associated with outside plan review consultants)
132. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT Subject to Government Code section 65589.5( o)( 2)( A):
a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 22
time the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City, involving water connection or enlargement of an existing connection.
b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
e. Fire Protection Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City
f. Police Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
g. Park Development Impact Fee, the developer shall pay the current parks development fee for each unit approved for construction ( credit shall be provided for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
h. Recreation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
i. Transportation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
j. Storm Drain Development Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
k. Wastewater Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
i. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
m. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City. n. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program ( SMIP) Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
o. Green Building Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
PAGE 23
that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
p. General Plan Update Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
q. Technology Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project's complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
r. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project' s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
s. Permit Fee for grading plans ( Based on an approved earthwork estimate). t. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction plans ( Based on an approved construction cost estimate).
BONDING SURETY
133. Erosion Control, prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential construction requires posting of a $ 1, 200. 00 performance bond for erosion control and damage to the public right- of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful completion of the work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining and/ or restoring the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS
134. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide bicycle racks and storage units on project plans that are sufficient to support at least 15% of the units, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable law.
135. The proposed parking garages shall be reserved for vehicle storage, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable law.
California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080. 66 b 4 B
136. The applicant shall be required to have a tribal cultural monitor on- site during all ground -disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project. Tribal monitoring shall occur as follows:
a. The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor; b. The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant' s site access and workplace safety requirements; and
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 24
c. The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as scope and duration of the project.
137. The applicant shall avoid any tribal cultural resources where feasible, in accordance with Public Resources code section 21084. 3, subdivision ( a). In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project application shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.
138. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner by the applicant, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21083. 9.
139. The applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System CHRIS) archeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the project site. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. 140. The applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC). Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. 141. The project shall comply with Health and Safety Code sections 7050. 5 and 5097. 98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe.
142. The applicant shall provide an application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
143. Additional California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Requested by Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI):
a. At the discretion of the tribes, Native American monitor may be present on the project site to observe any or all ground -disturbing activities. The Native American monitor will be the designated lead to represent tribal interest during construction.
b. The monitor may observe all activities from a safe distance and within safely accessible portions of the project area. During ground -disturbing activities, the monitor may inspect back dirt piles for evidence of cultural materials, as well. c. The monitor may observe grading and grubbing by following the construction equipment as it removes soil or vegetation or both, walking safely accessible
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 002
PAGE 25
areas after the machinery has cleared, or standing to the side and observing the soil removal activity.
d. When deeper excavation or trenching is conducted, the monitor can observe the mechanical removal of soil and can carefully inspect the back dirt that is removed from the trench or pit. If it is safe to do so, the monitor can inspect the sidewalls of trenches and pits as they are exposed. e. In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, tribal cultural resources are uncovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted ( i. e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered tribal cultural resource has been fully assessed by the SYBCI monitor. The Native American monitor will participate in and/ or observe all archaeological investigations/ fieldwork required to determine the nature and extent ( as well as documentation) of the find.
SYBCI will recover and retain all discovered tribal cultural resources in the form and/ or manner SYBCI deems appropriate, in SYBCI' s sole discretion, and for any purpose SYBCI deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/ or historic purposes.
f. The applicant's full construction team shall receive a presentation regarding a Worker Environmental Awareness Plan (WEAP) prior to the start of any construction activities. The WEAP shall be presented by tribal representatives. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to construction activities.
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
CALIFORNIA
Subject: Creekside Junction Project, Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location 1271/1281 James Way; Applicant – Russell Sheppell
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Statutory Exemption Per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.
The City of Arroyo Grande has conducted environmental review for the Creekside Junction project pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66, a statute within Assembly Bill (AB 130). Effective June 30, 2025, AB 130 made significant modifications to CEQA, including creation of a new statutory CEQA exemption, PRC Section 21080.66, for infill housing developments that meet certain conditions. As detailed below, City staff has determined that the Creekside Junction project (“Project”) qualifies for statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal involves the construction of two (2) new residential buildings containing a total of ninety-two (92) multi-family residential units on a 1.81-acre site. Both buildings will be four (4) stories in height in a split-level pad concept. The development proposes to include twenty (20) studios, fifty-eight (58) one-bedroom units and fourteen (14) two-bedroom units. The project also includes a community center, fitness area, and thirty-one (31) one-car garages.
Common open space areas are spread out throughout the residential community. The larger of the buildings includes elevator access for the residents. The project proposes to reserve fifteen percent (15%) of the base density in the form of deed-restricted units reserved for individuals meeting San Luis Obispo County’s Affordable Housing Standards for Very Low Income households. In order to entitle this project, the applicant is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Offsite improvements for this project include the replacement of damaged sidewalks along the project frontage and replacement of the site’s driveway approach.
CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION APPLICABILITY
AB 130 created a new statutory exemption for infill housing development projects that meet the eligibility criteria under PRC Section 21080.66. The following discussion below provides an analysis of the Project against the eligibility criteria to determine the applicability of the infill housing development project statutory exemption.
ATTACHMENT 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: [email protected] Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
1. Project site must not be greater than 20 acres. Alternatively, if a builder’s remedy project is proposed, the project site or parcel size is not more than 5 acres. (PRC, § 21080.66(a)(1)(A)-(B).)
With an area of 1.81 acres (78,892sf), the Project site is not more than 20 acres. This Project is not invoking builder’s remedy. Thus, this Project satisfies this criterion.
2. Project site is either located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality or within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. (PRC, § 21080.66(a)(2)(A)-(B).)
The entirety of the Project site lies within the incorporated City of Arroyo Grande, and therefore satisfies this criterion.
3. Project site has been previously developed with an urban use, at least 75 percent of the site perimeter adjoins parcels developed with urban uses, at least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses, or for sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(3)(A)-(D).)
Approximately 77% of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses, including a fitness facility, medical offices, hotel and shopping center, religious facility, and residential uses. Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion. (4) Project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program. The approval of a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(4)(A)-(C).)
The Project, as proposed, is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, including the following General Plan Elements: Land Use; Housing; Conservation and Open Space; and Circulation. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum density of 25 dwelling units/acre and the Project proposes 37.3 dwelling units per acre, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Under State law, a density increase granted through the Density Bonus Law is considered consistent with the general plan. Therefore, the Project is deemed consistent with both the General Plan and applicable zoning ordinances. Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: [email protected] Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 3
(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(5).)
As a suburban jurisdiction under Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), the Project requires a density of at least 20 dwelling units/acre. Therefore, the Project must provide at least 10 du/ ac (One-half of 20 du/ac = 10 du/ac). The Project proposes 37.3 du/ac, exceeding the applicable density requirement. Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion. (6) The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(6).) a. Not located in any of the following coastal zone areas:
i. An area between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tideline of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance.
ii. Tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff.
iii. An area of the coastal zone that is not subject to a certified local coastal program or a certified land use plan.
iv. An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment.
v. On a parcel within the coastal zone that is not zoned for multifamily housing.
vi. On a parcel in the coastal zone and located on or within a 100-foot radius of a wetland, as defined in Section 30121 of the Public Resources Code, or on prime agricultural land, as defined in Sections 30113 and 30241 of the Public Resources Code.
b. Not located on prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. c. Not located on wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: [email protected] Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
d. Not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, unless the site has adopted specified fire hazard mitigation measures.
e. Not located on a hazardous waste site, unless either of the following apply:
i. The site is an underground storage tank site that received a uniform closure letter based on closure criteria established by the State Water Resources Control Board for residential use or residential mixed uses. ii. The State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or a local agency making a determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has otherwise determined that the site is suitable for residential use or residential mixed uses. f. Not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law, and by any local building department. g. Not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless either of the following apply:
i. The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction.
ii. The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program
h. Not located within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a norise certification. i. Not located on lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: [email protected] Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
j. Not located within a habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the California Endangered Species Act, or the Native Plant Protection Act.
k. Not located on lands under conservation easement.
The proposed Project is not located within a coastal zone area, according to coastal.ca.gov/maps/czb/. The Project site is classified by the California Department of Conservation on the California Important Farmland Finder as “Urban and Built Up Land.” See
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
No wetlands exist on the Project site. See David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025; David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025.
Additionally, the Project site is not classified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as a very high fire hazard severity zone nor is the site within the state responsibility area. See https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones The Project site is not identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Department of Toxic Substances as a hazardous waste site.
See https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ and
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
The Project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone as shown on the California Geologic Survey’s Seismic Hazards Program: AlquistPriolo Fault Hazard Zones map.
The Project site is not located within a special flood hazard area or a regulatory floodway. The Project site has not been identified for conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, does not contain habitat for protected species pursuant to the Endangered Species
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: [email protected] Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
Act of 1973. See David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025; David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025. The Project site is not located on lands under conservation easement.
Thus, the Project satisfies these requirements.
(7) Project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the Government Code. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(7).)
The Project does not propose or require the demolition of a historic structure. There are no listed historic structures on a national, state, or local historic register on the Project site.
Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion.
(8) For a project that was deemed complete on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(8).)
The proposal consists of 92 multifamily residential units and does not include any transient lodging or short-term rentals. Thus, the Project satisfies this criterion.
TRIBAL CONSULTATION
Projects eligible for the statutory infill housing development exemption must also comply with the tribal notification requirements under PRC section 21080.66(b). On November 3, 2025, pursuant to PRC section 21080.66(b), the City provided formal notification via certified mail and email to the following California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project site to invite those tribes to consult with the City as to the proposed Project, its location, and the Project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources:
Chumash Council of Bakersfield; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Northern Chumash Tribal Council; Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties; Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians; Tule River Indian Tribe; and yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini (Northern Chumash Tribe).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
JANUARY 20, 2026
PAGE 7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: [email protected] Website:
www.arroyogrande.org
One tribe, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, requested consultation, which the City initiated and participated in, pursuant to PRC section 21080.66(b)(3)(F). No other tribes requested consultation, and as such, on January 2, 2026, the City determined that tribal consultation concluded.
TRIBAL CONSULTATION
While there are no known tribal cultural resources on the Project site, per PRC section 21080.66(b)(4), the Project will be conditioned to comply with binding conditions of project approval to protect any tribal cultural resources. In addition, the requirement for the local government to condition the Project to conduct a phase I environmental site assessment under PRC section 21080.66(c) will be imposed as a binding condition of project approval.
CONCLUSION
As provided above, the proposed Project qualifies for statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to PRC section 21080.66 (Infill Housing Development Exemption). As such, no further environmental analysis under CEQA is required.
Exhibits
1. David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025.
2. David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025.
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
P.O. BOX 7019
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
[email protected]
(805) 235-5223
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST September 4, 2025
Russ Sheppel
Creekside Junction
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
SUBJECT: CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PROJECT NO WETLANDS PRESENT DETERMINATION, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA (APN: 007-711-080, -081)
Dear Mr. Sheppel:
David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is providing this no wetlands present determination in response to the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City) request to satisfy the conditions of California Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 (AB 130 & SB 131 respectively). This determination is based on the existing conditions of the Creekside Junction project site as documented in the DWE June 27, 2025 Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and supporting background information.
The relevant sections of AB 130 and SB 131 are as follows:
California Assembly Bill 130 Section 18 Government Code 65941.1 (8)(B) states a requirement for an applicant to document:
(8) Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following:
(B) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
California Senate Bill 131 Section 21080.47 requires:
(c) The project meets all of the following:
(1) Does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitats as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993), or an environmentally sensitive habitat area within the coastal zone, as defined in Section 30107.5.
(NOTE: THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE) United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993) Section 2.1 Purpose states:
The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance on using definitions and classifications of wetlands within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
EXHIBIT 1
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC NO WETLANDS PRESENT DETERMINATION |2 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993) defines wetlands as follows:
A. Wetlands. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes (plants specifically adapted to live in wetlands); (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric (wetland) soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.
CREEKSIDE JUNCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS DETERMINATION
The above USFWS definition provides the basis for the three-parameter technical wetland determination criteria for 1) wetland vegetation; 2) wetland (hydric) soils; and 3) wetland hydrology used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board). While the USFWS definition only requires “one or more” of the parameters to be a wetland, the Corps and Water Board require meeting all three wetland criteria parameters to be considered a wetland (with some technical exceptions that do not apply to this determination).
As documented in the record, in 2015 Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) field surveys and wetland determination data point collection by then SII Principal Ecologist and wetland specialist David Wolff, showed the absence of the required three-parameter wetland determination criteria within the constructed basin. SII concluded that the constructed basin did not support any of the three-parameter jurisdictional wetland criteria summarized as follows:
No wetland vegetation. Dominant plant species observed in the basin bottom were Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon; FACU), long-beak stork’s bill (Erodium botrys; FACU), perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne; FAC), and smooth brome (Bromus hordeaceus; FACU) that does not meet the greater than 50% dominance of OBL, FACW, or FAC wetland vegetation criteria. 75% of the dominant vegetation are not wetland indicator species.
No hydric soils. Soils test pits found sandy loam surface soils to 10 inches with a color of 10YR 4/3 with layers of 2.5YR 5/3 coarse sandy loam and fractured sandstone perhaps indicative of the artificial construction of the basin that do not meet the hydric soil field indicator criteria for low chroma soil color. In addition, no redoxomorphic features (indicators of wetting and drying) meeting the criteria for hydric soils were observed.
No wetland hydrology. No evidence of ponding or runoff into or out of the basin were observed during SII 2015 field surveys following several rain events. The contributing area has been substantially reduced with runoff stormwater from development being directed to drop inlet structures in the parking lot to the City’s storm drain system and not into the constructed basin.
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC NO WETLANDS PRESENT DETERMINATION |3 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST Based on the SII 2015 findings, the Corps Regulatory Division verified the site does not support a “waters of the U.S./wetland” designation.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings described above and detailed in the DWE 2025 BRA and supporting background documentation, no wetlands meeting any definition or criteria are present within the Creekside Junction project site. As such, the proposed project will not affect wetlands as none exist on the project site.
Thank you very much for continuing with DWE for your environmental consulting services.
Please contact me directly if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
David K. Wolff
Principal Ecologist
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
P.O. BOX 7019
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
[email protected]
(805) 235-5223
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST June 27, 2025
Russ Sheppel
Creekside Junction
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
SUBJECT: CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND UPDATED MEADOW CREEK WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS DETERMINATION, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA (APN: 007-711-080, -081)
Dear Mr. Sheppel:
David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is providing this Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment (DWE 2025 BRA) and updated Meadow Creek waters of the U.S./State jurisdictional limits determination for the Creekside Junction Project, City of Arroyo Grande (City), California (APN: 007-711-080, -081). DWE has prepared this report based on the review of available background information from previous project biological/wetland resources evaluations and current existing conditions biological resources survey conducted by DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff on April 4, 2025. 2025 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed Creekside Junction project site is highly modified from construction of the adjacent development. It is composed of paved and dirt parking lots, a constructed basin and berm along Meadow Creek supporting upland non-native annual grassland, ruderal areas with patches of coyote brush, and a small stand of coast live oaks and willows on the southeast corner of the site. The site is bordered by development on the south and west, James Way on the north, and Meadow Creek to the east. The eastern property line runs along the edge of the constructed berm as part of the adjacent development to the west dating back before 1986 when the property was originally purchased from the developer.
The constructed basin and berm support a non-native annual grassland of mostly oats, soft chess, rye grass, ripgut brome, six weeks grass, veldt grass, short-podded mustard, bur clover, vetch, and ice plant. Gopher mounds, meadow mouse trails, and western fence lizards were observed in the constructed basin area during the DWE 2025 field survey. A cluster of coast live oaks and arroyo willow trees are at the southeast corner of the project site above the top of Meadow Creek bank are in uplands, and not associated with a riparian context. Several patches of coyote brush shrubs are growing in previously disturbed areas along the eastern border of the site and on a fill slope below one of the parking areas (future Building “B”).
EXHIBIT 2
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |2 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST In 2023 temporary emergency BMPs in uplands consisting of a rock and grouted rock stormwater channel, and a basin with drop inlet, to collect and convey developed site runoff upstream of a failed onsite storm drain pipe. The failure created a sink hole in the parking lot. The temporary conveyance route was constructed in collaboration with the City. The temporary drop inlet connects to permanent City storm drain outfall replacement improvements constructed simultaneously under an existing City grading permit (GRA20- 000003). The permanent public drainage improvements consist of a storm drain junction manhole, a 24" outfall pipe with flared end section and riprap slope protection. It is planned that the revised Creekside Junction project will remove the temporary upland BMPs, and provide a mitigating stormwater system to detain and convey the required amount of developed runoff from the campus and future project, that leads to the permanent replaced outfall. A set of representative photographs illustrating the 2025 existing conditions are attached as Exhibit 1.
UPDATED JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION
The following summarizes the wetland findings information submitted into the record for previous project applications providing evidence over a 15-year period that the constructed basin does not support a three-parameter seasonal jurisdictional wetland as runoff from development was mostly directed to parking lot storm drain inlets, and is now surface runoff to the above described repaired/replaced culvert and outfall. • 2001. A Morro Group 2001 wetland delineation report described the man-made basin was from grading and construction of a berm just outside of the top of the Meadow Creek bank. At that time approximately 0.09 acre of low-value/low function seasonal wetland was observed and mapped described as a result of the man-induced grading and berm construction that created a depressional area that retained rainfall and runoff. Further, the 2001 Morro Group report stated the wetland does not directly connect with Meadow Creek, and does not provide any habitat or cover for aquatic or semi-aquatic species.
• 2010. SWCA (same staff as Morro Group purchased by SWCA) conducted a review of the wetland conditions of the project site basin on September 17, 2010 to determine the conditions at that time of soils, vegetation, and hydrology at the same data points as recorded in their 2001 report. This 2010 study found the area of wetlands had diminished to 0.006 acre in the southeast corner of the man-made basin. The 2010 SWCA report suggested the wetland area had decreased substantially because less runoff was reaching the basin from new development, directing most of the runoff into storm drains since the original wetland delineation and mapping had occurred. • 2015. Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) field surveys and wetland determination data point collection in 2015. By then SII Principal Ecologist and wetland specialist David Wolff showed the absence of the required basic three-parameter wetland character of the
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |3 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST man-made basin. This was likely due to the passage of an additional five years since the prior 2010 SWCA evaluation.
SII concluded that the constructed basin no longer supported any of the three-parameter jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S./State based on the following:
o The basin was man-made and was constructed on dry land and not a part of a natural drainage or water course.
o Meadow Creek low-flow channel is well below the basin bottom having no influence or connectivity to the constructed basin hydrology. o The basin has received water only from the runoff from surrounding parking lot uplands. The contributing area has been substantially reduced with development directing runoff water to the storm drain system away from the basin. o There is a constructed earthen berm separating the basin from Meadow Creek without any established outlet location or outlet structure to Meadow Creek. o The dominant vegetation has transitioned to mostly FACU species with only one area of FACU/FAC dominant species that does not meet the wetland vegetation criteria.
o Field indicators of hydric soils have been lost over time likely from the reduced runoff saturation.
o Based on the 2015 findings, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division verified the site does not support a “waters of the U.S./wetland” designation. o As of 2015 the project site no longer supported a “wetland/waters of the U.S.”, or waters of the State under the State Water Resources Control Board “Procedures,” for wetlands that requires meeting the three-parameter wetland definition (wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, hydric soils).
o In conclusion, documentation in the record as of 2015 determined the constructed basin no longer supported a jurisdictional wetland by federal or state definitions. The culvert and outfall repair/replacement, and runoff repairs were placed through the former wetland location that was required because the developed parking lot drainage pattern and existing underground storm drain infrastructure. Regardless, no jurisdictional wetlands were impacted. The regulatory compliance permits issued for the culvert repair and outfall replacement required the planting of 10 willow sprigs around the culvert outfall rock slope protection.
Ten (10) willow sprigs were planted in January 2025 following the completion of the Grading permit outfall replacement improvements and emergency repair construction. As of May 2025, there is 100 percent success of the willow plantings at the culvert outfall rock slope protection in accordance with the permits issued for culvert and outfall repair and replacement. This consultant will continue to monitor the planted willow sprig area for success.
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |4 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST UPDATED WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS
Previous evaluation of jurisdictional limits artificially assigned a top of bank (TOB) limit along the top of the manmade basin and berm created by bulldozer activity to form flat construction pads by the original subdivision developer prior to 1986 at approximately the 69-foot elevation contour. There was no evidence of any water surface elevation ever reaching the 69-foot contour with any riparian vegetation rooted well below the berm along a lower bench of Meadow Creek.
The review of updated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (Flood Insurance Rate Map) and associated Flood Profiles for Meadow Creek (attached as Exhibits 2a and 2b) show the 100-year storm event (1% frequency) water surface elevation at the 60.1-foot elevation at the downstream end of the James Way culvert (cross section “J” on Exhibits 2a and 2b) trending down to the 58.4-foot elevation at the downstream south end of the project parcel (cross section “I”). The 500-year storm event (0.2% frequency) water surface elevation at the downstream end of the James Way culvert at approximately the 61.5-foot contour (cross section “J”) trending down to approximately the 60.0-foot contour at the downstream south end of the project parcel (cross section “I”).
Conservatively based on the updated FEMA 500-year storm event water surface elevation:
• Prior evaluations should be conformed to the upper limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S./State, which is now established at the 61.5-foot contour. This elevation is well below the prior constructed berm that follows along the project eastern property boundary.
PROPOSED CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Assessment
• The proposed project would develop the existing paved/dirt parking lot, non-native annual grassland in the constructed upland basin, patches of coyote brush and nonnative landscaping. The project would potentially remove four (4) single trunk and six (6) multi-trunk coast live oak trees ranging from 3-inch to 8-inch diameter, and one 14-inch diameter and two multi-trunk (5-inch to 10-inch diameter) arroyo willow trees.
• Based on the above, the proposed project would have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
• Landscape plans for the Creekside Junction project should incorporate a minimum of 20 one-gallon to 5-gallon coast live oak trees. Preferably along the Meadow Creek side of the project site.
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS |5 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST • In order to avoid impacts on nesting birds:
o Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. o If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potentially significant impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings described in this DWE 2025 BRA establishing the existing conditions of the proposed project site, and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Creekside Junction project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on biological or botanical resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered less than significant. Therefore, prior mitigation plans from preceding years and prior permitted projects, would no longer apply. They should therefore not be imposed upon this current project being proposed.
Thank you very much for continuing with DWE for your environmental consulting services.
Please contact me directly, or have any agency do so, if there are any questions or need for additional information relevant to this updated report.
Sincerely,
David K. Wolff, Principal Ecologist
ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT 1: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
EXHIBITS 2a AND 2b: FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD FIRMETTE PLAN
AND PROFILE MAPS
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST Photo 1: View south at “Building A” site at non-native annual grassland in constructed basin & berm (arrow) along Meadow Creel & parking lot. 4/4/2025 Photo 2: View southwest from James Way sidewalk at “Building A” site constructed basin NW corner and parking lot. 4/4/2025
Photo 3: View north at “Building A” site, rocked stormwater drain, and non-native annual grassland in constructed basin and berm (arrow) on property line along Meadow Creek below parking lot. 4/4/2025 Photo 4: View north at “Building A” site from south end of project site, developed parking lot, ruderal non-native annual grassland and coyote brush, and non-native pines along Meadow Creek. 4/4/2025
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST Photo 5: View south at “Building B” site ruderal coyote brush and nonnative grassland on constructed parking lot berm and driveway. 4/4/2025
Photo 6: View south at “Building B” site ruderal coyote brush and nonnative grassland on constructed parking lot berm and driveway. 4/4/2025 Photo 7: View south at “Building B” site ruderal coyote brush and nonnative grassland on constructed parking lot berm and driveway. 4/4/2025Photo 8: View east at “Building B” site developed dirt parking lot and ruderal coyote brush shrubs on constructed berm. 4/4/2025
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST Photo 9: View east at small stand of oak trees along southern property line, ruderal fringe non-native grassland of dirt parking lot. 4/4/2025 Photo 10: View east at small stand of willows separated from Meadow Creek corridor along southern property line parking lot. 4/4/2025 Photo 11: View east at rocked stormwater drain capturing surface runoff to Meadow Creek outfall (repaired/replaced in 2023), and non-native annual grassland in constructed basin and berm. 4/4/2025 Photo 12: View west at rocked stormwater drain capturing surface runoff from development to Meadow Creek outfall (repaired/replaced in 2023). 4/4/2025
SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 2025 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST Photo 13: View west at Meadow Creek outfall (arrow) and rock slope protection with willow plantings along fiber roll at bottom. 4/4/2025 Photo 14: View south from north end of constructed basin and constructed berm (arrow) at approximately 69-foot contour. 4/4/2025 Photo 15: View north at storm drain from south end of constructed basin and constructed berm (arrow) at approximately 69-foot contour. 4/4/2025 Photo 16: View north from south end of constructed berm (arrow) at approximately 69-foot contour. 4/4/2025
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 4/21/2025 at 8:10 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8 B
20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
120°36'32"W 35°8'11"N
120°35'54"W 35°7'42"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
Exhibit 2a
102030 30 40 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80 80 90 90 100 100 19,500 20,000 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 24,500 25,000 25,500 26,000
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD) STREAM DISTANCE IN IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH ARROYO GRANDE CREEK
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
FLOOD PROFILES
MEADOW CREEK 37P LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD "1%+" ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED CROSS SECTION LOCATION A F G H I J K L M N O P HWY 101 CULVERT
JAMES WAY CULVERT NOTE: THE 1%+ ANNUAL CHANCE PROFILE IS SHOWN TOO CLOSE TO THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE PROFILE TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY Exhibit 2b
MEADOW CREEK DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY
August 23, 2024
Prepared for:
Russ Sheppel
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
.=§II
.,.____.......-
ATE Project #23055
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805)687-4418 • FAX (805)682-8509 • [email protected] Since 1978
Richard L. Pool, P.E.
Scott A. Schell
August 23, 2024
Russ Sheppel
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY FOR THE
MEADOW CREEK DEVELOPMENT- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
23055R01
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) has prepared the following traffic and circulation study for the Meadow Creek Development in the City of Arroyo Grande. The traffic and circulation study evaluates the Project's consistency with the policies outlined in the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this Project.
Associated Transportation Engineers
~~7(---A-Q_
Scott A. Schei I
Principal Transportation Planner
Engineering • Planning • Parking • Signal Systems • Impact Reports • Bikeways • Transit
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................. ................................................. ... ...... .... . 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 1 TRAFFIC SCENARIOS AND SCOPE OF WORl< ................................................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 4 Street Network ....................................................................... ......... ....................... 4 Existing Roadway Levels of Service ......................................................................... 7 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 7 CITY IMPACT AND MITIGATION POLICIES ..................................................................... 9 Roadway Segments .............................. ................................................................ 1 0 Intersections ......................................................................................................... 1 0 EXISTING + PROJECT ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 11 Project Project Trip Generation Estimates ........ ............................................ .......... 11 Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service ....................................................... 13 Existing + Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 13 SHORT-TERM (PROJECT OPENING YEAR) + PROJECT ANALYSIS ............................ '. .... 15 Short-Term Traffic Forecasts .................................................................................. 15 Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service .................................................. 17 Short-Term + Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. 17 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 20 Cumulative Traffic Forecasts ................................................................ ........ .. ....... 20 Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service ................................................. 20 Cumulative + Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. 23 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ................................................................................. 24 TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ......................................................... 26 CEQA VEHICLE Ml LES TRAVELED ANALYSIS ........ .............................. ........... .. .............. 28 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ................................................................... 32 TECHNICAL APPENDIX ........................... ... ................................................................... . 33
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 1 o
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
• Figure 10
Figure 11
TABLES
Study-Area Faci I ities .................................................................................... 2 Existing Roadway Levels of Service ............................................................. 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................... 7 Street Segment Level of Service Definitions and Descriptions ....................... 8 City of Arroyo Grande Criteria for Signalized Intersections ........................... 8 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................... 9 P . T. D .. b . 1 roJect rip Istn utIon .............................................................................. 9 Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service ........................................... 11 Existing + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................... 11 Existing + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................... 13 Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service ...................................... 15 Short-Term + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 17 Short-Term + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 17 Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service ..................................... 18 Cumulative+ Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 21 Cumulative+ Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 21 Project Driveway Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... 24 Bicycle Level of Traffic Street (Bicycle LTS) ................................................ 26 Thresholds of Significance for Residential Development Projects ................ 28 Meadow Creek Per Capita VMT Summary ................................................. 29
FIGURES
Existing Street Network and Project Site Location ......................................... 2 Project Site Plan .......................................................................................... 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ................................................. 5 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 8 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................... 12 Existing+ Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................. 14 Short-Term Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 16 Short-Term+ Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 18 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 21 Cumulative + Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 22 Project Driveway Volumes ........................................................................ 25 ii
INTRODUCTION
The following study contains an analysis of the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the Meadow Creek Development (the "Project"), located in the City of Arroyo Grande. The study provides information regarding existing and future traffic conditions within the Project study-area and recommends improvements where necessary.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 1 the Meadow
Oaks Project is located within the
existing Oak Park Professional Plaza
located at 880 Oak Park Boulevard.
The Project is proposing to develop 93
multifamily residential units consisting
of 83 market rate and 10 affordable
units. Figure 1 (attached) illustrates the
Project site plan. As shown, primary
access to the site will be provided via
an existing driveway connection to
James Way that serves the Oak Park
Professional Plaza. As shown on the
site plan, a total of 91 * parking spaces are provided.
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS AND SCOPE OF WORK
The traffic study assesses potential traffic impacts for the following 6 scenarios.
Traffic Scenarios
1) Existing Conditions
2) Existing + Project Conditions
5) Cumulative Conditions
6) Cumulative + Project Conditions
The traffic analysis evaluates the weekday AM and PM peak hour periods for the study-area roadway segments and intersections presented in Table 1. The study-area intersections were identified based on the City of Arroyo Grande Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines and in consultation with City of Arroyo Grande staff. Project driveway operations are addressed in the site access section of the traffic study. The Short-Term scenario provides an analysis of the Project's opening year, 2025, assuming a 0.75% per year growth rate and development of approved and pending projects expected by that time. The Cumulative scenario assumes year 2035 conditions using the same 0.75% per year growth rate plus development of approved and pending projects expected after 2025.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circul ation Study 2
z
0 I-
<(
u
0 _J
LJ...J
I-
(./)
1-
u
LJ...J
0 ~
0...
Associated Transportation Engineers
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 3
\ w
--' -.:
0 Cf) LU
0 Cl<'. I- ::::) I-
~ 0 lJ z LL
z
s
0..
LJ..J
IV)
1-
u
LU
0 a::::
0..
"' "'
~
~ I-
~
~
Associated Transportation Engineers
Table 1
Study-Area Facilities
Study-Area Roadway Segments Study-Area Intersections
1 . James Way w/o North Oak Park Blvd. 1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way
2. James Way e/o North Oak Park Blvd. 2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St.
3. North Oak Park Blvd . n/o James Way 3. U.S. Highway 101 NB Ramps/Noth Oak Park Blvd.
4. North Oak Park Blvd. s/o James W ay 4. North Oak Park Blvd.IE! Camino Real
5. U.S. Highway 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real
6. James Way/Project Driveway
The scope of work and traffic assessment methodologies presented in this study were developed based on the requirements outlined in the principles City of Arroyo Grande Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines Uanuary 2021). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the traffic study scope and methodologies was provided to City staff and included in the Technical Appendix.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Street Network
The Project site is served by a network of highways, arterial roads and collector streets as illustrated in Figure 3. The following text provides a brief description of the major components of the study-area street network.
U.S. Highway 101, located south of the Project site, is a multi-lane interstate highway serving the Pacific Coast between Los Angeles and San Francisco. U.S. Highway 101 is the principal route between the City of Arroyo Grande and the adjacent cities of Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo, Atascadero and Paso Robles to the north; and the cities of Santa Maria, Buellton and Santa Barbara to the south. Regional access between the Project site and U.S. Highway 101 is provided via the North Oak Park Boulevard interchange. The interchange ramp intersections are signalized.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 4
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
~ s:
"' ro ::B ~ (") 0
g; ::f CL (")
n ;;, :::; · ('D
() 7'
~ 0
~- ~ o ro :::, -
0 V, -0
2 3 CL ro -< ;::.
Vl
)>
V,
V,
0 (")
o:;·
fii
CL
~ ClJ
:::,
V,
-0
0 )> ;:::;. C: ClJ ()'Q ~-
c: 0
~ :J
Nm
w:::,
- (JQ
I',..) :3· o ro N '1l
~ ~
LEGEND
0 -Signalized Intersection
~ - Stopped Approach
4 - Lane Geometry
3 L 1+L. ~ WBranchSI
US 101 NB Ramp
i tt.
A ssoCJATED
T RANSPORTATION
E NGINEERS
w
~
~
S; -,
~
.1..~ ; ➔ .!-
-.- ~
.:., I El Camino Real
~HL.
-1..~ ~
'
w ~ I ~+il!I I .!- 1+l. N ' NOTTO SCALE
I I J.amesWay
_J I
- 1 ·.,~ t I it! itt. '
Mercado
L
-.
I I El Camino Real
I
itt.
EXISTING STREET NETWORK
JH -ATE#23055
Oak Parkway Boulevard, located west of
the Project,, is a north-south 2- to 4-lane
arterial roadway that extends north from
the City of Grover Beach through the City
of Arroyo Grande's northern limits. Oak
Park Boulevard is fully improved with
curb, gutter, sidewalk and street
lightning. In the study-area the posted
speed in 40 mph. The Traffic signals
control the Oak Park Boulevard/James
Way, Oak Park Boulevard, Oak Park
Boulevard/Branch Street and Oak Park
Boulevard/El Camino Real intersections.
James Way, located north of the
Project site, is a 2-lane east-west
collector roadway that extends east
from the City of Pismo Beach through
the City of Arroyo Grande. James
Way is fully improved with curb,
gutter, sidewalk and street lighting.
James Way will provide direct access
to the Project site. In the study-area
the posted speed is 40 mph. Within
the study-area, James Way is
signalized at the Oak Park Boulevard
intersection.
El Camino Real, is an east-west two-lane arterial, which serves as a frontage road on the south side of U.S. Highway 101. The roadway extends north from Grand Avenue becoming 5 Cities Drive in the City of Pismo Beach, at the west City limits. El Camino Real is fully improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. It serves local businesses and residential neighborhoods east and west of Kanan Road. The Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real intersection is signalized.
Branch Street, located south of the Project, is a 2- to 4-lane east-west arterial street that extends east from Oak Park Boulevard to Grand Avenue. Branch Street is fully improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. Branch Street provides access to various businesses.
In the study-area the posted speed on Branch Street is 40 mph. The intersection of Oak Park Boulevard/Branch Street intersection is signalized.
M eadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 6
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Existing Roadway Levels of Service
In rating roadway operations, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through Fare used. LOS A and LOS B represent primarily free-flow operations, LOS C represents stable conditions, LOS D nears unstable operations with restrictions on maneuverability within traffic streams, LOSE represents unstable operations with maneuverability very limited, and LOS F represents breakdown or forced flow conditions (complete definitions of intersection levels of service are included in the Technical Appendix). The City of Arroyo Grande considers LOS C or better acceptable for roadway operations.
Table 2
Existing Roadway Levels of Service
LOS C 2023
Seg. Roadway Segment Classification Lanes Capacity Volume LOS
1. James Way w/o North Oak Park Blvd. Co llector 2 - Lane 9,000 6,100 LOS B
2. James Way e/o North Oak Park Blvd. Co llector 2 - Lane 9,000 4,900 LOSA
3. North Oak Park Blvd . n/o James Way Arterial 2 - Lane 14,500 9,000 LOSA
4. North Oak Park Blvd. s/o James Way Arterial 4 - Lane 29,000 14,500 LOSA Bolded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 2 show that 2 of the roadway segments currently operate at LOS B or better meet the City's LOS C standard.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Because traffic flow on urban arterial roadways is most constrained at intersections, detailed traffic flow analyses focus on the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM/ 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM). In rating intersection operations, the levels of service criteria (LOS A through F) described previously in the Existing Roadway Operations section are also used. The City of Arroyo Grande considers LOS C or better acceptable for intersection operations.
Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study-area intersections were obtained from traffic counts conducted on Thursday, September th 2023 (count data included in Appendix). The existing lane geometries and traffic controls for the intersections are illustrated on Figure 3. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study-area intersections are illustrated on Figure 4.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 7
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Cf)
~ ---'-Zf:2
0 z
UJ
(.J
UJ
__J
t5
z
-(775)551
1 (39)70
909(628) _ 1 r
5(3) 7 ~ ~
N
N
<Xl N~ ""
"'
i;;- ~~ L(94)148
2'-'9-S -(472)241
J j l 1 (262)146
30(25) _J 7 ! r
418(323)- ;:;:-R(o
52(56)7 ~~2
Q.)
E
::,
0 >
:i
0 I
-"" "' Q.)
0..
~ 0..
i
$
X
X
x
X
J
Q.)
E
~
0 >
u
8= "' I-'=
~
·;;;
0 Q.)
bO "' c[j
> <(
8 -n~N
~"" N
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Stupy
I.O
8 l.l..J
f-
"'
R~;:::,, "~"'
<"10"-
~ ""~
-1Tl
139(140) _J
649(335)-
228(155) 7
~
OM
a-, N
coo
st N
-1T
638(317) _J
r-;;:i
83(52) 7
~ <Xl
""' N ,-_ 0 st
L (20)32
-(611)654
1 (57)65
1!r
~;::::-R
1/).,."
~Ks
Ql/10-,
1/) N "" .,.
1!
~co
ON
1/)t(
"'0 N
§§;;; L (195)411
:!. ss - (527)409
J I l 1 (396)287
192(98) _J
605(356) -
166(188)7
(./)
LU
~
:=)
_J
0 >
u
LL
LL
~ f-
(_J
z
~ (./)
><
LU
z
0 0 ~ V)
~ 2 e5 0 V) Z o 2 G
"' .::i z .:f: f- w
Associated Transportation Engineers
As stipulated in the City's Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, levels of service were calculated for the signalized and unsignalized study-area intersections using the operations methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Levels of service are based on the average number of seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak 15-minute period within the overall peak hour. Table 4 lists the Existing traffic controls and levels of service for the study-area intersections (calculation worksheets included in Technical Appendix).
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
No. Intersection Delay/LOS
Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way (a) Signal 24.5 Sec./LOS C 39.6 Sec./LOS D
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. Two W ay STOP-Sign 12.5 Sec./LOS B 14.2 Sec./LOS B
3. U.S. 101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd.(a) Signal 37.1 Sec./LOS D 25.9 Sec./LOS C
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real (a) All Way STOP-Sign 12.8 Sec./LOS B 23.6 Sec./LOS C
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Camino Real(a) Signal 25.3 Sec./LOS C 34.1 Sec./LOS C (a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
The data presented in Table 4 shows that the study-area intersections operate in the LOS A - C range, which meets the City's LOS C standard.
CITY IMPACT AND MITIGATION POLICIES
The following sections present the City's transportation impact and mitigation policies for intersections and roadway segments as outlined in the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines.
At locations where the intersection or roadway segment LOS falls below, or is anticipated to fall below, the acceptable threshold of LOS D, feasible measures shall be identified to mitigate the impacts. Per the General Plan, development projects shall be mitigated to appropriate levels, but at least to the extent where the post-development level of service shal I not be less than the LOS existing prior to development. The following sections identify impact criteria for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments.
M eadow Creek Developm ent
Traffic and Circulation Study 9
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Roadway Segments
A proposed Project is considered to result in a significant impact if:
• Degrades the LOS on a roadway segment to an unacceptable level of LOS D or worse.
Table 4
Street Segment Level of Service Definitions and Descriptions Volume to Capacity Ration (V/C) 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 -1.0 Roadway Segment Type Max. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Given Service Level
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOSE
Six Lane Freeway 42,000 64,800 92.400 111.600 120,000
Four Lane Freeway 28,000 43,200 61.600 74,400 80,000
Four Lane Highway 4,800 9,600 15,800 27,000 45,800
Two Lane Highway 2.400 4,800 7,900 13,500 22,900
Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 22,000 25,000 29,000 33,000 36,000 Four Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000 Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 11,000 12,500 14,500 16,500 18,000 Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 Four Lane Collector 12,000 15,000 18,000 21 ,000 24,000 Two Lane Collector 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000
Intersections
When comparing existing and cumulative conditions to "plus project" conditions, delay changes for intersections that exceed the criteria shown in Table 5 should be identified.
Table 5
City of Arroyo Grande Criteria for Intersections
Level of Service Roundabout Delay Signal Delay All-Way STOP Delay LOS A < 10.0 :S 10.0 :S10.0
LOS B > 10and :S15.0 > 10 and :s:20.0 > 10 and :S1 5.0
LOS C > 15.0 and :s:2 5.0 > 20.0 and :S35.0 > 15.0 and :s:2 5.0 LOS D > 25.0 and <35 .0 > 35 .0 and <55.0 > 25.0 and <35.0 LOSE > 35.0 and <50.0 > 55 .0 and <80.0 > 35.0 and :S50.0 LOS F > 50.0 > 80.0 > 50.0
A proposed Project is considered to result in a significant impact if:
• Degrades the LOS at an unsignalized intersection to an unacceptable level of LOS D or worse.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 10
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
EXISTING + PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project Trip Generation Estimates
The Project is proposing to construct 93 apartment units (83 market rates/10 affordable units) with related resident amenities. Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project based on the rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITEL Trip Generation, 11 th Edition for Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise Land Use Code #221) and Affordable Housing - Income (Land Use 223). Table 6 presents the trip generation estimates for the Project.
Table 6
Project Trip Generation
ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips (In/Out) Rate Trips (In/Out) Pro12osed Land Uses:
Multi-Family Residential
- M arket Rate 83 Units 4.54 377 0.37 31 (7/24) 0.39 32 (20/12) Units 10 Units 4.81 48 0.50 5 (1/4) 0.46 5 (3/2)
- Affordable Units
Total Project Trip Generation 425 36 (8/28) 37 (23/14)
I
The data presented in Table 6 indicate that the Project is estimated to generate 425 ADT, 36 AM peak hour trips and 37 PM peak hour trips.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project-generated traffic was distributed onto the study-area roadway system based on existing traffic patterns in the study-area and our knowledge of the employment and commercial centers in and surrounding the City of Arroyo Grande. The Project trip distribution is presented in Table 7 and illustrated on Figure 5.
Route
U.S. Highway 101
North Oak Park Boulevard
James Way
W est Branch Street
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study
Table 7
Project Trip Distribution
Origin/Destination
North
South
North
South
East
West
East
11 Percentage
30%
20%
15%
10%
5%
10%
10%
Total: 100%
Associated Transportatiqn Engineers
August 23, 2024
:::;-l s: OJ ro - OJ
~ g- LEGEND =--=--=-------- [ g ~ ~ 0% ~ - Distribution Percentage n "
~o
~- ~ o ro L
::, 0 (XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume Vl-O
[ ~ I X I - Average Dai ly Traffic Volume
--< ;::.
N
)>
V,
V,
0 n
a:;·
i'ii
CL
:::;-l
OJ
::,
V,
1:l
0 )> ::1- c OJ
()Q "'· C 0 ~::,
Nm
w ::, - ()Q
t--.J 5· o ro N rD
~ ~
3 ;!::,!=:!;::'. I L (3)7 ~~~
j l L
I
0 "'
AssoCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
E NGINEERS
liJ
~ "
L
w
L (6)3 WJ-..J
§:g
Jj
7(2)_j l "'
;!:: I L (4)2 ~ - (3) 1
L r (20) 10
2(1)- r
§
"'
404
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
2 0
;;:;
g
l',l\ercaclo
I
§
"'
~ N
NOTTO SCALE
JH - ATE#23055
Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area roadway assuming the Existing + Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 6. Table 8 compares the Existing and Existing + Project levels of service and identifies impacts based on the applicable standards.
Table 8
Existing + Project Roadway Levels of Service
LOSC
Seg. Roadway Segment Capacity Existing Existing + Project LOS Exceed?
1. James Way w/o North Oak Park Blvd . 9,000 6,100 6,142 LOS B NO
2. James Way e/o North Oak Park Blvd. 9,000 4,900 ~ ~.,.,,tJ LOS A NO
3. North Oak Park Blvd. n/o James Way 14,500 9,000 9,064 ' LOS A NO
4. North Oak Park Blvd. s/o James Way 29,000 14,500 14,798 LOS A NO Balded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 8 indicate that the Project would not have an adverse effect on the study-area roadway segments based on City of Arroyo Grande General Plan policies.
Existing + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Existing+ Project traffic AM and PM peak hour volumes illustrated on Figure 6. Tables 9 compare the Existing and Existing + Project AM and PM peak hour levels of service and identify effects based on the applicable standards.
Table 9
Exi_sting + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
No. Intersection Existing
Delay LOS
1. North Oak Park Blvd .Ijames W ay (a) 24.5 Sec. LOS C
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. 12.5 Sec. LOS B
3. U.S. 101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd.(a) 37.1 Sec. LOS D
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real (a) 12.8 Sec. LOS B
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Camino Real(a) 25.3 Sec. LOS C (a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
M eadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 13
Existing + Project Project-Added
Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
25.0 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
12.9 Sec. LOS B 0.0 Sec. NO
40.5 Sec. LOS D 0.2 Sec. NO
12.7 Sec. LOS B 0.4 Sec. NO
25.3 Sec. LOS C 0.3 Sec. NO
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
w
__J
<{
0 (f)
.., z~
0 z
LU
(.J
LU
-'
f0
z
-(781)567 1 (39)70
919(648) -1 r
5(3) 7 M g
N
N
.... 0 M~
"'
~ ~~ L(1o0)164
~ ~s - (472)241
J j L
1 (262)146
34(26) _J 1 I r
418(323)- ~co"'
52(56) 7 ~5;2
<lJ
E
:::,
0 >
::i
0 I
--"" "' <lJ
a..
~ a..
i
~
><
><
x
><
J
<lJ
E
:::,
0 >
u
(E
"' t-'=
~
·;;;
0 <lJ
bO "' <V
> <(
8 -a~N ~ M
N
Meadow Creek Development
Traffi c and Circulation Study 14
LJ.J
I-
"' .....
~ "' R'~!=:.
MOr-...
~ M~
_Jr[_
139(140) _j
651(338)-
231(161)7
~
MM
<nN
~6
U-,N
Jj
645(319) _j
~
83(52)7
cc cc r-...-.oo
Nr-...'<t
L (20)32
- (612)656
1 (57)65
1lr
~;::-r:::.-
.,,..,.,....
~Ks
..... ''"'' "' N M ....
11 moo
ON
in'K
-.00 N
~§;;; L(1 95)411
:'!: ss -(530)418
J I L
1 (396
)281
193(101)_J 610(365)- 170(196)7
Cf)
LU
~ :)
_J
0 >
u
LL
LL
<(
Q,:'.
ffu
LU
0 Q,:'.
Q..
+
lJ
z
~ Cf)
X
LJ.J
.,.,
.,.,
0 M
N
~ >--
-::
:!;_
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024 Page 232 of 843
Table 1 O
Existing + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
No. Intersection Existing Existing + Project Project-Added Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
'
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way (a) 39.6 Sec. LOS D 28.6 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. 14.2 Sec. LOS B 14.3 Sec. LOS B 0.0 Sec. NO
3. U.S. 101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd.(a) 25.9 Sec. LOS C 28.2 Sec. LOS C 0.2 Sec. NO
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real (a) 23.6 Sec. LOS C 24.2 Sec. LOS C 0.4 Sec. NO
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Cam ino Real(a) 34.1 Sec. LOS C 34.0 Sec. LOS C 0.3 Sec. NO (a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
The data presented in Tables 9 and 10 indicate that the study-area intersections would operate acceptably in the LOS A - C range with Existing + Project volumes. The Project would not have an adverse effect on the operation of the study-area intersections based on the General Plan policies.
SHORT-TERM (PROJECT OPENING YEAR) + PROJECT ANALYSIS
The City's Transportation Assessment Guidelines require that roadway and intersection operations be analyzed for the opening year of the Project, which is assumed to be 2025 for this study.
Short-Term T raffle Forecasts
Short-Term traffic volumes were forecast for the study-area roadways and intersections assuming an ambient growth factor of 0.75 percent applied to the Existing (2023) volumes for a two-year period. The Short-Term (2025) forecasts also assume development of the approved/pending projects proposed within the City of Arroyo Grande. The list of approved and pending projects used to forecast the Short-Term traffic volumes was provided by City staff and is included in the Technical Appendix. Trip generation estimates were developed for approved/pending projects using the rates published in the ITE, Trip Generation, 11 th Edition (trip generation worksheet is contained in the Technical Appendix). The trip ass ignment for the approved/pending projects was developed based on the location of each project, recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study-area as well as a general knowledge of the population, employment and commercial centers in Arroyo Grande. The Short-Term traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 7.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 15
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Cf)
~ ---'-----Z8
1---
0 z
0 z
lJ.J
{,J
lJ.J
-'
- (778)554
, (39)70
9 12(629) - 1 r
5(3) 7 M 25
N
M
M <ON~
"'
~ ~g L(95)149
(::I. ~s -(473)242
j l l ,(263)147
30(25) _J 1 I r
419(323)- ~RR
52(56) 7 ~;;:;2
(!)
E
::,
0 >
:i
0 I
-"
"' (!)
0...
::::i
0...
i
$
X
X
x
X
J
(!)
E
::,
0 >
u
ii=
"' f':
~
·;u
0 (!)
bO
"' lii
> <(
B
"' ~ "' ~ M
N
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 16
L.LJ
I0
<O "'0-, ;::::-~::._
""'o ~MN
_Ifl
142( 141)_J
652(336) -
228(155) 7
rc;i
<OM
o-, N
G,Q
"1 N
_sT
643(3 19) _J
83(52)7
r.;:i
192(98) _J
608(357)-
166(188)7
M
L(24)33
- (6 15)658
, (61)69
1lr
~NcO "' ... " ~Os
0,I) ~
"' M M ...
11 mco
ON
~K
"'0
N
(./')
w
~ ::)
_J
0 >
u
LL
LL
<(
DC
I-
~ DC
w
~ DC
0 I
rJ)
z
0 ;::
0 ~
~ 2 ~ 0 ll'l 2 o z G
"' ;;i z -< I- w
Associated Transportation Engineers
Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area roadway assuming the Short-Term + Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 8. Table 11 compares the Short-Term and Short-Term + Project levels of service and identifies impacts based on the applicable standards.
Table 11
Short-Term + Project Roadway Levels of Service
LOS C
Seg. Roadway Segment Capacity Short-Term Short-Term + Project LOS Exceed?
1. James Way w/o North Oak Park Blvd. 9,000 6,1 30 6,172 LOS B NO
2. James Way e/o North Oak Park Blvd. 9,000 4,930 5,334 LOS A NO
3. North Oak Park Blvd. n/o James Way 14,500 9,030 9,094 LOSA NO
4. North Oak Park Blvd . s/o James Way 29,000 14,600 14,898 LOS A NO Bolded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 11 indicate that the Project would not have an adverse effect on the study-area roadway segments based on City of Arroyo Grande General Plan policies. The section of Kanan Road north of Agoura Road is forecast to operate at LOS D. The Project would add 22 peak hour trips to the section of Kanan Road north of Agoura Road which would increase the V/C ratio by 0.007. This V/C increase would be well below the City's threshold of 0.05.
Short-Term + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Short-Term and Short-Term + Project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes illustrated on Figures 7 and
8. Tables 12 and 13 compare the Short-Term and Short-Term + Project AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the study-area intersections and identifies Short-Term effects based on City of Arroyo Grande standards. The analysi s completed for the Kanan Road/Agoura Road intersection assumes implementation of the new eastbound and northbound right-turn lanes that will be implemented at the intersection by the two adjacent development projects.
M eadow Creek Development
Traffi c and Circulation Study 17
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
-{ s: ~ (1)
n
~~ o "' :;f
~ n
n ;;; -- (1)
;:; ""
~o
"' (1) ~ . < 0 (1)
:::, 0
Ul -0
2 3 Cl.. (1)
-< ;:!.
(X)
>- v,
V,
0 n
iii"
ro
Cl..
::;'
"' :::,
V,
-0
0 >- ;::;. C OJ O"Q ~ - c 0 ~:::,
Nm
(.;.J :::,
- OQ N s· 0 (1)
N (1)
-1:> ;;;
LEGEND
L (XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume
X - Average Daily Traffic Volume
3 I - a-- -
" oww -"'
~~~ I L (410)278 88= - (103)76
J j l r (182)411
1lr
os:::
'!>W'!>
'!> W'-1
~~~
"'"' 0 - w -
A ssooATEO
T RANSPORTATION
E NGINEERS
w °' '-" co 0 w w u, "' L (161)201 ~ - j l - (120)123
65(109)_J
207(128)-
w "'°'
"''-" --"' ~.::::~
- w - °' w L (141)80 -_,, ...
_ - (33)25 Jjl r (20)19
357(256)_J
60(42)- 1-lr
431 (178)7 °'
- a--- "' ... -a--- °'- w "'a-- w a--
0 ... u, "'w
t 8 t I L (26)20 s~s - (85)73
J I L r (150) 143
66(54)_j 1
1 j r 11 5(38)- ~:;;:-::;
233(137)7 a--'-' o w w -
-=-tv-=-
...... a-- "NU,
SHORT-TERM + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2 I '° "' "' _ u,"' ... ~~
Jj
3(2)_j
60(28)7
Mercado
1!
W'Q
-'° co ... '-' - 0 u,
" 0
~ N
NOTTO SCALE
JH -ATE#23055
Table 12
Short-Term + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Short-Term Short-Term Project Added
No. Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way (a) 24.5 Sec. LOS C 23.4 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. 12.5 Sec. LOS B 12.7 Sec. LOS B 0.0 Sec. NO
3. U.S. 101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd .(a) 36.9 Sec. LOS D 44.9 Sec. LOS D 0.0 Sec. NO
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real (a) 25.5 Sec. LOS C 22.7 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sr c. NO 5-. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Camino Real(a) 13.0 Sec. LOS B 13.1 Sec. LOS B 0.3 Sec. NO (a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay Table 13
Short-Term + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Short-Term Short-Term Project Added
No. Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ij ames Way (a) 30.0 Sec. LOS C 38.5 Sec. LOS D 0.0 Sec. NO
2. North O ak Park Blvd./Branch St. 15.7 Sec. LOS C 15.8 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO '
3. U.S. 101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd.(a) 30.1 Sec. LOS C 30.9 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real (a) 31.4 Sec. LOS D 32.5 Sec. LOS D 0.0 Sec. NO 5-. North Oak Park Blvd.IE! Camino Real(a) 38.7 Sec. LOS D 38.6 Sec. LOS D 0.3 Sec. NO (a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay The data presented in Tables 12 and 13 indicate that the study-area intersections would operate acceptably in the LOS A - C range with Short-Term + Project volumes. The Project would not have an adverse effect on the operation of the study-area intersections based on the General Plan policies.
M eadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circul ation Study 19
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
The City's Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines require that intersections operations be analyzed assuming Cumulative conditions.
Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
Cumulative traffic volumes were forecast assuming an ambient growth factor of 0.75 percent applied to the Short-Term volumes for a 10-year period to represent Cumulative traffic. The Cumulative forecasts also include traffi c generated by development of the approved and pending projects that will be built after the Short-Term. Figure 9 illustrates the Cumulative traffic volume forecasts, and Figure 10 illustrates the Cumulative + Project volumes.
Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area roadway assuming the Cumulative + Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 10. Table 14 compares the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project levels of service and identifies impacts based on the applicable standards.
Table 14
Cumulative + Project Roadway Levels of Service
LOS "C"
Seg. Roadway Segment Capacity Cumulative Cumulative + Project LOS Exceed?
1. James Way w/o North Oak Park Blvd. 9,000 6,300 6,342 LOS B NO
2. James Way e/o North Oak Park Blvd. 9,000 5,100 5,504 LOS A NO
3. North Oak Park Blvd. n/o James Way 14,500 9,300 9,364 LOSA NO
4. North Oak Park Blvd. s/o James Way 29,000 14,900 15,198 LOSA NO Bolded values exceed adopted LOS C standard.
The data presented in Table 14 indicate that the Project would not have an adverse effect on the study-area roadway se'gments based on City of Arroyo Grande General Plan policies.
M eadow Creek Development
Traffi c and Circulation Study 20
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
--, s: ..., (1)
~ PJ ::!:o._
n o PJ ::E
g_ n
n ;;; - · (1)
;:, ~
£_0
PJ (1)
::!'. < 0 (1)
:::, 0 UJ-o -
C :::, ~
0... (1)
--< a
N
> <J>
<J>
0 n
o:;·
nr
0...
::;-i
PJ
:::,
<J>
-0
>g
C PJ Oil CC!".
C 0 :,!;. :::,
Nm
w :::,
- Oil N ::i" 0 (1)
N (1)
.j:,. vi
LEGE ND
L(XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume
X ] - Average Daily Traffic Volume
3 I ~ "' - " "'<.O - "'C,
~ 3 = - (106)78 ~~~ I L (419)279
J j l , ,187)423
1lr
A'GiN
- ... 0 - 0-W ~~'i:
<.O <.O ... "' IJ1 "'
A ssoc1ATED
T RANSPORTATION
E NGINEERS
w "' "' C, "' V, w <Ji L(1s9)204 ~ 3 "'
j l - (123)127
67(112)_J
213(132)-
2..l W'-JA
"'"' - V, - "' =:w=:
"'-'--'- L (145)82
8~.::l - (34)26 Jjl , ,21 )19
360(262)_j
62(43)- 1lr
0\0\N 444(183)7 WW'->
-w-
'-J-W -"'-'- " C,
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
A
w V, - w
&8~ I L (23)19 3 ~2' - (84)74
J I L , ,133)137
68(56)_j J 1 j r
116(38)- ;;:;-.;;:'°
240(141 )7 :::i ~~
:::; r:::; Ln
V, ... w -<.O
2 I <.0
w
<.O
_
V, ;;:;
...
~~
Jj
5(5)_j
62(30)7
t-,\ercado
~ N
NOTTO SCALE
11 -;:a
00 ~= 0 V,
:::i
JH - ATE#23055
w
...J
<(
0 (f)
,,,,,., z~ I0
z
-(807)587 1 (40J7o
949(668) - 1 r
5(5)7 ir;' ~
"' N
0 z
LU
CJ
LU
...J
" ..,. ~ U')~
R ~1;\ L(104)169
~ '9-s -(487)249
J I L
1 (271J151
35(27) _J 1 I r
43 1(333)- ;;,c,;-;:::-
54(58) 7 ~i~
Q)
E
::,
0 >
~
::,
0 I
-""
"' Q)
a..
~ a..
i
~
><
><
x
><
J
Q)
E
::,
0 >
u
if
~ "'
..?:- ·;;;
0 Q)
bl)
a; "'
> <(
B
-o~o ~..,. N
Meadow Creek Development
Traffi c and Circulation Study 22
L.LI
rN
co"'"' in~;:_
..,. ..,. ~ ~MN
_IfL
146(145) _J
673(349)-
238(166) 7
r,;;i
ON " " N ~
inM
-ON
Jj
669(330) _J
r;,
85(54)7
-,, M
CO CON N "-..,.
L (22J3 4
- (634)680 1 (63J71
1lr
~MM
"' ..,. co r::!Ns
""'..,. "' ..,. M ..,.
11 NN ~ M
KM "'~ N
~ igl;; L (203J425
:'!: ss - (549)433
J I L
1 (41 1J299
199(104) _J
63 1(377)- 175(202) 7
M
(./)
u.J
~ =:)
.....J
0 >
u
LL
LL
~ I1-
u
w
0 O!'.
0...
+
w
>
.....J
~
=:)
~ =:)
u
"' "' 0
M
~ >-
~
~
Associated Transportation Engineers
gust 23 , 2024
Cumulative + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Cumulative and Cumulative+ Project AM and PM peak hour volumes which are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. Tables 15 and 16 present the results of the calculations and identifies the Project's consistency with City policies.
Table 15
Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Cumulative Cumulative Project Added
No. Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way lal 24.9 Sec. LOS C 45.8 Sec. LOS D 0.0 Sec. NO
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. 12.7 Sec. LOS B 12.9 Sec. LOS B 1.3 Sec. NO
3. U.S. 101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd·
1 aJ 50.7 Sec. LOS D 48.8 Sec. LOS D 0.1 Sec. NO
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramps/E l Camino Real (a) 13.3 Sec. LOS B 13.5 Sec. LOS B 0.4 Sec. NO
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Cam ino Real1•
1 18.9 Sec. LOS B 16.9 Sec. LOS B 2.6 Sec. NO
(a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay Table 16
Cumulative + Project PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Cumulative Cumulative Project Added
No. Intersection + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Exceed?
1. North Oak Park Blvd.Ijames Way (a) 61 .1 Sec. LOSE 32.5 Sec. LOS C 0.0 Sec. NO
2. North Oak Park Blvd./Branch St. 14.5 Sec. LOS B 14.6 Sec. LOS B 1 .3 Sec. NO
3. U.S.'101 NB Ramps/North Oak Park Blvd.(a) 28.6 Sec. LOS C 28.4 Sec. LOS C 0.1 Sec. NO
4. U.S. 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real (a) 26.6 Sec. LOS D 27.4 Sec. LOS D 0.4 Sec. NO
5. North Oak Park Blvd./EI Camino Real(a) 36.8 Sec. LOS D 45.2 Sec. LOS D 2.6 Sec. NO (a) LOS based on average seconds of delay per vehicle.
(b) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay The data presented in Tables 15 and 16 indicate that the study-area intersections would operate acceptably in the LOS A - C range with Cumulative + Project volumes. The Project would not have an adverse effect on the operation of the study-area intersections based on the General Plan policies.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 23
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
As i 11 ustrated on the Project site plan
(Figure 2), primary access to the Project
site would be provided via an existing
driveway connection to James Way.
The existing driveway connection to
James Way provides full access
inbound and outbound. Secondary
access is provided through the Best
Western Casa Grande hotel property.
James Way provides primary access to
the Project site and serves the
commercial uses adjacent to the
Project. James Way is a 2-lane east-west
roadway with bike lanes. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are provided along the developed sides of James Way. The posted speed limit on James Way is 40 MPH . James Way is flat and straight adjacent to the proposed driveway thus good sight distance is provided for turns entering and exiting the Project driveway. On-street parking is allowed along James Way east of the existing Project driveway.
An internal private street system connects the Project to James Way and the existing Oak Park Professional Plaza. As i 11 ustrated on the site plan, the proposed street width of 24 feet provides 2 travel lanes. On-site surface and garage parking will be provided to eliminate the need for on-street parking. The Project driveway connection to the public streets are designed and constructed to City of Arroyo Grande design standards. A pedestrian bridge connects the Oak Park Professional Plaza to the Oak Park Plaza. The sidewalks along North Oak Boulevard and James Way connect the Project to the local transit service and the retail commercial provided in the study-area.
Levels of service were calculated for the unsignalized STOP-sign q mtrolled Project driveway intersections using the operations methodology outlined in the HCM. Levels of service are based on the average number of seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak 15-minute period within the overall peak hour. Table 17 lists the Cumulative + Project traffic controls and levels of service for the driveway intersections (calculation worksheets included in Technical Appendix). Figure 11 illustrates the Project driveway volumes.
M eadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 24
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
M eadow Creek Development
Traffi c and Circulation Study
,,-.
~
N
.._,
,,-.
.._,
~
~
T (0) 1
~ ll.
z
~ w
25 w
ll.
g
(/)
I.I I_
ll.
~
UJ
CL
::)
lJ
LL
>-
<(
s
L.J..J
>
cc
0 1-
u
LU
0 ~
CL
Associated Transportation Engineers
Table 17
Project Driveway Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection Control Delay/LOS
AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour
James Way/Project Driveway(a) Two Way STOP-Sign 8.9 Sec./LOS A I 8.9 Sec./LOS A (a) LOS based on minor street approach with highest vehicle delay.
The data presented in Table 17 shows that the Project driveway intersections would operate in the LOS A - B range, which meets the City's LOS C standard.
TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Transit Service
SoCo Transit is the local transit
provider for the City of Arroyo
Grande. The Project site is served
by the #21 Route, the 24 Route
and the #28 Route. Each route
operates on weekdays and
weekends providing fixed route
bus service on James Way, Oak
Park Boulevard and West Brach
Street in the immediate vicinity of
the Project site. Existing transit
stops with benches are located on
James Way west of North Oak Park
Boulevard and West Branch Street east of North Oak Park Boulevard. The Project has connectivity to the existing ·pedestrian network, The Project has the potential to increase ridership on the local transit routes.
M eadow Creek Developm ent
Traffi c and Circul ation Study 26
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Pedestrian Facilities
Currently, sidewalks are
provided along North Oak Park
Boulevard and James Way. The
sidewalks along North Oak
Boulevard and James Way
connect the Project to the local
transit service and the retai I
commercial provided in the
study-area. Pedestrian
crosswalks with cal I buttons are
provided on each leg of the Oak
Park Boulevard/James Way
intersection adjacent to the
Project site. A pedestrian bridge connects the Oak Park Professional Plaza to the Oak Park Plaza. A Class I multi-use trail will connect the Project site with the adjacent commercial and residential areas. The Project provides connectivity to the existing pedestrian network. The Project would not have an adverse effect on the pedestrian facilities in the study-area.
Bicycle Faci I ities
James Way and West Branch
Street are identified as part of the
existing City of Arroyo Grande
Bikeway System. Class II bike
lanes currently exist along Janes
Way and West Branch Street
through the City of Arroyo
Grande. The bike lanes on James
Way and West Branch Street
connect the Project to the
residential, commercial and
recreational areas east and west
of the Project. North Oak Park Boulevard is also identified as part of the City of Arroyo Grande Bikeway System. Class Ill bike route exists on North Oak Park Boulevard in the studyarea. Proposed Class II bike lanes on North Oak Park Boulevard are identified in the City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element. The bike facilities connect the Project to the residential, commercial and recreational areas east and west of the Project. The Project would not obstruct implementation of the planned network. The bicycle facilities in the study-area are • based on a "Level of Stress" score as noted in the City of Arroyo Grande "Multi modal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines". The bicycle LTS scoring criteria is provided in Table 18.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 27
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Table 18
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (Bicycle L TS)
LTS Score
Lane Factor LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
Alongside a Parking Lane
Street width 1 (no effect) 2 or more (no effect) (through lanes per direction) Sum of bike lane and parking lane
Width (includes marked buffer 1 5 ft. or more 14or14.5ft. 13. 5 ft. or less (no effect) and paved gutter)
Speed limit or prevailing speed 25 mph or less 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph or more Bike lane blockage (typically (no effect) frequent (no effect) applies in commercial areas) rare Not Alongside a Parking Lane
Street width 2, if directions more than 2, or
(through lanes per direction) 1 are separated by 2 without a (no effect) a raised median separating
median
Bike lane width (includes marked 6 ft. or more 5 .5 ft. or less (no effect) (no effect) buffer and paved gutter) Speed limit or prevailing speed 30 mph or less (no effect) 35 mph 40 mph or more Bike lane blockage (typically (no effect) frequent (no effect) aoolies in commercial areas) rare Based on the scoring criteria presented in Table 18, the bicycle facilities along James Way, West Branch Street and North Oak Park Boulevard have a LTS 4 score based on the posted speed of 40 mph. The Meadow Creek development would participate in the enhancement of bicycle facilities through the payment of traffic fees .
CEQA VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
The City of Arroyo Gran de has adopted a set of transportation assessment Of PLAN
guidelines 1, in compliance with Senate Bill 743, which are based on a ~,,_v. ~4' ~ -?~ Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric rather than the traditional Level of l' * ~~ Service (LOS) metric. Per the State's Natural Resource Agency Updated ffi ...-ii. ~ Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA adopted in 2018, VMT has • i.-.. ~ - .l been designated as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. ~ ~---~ 1-."" "Vehicle Miles Traveled" refers to the amount and distance of automobile 4l'toFcA\.\fo~"ftravel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. For land use projects, vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.
Multi modal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, City of Arroyo Grande, January 2021 .
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 28
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
VMT Screening Criteria
The City of Arroyo Grande uses the following VMT screening criteria to determine if a project must conduct a VMT analysis.
A. Project is consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or General Plan and generates fewer than 110 daily trips based on the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
B. Projects that are within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit route with 15 minute or less headways. Unless project:
1. Has a floor area ration (FAR) of less than 0.75, or
2. Includes more parking than required under the City's zoning code, or
3. Is consistent with the region's Sustainable Comm.unities Strategy, City Zoning code or City Land Use policies (i.e. General Plan or Specific Plan) or
4. Replaces affordable housing with smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.
C. Project is Locally-serving retail defined as retail project within an urban environment of less than 50,000 square feet. The City should consider project-specific information such as market surveys or economic impact analysis that may more accurately determine market geography.
D. Transportation projects that are expected to reduce or have no impact on VMT will not require a quantitative VMT analysis. These projects include, but are not limited to, road diets (traffic lane reduction/narrowing), roundabouts, roadway rehabilitation and maintenance, safety improvements that do not substantially increase auto capacity, installation, or reconfiguration of lanes not through traffic (addition of left/right turn lanes, etc.), timing of traffic signals, removal of on-street parking, addition or enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and services.
Based on the City of Arroyo Grande VMT screening criteria, the Project is not screened out and will be required to complete a VMT analysis.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 29
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
VMT Impact Criteria and Analysis Requirements
The City's adopted VMT thresholds of significance are presented in the transportation assessment guidelines and reviewed below.
Thresholds of Significance
When a project does not meet the screening criteria described in Section 1.2 of the guidelines, a CEQA VMT analysis will be required. This analysis is used to evaluate a project's VMT generation against the appropriate thresholds of significance. Table 19 presents the City's thresholds of significance for residential development projects.
Table 19
Thresholds of Significance for Residential Development Projects Land Use Basis Current Level VMT Threshold
Project VMT per capita exceeds a level of 20.2 VMT/capita 17.2 Residential 15% below existing Countywide average (Countywide Average) VMT/capita VMT per capita.
VMT Analysis
Residential projects that require a CEQA VMT analysis shall calculate the project VMT per capita by performing a run of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) travel demand model and comparing to the regional VMT with and without project to determine total project VMT. Total project VMT then shall be divided by the proposed dwelling units multiplied by the City's average persons per household from the U.S. Census (2.54 Average Persons per Household).
The SLOCOG traffic model provides home based VMT per capita data for the City of Arroyo Grande as well as the various Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the County, including the TAZ that encompasses the Project site. Traffic model data was used to establish the homebased VMT per capita thresholds for the City of Arroyo Grande and to estimate the homebased VMT per capita for the Project. Table 20 shows the existing home-based VMT per capita for the City of Arroyo Grande, the VMT threshold (15% below existing home-based VMT per capita), and the Project's home-based VMT per capita based on the SLOCOG traffic model data.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 30
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
Table 20
Meadow Creek Per Capita VMT Summary
City of Arroyo VMT(a) VMT Impact Threshold(b) Project VMT Estirnate<c)
20.2 per capita 1 7.2 per capita 12.29 per capita
(a) City of Arroyo home-based VMT per capita based on SLOCOG traffic model. (b) VMT Threshold is a 15% reduction from City VMT (20.2 x 0.85 = 17.2). (c) Project home-based VMT per capita estimate based on SLOCOG model traffic analysis zones.
Impact?
No
As shown, the existing city-wide home-based VMT in the City of Arroyo Grande is 20.2 VMT per capita. Thus, the VMT threshold is 17.2 VMT per capita (15% below existing VMT: 20.2 x 0.85 = 17.2). The SLOCOG model shows that the homes within the local TAZ generate
12.29 VMT per capita, which is below the 17.2 VMT per capita impact threshold. Thus, the Project would not have a potentially significant VMT impact.
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study
•••
31 Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
Associated Transportation Engineers
Scott A. Schell, Principal Planner
Darryl F. Nelson, Senior Transportation Planner
Glenn Manaois, Transportation Engineer I
References
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, City of Arroyo Grande, May 2021.
Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2016.
Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11 th Edition, 2020. 2010 Draft Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Persons Contacted
Andrew Perez, Planning Manager, City of Arroyo Grande
Daniel Audelo, Traffic Planner, SLOCOG
Meadow Creek Development
Traffic and Circulation Study 32
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 23, 2024
R
EJ
LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
[email protected]
www.rambuskilaw.com
March 23, 2026
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Motion to Continue Appeal Hearing – Submitted on Behalf of All Appellant Parties
Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants respectfully move for a 30-day continuance of the above-described hearing. The Staff Report for Tuesday’s agenda item No. 10.a, which was not posted to the City’s website until Friday afternoon giving Appellants and the public literally one business day (or less) to review it before the March 24, 2026 hearing, introduces and heavily emphasizes the Housing Accountability Act’s (“HAA”) “deemed complete” lock-in under Government Code § 65589.5(j)(2) as the basis for concluding that certain issues are no longer subject to review.
This new position appears repeatedly in the Staff Report and is used as the City’s primary basis for concluding that the project cannot be challenged on the very issues raised in the appeal:
1. Parking adequacy and enforceability (Staff Report p. 10: “With the application of a parking concession, the project is deemed in compliance…”);
2. Creek setbacks and riparian protections (Staff Report pp. 15-16: “The 32’ creek setback … has already been deemed consistent … The HAA provides that … the project is deemed consistent with unidentified standards, as a matter of law”); and
3. All objective development standards generally (Staff Report pp. 2-3, 6, 12: “if a city does not notify an applicant of inconsistencies with applicable development standards before an ATTACHMENT 7
application is deemed complete, then the project is deemed consistent with all unidentified standards as a matter of law”).
None of this “deemed complete” analysis or reliance on the lock-in was raised or relied upon at the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Appellants’ original appeal detailed extensive, evidence-based challenges to parking (binding easements, lack of enforceable agreements, historical shortages), creek setbacks, zoning consistency, and CEQA exemption eligibility, without any rebuttal from staff that these issues were forever “deemed consistent” and off-limits.
The AB 130 statutory exemption findings (Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission Resolution) mention completeness only generically and never deploy the HAA lock-in as a substantive defense.
This late disclosure deprives Appellants, adjacent property owners, and the public of any meaningful opportunity to respond. To address the Staff Report’s new position, we need immediate access to the basic administrative record that should have been produced months ago when one of property owners made its public records request. Whether the records were intentionally omitted or the City chose to review the request in as limited a manner as possible, non-production suggests a lack of transparency. At a minimum, Appellants require:
1. The actual application “deemed complete” letter, checklist, and date;
2. Any and all HAA inconsistency notifications (or lack thereof) sent to the applicant within the statutory 30-day window;
3. All parking agreement, easement, and shared-parking documents submitted (or claimed) by the applicant prior to completeness; and
4. Any internal City memos or analyses addressing shared-parking enforceability, reciprocal easements, or specific adverse impacts under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1).
Without these documents, neither the Council nor the Appellants can evaluate whether the City actually performed the required early review or whether the “deemed complete” finding was itself based on incomplete or inaccurate information (e.g., the applicant’s representations about parking that the appeal proves are unenforceable).
The HAA was never intended to prevent the City from providing the public and the appellate body (this Council exercising de novo review under AGMC § 1.12.010) with a fair opportunity to address issues at this stage of the proceedings.
While HAA § 65589.5(j)(2) protects applicants from late-moving goalposts, it does not:
1. Strip the Council of its independent obligation to make specific adverse impact findings on public health and safety (§ 65589.5(j)(1));
2. Prevent the Council from reviewing whether the City’s own early review process was adequate; or
3. Eliminate basic due process protections in an administrative appeal that directly affects neighboring businesses and residents.
Granting a short continuance is the only fair and prudent course. It allows Appellants to renew our Public Records Act request (assuming no voluntary production) so the Council can decide this
appeal on a complete, transparent record, not on a novel legal position raised for the first time at this late stage.
Denying the continuance risks reversible error on judicial review and undermines public confidence that the Council is exercising independent judgment. Council should not be required to overlook these objective standards simply because the Staff Report now asserts that the City did not address them at the completeness stage. A 30-day pause ensures that the City’s own process was followed which is what the HAA and due process require.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk ([email protected]) Isaac Rosen, City Attorney ([email protected])
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel ([email protected]) Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
From: Edwin Rambuski
To: City Council; Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject: Appeal Case 26-002-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001, Appellants" Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all the Named Appellants
Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:47:07 PM
Attachments: City Council Letter - Additional Briefing (2).pdf March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY:[email protected]
[email protected]
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached hereto a letter dated March 23, 2026 from the Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski regarding the above-referenced Appeal. Mr. Rambuski’s letter shall constitute an item to be included in the record for Appeal Case 26-002.
If you have any questions whatsoever regarding this submission, please telephone Mr.
Rambuski at .
Very truly yours,
Trina Baumsteiger
Assistant
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to [email protected] and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
R
EJ
LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
[email protected]
www.rambuskilaw.com
March 23, 2026
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants submitted a request to continue the hearing for Appeal Case 26-002 regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP 25-001 on March 23, 2026. If reasonable continuance is not granted, Appellants hereby submit additional briefing on the issues surrounding the CUP approval. These issues supplement the original appeal and directly address the Staff Report’s newly advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and Density Bonus Law. Even accepting that theory arguendo, the City Council’s de novo review authority (AGMC § 1.12.010) requires it to address the following violations of objective standards and specific adverse impacts on public health and safety.
a. Inadequate Parking Supply and Unenforceable Shared Parking Arrangements Create Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Health and Safety
The developer is relying on parking he has no right to in seeking his approvals. At a minimum, an applicant should have to show the right to property they claim ownership or rights in. The project provides only 31 dedicated on-site garage parking spaces for 92 residential units and relies heavily on reciprocal shared parking with the existing medical-office and fitness-center uses on the SheppelCurl Fitness site. This constitutes a specific adverse impact on public health and safety under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council is required to address regardless of any parking concession or “deemed complete” finding.
The record contains the 2004 OEG parking monitoring reports for the same site (Attachment 6 to prior CUP proceedings), which documented chronic shortages, overflow parking onto neighboring properties, conflicts between medical patients, fitness-club patrons/employees, and tenants, and the need for ongoing mitigation measures (signage, employee directives, driveway modifications, offsite parking, and physical separations). Many of those measures were never permanently implemented or are no longer effective. The Best Western Casa Grande parking easement settlement documents likewise provide only limited, short-term relief that does not bind future owners or guarantee availability during peak residential hours.
The Staff Report acknowledges the parking concession but asserts “deemed compliance.” However, the record contains no binding, recorded, long-term reciprocal easement agreements enforceable against successors and assigns that ensure adequate spaces during overlapping peak periods. Shared parking in this mixed-use context, on a site with a documented history of deficiencies, cannot be presumed adequate. This deficiency will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased congestion on James Way, traffic hazards, and nuisance impacts on neighboring businesses and residents. These are specific adverse impacts the Council must find do not exist before any approval. b. The Project Does Not Meet the Density Bonus Requirements Because It Cannot Show The Required Dispersal of Affordable Housing Units
The project fails to comply with the City’s own objective standards in AGMC § 16.82.040(E), which requires that all affordable housing units “shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project [and] proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the market-rate units.” The Conditions of Approval address only recording a 55-year density bonus agreement (COA No. 96) and are silent on dispersal. The written application likewise fails to include the required “site plan showing … number and location of affordable housing units” mandated by AGMC § 16.82.120(A)(1).
The project consists of 20 studios (21.7%), 58 one-bedroom units (63%), and 14 two-bedroom units (15.2%). With approximately 14 very-low-income units required for the density bonus, proportionality demands roughly 3 studios, 9 one-bedroom, and 2 two-bedroom affordable units dispersed throughout both buildings. Instead, the applicant appears to intend to assign all very-lowincome units to the 20 studios. This segregated “poor door” approach violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E) and exposes the City to fair-housing and consistency challenges.
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the Council’s de novo review authority allows it to impose mandatory dispersal conditions without violating state law. Failure to do so leaves the project non-compliant with local objective standards. c. Inadequate Traffic And Circulation Analysis Was Conducted.
The project fails to qualify for the AB 130 statutory exemption’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) presumption because it does not satisfy the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
Guidelines (May 2021, p. 8). Those Guidelines expressly limit the presumption to projects located within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit routes with 15-minute or less headways.
Current SLO RTA Routes 27 and 28 (the only James Way corridor routes) operate on hourly headways only. The Traffic Study (Attachment 6) and AB 130 Findings (Attachment 5) contain no analysis of actual headways, no project-specific VMT calculation showing at least 15% below baseline, and no mitigation measures. Staff’s reliance on generic “proximity” alone is unsupported by substantial evidence and creates a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, and regional air quality that the Council is required to address.
d. The Record Does Not Indicate That Waivers Under HAA and the Density Bonus Laws are Proper.
Government Code § 65915(e)(1) prohibits a city from applying any development standard that would physically preclude the density bonus project “at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted.” The applicant bears the burden to prove with substantial evidence that each waiver or concession is necessary to avoid physical preclusion. The record contains no such evidence for the parking reduction, height waivers, creek setbacks, or other modifications requested; mere assertions are insufficient.
e. The HAA And AB 130 Does Not Eliminate The Need To Complete Baseline Studies To Ensure No Impact On Sensitive Riparian Habitat And/Or Threatened Species.
The HAA does not relieve a local agency from complying with CEQA. It is not the policy of the HAA to compel a local agency to approve housing without conducting environmental review appropriate to the situation. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(e) and Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of City of Pacifica, No. A170704, 2025 WL 3764279 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2025).) The Council cannot end its site-suitability analysis at general plan and zoning designations.
The “fair argument” standard for requiring CEQA review remains a low threshold, with all doubts resolved in favor of environmental review. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.)
The City must analyze potential impacts to Meadow Creek’s riparian habitat and any threatened species before approval.
f. Staff Erroneously Analyzed The Bonus Density Under The “Mixed-Use” Rules The staff report provides that because the project is located adjacent to existing non-residential uses, the project will function like a mixed-use development in a practical sense, and the development standards for mixed-use projects were used. The project is not a “mixed-use” project within the meaning of the HAA as provided for in Government Code §65589.5 (h)(2). The project can only qualify as a “mixed-use” development if at least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use, and no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel. The project fails both of these elements. The project includes the Casa Grande Inn Hotel and the residential portion falls far short of two-thirds of the combined existing commercial and new
residential usage.
g. The Project will have an Adverse Impact On Public Health or Safety The Staff report argues that the City must approve the project with either the proposed thirty-one (31) parking spaces or absolutely no private parking whatsoever. This conclusion is based on the argument that the City allowed the project to be “deemed complete” without addressing the parking issues and the applicant can simply request a waiver of any objective parking requirements and construct the project with zero parking.
However, these legal arguments are still subject to the public health and safety standard and policy set forth in the HAA. Approving a 92-unit multi-family project with only thirty-one (31) onsite parking spaces will in fact have an adverse impact on public health and safety. The project will almost certainly be occupied by between 125-150 residents. If any of the residents or their visitors park in the Casa Grande Inn hotel parking spaces, their vehicles will be towed. Much of the parking in the adjacent commercial space is reserved to specific tenants. Residence and visitors will be towed from those spaces as well.
There is absolutely no public parking for the residents for more than one-half mile from the project.
There is exactly one way into the project, James Way, and one exit. No additional emergency access will be provided by the Casa Grande Inn Hotel.
California Code of Regulations Title 17 §7977 defines Public Health and Safety as “maintenance of an environment that contributes to human wellbeing, in which there is an absence of human disease, ill health or injury.” In the event of an emergency, evacuation, public emergency, or medical emergency, at least three-quarters of the residents of the project will need to travel more than one-half mile to reach their vehicles.
h. Conclusion
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the project fails multiple objective standards and creates specific adverse impacts on parking, traffic, public safety, and the environment that HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) expressly requires the Council to address. Based on the original appeal and this additional briefing, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s approval, deny CUP 25-001, and direct appropriate CEQA review (at minimum, a focused review if streamlining applies).
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk ([email protected]) Isaac Rosen, City Attorney ([email protected])
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel ([email protected]) Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a - March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo
Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: March 23, 2026
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced item.
Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Planning Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Edwin Rambuski
To: City Council; Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Subject: Appeal Case 26-002-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001, Appellants" Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all the Named Appellants
Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:47:07 PM
Attachments: City Council Letter - Additional Briefing (2).pdf March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY:[email protected]
[email protected]
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached hereto a letter dated March 23, 2026 from the Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski regarding the above-referenced Appeal. Mr. Rambuski’s letter shall constitute an item to be included in the record for Appeal Case 26-002.
If you have any questions whatsoever regarding this submission, please telephone Mr.
Rambuski at .
Very truly yours,
Trina Baumsteiger
Assistant
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to [email protected] and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
R
EJ
LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
[email protected]
www.rambuskilaw.com
March 23, 2026
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ Additional Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants submitted a request to continue the hearing for Appeal Case 26-002 regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP 25-001 on March 23, 2026. If reasonable continuance is not granted, Appellants hereby submit additional briefing on the issues surrounding the CUP approval. These issues supplement the original appeal and directly address the Staff Report’s newly advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and Density Bonus Law. Even accepting that theory arguendo, the City Council’s de novo review authority (AGMC § 1.12.010) requires it to address the following violations of objective standards and specific adverse impacts on public health and safety.
a. Inadequate Parking Supply and Unenforceable Shared Parking Arrangements Create Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Health and Safety
The developer is relying on parking he has no right to in seeking his approvals. At a minimum, an applicant should have to show the right to property they claim ownership or rights in. The project provides only 31 dedicated on-site garage parking spaces for 92 residential units and relies heavily on reciprocal shared parking with the existing medical-office and fitness-center uses on the SheppelCurl Fitness site. This constitutes a specific adverse impact on public health and safety under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council is required to address regardless of any parking concession or “deemed complete” finding.
The record contains the 2004 OEG parking monitoring reports for the same site (Attachment 6 to prior CUP proceedings), which documented chronic shortages, overflow parking onto neighboring properties, conflicts between medical patients, fitness-club patrons/employees, and tenants, and the need for ongoing mitigation measures (signage, employee directives, driveway modifications, offsite parking, and physical separations). Many of those measures were never permanently implemented or are no longer effective. The Best Western Casa Grande parking easement settlement documents likewise provide only limited, short-term relief that does not bind future owners or guarantee availability during peak residential hours.
The Staff Report acknowledges the parking concession but asserts “deemed compliance.” However, the record contains no binding, recorded, long-term reciprocal easement agreements enforceable against successors and assigns that ensure adequate spaces during overlapping peak periods. Shared parking in this mixed-use context, on a site with a documented history of deficiencies, cannot be presumed adequate. This deficiency will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased congestion on James Way, traffic hazards, and nuisance impacts on neighboring businesses and residents. These are specific adverse impacts the Council must find do not exist before any approval. b. The Project Does Not Meet the Density Bonus Requirements Because It Cannot Show The Required Dispersal of Affordable Housing Units
The project fails to comply with the City’s own objective standards in AGMC § 16.82.040(E), which requires that all affordable housing units “shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project [and] proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the market-rate units.” The Conditions of Approval address only recording a 55-year density bonus agreement (COA No. 96) and are silent on dispersal. The written application likewise fails to include the required “site plan showing … number and location of affordable housing units” mandated by AGMC § 16.82.120(A)(1).
The project consists of 20 studios (21.7%), 58 one-bedroom units (63%), and 14 two-bedroom units (15.2%). With approximately 14 very-low-income units required for the density bonus, proportionality demands roughly 3 studios, 9 one-bedroom, and 2 two-bedroom affordable units dispersed throughout both buildings. Instead, the applicant appears to intend to assign all very-lowincome units to the 20 studios. This segregated “poor door” approach violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E) and exposes the City to fair-housing and consistency challenges.
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the Council’s de novo review authority allows it to impose mandatory dispersal conditions without violating state law. Failure to do so leaves the project non-compliant with local objective standards. c. Inadequate Traffic And Circulation Analysis Was Conducted.
The project fails to qualify for the AB 130 statutory exemption’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) presumption because it does not satisfy the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
Guidelines (May 2021, p. 8). Those Guidelines expressly limit the presumption to projects located within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit routes with 15-minute or less headways.
Current SLO RTA Routes 27 and 28 (the only James Way corridor routes) operate on hourly headways only. The Traffic Study (Attachment 6) and AB 130 Findings (Attachment 5) contain no analysis of actual headways, no project-specific VMT calculation showing at least 15% below baseline, and no mitigation measures. Staff’s reliance on generic “proximity” alone is unsupported by substantial evidence and creates a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, and regional air quality that the Council is required to address.
d. The Record Does Not Indicate That Waivers Under HAA and the Density Bonus Laws are Proper.
Government Code § 65915(e)(1) prohibits a city from applying any development standard that would physically preclude the density bonus project “at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted.” The applicant bears the burden to prove with substantial evidence that each waiver or concession is necessary to avoid physical preclusion. The record contains no such evidence for the parking reduction, height waivers, creek setbacks, or other modifications requested; mere assertions are insufficient.
e. The HAA And AB 130 Does Not Eliminate The Need To Complete Baseline Studies To Ensure No Impact On Sensitive Riparian Habitat And/Or Threatened Species.
The HAA does not relieve a local agency from complying with CEQA. It is not the policy of the HAA to compel a local agency to approve housing without conducting environmental review appropriate to the situation. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(e) and Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of City of Pacifica, No. A170704, 2025 WL 3764279 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2025).) The Council cannot end its site-suitability analysis at general plan and zoning designations.
The “fair argument” standard for requiring CEQA review remains a low threshold, with all doubts resolved in favor of environmental review. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.)
The City must analyze potential impacts to Meadow Creek’s riparian habitat and any threatened species before approval.
f. Staff Erroneously Analyzed The Bonus Density Under The “Mixed-Use” Rules The staff report provides that because the project is located adjacent to existing non-residential uses, the project will function like a mixed-use development in a practical sense, and the development standards for mixed-use projects were used. The project is not a “mixed-use” project within the meaning of the HAA as provided for in Government Code §65589.5 (h)(2). The project can only qualify as a “mixed-use” development if at least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use, and no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel. The project fails both of these elements. The project includes the Casa Grande Inn Hotel and the residential portion falls far short of two-thirds of the combined existing commercial and new
residential usage.
g. The Project will have an Adverse Impact On Public Health or Safety The Staff report argues that the City must approve the project with either the proposed thirty-one (31) parking spaces or absolutely no private parking whatsoever. This conclusion is based on the argument that the City allowed the project to be “deemed complete” without addressing the parking issues and the applicant can simply request a waiver of any objective parking requirements and construct the project with zero parking.
However, these legal arguments are still subject to the public health and safety standard and policy set forth in the HAA. Approving a 92-unit multi-family project with only thirty-one (31) onsite parking spaces will in fact have an adverse impact on public health and safety. The project will almost certainly be occupied by between 125-150 residents. If any of the residents or their visitors park in the Casa Grande Inn hotel parking spaces, their vehicles will be towed. Much of the parking in the adjacent commercial space is reserved to specific tenants. Residence and visitors will be towed from those spaces as well.
There is absolutely no public parking for the residents for more than one-half mile from the project.
There is exactly one way into the project, James Way, and one exit. No additional emergency access will be provided by the Casa Grande Inn Hotel.
California Code of Regulations Title 17 §7977 defines Public Health and Safety as “maintenance of an environment that contributes to human wellbeing, in which there is an absence of human disease, ill health or injury.” In the event of an emergency, evacuation, public emergency, or medical emergency, at least three-quarters of the residents of the project will need to travel more than one-half mile to reach their vehicles.
h. Conclusion
Even under the Staff Report’s “deemed complete” theory, the project fails multiple objective standards and creates specific adverse impacts on parking, traffic, public safety, and the environment that HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) expressly requires the Council to address. Based on the original appeal and this additional briefing, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s approval, deny CUP 25-001, and direct appropriate CEQA review (at minimum, a focused review if streamlining applies).
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk ([email protected]) Isaac Rosen, City Attorney ([email protected])
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel ([email protected]) Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
50903974.1
Christopher R. Guillen
805.882.1452 direct
[email protected]
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
March 23, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
[email protected]
RE: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001 for the Creekside Junction Project
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable City Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, Russell Sheppel, the owner of 1271 and 1281 James Way (“Property”) in support of his development of a 92-unit multi-family housing project (“Project”) on the Property. The Project will consist of two residential buildings with 20 studios, 58 one-bedroom units, and 14 twobedroom units, with either 15 percent of the base density units deed restricted as affordable for very low income households, 24 percent for low income households, or a potential blend of the two .
The Project was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2026 and subsequently appealed to this Council by Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC and Ray Bunnell (collectively, “Appellants”). This letter responds to each issue raised in the appeal in turn.
II. The Project Utilizes a Density Bonus Law Concession to Reduce Parking Requirements Appellants argue that the Project does not comply with the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) and Municipal Code’s parking requirements because it only provides 31 covered parking spaces “truly on site,” while the remainder are provided offsite and are uncovered. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issues 1, 1(a)-(d).) Appellants clearly misunderstand application of the DBL in multiple facets.
The DBL sets maximum parking standards for DBL projects. (Gov. Code, 65915(p)(1).) The DBL, however, states there is nothing precluding a city from “reducing or eliminating a parking requirement for development projects of any type in any location” including through applicant requested incentives or concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(p)(5), (8).) The DBL then explicitly provides that an applicant can request a concession, under its provisions, to reduce the “ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
otherwise be required” so long as it results in identifiable and actual costs reduction. (Gov. Code, §65915(k)(1).)
That is precisely what Mr. Sheppel has done here. Given Appellants’ claim relating to parking requirements and request that Mr. Sheppel provide more offsite parking, which would in turn increase the costs of the Project, Mr. Sheppel has requested the City reduce the Project’s required parking to 31 spaces. Although Mr. Sheppel previously used a concession to reduce the required parking spaces from 99 to 98, he has revised the concession request on March 18, 2026 to reduce the number of required parking spaces to 31 covered parking spaces without reconfiguration of the Project. The City must approve that concession request under DBL. The Project need only provide the garages that Appellants concede are onsite parking to satisfy the Project’s parking requirements. (Staff Report, pp. 9-10 [“Irrespective of the private parking easements, applicant would be eligible to seek a modified concession for a reduction of the parking requirement from 99 to the number of on-site spaces.”].) The City also cannot rely on alleged conflicts with parking easements, which are completely unfounded, as a valid basis to deny a housing project with protections under DBL and the Housing Accountability Act. Again, a misapplication of DBL as the Appellants have proposed, will lead to a misapplication of California housing law.
III. The Project Does Not Impinge Upon Any Parking Rights Provided By Recorded Easements Appellants cite to three documents recorded against the Property that provide various access and parking rights to Mr. Sheppel and his neighbors. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(c).) The Project is consistent with the obligations provided in these easements.
The Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement recorded on June 5, 2000 and amended in August 2008 by the Amendment to Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement provide certain access and parking rights to Mr. Sheppel and Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC (the gym). The Project complies with the obligations in these documents. In particular, Section 2(c) states that if development of the Project site causes parking spaces that benefit Arroyo Grande Partners to be separated from that entity’s property, Mr. Sheppel shall locate those parking spaces on areas of Mr. Sheppel’s property that allow for pedestrian access to Arroyo Grande Partners’ property. The Project has done just that, creating new parking spaces that may be used by Arroyo Grande Partners’ customers in front of Building B and on the western side of Building A.
As to the 2021 Grant of Easement for Parking, the only parking provided in that document is to Mr.
Bunnell’s property. The easement is non-exclusive, but with a primary right to use for Mr. Bunnell’s customers, meaning Mr. Sheppel’s tenants may use the parking, which lies on his parcel. That parking is maintained and provided for in the row of parking running north/south on the eastern edge of Building B. In sum, Appellants’ accusations about violating parking easements are entirely unfounded.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
IV. Appellants’ Arguments About Historical Parking Shortages Do Not Raise an Appeal Issue Appellants identify alleged historical parking shortages at the Project site. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(d).) However, Appellants fail to argue how these parking shortages render the Planning Commission’s approval invalid in any manner. As explained above, the DBL permits a concession of the City’s parking standards, while, as explained below, the Project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Any historical parking shortages are not relevant to this appeal, nor whether the City must approve the Project under applicable law.
V. The Project Is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA Under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 The Planning Commission properly found that the Project met all the criteria to qualify for the statutory infill exemption in AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). The Staff Report, and Attachment 5 (AB 130 Findings), explain how substantial evidence supports findings that the Project meets each and every AB 130 criterion. The following addresses each of the Appellants’ AB 130 arguments. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issues 2(a)-(d), 3-5.)
The Site is Not a Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat. Appellants posit that the Project’s adjacency to the Meadow Creek precludes use of Section 21080.66. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(a).) As noted in the Staff Report, the Project is not located on a “site” that contains “Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).” (Staff Report, pp. 13-14; Gov. Code, § 65913.4(a)(6)(C).) As identified by the Project’s biologist, no wetlands exist on the Project site.1 Section 21080.66 also does not include riparian habitat as a disqualifying site criteria. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66; Gov. Code, § 65913.4(a)(6).) Even if it did, the Project’s biologist concluded that “the proposed project would have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State.”2 (See also Staff Report, pp. 13-14.) The Staff Report, based on the biologist’s expert analysis, explains the absence of riparian habitat on the site, which is mainly a paved dirt parking lot. (Ibid.) Appellants present mere speculation to the contrary. Accordingly, the evidence supports that the Project meets this criterion.
Surrounding Urban Use Criterion Are Met. Appellants mislead the Council as to the applicable criteria. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(b).) A qualifying project site need only meet one of the following criteria: (1) has been developed with an urban use; (2) at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; (3) at least 75 percent of the area within one-quarter mile radius 1 See David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025; David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025. 2 David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025, p. 4.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
of the site is developed with urban uses; or (4) for four sided sites, three of the four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-third of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(3) [emphasis added].) Under AB 130, “‘Urban use’ means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” (See also Pub. Res. Code, § 21072.) Staff concludes that the Project meets criteria (3) above because 77 percent of the area within one-quarter mile radius of the site qualifies as urban uses. (Staff Report, p. 14.) The Project thus meets this criterion.
The Project is Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Appellants assert that the Project does not qualify as a mixed-use project, since the existing adjacent commercial development cannot be relied upon to support the mixed-use status. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(c).) Appellants are simply wrong. The City’s Office Mixed Use (OMU) District includes “multi-family housing” as one of its primary purposes, along with other office and commercial uses. (See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”), § 16.36.020(H).) As noted above in Section I, City staff determined that the Project “complied with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete” on July 27, 2025. (Staff Report, p. 3.) The Planning Commission affirmed this determination when approving the Project based on staff’s consistency analysis. (Staff Report, pp. 1, 4.) Under the Housing Accountability Act, this determination is conclusive that the Project “combines both commercial and residential uses” by adding multi-family housing next to existing office and commercial buildings. (AGMC, § 16.04.07; Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)-(B) [If a local agency fails to provide the required documentation on time, a project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.”].)3 Moreover, nothing in AGMC section 16.04.07 requires a Project to construct both commercial and residential uses as part of a single project. The City reasonably interprets that this Project meets the OMU zone district because the existing non-residential and residential uses will function like a mixeduse development due to the shared ingress and egress, making application of these standards reasonable. (Staff Report, p. 8; Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) [agencies must find a project consistent with a standard if a reasonable person could do so], (j)(2)(A)-(B).) As a reminder, all development(s) on this site are a CUP which supports the mixed-use category. In fact, the Staff Report notes that this interpretation has been consistently applied by City staff and the Planning Commission. (Staff Report, p. 11.) Indeed, this approach is consistent with the residential mixed-use entitlement of 2006 authorized by the City of Arroyo Grande. Therefore, the Council has substantial evidence to find the Project 3 Further, “approval of a density bonus incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program” for the purposes of AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(C).)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
consistent with the OMU District and the Project otherwise has been deemed consistent with this requirement as a matter of law.4
The City Has Met All Other Performance Standards in AB 130. Appellants speculate that the City failed to meet tribal consultation, Phase I assessment completeness, air quality measures, and repeat other generalized concerns not relevant to the City’s AB 130 analysis. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(d).) The Staff Report explains that the City completed AB 130’s tribal consultation process. (Staff Report, pp. 14-15.) The conditions of approval require the Project to comply prepare a phase I environmental site assessment as required by AB 130. (Condition 20.) A Phase I ESA also was completed for the site in 2021.
The Project is located over 900 feet from the freeway, as shown in the attached figure, so AB 130’s air quality measures do not apply. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(c)(2).) Appellants other generalized concerns (e.g., parking) are not relevant to qualifying for AB 130, addressed in this letter, and/or otherwise unsubstantiated by Appellants.
The Project Does Not Violate Creek Setbacks or Riparian Protection Standards. Appellants assert that the Project conflicts with applicable Meadow Creek setbacks. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 3.) Not so. The City’s General Plan Element C/OS2-1.3 states that “where feasible, [the city shall] maintain development setback of 25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope, habitat and floodplain characteristics.” (Emphasis added.) The Project provides a 32-foot creek setback and therefore is consistent with this standard. (Staff Report, p. 4, 6.) Three prior times in over a 20-year period, Staff has consistently applied a 32-foot setback to this site when approving a mixed-use project on the site in 2006, and senior care facility projects in both 2015 and 2021. (Staff Report, p. 6.) Appellants’ accusation is baseless.
The Staff Report also acknowledges that the 50-foot setback requirement was not previously identified and therefore cannot be enforced. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §§ 65944(a), 65589.5(j)(2)(A)- (B).) As such, this standard is not “applicable” to the project for the purposes of AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(A).) Further, in the event of conflict between zoning and the general plan, AB 130 mandates that the Project be found consistent with both if it is consistent with one. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(B); Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(4).) Finally, as noted in the Staff Report, even if this standard could be applied, the City would have to waive it under DBL. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1) [“In no case may a city … apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a [qualifying housing] development…”].) 4 In addition, the Project could revise its requested DBL concessions and waivers or reductions in development standards to use a concession to eliminate any alleged mixed use requirement. DBL allows an applicant to require a concession to reduce a site development standards or modify a zoning code requirement or other regulatory incentives or concessions to provide for affordable housing. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1), (k)(1).) As such, the Project could modify its concessions and waivers or reductions in development standards to apply a concession to this mixed use component. (See also Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(e).)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the applicable creek setback standards for the purposes of AB 130.
The Project Provides Adequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Appellants assert without evidence or citation that the Project does not comply with the SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) standards and the City’s Circulation Element. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 4.) Appellants are wrong for many reasons. First, this is irrelevant for whether the Project qualifies for AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Second, Mr.
Sheppel prepared a traffic study for the Project (Attachment 6). Based on these analyses, Staff concluded that the Project would have no impact on traffic and circulation because the Project is below the City’s VMT thresholds. (Staff Report, p. 16.) Third, the Project’s further reduction of required parking spaces to 31 total onsite covered parking spaces is permissible under DBL, and has no impact on whether the Project qualifies for the AB 130 exemption. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(e) [“This section does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code.”].) Fourth, even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA under AB 130, CEQA does not require an analysis of parking shortages, nor can a parking shortage alone constitute an environmental impact. (See Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conserv. Auth. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, 26 [rejecting that a reduction in parking spaces constituted an environmental impact; Pub. Res. Code, § 21099(b)(3) [“[T]he adequate of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance [under CEQA].”].) Appellants arguments resoundingly fail.
The Project Receives Protections under State Law, Not Preferential Treatment. In closing, Appellants make unsupported claims that the Project does not qualify for state housing laws and CEQA. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 5.) For the reasons explained herein, Appellants have failed to carry their burden of proof to show that the Project—unanimously approved by the Planning commission—does not qualify for AB 130 or protections under State housing laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act and DBL.
VI. The State Housing Law and the City’s Housing Element Support Approval of the Project The City’s Housing Element sets forth the goals and policies to achieve the City’s regional housing needs allocation, including through the development of multifamily housing in the City’s OMU zone.5 (Housing Element, Program A.10-2.) The City is tasked with building 692 housing units, including 277 housing units for very low and low-income households, between 2020-2028. (Housing Element, Table 4-2.) While the City has made progress in meeting its targets, it has failed to meet these goals. By providing deed restricted affordable units, the Project helps the City make progress toward achieving its regional housing needs allocation.
5 The City’s Housing Element is available at https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/475/Housing-Element-.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
Recent Legislation further helps protects cities from meritless NIMBY litigation against housing projects.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a court “shall rarely, if ever” award attorney fees and costs to a petitioner challenging a housing project when the project is approved in good faith by the local agency and meets certain criteria. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(p)(1).) The Project at issue here is one such qualifying Project for two reasons: it meets the AB 130 criteria and provides more than 15 units per acre. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5.1(a)(1), (3).) As a result, the City Council can rest assured that their good faith reliance on the Staff Report, the unanimous approval through all City hearing bodies to date, and this letter, should insulate the City from Appellants’ attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of any litigation.
For the last decade, the Legislature has consistently passed and amended State housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, and AB 130, to facilitate and streamline residential development. The Planning Commission’s guidance by the City Attorney, understanding of State law, and approval of this Project reflects proper implementation of State housing laws and AB 130 specifically designed to streamline approvals of housing projects to ensure that these projects are built and help address the City’s and State’s housing needs.
* * * * *
In closing, we respectfully request that the Council reject this meritless appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project as required by applicable California Housing Law and AB 130.
Approving this Project will create critically needed new housing opportunities in a key area of the City and generate new, deed restricted, low and/or very-low income housing units for the City’s most economically vulnerable residents.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Guillen
With copy to:
Mack Carlson, [email protected]; Russell Sheppel, ; Isaac Rosen, [email protected]
32543661.1
misses a deadline]; 65589.5(h)(6)(B), (E), (K) [failing to meet certain deadlines means the agency has “disapproved a housing development project”].) For example, if granted, any time a project opponent appeals a project in the future, the opponent can claim ignorance of the law as a grounds for a continuance request to achieve the desired delay of the project. That cannot be the policy the City intends to create.
Finally, Appellants ask for “immediate access to the basic administrative record” for the Project. However, Appellants have not submitted a formal Public Records Act request for such documents and there is no obligation for staff to produce that record absent such a request. Moreover, none of these records are relevant for the appeal before the Council since—as noted by the Appellants in their letter—the Planning Commission already heard Appellants’ arguments at the January 20, 2026 meeting and rejected them by unanimously approving the Project as consistent with the applicable City standards.
Staff providing additional legal bases to support the Planning Commission’s determination and refute Appellants’ contentions is hardly grounds to delay the hearing.
For each of these reasons, this Council should deny the continuance request and hold the hearing on Appellants’ appeal tomorrow. In considering the continuance request, we request the opportunity to provide public comment on this matter as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
Chris
Christopher R. Guillen
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1452 tel
909.518.8435 cell
[email protected]
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 From: Malone, Caitlin K. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Guillen, Christopher R. <[email protected]>; Carlson, Mack <[email protected]>; Russ Sheppel ; Isaac Rosen <[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002
Good morning,
Please see attached letter from Chris Guillen’s office on behalf of Russell Sheppel. This pertains to Item 10a on the agenda for tomorrow’s City Council meeting, Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust.
Caitlin K. Malone
Legal Practice Assistant
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1462 tel
[email protected]
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you.
50903974.1
Christopher R. Guillen
805.882.1452 direct
[email protected]
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
March 23, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
[email protected]
RE: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001 for the Creekside Junction Project
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable City Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, Russell Sheppel, the owner of 1271 and 1281 James Way (“Property”) in support of his development of a 92-unit multi-family housing project (“Project”) on the Property. The Project will consist of two residential buildings with 20 studios, 58 one-bedroom units, and 14 twobedroom units, with either 15 percent of the base density units deed restricted as affordable for very low income households, 24 percent for low income households, or a potential blend of the two .
The Project was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2026 and subsequently appealed to this Council by Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC and Ray Bunnell (collectively, “Appellants”). This letter responds to each issue raised in the appeal in turn.
II. The Project Utilizes a Density Bonus Law Concession to Reduce Parking Requirements Appellants argue that the Project does not comply with the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) and Municipal Code’s parking requirements because it only provides 31 covered parking spaces “truly on site,” while the remainder are provided offsite and are uncovered. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issues 1, 1(a)-(d).) Appellants clearly misunderstand application of the DBL in multiple facets.
The DBL sets maximum parking standards for DBL projects. (Gov. Code, 65915(p)(1).) The DBL, however, states there is nothing precluding a city from “reducing or eliminating a parking requirement for development projects of any type in any location” including through applicant requested incentives or concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(p)(5), (8).) The DBL then explicitly provides that an applicant can request a concession, under its provisions, to reduce the “ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
otherwise be required” so long as it results in identifiable and actual costs reduction. (Gov. Code, §65915(k)(1).)
That is precisely what Mr. Sheppel has done here. Given Appellants’ claim relating to parking requirements and request that Mr. Sheppel provide more offsite parking, which would in turn increase the costs of the Project, Mr. Sheppel has requested the City reduce the Project’s required parking to 31 spaces. Although Mr. Sheppel previously used a concession to reduce the required parking spaces from 99 to 98, he has revised the concession request on March 18, 2026 to reduce the number of required parking spaces to 31 covered parking spaces without reconfiguration of the Project. The City must approve that concession request under DBL. The Project need only provide the garages that Appellants concede are onsite parking to satisfy the Project’s parking requirements. (Staff Report, pp. 9-10 [“Irrespective of the private parking easements, applicant would be eligible to seek a modified concession for a reduction of the parking requirement from 99 to the number of on-site spaces.”].) The City also cannot rely on alleged conflicts with parking easements, which are completely unfounded, as a valid basis to deny a housing project with protections under DBL and the Housing Accountability Act. Again, a misapplication of DBL as the Appellants have proposed, will lead to a misapplication of California housing law.
III. The Project Does Not Impinge Upon Any Parking Rights Provided By Recorded Easements Appellants cite to three documents recorded against the Property that provide various access and parking rights to Mr. Sheppel and his neighbors. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(c).) The Project is consistent with the obligations provided in these easements.
The Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement recorded on June 5, 2000 and amended in August 2008 by the Amendment to Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement provide certain access and parking rights to Mr. Sheppel and Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC (the gym). The Project complies with the obligations in these documents. In particular, Section 2(c) states that if development of the Project site causes parking spaces that benefit Arroyo Grande Partners to be separated from that entity’s property, Mr. Sheppel shall locate those parking spaces on areas of Mr. Sheppel’s property that allow for pedestrian access to Arroyo Grande Partners’ property. The Project has done just that, creating new parking spaces that may be used by Arroyo Grande Partners’ customers in front of Building B and on the western side of Building A.
As to the 2021 Grant of Easement for Parking, the only parking provided in that document is to Mr.
Bunnell’s property. The easement is non-exclusive, but with a primary right to use for Mr. Bunnell’s customers, meaning Mr. Sheppel’s tenants may use the parking, which lies on his parcel. That parking is maintained and provided for in the row of parking running north/south on the eastern edge of Building B. In sum, Appellants’ accusations about violating parking easements are entirely unfounded.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
IV. Appellants’ Arguments About Historical Parking Shortages Do Not Raise an Appeal Issue Appellants identify alleged historical parking shortages at the Project site. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 1(d).) However, Appellants fail to argue how these parking shortages render the Planning Commission’s approval invalid in any manner. As explained above, the DBL permits a concession of the City’s parking standards, while, as explained below, the Project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Any historical parking shortages are not relevant to this appeal, nor whether the City must approve the Project under applicable law.
V. The Project Is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA Under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 The Planning Commission properly found that the Project met all the criteria to qualify for the statutory infill exemption in AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). The Staff Report, and Attachment 5 (AB 130 Findings), explain how substantial evidence supports findings that the Project meets each and every AB 130 criterion. The following addresses each of the Appellants’ AB 130 arguments. (See Appeal, Ex. 1, Issues 2(a)-(d), 3-5.)
The Site is Not a Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat. Appellants posit that the Project’s adjacency to the Meadow Creek precludes use of Section 21080.66. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(a).) As noted in the Staff Report, the Project is not located on a “site” that contains “Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).” (Staff Report, pp. 13-14; Gov. Code, § 65913.4(a)(6)(C).) As identified by the Project’s biologist, no wetlands exist on the Project site.1 Section 21080.66 also does not include riparian habitat as a disqualifying site criteria. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66; Gov. Code, § 65913.4(a)(6).) Even if it did, the Project’s biologist concluded that “the proposed project would have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State.”2 (See also Staff Report, pp. 13-14.) The Staff Report, based on the biologist’s expert analysis, explains the absence of riparian habitat on the site, which is mainly a paved dirt parking lot. (Ibid.) Appellants present mere speculation to the contrary. Accordingly, the evidence supports that the Project meets this criterion.
Surrounding Urban Use Criterion Are Met. Appellants mislead the Council as to the applicable criteria. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(b).) A qualifying project site need only meet one of the following criteria: (1) has been developed with an urban use; (2) at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; (3) at least 75 percent of the area within one-quarter mile radius 1 See David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025; David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated June 27, 2025. 2 David Wolff Environmental LLC, Creekside Junction Project No Wetlands Present Determination, City of Arroyo Grande, California, dated September 4, 2025, p. 4.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
of the site is developed with urban uses; or (4) for four sided sites, three of the four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-third of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(3) [emphasis added].) Under AB 130, “‘Urban use’ means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” (See also Pub. Res. Code, § 21072.) Staff concludes that the Project meets criteria (3) above because 77 percent of the area within one-quarter mile radius of the site qualifies as urban uses. (Staff Report, p. 14.) The Project thus meets this criterion.
The Project is Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Appellants assert that the Project does not qualify as a mixed-use project, since the existing adjacent commercial development cannot be relied upon to support the mixed-use status. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(c).) Appellants are simply wrong. The City’s Office Mixed Use (OMU) District includes “multi-family housing” as one of its primary purposes, along with other office and commercial uses. (See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”), § 16.36.020(H).) As noted above in Section I, City staff determined that the Project “complied with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete” on July 27, 2025. (Staff Report, p. 3.) The Planning Commission affirmed this determination when approving the Project based on staff’s consistency analysis. (Staff Report, pp. 1, 4.) Under the Housing Accountability Act, this determination is conclusive that the Project “combines both commercial and residential uses” by adding multi-family housing next to existing office and commercial buildings. (AGMC, § 16.04.07; Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)-(B) [If a local agency fails to provide the required documentation on time, a project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.”].)3 Moreover, nothing in AGMC section 16.04.07 requires a Project to construct both commercial and residential uses as part of a single project. The City reasonably interprets that this Project meets the OMU zone district because the existing non-residential and residential uses will function like a mixeduse development due to the shared ingress and egress, making application of these standards reasonable. (Staff Report, p. 8; Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) [agencies must find a project consistent with a standard if a reasonable person could do so], (j)(2)(A)-(B).) As a reminder, all development(s) on this site are a CUP which supports the mixed-use category. In fact, the Staff Report notes that this interpretation has been consistently applied by City staff and the Planning Commission. (Staff Report, p. 11.) Indeed, this approach is consistent with the residential mixed-use entitlement of 2006 authorized by the City of Arroyo Grande. Therefore, the Council has substantial evidence to find the Project 3 Further, “approval of a density bonus incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program” for the purposes of AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(C).)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
consistent with the OMU District and the Project otherwise has been deemed consistent with this requirement as a matter of law.4
The City Has Met All Other Performance Standards in AB 130. Appellants speculate that the City failed to meet tribal consultation, Phase I assessment completeness, air quality measures, and repeat other generalized concerns not relevant to the City’s AB 130 analysis. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 2(d).) The Staff Report explains that the City completed AB 130’s tribal consultation process. (Staff Report, pp. 14-15.) The conditions of approval require the Project to comply prepare a phase I environmental site assessment as required by AB 130. (Condition 20.) A Phase I ESA also was completed for the site in 2021.
The Project is located over 900 feet from the freeway, as shown in the attached figure, so AB 130’s air quality measures do not apply. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(c)(2).) Appellants other generalized concerns (e.g., parking) are not relevant to qualifying for AB 130, addressed in this letter, and/or otherwise unsubstantiated by Appellants.
The Project Does Not Violate Creek Setbacks or Riparian Protection Standards. Appellants assert that the Project conflicts with applicable Meadow Creek setbacks. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 3.) Not so. The City’s General Plan Element C/OS2-1.3 states that “where feasible, [the city shall] maintain development setback of 25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope, habitat and floodplain characteristics.” (Emphasis added.) The Project provides a 32-foot creek setback and therefore is consistent with this standard. (Staff Report, p. 4, 6.) Three prior times in over a 20-year period, Staff has consistently applied a 32-foot setback to this site when approving a mixed-use project on the site in 2006, and senior care facility projects in both 2015 and 2021. (Staff Report, p. 6.) Appellants’ accusation is baseless.
The Staff Report also acknowledges that the 50-foot setback requirement was not previously identified and therefore cannot be enforced. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, §§ 65944(a), 65589.5(j)(2)(A)- (B).) As such, this standard is not “applicable” to the project for the purposes of AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(A).) Further, in the event of conflict between zoning and the general plan, AB 130 mandates that the Project be found consistent with both if it is consistent with one. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(a)(4)(B); Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(4).) Finally, as noted in the Staff Report, even if this standard could be applied, the City would have to waive it under DBL. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1) [“In no case may a city … apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a [qualifying housing] development…”].) 4 In addition, the Project could revise its requested DBL concessions and waivers or reductions in development standards to use a concession to eliminate any alleged mixed use requirement. DBL allows an applicant to require a concession to reduce a site development standards or modify a zoning code requirement or other regulatory incentives or concessions to provide for affordable housing. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1), (k)(1).) As such, the Project could modify its concessions and waivers or reductions in development standards to apply a concession to this mixed use component. (See also Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(e).)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the applicable creek setback standards for the purposes of AB 130.
The Project Provides Adequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Appellants assert without evidence or citation that the Project does not comply with the SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) standards and the City’s Circulation Element. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 4.) Appellants are wrong for many reasons. First, this is irrelevant for whether the Project qualifies for AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Second, Mr.
Sheppel prepared a traffic study for the Project (Attachment 6). Based on these analyses, Staff concluded that the Project would have no impact on traffic and circulation because the Project is below the City’s VMT thresholds. (Staff Report, p. 16.) Third, the Project’s further reduction of required parking spaces to 31 total onsite covered parking spaces is permissible under DBL, and has no impact on whether the Project qualifies for the AB 130 exemption. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66(e) [“This section does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code.”].) Fourth, even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA under AB 130, CEQA does not require an analysis of parking shortages, nor can a parking shortage alone constitute an environmental impact. (See Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conserv. Auth. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, 26 [rejecting that a reduction in parking spaces constituted an environmental impact; Pub. Res. Code, § 21099(b)(3) [“[T]he adequate of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance [under CEQA].”].) Appellants arguments resoundingly fail.
The Project Receives Protections under State Law, Not Preferential Treatment. In closing, Appellants make unsupported claims that the Project does not qualify for state housing laws and CEQA. (Appeal, Ex. 1, Issue 5.) For the reasons explained herein, Appellants have failed to carry their burden of proof to show that the Project—unanimously approved by the Planning commission—does not qualify for AB 130 or protections under State housing laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act and DBL.
VI. The State Housing Law and the City’s Housing Element Support Approval of the Project The City’s Housing Element sets forth the goals and policies to achieve the City’s regional housing needs allocation, including through the development of multifamily housing in the City’s OMU zone.5 (Housing Element, Program A.10-2.) The City is tasked with building 692 housing units, including 277 housing units for very low and low-income households, between 2020-2028. (Housing Element, Table 4-2.) While the City has made progress in meeting its targets, it has failed to meet these goals. By providing deed restricted affordable units, the Project helps the City make progress toward achieving its regional housing needs allocation.
5 The City’s Housing Element is available at https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/475/Housing-Element-.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 23, 2026
50903974.1
Recent Legislation further helps protects cities from meritless NIMBY litigation against housing projects.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a court “shall rarely, if ever” award attorney fees and costs to a petitioner challenging a housing project when the project is approved in good faith by the local agency and meets certain criteria. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(p)(1).) The Project at issue here is one such qualifying Project for two reasons: it meets the AB 130 criteria and provides more than 15 units per acre. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5.1(a)(1), (3).) As a result, the City Council can rest assured that their good faith reliance on the Staff Report, the unanimous approval through all City hearing bodies to date, and this letter, should insulate the City from Appellants’ attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of any litigation.
For the last decade, the Legislature has consistently passed and amended State housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, and AB 130, to facilitate and streamline residential development. The Planning Commission’s guidance by the City Attorney, understanding of State law, and approval of this Project reflects proper implementation of State housing laws and AB 130 specifically designed to streamline approvals of housing projects to ensure that these projects are built and help address the City’s and State’s housing needs.
* * * * *
In closing, we respectfully request that the Council reject this meritless appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project as required by applicable California Housing Law and AB 130.
Approving this Project will create critically needed new housing opportunities in a key area of the City and generate new, deed restricted, low and/or very-low income housing units for the City’s most economically vulnerable residents.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Guillen
With copy to:
Mack Carlson, [email protected]; Russell Sheppel, ; Isaac Rosen, [email protected]
32543661.1
From: Edwin Rambuski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:50 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Caren Ray Russom <[email protected]>; Jamie Maraviglia <[email protected]>; Kate Secrest <[email protected]>; Aileen Loe <[email protected]>; Jim Guthrie <[email protected]>
Cc: Jessica Matson <[email protected]>; Isaac Rosen <[email protected]>; James Ferro <[email protected]>; Sean Varner, Esq. <[email protected]>; Scott Heil <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ SECOND ADDITIONAL Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to [email protected] and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
RE: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Appellants’ SECOND ADDITIONAL Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached hereto a letter dated March 23, 2026 from the Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski regarding the above-referenced Appeal. Mr. Rambuski’s letter shall constitute an item to be included in the record for Appeal Case 26-002.
If you have any questions whatsoever regarding this submission, please telephone Mr. Rambuski at (805) 215-4004.
Very truly yours,
Trina Baumsteiger
Assistant
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
LAW OFFICES OF
EDWIN J.RAMBUSKI
1401 HIGUERA STREET SAN
LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE (805) 546-8284
FACSIMILE (805) 546-8489
[email protected]
www.rambuskilaw.com
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor Russom
Members of the City Council 215
E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
EJ
R
March 23, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Case 26-002–Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 SECOND ADDITIONAL Appellants’Briefing - Submitted on Behalf of all Named Appellants Dear Mayor Russom and City Council Members:
Appellants submitted a request to continue the hearing for Appeal Case 26-002 regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of CUP 25-001 on March 23, 2026. Appellants further submitted additional briefing to address issues raised in the City’s Staff Report. Ifreasonable continuance is not granted, Appellants hereby submit this SECOND ADDITIONAL BRIEFING and object to have less than on business day to address these important issues.
Even accepting arguendo the Staff Report’s newly advanced “deemed complete” theory under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)), the City Council retains full de novo review authority under Arroyo Grande Municipal Code § 1.12.010. De novo review means the Council conducts an independent, new determination on the merits and is not bound by the Planning Commission’s findings or the Staff Report’s legal conclusions.
The HAA expressly preserves the Council’s independent obligation to make specific adverse impact findings on public health and safety (HAA § 65589.5(j)(1)) and to ensure compliance with the City’s own objective development standards. The “deemed complete” lock-in does not strip the Council of these duties, nor does it eliminate basic due process or the requirement for substantial evidence. (See also, Gov.
Code § 65589.5(e) [HAA does not override CEQA or site-suitability analysis]; Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of Pacifica (2025) [HAA does not compel approval without appropriate environmental review].)
Critical new evidence confirms the project fails multiple objective standards and creates specific adverse impacts the Council must address:
a. Parking & the 2000 Reciprocal Easement (see Section (a) of Additional Briefing):
The 2000 Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement (recorded June 9, 2000 as Doc. No. 2000-030755) (See Appeal Exhibit A), as amended in 2008 (recorded as Doc. No. 2008-043791) (See highlighted portions of Appeal Exhibit B attached here), grants and maintains reciprocal parking, access, and utility easements across defined Areas A–D and E. As shown on the approved site plan for CUP 25-001 (Planning Commission Packet, Exhibit B, sheets A2 and A3) Proposed Building B is located directly within the area subject to these reciprocal easements. The 2008 Amendment did not eliminate or relocate those easements; it merely authorized Applicant to restrict up to 22 spaces in Area A for its own medical tenants during business hours and required replacement parking only if development in Area E separated spaces. No new binding, recorded reciprocal easement has been provided that ensures adequate shared parking for the residential project during overlapping peak periods. Further, the former Assessor Parcel Number ending in -053 (the proposed site of Building A), was not included in the original 2000 Reciprocal Easement.
While it was referenced in the 2008 Amendment, that amendment did not modify the original reciprocal easements nor grant any reciprocal easement rights in favor of that parcel. Therefore, Proposed Building A cannot claim the benefits of the reciprocal easement for parking.
This physical placement of the new residential buildings on or over the historic shared easement areas, when combined with the 2004 OEG monitoring reports (chronic overflow and conflicts), the limited Best Western Casa Grande settlement agreement, and the priority parking rights already granted to commercial tenants in the 2008 Amendment, renders the Applicant’s claimed shared-parking arrangement unenforceable and physically inadequate. The project will foreseeably cause spillover parking, increased congestion and traffic hazards on James Way, routine towing of resident and visitor vehicles, and impaired emergency access/evacuation for approximately 125–150 residents. These constitute specific adverse impacts on public health and safety under HAA § 65589.5(j)(1) that the Council must address in its de novo review.
b. Density Bonus and Affordable Unit Dispersal
As addressed in Section b of our additional briefing, the project violates AGMC § 16.82.040(E) (mandatory proportional dispersal). Staff’s Conditions of Approval are silent on this objective standard. c. Incorrect Mixed-Use Application
Even if Section b of our additional briefing does not address appropriate analysis, it does highlight that staff erroneously applied “mixed-use” density bonus rules. Using the square footages confirmed by First American ClarityFirst and Applicant’s own information provided to the owners in seeking reimbursements:
− Existing commercial: 39,551 sf
− New residential (Buildings A + B): 102,359 sf (100% of new construction)
− Even if the City forces-inclusion of existing commercial buildings, the residential component is 72.1% of total — exceeding the HAA’s two-thirds threshold (§ 65589.5(h)(2)). However, the project is properly a 100% new residential project and cannot lawfully receive mixed-use waivers or bonuses.
d. Traffic, CEQA, Waivers, and Public Safety
As addressed in Sections c–g of the prior supplemental submittal, the project fails AB 130 VMT presumption, lacks required riparian/habitat analysis, and has no evidence supporting the requested waivers. Approving only 31 spaces (or zero) for 92 units creates an undeniable public health and safety hazard under Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17 § 7977.
We disagree with Staff’s deemed complete argument. Because the Council is exercising de novo review, it is not only authorized, but required, to reverse the Planning Commission approval, deny CUP 25-001, impose dispersal and parking conditions, or direct required CEQA review. The “deemed complete” theory does not override the Council’s independent duty to protect public health, safety, and objective local standards.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
cc: Jessica Matson, City Clerk ([email protected]) Isaac Rosen, City Attorney ([email protected])
James Ferro, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
Sean Varner, Appellant Counsel ([email protected]) Scott Heil, Appellant Counsel ([email protected])
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a - March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location -1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants - Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo
Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: March 24, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received for the above referenced item.
Cc: City Manager
Enc
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Planning Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
2. It is highly presumptuous to push things out further. The project has already been delayed 2 months for no good reason. To push this further imperils the project. I will show the Council 5 different entitled projects I have had approved over the past 25 years. The enemy of each was time and consequently, market conditions.
3.I do not ever make anything out of my physical disability. However, I have traveled 2,000 miles at noticeable personal difficulty. It is something that an able-bodied person cannot understand, but should weigh and consider; whether it is reasonable to require repeatedly. In addition, just to appear this evening and defend a sizeable investment of both a monetary amount as well as a year and a half of time for both myself and the City of Arroyo Grande, I am here to speak.
The credibility of the City of Arroyo Grande is at stake. Giving the time opportunity for the appellant to go out and find a hired gun/biologist to try and make a potentially invalidating claim (such as a protected species) onsite, or whatever the case might be, would be unfair to the City's interests of addressing the need for affordable housing and staff time processing this potential asset to the City. The appeal was granted and scheduled in order to be heard. Let it then be heard without further delay or complication.
Respectfully,
Russell M. Sheppel, DDS
Project Owner and submitter
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a - March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo
Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: March 24, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item.
Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Planning Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
From: Linda Busek
To: City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson Subject: Request to Revisit Proposed 92 unit RRM Development Plans (Oak Park & James Way) Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:34:16 PM
Dear Arroyo Grande City Councilmembers,
I’m writing to urge you—and the Planning Commission—to revisit the approved plans for the proposed 92-unit RRM development behind the medical buildings, Curl Fitness, and Best Western near Oak Park and James Way.
This area is already experiencing significant parking strain. As a regular patron of both the medical offices and fitness center, I can attest that parking is often insufficient today— overflowing into informal areas due to earlier planning limitations. Adding a 92-unit residential project without clearly adequate parking will only intensify this problem, creating daily conflicts between residents and existing businesses.
I’m also concerned about the impact on the adjacent green open space. This area provides both visual relief and practical breathing room for an already dense cluster of uses. The current plans appear to push development up against the hillside in a way that risks diminishing this valuable space.
Traffic is another serious concern. Access to James Way is already constrained, and increased density at this location could lead to congestion and safety issues given the limited ingress and egress.
I want to be clear: I support the need for additional housing in Arroyo Grande. However, this particular site—at the proposed scale—does not appear to be a good fit.
I encourage the City to consider alternative infill opportunities along Grande Avenue and on Halcyon Avenue (such as the area behind the Fair Oaks Theatre), where underutilized parcels, better proximity to services, and stronger transit access could support housing more successfully and with fewer unintended consequences.
At a minimum, I respectfully ask that you pause further action until the project is substantially revised—specifically to reduce density and ensure adequate, realistic parking for both residents and surrounding businesses.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Linda Busek
, AG
From: "Carlson, Mack" <[email protected]>
Date: March 24, 2026 at 12:25:05 PM PDT
To: Isaac Rosen <[email protected]>
Cc: "Guillen, Christopher R." <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002
Isaac,
As a follow up to this email and our prior conversations, we believe that a continuance tonight will count toward one of the City’s five allowed hearings on the project for the reason explained below. Since Chris’ email was sent, we also note that legal counsel for two of the appellants have submitted substantive comment letters and appear ready to present their appeal tonight. We see do not believe that one appellant’s request for a continuance is sufficient to push out the hearing after the Project applicant and other appellants have expended substantial sums of money to present their cases.
Government Code section 65905.5(a), in relevant part states: “after the application is deemed complete, a city . . . shall not conduct more than five hearings pursuant to Section 65905, or any other law, ordinance, or regulation requiring a public hearing in connection with the approval of that housing development project. If the city, county, or city and county continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the
continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section. The city, county, or city and county shall consider and either approve or disapprove the application at any of the five hearings allowed under this section consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section
65920)).”(Emphasis added.) Under Government Code section 65905, a public hearing shall be held on various types of applications, including a CUP application at issue here, and any appeals of those applications. Section 65905.5(b)(2) defines “hearing” broadly to include “any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting, including any appeal, conducted by the city or county with respect to the housing development project, including any meeting relating to Section 65915, whether by the legislative body of the city or county, the planning agency established pursuant to Section 65100, or any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any committee or subcommittee thereof.”
As noted in the staff report, the Project application is complete and consistent with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards as determined by the Planning Commission and staff consistent with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65905.5((c)(1)-(2).) By agendizing this appeal hearing, the City Council must act on the item to continue it to “another date.” (See Gov.
Code, § 54955.1.) This Council action necessarily “shall count as one of the five hearings” since otherwise local agencies would be able to endless continue items without a public hearing in direct conflict with the purposes of this section to limit a project to no more than five public hearings.
This interpretation aligns with various state laws designed to protect housing development project applicants from delays. The Housing Accountability Act clarifies that violations of Government Code section 65905.5 constitute a disapproval of a housing development project (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(h) (6)(F).) The Housing Accountability Act and SB 330, which enacted Section 65905.5, are to be construed liberally to expedite and promote the development of housing. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(L); Chap 654, Stat. 2019 § 2 [SB 330’s legislative intent].) The Courts further interpret the effect of the Permit Streamlining Act, and laws like Section 65905.5, in the context of the Housing Accountability Act to reduce local governments capacity to deny or render infeasible affordable housing development projects. (See Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 842, 855.)