Arroyo Grande City Council
April 14, 2026

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
31: Halcyon Rd & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 179 28 164 170 212 19 523 185 151 236 38 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 179 28 164 170 212 19 523 185 151 236 38 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 236 25 216 224 190 25 688 175 199 311 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 98 395 42 167 255 216 34 883 224 167 1295 108 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1660 176 1781 922 782 1781 2798 711 1781 3321 276 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 0 261 216 0 414 25 437 426 199 166 171 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1836 1781 0 1705 1781 1777 1733 1781 1777 1820 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 8.8 6.5 0.0 16.1 1.0 15.5 15.5 6.5 4.3 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 8.8 6.5 0.0 16.1 1.0 15.5 15.5 6.5 4.3 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 98 0 436 167 0 471 34 560 547 167 693 709 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.60 1.29 0.00 0.88 0.73 0.78 0.78 1.19 0.24 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 0 596 167 0 553 90 730 712 167 807 826 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.3 0.0 23.5 31.4 0.0 24.0 33.8 21.5 21.6 31.4 14.2 14.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.0 0.0 1.3 169.4 0.0 13.5 25.1 4.0 4.2 130.7 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.5 0.0 3.7 10.5 0.0 7.8 0.7 6.7 6.6 8.7 1.7 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.4 0.0 24.8 200.8 0.0 37.5 58.9 25.6 25.7 162.2 14.4 14.4 LnGrp LOS D A C F A D E C C F B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 337 630 888 536
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 93.5 26.6 69.3
Approach LOS C F C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.0 26.4 8.3 23.7 5.8 31.5 11.0 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.5 28.5 10.5 22.5 3.5 31.5 6.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s8.5 17.5 4.9 18.1 3.0 6.4 8.5 10.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 0.1 1.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.2
HCM 6th LOS D

HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
32: Halcyon Rd & Farroll Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 12.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 114 0 16 0 0 2 23 615 0 1 343 78
Future Vol, veh/h 114 0 16 0 0 2 23 615 0 1 343 78
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 303101301103
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 50 - 140
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 333333333333
Mvmt Flow 137 0 19 0 0 2 28 741 0 1 413 94
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1219 1216 419 1273 1310 745 510 0 0 742 0 0 Stage 1 418 418 - 798 798 - ------
Stage 2 801 798 - 475 512 - ------
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - ------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 156 180 632 144 158 412 1050 - - 861 - - Stage 1 610 589 - 378 397 - ------
Stage 2 377 397 - 569 535 - ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 151 174 628 136 153 411 1047 - - 860 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 151 174 - 136 153 - ------
Stage 1 592 587 - 367 386 - ------
Stage 2 364 386 - 549 533 - ------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 109 13.8 0.3 0

HCM LOS F B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1047 - - 167 411 860 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.938 0.006 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 109 13.8 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 7 0 0 - -

HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
33: Halcyon Rd & The Pike Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 22.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 194 1 67 0 1 2 45 366 0 2 199 138
Future Vol, veh/h 194 1 67 0 1 2 45 366 0 2 199 138
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles, % 333333333333
Mvmt Flow 231 1 80 0 1 2 54 436 0 2 237 164
Number of Lanes 110010010011
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2
HCM Control Delay 15.3 10.8 35 12.5

HCM LOS C B D B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 11% 100% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Vol Thru, % 89% 0% 1% 33% 99% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 99% 67% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 411 194 68 3 201 138
LT Vol 45 194 0 0 2 0
Through Vol 366 0 1 1 199 0
RT Vol 0 0 67 2 0 138
Lane Flow Rate 489 231 81 4 239 164
Geometry Grp 677677
Degree of Util (X) 0.849 0.481 0.141 0.008 0.427 0.26
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.244 7.495 6.28 7.689 6.418 5.7 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 577 480 568 468 558 626
Service Time 4.301 5.263 4.048 5.689 4.188 3.469
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.847 0.481 0.143 0.009 0.428 0.262
HCM Control Delay 35 17.1 10.1 10.8 13.9 10.5
HCM Lane LOS D C BBBB
HCM 95th-tile Q 9.1 2.6 0.5 0 2.1 1

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
1: Oak Park Blvd & James Way Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 129 265 138 68 32 219 174 144 49 441 52 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 129 265 138 68 32 219 174 144 49 441 52 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 147 48 157 77 20 249 198 54 56 501 50 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 102 240 200 204 266 69 312 1013 270 69 747 74 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1560 1781 1432 372 1781 2776 738 1781 3264 325 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 147 48 157 0 97 249 125 127 56 272 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1560 1781 0 1803 1781 1777 1737 1781 1777 1812 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 3.5 1.3 4.1 0.0 2.2 6.4 2.3 2.4 1.5 6.6 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 3.5 1.3 4.1 0.0 2.2 6.4 2.3 2.4 1.5 6.6 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 240 200 204 0 335 312 649 634 69 407 415 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.61 0.24 0.77 0.00 0.29 0.80 0.19 0.20 0.81 0.67 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 749 983 820 749 0 948 749 1308 1279 749 1308 1333 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.1 19.6 18.6 20.4 0.0 16.7 18.8 10.3 10.3 22.7 16.7 16.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.9 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.1 0.1 8.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.8 2.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.0 20.6 18.9 22.7 0.0 16.8 20.6 10.4 10.4 30.8 17.4 17.4 LnGrp LOS C C B C A B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 275 254 501 607
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.1 20.5 15.5 18.7
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.3 22.3 9.0 11.0 11.8 15.8 6.2 13.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 4.4 6.1 5.5 8.4 8.7 4.1 4.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.6
HCM 6th LOS B

HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
2: Rodeo Dr & James Way Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.1
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 178 39 11 154 0 30 0 21 0 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 2 178 39 11 154 0 30 0 21 0 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 189 41 12 164 0 32 0 22 0 0 2
Number of Lanes 110110010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2
HCM Control Delay 9.4 8.9 8.2 7.4

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 59% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 82% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 41% 0% 18% 0% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 51 2 217 11 154 2
LT Vol 30 2 0 11 0 0
Through Vol 0 0 178 0 154 0
RT Vol 21 0 39 0 0 2
Lane Flow Rate 54 2 231 12 164 2
Geometry Grp 277772
Degree of Util (X) 0.072 0.003 0.295 0.017 0.221 0.003
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.771 5.324 4.697 5.358 4.856 4.371 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 754 676 771 672 744 821
Service Time 2.78 3.024 2.397 3.058 2.556 2.385
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.072 0.003 0.3 0.018 0.22 0.002
HCM Control Delay 8.2 8 9.4 8.2 8.9 7.4
HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0 1.2 0.1 0.8 0

HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
3: Tally Ho Rd & James Way Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 109 86 56 58 76 104
Future Vol, veh/h 109 86 56 58 76 104
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 117 92 60 62 82 112
Number of Lanes 100110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 9.1 8.7 8.5

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 49% 56% 0%
Vol Thru, % 51% 0% 42%
Vol Right, % 0% 44% 58%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 114 195 180
LT Vol 56 109 0
Through Vol 58 0 76
RT Vol 0 86 104
Lane Flow Rate 123 210 194
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.161 0.261 0.227
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.733 4.486 4.226
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 758 801 850
Service Time 2.762 2.513 2.252
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.162 0.262 0.228
HCM Control Delay 8.7 9.1 8.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 1 0.9

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
4: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On Ramp/W Branch St Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 372 44 195 265 464 334 149 725 159 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 372 44 195 265 464 334 149 725 159 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 430 0 35 282 494 196 159 771 142
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 649 0 289 523 1019 402 543 1067 197
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.14 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2485 980 1781 2995 552 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 430 0 35 282 352 338 159 457 456
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1688 1781 1777 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 0.0 0.7 3.5 5.6 5.7 2.1 8.6 8.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 0.7 3.5 5.6 5.7 2.1 8.6 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 649 0 289 523 728 692 543 633 631 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.12 0.54 0.48 0.49 0.29 0.72 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1851 0 824 958 1148 1091 1074 1148 1144 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.7 0.0 13.2 7.3 8.4 8.4 6.7 10.8 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.6 1.5 0.5 2.3 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.1 0.0 13.3 7.7 8.6 8.6 6.8 11.4 11.4 LnGrp LOS B A B AAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 465 972 1072
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 8.3 10.7
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.0 20.3 9.1 18.2 11.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 25.0 15.0 25.0 20.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.1 7.7 5.5 10.6 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.7 0.3 3.1 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 326 65 378 27 37 83 65 631 21 147 706 252 Future Volume (veh/h) 326 65 378 27 37 83 65 631 21 147 706 252 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 392 0 72 28 39 4 68 664 19 155 743 176 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 614 0 272 41 57 85 341 995 28 423 1181 527
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1577 766 1066 1585 1781 3528 101 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 392 0 72 67 0 4 68 334 349 155 743 176 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1577 1832 0 1585 1781 1777 1852 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 0.0 1.7 1.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 6.9 7.0 2.4 7.4 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 1.7 1.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 6.9 7.0 2.4 7.4 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 614 0 272 98 0 85 341 501 522 423 1181 527 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.26 0.68 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.67 0.67 0.37 0.63 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1707 0 756 659 0 570 908 1064 1109 900 2129 950 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 15.0 19.4 0.0 18.7 10.3 13.2 13.2 9.4 11.8 10.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.2 3.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.4 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.4 2.5 0.7 2.3 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.5 0.0 15.2 22.4 0.0 18.8 10.4 13.8 13.8 9.6 12.0 10.6 LnGrp LOS B A B C A B BBBABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 464 71 751 1074
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.3 22.2 13.5 11.4
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.3 16.2 11.6 5.2 18.3 6.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 25.0 15.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.4 9.0 6.3 3.1 9.4 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.7 0.7 0.0 3.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
6: US 101 NB Ramps/Camino Mercado & W Branch St Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 424 1 185 331 21 264 17 23 23 16 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 424 1 185 331 21 264 17 23 23 16 37 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 466 1 203 364 21 290 19 0 25 18 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 86 757 2 261 536 31 388 408 67 71 0
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3638 8 1781 1751 101 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 228 239 203 0 385 290 19 0 25 18 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1869 1781 0 1852 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 4.8 4.8 4.5 0.0 7.5 6.2 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 4.8 4.8 4.5 0.0 7.5 6.2 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 86 370 389 261 0 567 388 408 67 71 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.62 0.62 0.78 0.00 0.68 0.75 0.05 0.37 0.25 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 692 728 434 0 902 1388 1457 694 729 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 14.8 14.8 16.9 0.0 12.5 15.0 12.7 0.0 19.3 19.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 1.7 1.6 4.9 0.0 1.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 0.0 2.4 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.0 16.4 16.4 21.8 0.0 13.9 17.9 12.7 0.0 22.7 21.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C A B B B C C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 527 588 309 A 43
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 16.6 17.6 22.0
Approach LOS B B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.0 16.6 13.0 10.0 12.5 5.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.0 20.0 32.0 10.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.4 9.5 8.2 6.5 6.8 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 1.0 0.2 1.7 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
7: W Branch St & Rancho Pkwy Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 297 275 328 270 145
Future Volume (veh/h) 90 297 275 328 270 145
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 323 299 155 185 193
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220
Cap, veh/h 168 2003 795 402 318 287
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.56 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.18
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2371 1150 1781 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 323 232 222 185 193
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1777 1650 1781 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 1.3 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 1.3 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 168 2003 621 576 318 287
V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.16 0.37 0.39 0.58 0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1838 4889 2444 2269 1838 1661
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.6 3.0 7.1 7.1 11.0 11.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.5 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.8 3.1 7.7 7.8 11.6 12.2
LnGrp LOS BAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 421 454 378
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 7.8 11.9
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.2 14.2 8.7 20.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.0 40.0 30.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.5 4.9 5.3 3.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.2 3.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Timings Arroyo Grande
10: Brisco Rd & El Camino Real Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 13 186 37 77 356 242 67 271
Future Volume (vph) 13 186 37 77 356 242 67 271
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 4 2 1 2
Permitted Phases 8441
Detector Phase 88442112
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 7.5 8.1 8.1 7.5
Total Split (s) 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 37.6 24.1 24.1 37.6 Total Split (%) 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 47.0% 30.1% 30.1% 47.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min C-Min None None C-Min
Act Effct Green (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 56.5 15.9 15.9 37.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.71 0.20 0.20 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.83 0.38 0.27 0.20 0.79 0.20 0.76
Control Delay 28.7 53.6 40.7 31.3 4.8 46.1 7.1 35.6
Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.6
Total Delay 28.8 53.6 40.7 31.3 4.8 46.1 7.1 90.2

LOS CDDCADAF
Approach Delay 52.3 12.0 38.3 90.2
Approach LOS D B D F
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 80
Actuated Cycle Length: 80
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.83
Intersection Signal Delay: 51.8 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Brisco Rd & El Camino Real

HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
11: W Branch St & Rodeo Dr Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 159 206 13 26 73
Future Vol, veh/h 60 159 206 13 26 73
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 200222
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 125 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 65 171 222 14 28 78
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 238 0 - 0 534 233
Stage 1 - - - - 231 -
Stage 2 - - - - 303 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1329 - - - 507 806
Stage 1 - - - - 807 -
Stage 2 - - - - 749 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1327 - - - 480 803
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 564 -
Stage 1 - - - - 766 -
Stage 2 - - - - 748 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.2 0 10.8

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1327 - - - 723
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - - - 0.147
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - - 10.8
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.5

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
12: Halcyon Rd/US 101 SB Ramps & El Camino Real Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 289 54 186 11 62 24 285 59 3 22 315 116 Future Volume (veh/h) 289 54 186 11 62 24 285 59 3 22 315 116 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 304 57 152 12 65 19 347 0 0 23 332 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 364 99 264 214 190 55 504 265 31 448 407
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 449 1199 1781 1391 407 3563 1870 0 121 1744 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 304 0 209 12 0 84 347 0 0 355 0 60 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1648 1781 0 1797 1781 1870 0 1864 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 6.6 0.3 0.0 2.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 6.6 0.3 0.0 2.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.00 0.06 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 364 0 363 214 0 245 504 265 479 0 407 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.58 0.06 0.00 0.34 0.69 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 704 0 453 245 0 278 1836 964 4068 0 3459 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.2 0.0 20.3 22.7 0.0 22.8 23.8 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 16.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.2 0.0 21.7 22.7 0.0 23.4 25.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 16.9 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C A C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 513 96 347 A 415
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 23.3 25.0 21.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 12.0 12.3 10.5 16.9 18.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 9.0 30.0 8.0 16.0 127.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.5 4.5 7.4 2.3 8.6 12.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.6 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
13: Oak Park Blvd & Grand Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 202 576 59 158 472 161 84 237 123 264 480 170 Future Volume (veh/h) 202 576 59 158 472 161 84 237 123 264 480 170 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 210 600 54 165 492 36 88 247 25 275 500 147 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 261 884 79 210 853 371 114 776 341 399 730 213 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3294 296 1781 3554 1545 1781 3554 1563 3456 2708 792 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 210 323 331 165 492 36 88 247 25 275 327 320 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1813 1781 1777 1545 1781 1777 1563 1728 1777 1723 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 9.9 9.9 5.5 7.4 1.1 3.0 3.5 0.8 4.6 10.0 10.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 9.9 9.9 5.5 7.4 1.1 3.0 3.5 0.8 4.6 10.0 10.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 261 477 487 210 853 371 114 776 341 399 479 464 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.68 0.68 0.79 0.58 0.10 0.77 0.32 0.07 0.69 0.68 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 587 878 895 587 1463 636 587 1463 643 1138 731 709 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 19.9 19.9 26.0 20.4 18.0 28.0 19.9 18.9 25.8 19.9 19.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 1.7 1.7 2.5 0.6 0.1 4.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.7 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.9 4.0 4.1 2.3 2.8 0.4 1.3 1.4 0.3 1.8 4.0 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 21.6 21.6 28.5 21.0 18.1 32.1 20.2 18.9 26.6 21.6 21.7 LnGrp LOS CCCCCBCCBCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 864 693 360 922
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.0 22.6 23.0 23.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.4 20.1 7.4 20.9 10.7 21.8 10.5 17.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 25.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s8.9 9.4 5.0 12.1 7.5 11.9 6.6 5.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.9 0.1 3.3 0.2 3.9 0.4 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.9
HCM 6th LOS C

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
14: Courtland St & Grand Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 104 804 43 53 639 68 77 47 20 135 62 81 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 804 43 53 639 68 77 47 20 135 62 81 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 893 44 59 710 66 86 52 4 150 69 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 150 1343 66 71 1135 105 397 347 27 440 234 122 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3443 170 1781 3282 305 1285 1714 132 1342 1156 603 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 461 476 59 384 392 86 0 56 150 0 105 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1836 1781 1777 1810 1285 0 1846 1342 0 1759 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 7.6 7.6 1.2 6.4 6.4 2.2 0.0 0.9 3.7 0.0 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 7.6 7.6 1.2 6.4 6.4 4.0 0.0 0.9 4.6 0.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 150 693 716 71 615 626 397 0 374 440 0 356 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.67 0.67 0.83 0.63 0.63 0.22 0.00 0.15 0.34 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 999 1993 2060 999 1993 2030 858 0 1035 921 0 987 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 9.0 9.0 17.0 9.7 9.7 13.7 0.0 11.7 13.6 0.0 12.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 0.4 0.4 8.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.9 1.9 2.0 0.6 1.7 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.2 9.4 9.4 25.8 10.1 10.1 13.8 0.0 11.8 13.7 0.0 12.2 LnGrp LOS B A A C B B BABBAB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1053 835 142 255
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 11.2 13.0 13.1
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.0 17.2 11.4 5.4 18.8 11.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 * 4.2 4.0 4.9 * 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 40.0 * 20 20.0 40.0 * 20 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.3 8.4 6.0 3.2 9.6 6.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 0.3 0.0 4.0 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
15: Elm St & Grand Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 730 150 341 649 16 148 23 232 18 18 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 27 730 150 341 649 16 148 23 232 18 18 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 777 139 363 690 16 157 24 34 19 19 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 111 1108 198 550 1651 38 405 314 265 209 169 20 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3009 538 3456 3549 82 1371 1870 1577 516 1006 120 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 459 457 363 345 361 157 24 34 41 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1770 1728 1777 1855 1371 1870 1577 1642 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 9.5 9.5 4.2 5.6 5.6 3.6 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 9.5 9.5 4.2 5.6 5.6 4.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 111 654 652 550 826 863 405 314 265 398 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.70 0.70 0.66 0.42 0.42 0.39 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 828 1652 1645 1606 1652 1724 812 869 733 861 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 11.6 11.6 17.0 7.6 7.6 16.6 15.1 15.2 15.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.3 2.8 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.7 12.1 12.1 17.5 7.8 7.8 16.9 15.1 15.3 15.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BBBBAABBBBAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 945 1069 215 41
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.3 11.1 16.4 15.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.9 20.8 11.4 6.7 24.9 11.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 * 4.2 4.0 4.9 * 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 40.0 * 20 20.0 40.0 * 20 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.2 11.5 6.4 2.7 7.6 2.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 3.9 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
16: Grand Ave & Brisco Rd Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 227 748 703 59 15 322
Future Vol, veh/h 227 748 703 59 15 322
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 600666
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 130 - - 130 30 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 241 796 748 63 16 343
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 817 0 - 0 1640 386
Stage 1 - - - - 754 -
Stage 2 - - - - 886 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 807 - - - 91 612
Stage 1 - - - - 425 -
Stage 2 - - - - 363 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 803 - - - 63 606
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 177 -
Stage 1 - - - - 296 -
Stage 2 - - - - 361 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.7 0 18.8

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 803 - - - 177 606
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.301 - - - 0.09 0.565
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - - - 27.3 18.4
HCM Lane LOS B - - - D C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 - - - 0.3 3.5

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
17: Halcyon Rd/Halcyon Road & Grand Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 582 181 126 528 24 138 243 146 58 338 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 582 181 126 528 24 138 243 146 58 338 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 83 626 79 135 568 24 148 261 23 62 363 80 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 108 868 380 174 977 41 344 361 302 84 508 117 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1556 1781 3474 147 1781 1870 1560 426 2588 598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 83 626 79 135 290 302 148 261 23 269 0 236 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1556 1781 1777 1843 1781 1870 1560 1849 0 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 10.3 2.6 4.7 9.0 9.0 4.7 8.4 0.8 8.8 0.0 7.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 10.3 2.6 4.7 9.0 9.0 4.7 8.4 0.8 8.8 0.0 7.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 868 380 174 500 519 344 361 302 363 0 346 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.72 0.21 0.78 0.58 0.58 0.43 0.72 0.08 0.74 0.00 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 557 1944 851 557 972 1008 835 877 732 867 0 826 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.6 22.2 19.3 28.2 19.8 19.8 22.7 24.2 21.1 24.2 0.0 23.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.4 0.1 2.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 4.0 0.9 2.0 3.4 3.5 1.8 3.5 0.3 3.6 0.0 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.0 22.6 19.4 31.0 20.2 20.2 23.0 25.2 21.2 25.3 0.0 24.8 LnGrp LOS C C B CCCCCCCAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 788 727 432 505
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.5 22.2 24.3 25.1
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 19.8 17.3 7.4 22.2 17.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 * 4.7 3.5 * 4.2 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 35 * 30 20.0 * 35 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 12.3 10.8 4.9 11.0 10.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.9 1.8 0.1 2.2 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
18: Grand Ave & El Camino Real Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 742 1 1 632 79 3 0 2 56 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 37 742 1 1 632 79 3 0 2 56 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 806608606808
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - - ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 39 789 1 1 672 84 3 0 2 60 0 46
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 764 0 0 796 0 0 1220 1640 409 1205 1598 394 Stage 1 - - - - - - 874 874 - 724 724 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 346 766 - 481 874 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 845 - - 822 - - 136 99 592 140 105 605 Stage 1 - - - - - - 311 365 - 383 429 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 643 410 - 535 365 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 839 - - 818 - - 120 93 585 133 99 597 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 120 93 - 133 99 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 295 346 - 363 426 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 589 407 - 505 346 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 26.1 41.1

HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 176 839 - - 818 - - 201
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.047 - - 0.001 - - 0.524
HCM Control Delay (s) 26.1 9.5 - - 9.4 - - 41.1
HCM Lane LOS D A - - A - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 2.7

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
19: Grand Ave & US 101 SB Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 474 341 139 683 0 0 0 0 183 0 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 474 341 139 683 0 0 0 0 183 0 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 504 363 148 727 0 195 0 7
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 022220 222
Cap, veh/h 0 1046 752 185 2434 0 240 0 214
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.68 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 2061 1415 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 455 412 148 727 0 195 0 7
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1606 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.4 11.5 5.8 5.8 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.4 11.5 5.8 5.8 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.88 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 945 854 185 2434 0 240 0 214
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.80 0.30 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 945 854 427 2434 0 401 0 357
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.5 10.5 31.1 4.4 0.0 29.8 0.0 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.8 1.9 2.5 0.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 3.9 2.5 1.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.2 12.4 33.6 4.7 0.0 32.4 0.0 26.7 LnGrp LOS A B B C A A C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 867 875 202
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.3 9.6 32.2
Approach LOS B A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 46.3 13.8 57.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 8.6 * 4.2 * 8.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 * 15 * 16 * 46
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 13.5 9.6 7.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
20: US 101 NB & Grand Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 89 561 0 0 618 389 203 0 66 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 89 561 0 0 618 389 203 0 66 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 597 0 0 657 326 216 0 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 220022222
Cap, veh/h 648 2656 0 0 749 372 263 0 234
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.00 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 0 0 2394 1141 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 597 0 0 507 476 216 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 0 0 1777 1665 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 21.3 9.3 0.0 0.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 21.3 9.3 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 648 2656 0 0 579 542 263 0 234
V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.82 0.00 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 648 2656 0 0 652 611 428 0 381
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 25.1 32.7 0.0 28.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.0 17.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 11.3 10.8 4.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 42.1 43.0 35.4 0.0 28.9 LnGrp LOS BAAADDDAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 692 983 224
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.1 42.6 35.1
Approach LOS A D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 63.6 33.3 30.3 15.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 3.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.0 17.0 * 29 19.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 4.8 23.3 11.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 0.1 2.4 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
21: Grand Ave/E Branch St & W Branch St Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 574 1 15 923 127 9 0 32 43 2 77
Future Vol, veh/h 47 574 1 15 923 127 9 0 32 43 2 77
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 600006000606
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 90 - - 65 - - ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 333333333333
Mvmt Flow 51 624 1 16 1003 138 10 0 35 47 2 84
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1147 0 0 625 0 0 1268 1906 319 1530 1837 583 Stage 1 - - - - - - 727 727 - 1110 1110 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 541 1179 - 420 727 -
Critical Hdwy 4.16 - - 4.16 - - 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.23 - - 2.23 - - 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 599 - - 946 - - 124 67 674 79 74 453 Stage 1 - - - - - - 379 425 - 221 281 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 490 260 - 579 425 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 596 - - 946 - - 90 60 671 68 66 448
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 90 60 - 68 66 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 346 388 - 201 275 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 387 254 - 499 388 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0.1 20.4 111.5

HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 278 596 - - 946 - - 146
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.16 0.086 - - 0.017 - - 0.908
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.4 11.6 - - 8.9 - - 111.5
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.3 - - 0.1 - - 6.3

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
22: Traffic Way/Wesley St & E Branch St Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 397 217 87 550 8 518 17 22 34 75 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 397 217 87 550 8 518 17 22 34 75 32 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 409 0 90 567 7 547 0 0 35 77 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 392 553 374 1164 14 787 0 47 103 32
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 3593 44 3563 0 1585 461 1014 316 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 409 0 90 280 294 547 0 0 136 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1861 1781 0 1585 1790 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 9.8 0.0 1.7 6.3 6.3 7.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 9.8 0.0 1.7 6.3 6.3 7.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 392 553 374 576 603 787 0 181 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.74 0.24 0.49 0.49 0.70 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 668 1618 707 1537 1610 2221 0 540 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.1 15.8 0.0 11.4 13.5 13.5 17.8 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 4.0 0.0 0.6 2.3 2.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.1 17.7 0.0 11.6 14.1 14.1 18.9 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B BBBBA CAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 425 A 664 547 A 136
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.5 13.8 18.9 24.1
Approach LOS B B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.4 18.9 8.7 6.0 20.3 14.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 4.2 3.7 3.7 * 4.2 3.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 43 15.0 10.0 * 43 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 11.8 5.7 2.3 8.3 9.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.0 4.1 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
23: Bridge St/Nevada St & E Branch St Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 433 27 120 614 2 0 2 53 0 8 66
Future Vol, veh/h 25 433 27 120 614 2 0 2 53 0 8 66
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 47 0 5 25 0 27 5 0 25 0 0 47
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 60 - - 50 - - ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 27 471 29 130 667 2 0 2 58 0 9 72
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 716 0 0 525 0 0 - 1541 536 - 1554 762 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 565 - - 975 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 976 - - 579 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - - 6.52 6.22 - 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------- 5.52 - - 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------- 5.52 - - 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - - 4.018 3.318 - 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 885 - - 1042 - - 0 115 545 0 113 405 Stage 1 - - - - - - 0 508 - 0 330 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 0 329 - 0 501 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 850 - - 1020 - - - 91 523 - 90 374
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 91 - - 90 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - 482 - - 277 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 276 - - 475 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 1.5 14.3 23

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 446 850 - - 1020 - - 279
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.134 0.032 - - 0.128 - - 0.288
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 9.4 - - 9 - - 23
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 - - 0.4 - - 1.2

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
25: Mason St & E Branch St Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 52 365 26 174 541 12 35 70 164 18 83 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 52 365 26 174 541 12 35 70 164 18 83 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.97 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 57 401 26 191 595 12 38 77 62 20 91 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 68 569 37 250 785 16 210 243 490 145 194 89
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1736 113 1781 1826 37 365 1349 1486 125 1075 497 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 57 0 427 191 0 607 115 0 62 157 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1849 1781 0 1863 1714 0 1486 1697 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 6.7 3.4 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 6.7 3.4 0.0 9.2 1.8 0.0 1.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.02 0.33 1.00 0.13 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 68 0 606 250 0 801 453 0 490 428 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.70 0.77 0.00 0.76 0.25 0.00 0.13 0.37 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 804 0 3338 804 0 3364 1366 0 1340 1374 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 0.0 9.8 13.8 0.0 8.0 11.9 0.0 8.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.6 1.9 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.6 0.0 2.1 1.3 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 10.3 15.6 0.0 8.6 12.0 0.0 8.1 12.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C ABBAABAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 484 798 177 157
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 10.3 10.6 12.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.8 18.5 10.0 8.2 15.1 10.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 4.0 3.5 * 4.2 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 * 60 25.0 15.0 * 60 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.1 11.2 4.7 5.4 8.7 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.2 2.0 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
26: Stanley Str/Corbett Canyon Rd & E Branch St/Huasna Rd Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh20.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 140 283 20 5 374 58 30 1 1 48 2 219
Future Vol, veh/h 140 283 20 5 374 58 30 1 1 48 2 219
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 147 298 21 5 394 61 32 1 1 51 2 231
Number of Lanes 010011010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 24.8 20.1 11.1 14.5

HCM LOS C C B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 94% 32% 1% 0% 18%
Vol Thru, % 3% 64% 99% 0% 1%
Vol Right, % 3% 5% 0% 100% 81%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 32 443 379 58 269
LT Vol 30 140 5 0 48
Through Vol 1 283 374 0 2
RT Vol 1 20 0 58 219
Lane Flow Rate 34 466 399 61 283
Geometry Grp 25772
Degree of Util (X) 0.071 0.755 0.689 0.093 0.473
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.562 5.829 6.22 5.501 6.018
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 477 616 578 645 592
Service Time 5.562 3.911 4.004 3.284 4.116
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0.756 0.69 0.095 0.478
HCM Control Delay 11.1 24.8 21.8 8.9 14.5
HCM Lane LOS B C C A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 6.8 5.4 0.3 2.5

HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
27: US 101 Ramps/Traffic Way & S Traffic Way Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh12.8
Intersection LOS B
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 18 359 4 29 453
Future Vol, veh/h 2 18 359 4 29 453
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 2 19 370 4 30 467
Number of Lanes 102011
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1
Conflicting Approach RightSB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.5 9.7 15.4

HCM LOS A A C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 10% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 97% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 3% 90% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 239 124 20 29 453
LT Vol 0 0 2 29 0
Through Vol 239 120 0 0 453
RT Vol 0 4 18 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 247 127 21 30 467
Geometry Grp 77277
Degree of Util (X) 0.34 0.175 0.03 0.045 0.635
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.964 4.942 5.295 5.396 4.895
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 725 728 675 666 738
Service Time 2.682 2.66 3.339 3.113 2.612
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.341 0.174 0.031 0.045 0.633
HCM Control Delay 10.2 8.7 8.5 8.4 15.8
HCM Lane LOS BAAAC
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 4.6

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
28: Traffic Way & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 381 190 233 247 299 201
Future Volume (veh/h) 381 190 233 247 299 201
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 263 272 240 255 308 52
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 202222
Cap, veh/h 406 367 343 995 439 372
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.53 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1610 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 263 272 240 255 308 52
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1610 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 6.0 4.8 2.8 5.8 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 6.0 4.8 2.8 5.8 1.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 406 367 343 995 439 372
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.74 0.70 0.26 0.70 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 949 857 976 2216 2216 1878
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.4 13.7 14.4 4.9 13.4 11.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.6 0.1 1.6 0.6 2.0 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.0 14.9 15.4 4.9 14.2 11.7
LnGrp LOS BBBABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 535 495 360
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 10.0 13.8
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.0 13.3 11.4 13.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.4 20.4 21.0 45.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 8.0 6.8 7.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
29: Orchard Ave/US 101 SB & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh16.9
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 436 23 41 452 0 39 0 61 80 34 190
Future Vol, veh/h 0 436 23 41 452 0 39 0 61 80 34 190
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 464 24 44 481 0 41 0 65 85 36 202
Number of Lanes 020020010110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay 17.5 18.2 13.4 15

HCM LOS C C B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 39% 0% 0% 21% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 86% 79% 100% 0% 15%
Vol Right, % 61% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 85%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 100 291 168 192 301 80 224
LT Vol 39 0 0 41 0 80 0
Through Vol 0 291 145 151 301 0 34
RT Vol 61 0 23 0 0 0 190
Lane Flow Rate 106 309 179 204 321 85 238
Geometry Grp 6777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.234 0.604 0.345 0.401 0.621 0.193 0.465 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.917 7.036 6.938 7.087 6.977 8.144 7.023 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 453 513 518 508 516 441 512
Service Time 5.976 4.784 4.685 4.833 4.724 5.889 4.767
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.234 0.602 0.346 0.402 0.622 0.193 0.465 HCM Control Delay 13.4 20 13.3 14.5 20.5 12.8 15.8
HCM Lane LOS B C B B C B C
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 4 1.5 1.9 4.2 0.7 2.4

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
30: Valley Rd & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 289 150 296 390 0 74 0 203 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 289 150 296 390 0 74 0 203 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 325 113 333 438 0 86 06000
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 223 821 280 428 2362 0 302 0 138 0 6 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.66 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 951 2600 888 1781 3647 0 3471 0 1585 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 220 218 333 438 0 86 06000
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 951 1777 1711 1781 1777 0 1735 0 1585 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 3.1 3.2 5.6 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 3.1 3.2 5.6 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 223 561 540 428 2362 0 302 0 138 0 6 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.39 0.40 0.78 0.19 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 970 1957 1884 1464 3914 0 3930 0 1795 0 957 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.6 8.6 11.4 2.1 0.0 13.8 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.4 9.5 12.6 2.1 0.0 14.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABAABABAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 438 771 92 0
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.4 6.6 13.9 0.0
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.2 14.7 0.0 25.9 6.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s26.5 35.5 16.5 35.5 36.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.6 5.2 0.0 3.5 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.0 4.3 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
31: Halcyon Rd & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 124 17 205 181 98 18 286 172 117 487 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 124 17 205 181 98 18 286 172 117 487 45 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 128 11 211 187 77 19 295 42 121 502 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 49 267 23 266 351 145 34 623 88 155 898 66
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1695 146 1781 1257 518 1781 3125 440 1781 3356 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 0 139 211 0 264 19 166 171 121 265 274 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1840 1781 0 1775 1781 1777 1789 1781 1777 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 2.7 4.5 0.0 5.0 0.4 3.3 3.3 2.6 5.1 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 2.7 4.5 0.0 5.0 0.4 3.3 3.3 2.6 5.1 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 49 0 290 266 0 496 34 354 357 155 475 488 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.48 0.79 0.00 0.53 0.56 0.47 0.48 0.78 0.56 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 498 0 1075 317 0 1037 181 1309 1317 317 1444 1484 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.9 0.0 15.1 16.2 0.0 12.0 19.1 13.9 13.9 17.6 12.4 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.7 0.0 1.2 11.0 0.0 0.9 13.6 1.0 1.0 8.2 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.4 0.0 1.0 2.4 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.7 0.0 16.3 27.2 0.0 12.9 32.8 14.9 14.9 25.8 13.4 13.4 LnGrp LOS C A B C A B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 168 475 356 660
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.6 19.2 15.9 15.7
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.4 11.9 5.1 15.0 4.8 14.5 9.9 10.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s7.0 29.0 11.0 23.0 4.0 32.0 7.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.6 5.3 2.6 7.0 2.4 7.1 6.5 4.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.0
HCM 6th LOS B

HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
32: Halcyon Rd & Farroll Ave Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 98 2 40 0 0 0 20 370 1 2 581 114
Future Vol, veh/h 98 2 40 0 0 0 20 370 1 2 581 114
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 301202102201
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 50 - 140
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 101 2 41 0 0 0 21 381 1 2 599 118
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1031 1030 602 1112 1148 387 718 0 0 384 0 0 Stage 1 604 604 - 426 426 - ------
Stage 2 427 426 - 686 722 - ------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 211 233 500 186 199 661 883 - - 1174 - - Stage 1 485 488 - 606 586 - ------
Stage 2 606 586 - 438 431 - ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 206 226 498 166 193 658 882 - - 1172 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 206 226 - 166 193 - ------
Stage 1 473 487 - 591 571 - ------
Stage 2 590 571 - 398 430 - ------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 37.9 0 0.5 0

HCM LOS E A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 882 - - 248 - 1172 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - - 0.582 - 0.002 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - - 37.9 0 8.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 3.3 - 0 - -

HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
33: Halcyon Rd & The Pike Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 122 0 88 0 4 5 58 266 1 6 322 161
Future Vol, veh/h 122 0 88 0 4 5 58 266 1 6 322 161
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 123 0 89 0 4 5 59 269 1 6 325 163
Number of Lanes 110010010011
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2
HCM Control Delay 11.2 10 15.6 12.7

HCM LOS B A C B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 18% 100% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Vol Thru, % 82% 0% 0% 44% 98% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 100% 56% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 325 122 88 9 328 161
LT Vol 58 122 0 0 6 0
Through Vol 266 0 0 4 322 0
RT Vol 1 0 88 5 0 161
Lane Flow Rate 328 123 89 9 331 163
Geometry Grp 677677
Degree of Util (X) 0.538 0.244 0.146 0.017 0.524 0.225
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.898 7.141 5.92 6.803 5.694 4.976 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 614 504 605 525 633 722
Service Time 3.925 4.877 3.656 4.857 3.42 2.703
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.534 0.244 0.147 0.017 0.523 0.226
HCM Control Delay 15.6 12.2 9.7 10 14.5 9.1
HCM Lane LOS C BAABA
HCM 95th-tile Q 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.1 3.1 0.9

Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx Appendix C
Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets

Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx Appendix D
Bicycle LTS Analysis Worksheets

Table A-1: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis Segment
ID Roadway Classification
Bike Lane
(Class 2
or 3)1
Bike Lane
Width2 Parking
Lanes
(Total)
Lanes
(Directional)
Speed
Limit3
Narrow
Bike Lane
(Y/N)4
Faded Bike
Lane (either
direction)
Directional
Gap
Directional Gap - Bike
Lane Only5
Bike Lane
Blockage
(Y/N)6
High
Access
Point
Density
(Y/N)
Residential
(Y/N)
Raised
Median
(Y/N)
Centerline
(Y/N) Volume
Rolling
Terrain (Y/N)
LTS
Criteria
Table # Type of Segment
Speed
Score
Blockage
Score
Street
Width Score
Bike Lane
Score
Bike Lane
Segment
Score
Mixed
Traffic
Score
Mixed
Traffic
Score -
Effective9
Calculated
LTS Score
Adjustment
(Volume)10
Adjustment
(Rolling
Terrain)11
1 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 4 2 30 3 Mixed Traffic 44 42 Collector 2 >=5 2 1 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 3 Residential Collector n/a 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 4 Collector 2 >=5 2 1 40 4,610 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 5 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 46 Residential Collector n/a 2 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 7 2-Lane Arterial 2 Effectively 0 1 2 1 40 1 1 Bike Lane + Parking 4 1 4 4 4 4 8 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 >=5 2 4 2 35 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 3 2 3 3 39 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 3 n/a 4 2 35 3 Mixed Traffic 3 4 4 4 10 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 3
11 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4
12 2-Lane Arterial 3 n/a 2 1 40 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 13 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 14 2-Lane Arterial 2 Effectively 0 1 2 1 35 1 SB 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 1 3 4 4 4 15 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 35 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 1 2 3 3 3 16 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 >=5 4 2 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 3 2 4 4 4 17 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 45 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4
18 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 45 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4
19 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 40 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4
20 Residential Collector n/a 2 1 45 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 21 Residential Collector n/a 1 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 322 Residential Collector n/a 2 1 25 Y N 3 Mixed Traffic 11 1 23 Residential Collector n/a 2 1 25 Y N 3 Mixed Traffic 11 1 24 Residential Collector n/a 2 1 40 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 25 Residential Collector 2 >=5 2 1 30 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 1 2 2 2 2 26 2-Lane Arterial n/a 1 4 2 35 14,360 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 27 Collector 2 >=5 2 2 1 35 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 1 2 3 3 328 Residential Collector n/a 2 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 329 Collector n/a 1 2 1 25 3 Mixed Traffic 22 230 Residential Collector 2 <5 2 2 1 30 Y 1 Bike Lane + Parking 1 3 3 3 3 31 Residential Collector n/a 2 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 3 32 2-Lane Arterial 2 <5 2 1 40 Y 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 3 4 4 4 33 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 2 1 35 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 1 2 3 3 334 Residential Collector n/a 1 2 1 25 Y Y 3 Mixed Traffic 11 2 235 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 2 1 40 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 36 2-Lane Arterial n/a 1 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 37 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 35 9,740 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 38 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 2 4 2 35 10,250 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 39 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 Effectively 0 1 4 2 35 1 1 NB 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 3 3 4 4 4 40 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 Effectively 0 1 4 2 35 1 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 3 3 4 4 4 41 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 Effectively 0 1 4 2 35 1 NB 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 3 3 4 4 4 42 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 4 2 40 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 43 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 >=5 4 2 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 3 2 4 4 4 44 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 4 2 40 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 45 2-Lane Arterial 2 Effectively 0 2 1 40 1 13,540 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 4 4 4 4 46 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 47 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 48 Collector 2 >=5 2 1 35 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 1 2 3 3 3 49 Collector 2 >=5 2 1 35 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 1 2 3 3 3 50 Collector 2 >=5 2 1 35 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 1 2 3 3 3 51 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4
52 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 2 1 25 Y 13,700 3 Mixed Traffic 2 23 3 53 2-Lane Arterial 2 <5 2 1 30 Y 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 1 3 3 3 3 54 2-Lane Arterial 2 <5 1 2 1 35 Y 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 1 3 3 3 355 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 1 2 1 35 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 1 2 3 3 356 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 >=5 4 2 35 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 3 2 3 3 3 57 2-Lane Arterial n/a 1 4 2 35 12,920 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 58 2-Lane Arterial n/a 1 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 59 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 2 1 30 1 Bike Lane + Parking 1 2 2 2 260 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 2 1 25 1 Bike Lane + Parking 1 2 2 2 261 Residential Collector 2 >=5 2 1 30 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 1 2 2 2 2 62 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 3 2 1 35 Y 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 3 1 2 3 3 363 2-Lane Arterial 3 n/a 1 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 3 4 4 4 64 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 4 2 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 65 Residential Collector n/a 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 66 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 >=5 2 4 2 35 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 3 2 3 3 3 67 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 >=5 2 4 2 35 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 3 2 3 3 368 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 4 2 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 69 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 45 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 70 Residential Collector n/a 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 3 71 2-Lane Arterial 3 n/a 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 3
72 Collector n/a 2 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 3
Bike Lane Inputs Roadway Inputs Adjustments Individual Criteria Scores Final12
LTS
Score
Bike Lane Roadway Segment Type 7
Criteria Factors
Adjustments
LTS Results8
Overall Segment Scores

Segment
ID Roadway Classification
Bike Lane
(Class 2
or 3)1
Bike Lane
Width2 Parking
Lanes
(Total)
Lanes
(Directional)
Speed
Limit3
Narrow
Bike Lane
(Y/N)4
Faded Bike
Lane (either
direction)
Directional
Gap
Directional Gap - Bike
Lane Only5
Bike Lane
Blockage
(Y/N)6
High
Access
Point
Density
(Y/N)
Residential
(Y/N)
Raised
Median
(Y/N)
Centerline
(Y/N) Volume
Rolling
Terrain (Y/N)
LTS
Criteria
Table # Type of Segment
Speed
Score
Blockage
Score
Street
Width Score
Bike Lane
Score
Bike Lane
Segment
Score
Mixed
Traffic
Score
Mixed
Traffic
Score -
Effective9
Calculated
LTS Score
Adjustment
(Volume)10
Adjustment
(Rolling
Terrain)11
Bike Lane Inputs Roadway Inputs Adjustments Individual Criteria Scores Final12
LTS
Score
Bike Lane Roadway Segment Type 7
Criteria Factors
Adjustments
LTS Results8
Overall Segment Scores
73 Collector 2 Effectively 0 2 2 1 35 1 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 1 3 4 4 4 74 Collector 2 >=5 2 2 1 40 1 Bike Lane + Parking 4 1 2 4 4 475 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 76 Residential Collector 2 >=5 2 1 35 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 1 2 3 3 3 77 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4
78 Residential Collector n/a 1 2 1 25 Y Y 3 Mixed Traffic 22 279 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 45 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 80 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 <5 4 2 25 Y Y 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 3 3 3 4 4 81 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 1 4 2 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 82 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 1 40 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4
83 2-Lane Arterial 2 <5 2 1 40 Y 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 3 4 4 4 84 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 2 4 2 35 3 Mixed Traffic 4 4 4 4 85 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 Effectively 0 4 2 35 1 WB 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 3 3 4 4 4 86 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 1 2 1 35 1 Bike Lane + Parking 3 1 2 3 3 387 2-Lane Arterial n/a 2 2 1 30 3 Mixed Traffic 33 3 88 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial n/a 4 2 30 3 Mixed Traffic 44 4 89 2-Lane Arterial 2 Effectively 0 2 1 40 1 1 NB 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 4 4 4 4 90 Collector 2 >=5 1 2 1 40 1 Bike Lane + Parking 4 1 2 4 4 491 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 35 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 1 2 3 3 3 92 2-Lane Arterial 2 >=5 2 1 40 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 4 1 2 4 4 4 93 4-Lane (Primary) Arterial 2 Effectively 0 4 2 35 1 EB 2 Bike Lane (No Parking) 3 3 3 4 4 4 Notes:
1 No width reported for Class III bike routes; considered "Mixed Traffic" segments. 2 If bike lane is faded along any portion of the segment, or if there is a directional gap, then width is "Effectively 0", and the roadway is analyzed as a "Mixed Traffic" segment. 3 Source: 2018 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS), Pavement Engineering Inc., November 2018. 4 Narrow bike lane is considered to be < 5', resulting in a Bike Lane Score of LTS 3. 5 Directional Gap means that there is a bike lane on only one side of the roadway (if "SB", there is only a bike lane in the Southbound direction). LTS score is based on the side without a bike lane. 6 Blockage refers to bike lanes that are often blocked by vehicles entering/existing driveways, or other constraints (such as diagonal parking stalls, etc.). 7 Values only provided if it would effect the LTS score, re: Mineta Tables 2.1 and 2.2. 8 Based on Mineta Transportation Institute "Low‐Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity" (May 2012) criteria tables. 9 For roadways with faded bike lanes or directional gaps in bike lane facilities (effectively no bike lane), the roadway is analyzed as a "Mixed Traffic" segment. 10 Adjustment made based on ODOT 'Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2' 4/2020 Exhibit 14‐5 and 14‐6. 11 Adjustment made based on field observations.
12 Considered to be the maximum segment LTS score based on individual criteria scores and adjustments.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001, REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE SAME, AND GRANTING APPEAL CASE NO. 26- 002, ; CONSTRUCTION OF NINETY-TWO (92) MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; LOCATION – 1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY; APPELLANTS – PISMO MEDICAL

PROPERTIES LLC, ARROYO GRANDE PARTNERS LLC AND RAY B BUNNELL

REVOCABLE TRUST, ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACTS ON

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
WHEREAS, the project site is an approximately 1.81-acre parcel at 1271 and 1281 James Way; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposed Conditional Use Permit 25-001 for ninety-two (92) multi-family dwelling units with density bonus concessions reducing parking and other standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the project on January 20, 2026, with a statutory CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code §21080.66; and WHEREAS, appellants timely appealed, and the City Council has conducted de novo review on April 14, 2026, considering the full administrative record, including ATE studies, 2000/2008 reciprocal easements, 2004 OEG monitoring reports, site plans (including Building B location and rolling gate), biological assessment, General Plan policies, traffic/parking analyses, recent site photos showing overflow and restrictions, and public testimony; and WHEREAS, the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated (HAA §65589.5(j)(1) exception). It places 92 units adjacent to medical offices serving elderly/mobility-impaired patients in a high-stress circulation corridor (per General Plan Safety Element SAF-1.4, SAF-4.1, SAF-4.4, SAF-6 and Active Transportation Plan). It relies on only 31 dedicated garages plus speculative shared parking/access without verified enforceable cross-easements or replacements (inconsistent ATE studies ignoring historical overflow documented in 2004 OEG reports; Building B in historically encumbered Area 2 per 2000 Agreement; recent hotel restrictions and pre-study blocking reducing shared spaces; no confirmed agreements for reconfiguration obligations under 2008 Amendment); resulting spillover will foreseeably block drop-off zones, ambulance access, fire lanes, and emergency movement, violating objective standards (California Fire Code access roads; General Plan complete streets/pedestrian safety) existing at completeness date. These impacts are significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable; no feasible mitigation exists short of denial or lower density (signage/towing/gates insufficient without reliable parking foundation); and WHEREAS, the record does not support, by preponderance, that the project complies with all objective standards as modified or lacks specific adverse impacts; parking/access representations are unreliable given lack of demonstrated rights and historical deficiencies; and

WHEREAS, the AB 130 CEQA exemption is questionable given the site’s eastern boundary abutting natural Meadow Creek open space/watercourse, potentially failing infill/perimeter urban-use criteria, requiring full review; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:

1. Grants Appeal Case 26-002 in full;

2. Reverses the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001;

3. Denies the project on grounds of specific, adverse, unmitigable impacts to public health and safety; and

4. Directs staff to prepare written findings consistent with this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 2026.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants– Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: April 13, 2026
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Interim Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

From: Frank, Lisa@HCD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 8:47 AM
To: Andrew Perez <[email protected]>; Isaac Rosen <[email protected]>; Bill Robeson <[email protected]>; Patrick Holub <[email protected]>; Matt Downing <[email protected]>
Cc: Heaton, Brian@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: HCD follow up re: Arroyo Grande Creekside Junction Project Good morning all,
Thanks for taking the time to meet with HCD staff on April 6, 2026 regarding the proposed 92-unit Creekside Junction Project. This email is to follow up on our call in anticipation of tomorrow’s April 14, 2026 City Council hearing. HCD reviewed relevant portions of the staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council and, based upon the information conveyed in the reports,

Housing and Community Development
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento CA
Phone: 916.776.7781
understands that the Project qualifies for the protections of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and that staff has evaluated the project and determined its compliance with the applicable objective standards. HCD further understands that the Project qualifies for the added protections under subdivision (d) of the HAA for projects that provide the requisite affordable housing specified in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(3)(A).

To assist the City in its consideration of the forthcoming appeal, and as described in the referenced staff reports, HCD reminds the City that subdivision (d) of the HAA specifies the written findings local governments must make to disapprove a qualifying affordable housing development project, or to condition its approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible. This includes, among other required findings, that the local government find, based on a preponderance of evidence in the record (Gov. Code section 65589.5, subd.(d), that there is a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions (…)” (Gov. Code section 65589.5, subd.(d)(2).) “Objective” means, “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (h) (9).) Additionally, a local government can only deny or condition the approval in the manner described above, if “the denial […] or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households (…) (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (d) (3).)
In addition to the five possible findings required under subdivision (d) referenced above, any “housing development project” under the HAA that meets all applicable objective standards (except those lawfully modified via State Density Bonus Law concessions and waivers) may only be disapproved or approved at a lower density if the City makes the written findings (supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record) contained in subdivision (j) that, (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result from the project and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible. (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).)
Note that the Legislature has explicitly provided that the specific adverse impacts described in the HAA are intended to arise infrequently. (Gov. Code, section 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).) Please feel free to reach out with any questions.

Thank you,
Lisa
Lisa Frank (she/her)
Senior Housing Policy Specialist

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants– Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: April 14, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Interim Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

From: Malone, Caitlin K.

To: public comment
Cc: Russ Sheppel; Isaac Rosen; Carlson, Mack; Guillen, Christopher R.

Subject: Agenda Item No. 10.a: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 10:13:05 AM
Attachments: 2026.04.14 Letter to City Council re Response to Appeal(51164390.2).pdf Good morning,
Please see attached correspondence related to Agenda Item No. 10.a for tonight’s City Council Meeting.

Caitlin K. Malone
Legal Practice Assistant
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1462 tel
[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.

51164390.2
Christopher R. Guillen
805.882.1452 direct
[email protected]
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101
April 14, 2026

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
[email protected]
RE: Agenda Item No. 10.a: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001 for the Creekside Junction Project
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable City Councilmembers:

This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, Russell Sheppel, the owner of 1271 and 1281 James Way (“Property”) in support of his development of a 92-unit multi-family housing project (“Project”) on the Property. Since the hearing on March 24, 2026, Appellants Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC (“Curl Fitness”) and Ray Bunnell (collectively, “Appellants”) have submitted further written opposition to the Project. The written opposition raises no legal flaws; the Project complies with all applicable law and the City Council should proceed to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval and deny the appeal.

Rather, Appellants are attempting to use this City land use process to solve alleged parking problems of their own making. Customers to Pismo Medical Properties and Curl Fitness have been parking illegally on Mr. Sheppel’s property, and Appellants are attempting to use this entitlement to extract concessions from Mr. Sheppel to continue the practice. This is NIMBYism at its core—subverting the land use and planning process to develop affordable housing at taxpayers’ expense.1 The vast majority of public comments received are from Curl Fitness gym members, who have been incited to carry this NIMBYism torch elevating their claimed right to park over housing opportunities. This is precisely the reason the State is in a housing crisis—local agencies cannot make housing decisions based on the business interests of a few to the detriment of the City as a whole. The fact is that Mr. Sheppel is attempting to help the City alleviate housing burdens on its current and future residents. We urge the City to deny the appeal and permit Mr. Sheppel to continue with this worthwhile endeavor. 1 As noted in the Staff Report, Appellants paid a total of $1,858.30 for the two appeal hearings on this Project, which certainly does not cover the City’s legal and administrative costs to hear this Appeal.

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 14, 2026

51164390.2
To address any concerns this Council may have, this letter responds to each of Appellants’ baseless objections and other stated opposition to the Project.

1. Mr. Bunnell argues that the Project would encroach on access easements to the Casa Grande Inn. That is not the case. The Project continues to provide access to the Casa Grande Inn as shown in Sheet A3 of the Site Plan and consistent with Exhibit C-1 of the 2021 Grant of Easement for Ingress and Egress (Doc. No. 2021071093) that creates the easement.

2. Mr. Bunnell also argues that the Project allows access to the Project through the Casa Grande Inn. That is not the case. Access to the Project will be off James Way.

3. Mr. Bunnell also submitted an email from Mr. Sheppel to Mr. Bunnell wherein Mr. Sheppel stated that he was “reviewing potential modifications and reduction in the building.” That comment was made in the spirit of compromise with Mr. Bunnell, an attempt to negotiate a resolution of Mr. Bunnell’s concerns. Mr. Sheppel has made similar outreach to Pismo Medical Properties and Curl Fitness. Mr. Sheppel’s good faith efforts to compromise have been rebuffed by each; Appellants prefer the public spectacle to actually solving their alleged concerns.

4. Public commenters have offered, without evidence, that the Project site sits on a creek bed, contains riparian habitat, and that it is home to red-legged frog. None of that is true. The Project site does not include any portion of the creek or its banks and contains no riparian habitat. The Project’s expert biologist, David Wolff, has visited the site numerous times over the past decade, visited it again on April 6, 2026, and confirmed the prior reporting of the site that it is highly modified and lacks any habitat for special status species. Mr. Wolff’s technical report summarizing his April 6, 2026 site visit is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

5. Pismo Medical Properties and public commenters argue that the Project will cause “spillover onto James Way [] and Oak Park Boulevard.” Appellants have no evidence to support this statement.

First, Associated Transportation Engineers (“ATE”) prepared a study for the Project to analyze whether the Project would cause spillover into James Way, and concluded that would not be the case; the Project would operate within acceptable standards.

Second, ATE also prepared a study in March 2026 to analyze the current parking demands on the properties neighboring the Project site. (See Exhibit B.) The study shows that the existing parking provided on site meets the City’s parking ratios, minus one space. The study then analyzes peak parking demands for each of the businesses in the Oak Park Professional Plaza and concludes that at peak demand only 151 spaces is required, while the Project site presently contains 157 spaces. The study then concludes that, given the adequacy of the site’s existing parking, a parking management plan amongst the various Oak Park Professional Plaza owners

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 14, 2026

51164390.2
would solve the alleged parking issues on site as they are seemingly caused by mismanagement of the parking supply, which include, but are not limited to, Appellants’ unauthorized parking on Mr. Sheppel’s property. Parking and operational mismanagement by neighboring businesses does not constitute an impact from the Project.

Third, ATE prepared an April 2026 study to analyze whether the Project’s added parking demand would be met with onsite parking. (See Exhibit C.) The study calculated peak demand for all existing uses plus peak demand for the Project and concluded that the parking provided would be sufficient to meet demand—172 spaces at peak demand in Oak Park Professional Plaza with the Project, with 192 parking spaces provided throughout the Plaza and Project site.

Fourth, Mr. Sheppel has owned the site for nearly forty years and is not aware of any traffic incidents on James Way, Oak Park Boulevard, or in the parking lot caused by the Oak Park Professional Plaza’s customers. Indeed, there have been safety improvements made to the entrance of James Way since 2004 (relocation of a fire hydrant closer to Oak Park Boulevard, modification of the change of the radius turn into the Oak Park Plaza, and improvement of two driveways off of James Way, etc.). Appellants unsubstantiated claims of traffic hazards are not evidence.

Fifth, the Legislature has declared that conditions that would create “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety” arise infrequently. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(3).) A “specific, adverse impact” is defined as a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was complete.” (Id. at (d)(2) [emphasis added].) An “objective” standard means one “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Id. at (o)(9).) Notably, inconsistency with a zoning ordinance is expressly not a specific, adverse impact. (Id. at (d)(2)(A).) Appellants also must show the “specific, adverse impact upon public safety” based on a preponderance of the evidence; a standard that favors finding no impact. (Id. at (d), (j)(1); id. at § 65589.6.) Any speculation about parking shortages falls far short of meeting this threshold. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not require an analysis of parking shortages, nor can a parking shortage alone constitute an environmental impact. (See Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conserv.

Auth. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, 26 [rejecting that a reduction in parking spaces constituted an environmental impact; Pub. Res. Code, § 21099(b)(3) [“[T]he adequate of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance [under CEQA].”]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a) [speculation is not evidence].) The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) further sent the City an email concurring with staff and our legal analysis on these issues.

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 14, 2026

51164390.2
Appellants also do not identify an inconsistency with a single “objective” City standard that was in effect when the Project’s application was complete. Rather, Appellants cite to subjective General Plan standards that staff and the Planning Commission found the Project consistent with, or draft General Plan standards that have not yet been adopted and were not even published when the Project application was determined to be complete in July 29, 2025. For example, General Plan Policy S5-1, cited by Appellants, asks that the City “maintain a high level of emergency preparedness and information about radiation levels[,]” which is not an objective requirement on the Project, nor supported with any relevant evidence. Simply put, the Appellants and commenters unsubstantiated claims of traffic, parking, and fitness center operation hazards do not—and cannot—support a finding that the Project has a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety based on an objective standard as required by the Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law.

6. Pismo Medical Properties asserts that there is “no dedicated secure bicycle storage (residents must carry bikes up four stories — a hazard, especially for seniors/mobility impaired; impractical in a bike-friendly community).” This speculative assertion ignores (a) the City does not require dedicated secure bicycle storage; (b) the Project provides first floor storage that will be dedicated to bicycles; and, (c) the primary building contains an elevator that minimizes any speculative hazards associated with residents that choose to store their bicycles in their apartments.

7. Pismo Medical Properties also seemingly asserts that the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan because James Way and Oak Park Boulevard are identified as “high-stress corridors.” Nonsense. The Project promotes the General Plan’s policies, in particular Policy CT5- 1, which calls for “transit oriented developments” and multiple family residential projects near office, regional commercial, and business park.

We also note that the City’s Supplemental Report for Reschedule Appeal Case 26-002 staff report further highlights that the Project qualifies for multiple CEQA exemptions designed to promote infill housing development. In addition to complying with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a), the staff report acknowledges that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline 15332. As explained in the staff report, the Project meets all the qualifying criteria for the infill exemption. (See also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1347–1350 [approving a Density Bonus Law project pursuant to the infill exemption]; Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 833, 851 [upholding staff’s determination that the infill exemption applied to a grocery store within a small city].) To supplement the staff report finding that the Project qualifies for the infill exemption because it will not have significant air quality impacts, the Project team evaluated the development based on the San

51164390.2

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 14, 2026

Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook.2 Based on APCD’s spreadsheet tool, the 92 unit low rise residential project with an estimated completion date of 2029 falls below the operational threshold criteria for CO, Diesel, greenhouse gas, and ozone precursor emissions (ROG + NOx).3 The Project will only involve 2,600 cubic yards of cut, 3,200 cubic yards of fill, and 7,700 cubic yards of removal and re-compaction, which are not anticipated to trigger air quality impacts associated with the construction based on generally applicable APCD requirements and conditions.

In closing, we ask that City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval and deny the appeal. Despite asking for three additional weeks to prepare, Appellants submitted less than five pages of substantive analysis to support their Appeals and instead dumped hundreds of pages of irrelevant documents in attempts to distract from the issue at hand—whether the Planning Commission and staff properly approved the Project in accordance with State law and applicable Arroyo Grande policies and standards. The Planning Commission did so unanimously and that decision should be upheld.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Christopher R. Guillen
With copy to:

Mack Carlson, [email protected]; Russel Sheppel, Isaac Rosen, [email protected]
2 APCD, A GUIDE FOR ASSESSING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FOR PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CEQA REVIEW (2023) https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA%20Handbook%202023 Final.pdf (accessed on Apr. 13, 2026).
3 Id. at p.1-3, Tab. 1-1.
32543661.1

EXHIBIT A

DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
P.O. BOX 7019
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
[email protected]
(805) 235-5223
BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST April 13, 2026
Russ Sheppel
Creekside Junction
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
SUBJECT: CREEKSIDE JUNCTION PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS & SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ASSESSMENT, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA (APN: 007-711-080, -081) Dear Mr. Sheppel:

David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is providing this Existing Conditions and Special-Status Species Assessment for the Creekside Junction Project in the City of Arroyo Grande (City), California (APN: 007-711-080, -081). DWE has prepared this report based on the review of available background information from previous project biological/wetland resources site surveys and evaluations, established current existing conditions of biological resources and no wetlands present verification by DWE in 2025 included in the staff report, a field survey conducted by DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff on April 6, 2026, and the search and review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

DWE established the proposed Creekside Junction project site as a highly modified site from construction of the adjacent development lacking native species habitat. It is composed of paved and dirt parking lots, a constructed basin and berm along Meadow Creek supporting upland non-native annual grassland and ruderal (disturbed) areas. The site is bordered by development on the south and west, James Way on the north, and Meadow Creek offsite to the east. The eastern property line runs along the edge of the constructed berm as part of the adjacent development to the west dating back before 1986 when the property was originally purchased from the developer. Based on observations of the project site during the survey on April 6, 2026, the property remains in similar condition to those established in the Morro Group, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment in 2001 (2001 BRA).

No wetlands or other waters of the U.S./State are present within the project site. Agency verified upper limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S./State of Meadow Creek is offsite on City property at the 61.5-foot contour well below the constructed berm that follows along 69-foot contour of the project eastern property boundary.

The search and review of the CNDDB for the Arroyo Grande region revealed 12special-status wildlife species and 20 special-status plant species with recorded occurrences in the region of Arroyo Grande. The species with recorded occurrence in the region of Arroyo Grande are listed in the attached Table 1 along with habitat requirements and potential to occur onsite.

SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC – CREEKSIDE JUNCTION
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC EXISTING CONDITIONS SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ASSESSMENT |2 BIOLOGICAL & WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS – REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST None of these occurrences are on the project site, none of these species have been observed on the project site, and the property does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status species listed in Table 1. In particular, there are no CNDDB recorded occurrences of the California red-legged frog within Meadow Creek. The nearest CNDDB California red-legged frog recorded occurrence is approximately 1.7 miles away across urban development to the southeast in Tally Ho Creek, a tributary to Arroyo Grande Creek. Further, no creek impacts would result from project development with implementation of the required SWPPP.

The existing conditions observed during the DWE April 6, 2026 field survey confirm the lack of native species habitat with no observations of special-status plants or wildlife within the project area. The developed ruderal project site lacks habitat for any upland or aquatic special-status wildlife species. Overall status of the property based on multiple surveys conducted on the property since 2001, including the field survey conducted by DWE on April 6, 2026, indicate there have not been significant changes to the quality of the habitat on the project site since the 2001 BRA, and the findings in that study are still valid conclusions as to the likely presence of the referenced special status species. Therefore, there is no evidence that any special status plant or wildlife species occur on the project site or that the project site represents habitat for any such species. The attached Figure 1 Representative Photographs from the DWE April 6, 2026 survey of the site continue to establish the existing conditions in the record of the developed ruderal project site lacking native species habitat.

Thank you very much for continuing with DWE for your environmental consulting services.

Please contact me directly if there are any questions or need for additional information.

Sincerely,
David K. Wolff, Principal Ecologist
ATTACHMENTS: TABLE 1: CNDDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES RECORDED OCCURRENCES FIGURE 1: APRIL 6, 2026 REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

David Wolff Environmental, LLC
Professional Resume
David K. Wolff
Principal Ecologist, Owner
[email protected]
(805) 235-5223

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
2021 to Present; 2003 to 2007
Principal Ecologist/Owner
David Wolff Environmental (DWE)
2008 to 2021
President, Principal Ecologist
Sage Institute, Inc.
2007 to 2008
SoCal Director of Biology
ESA
2000 to 2003
Manager, Biological Resources Group
Rincon Consultants
1998 to 2000
Sr. Biologist, Central Coast
Foothill Associates
1989 to 1998
Senior Biologist, Sacramento
EIP Associates

EDUCATION, PERMITS,
Bachelor of Arts, Ecology and Systematic
Biology, San Francisco State University
USFWS/NMFS project approved California
tiger salamander, California red-legged frog,
steelhead, southwestern willow flycatcher,
least Bell’s vireo, and San Joaquin kit fox for
surveys and construction monitoring.

Fairy Shrimp Survey Permit
(Recovery Permit ES090849-4)
FERC Environmental Review and Compliance
Training Certification
Association of Environmental Professionals
Chapter President and Chapter Director
CDFW Plant Collection permit
Santa Barbara County & San Luis Obispo
County approved biological consultant.

Morro Shoulderband Snail Identification and
Protocol Survey Training
Expert Testimony
David Wolff is an ecologist, wetland scientist, and regulatory compliance specialist with over 35 years of professional experience. Mr. Wolff has special expertise in both flora and fauna, including terrestrial, freshwater aquatic, estuarine, and marine environments. He is knowledgeable in many bioregions of California including Southern California coastal, inland, and desert regions, Central California coastal & inland areas, Great Valley, and Sierra Nevada foothills. Along with his regional and landscape-scale resources planning experience, he is also an accomplished wetland scientist, botanist, wildlife biologist, & restorationist, well versed in endangered species issues. David Wolff has conducted and managed studies, prepared reports, obtained regulatory compliance permits, monitored project implementation, and managed projects for a diverse group of energy, utility, general aviation airports, public, and private sector projects.

David Wolff has conducted and managed endangered plant and wildlife species surveys, holds vernal pool fairy shrimp survey Recovery Permit ES090849-4, and is a USFWS/NMFS approved California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, steelhead, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and San Joaquin kit fox construction monitor. He has facilitated ESA Section 7 Formal Consultations and has managed the preparation and implementation of project-specific and large-scale regional multispecies Habitat Conservation Plans that have involved city and county land use approval processes and agency/public consensus building programs. He is experienced in CEQA/NEPA and California Coastal Act compliance. David Wolff is a highly trained and experienced wetland scientist whose skills include the delineation of wetlands and jurisdictional determinations, Clean Water Act Section 404/401 permitting, CDFW 1600 Notifications, mitigation planning, and the creation, restoration, and monitoring of wetland, riparian, and upland habitats. He has assisted clients with obtaining Individual and Nationwide Permits, and Regional General Permits from the Corps, and Coastal Development Permits for utility, energy, public and private development, and infrastructure projects.

David Wolff Environmental, LLC

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• City of Arroyo Grande East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan. Prepared biological resources assessment, rare plant survey, and waters of the U.S./State jurisdictional determination for proposed 13-acre residential subdivision. • City of Arroyo Grande Branch Street Market (Hotel) Project. Prepared biological resources assessment and jurisdictional determination/permitting for proposed Village Walk/Market/Hotel project in the Village. • City of Arroyo Grande East Neighborhood Plan (Cherry Creek) Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Prepared biological resources assessment, Newsome Springs watershed analysis, and waters of the U.S./State jurisdictional determination in support of CEQA Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Santa Maria Public Airport District Runway Extension, Business Park Development, Specific Plan, Master Plan.

CA tiger salamander, CA red-legged frog, and vernal pool fairy shrimp FESA Section 7 Consultation, rare plant surveys, protocol fairy shrimp surveys, and runway extension construction environmental monitoring & reporting.

Prepared CA tiger salamander and vernal pool fairy shrimp pond creation feasibility study with interdisciplinary team of biologists, hydrologist, and engineers. USFWS approved CRLF & CTS monitor for runway extension project.

Supported project team in FESA Section 7 Consultations for Business Park Biological Opinion & USFWS/CDFW settlement agreement for long term development FESA/CESA compliance. • Scannell Properties FedEx Ground Center Project, Santa Maria Airport. Coordinated environmental review, regulatory compliance, and construction monitoring and reporting between the Airport and project proponent.

Approved California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog construction monitor under USFWS/FAA Biological Opinion 08EVEN-2016-F-0568. Captured and relocated 30 adult CA red-legged frogs and 10 egg masses. • San Luis Obispo County Airports – Runway extension, and hotel and rental car facility development projects fairy shrimp surveys, wetland delineation, USFWS consultation, pre-construction CA red-legged frog surveys, environmental construction monitoring and reporting.
• Brown Field Municipal Airport, City of San Diego – Metropolitan Airpark Project. Airport development project San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp surveys (wet and dry season), rare plant surveys, burrowing owl surveys, jurisdictional determination and wetland delineation, managed Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys, Section 7 FESA Biological Assessment and agency consultation. • UC Santa Barbara North Campus Open Space Devereux Slough Restoration Project. Conducted studies to establish baseline biological/wetland existing conditions and jurisdictional determination for the ecosystem restoration of tidal and freshwater wetlands and upland habitats. The 136-acre project to remove historic golf course fill and restore tidal influence to Devereux Slough required collaboration and permitting with multiple local, state and federal agencies. Caltrans funding of pedestrian bridges required the preparation of a NES/BA for project approvals, along with Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW permitting. • Southern California Gas Company, Line 80/Goleta Storage Facility, Goleta. Coastal Development Permit compliance for hydrostatic testing, maintenance, construction monitoring, and habitat restoration planning.

Belding’s savannah sparrow survey and monitoring. Three-year salt marsh restoration monitoring and reporting for Coastal Development Permit compliance. Prepared and monitored successful Habitat Restoration Plan. • Morro Bay National Estuary Program, San Luis Obispo County. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Morro Bay restoration feasibility study. Los Osos Creek bank restoration, steelhead and CA red-legged frog & construction monitoring; Walters Creek restoration biological assessment; Maino Ranch invasive weed species study; • City of Grover Beach. Grand Avenue bridge replacement and storm drain modification project regulatory compliance authorizations, mitigation planning, pre-construction CA red-legged frog and nesting bird surveys, and construction environmental monitoring.
• City of San Luis Obispo. Damon-Garcia Sports Complex project Clean Water Act Individual Permit and riparian habitat restoration planning.
• Caltrans District 5. Janet Creek Highway 101 culvert replacement project California red-legged frog USFWS approved construction monitor. Captured and relocated one juvenile during dewatering for culvert replacement. • Ch2MHill – Vandenberg Air Force Base Canyon Fire Natural Resources Support. Managed biological resources monitors for UXO surveys.
• Unocal/Chevron Corporation, San Luis Obispo County. Rare, threatened, and endangered species surveys, fairy shrimp surveys, wetland regulatory compliance, & California Coastal Act compliance, for remediation & facility reuse projects at the SLO Tank Farm, Avila Terminal, & Guadalupe Dunes sites.

David Wolff Environmental, LLC
• City of Santa Maria Utilities Department. Drainage facilities maintenance program Corps Regional General Permit and approved CA red-legged frog and CA tiger salamander construction monitor under USFWS Section 7 Biological Opinion.
• Plains All American Pipeline Line 901/903 Replacement Project. Managed and conducted biological, botanical, and special-status species baseline data field surveys over 123 miles of pipeline alignment from the Gaviota Coast, through northern Santa Barbara County, Los Padres National Forest, Cuyama Valley in San Luis Obispo County, to San Joaquin Valley in Kern County. Prepared CWA Section 404 permit application package for over 140 crossing of waters of the U.S./State, threatened and endangered species Biological Assessment for FESA Section 7 Consultation. • Solomon Hills Specific Plan, Solstra California, Santa Barbara County. Conducted rare plant surveys, wildlife surveys, habitat mapping, and preparation of a biological resources assessment for a 1,600 acre mixed use development Specific Plan project, and Conditional Use Permits around Solomon Mountain south of the community of Orcutt in northern Santa Barbara County.
• Cat Canyon Resources, Foxen Petroleum Pipeline, Santa Barbara County. Prepared jurisdictional determination, obtained CWA 404/401 permits, FESA Section 7 Biological Opinion, CDFW CESA 2080 CA tiger salamander incidental take permit, CDFW 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Cat Canyon Oil Field, northern Santa Barbara County land use planning biological assessments, California tiger salamander analysis, California red-legged frog surveys, agency coordination, environmental awareness training. • Pacific Coast Energy Company, Orcutt Hill, Santa Barbara County. Northern Santa Barbara County land use planning biological assessments, rare plant surveys, habitat identification and GIS analysis/mapping, California tiger salamander analysis.
• Southern California Gas Company, Line 36-1032 Relocation, San Julian Ranch, North Santa Barbara County:

Regulatory compliance and permitting for multiple HDD crossings in highly sensitive habitat with difficult drilling conditions. USFWS protocol surveys for Least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Approved California red-legged frog, steelhead, least Bell’s vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher monitor. Lead construction monitor. Macroinvertebrate analysis water quality assessment. • Southern California Gas Company, Line 1010 PIP Maintenance Digs. Prepared FESA Section 10 low-effect Habitat Conservation Plan for Incidental Take Permit issuance for potential effects on the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. Facilitated CDFW 2080.1 CESA Consistency Determination for CTS take authorization. • Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Student housing & education facilities Clean Water Act permitting, CA red-legged frog surveys, riparian habitat restoration & monitoring. Facilitated obtaining NMFS Biological Opinion for steelhead needed for bridge replacement and construction.
• Morro Bay High School Master Plan Update. Conducted a biological resources analysis including monarch butterfly and morro shoulderband snail surveys. Identification, delineation, and mapping update of Coastal Act Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA).
• Sempra Energy (Southern California Gas Company / San Diego Gas and Electric). Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, SWPPP, CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreements, local agency environmental compliance, and expert witness for operation, maintenance, repair and replacement projects thoughout southern California for pipeline Integrity/enhancement projects.
o Programmatic Compliance Efforts: Programmatic permit compliance efforts in Southern California, San Joaquin Valley, and Coastal California. Performed as key team member for regional Biological Opinion implementation and HCP preparation for San Joaquin Valley Northern Service Territory. Botanical and wildlife technical assistance team member for Coastal HCP preparation. o Transmission and Distribution Services: Biological impact assessments, permit facilitation, agency negotiations, construction monitoring, site restoration, and compliance assistance for State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and CDFW Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreements.
o Construction Monitoring: Lead construction monitor for various Capital Improvement and maintenance projects (Transmission, Distribution, Pipeline Integrity, PSEP). Duties include permit compliance oversight and construction monitor coordination and reporting.
o Expert Testimony: Provided expert analyses on habitat recovery following the Witch Fire for legal mediation proceedings.

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805)687-4418 • FAX (805)682-8509 • [email protected] Since 1978
Richard L. Pool, P.E.

Scott A. Schell
Engineering • Planning • Parking • Signal Systems • Impact Reports • Bikeways • Transit April 13, 2026 26013L01
Russ Sheppel
1202 Shoreline Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109

PARKING STUDY FOR THE CREEKSIDE JUNCTION RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - CITY

OF ARROYO GRANDE
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) has prepared the following parking study for the Creekside Junction residential development located in the City of Arroyo Grande. The following parking study determines the number of parking spaces and the parking demand estimates for the Creekside Junction.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 1 the Creekside
Junction Project is located within the
existing Oak Park Professional Plaza.

The Project is proposing to develop 92
multifamily residential units. Figure 1
(attached) illustrates the Project site
plan. As shown, primary access to the
site will be provided via an existing
driveway connection to James Way that
serves the Oak Park Professional Plaza.

As part of the Major Modification
application, the City has requested a
parking study to determine the
adequacy of the existing on-site parking spaces. The parking study will identify the number of proposed parking spaces and the parking demand estimates for the Creekside Junction Residential Development.

Russ Sheppel Page 2 April 13, 2026

PARKING ANALYSIS
A total of 31 on-site garage parking spaces are provided as part of the Creekside Junction as shown in Table 1. Table 1 summarizes the number of units and unit types included as part of the Creekside Junction development and the number of parking spaces available for the Creekside Junction.

Table 1
Creekside Junction - On-Site Parking Space Summary
Unit Type Units Parking Spaces Provided
Studio 20 Units
1-Bedroom 58 Units 31 spaces
2-Bedroom 14 Units
Peak Parking Demand Analysis
Peak parking demand estimates were calculated for Creekside Junction based on empirical parking demand rates for multifamily housing land uses published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Parking Generation Manual, 6 th Edition.1
Table 2 shows the
peak parking demand forecasts based on the number of 1- and 2-bedroom units in the proposed Creekside Junction development.

Table 2
Creekside Junction Peak Parking Demand
Land Use Units Rate Peak Demand Spaces Provided
Multifamily Residential:

Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
20 Units
58 Units
14 Units

0.68 0.68

1.23 14 spaces
39 spaces
17 spaces
31 spaces
Total Parking Demand: 70 spaces
The data presented in Table 2 shows that the estimated peak parking demand forecast for Creekside Junction is 70 spaces based on the number of residential units and bedrooms. The Project will maintain the existing number of parking spaces provided to Oak Park Professional Plaza and provide an additional 4 parking spaces. These 4 spaces are not accounted for in the 31 spaces identified in Table 2. In total, after construction of the Project, there will be 192 parking spaces at the Oak Park Professional Plaza.
1 Parking Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6 th Edition, October 2023.

Russ Sheppel Page 3 April 13, 2026
Shared Parking Demand Analysis
It is noted that the ITE empirical parking demand rates don’t account for the “shared parking” due to the varying peak parking demands of the tenants and land uses within the Oak Park Professional Plaza. A shared weekday parking demand estimate was developed based on parking surveys conducted on Thursday March 5, 2026 and empirical parking demand data.

The weekday shared parking summary is presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Oak Park Professional Plaza Weekday Shared Parking Demand Time
of
Day
Existing Parking
Demand
Creekside
Parking
Demand
Parking
Demand Parking Supply Vacant/Reserve
5:00 AM 36 67 103 192 89
6:00 AM 49 61 110 192 82
7:00 AM 45 54 99 192 95
8:00 AM 82 46 128 192 64
9:00 AM 123 42 165 192 31
10:00 AM 121 40 161 192 31
11:00 AM 134 38 172 192 20
12:00 PM 91 37 128 192 64
1:00 PM 94 36 130 192 62
2:00 PM 94 37 131 192 61
3:00 PM 91 36 127 192 65
4:00 PM 100 40 140 192 52
5:00 PM 70 44 114 192 78
6:00 PM 63 45 108 192 84
7:00 PM 49 48 97 192 95
8:00 PM 31 53 84 192 108
9:00 PM 21 57 78 192 114
10:00 PM 14 61 75 192 117
The data presented in Table 3 show that the existing peak weekday parking demand and parking turnover for the Oak Park Professional Plaza is 134 spaces. With the addition of the Creekside Junction development, the peak weekday demand is 172 spaces and occurs between the hours of 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The 192 parking spaces provided in the various on-site lots are adequate to meet the shared parking demands and provide a reserve of 20 vacant parking spaces.

A shared weekend parking demand estimate was developed based on parking surveys conducted on Saturday March 7, 2026 and empirical parking demand data. The weekend shared parking summary is presented in Table 4.

Russ Sheppel Page 4 April 13, 2026
Table 4
Oak Park Professional Plaza Weekend Shared Parking Demand Time
of
Day
Existing Parking
Demand
Creekside
Parking
Demand
Parking
Demand Parking Supply Vacant/Reserve
7:00 AM 67 53 120 192 72
8:00 AM 75 45 120 192 72
9:00 AM 92 41 133 192 59
10:00 AM 90 39 129 192 63
11:00 AM 62 37 99 192 93
12:00 PM 62 36 98 192 94
1:00 PM 37 35 72 192 120
2:00 PM 38 36 74 192 118
3:00 PM 31 35 66 192 12
4:00 PM 23 39 62 192 130
5:00 PM 22 42 64 192 128
6:00 PM 26 44 70 192 122
7:00 PM 18 46 64 192 128
The data presented in Table 4 show that the existing peak weekend parking demand and parking turnover for the Oak Park Professional Plaza is 92 spaces. With the addition of the Creekside Junction development, the peak weekend demand is 133 spaces and occurs between the hours of 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM. The 196 parking spaces provided in the various on-site lots are adequate to meet the shared parking demands and provide a reserve of 59 vacant parking spaces

RECOMMENDATIONS
ATE recommends that the Oak Park Professional Plaza management routinely monitors the onsite parking supply and implements a TDM/Parking Management Plan. A TDM/Parking Management Plan would provide needed on-site support if performed as a shared site responsibility. Due to the number of unauthorized/illegally parked vehicles on the dirt/unmarked asphalt of the Sheppel property, a site monitoring strategy combined with towing of illegally parked vehicles in accordance with the California Vehicle Code.

Associated Transportation Engineers
By: Scott A. Schell
Vice President

SAS/DFN
Attachments: Figure 1 – Project Site Plan
Weekday Shared Parking Worksheet
Weekend Shard Parking Worksheet

From: Dana Allen <
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 9:52 PM
To: Aileen Loe <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Adoption of Prepared Resolution Denying Appeal Case 26-001 and Approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001 (Creekside Junction – 92 Multifamily Units at 1271/1281 James Way) I respectfully submit this opposition to the staff-recommended Resolution denying Appeal Case 26-001 and approving CUP 25-001 for the proposed 92-unit Creekside Junction project.

While I recognize California's housing needs and the project's 15% very low-income component, state law — including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA, Gov. Code §65589.5) and the AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption (PRC §21080.66) — still requires strict compliance with objective standards and prohibits approval when a project would cause specific, unmitigable adverse impacts on public health and safety.

After reviewing the March 24, 2026 staff report, supplemental materials, the prepared Resolution, and the HCD letter, I urge the City Council to exercise its de novo review authority and select Alternative 3: tentatively uphold the appeal and direct staff to return with a resolution denying the CUP, supported by detailed written findings.

1. The Project Does Not Qualify for the AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption (PRC §21080.66)

The Resolution relies on the one-quarter-mile radius test (~77% urban uses) to satisfy PRC §21080.66(a)(3). However, the exemption is intended for projects substantially surrounded by urban development. Meadow Creek forms the entire eastern boundary — a natural riparian corridor, not an "urban use" as defined in PRC §21072 (residential, commercial, institutional, retail, etc.). This major natural feature breaks urban continuity along a full side of the site perimeter.

The biological studies claim "no impact" on riparian habitat by labeling features "upland," yet the buildings sit only 32–35 feet from the creek edge. Increased impervious surfaces will generate additional runoff, creating indirect risks of erosion, sedimentation, and water-quality degradation. The Resolution's mitigation conditions (e.g., stormwater filtration and vegetation management) acknowledge potential effects rather than eliminate them. Statutory exemptions must be strictly construed; the project does not meet the "substantially surrounded by urban uses" intent. At minimum, an Initial Study is required. The Class 32 categorical exemption fallback also fails due to unusual circumstances (creek adjacency and documented parking/traffic strain).

2. The 32–35 Foot Creek Setback Creates a Specific Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety (HAA §65589.5(j)(1))
AGMC §16.44.050 imposes a minimum 50-foot setback from the top of bank or edge of vegetation to protect against erosion, flooding, and riparian degradation. The project proposes only 32–35 feet, with taller building sections closest to the creek.

As the HCD letter correctly reminds the City, HAA §65589.5(j)(1) allows denial or approval at lower density when the project would cause a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety — defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective written public health or safety standards existing when the application was deemed complete (objective = uniformly verifiable by external benchmark, per HAA §65589.5(h)(9)). Specific adverse impacts, while intended to arise infrequently (HAA §65589.5(a)(3)), are precisely what objective safety standards like the 50-foot creek setback are designed to prevent.

The reduced buffer is quantifiable via site plans. It will measurably increase runoff velocity and bank instability in the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed, posing a direct risk to the creek, downstream properties, and public infrastructure. This is not subjective neighborhood character — it is a verifiable safety concern tied to an objective code standard. The "deemed complete" lock-in and prior 2015 variance history do not override the resulting unmitigable impact. Mitigation conditions do not fully cure the encroachment. Council therefore has authority — and the evidentiary basis — to deny or condition the project at lower density.

3. The Parking Concession (Reduction to 31 Garages) Creates Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Safety
The Resolution now relies on the applicant's late March 18 revision to 31 private garages only.

However, even this reduced supply is inadequate for 92 units (residents + visitors + service needs). Historical evidence — including the 2004 Orosz Engineering report (chronic 85–95%+ occupancy and management issues under lower-demand uses) and the 2015 staff memo acknowledging site constraints — demonstrates longstanding parking shortages at this shared location.

Adding high-occupancy residential use will exacerbate spillover onto James Way and adjacent properties (Curl Fitness, medical offices, Best Western). This creates quantifiable safety

impacts: blocked emergency vehicle access, congestion, and pedestrian hazards, particularly for older adults at nearby medical and fitness facilities. These tie directly to objective Fire Code and circulation standards.

Recorded easements (2000/2008 reciprocal agreement benefiting Curl Fitness; 2015 Best Western settlement granting primary rights to ~18 spaces with towing/signage) burden the site. Confirmed lack of agreements with the hotel and church further undermines enforceability. Per HAA §65589.5(j)(1) and the HCD letter, when a concession causes a specific adverse impact based on objective standards that cannot be mitigated short of denial or conditions, the City may act. The record provides the required preponderance of evidence.

4. Density Bonus Concessions and Waivers Cannot Override Specific Adverse Impacts; Mixed-Use Classification Is Improper
Concessions (height, parking reduction, landscaping) and waivers (building size, FAR, open space) are mandatory only if no specific adverse impact or other statutory exception applies (§65915(d)(4) & (e)). The creek setback and parking issues meet those exceptions.

Additionally, treating the 100% residential project as "mixed-use" under AGMC §16.04.070 is incorrect. The definition requires an on-site combination of commercial and residential uses.

Mere adjacency to existing commercial buildings plus shared access does not qualify — especially without enforceable parking agreements. This misclassification affects covered parking requirements (§16.56.060(e)) and the intent of the Office Mixed Use (OMU) zone.

Recommendation
I respectfully request that the City Council not adopt the prepared Resolution and instead:

Tentatively uphold Appeal Case 26-001 (Alternative 3); and Direct staff to return with a denial resolution containing detailed written findings that (1) the project fails PRC §21080.66 eligibility due to the Meadow Creek boundary, and (2) it would cause specific adverse impacts on public safety (creek erosion/flood risk and parking/emergency access) that cannot be mitigated short of denial or redesign at lower density.

Thank you for your time and careful consideration of these objective, evidence-based concerns.

Sincerely,
Dana Allen Mallett
JD MLS

On Apr 13, 2026, at 10:13 PM, Dana Allen > wrote:

Just be clear you are not going to be winning any votes by supporting this project.

Truthfully, you are mayor by default. You would not implement a discount on the water for residents that are low income but you support an illegal project that claims to benefit low income residents.

I respectfully submit this opposition to the staff-recommended Resolution denying Appeal Case 26-001 and approving CUP 25-001 for the proposed 92-unit Creekside Junction project. While I recognize California's housing needs and the project's 15% very low-income component, state law — including the Housing

Accountability Act (HAA, Gov. Code §65589.5) and the AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption (PRC §21080.66) — still requires strict compliance with objective standards and prohibits approval when a project would cause specific, unmitigable adverse impacts on public health and safety.

After reviewing the March 24, 2026 staff report, supplemental materials, the prepared Resolution, and the HCD letter, I urge the City Council to exercise its de novo review authority and select Alternative 3: tentatively uphold the appeal and direct staff to return with a resolution denying the CUP, supported by detailed written findings.

1. The Project Does Not Qualify for the AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption (PRC §21080.66)
The Resolution relies on the one-quarter-mile radius test (~77% urban uses) to satisfy PRC §21080.66(a)(3). However, the exemption is intended for projects substantially surrounded by urban development. Meadow Creek forms the entire eastern boundary — a natural riparian corridor, not an "urban use" as defined in PRC §21072 (residential, commercial, institutional, retail, etc.). This major natural feature breaks urban continuity along a full side of the site perimeter.

The biological studies claim "no impact" on riparian habitat by labeling features "upland," yet the buildings sit only 32–35 feet from the creek edge. Increased impervious surfaces will generate additional runoff, creating indirect risks of erosion, sedimentation, and water-quality degradation. The Resolution's mitigation conditions (e.g., stormwater filtration and vegetation management) acknowledge potential effects rather than eliminate them. Statutory exemptions must be strictly construed; the project does not meet the "substantially surrounded by urban uses" intent. At minimum, an Initial Study is required. The Class 32 categorical exemption fallback also fails due to unusual circumstances (creek adjacency and documented parking/traffic strain).

2. The 32–35 Foot Creek Setback Creates a Specific Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety (HAA §65589.5(j)(1)) AGMC §16.44.050 imposes a minimum 50-foot setback from the top of bank or edge of vegetation to protect against erosion, flooding, and riparian degradation.

The project proposes only 32–35 feet, with taller building sections closest to the creek.

As the HCD letter correctly reminds the City, HAA §65589.5(j)(1) allows denial or approval at lower density when the project would cause a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety — defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective written public health or safety standards existing when the application was deemed complete (objective = uniformly verifiable by external benchmark, per HAA §65589.5(h)(9)). Specific adverse impacts, while intended to arise infrequently (HAA §65589.5(a)(3)), are precisely what objective safety standards like the 50-foot creek setback are

designed to prevent.

The reduced buffer is quantifiable via site plans. It will measurably increase runoff velocity and bank instability in the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed, posing a direct risk to the creek, downstream properties, and public infrastructure.

This is not subjective neighborhood character — it is a verifiable safety concern tied to an objective code standard. The "deemed complete" lock-in and prior 2015 variance history do not override the resulting unmitigable impact. Mitigation conditions do not fully cure the encroachment. Council therefore has authority — and the evidentiary basis — to deny or condition the project at lower density.

3. The Parking Concession (Reduction to 31 Garages) Creates Specific Adverse Impacts on Public Safety
The Resolution now relies on the applicant's late March 18 revision to 31 private garages only. However, even this reduced supply is inadequate for 92 units (residents + visitors + service needs). Historical evidence — including the 2004 Orosz Engineering report (chronic 85–95%+ occupancy and management issues under lower-demand uses) and the 2015 staff memo acknowledging site constraints — demonstrates longstanding parking shortages at this shared location.

Adding high-occupancy residential use will exacerbate spillover onto James Way and adjacent properties (Curl Fitness, medical offices, Best Western). This creates quantifiable safety impacts: blocked emergency vehicle access, congestion, and pedestrian hazards, particularly for older adults at nearby medical and fitness facilities. These tie directly to objective Fire Code and circulation standards.

Recorded easements (2000/2008 reciprocal agreement benefiting Curl Fitness; 2015 Best Western settlement granting primary rights to ~18 spaces with towing/signage) burden the site. Confirmed lack of agreements with the hotel and church further undermines enforceability. Per HAA §65589.5(j)(1) and the HCD letter, when a concession causes a specific adverse impact based on objective standards that cannot be mitigated short of denial or conditions, the City may act.

The record provides the required preponderance of evidence.

4. Density Bonus Concessions and Waivers Cannot Override Specific Adverse Impacts; Mixed-Use Classification Is Improper Concessions (height, parking reduction, landscaping) and waivers (building size, FAR, open space) are mandatory only if no specific adverse impact or other statutory exception applies (§65915(d)(4) & (e)). The creek setback and parking issues meet those exceptions.

Additionally, treating the 100% residential project as "mixed-use" under AGMC §16.04.070 is incorrect. The definition requires an on-site combination of commercial and residential uses. Mere adjacency to existing commercial buildings plus shared access does not qualify — especially without enforceable parking agreements. This misclassification affects covered parking requirements (§16.56.060(e)) and the intent of the Office Mixed Use (OMU) zone.

Recommendation
I respectfully request that the City Council not adopt the prepared Resolution and instead:

Tentatively uphold Appeal Case 26-001 (Alternative 3); and Direct staff to return with a denial resolution containing detailed written findings that (1) the project fails PRC §21080.66 eligibility due to the Meadow Creek boundary, and (2) it would cause specific adverse impacts on public safety (creek erosion/flood risk and parking/emergency access) that cannot be mitigated short of denial or redesign at lower density.

These are objective and evidence based concerns.

Sincerely,
Dana Allen Mallett
JD MLS

had to drive around the parking lot areas for 10 minutes. It wasn't until someone was leaving the parking lot that I was able to park! Not only was that frustrating to me. I also realized that getting in and out of the Parking lot is very challenging.

We have a lot of Seniors who work out at at Curl Fitness and visit their Doctors & have Medical appointments in the Medical Buildings located in the adjacent areas.

Many of them have physical conditions, yet they are working out at Curl Fitness to better their health. However, more frequently than we wish, an Ambulance must be called to help out someone at Curl Fitness. When an Ambulance is called, the Fire Department also arrives with it's Large Fire Engine Truck, Emergency vehicles & personnel. Unfortunately, Curl Fitness members have had Heart Attacks, Strokes, Fainting episodes, Falls with injuries to various areas of the body which require a Paramedic, EMT's & Firemen with a potential trip to the Emergency Room for further evaluation, treatment & Hospitalization. Unfortunately, sometimes (although rare) someone may even Die!
I believe that the proposal of a 92 Housing Development would make our current parking lot even more crowded, difficult to find parking Safely and even harder for an Ambulance, Big Fire Truck & Paramedic Unit to help someone in need of Emergent Medical help!
So, please listen to my plea and the alarm of others concerning the potential negative effects of the proposed 92 Housing Unit Development. Including major increased difficulty and safety when trying to park but also, the safety of all those extra families packed in an already very busy & full Parking lot!
I understand that the Developer doesn't even live here! What is his motive? He doesn't appear to really care about the Safety and Life Style of living in Arroyo Grande but, he does seem interested in making money!
Please vote No to this Huge 92 Housing Unite Development.

Thank you for your Service and your time.

Sincerely,
Julia Korba - a concerned resident of Arroyo Grande and member at Curl Fitness.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants– Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: April 14, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received by 2 p.m. for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Interim Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

Second, this site plan references a parking agreement with the church across the street. The pastor of that church confirmed on the record at the prior hearing that no such agreement exists and that he has no intention of entering into one.

Third, this site plan references shared parking arrangements with the hotel. The hotel owner has confirmed that no such agreement exists. To the contrary, the hotel owner holds a primary legal right to 18 of those stalls under a 2015 recorded settlement agreement — a right he has formally exercised by posting no parking signs on all 18 of those stalls just last week.

The entire parking solution for this project is built on agreements that do not exist.

Additionally, this site plan shows the location of Building A. Building A's parcel was never a party to the shared parking agreement governing this center and therefore has no legal parking rights anywhere within the center. According to the applicant's own submitted square footage data, Building A represents over 75 percent of this project — approximately 70 of the 92 proposed residential units — with only 21 on-site garage spaces and zero legal access to any other parking anywhere in this center.

Exhibit 4 — Recorded Easement Documents
This exhibit contains the recorded Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement — Document Number 2000-030755 — on file with the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, as amended in 2008.

These documents establish binding easement rights that run with the land and are enforceable against all successors and assigns.

Building B is proposed to be constructed directly on top of recorded easement areas established under these agreements. You cannot legally build on land encumbered by a recorded easement held by other property owners. Building A has no legal parking rights in this center. Building B cannot legally be built where it is proposed. This project is legally infeasible on its face.

Conclusion
The four exhibits submitted with this public comment document conditions that are not speculative — they are real, observable, and photographically documented. The parking lot is already at capacity. Vehicles are already blocking emergency access routes. The project's parking solution is built entirely on agreements that do not exist. And the proposed buildings conflict with recorded easement rights that cannot be overridden by a conditional use permit.

The Housing Accountability Act defines a specific adverse impact as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards. The conditions documented in these exhibits meet that definition precisely. This Council has not only the legal authority to deny this project — it has the responsibility to do so.

I respectfully request that the City Council uphold the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit 25-001, or alternatively require substantial redesign to address these fundamental legal and operational deficiencies before any approval is granted.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the developer communicated in writing to the other parcel owners within this center just this past week that he has already created a scaled-down alternative design for this project but cannot discuss it until after tonight's hearing. The developer himself has acknowledged that this project as submitted is not the right solution. There is a better path forward for housing on this site. But it is not this project.

Respectfully submitted,
Victor Poma Co-Owner,
Oak Park Professional Center
James Way Arroyo Grande, California

From: Jeri Edwards >
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 1:11 PM
To: Aileen Loe <[email protected]>; Kate Secrest <[email protected]>; Jamie Maraviglia <[email protected]>; Jim Guthrie <[email protected]> Subject: Your note NO on 92 unit project is NOT ABOUT HOUSING Don't let the narrative 'we need more housing' override your common sense, judgment and fiduciary duty to your tax-paying citizens and to the entire community. This project will create a permanent safety and parking nightmare for everyone accessing this business plaza, including residents who rent and expect to park onsite. It will drive patients away from the medical businesses and drive away the community members who utilize the fitness center.

DON'T be fooled by the 'we need housing' mantra.

DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOTE NO.

Jeri Edwards
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeri Edwards >
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 8:35 AM
Subject: Vote NO to the 92 unit project
To: Aileen Loe <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Of course Arroyo Grande needs more housing. But why I'm writing you is to suggest that the City Council adopt a SMART, SAFE, QUALITY OF LIFE approach to approving new housing developments.

In this case, the 92 unit project is TOO BIG, does not provide enough PARKING, and there are serious SAFETY issues that have been completely ignored.

The hotel and church will not offer parking to the developer.

There is NO street parking available (all curbs are red).

I understand that this project is NOT exempt from an EIR.

There are environment issues of bordering a creek that have not been addressed.

The developer OVERSTATED the number of PARKING spaces he is allotted for this project.

I URGE you to go to the site at any time of the day to see how there is already an OVERFLOW parking situation at this site due to the fitness center and medical office patrons.

The fact that there is already an OVERFLOW situation would create an impossible parking problem for members of the fitness center (I am a member of this fitness center), patients of the medical facilities and of course residents of the 92 unit development if built.

This fitness center is a HOT SPOT of HEALTHY activity for community members and the medical buildings are of critical importance to all area residents. Being able to PARK in this center and not be denied access is a huge QUALITY OF LIFE issue. Please go visit the site and see for yourself.

Please vote NO on the number of units being proposed. Please pay attention to the QUALITY OF LIFE, HEALTH, SAFETY of all the residents using these businesses in this center.

Jeri Edwards

Please stop this ill conceived project.

L. Randall Harris

Item 10.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Perez, Interim Director of Community Development BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying Architectural Review 25-005 for a proposed mural at 201 East Branch Street; and
2) Find that the denial of the proposed mural is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §15270(a)), and the denial will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); § 15378).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

No financial impact.

BACKGROUND:

The applicant, Monarch Books, proposes to paint a mural on the west side of the building located at 201 E. Branch St, adjacent to the City-owned walkway between 133 East Branch Street and the subject property (Attachment 2). The walkway provides pedestrian access from East Branch Street to the parking areas located behind the buildings that front East Branch Street. The proposed mural meets the definition of public art and is subject to the City’s Public Art Guidelines and Public Art Donation Program1(“the Guidelines”).

The Guidelines were most recently updated on May 14th2, 2024, when City Council adopted Resolution 5358. The stated purpose of the Guidelines is to establish a

1 https://arroyogrande.org/documentcenter/view/1690
2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10890

Item 10.b.

City Council
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E.

Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
April 14, 2026

framework to facilitate and encourage property owners to provide outdoor public art. The Guidelines define "Public Art" as art located either:

1. On private property with a non-residential land use that is visible from a public right-of-way or public property; or

2. In the adjacent public right of way; or

3. On property owned or managed by the City of Arroyo Grande (City), that is openly displayed to the public without charge.

The Guidelines establish the City's goals regarding art that is publicly displayed and accessible to the public. The City recognizes that art and artistic expression is a protected activity and these Guidelines are not intended to unduly restrict creative expression or limit the types of public art possible. Rather, they are intended to facilitate and encourage the best possible combination of sites and artwork and help to guide what is essentially a form of communication between the artist and the community.

The Guidelines also describe the approval process and selection criteria for public art proposals. Under the amended guidelines, all public art projects require review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), which makes a recommendation to the City Council. Decisions by the City Council shall be based on compliance with the selection criteria.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Project Description
The proposed mural would measure approximately 150 square feet, with dimensions of 10 feet in height by 15 feet in width. The mural area is calculated by enclosing the outer limits of the text that distinguishes the mural from its background within a single continuous rectangular perimeter. The focal point of the mural is a navy circle approximately five feet in diameter, centered at mid-wall height and inscribed with creamcolored text reading: “What’s your story?” The text is surrounded by imagery that add visual interest, including a Monarch butterfly, bird, rabbit sitting atop a stack of books, horse, UFO, and ocean imagery including a whale, waves, and sailing ship. There is a silhouetted figure shown on the drawing that will not be included in the mural. The presence of the figure is intended to show where members of the public may stand for photos with the “selfie wall.”
The applicant also proposes painting the remainder of the western wall in the color “Hale Navy” to match the color of the front façade. This paint color, described as a shade of navy with a classic maritime feel, was found to be consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4)3 by the ARC on June 26, 20234. Figure 1 below depicts the proposed mural.

3 https://arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/280/Village-Design-Guidelines-PDF 4 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=7294

Item 10.b.

City Council
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E.

Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
April 14, 2026

Figure 1: Rendering of Proposed Mural
Review Process Under Public Art Guidelines
Following an initial determination on the completeness of the application by the Community Development Department, the ARC reviews all public art applications and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Selection Criteria, which both ARC and the City Council will use to review applications, is discussed below.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
The ARC reviewed the proposal at the regular meeting on November 3, 20255. The Committee was supportive of the location near a public walkway and the intent to create public art that engages the community and creates conversation. The ARC commented6 that the fonts and colors are appropriate and that murals are consistent with the historic period. The ARC recommended approval of the proposal as presented.

5https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=dd228ecd-9569-4083-b34d655bcb4b62e1&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=14&Tab=attachments 6 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=16685

Item 10.b.

City Council
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E.

Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
April 14, 2026

Subsequent to ARC’s review of the proposal, concerns were expressed about the imagery relating to products sold by the business. In that review, it was determined that the imagery is closely related to the products sold by the business and is in conflict with selection criterion 7.e. of the Guidelines. Staff recommended that the applicant consider minor changes to the artwork to alleviate this concern. However, the applicant has decided against modifying the proposal prior to City Council’s consideration of the application.

Selection Criteria
The Guidelines state that certain selection criteria (the “Selection Criteria”) shall be the basis for all decisions on public art applications. The first seven criteria apply to all public art applications, and the final criterion is specific to proposals in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District. The Selection Criteria are as follows:

1. Evaluation of artistic excellence, examining:
a. The artist’s qualifications, including education, training, experience, body of work, recognition of the artist, and the consistency of the artist’s qualifications with the stated goals of the project;
b. The artist’s record of previous collaboration with other agencies, organizations, artists, fabricators, or installers to achieve a successful result in implementing the proposed project;
c. The artist’s experience working in the public realm; d. To the extent applicable, the artist’s previous proven successful experience in creating, producing or otherwise implementing projects similar to the one proposed;
e. The original nature of the proposed concept;
f. The inherent artistic quality and aesthetic merit of the work;

2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the immediate neighborhood and environment; no mural shall be approved if the mural, as proposed, would create an objective risk to public health, safety, or welfare (e.g. a mural near a roadway would be rejected for the use of reflective materials, like mirrors, which could cause a distraction to drivers). Scale is defined as the relative size of a building element in relation to other forms and the human body. Form is the shape or configuration of the artwork;

3. Appropriateness of proposed materials in regard to structural and surface integrity.

Materials should be considered in the context of ability to deter against vandalism, withstand weathering, and maintain the intended design;

4. Ease of maintenance and longevity of the proposed materials;

5. Appropriateness of the proposed method of installation of the artwork with consideration given to the safety and structural factors involved in installation;

6. Location, considering the intended audience for the proposal, whether the public will be a captive audience or whether a person would need to take affirmative steps

Item 10.b.

City Council
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E.

Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
April 14, 2026

to view the project. Consideration shall be given to whether the mural would be in an area typically accessed or viewable by minors;

7. A mural shall not be approved if it includes:
a. Copyrighted work without permission of the holder of the copyright. b. Obscene materials.
c. Defamatory content.
d. Fighting words or advocates imminent lawless action. e. Content, including but not limited to, words, symbols, signs, trademarks, or references to products or services provided on the premises. Such content meets the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) definition for signage, as regulated by AGMC Chapter 16.60;

8. Public Art proposed in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District is also subject to the following criteria:
a. An identified relationship to the social, cultural, and historical identity of the area;
b. An identified relationship to the site's existing architectural features; c. The nature of the site's surrounding neighborhood and potential impact of the public art project on residents, businesses, and existing works of art or design elements within the site's vicinity.

Findings
Staff is able to make the required findings that the mural is consistent with the Selection Criteria described by the Guidelines, except for finding 7 relating to products or services sold on site. Staff’s analysis of the findings is as follows:

1. The artist, Marmalade Mural Company, has completed numerous projects with similar scopes and scale and has collaborated with dozens of public and private agencies to complete similar projects throughout the country. Specifically, the artist has completed numerous examples of highly visible public wall murals painted directly on brick. Examples include work done at SLO County Airport, the SLO Ranch Market and SLODOCO.

2. The proposal to paint a wall mural, as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is appropriate for the location in terms of form, material and scale. The proposed location being a public walkway will not endanger the public due to being oriented for pedestrian viewers and will not impact the safety of passing vehicles on Branch Street, nor will it endanger pedestrians viewing the mural. The artwork's objective, which is to serve as a "selfie spot" ensures that the scale of the mural will be an appropriate scale.

3. The proposed use of exterior-rated paint is intended to maintain the durability of the artwork over time. After completion of the artwork, a clear coat preventing vandalism will be applied to further protect the artwork.

4. The proposed use of exterior-rated paint was selected with ease of maintenance and longevity in mind and are intended for the proposed method of installation.

Item 10.b.

City Council
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E.

Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
April 14, 2026

The use of a protective clear coat will further increase the longevity of the artwork and dramatically reduce maintenance needs.

5. The proposed method of painting the mural has been selected to consider safety and structural factors involved in installation. The artist will be required to provide a pedestrian detour plan if their proposal involves the closure of any public sidewalks and, therefore, will not contribute to an unsafe situation for the artist nor the public during the creation of the mural.

6. The proposed artwork, visible to the general public, has been designed to reflect the broad interests of the public and is intended to attract visitors to the Village by providing a backdrop for photographs.

7. The artwork, as proposed, contains imagery and elements that directly relate to the products and services offered by the business. Specifically, the mural contains images of books, which are the primary product offered at this retail business. The depiction of a monarch butterfly makes reference to the business’ name, Monarch Books. The City’s mural regulations allow for the creation of art in the community, but the City, with this criterion, intends to preserve its zoning authority over signs applicable to commercial businesses in the City. By referencing the name of the business with the monarch butterfly and including a book, the property owner creates signage that advertises their business name (“Monarch Books”) and the products sold on the premises (books). Signage like this must comply with the City’s regulations on commercial signage contained in Chapter 16.60 of the AGMC. (See AGMC § 16.60.020) For this reason, the proposal is not consistent with criterion 7.e of the Guidelines.

8. The proposed artwork has an identified relationship to the identity of the area and compliments the existing architecture, which includes a painted brick wall. The installation of a painted wall mural in this location will complement the character of the existing built environment and will have a positive impact on the Village as a whole by attracting new visitors and providing visual appeal to a walkway with public access.

In its review of the application, City Council shall consider any material submitted by the applicant, city staff, the administrative record of the decision on the application, and evidence presented at the hearing. The applicant shall be given a reasonable time to present their case. Using the Selection Criteria as the basis for its decision, the City Council may:

1. Request that the applicant clarify its proposal or redesign and resubmit its proposal to ARC or City Council. If the City Council requests that the applicant resubmit the proposal to ARC, the resubmitted proposal shall be reviewed as if a new application; or

2. Approve the proposal, providing a written explanation of the basis for approval through the Selection Criteria; or

3. Deny the proposal, providing a written explanation of the basis for denial through the Selection Criteria.

Item 10.b.

City Council
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E.

Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
April 14, 2026

All decisions of the City Council are final and conclusive.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying the project;

2. Direct the applicant to redesign and resubmit the project;

3. Do not adopt the prepared Resolution; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Denial of the application will result in the mural being inconsistent with the adopted Public Art Guidelines and uphold the Public Art Guidelines.

DISADVANTAGES:

A denial will not allow for installation of public art in a highly visible location, but reinforces the selection criteria, specifically criterion 7, which prevents murals from serving as additional signage or advertisement for businesses.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Denial of the project is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §15270(a)), and the denial will not have or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); § 15378.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution with Exhibit A - Rendering

2. Project Location

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE DENYING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 25-005 FOR A
PROPOSED MURAL AT 201 EAST BRANCH STREET
WHEREAS, the City’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed painting of a mural at 201 East Branch Street (“project”) on November 3, 2025, in accordance with the City’s Public Art Guidelines and Public Art Donation Program (the “Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, the applicant for the proposed mural is “Monarch Books”, which operates a bookstore; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the ARC’s review, it was noted that the mural did not satisfy Selection Criterion 7.e. of the Guidelines regarding imagery in the mural that relates directly to the products sold by the subject business; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2026, the City Council reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and determined that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency does not approve pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.

WHEREAS, all prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. Recitals. All recitals above are true and correct and hereby incorporated into reference.

2. CEQA. Denial of the proposed mural is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §15270(a)), and the denial will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3) 15378).

3. Architectural Review Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the architectural guidelines of the city, or guidelines prepared for the area in which the project is located; The proposal to paint a wall mural on a painted brick wall, and as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), is consistent with all applicable architectural guidelines for the project. Painted wall murals are appropriate for this location due to the historical use of painted wall signs directly onto brick buildings. The colors and the content of the mural are

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
consistent with all relevant guidelines, including the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4).

2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande general plan and this title;
The proposal, as recommended by the ARC, is consistent with the City’s General Plan, specifically the Economic Development Element, which emphasizes the implementation of public art.

3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project;
The proposal, as recommended by the ARC, will not be detrimental to the health of safety of the general public due to being designed with materials that are intended for use on outdoor walls. Further, the applicant will be required to implement appropriate safety measures for pedestrians while the work is occurring that will mitigate any potential safety issues during installation.

4. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood;
The appearance of the artwork, as recommended by the ARC, is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The inclusion of whimsical elements provide visual intrigue in an area frequented by members of the public and will increase the visual interest of the area, which is already intended for pedestrians and public engagement.

5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city;
The approval of this artwork will not have any effect on the harmonious development of the City due to being consistent with the adopted guidelines for public art. Further, the installation of public art in the Village will promote business development and improve the character of the entire corridor.

6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood.

The proposal, as recommended by the ARC, will not impair the desirability of the neighborhood due to being consistent with the adopted guidelines for public art. Further, the installation of public art in an area designed for pedestrian activity increases the visual intrigue and creates a sense of community that will promote further investment in the neighborhood.

4. Public Art Selection Criteria Findings:

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3

1. Evaluation of artistic excellence, examining:
a. The artist’s qualifications, including: education, training, experience, body of work, recognition of the artist, and the consistency of the artist’s qualifications with the stated goals of the project; b. The artist’s record of previous collaboration with other agencies, organizations, artists, fabricators, or installers to achieve a successful result in implementing the proposed project;
c. The artist’s experience working in the public realm; d. To the extent applicable, the artist’s previous proven successful experience in creating, producing or otherwise implementing projects similar to the one proposed;
e. The original nature of the proposed concept;
f. The inherent artistic quality and aesthetic merit of the work; The artist, Marmalade Mural Company, has completed numerous projects with similar scopes and scale and has collaborated with dozens of public and private agencies to complete similar projects throughout the country.

Specifically, the artist has completed numerous examples of highly visible public wall murals painted directly on brick. Examples include work done at SLO County Airport, the SLO Ranch Market and SLODOCO.

2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the immediate neighborhood and environment; no mural shall be approved if the mural, as proposed, would create an objective risk to public health, safety, or welfare (e.g. a mural near a roadway would be rejected for the use of reflective materials, like mirrors, which could cause a distraction to drivers).

Scale is defined as the relative size of a building element in relation to other forms and the human body. Form is the shape or configuration of the artwork;
The proposal to paint a wall mural, as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is appropriate for the location in terms of form, material and scale. The proposed location being a public walkway will not endanger the public due to being oriented for pedestrian viewers and will not impact the safety of passing vehicles on Branch Street, nor will in endanger pedestrians viewing the mural. The artwork's objective, which is to serve as a "selfie spot" ensures that the scale of the mural will be an appropriate scale.

3. Appropriateness of proposed materials in regards to structural and surface integrity. Materials should be considered in the context of ability to deter against vandalism, withstand weathering, and maintain the intended

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4
design;
The proposed use of exterior-rated paint is intended to maintain the durability of the artwork over time. After completion of the artwork, a clear coat preventing vandalism will be applied to further protect the artwork.

4. Ease of maintenance and longevity of the proposed materials; The proposed use of exterior-rated paint was selected with ease of maintenance and longevity in mind and are intended for the proposed method of installation. The use of a protective clear coat will further increase the longevity of the artwork and dramatically reduce maintenance needs.

5. Appropriateness of the proposed method of installation of the artwork with consideration given to the safety and structural factors involved in installation; The proposed method of painting the mural has been selected to consider safety and structural factors involved in installation. The artist will be required to provide a pedestrian detour plan if their proposal involves the closure of any public sidewalks and, therefore, will not contribute to an unsafe situation for the artist nor the public during the creation of the mural.

6. Location, considering the intended audience for the proposal, whether the public will be a captive audience or whether a person would need to take affirmative steps to view the project. Consideration shall be given to whether the mural would be in an area typically accessed or viewable by minors; The proposed artwork, visible to the general public, has been designed to reflect the broad interests of the public and is intended to attract visitors to the Village by providing a backdrop for photographs.

7. A mural shall not be approved if it includes:
a. Copyrighted work without permission of the holder of the copyright. b. Obscene materials.
c. Defamatory content.
d. Fighting words or advocates imminent lawless action. e. Content, including but not limited to, words, symbols, signs, trademarks, or references to products or services provided on the premises. Such content meets the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) definition for signage, as regulated by AGMC Chapter 16.60;
The artwork, as proposed, contains imagery and elements that directly relate to the products and services offered by the business. Specifically, the mural contains images of books, which are the primary product offered at this retail

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5
business. The depiction of a monarch butterfly makes reference to the business’ name, Monarch Books. The City’s mural regulations allow for the creation of art in the community, but the City, with this criterion, intends to preserve its zoning authority over signs applicable to commercial businesses in the City. By referencing the name of the business with the monarch butterfly and including a book, the property owner creates signage that advertises their business name (“Monarch Books”) and the products sold on the premises (books). Signage like this must comply with the City’s regulations on commercial signage contained in Chapter 16.60 of the AGMC. (See AGMC § 16.60.020) For this reason, the proposal is not consistent with criterion 7.e of the Guidelines.

8. Public Art proposed in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District is also subject to the following criteria:
a. An identified relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the area;
b. An identified relationship to the site's existing architectural features; c. The nature of the site's surrounding neighborhood and potential impact of the public art project on residents, businesses, and existing works of art or design elements within the site's vicinity.

The proposed artwork has an identified relationship to the identity of the area and compliments the existing architecture, which includes a painted brick wall. The installation of a painted wall mural in this location will complement the character of the existing built environment and will have a positive impact on the Village as a whole by attracting new visitors and providing visual appeal to a walkway with public access.

5. Severability. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution or the document in the record in support of this resolution is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional or otherwise void, that determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, divisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this resolution.

6. Effect. The Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies the project as described and shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference with the above findings, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On a motion by Council member _________, seconded by Council member __________, and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 14th day of April 2026.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 6
_______________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

EXHIBIT A

1SPKFDU
-PDBUJPO
"55"$).&/5


MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.b – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
DATE: April 13, 2026
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Interim Director of Community Development
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

Foot traffic: Murals draw visitors to commercial corridors, benefiting every surrounding business — not just the one on whose wall they appear.

Vacancy reduction: Mural arts programs in cities like Philadelphia and Los Angeles have been directly linked to lower commercial vacancy rates.

Property values: A 2019 Urban Land Institute study found that public art increases adjacent property values and retail sales in commercial districts.

Free marketing: Murals designed as photo destinations generate organic social media impressions that no ad budget can replicate. A well-placed selfie wall is free destination marketing for the entire Village.

Art changes how people experience a neighborhood. It gives it identity, sparks conversation, and makes people want to stick around a little longer. Arroyo Grande has an opportunity to say yes to something creative, community-forward, and genuinely inspiring. I hope you will.

Thank you for your time and service to our community.

Jared Worthen

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.b – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
DATE: April 13, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Interim Director of Community Development
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.b – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
DATE: April 14, 2026
Attached is additional correspondence received by 2 p.m. for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Interim Director of Community Development
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc