Arroyo Grande City Council
April 28, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA SUMMARY

Tuesday, April 28, 2026, 5:00 p.m.

In person at:

Arroyo Grande City Council Chamber
215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
AND via Zoom at:
https://arroyogrande-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NRsyFrUIQ_6179_iBTyDVA Please click the link above to register to join the Zoom Meeting This City Council meeting is being conducted in a hybrid in-person/virtual format. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for any reason. Members of the public may participate and provide public comment on agenda items during the meeting in person at the location identified above, by joining the Zoom meeting, or by submitting written public comments to the Clerk of the Council at [email protected]. Meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 20 and streamed on the City’s Website.

CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M.:

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. FLAG SALUTE

4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

5. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council will recess to a closed session for the following and will report any reportable action at the City Council Regular meeting at 6:00 p.m.:
a) LABOR NEGOTIATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6:

Meet with City-designated negotiators described below. Negotiation will include salary, compensation and benefits:

1. Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 620 City-designated negotiators: Che Johnson, Special Labor Counsel; Ashley Garcia, Human Resources Officer; Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services

2. Employee Organization: Arroyo Grande Police Officers’ Association (POA) City-designated negotiators: Che Johnson, Special Labor Counsel; Ashley Garcia, Human Resources Officer; Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services

3. Employee Organization: Unrepresented Management Employees City-designated negotiators: Che Johnson, Special Labor Counsel

6. ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

4. FLAG SALUTE

5. AGENDA REVIEW

5.a Closed Session Announcements
City Attorney Rosen will announce any reportable action from the following meeting:

April 28, 2026
LABOR NEGOTIATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6:

Meet with City-designated negotiators described below. Negotiation will include salary, compensation and benefits:

1. Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 620 City-designated negotiators: Che Johnson, Special Labor Counsel; Ashley Garcia, Human Resources Officer; Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services

2. Employee Organization: Arroyo Grande Police Officers’ Association (POA) City-designated negotiators: Che Johnson, Special Labor Counsel; Ashley Garcia, Human Resources Officer; Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services

3. Employee Organization: Unrepresented Management Employees City-designated negotiators: Che Johnson, Special Labor Counsel

5.b Ordinances read in title only
None.

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.a Honorary Proclamation Declaring The Month of May 2026 As "National Bike Month"

6.b Honorary Proclamation Declaring May 3-9, 2026 As "Public Service Recognition Week"

6.c City Manager Communications
(DOWNING)
Recommended Action:

Receive correspondence/comments as presented by the City Manager and Provide direction, as necessary.

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

7.a MAYOR RAY RUSSOM:

1. Audit Committee

2. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)

3. Five Cities Fire Authority JPA Board

4. San Luis Obispo County Mayor's Meeting

5. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)

6. Other

7.b MAYOR PRO TEM MARAVIGLIA:

1. Five Cities Fire Authority JPA Board

2. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Board

3. Other

7.c COUNCIL MEMBER GUTHRIE:

1. Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) Policy Board

2. Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)

3. REACH Economic Development Roundtable

4. Other

7.d COUNCIL MEMBER SECREST:

1. Air Pollution Control District (APCD)

2. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC)

3. South County Chambers of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee

4. Other

7.e COUNCIL MEMBER LOE:

1. Council of Governments/Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)

2. County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)

3. Zone 3 Water Advisory Board

4. Other

8. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Members of the public may provide public comment in-person or remotely by registering and joining the Zoom meeting utilizing the link provided below. Once in the meeting, please use the “raise hand” feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.

Click the link below to register to join the webinar: https://arroyograndeorg.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NRsyFrUIQ_6179_iBTyDVA •
• After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining

the webinar.

Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time.

Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for any reason. Please attend in person or submit your comment via email to the City Clerk by 2:00 p.m. the day of the meeting to have it included as part of the record.

The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may:
• Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
• A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.

It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda.
•
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
• Comments should be limited to 1 minute or less.

Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members.
•
Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted.
•

9. CONSENT AGENDA
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.

9.a Approval of Minutes
(MATSON)
Recommended Action:

Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 14, 2026, as submitted.

9.b Cash Disbursement Ratification
(VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:

Review and ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of March 16 through March 31, 2026.

9.c Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:

Receive and file the Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update.

9.d General Plan Update Progress Report – April 2026
(PEREZ)
Recommended Action:

Receive and file a progress report on the Comprehensive General Plan Update.

9.e Adoption of a Resolution Approving Architectural Review 25-005 (PEREZ)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt a Resolution approving Architectural Review 25-005 for a proposed mural at 201 E. Branch Street; and
2) Find that the project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for minor alterations to existing structures.

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.a Public Hearing to Consider the AGTBID Annual Assessment and FY 2026-27 Budget (BOHLKEN)
Recommended Action:
1) Conduct a Public Hearing to receive public comment and protests regarding the continuation of the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (AGTBID), confirm the Annual Assessment Report (the ‘Annual Report’), and levy an annual assessment for FY 2026-27;
2) Determine if a majority protest has been received; if no majority protest has been received, adopt a Resolution confirming the Annual Report and Assessment to be levied within the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and
3) Find that the recommended actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because these efforts have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).

11. BUSINESS ITEMS

11.a City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends Presentation (Assembly Bill 2561)
(GARCIA)
Recommended Action:
1) Conduct a public hearing and receive and file the City of Arroyo Grande Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends presentation for the year ending December 31, 2025, to comply with Assembly Bill 2561; and
2) Find that the presentation about workforce vacancies, recruitment and retention trends is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical

change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378.)

11.b Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion (ROBESON)
Recommended Action:

Review and provide direction regarding the future of certain traffic control elements that were installed to address traffic impacts associated with the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project.

11.c Halcyon Complete Streets Project Pre-Bid
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:

Review specific details of the draft final design of the Halcyon Complete Streets Project (“Project”) and direct staff to advertise the Halcyon Complete Streets Project for construction as designed.

11.d Proposed Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement (ROSEN)
Recommended Action:

Approve the Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement Between the City of Arroyo Grande and Matthew Downing (“Second Amendment”) following an oral report by the City Attorney summarizing any changes in the salaries, salary schedules or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits consistent with the Brown Act.

12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council policies and procedures, Council Members may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or request that staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any request to place a matter of business for original consideration on a future agenda requires the concurrence of at least two other Council Members.

13. ADJOURNMENT
All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk’s office, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Legislative and Information Services Department at 805-473-5400 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.

This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org If you would like to subscribe to receive email or text message notifications when agendas are posted, you can sign up online through the “Notify Me” feature.

City Council Meetings are streamed live on the City’s Website and recorded for replay on Arroyo Grande’s Government Access Channel 20.

Item 6.a.

Item 6.b.

Item 9.a.

ACTION MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
April 14, 2026, 6:00 p.m.

Hybrid City Council Chamber/Virtual Zoom Meeting
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
Council Members Present: Mayor Caren Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Jamie Maraviglia, Council Member Jim
Guthrie, Council Member Kate Secrest,
Council Member Aileen Loe
Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney Isaac Rosen, City Manager Matthew Downing,
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Bill Robeson, Interim Community
Development Director Andrew Perez,
Recreation Services Director Sheridan
Bohlken, Administrative Services Director
Nicole Valentine, Fire Chief Scott Hallett,
Police Chief David Culver, Human Resources
Officer Ashley Garcia, Commander Greg
Pierce, City Engineer Shannon Sweeney,
Legal Counsel Hannah Park
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid in-person/virtual format. _____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Matson took roll call.

3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

4. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute.

5. AGENDA REVIEW
Mayor Ray Russom requested to move Item 10.a. to after Item 10.b.

5.a Closed Session Announcements

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2026
PAGE 2
2 Item 9.a.

None.

5.b Ordinances read in title only
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member Guthrie
Move that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all further readings be waived.

AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, Council Member Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, and Council Member Loe
Passed (5 to 0)

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.a Honorary Proclamation Declaring April 2026 as "National Sexual Assault Awareness Month"
Mayor Ray Russom presented a Proclamation declaring April 2026 as "National Sexual Assault Awareness Month". Michael Boyer, Lumina Alliance Board Member, accepted the Proclamation.

No action was taken on this Item.

6.b Honorary Proclamation Declaring April 24, 2026 as "Arbor Day" Mayor Ray Russom presented a Proclamation declaring April 24, 2026 as "Arbor Day".

Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Robeson and Recreation Services Director Bohlken accepted the Proclamation.

No action was taken on this Item.

6.c City Manager Communications
City Manager Downing provided updates regarding construction projects around the city including the completion of sidewalk deficiency work; Huasna Road crosswalk project; E.

Branch Street Streetscape Project Phase II; completion of Sunset and Elm Street sidewalk gap and bulbout work; and design for street repairs on Woodland Drive and Virginia Street is underway. City Manager Downing responded to questions from Council.

No action was taken on this item.

6.c.1 Mayor's Commendation Recognizing the Recreation Services Department Mayor Ray Russom presented a Mayor's Commendation to the Recreation Services Department for their achievement as a two-time winner in The Tribune’s Best of the Central Coast contest, earning honors for Best Place to Work in the Services Category and Best Summer Camp in the Education Category. Recreation Services Director Bohlken accepted the Commendation.

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2026
PAGE 3
3 Item 9.a.

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
None.

Reports are made during the Second Council Meeting each month.

8. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Patty Welsh, Paul Masters, and Judy Ceccetti. No further public comments were received.

9. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion.

Mayor Ray Russom declared a conflict of interest for Item 9.d. due to owning a vacation rental.

Council pulled Items 9.d. and 9.f. for separate consideration.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
Seconded by Council Member Secrest
Approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.h., with the exception of items 9.d. and 9.f. with the recommended courses of action.

AYES (5): Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, Council Member Secrest, Council Member Loe, Council Member Guthrie, and Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (5 to 0)

9.a Approval of Minutes
Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 24, 2026, as submitted.

9.b Cash Disbursement Ratification
Reviewed and ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period of March 1 through March 15, 2026.

9.c Statement of Investment Deposits for February 2026
Received and filed the report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande as of February 28, 2026, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b).

9.e Senate Bill 1 Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2026
PAGE 4
4 Item 9.a.
1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1"; and
2) Authorized the Director of Administrative Services to submit the Resolution to the California Transportation Commission (CTC); and
3) Made findings that adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the adoption in itself has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)

9.g Appointment to the Planning Commission
1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPOINTING CORY HANH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION"; and 2) Determined that approving the appointments to the Planning Commission is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.).

9.h Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to Implement Housing Element Programs A. 1-2 and A. 10-2
1) Adopted an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS A.1-2 AND A.10-2 BY AMENDING CHAPTER 16.36 RELATING TO ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN MIXED USE ZONES"; and 2) Found that the Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085;

9.d Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026- 27 Budget and Resolution of Intention to Levy
Mayor Ray Russom left the meeting at 6:28 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia presided.

Recreation Services Director Bohlken responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia invited public comment. No public comments were received.

Moved by Council Member Guthrie
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
1) Approved Annual Assessment Report and Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget and directed staff to consider consolidation of infrastructure and public art beautification items in the next Fiscal Year budget;
2) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE ARROYO GRANDE

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2026
PAGE 5
5 Item 9.a.

TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO CONTINUE THE BASIS FOR AND TO

LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT, AND TO SET A DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DISTRICT AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2026-27 FISCAL YEAR"; and
3) Set the date for a public hearing for April 28, 2026, in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 36534; and
4) Found that the recommended actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because these efforts have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).

AYES (4): Council Member Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, Council Member Secrest, and Council Member Loe
ABSENT (1): Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (4 to 0)
Mayor Ray Russom returned to the meeting at 6:34 p.m.

9.f Red Curb Adjustments, Huasna Road
Staff responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.

Council discussion ensued regarding pedestrian safety.

Staff provided information regarding the bulb-out and other measures put in place to allow for more visibility and pedestrian protection.

Moved by Council Member Guthrie
Seconded by Council Member Secrest
1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE ADDITION OF 15 FEET AND REMOVAL OF 77 FEET

OF RESTRICTED PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HUASNA ROAD JUST WEST OF ROSEWOOD LANE"; and
2) Determined that the action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption because it is a minor alteration of an existing structure that involves negligible or no expansion of the existing use and no exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.) AYES (3): Council Member Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, and Mayor Ray Russom

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2026
PAGE 6
6 Item 9.a.

NOES (2): Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, and Council Member Loe Passed (3 to 2)

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.a 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
This Item was heard after Item 10.b.

Mayor Ray Russom declared a conflict of interest due to her spouse's employment with the architecture firm for the project, and left the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia presided.

Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia called for a brief break at 7:25 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:34 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia asked Council if there were any ex parte communications regarding the Item. Council Member Secrest disclosed ex parte communications in District 1. Council Member Loe disclosed ex parte communications in District 2. Council Member Guthrie disclosed ex parte communications in District 4. Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia disclosed ex parte communications in District 3.

Interim Community Development Director Perez presented the Item and responded to questions from Council. City Attorney Rosen and Best Best & Krieger Attorney Hannah Park responded to questions from Council. Fire Chief Hallett responded to questions from Council.

Edwin Rambuski, appellant's legal counsel, presented and responded to questions from Council. City Attorney Rosen responded to questions from Council.

Scott Martin, RRM and applicant's representative; and applicant, Russ Sheppel; and David Wolff, David Wolff Environmental, presented. Chris Guillen, applicant's legal counsel; Darryl Nelson, Associated Transportation Engineers; Mr. Sheppel; and Mr. Martin responded to questions from Council. City Attorney Rosen, City Manager Downing, and Interim Community Development Director Perez responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia opened the public hearing. City Attorney Rosen commented on the process. Speaking from the public were Thomas Ferro, No Name Provided, Robert Brandt, No Name Provided, Mary Beth Starzel, Vazic Azadesian, Marilyn Morris, Joel Schein, No Name Provided, Jim Christensen, Arjury, Lori Rellana, Paul Masters, Kristian Magnussen, Kate Corella, Melissa Boggs, Catherine, Larry, Dana Allen, Charlie Diaberte, Linda Somers Smith, Amir Sayid, Lara Nelson, Ann Kepper, and Victor Pomo. City Attorney Rosen addressed the commenters.

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2026
PAGE 7
7 Item 9.a.

At 10:43 p.m., Council Member Guthrie made a motion to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m.

Council Member Loe seconded and Council unanimously agreed to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m.

Public comment continued. Speaking from the public were No Name Provided, No Name Provided, Troy Hoffman, Vincent, Lynn, Mary, Dennis Tapper, Josette Townsend, Jenny, Laura Wallis, Molly Johnson, Harry Goodnight, Jennifer Alvarez. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia closed the public hearing.

Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia called for a brief break at 11:12 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:17 p.m.

Edwin Rambuski, appellant's legal counsel, provided a statement.

Chris Guillen, applicant's legal counsel, provided a statement.

Council discussion ensued regarding State housing laws and the importance of public engagement with State legislators.

Moved by Council Member Guthrie
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case 26-001 and approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001; 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, and Finding the Project Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a), and Categorically Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

AYES (3): Council Member Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, and Council Member Secrest NOES (1): Council Member Loe
ABSENT (1): Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (3 to 1)

10.b Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
This Item was heard out of order.

Interim Community Development Director Perez presented the Item and responded to questions from Council. City Attorney Rosen responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Taneesha Regez, Aaron Regez, John Gutierrez, No Name Provided, No Name Provided, No Name Provided, Charlie Gilberte, and Jill Von Berg. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2026
PAGE 8
8 Item 9.a.

Interim Community Development Director Perez responded to questions from Council.

Council discussion ensued regarding the City's current Public Art Guidelines and Council's discretion.

City Attorney Rosen provided information on next steps in the process.

Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
Directed staff to come back with a resolution approving the mural including modifying the existing resolution findings in opposite of what staff proposed in 7.e., and change the CEQA associated with the project to a Class 1 Exemption.

AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, Council Member Loe, Council Member Secrest, Council Member Guthrie
Passed (5 to 0)

11. BUSINESS ITEMS
None.

12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m.
_________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk

Item 9.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services BY: Megan Schotborgh, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Cash Disbursement Ratification
DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Review and ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of March 16 through March 31, 2026.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There is a $890,216.85 fiscal impact for the period of March 16 through March 31, 2026, that includes the following items:
 Accounts Payable Checks $394,614.35
 Payroll & Benefit Checks $495,602.50
BACKGROUND:

Cash disbursements are made weekly based on the submission of all required documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, Administrative Services staff review all disbursement documents to ensure that they meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required for normal and usual operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY 2025-26 budget.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Approve staff’s recommendation;

2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Cash Disbursement Ratification
April 28, 2026

ADVANTAGES:
 The Administrative Services Department monitors payments of invoices for accountability, accuracy, and completeness using standards approved by the City Council.
 Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants.  Discounts are taken where applicable.

DISADVANTAGES:

There are no disadvantages identified in this recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Ratifying the cash disbursements is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (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. March 16 through March 31, 2026 – Accounts Payable Check Register

2. March 20, 2026 – Payroll & Benefit Check Registers

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/15/2026 16:27
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:031626 TO 033126 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
100 1033 CHANGE CASH-SPECIAL RECREATION
PETTY CASH 600.00
100 2014 STATE USE TAX PAYABLE
CA DEPT OF TAX & FEE ADMIN 2,882.00
100 2206 DEPOSITS-COMMERCIAL BLDG.

ONE TIME PAY 236.00
10004000 4771 COUNTY TMD ASSESSMNT ADMIN FEE
VISIT SLO CAL-199.49
10014001 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
GRAND AWARDS, INC 15.23
10014101 5319 SERVICES-MISCELLANEOUS
GRAND AWARDS, INC 78.30
10014110 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
LIEBERT, CASSIDY, WHITMORE 135.00
10014120 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
CARTRIDGE WORKS INC 299.98
10014120 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM LLP 666.67
ROBERT HALF 3,923.02
10014140 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
A-TOWN AUDIO VIDEO 4,365.04
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 1,580.21
CIO SOLUTIONS LP 8,491.23
IMPRIVATA INC 2,835.36
TOTAL COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTIONS 45.52
10014140 5602 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIPMENT
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 34.80
10014140 5607 MAINTENANCE-COMPUTER SOFTWARE
CIO SOLUTIONS LP 7,119.00
SOFTWAREONE, INC 9,782.40
10014140 5702 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 4,120.01
10014145 5401 UTILITIES
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 3,337.78
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 12,320.18
SOCALGAS 341.66
10014145 5403 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AT & T 185.43
VERIZON WIRELESS 631.45
10014145 5555 BANK CHARGES
CA ST DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 25.00
10034201 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
PARAMOUNT CLEANERS 63.50
10034201 5315 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
CENTRAL COAST EVALUATION SVCS 1,000.00
MILLER MENDEL INC 775.00
PACIFIC CENTRAL COAST HEALTH 488.00
10034201 5403 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 399.96
VERIZON WIRELESS 1,209.57
10034201 5604 MAINTENANCE-BUILDINGS
ACME CLEANING/RESTORATION 725.00
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/15/2026 16:27
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:031626 TO 033126 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE 2,442.49
10034201 5605 MAINTENANCE-GROUNDS
MACEDO, JORGE 140.00
10034201 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 187.98
10034201 5615 JANITORIAL SERVICES
BRENDLER JANITORIAL SERVICE 500.00
10034201 6301 VEHICLES
TESLA INC 48,644.38
10034203 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
PARAMOUNT CLEANERS 336.50
10034203 5501 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE/TRAINING
THE COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIO 180.00
10034203 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 54.38
10034203 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 1,591.08
10034204 5255 SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
BOONE PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC 623.91
10034204 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
OFFICE1 877.08
PARAMOUNT CLEANERS 77.00
PITNEY BOWES, INC 28.83
10034204 5324 FORENSIC MANDATE SERVICES
SLO COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER 740.00
10034204 5329 LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING EXP.

CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE 343.00
10034204 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 483.06
10044420 5143 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 215.88
10044420 5274 CHEMICAL SUPPLIES
SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 142.95
10044420 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC 449.56
UNITED STAFFING ASSOC. 3,067.68
10044420 5552 RENT-EQUIPMENT
GROVER TOOL AND RENTALS 357.50
10044420 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
FIGUEROA'S TIRES 590.88
10044420 5603 MAINTENANCE-MACH & EQUIP
CALIFORNIA TURF EQUIPMENT & 1,480.36
10044420 5605 MAINTENANCE-GROUNDS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1,023.82
ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM INC 500.00
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 39.12
PET PICK-UPS 1,544.35
SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 806.51
10044420 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 265.52
10044421 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 351.72
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/15/2026 16:27
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:031626 TO 033126 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
10044421 5504 PUBLIC RELATIONS
US POSTMASTER 5,795.84
10044421 5602 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIPMENT
VERIZON WIRELESS 38.01
10044424 5257 SUPPLIES-SPORTS LEAGUES
LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 328.15
10044424 5352 SERVICES-LEAGUES
JOHNSTON, JACOB 270.40
MENDOZA, JESSE DAVID 169.00
MERINO, JOCELYN DIAZ 67.60
10054301 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 212.72
10054301 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
GLENN A RICK ENGINEERING 10,770.00
WALLACE GROUP A CALIF CORP 495.00
10054301 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
INTERSTATE BATTERIES OF CENTRA 136.11
10054305 5143 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 124.10
10054305 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
CA DEPT OF TAX & FEE ADMIN 638.74
10054307 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 349.85
10054307 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 92.51
SP MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC 7,342.50
10054307 5402 POWER
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 2,431.24
10054308 5143 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 106.48
10054308 5255 SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 166.81
10054308 5273 SMALL TOOLS
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 216.41
10054308 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
ALPINE REFRIGERATION 751.28
BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC 378.00
HAMON OVERHEAD DOOR CO INC 263.68
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 296.76
SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC 722.03
10054308 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
BACK ON THE ROAD AUTOMOBILE 131.86
10054308 5604 MAINTENANCE-BUILDINGS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 118.59
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 227.58
10054308 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 314.48
10054308 5615 JANITORIAL SERVICES
BRENDLER JANITORIAL SERVICE 1,135.00
10054330 5143 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 100.12
10054330 5255 SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/15/2026 16:27
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:031626 TO 033126 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO INC 857.98
10054330 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
FIGUEROA'S TIRES 240.90
10054330 5605 MAINTENANCE-GROUNDS
FAMCON PIPE AND SUPPLY INC 327.11
FARM SUPPLY CO 1,283.49
10054330 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 89.08
110 2115 FIRE EMPLOYEE DUES
FIVE CITIES PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 4,370.00
110 2116 POLICE ASSOCIATION DUES
ARROYO GRANDE POLICE ASSN 2,663.20
110 2117 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PLAN ID 1 1,937.48
ICMA RETIREMENT CORP, PLAN ID 25,881.78
110 2118 S.E.I.U. EMPLOYEE DUES
S.E.I.U. LOCAL 620 1,656.14
110 2125 PREPAID LEGAL SERVICE
LEGALSHIELD 43.90
110 2126 SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE
AFLAC INSURANCE 535.46
21114101 5330 CABLE CASTING EXPENSE
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 1,349.00
21654560 5304 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
RAINSCAPE 484.37
21754560 5355 PARKWAY MAINTENANCE-TR 1769
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 15.29
21954560 5304 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 22.36
RAINSCAPE 1,201.41
22064303 5143 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 130.76
22064303 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 351.06
22064303 5273 SMALL TOOLS
WHITE CAP LP 1,589.90
22064303 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
CA ST DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 1,478.43
SP MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC 7,492.50
22064303 5503 MEMBERSHIPS & SUBSCRIPTIONS
SWRCB-DWOCP 80.00
22064303 5552 RENT-EQUIPMENT
HARVEY'S HONEY HUTS 106.08
22064303 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
BACK ON THE ROAD AUTOMOBILE 108.75
JB DEWAR, INC 148.19
L. DIESEL MOBILE SERVICE 900.00
22064303 5603 MAINTENANCE-MACH & EQUIP
BERCHTOLD EQUIPMENT CO 390.45
COASTLINE EQUIPMENT 573.42
22064303 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 279.31
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/15/2026 16:27
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:031626 TO 033126 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
22064303 5613 MAINTENANCE-STREETS & BRIDGES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 166.53
CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION 1,720.35
CONTRACTORS MAINT.SERVICE 117.29
FARM SUPPLY CO 54.36
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 255.99
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS IN 4,123.70
24014150 5504 PUBLIC RELATIONS
TOP TRUMPS USA INC 1,000.00
35055485 7001 CONSTRUCTION
WICKS ROOFING AND SOLAR LLC 11,590.00
35055556 7001 CONSTRUCTION
HARVEY'S HONEY HUTS 965.39
35055658 7001 CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS IN 2,123.17
35055697 7001 CONSTRUCTION
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 47.83
SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 1,290.97
35505080 7501 DESIGN & SURVEY
NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC 61,526.38
61254610 5143 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 103.28
61254610 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 21.64
61254610 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM LLP 666.67
WALLACE GROUP A CALIF CORP 4,303.31
61254610 5402 POWER
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 4,014.87
61254610 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
ARROYO GRANDE CHEVROLET 128.36
L. DIESEL MOBILE SERVICE 235.00
61254610 5603 MAINTENANCE-MACH & EQUIP
WEST COAST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY L 15.07
61254610 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 206.90
61254610 5610 MAINTENANCE-LINES & PUMPS
MAINLINE UTILITY COMPANY 2,800.00
640 2301 DEPOSIT RENTERS
ONE TIME PAY REFUND 319.37
64054710 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 121.14
64054710 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
GSI WATER SOLUTIONS 9,222.17
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM LLP 666.66
SLO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL 1,865.30
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 3,325.47
64054710 5310 WATER TREATMENT SERVICES
ABALONE COAST ANALYTICAL INC 140.00
CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 1,180.00
64054711 5402 POWER
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 6,752.53
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/15/2026 16:27
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:031626 TO 033126 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
64054711 5603 MAINTENANCE-MACH & EQUIP
D AND H WATER SYSTEMS INC 8,425.75
64054712 5143 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 209.45
64054712 5207 SUPPLIES-WATER METERS
AQUA-METRIC SALES CO 10,397.04
64054712 5255 SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
BURT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 743.82
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 66.31
64054712 5273 SMALL TOOLS
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 123.93
64054712 5274 CHEMICAL SUPPLIES
BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC 1,349.55
HACH COMPANY 326.31
64054712 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MELLO & SON'S PUMPS & MOTORS 200.00
64054712 5402 POWER
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 10,435.43
64054712 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 636.90
64054712 5610 MAINTENANCE-LINES & PUMPS
FAMCON PIPE AND SUPPLY INC 1,251.61
MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS 135.94
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 293.58
64054712 5611 MAINTENANCE-METERS
AQUA-METRIC SALES CO 1,597.54
761 2007 DUE TO COUNTY OF SLO
VISIT SLO CAL 9,974.49
TOTAL 394,614.35
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Megan Schotborgh **
Attachment 1

.

General Fund 434,009.00 5101 Salaries Full time 292,320.83 Streets Fund 20,874.88 5101 Volunteer Employee Retirement - Sewer Fund 17,240.84 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 1,580.68 Water Fund 23,477.78 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 8,679.44 495,602.50 5105 Salaries OverTime 28,003.20
5106 Salaries Strike Team OT -
5107 Salaries Standby 2,176.72
5108 Holiday Pay -
5109 Sick Pay 7,479.96
Administrative Services - 5110 Annual Leave Buyback -
Information Services - 5111 Vacation Buyback -
Community Development - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback -
Police 25,863.61 5113 Vacation Pay 4,080.17
Public Works - Maintenance 1,608.41 5114 Comp Pay 3,058.53 Public Works - Enterprise 531.18 5115 Annual Leave Pay 10,642.03 Recreation - Administration - 5116 Salaries - Police FTO 236.34 Recreation - Special Events - 5121 PERS Retirement 39,962.39 28,003.20 5122 Social Security 27,218.91
5123 PARS Retirement 156.48
5126 State Disability Ins. 4,627.67
5127 Deferred Compensation 1,937.48
5131 Health Insurance 56,515.79
5132 Dental Insurance 2,833.92
5133 Vision Insurance 723.51
5134 Life Insurance 367.41
5135 Long Term Disability 546.48
5137 Leave Payouts -
5142 Unemployment Insurance -
5143 Uniform Allowance 134.56
5144 Car Allowance 915.00
5146 Council Expense -
5147 Employee Assistance -
5148 Boot Allowance -
5149 Motor Pay -
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 175.00
5151 Cell Phone Allowance 1,230.00
495,602.50
OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT:

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION

PAY PERIOD
02/27/2026-03/12/2026
3/20/2026

BY FUND BY ACCOUNT
Attachment 2

Item 9.c.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works BY: Shane Taylor, Utilities Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Approximately two (2) hours of staff time are required to prepare the report.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Arroyo Grande’s water entitlements are calculated on a water year that begins April 1, 2026. The current water supply for water year 2026-27 includes:
 2,290 Acre Feet (AF) from Lopez Lake Reservoir/Lopez contract entitlement.  The current modeled safe yield is 357 AF of groundwater from the Santa Maria River Groundwater Basin, with an entitlement of 1,323 AF.  An additional 160 AF of groundwater is available from the Pismo formation from the existing City well system.

In addition to the annual Lopez Lake Reservoir contract entitlement, the City will have 1,573 AF of stored Lopez water, which is unused entitlement from water year 2025-26.

There will be no surplus water available due to the downstream release made in water year 2025-26 of 5,290 AF, which is 1,090 AF above the contract amount.

The total supply from Lopez Lake Reservoir for this water year is 3,863 AF. The predicted water use for the 2026-27 water year is 2,200 AF.

In March 2026, the City’s water use was 159.1 AF. The overall per capita use was 93 gallons per day. The residential per capita use was 72 gallons per day. There has been a total of 15.6 inches of rain since July 2025 at the Corp Yard gauge.

Item 9.c.

City Council
Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
April 28, 2026

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

As of April 10, 2026, the USDA Drought Monitor reports San Luis Obispo County as normal. Lopez Lake is at 87.1% (43,124 AF). The deep well index for the First quarter of 2026 was completed on February 24, 2026. The index level was 12.28 feet above sea level, which is 4.78 feet above the threshold value. The current deep well index is 1.74 feet higher than October 2025, and 0.04 feet higher than January 2025.

On January 15, 2025, in response to a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court to the County of San Luis Obispo, Lopez Lake downstream release rate was in place until December 29, 2025.

The 9th District Court of Appeals overturned the preliminary injunction and returned the water releases to the interim downstream release schedule. The current release rate on January 14, 2026, was 4.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 3.1 million gallons per day. A gradual decrease in the release process to former rates is necessary to monitor creek conditions. The current rate as of April 10, 2026, is 3.4 cfs or 2.2 million gallons per day.

The City and all other Zone 3 contractors will continue to work with the County to assess and report on the impact on our water supply from Lopez Lake until the litigation is resolved. However, the significant costs of the ongoing litigation and future improvements will be shared by the ratepayers of the City and other Zone 3 member agencies.

To keep the community informed of the current status of the litigation and the City’s water system, staff have developed a webpage where updates will be published. The webpage can be accessed at www.arroyogrande.org/lopezlakelitigation.

Council Goals Workplan
In the current Council Goals workplan for Fiscal Year 2025-27, under the Council Goal of “Achieve Water Resilience”, the Council has directed staff to Pursue 2026 State Water Ballot Measure, with the specific subtask to Seek Council approval placing a November Ballot Measure. On March 10, 2026, the Council provided direction to bring back final ballot language for consideration to place the item on the ballot for the November 2026 General Election.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Receive and file the report, or

2. Provide other directions for staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The report provides the City Council and the public with the current and projected water supply and demand conditions.

Item 9.c.

City Council
Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
April 28, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

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. Monthly Operations Report for March 2026

2. Lopez Lake Reservoir Storage Projections

3. Previous Use Comparison

4. Deep Well Index Levels for 1st Quarter

^dKZ
Wt ^hZW>h^Wt

>/s
Z/
^hZ/E'/


>/s
Z/
^
hZ/E'^W/>> ^dKZ
Wt ^hZW>h^Wt

>/s
Z/
^hZ/E'/


>/s
Z/
^
hZ/E'^W/>>
KEdZdKZ h^'
й h^'
h^'
h^'
h^'
h^'
й h^'
й h^'
h^'
h^'
h^'
h^'
й
' ϮϮϵϬ ϲϵϬ ϰϳϬ ϭϳ ϯϰϯϯ ϭϯϭ͘ϵϵ ϲй Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϯϭ͘ϵϵ ϰй ϳϭϳ͘ϰ ϯϭй ϲϳϯ͘ϳϬ ϰϳϬ͘ϯϯ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϴϲϭ͘ϰϳ ϱϰй K^ ϯϬϯ ϲϱ Ϭ ϭ ϯϲϳ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭй Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭй ϯϭϵ͘ϴ ϭϬϲй ϲϱ͘Ϯϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯϴϱ͘ϬϮ ϭϬϱй ' ϴϬϬ ϱϬϳ ϭϲϰ ϭϳ ϭϰϱϰ ϱϴ͘ϵϱ ϳй Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϱϴ͘ϵϱ ϰй ϲϯϵ͘ϵ ϴϬй Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϲϵϱ͘ϯϯ ϰϴй W ϴϵϮ ϯϴϳ ϭϴϯ ϳ ϭϰϱϲ Ϯϯ͘ϭϴ ϯй Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϯϯ͘ϭϴ Ϯй ϱϰϰ͘ϲ ϲϭй ϯϴϳ͘ϯϵ ϭϴϯ͘ϮϬ ϱϬ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϮϮϭ͘ϳϬ ϴϰй ^ϭϮ Ϯϰϱ ϭϴϭ ϱϬ ϲ ϰϳϭ ϰ͘ϭϲ Ϯй Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰ͘ϭϲ ϭй ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϭй Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϬϱ͘ϭϮ ϮϮй ^D Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ dKd> ϰϱϯϬ ϭϴϯϭ ϴϲϴ ϰϴ ϳϭϴϭ Ϯϭϴ͘Ϯϴ ϰ͘ϴй Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϯϭϴ͘Ϯϴ ϯ͘Ϭй ϮϯϮϭ͘ϱϯ ϱϭ͘Ϯй ϭϭϮϲ͘ϯ ϲϱϯ͘ϱϯ ϱϰ͘ϳϲ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰϮϲϴ͘ϲϰ ϱϵй ^dd
td
ZWZK:
dtd
Z

>/s
Z/
^
d,/^DKEd, :EhZzdKWZ
^
Ed d,/^DKEd,
>>Kd/KE /
^dKZ'
/
dKd> >>Kd/KE /
^dKZ'
/
dKd>
KEdZdKZ Z
Yh
^d h^'
й h^'
h^'
h^'
h^'
й h^'
h^'
h^'
KEdZdKZ ΀&΁
' Eͬ Ϭ͘Ϭ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ ' ϭϯϭ͘ϵϵK^ ϭϱϬ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϰϬ͘Ϭ Ϯϴ͘ϮϮ ϭϴ͘ϴй ϭϵ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϰϳ͘ϲϮ ϭϬϰ͘ϲ ϳϬй ϭϵ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϮϯ͘ϵϲ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϵ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ K^ ϰϳ͘ϲϮ' Eͬ Ϭ͘Ϭ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ ' ϱϴ͘ϵϱ W ϭϬϬϬ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϬϬ͘Ϭ ϲϳ͘ϵϮ ϳй ϯϮ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ ϲϳ͘ϵ ϳй ϯϮ͘Ϭϴ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯϮ͘Ϭϴ Ϭ͘ϬϬ W ϭϮϯ͘ϭϴ^ϭϮ ϵϲ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϳ͘ϱ ϰ͘ϭϮ ϰй ϯ͘ϯ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϳ͘ϰϭ ϭϲ͘ϱ ϭϳй ϯ͘Ϯϵ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϵ͘ϴϯ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯ͘Ϯϵ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ^ϭϮ ϭϭ͘ϱϳ ^D ϵϬ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϴ͘Ϭ ϳ͘ϭϳ ϴй Eͬ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϳ͘ϭϳ ϭϳ͘ϭ ϭϵй Eͬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϳ͘Ϭϱ Eͬ Eͬ Eͬ ^D ϳ͘ϭϳ dKd> ϭϯϯϲ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϱϱ͘ϱ ϭϬϳ͘ϰϯ ϴй ϱϰ͘ϳϳ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϲϮ͘ϮϬ ϮϬϲ͘Ϭϳ ϭϱй ϱϰ͘ϳϳ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϮϲϬ͘ϴϰ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϱϰ͘ϳϳ Ϭ͘ϬϬ dKd> ϯϴϬ͘ϰϴ DΘKd,
ZKW
Zd/KE^ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ^ƚŽƌĞĚ^tWt td
Zd͘&&
d
h
dK^W/>>'
'>K^^Zz
d,/^DKEd, tzdKd
DyW/dz ΀&΁ ΀&΁ /
͗ŐĞŶĐLJ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚĞĚ
džĐŚĂŶŐĞ
><

>
sd/KE;ĨƚͿ ϱϭϱ͘ϱϬ   Eͬ ϱϮϮ͘ϲϬ   WZ s/Kh^/^dZ/d^^tWt Ͳϲϰ͘ϲϬ /^dZ/d^^tWt>K^dhZ/E'^W/>> Ϭ͘ϬϬ / ͗ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚĞĚ
džĐŚĂŶŐĞ^dKZ'
΀&΁ ϰϯ͕ϮϬϬ   Eͬ ϰϵ͕ϰϳϲ   ϴϳй tZD d
Z
>/s
Z/
^ ϭϯϴ͘ϬϬ hDh>d/s
^^tWt>K^d Ϭ͘ϬϬ Eͬ͗EŽƚƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞDKEd,>zZ/E&>>΀ŝŶ΁ ϱ͘Ϭϲ   Ϯϲ͘ϳϵ   Eͬ ,E' /E^dKZ'
 ϯϬ͘ϱϳ ^dKZ
Wt>K^d Ϭ͘ϬϬ Wt͗WƌŽũĞĐƚtĂƚĞƌĂŬĂ>ŽƉĞnjtĂƚĞƌ;ŶŶƵĂů͗:ƵůLJϭͲ:ƵŶĞϯϬͿ Ͳ   sWKZd/KE Ϭ͘ϬϬ ^ƚŽƌĞĚWt͗'ĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵƵŶƵƐĞĚĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌĂƚĞŶĚŽĨtzKtE^dZ DZ
>
^
^΀&΁ ϮϬϬ͘ϭϮ   ϱ͕Ϯϴϵ͘ϲϵ  ϰ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ   >K^^ ^h
dK^W/>> Ϭ͘ϬϬ ^ƵƌƉůƵƐtĂƚĞƌ͗'ĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵƵŶƵƐĞĚ^ZĞůĞĂƐĞƐĂƚĞŶĚŽĨtz>< dKd
ZD/E>΀&΁ ϮϮϮ͘ϱϲ   ϰ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϰϭ  Eͬ ^tW͗^ƚĂƚĞtĂƚĞƌWƌŽũĞĐƚ^W/>>' ΀&΁ ;tzͿ Ͳ   Ͳ   Eͬ Z D/E/E'/^dZ/d^^tWt Ͳϯϰ͘Ϭϯ ^^tWt͗^ƚŽƌĞĚ^tWtĂƚĞƌ't,

>/E'K
EKtd
Z ϭ͘ϳϲ   Eͬ Eͬ Ύ^ƚŽƌĞĚWtŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĞĐůĂƌĞĚ^ƵƌƉůƵƐtĂƚĞƌ ΎΎĐƚƵĂůĂŵŽƵŶƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŝƐĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚŽŶtZΖƐĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJйΎΎΎ^ƚŽƌĞĚ^tWǁĂƚĞƌƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵ/

EKd
^
ϭͿŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚĞĚ
džĐŚĂŶŐĞ;/
Ϳ͗/ŶĞĨĨĞĐƚĨƌŽŵ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϭϭͲDĂƌĐŚϮ͕ϮϬϮϱĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞ>tdWƐŚƵƚĚŽǁŶ͖ĚĞůŝǀĞƌŝĞƐǁĞƌĞƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ^ƚĂƚĞtĂƚĞƌ͘ϮͿtZĚĞůŝǀĞƌĞĚϮϭϰ&ŽĨ^t͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚϵϵ͘ϳϵ&ǁĂƐĚĞůŝǀĞƌĞĚƚŽ^tĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐƉĞƌƚŚĞŝƌ^tƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƐƵůƚĞĚŝŶϭϭϰ͘Ϯϭ&ŽĨ^tĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚĞĚ džĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ;/
Ϳ͘ϯͿKŶϰͬϮϵͬϮϱƌƌŽLJŽ'ƌĂŶĚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂůůϰϳϬ͘ϯϯ&ŽĨ^ƵƌƉůƵƐtĂƚĞƌǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJϰͿKŶϱͬϱͬϮϱWŝƐŵŽĞĂĐŚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂůůϭϴϯ͘Ϯ&ŽĨ^ƵƌƉůƵƐtĂƚĞƌǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽďĞĐŽŶǀĞƌƚĞĚƚŽƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂĨƚĞƌƐƉŝůůϱͿKŶϱͬϭϮͬϮϱK^ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂůůϲϮ͘Ϯϯ&ŽĨ^ƵƌƉůƵƐtĂƚĞƌǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽďĞĐŽŶǀĞƌƚĞĚƚŽƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĨŽƌŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJϲͿKŶϳͬϵͬϮϱƌƌŽLJŽ'ƌĂŶĚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂůůϳϯϵ͘ϳϭ&ŽĨ^ƚŽƌĞĚWtĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJ͘ϳͿKŶϳͬϭϬͬϮϱWŝƐŵŽĞĂĐŚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂůůϯϯϬ͘ϵϭ&ŽĨ^ƚŽƌĞĚWtĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJ͘ϴͿKŶϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ>ĞŐĂůĐůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ/ ƉƌŽŵƉƚĞĚƌĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ
ŶĚŽĨzĞĂƌ^ƚŽƌĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚtĂƚĞƌĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘hŶƵƐĞĚĞŶƚůĞŵĞŶƚŽĨϭ͕ϭϲϵ͘ϲϵ&ƉůƵƐƵŶƵƐĞĚƐƵƌƉůƵƐŽĨϳϱϭ͘ϯϵ&ƚŽƚĂůĞĚϭ͕ϵϮϭ͘Ϭϵ&ŽĨ>ŽƉĞnjtĂƚĞƌĐŽŶǀĞƌƚĞĚƚŽƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƐŽĨƉƌŝůϭ͕ϮϬϮϱ͘ϵͿŐĞŶĐŝĞƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨϵϯϬ͘ϯϵ&ŽĨ^ƵƌƉůƵƐtĂƚĞƌĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϮϱͲϮϬϮϲtĂƚĞƌzĞĂƌ͘ϭϬͿKŶϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲWZĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂůůĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ƵƌƉůƵƐƚŽďĞĚĞůŝǀĞƌĞĚ͘ϭϭͿ ǀĂƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶůŽƐƐĞƐĨŽƌƐƚŽƌĞĚǁĂƚĞƌŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚĨŽƌĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌLJĞĂƌϮϬϮϱŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƌƚŝĐůĞϳ;Ϳ;ϮͿ;ĂͿŽĨƚŚĞtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůLJŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͘dŚĞƐĞůŽƐƐĞƐĂƌĞƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ǀĂƉ>ŽƐƐĞƐΗĐŽůƵŵŶĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞĞĂĐŚŐĞŶĐLJΖƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞǁĂƚĞƌďĂůĂŶĐĞƐ͕ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶĂĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚƵƐĂŐĞ͘ϭϮͿŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚĞĚ džĐĂŶŐĞ;/
Ϳ͗/ŶĞĨĨĞĐƚĨƌŽŵ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϭϳͲDĂƌĐŚϯ͕ϮϬϮϱĚƵĞƚŽ>tdWƐŚƵƚĚŽǁŶ͖ĚĞůŝǀĞƌŝĞƐǁĞƌĞƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ^ƚĂƚĞtĂƚĞƌ͘ϭϯͿ/Ŷ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJ͕ŽĨƚŚĞϭϬϱ&ŽĨ^tĚĞůŝǀĞƌĞĚďLJtZ͕ϱϬ͘Ϯϯ&ǁĂƐĚĞůŝǀĞƌĞĚƚŽ^tĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐƉĞƌƚŚĞŝƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐϱϰ͘ϳϳ&ǁĂƐƵƐĞĚĨŽƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚĞĚ džĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ;/
Ϳ͘
^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽŽƵŶƚLJ&ůŽŽĚŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŽŶĞϯͲ>ŽƉĞnjWƌŽũĞĐƚͲDŽŶƚŚůLJKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐZĞƉŽƌƚ
DĂƌĐŚ͕ϮϬϮϲ
WZK:
dtd
Z
s/>>
td
Z;WZͲDZͿ 
>/s
Z/
^

Ed/d>
D
Ed dKd>h^'

Ed/d>
D
Ed
^dKZ
WtΎ
΀ƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽ
ĞǀĂƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ΁
^hZW>h^td
Z
s/>>

^dKZ'


sWKZd/KE>K^^
^
;tzdͿ
dKd>
s/>>
Wt
d,/^DKEd,

Ed/d>
D
Ed dKd>
WZ/>dKWZ
^
Ed
EEh>
Z
Yh
^dΎΎ
hDh>d/s
/

^^tWt
ΎΎΎ
Wt^dKZ'
hZ/E'/

:EdKWZ
^
Ed
/d/KE>^t
ZKh',d/E
/d/KE>^t
ZKh',d/E
^dKZ'

>E

/^dZ/d/E/d/d

y,E'

dKd>DKEd,>z

>/s
Z/
^
ATTACHMENT 1

Item 9.d.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Perez, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Update Progress Report – April 2026 DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file a progress report on the Comprehensive General Plan Update.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The financial and personnel impacts associated with this progress report are included in the budget for the Comprehensive General Plan Update.

BACKGROUND:

The last progress report was provided for the City Council on March 24, 20261. That report described the direction provided by the Council during the study session held on February 24, 20262, and updates on the progress of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and the Climate Action Plan.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Council’s direction provided during the study session resulted in revisions to policies and implementation programs proposed in the General Plan. The direction also resulted in the creation of new policies and programs. Text amendments and clerical edits were also completed. These revisions to the Preliminary Public Draft General Plan were completed in early April. The product of those revisions is the Public Draft General Plan3, which was published on April 16, 2026. The public was notified about the publication of the Public Draft via social media posts and a spotlight on the City’s website. Additionally, those who are subscribed to receive project updates received an email announcing the release of the Public Draft. The Public Draft is also routed to outside agencies for a 45-day comment period, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352. These agencies include

1 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=18282 2https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=661c1650-22a5-4167-91df42e815675b95&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=35&Tab=attachments 3https://planarroyogrande.com/images/AGGPU_PRD_Full_CLEAN_reduced2_2026%2004%2015%20NZ .pdf

Item 9.d.

City Council
General Plan Update Progress Report – April 2026
April 28, 2026

neighboring cities, San Luis Obispo County, Lucia Mar Unified School District, and Local Agency Formation Commission.

Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Following the release of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) in March, which informs the public and outside agencies the City is preparing an EIR, a scoping meeting was held on Tuesday, April 7, 2026. The purpose of both the NOP and the scoping meeting is to give the public and outside agencies an opportunity to identify areas of particular concern that should be addressed in the EIR. The public comment period following the release of the NOP ended on April 24, 2026.

Simultaneously, preparation of the EIR is underway. The EIR will describe and analyze the potential significant environmental impacts associated with the comprehensive update of the General Plan. Where significant impacts are anticipated, the EIR will include measures to mitigate or avoid those significant impacts. The public review draft of the EIR is scheduled to be released for review and comments in July.

Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Preparation of the CAP is also underway. Outreach activities and engagement with the public will occur in early May. The objective of the engagement with the community is to determine the greenhouse reduction measures that are most likely to be supported by residents to achieve the desired outcome of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the city. The public engagement activities will include pop-ups at local events, such as Farmer’s Market, and an online survey, to increase accessibility and participation.

Schedule and Next Steps
Another study session with the City Council is scheduled for June 23, 2026. Staff will describe how Council direction from the February study session was incorporated into the General Plan. By that date, staff also anticipates being in receipt of additional comments from the public and those outside agencies. Staff will also have recommendations for responding to those comments for Council’s consideration at the study session. With support from the Council, the General Plan will be finalized and ready for adoption, pending the completion of the EIR.

City Council is authorized to adopt the General Plan Update after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The recommendation hearing with Planning Commission is scheduled for October. A public hearing with City Council to consider adoption of the General Plan Update would occur in November.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Receive and file this progress report on the Comprehensive General Plan Update; or

2. Provide other direction to staff.

Item 9.d.

City Council
General Plan Update Progress Report – April 2026
April 28, 2026

ADVANTAGES:

Regular updates to the City Council will inform decision-makers and the community on the status of the project.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required to receive and file this progress report on the General Plan Update because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 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.

Item 9.e.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Perez, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Architectural Review 25-005 DATE: April 28, 2026
ACTION:
1) Adopt a Resolution approving Architectural Review 25-005 for a proposed mural at 201 E. Branch Street; and
2) Find that the project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for minor alterations to existing structures.

BACKGROUND:

On April 14, 20261, City Council considered and approved the application for a public art project at 201 E. Branch Street following a noticed public hearing, subject to adoption of an appropriate resolution memorializing that approval. Adoption of the prepared Resolution will approve the project with findings based on those made by Council at the April 14, 2026, hearing.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Adopt the prepared Resolution approving the project; or

2. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Approval of the project will result in a new mural within the Village.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=80f3febc-62ad-4019-84ebc137c344ad1f&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=42&Tab=attachments

Item 9.e.

City Council
Adoption of a Resolution Approving Architectural Review 25-005 April 28, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed mural is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption, which applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features where the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.) The City further finds that no exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply.

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

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING 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, 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 has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for projects proposing minor alterations to existing structures; and.

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. The proposed mural is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption, which applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features where the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.) The City further finds that no exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply.

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

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2

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 does not contain copyrighted words or imagery, nor does it contain content that is obscene, defamatory, or that will incite imminent lawless action. The imagery and elements portrayed in the mural were

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5
determined to be distinct from commercial signage because the mural:
 Does not directly mention the title of the business;
 References the butterfly statue located at County library, which is located in the City so references and ties into an existing artistic feature of the City;
 Monarchs inhabit the Arroyo Grande area and the use of the monarch is not intended to reference the business name, and  The public would engage with the sign even if the business were no longer there and includes themes of the community’s values.

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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves 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 28
th 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

Item 10.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Sheridan Bohlken, Director of Recreation Services SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider the AGTBID Annual Assessment and FY 2026-27 Budget
DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Conduct a Public Hearing to receive public comment and protests regarding the continuation of the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (AGTBID), confirm the Annual Assessment Report (the ‘Annual Report’), and levy an annual assessment for FY 2026-27;
2) Determine if a majority protest has been received; if no majority protest has been received, adopt a Resolution confirming the Annual Report and Assessment to be levied within the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2026- 27; and
3) Find that the recommended actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because these efforts have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Based on anticipated year-end results, AGTBID assessments are expected to generate approximately $298,700 for FY 2026-27. The proposed budget includes total expenditures of $504,350, exceeding projected annual revenues and reflecting a strategic use of available fund balance to support continued investment in destination marketing and authorized expanded uses approved in August 20251.

The FY 2026-27 budget incorporates targeted adjustments and right-sizing, including a total decrease of $17,500. This includes reductions in marketing services and promotional products, balanced with increased investment in travel, trade shows, and influencer marketing to expand reach and engagement.

1 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15706

Item 10.a.

City Council
Public Hearing to Consider the AGTBID Annual Assessment and FY 2026-27 Budget
April 28, 2026

Consistent with prior years, the budget includes $50,000 for City administrative services.

The planned use of fund balance allows for implementation of strategic initiatives while aligning expenditures with program priorities and long-term tourism development goals.

BACKGROUND:

The AGTBID was established in 2013 to promote Arroyo Grande as a visitor destination and to support the local economy by increasing overnight stays. The district is funded through a 2% assessment applied to lodging stays within the City, including short-term vacation rentals of less than 30 days.

Assessment revenues support destination marketing, event promotion, and beautification and tourism-related infrastructure improvements that enhance the visitor experience. On April 14, 20262, the Council initiated the process to continue the assessment and adopt the operating budget by confirming the Annual Report (Attachment 1) and by adopting a Resolution of Intention (Attachment 2) to levy the FY 2026-27 assessment, and set this public hearing in accordance with Streets and Highways Code §365343.

The Annual Report, including the Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget as recommended by the AGTBID Advisory Board on March 25, 2026,
4 and slightly modified by Council to
reflect emphasis on larger-scale beautification and infrastructure projects, outlines the proposed improvements, activities, and associated costs for the upcoming fiscal year, and fulfills statutory requirements pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §365335.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Annual Report presents the proposed program of activities and expenditures for FY 2026-27. Consistent with the California Streets and Highways Code, the public hearing provides the opportunity to receive input, consider any protests, and take final action to confirm the assessment and budget.

Additional marketing outcomes over the past year include increased digital engagement, more than 100,000 website visits, approximately 2,000 booking conversions, and nearly 2,700 incremental visits, additional physical visits attributed to marketing measured by Location Visitation Reporting, to Arroyo Grande. The City’s marketing agency, Commune Communication, also received an honorable mention for “Integrated Campaign” at the California ADDY Awards6 alongside national brands, reflecting performance relative to

2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=18693 3https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/streets-and-highways-code/shc-sect36534/#:~:text=(5)%20Refer%20to%20the%20report,/shc%2Dsect%2D36534/ 4 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=18170 5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&sectionNum=36533#:
~:text=(a)%20The%20advisory%20board%20shall,business%20for%20that%20fiscal%20year. 6 https://www.aaflosangeles.org/2026-addy-winners-list

Item 10.a.

City Council
Public Hearing to Consider the AGTBID Annual Assessment and FY 2026-27 Budget
April 28, 2026

budget scale. These results are presented to demonstrate continued marketing performance and to inform consideration of future investment strategies.

The proposed budget maintains funding for marketing efforts while incorporating dedicated allocations for destination improvements, providing opportunities to advance infrastructure and placemaking investments alongside ongoing promotional activities.

The current funding structure reflects a planned drawdown of prior-year fund balance to support strategic initiatives and expanded program delivery. While this approach has enabled near-term investment, future budgets will need to align more closely with annual revenues as available fund balance is reduced.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. a. Conduct the public hearing to receive public comment and protests regarding the City Council’s intention to continue the AGTBID, confirm the Annual Report, and levy an annual assessment for FY 2026–27; and
b. Determine whether a majority protest has been received:

If a majority protest is not received:
i. Adopt a Resolution confirming the Annual Report and levy an annual assessment for the AGTBID for FY 2026-27; and
ii. Determine that conducting a public hearing to adopt a resolution to levy and collect assessments is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378); If a majority protest is achieved:
i. Do not adopt the Resolution levying an annual assessment for the AGTBID for FY 2026-27; snd
ii. Direct staff to return next year with an item to consider whether to levy the assessment in FY 2027-28; or
c. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The AGTBID provides a stable and dedicated funding source to support destination marketing and visitor-serving initiatives that contribute to local economic activity. Recent performance data indicate continued growth in visitation and lodging performance, reflecting the effectiveness of these efforts. The proposed budget also advances a more balanced investment approach by incorporating funding for destination improvements, including beautification and infrastructure, which enhance the overall visitor experience and support long-term place-based value.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Public Hearing to Consider the AGTBID Annual Assessment and FY 2026-27 Budget
April 28, 2026

DISADVANTAGES:

The assessment may be perceived by businesses as an added financial obligation, despite being visitor-generated, and may also be viewed by visitors as a fee associated with lodging stays. Additionally, the current funding structure reflects a reliance on prioryear fund balance to support service levels, and future budgets will need to align more closely with annual revenues. Continuation of the district also requires ongoing administrative coordination and staff resources from the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The recommended actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because these efforts have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. The Resolution of Intention to Levy was published in the newspaper on April 16, 2026 and mailed to lodging owners.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Confirming the FY 2026-27 Annual Report and Adopting FY 2026-27 Budget and Assessment to be Levied for the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District

2. Adopted Resolution of Intention

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL REPORT

AND ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED WITHIN THE ARROYO

GRANDE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2026, the City of Arroyo Grande (the “City”) City Council (the “City Council”) adopted Resolution 2026-016 initiating proceedings for the continued collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 for the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (the “District”) pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (“PBIAL”), commencing with section 36500 et seq. of the Streets and Highway Code; and
WHEREAS, the District was established in May 2013 and incorporated into the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”) under Chapter 3.46; and
WHEREAS, the AGMC and the PBIAL require the Advisory Board to prepare and submit an annual report (“Annual Report”) stating improvements, activities, and assessments for the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Advisory Board approved the Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the Annual Report, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” was posted online and received by the Arroyo Grande City Council on March 27, 2026; and WHEREAS, this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will not result in a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows:

1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein.

2. Following notice duly given by publication, the City Council has held a public hearing regarding the approval of the Annual Report and levy of the proposed assessment within the District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2027, to pay for the costs and expenses of activities and programs promoting lodging businesses in the District through the promotion of scenic, recreational, cultural, and other attractions in the District as a tourist destination, and as further set forth in ACMG Section 3.46.030 (the “Activities”). All interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests, and objections have been considered by the City Council.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2

3. The City Council hereby confirms the Annual Report and assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-27 and orders the continued provision of the Activities within the District.

4. The assessment is proposed to be levied on all “lodging” businesses in the District, as that term is defined in AGMC section 3.46.020, and allocated by the City.

5. The assessment shall be based upon two percent (2%) of the rent charged by the operator per occupied room per night for all transient occupancies and shall be collected quarterly and is hereby approved.

6. The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of the assessment for fiscal year 2026-27.

7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of April, 2026.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
________________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________________

JESSICAMATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
________________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT

REPORT FOR

ARROYO GRANDE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
This report is prepared in compliance with California Streets and Highways Code section 36533 for the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (the “District”) for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Section 1. Changes. There are no proposed changes to the boundaries of the District.

Section 2. Authorized Uses. The improvements and activities (the “Authorized Uses”) to be provided in Fiscal Year 2026-27 include:
 Improvements, including the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
o Parking facilities, benches, trash receptacle, street lighting, decorations including public art and cultural enhancements and decorations, parks, and fountains; and
o Activities which benefit businesses located and operating within the District.  Promotion and furnishing of, but not limited to, the following activities:
o Promotion of public events which benefit businesses within the District and which take place on or in public spaces within the District; and o Furnishing of music in any public place within the District; and o Promotion of tourism within the District.

Section 3. Budget. The estimated costs of providing the Authorized Uses for Fiscal Year 2026-27 is included in the budget attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. Method and Basis of the Assessment. The assessment is two percent (2%) of the rent charged by the operator per occupied room per night for all transient occupancies.

Assessments are collected quarterly.

Section 5. Surplus/Deficit Revenues. The amounts or any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from the previous fiscal year are included in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

Section 6. Contributions. There are no contributions from any other sources to be made other than the assessments of the District.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5
EXHIBIT “A”
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET
Beginning Fund Balance $ 436,489 $ 438,184 $ 383,013 $ 383,013 $ 241,813 Revenue
FY 2023-24
Actuals
FY 2024-25
Actuals
FY 2025-26
Budget
FY 2025-26
Expected to
Complete
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Budget
TBID Assessments $ 281,764 $ 288,366 $ 327,848 $ 288,400 $ 298,700 Interest 17,990 19,366 750 750 750
Total Revenue $ 299,754 $ 307,731 $ 328,598 $ 289,150 $ 299,450 Expenditures
FY 2023-24
Actuals
FY 2024-25
Adopted
Budget
FY 2025-26
Proposed
Budget
FY 2025-26
Expected to
Complete
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Budget
Advertising
Marketing Services $ 218,340 $ 248,056 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 222,500 Photo/Video Assets 1,890 7,750 25,000 25,000 25,000
Promotional Product 600 - 5,000 5,000 2,500
Website - - - - -
Travel and Trade Shows - 2,469 7,500 7,500 10,000
Coop Advertising 14,400 33,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Sub-total Advertising $ 235,230 $ 291,275 $ 337,500 $ 337,500 $ 310,000 Contractual Services
Short-term compliance $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 Chamber - Contract admin. - - - - -
Sub-total Contractual Services $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 Membership & Subscriptions
CCTC $ 475 $ 475 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Sub-total Membership & Subs. $ 475 $ 475 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Public Relations
Event Sponsorships 1,000 9,799 50,000 1,000 50,000
Influencers - - 10,000 10,000 20,000
Sub-total Public Relations $ 1,000 $ 9,799 $ 60,000 $ 11,000 $ 70,000 Services & Supplies
City - administrative $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 50,000 Supplies/Domains - - 2,500 - 2,500
Vacation rental code compliance 5,004 5,004 5,000 5,000 - Sub-total Services & Supplies $ 50,004 $ 50,004 $ 52,500 $ 50,000 $ 52,500 Destination Improvements & Activities
Public art and beautification $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 Infrastructure improvements - - 20,000 20,000 20,000
Special event-supporting infrastructure - - 15,000 - 15,000 Sub-total Destination Improvements & Activities $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 20,000 $ 60,000 Total Expenditures $ 298,059 $ 362,903 $ 521,850 $ 430,350 $ 504,350 Ending Fund Balance $ 438,184 $ 383,013 $ 189,761 $ 241,813 $ 36,913

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO

CONTINUE THE ARROYO GRANDE TOURISM BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO CONTINUE THE BASIS

FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE

DISTRICT, AND TO SET A DATE FOR THE PUBLIC

HEARING ON THE DISTRICT AND THE ASSESSMENT
FOR THE 2026-27 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (“PBIAL”), sections 36500 et seq. of the Streets and Highway Code, authorizes cities to establish business improvement districts for several purposes, one of which is promotion of tourism; and
WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District was established in May 2013 and incorporated into the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”) under Chapter 3.46; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of Streets and Highways Code Section 36530 and AGMC Section 3.46.100, the City Council appointed an Advisory Board to provide oversight, guidance, and recommendations regarding the use of the assessment funds; and
WHEREAS, the AGMC and the PBIAL require the Advisory Board to prepare and submit an annual report (“Annual Report”) stating proposed changes, improvements and activities for the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will not result in a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378); and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Advisory Board approved the Annual Assessment Report; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Board Annual Assessment Report was filed and approved by the Arroyo Grande City Council on April 14, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows:

1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein.

2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to continue the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with AGMC Chapter 3.46 and Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq. and to levy assessments for fiscal year 2026-27.

ATTACHMENT 2

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016
PAGE 2

3. The Annual Assessment Report is on file with the City Clerk and contains a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for FY 2026-27. No changes to the District boundaries are proposed, and the report includes the estimated cost of providing improvements and activities for fiscal year 2026- 27. The assessment is not proposed to be increased.

4. The boundaries of the District are the boundaries of the City of Arroyo Grande.

5. The assessment levied by the District shall be used for activities and programs promoting lodging businesses in the District through the promotion and tourism infrastructure with a useful life of 5 years or more of scenic, recreational, cultural, and other attractions in the District which promote Arroyo Grande as a tourist destination, and as further set forth in ACMG Section 3.46.030.

6. The assessment is proposed to be levied on all “lodging” businesses in the District, as that term is defined in AGMC section 3.46.020, and allocated by the City of Arroyo Grande.

7. The assessment shall be based upon two percent (2%) of the rent charged by the operator per occupied room per night for all transient occupancies and shall be collected quarterly.

8. New lodging businesses shall not be exempt from immediate assessment.

9. A public hearing, held pursuant to AGMC Chapter 3.46 and Streets and Highways Code Section 36535, to allow for comments and to receive written and oral protests on the District and proposed assessment, is hereby set for 6:00 p.m., Tuesday April 28, 2026, before the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande at the City Council Chambers at 215 E. Branch St., Arroyo Grande, CA.

10.At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the continuation of the District, and the levy of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 2026-27 will be heard. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. However, only written protests will be considered in determining if there is a majority protest. The form and manner of protests shall comply with Streets and Highways Code Sections 36524 and 36525.

11.Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity of defect to which objection is made. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande before the close of the public hearing scheduled herein and may delivered or mailed to the City Clerk, City of Arroyo Grande, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a written description of the business in which the person signing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business. If the person signing the protest is not shown on

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016
PAGE 3
the official records of the City of Arroyo Grande as the owner of a business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business.

12.If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of lodging businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, no further proceedings to impose the fiscal year 2026-27 assessment shall occur. New proceedings to continue the District and to impose the annual assessment shall not be undertaken again for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council.

13.The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice as required by AGMC Chapter 3.46 and Streets and Highways Code Section 36534. The City Clerk shall give notice of the public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City no less than seven (7) days before the public hearing.

On motion of Council Member Guthrie, seconded by Council Member Maraviglia, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Guthrie, Maraviglia, Secrest, and Loe NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Ray Russom
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 14 th day of April, 2026.

1LIA,MYORPRO TEM
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016
PAGE 4

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, JESSICA MATSON, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 2026-016 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 14th day of April, 2026.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 16 th day
of April, 2026.

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK

MEMORANDUM
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

DATE:

City Council
Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a – Public Hearing to Consider the AGTBID Annual Assessment and FY 2026-27 Budget
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Director of Recreation Services
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
April 28, 2026

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 9:34 AM
To: Jessica Matson <[email protected]>
Cc: Sheridan Bohlken <[email protected]>
Subject: TBID Support
Hello Jessica,
Please let me know you received this and that it can be a part of tonights meeting.

Dear City Council Members,
I regret that I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting.

As the General Manager of The Agrarian Hotel in Arroyo Grande, I am writing to express my support for the continuation of the AGTBID and its levy assessment.

We are very pleased with the current marketing efforts and appreciate the work being carried out by Commune Communications. We look forward to seeing these initiatives continue to strengthen tourism in our community.

Given the ongoing challenges and uncertainties facing the tourism industry, it is essential that we maintain a consistent and strategic marketing plan to promote Arroyo Grande and support local businesses.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Sean Dasmann
General Manager
The Agrarian Hotel - BW Signature Collection
www.AgrarianHotel.com
(805) 574-6040
325 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

Item 11.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Ashley Garcia, Human Resources Officer
SUBJECT: City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends Presentation (Assembly Bill 2561)
DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Conduct a public hearing and receive and file the City of Arroyo Grande Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends presentation for the year ending December 31, 2025, to comply with Assembly Bill 2561; and 2) Find that the presentation about workforce vacancies, recruitment and retention trends is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378.) IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The only cost associated with implementation of Assembly Bill 2561 (AB 2561) is staff time in developing the report and presentation, and interfacing with the bargaining units regarding presentations. Although AB 2561 created local mandates, it specifically precludes any reimbursement from the State for costs mandated by this act.

BACKGROUND:

Governor Newsom's signing of AB 2561 on September 22, 2024, introduced new annual requirements for public agencies to address and publicly report on staffing vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts. As part of this law, public agencies must also highlight hiring challenges and potential policy obstacles. If vacancy rates in a bargaining unit exceed 20%, agencies must provide further details on job openings, applicant numbers, hiring timelines, and strategies for improving compensation and working conditions.

Additionally, employee organizations are given the opportunity to present their perspectives during these public hearings. This report outlines the City’s workforce composition, vacancies, and strategies to attract and retain employees. While recruitment and hiring remain top priorities, the City also focuses on long-term retention through employee recognition, internal promotion opportunities, and workplace improvements

Item 11.a.

City Council
City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends Presentation (Assembly Bill 2561)
April 28, 2026

such as alternative work schedules and professional development. All data collected is from the 2025 calendar year.

At its April 8, 20251, meeting, the City Council adopted procedures for public hearings under Assembly Bill 2561 and directed staff to incorporate the procedure into the City Council Handbook. At its April 22, 20252, meeting, the City Council conducted its first AB 2561 public hearing and received and filed the City of Arroyo Grande Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Trends presentation for the year ending December 31, 2024.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The City has four (4) bargaining groups (two represented and two unrepresented), consisting of 86 authorized regular full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. For the purposes of vacancy tracking, staff excluded interns from the FTE count due to the transitory nature of the roles. To distinguish from the Personnel Summary included in the budget, the five members of City Council and contract City Attorney are also not included in the total position count for vacancy tracking.

City staff also support the Human Resources function of Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA); however, their agency-specific vacancy report was presented separately to the FCFA Board of Directors on April 20, 2026.

Table 1: Count of Regular Full- and Part-Time Positions by Bargaining Group as of December 31, 2025
City of Arroyo Grande Bargaining Group Position Count
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 30
Police Officers’ Association (POA) 27
Unrepresented Management Group 23
Unrepresented Part-time Employees1 6
Total 86
1 Interns are excluded from this part-time position count to track vacancies, due to the transitory nature of the roles.

Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention
Vacancies
Position vacancies are created for a few reasons, including when newly budgeted positions are approved, following internal movement such as a promotion or transfer, or when an employee leaves the organization due to retirement, voluntary resignation, or involuntary termination. When vacancies occur, it is a high priority for the Human Resources team and the City’s hiring managers to fill vacant positions to ensure continuity

1 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=14280 2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=14364

Item 11.a.

City Council
City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends Presentation (Assembly Bill 2561)
April 28, 2026

of services, maintain operational efficiency, minimize the need for overtime, and minimize disruptions to departmental functions.

Timely recruitment and hiring efforts help the City sustain its workforce, meet community needs, and uphold service standards while also providing opportunities for internal growth and external talent acquisition. Although AB 2561 now requires staff to present annually on the status of vacancies and efforts to recruit and retain staff, it has always been a priority for departments to fill vacancies as soon as reasonably possible.

Throughout the 2025 calendar year, the City’s average vacancy rate across all bargaining units was 5.8%. The vacancy rate is calculated monthly as the quantity of vacancies divided by the quantity of positions. For context, a vacancy rate between 5-10% is considered healthy to maintain a balance of filling open positions and ensuring efficient operations. As of December 31, 2025, the vacancy rate for each bargaining group was below 20%, ending the year with a 9.3% vacancy rate across the organization:

Table 2: Vacancy Rates by Bargaining Group as of December 31, 2025 City of Arroyo Grande Bargaining Group Vacancy Rate
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 10.3%
Police Officers’ Association (POA) 18.5%
Unrepresented Management Group 0%
Unrepresented Part-time Employees 0%
Citywide 9.3%
Vacancies created in 2025 stem from a combination of factors, including resignations for employment opportunities elsewhere, retirements, unsuccessful completion of probationary period, and other personal reasons. In calendar year 2025, there were three retirements. Retirement is typically planned and predictable and is considered natural turnover, excluded from avoidable turnover and retention metrics.

Recruitment and Retention
Filling vacancies and recruiting top talent are critical to delivering core services to the community and carrying out Council’s priorities but retaining that talent is equally essential for sustaining long-term success and minimizing future vacancies. The Human Resources team recognizes recruitment is focused on identifying, attracting, and hiring the right people, and retention is about keeping employees engaged, satisfied, and committed to the organization long-term. Both are critical for the success of the organization, especially in today’s competitive job market.

In calendar year 2025, the City successfully filled 18 vacancies, seven of which were created by internal promotion. The average amount of time to fill a regular vacant position was 83 days for external recruitment and 18 days to fill internally via promotion. The City received 409 job applications in 2025. While the City’s average vacancy rate during 2025

Item 11.a.

City Council
City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends Presentation (Assembly Bill 2561)
April 28, 2026

was 5.8%, hiring for certain regular positions remains a challenge. Contributing factors include the rising demand for talent in specific sectors, such as civil engineers and police officers, the high cost-of-living in the south San Luis Obispo County area, and its geographical distance from a major metropolitan center, which can limit the applicant pool.

To assist in recruitment and retention efforts specific to the Police Department, the City Council approved the Lateral Police Officer Recruiting Incentive Program in 2019. While these incentives come with a cost, the benefits of filled positions far outweigh the expense. In 2025, the Police Department successfully hired 2 lateral Police Officers, which City staff believes was the result of the incentive program. The City also had two experienced officers choose to leave the Department for nearby agencies with similar programs, showing how competitive the job market is for public safety talent and how incentive programs can make a difference.

Staff continue to enhance the recruitment process with targeted marketing flyers, expanded use of social media to promote available jobs, and outreach to specific professional associations and local schools and colleges to attract candidates specifically interested in local government career opportunities. From 2024 to 2025, the City improved its hiring time by shortening the hiring process by an average of 34 days. In March 2026, City of Arroyo Grande Recreation Services was named “Gold Best Place to Work” by the SLO Tribune Best of the Central Coast, an honor the City will highlight in its recruitment efforts.

For calendar year 2025, the City’s retention rate was 92%, reflecting a strong ability to retain employees. The retention rate is calculated as the quantity of employees at the beginning of the calendar year, divided by the quantity of those employees who remained with the organization through the end of calendar year. The average tenure for City employees is 9.1 years, demonstrating a stable workforce.

To meet the changing desires of employees, the City incorporates several retention strategies including offering alternative 9/80 work schedules, and hybrid telework options to help employees balance work and personal life. Employees are encouraged to use their paid time off to rest and recharge, reducing burnout and supporting a healthy work life balance. Second, the City has invested in professional development and training programs to help prepare employees for career advancement as well as enhance employee engagement. Employees are also recognized formally through an employee recognition program. This ultimately leads to higher retention rates, as employees feel more valued, aligned with their roles, and connected to the City’s mission. The City is currently engaged in a Classification and Compensation study to ensure our compensation plan remains competitive within the local job market.

Item 11.a.

City Council
City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends Presentation (Assembly Bill 2561)
April 28, 2026

With data now in place for key metrics related to vacancies, recruitment, and retention, the City can begin tracking year-over-year trends. Table 3 highlights areas of improvement as well as opportunities for continued progress.

Table 3: 2024 vs. 2025 Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Metrics Metric 2024 2025
Citywide vacancy rate as of December 31 7% 9.3%
Average monthly vacancy rate 6% 5.8%
Retirements 2 3
Vacancies filled 14 18
Average time to fill vacancy 117 days 83 days
Total job applications received 220 409
Lateral Police Officers hired 2 2
Annual Staff Retention Rate 88% 92%
Average Tenure of City Employees 8.6 years 9.1 years
In closing, the City has made meaningful progress in reducing vacancies by shortening hiring timelines, adopting new recruitment strategies, and investing in employee development. These efforts will remain a priority for Human Resources, department heads, and supervisors across the organization. By continuing to focus on engagement, competitive compensation, professional growth, and recognition, the City can continue to foster an environment where talent not only thrives but stays long-term.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Conduct a public hearing; and receive and file the City of Arroyo Grande Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends presentation for the year ending December 31, 2025 to comply with AB 2561;

2. Direct staff to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts during a public hearing more than once per fiscal year. The law only requires such reporting on an annual basis before a budget is adopted, and providing updates more frequently does not allow for collection of sufficient data to present accurate and appropriately representative reporting; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The recommended action complies with the requirements of AB 2561.

DISADVANTAGES:

None.

Item 11.a.

City Council
City Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends Presentation (Assembly Bill 2561)
April 28, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The presentation about workforce vacancies, recruitment and retention trends is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378.) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Arroyo Grande Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends presentation

2. Public Comment Received

Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment
and Retention Trends (AB 2561)
City of Arroyo Grande
April 28, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1

Recommendation
2 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive and file the City of Arroyo Grande Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and
Retention Trends presentation for the year ending
December 31, 2025, to comply with Assembly Bill 2561

Agenda
3 City-wide
Workforce
Vacancy
Information
Recruitment
Statistics
Hiring Issues Staff Retention

City-wide
Workforce
86 Total Budgeted/Authorized full-time equivalent
positions provide the following services to the
public:
• Community Development
• Recreation Services
• Police Services
• Public Works
• City Administration
• Administrative Services
• Human Resources
• Legislative & Information Services

2025 Calendar Year Vacancies
5 Calendar Year 2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec # of Vacancies Created 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 4 1 2 4
# of Vacancies Filled 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 5 1 2 1
# of Remaining Vacancies 6 4 3 3 4 4 7 6 5 5 5 8
# of Budgeted FTEs 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
% of Vacancies 7.0% 4.7% 3.5% 3.5% 4.7% 4.7% 8.1% 7.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 9.3% • Average % of Vacancies at the End of Each Month: 5.8% • Highest % of Vacancies at the End of a Month: 9.3%
• Lowest % of Vacancies at the End of a Month: 3.5%

Vacancies by
Unit
6 City of Arroyo Grande Bargaining Group Number of
Vacancies
Budgeted
FTEs
Vacancy
Rate
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 3 30 10.0% Police Officers’ Association (POA) 5 27 18.5%
Unrepresented Management Group 0 23 0.0%
Unrepresented Part-time Employees 0 6 0.0%
Citywide Total 8 86 9.3%
Vacancy Rates by Bargaining Group as of December 31, 2025

Recruitment
Statistics
7 Recruitment Type Number of
Vacancies
Average
Time to Fill
New Internal/External Recruitment 14 83 days
Internal Promotional Recruitment 4 18 days
Citywide Total 18
Calendar Year 2025 Vacancies Filled
Improved hiring time:
• Reduced time to fill metric by 34 days over the
previous year
409 job applications recieved

Hiring
Issues
Obstacles Identified:
• Rising demand for talent in certain sectors
(especially Law Enforcement, Engineering)
• High Cost of Living in SLO County
• Geographical distance from a major
metropolitan center
• To address these obstacles, the City will:
• Continue to highlight the Lateral Police Officer
Hiring Incentive Program
• Promote jobs available through targeted outreach
• Spotlight 2026 Best Place to Work honors
• Ensure our Compensation Plan remains
competitive

Staff
Retention
Annual Staffing Retention Rate: 92%
Average Tenure: 9.1 years
9 Reasons for Vacancies Created Number of
Vacancies
Newly Budgeted Positions/
Staffing Growth/Reclassification
1 Internal Promotional Opportunity 7
Retirement 3
Involuntary Separation 2
Voluntary Separation 7
Citywide Total 20
2025 Vacancy Reasons

Summary of Vacancy Report
10 Next
Steps
• Continue to keep
vacancy rate low
by reducing time
to fill
• Pursue new
strategies to
attract talent for
difficult-to-fill
positions
• Invest in
employee
development
and engagement
Addressing
Vacancies
Recruitment
Challenges
Focus on
Retention

SEIU Presentation

POA Presentation

?
Questions & DIscussiOn
13 Page 81 of 215
Recommendation
14 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive and file the City of Arroyo Grande Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and
Retention Trends presentation for the year ending
December 31, 2025, to comply with Assembly Bill 2561

Public Comment

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WILLIAM MANN
President

BRADLEY KLEIN
Vice President

NATALIA HEREDIA
Treasurer

LUPE ENRIQUEZ
Secretary

LAURA ROBINSON
Executive Director

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION

SANTA BARBARA OFFICE
350 S. HOPE AVE # A103
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105
Phone: 805.963.0601
Fax: 805.963.8341

SANTA MARIA OFFICE
114 N. VINE STREET
SANTA MARIA, CA 93454
Phone: 805.963.0601
Fax: 805.614.7620
April 21, 2026
SEIU Local 620 Written Public Comment for AB 2561 Public Hearing on Public Sector Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention.

Dear Mayor Russom and Councilmembers,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on behalf of SEIU Local 620.

We want to acknowledge and commend the City for its continued focus on maintaining a low vacancy rate within our unit and the City as a whole. This is an important achievement, and we sincerely appreciate the dedication and effort that went into filling our muchneeded public sector positions. Every vacancy addressed directly supports our members by easing workloads on an already lean crew, and helps to maintain the high quality of services our community depends on.

As we recognize this achievement, we also want to emphasize the value of continued investment in recruitment and retention.

Sustaining competitive wages, strengthening training pathways, and ensuring manageable workloads are essential to supporting longterm workforce stability.

SEIU remains committed to collaborating with the City to ensure that employees have the tools and support they need to excel. We appreciate the transparency provided through Assembly Bill 2561 reporting, and we look forward to continuing our partnership in making the City of Arroyo Grande a place where dedicated public employees choose to build and grow their careers.

Thank you for your time and for your ongoing service to our community.

Sincerely,
Nicole Bryant
Field Representative
SEIU Local 620
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 2

Item 11.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works BY: Shannon Sweeney, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Review and provide direction regarding the future of certain traffic control elements that were installed to address traffic impacts associated with the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project was completed on time and on budget. Most of the detour elements were the contractor's responsibility to install and remove. One element, the traffic circle in front of the Arroyo Grande High School (AGHS), was installed to accommodate the bridge detour but was constructed outside of the bridge contract.

That element remains in place.

Future costs depend on whether any changes are desired. Anticipated costs are included in the analysis portion of the staff report. Funding has not yet been allocated to proceed with any changes at this time.

BACKGROUND:

Due to scour conditions and evidence of deficiencies, the Traffic Way Bridge was identified as needing replacement. After securing funding, a new Traffic Way Bridge was designed.

Detours were necessary because the bridge was completely closed and removed during construction, and the City needed a safe, functional way to redirect thousands of daily vehicles while the new bridge was being built. At a City Council special meeting on September 9, 2024,
1 staff shared recommended detour elements of the Traffic Way

1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=d79e3024-3910-4a1f-aa54- c6ce78bb192c&Agenda=Merged&lang=English&Item=32&Tab=attachments

Item 11.b.

City Council
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion April 28, 2026

Bridge project that would be needed to accommodate the full closure. Staff facilitated the installation of various detour elements that were recommended at that time.

The project to construct the Traffic Way Bridge was awarded on December 10, 20242.

The project detours began on May 17, 2025. The detours were removed and traffic restored to pre-project conditions on December 17, 2025. All detour elements were removed except for the traffic circle in front of AGHS. The Bridge project was accepted by City Council on February 24, 2026.3
A FlashVote survey4 was conducted in late March 2026 to better understand public sentiment on the traffic detour elements. 742 responses were received. Of the 742 survey participants, 281 provided comments. Those comments are sorted by topic and included in Attachment 1. Information from the survey is discussed in the Analysis of Issues section of this staff report related to each of the elements mentioned.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Traffic Way is an arterial roadway that conveys approximately 11,000 vehicles per day.

The Traffic Way Bridge Project provided the City with the opportunity to observe the impact of various traffic circulation changes. Elements installed to reroute vehicles to accomplish the full closure for the bridge replacement project included:
 Routing northbound traffic from Traffic Way onto Bridge Street, modifying traffic circulation on Bridge Street to one way, closure of Nevada Street at Branch Street, and installing a temporary traffic signal light at the Bridge Street and East Branch Street intersection that allowed traffic to turn in both directions.  Installing a temporary traffic signal on Fair Oaks Avenue at the southbound Highway 101 offramp,
 Installing a temporary traffic circle on Fair Oaks Avenue in front of the middle driveway to the AGHS parking lot, intended to be removed in the summer of 2026.

Each of these elements is discussed further below.

Bridge/Branch Intersection Detour
During construction, Bridge Street was converted from a two-way street to a northbound one-way street. The stop sign at Bridge Street and East Branch Street was removed, and Nevada Street was blocked at Branch Street to facilitate the installation of a temporary traffic signal.

2https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=d97188a8-cbd4-44a5-8b29- 561fdea7102b&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=62&Tab=attachments 3https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=661c1650-22a5-4167-91df42e815675b95&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=34&Tab=attachments 4 https://www.flashvote.com/arroyo-grande-ca/surveys/traffic-03-26

Item 11.b.

City Council
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion April 28, 2026

Of the 742 FlashVote survey responses:
 23% liked having this signal in place;
 33% did not like having this signal in place;
 13% indicated that they would support reinstalling this traffic signal, which would likely require permanent closure of Nevada Street;
 16 participants commented on their opposition to reinstalling the signal, and five participants commented on their support for reinstalling the signal.

These intersection changes were made specifically to address the need to detour around a completely closed Traffic Way and were critical to the successful redirection of traffic, contributing to the project’s success. Staff recommends that the traffic signal not be installed and that Bridge Street continue to allow two-way traffic because Traffic Way is open to through traffic, so this traffic signal would be redundant. The City will not incur additional cost if no changes are made to the intersection at this time and no further changes or costs are currently planned.

Fair Oaks Avenue/Highway 101/Orchard Street Intersection Detour During construction, a temporary traffic signal was installed at the Fair Oaks Avenue/Highway 101/Orchard intersection because southbound Highway 101 vehicles could not access the southern portion of the Village except by exiting at the Fair Oaks southbound off-ramp. The traffic signal was installed to accommodate the additional vehicles that would need to use that off-ramp and was allowed by Caltrans only through the Project.

This intersection is problematic because the off-ramp is offset from Orchard Avenue. This offset created confusion, even with the traffic signal in place, because vehicles turning from northbound Orchard Avenue to eastbound Fair Oaks Avenue immediately encountered the eastbound Fair Oaks Avenue signal and were unsure how to proceed when it was red. In addition, any backup of the southbound off-ramp affected vehicles entering Highway 101 at the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp. Backups onto 101 were reported during the construction project, likely due to the increased number of vehicles using the Fair Oaks off-ramp to access the Village.

Of the 742 survey responses:
 44% liked having this signal in place;
 22% did not like having this signal in place;
 39% indicated that they would support reinstalling this traffic signal, which would require permission from Caltrans;
 13 participants commented on their opposition to reinstalling the signal;  27 participants commented on their support for reinstalling the signal.

Survey respondents shared additional thoughts related to pedestrians and parking around the high school. At this time, the value of a traffic signal to decrease backups onto the freeway is unknown, requires additional study, requires significant coordination with

Item 11.b.

City Council
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion April 28, 2026

Caltrans, and would cost, at minimum, $25,000. Additionally, if through these efforts intersection modifications were necessary and supported by Caltrans, improvement costs would range from a minimum of $500,000 to $8,000,000, depending upon the most appropriate improvement of either a traffic signal or a roundabout. For these reasons, and due to the amount of work currently being undertaken throughout the community, staff does not recommend moving forward with this effort at this time.

AGHS Temporary Traffic Circle
The City’s former Traffic Commission advised prohibiting left turns from the AGHS parking lot in 2004 due to safety concerns. On January 24, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution 4420, establishing a policy prohibiting left turns onto Fair Oaks Avenue from the AGHS parking lot. Despite the prohibition, staff observed over 100 cars per day attempting the left turn illegally, at considerable risk to themselves and others.

On September 9, 2024, City staff proposed a temporary traffic circle on Fair Oaks Avenue in front of AGHS during bridge construction to provide a safe and legal way for vehicles to turn left (westbound) onto Fair Oaks Avenue and avoid the Bridge Street detour. The temporary traffic circle was approved by Council and was installed by April 21, 2025, in advance of the remainder of the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project.

Table 1 shows the counts of vehicles turning left from AGHS in the half hour before the start of school and the half hour after the end of school, before the temporary traffic circle was installed; then during and after the project, with the traffic circle in place. The traffic circle allowed more westbound traffic to flow, reducing vehicle miles traveled, congestion in front of AGHS, and backups at the eastern intersections toward Fair Oaks Avenue and Traffic Way.

Table 1: Traffic Circle Usage Statistics
Date Left-turners AM Left-turners PM
4/17/25 (Before Project) 63 73
5/7/25 (During Project) 69 57
4/1/26 (After Project) 104 100
Table 2 shows accident history on Fair Oaks Avenue in front of AGHS since 2023.

Table 2: AGHS Vehicle Accident History
Year Cause
Apr 2023-24
(before traffic
circle)
Vehicle vs Pole- DUI
Vehicle vs Vehicle – Rear Ended
Vehicle vs Vehicle – Left hand turner from AGHS parking lot, collided with Vehicle traveling eastbound on Fair Oaks Avenue

Item 11.b.

City Council
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion April 28, 2026

Apr 2024-25
(before traffic
circle)
Vehicle vs Vehicle - Rear ended
Vehicle vs Vehicle - Vehicle making left hand turn from AGHS parking lot, collided with Vehicle traveling eastbound on Fair Oaks Avenue
Vehicle vs Vehicle - Vehicle making left hand turn from AGHS parking lot, collided with Vehicle traveling westbound on Fair Oaks Avenue
Apr 2025-26
(after traffic
circle)
Vehicle vs Vehicle – Unsafe turning movement to merge out of the mandatory turning lane into AGHS parking lot
Vehicle vs Vehicle – Vehicle side swiped another vehicle while in the traffic circle
Vehicle vs Vehicle – Unsafe turning movement to merge out of the mandatory turning lane into AGHS parking lot
Vehicle vs Vehicle – Unsafe passing on the left after the traffic circle, side swiped vehicle
Vehicle vs Vehicle – Failure to yield right of way to vehicle already in the traffic circle
While Table 2 shows an increase in the number of accidents at this location since the traffic circle was installed, the nature of the accidents has shifted from higher speed side impacts to lower speed side swipes. Both the Fire and Police Chiefs, as well as the school administration, are generally in support of keeping the temporary traffic circle in place at this location until more permanent measures can be constructed.

The following graph shows the results of the survey regarding support for keeping or against keeping the traffic circle.

Figure 1: FlashVote Results Regarding Temporary Traffic Circle

Item 11.b.

City Council
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion April 28, 2026

Figure 1 shows that there are generally equal numbers of respondents strongly against and strongly supportive of keeping the temporary traffic circle.

Many survey respondents also provided comments on the temporary traffic circle. Table 3 summarizes those comments. Attachment 1 lists all comments received.

Table 3: Summary Count of Comments Received
Opinion Number of respondents
Oppose 28
Support 22
Neutral, needs education 34
Neutral, needs enforcement 6
Neutral, needs modification 56
Attachment 2 contains the pros, cons, and cost estimates for various options for addressing traffic control in front of AGHS.

If the Council directs staff to leave the temporary traffic circle in place at this time, modifications can be made to improve its functionality. For instance, several FlashVote participants shared their concerns about speeding. Speed feedback signs, curbs, or speed tables can reduce speeding. Staff recommend speed feedback signs based on their effectiveness at other locations in the city. At this time, staff does not recommend speed tables or curbs because the increased infrastructure may lead to more confusion than compliance. Other FlashVote participants shared their concerns about poor yielding.

Additional signage can help educate drivers on how to proceed through the area, while removing the trees on either side of the parking lot entrance can improve visibility.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Accept information provided regarding the future of detour elements that were installed during the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project and consider the following staff recommendations:
a. Bridge Street/Branch Street - make no changes - do not reinstall the traffic signal and keep Nevada Street open.
b. Fair Oaks Avenue/Highway 101/Orchard Street – make no changes – this effort could be initiated at a later date when staff capacity is available. c. AGHS temporary traffic circle - leave the temporary traffic circle in place at this time, add speed feedback signs, increase education and enforcement, remove two trees, and work towards installing a larger, more permanent roundabout as space is obtained or becomes available through cooperative collaboration or as a result of development;

2. Provide additional input to City staff for consideration or implementation regarding the future of the detour elements that were installed during the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project; or

Item 11.b.

City Council
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion April 28, 2026

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Bridge Street/Branch Street Intersection Detour
Now that Traffic Way is back open to traffic in both directions, one-way travel on Bridge Street is no longer necessary, so the traffic signal is unnecessary. Leaving conditions asis and allowing traffic in both directions on Bridge Street will not require any additional funding and will not result in the closure of Nevada Street. Traffic patterns in this area have reverted to pre-project conditions familiar to the public, and survey results demonstrate overall satisfaction among residents with the current traffic circulation at this location.

Fair Oaks Avenue/Highway 101/Orchard Street Intersection Detour While a signal at this location alleviates some issues, it does not address all issues at this intersection, or other issues such as parking and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the high school. Further study would be required to enable the City to look at this area from a more comprehensive standpoint to consider potential solutions, which is not currently a prioritized work effort.

AGHS Traffic Circle
Leaving the existing traffic circle in place allows over 200 cars per day to legally turn left out of the AGHS parking lot onto westbound Fair Oaks Avenue. Allowing this legal maneuver then alleviates congestion at the Fair Oaks Avenue/Highway 101/Orchard Street, Station Way, and Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersections during high-vehiclevolume school drop-off and pickup times. Furthermore, allowing this maneuver helps reduce vehicle miles traveled for motorists living just south and west of AGHS. Costs to implement small changes, improve enforcement, and augment education, are estimated at $20,000, plus staff time for education and enforcement.

DISADVANTAGES:

Bridge Street/Branch Street Intersection Detour
This intersection has been and continues to be problematic because Nevada Street and Bridge Street are offset. While reinstalling a traffic signal would improve traffic flow, installing a new one would require closing Nevada Street and negatively impact vehicle circulation in the immediate area. Also, some vehicles became accustomed to being able to legally turn left from Bridge Street onto westbound Branch Street and continue to do so. Staff evaluated potential locations of an additional sign saying “No Left Turn,” but have not been able to find a suitable location for this sign.

Fair Oaks Avenue/Highway 101/Orchard Street Intersection Detour This intersection is part of a larger issue, and even if a cost-effective solution is found, intersection improvements at this location are anticipated to have costs between $500,000 and $8 million. Additionally, there is the uncertain process of a Caltrans review.

Item 11.b.

City Council
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion April 28, 2026

Not pursuing any changes at this time means that existing intersection challenges remain in place as they have been since the intersection was installed.

AGHS Traffic Circle
There is a contingent of residents and other drivers who oppose keeping this temporary traffic circle in place. Many do not understand why it is there. Others generally support traffic circles but feel that this one is too small for safety, that drivers do not know how to use it, and that its size and orientation do not discourage speeding. Implementing minor changes are expected to cost around $20,000.

NEXT STEPS:

City staff will recommend budget funding for detour elements as directed by City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

On September 26, 2023, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project (SCH No. 2022060452). The MND analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

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. March 2026 FlashVote Comments, Sorted

2. AGHS Options

ATTACHMENT 1
MARCH 2026 TRAFFIC FLASHVOTE COMMENTS, SORTED
Opposed to Traffic Circle

1. City officials clearly don’t travel on Fair Oaks immediately before or immediately after school.

Remove the damn traffic circle and return traffic back to the way it was before you ruined it with a traffic circle nobody uses correctly, that is far too small to support the traffic and creates more congestion than it alleviates.

2. I have almost been hit by kids leaving the H.S. parking lot and turning, cutting people off while I was in the circle

3. The round about at the High School just needs to go. It was a terrible idea.

4. Rather than improving safety and traffic flow, the traffic circle has created confusion, increased congestion, and introduced new hazards for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. The traffic circle is not suited for the volume and pattern of traffic in this area. Drivers frequently hesitate, yield unpredictably, or enter the circle incorrectly, leading to near-misses and a heightened risk of collisions. Instead of easing movement, the traffic circle has caused backups and confused driving behavior, particularly during peak hours. I hope that the city can reevaluate this installation and consider removing it. If something needs to be there, a stop sign or traffic light would be better suited.

5. I think a stop sign would be better than a traffic circle. This traffic circle is not large enough to be effective.

6. Have everything go back to how it was before the bridge construction. There were no issues. I drive through the village everyday.

7. I have nearly been in 3 accidents leaving the school roundabout. This roundabout isn't big enough to adequately determine who has right away. People on fair oaks don't tried to those already in the circle. During "rush hour" traffic for the school sometimes this gets treated like a four way stop, causing traffic to back up all the way to Branch street. Changing the roundabout to a light with 1 turn lane and 1 through lane would make a lot more sense.

8. I have nearly been hit twice by students racing into the traffic circle and or blocking part of it.

9. I live on Nelson st. in the village of AG. I use these roads DAILY as both a commuter and pedestrian with my family. I do not think these changes promoted any kind of safety while simultaneously making traffic much worse than it was previously. As someone who uses these roads as much if not more than anyone, I STRONGLY suggest putting things back to how they were before all of the new signals, roundabouts, etc

10. The traffic circle round about in front of AGHS prevents cars from making left turns & holding up traffic waiting to legally turn right.

11. I’ve experienced dangerous situations with the traffic roundabout especially during school start/end times, sports games etc. I think it would be much safer if it is removed.

12. The traffic circle causes too much confusion for drivers and is an accident waiting to happen.

13. I go around to avoid that mess even though its longer. I'm surprised there haven't been alot of accidents

14. I look forward to the traffic circle being gone, I travel through it 5 days a week.

15. The "traffic circle" at the high school is a joke. The design and installation was clearly done by an inept person who does not know what the needed geometrics for a traffic circle are. Please remove this Lego Land abomination.

ATTACHMENT 1

16. It is impossible to "enter" or "exit" the traffic circle in turns when it is only one car length across.

Unless someone is alone in entering the area of the obstacle, people either stop completely out of caution or don't stop, feeling entitled to go, therefore driving directly in front of someone else.

There is no "flow" around the "circle." The addition of permanent lane dividing cones adds confusion, rather than clarity, as these are not typical, and serves to further indicate how unnatural the imposed "circle" is. Drivers are blamed for using the space incorrectly when the space that was incorrectly designed and normal traffic circle "rules" are impossible to implement due to the insufficient size.

17. It is dangerous. I have seen too many close calls.

18. Traffic circles are the product of a failing society

19. The traffic circle was useless, as far as I could tell. I did avoid the area during high traffic times so maybe it helped but I did not experience that

20. I completely avoid the high school area at certain times of day so I have no idea whether the traffic circle works or what The purpose of it is.

21. We travel to St Pats on a regular basis, nkt just Sundays, and think the traffic circle in front of the HS is dangerous and ineffective

22. When I was a student at AGHS I didn’t have any issue getting in and out of the parking lot. I think all the obstacles in front of the main parking lot would have been stressful to navigate when I was new to driving especially with the added congestion it causes.

23. I commute on Fair Oaks every day. The traffic circle is awful. The light was even worse. They both significantly impacted commuters, and didn’t do anything to make it easier for students to exit the high school because high schoolers are idiots who don’t know how to use traffic circles.

24. The traffic circle And the light have increased congestion and create a hazard of emergency vehicles getting through the traffic

25. The traffic circle at the high school is unnecessary and disruptive.

26. Focus on a road diet and active transportation before a student is severely injured or worse.

Both temp designs were frustrating and supported high speeds.

27. No one can figure out how to use the traffic circle, especially students. It needs to be removed.

28. I never saw the benefit or need for the traffic circle. It is a choke point. Cars just speed up and race to get there first. Return to two lanes each way will restore good traffic flow both ways on Fair Oaks
Support Traffic Circle

1. As a cyclist I like the current arrangement of the traffic controls/flow and especially the traffic circle at the high school...the traffic circle bike lanes are safe because it forces autos to slow

2. It is a relief that students now are not turning left out of the parking lot and going against the traffic flow. I had witnessed too many near-collisions from students exiting the lot and turning left. I am a big fan of the traffic circle.

3. Please leave things the way they're currently setup for optimal traffic flow

4. Keep it. Traffic flows a lot better!

5. The traffic circle has also seemed to help slow the speed of traffic down in front of the school in a positive way. It has made the left turns out of the front/main lot safer. I work in the building on Orchard and have to left turn at the Fair Oaks offramp intersection to go in front of the school to go home and both the roundabout and signal made my drive much safer. Please keep the circle

ATTACHMENT 1

6. PLEASE keep the traffic circle! I am the parent of two high schoolers and drive to the HS regularly. The traffic circle makes a HUGE difference in the traffic flow, both getting into the high school and getting out.

7. As someone who works at the high school, it really does help with traffic, especially when school gets out at the high school allowing people to go to the left out of the parking lot

8. Thank you for asking the people who use this route frequently, I drive Fair Oaks and Bridge streets multiple times a day. The traffic circle really works and I feel drivers have become used to it and knowledgeable how to navigate it.

9. My family lives in the AGHS neighborhood and we’re grateful for the traffic circle. It makes the roads safer in our neighborhood by slowing people down at an important intersection.

10. the traffic circle in front of the high school as done 2 important things for the better: kept the flow of traffic safe and moving now without deadlocks, and #2 it as SLOWED DOWN vehicles in both directions which is better for the student body, staff, and community overall! Smart change that has gone a long way in making the entering and exiting AGHS and the clark center much safer. (coming from an AG teacher of 36 years).

11. Some people complain about circles, but research shows they do reduce traffic collisions and help traffic flow better.

12. Please keep the traffic circle! The flow of traffic in the AGHS parking lot getting in and out at pick up and drop off is so much better. Even more so now that the bridge in open. Having the option to exit either right or left is big help. Due to my commute, if all the school traffic had go through traffic way I would have to drop and pick up my high schooler at MIner's again.

13. I love the traffic circle at AGHS! Please keep it.

14. Please keep the circle in front of the high school it makes it much easier for parents to string drop off

15. I would support more traffic circles like the one at the high school. Perhaps more could be considered instead of traffic signals since they can be less expensive and more pedestrian friendly

16. The traffic circle does help for left out of the High School.

17. Please, please keep the traffic circle! I have three students at AGHS and it is SO much better with the traffic circle.

18. The traffic circle is awesome! please never remove. We need more of those in other areas of AG. Other traffic controls - What can you all do at the Linda and Brisco 4 way with kid safety to ocean view elementary.

19. It was so dangerous to turn left out of the parking lot at AGHS before. The circle has improved safety

20. I generally think more progressive traffic control approaches, such as traffic circles and street closures, are better for traffic overall.

21. Being able to make a left turn out of the school is crucial

22. keep the circle in front of the high school
Need more education

1. The traffic circle has been a concern of mine because the newly teenage high school drivers don’t really navigate the traffic circle safely. They’ve rushed out into the circle and I’ve Almost been hit a couple times

ATTACHMENT 1

2. I am concerned that many people do no know how to yield to those already in the circle, and treat it more as a stop sign for the parking lot than a true way to merge. However, I appreciate that it slows cross traffic on Fair Oaks, making the high school safer, and easing traffic at school start and end times.

3. I think turning left out of the high school parking lot is important, but no one knows how to use the traffic circle and it is not very functional. I think it causes more harm than good.

4. people still dont understand traffic circles. I was nearly wiped out last Friday going to Clark Center. Kid in truck travelling west to enter the circle; I knew was not going to yield. I had to stop in the circle and lay on my horn! no one signals their intent when in the circles.

5. I think posting instructional videos showing proper/appropriate usage of the roundabout would be helpful for people who might be otherwise unfamiliar with navigating them. It would also help clarify expectations for those who incorrectly use them.

6. Cross traffic going through the circle is sometimes going through it at 40+ mph.. this is extremely unsafe. I would say we almost get hit by another vehicle at least a few times per week when inside the circle— not by Aghs students, but rather by traffic passing by the school.

People either need to be educated on how a roundabout works, or we need to have a patrol car out there issuing citations for reckless driving, because it’s pretty bad. The traffic flow is definitely better getting out of the parking lot.. but there are still some safety concerns

7. Teach people how to appropriatley use the travel round about. It’s not difficult but some people just have no idea what to do or whose turn it is. Overall I like having it though

8. the circle confuses drivers who don't know the rules.

9. I think the traffic circle is a great idea, but drivers are not yielding the right of way for left turns into the parking lot at AGHS so it makes it unsafe.

10. I love the traffic circle. I believe there should be signage on how it works. A lot of people run right over the circle going 45 mph. Signage indicating right of way for the circle would be helpful.

11. Taking a student to AGHS or trying to get through there on a lunch has not been nearly as bad with the traffic circle

12. People need to learn how to use the traffic circle. I still see people honking or getting mad because they think that vehicles continuing straight on the main road have the right of way. I don’t always take my turn when I should because it appears that oncoming traffic isn’t going to slow down or yield as they should.

13. Traffic circles are clearly the intelligent choice. There is a reason Europe has used them for decades. Anyone who doesn't like it, simply hasn't learned how it's used.

14. Most people do not respect that the traffic circle states 15 mph, many speed through it even if the circle sits in front of a school. If kept, there needs to be a better reinforcement of the speed.

I've witnessed way too many times, someone almost being side swiped or hit because people are driving through the circle as if they were on a speedway.

15. It would be helpful for the city (PD perhaps?) to offer training for high school students on how to use the circle.

16. Many people/parents don't understand the basics of a round a bout. Some education would be great

17. I don’t think most people know how to use the traffic circle. I had seen many near wrecks because they don’t know who has the rite of way. On a bigger circle it is clear who is “in” the

ATTACHMENT 1
road and who is merging but on a circle that small many people are confused. A yield sign would prob help if it does help traffic flow.

18. People really need to learn to yield to people in the traffic circle but it's a way better way to get out of the high school parking lot then the previous stop sign and hope to be able to make a left

19. people need even more education about how the traffic circle works. Who yields and who doesn’t. When to use blinkers. A couple of large, readable signs in the parking lot where people wait to leave lot would help and clear markings on pavement for yield.

20. An actual plan needs to be put in place. You have a lot of drivers that are possibly very young or not from this country and they do not understand the traffic pattern and laws. If the roundabout and the merge area stay the same there needs to be a police officer or some sort of traffic control for an extended period of time to teach people how to actually.

21. Many drivers don't respect the traffic circle right of way and blow through the traffic circle, even when there are cars exiting AGHS who should have the right of way. Signage is needed to remind drivers of the right of way rules, or expand the traffic circle so that drivers on Fair Oaks cannot breeze past it at 50 mph. Apart from these bad drivers, I love the traffic circle.

22. Please keep the traffic circle in front of AGHS...but make it more permanant. People either blow through that bad boy because they don't know/respect yielding laws, or they stop enritrely...because they are scared people will blow thorugh it. I think updating the speed limits clearly and stressing that when you approach the circle, you go 15, is key. Thanks for your time!

23. The most common issue I have witnessed with the traffic circle is people don’t know how they work. People going straight many times will assume the right away.

24. People trying to be nice and stopping in the circle are causing hazards. Re-occurring education would be needed.

25. People going down Fair Oaks treat the traffic circle like a straightaway. They do not yield when I am in the circle. I have nearly been hit multiple times and so has my partner and his son. The circle isn’t large enough for people to yield. It’s confusing for everyone.

26. The traffic circle at the high school seems great in theory and hopefully works well during school hours, but I have witnessed multiple near accidents as most people driving on Fair Oaks do not yield.

27. The pseudo traffic circle was installed without training for residents or students. Blocking an entrance to the parking lot increases conjunction. Timing the light at Traffic Way and restricting when students use the crosswalk on Fair Oaks would do more to ease traffic flow.

28. The traffic circle definitely helps when making a left turn out of AGHS. Does need better signage because once you are in the circle cars driving on Fairbanks do not yield

29. Traffic circles in general are great, but sadly many Americans are unfamiliar with how to use them. There need to be signs indicating that you should yield to traffic from the left. I have seen many times drivers doing exactly the opposite of this (yielding to traffic from the right), or drivers just kind of freezing in panic.

30. People did not treat cars exiting the school as being something that they needed to yield to

31. My son says student don't seem to understand how it works which may create issues. When I use it, there tends to be limited traffic and everything is flowing well.

32. The rotary is great. But better signage and education to drivers needs to happen. Keep the rotary!!

ATTACHMENT 1

33. I wish people in this county would learn the rules for turning left at stop signs. And for using traffic circles.

34. I believe traffic circles significantly improve the flow of traffic and are far more efficient than traditional traffic lights or four-way stop signs. By allowing vehicles to slow rather than stop completely, they reduce delays, save fuel, and keep traffic moving smoothly. However, I have observed that many drivers are not fully aware of how to properly use a traffic circle— specifically, that they must yield to vehicles already circulating within the roundabout. To address this, I recommend increased driver education and clearer signage. In particular, there should be prominent “Yield to Traffic in Circle” signs placed at the entry points, along with clear pavement markings (such as yield lines) to reinforce the correct behavior. Overall, I strongly support the use of traffic circles, as they are a more efficient and environmentally friendly alternative to stopcontrolled or signalized intersection Need more Enforcement

1. I would support a larger police presence (regarding traffic concerns) during high school arrivals/departures.

2. Increased presence of law enforcement could deter people who speed, run stop signs , and enter crosswalks with pedestrians. It’s inexcusable how unsafe our roads are around our high school.

3. The traffic circle is weak. It’s not a deterrent and unless the police are out there it barely slows anyone down. That’s the reality.

4. No one observes the forced right turn when traveling east on fair oaks in front of the Clark Center. Either enforce the right turn into the parking lot or get rid of it.

5. If the circle stays (I am for it) there needs to be enforcement. I haven’t see a single person use it like it’s supposed to be used. People blast through it and do not yield to those already in it

6. I think there needs to be more of a Police presence during the times school traffic is heavy.

Needs modification (such as size)

1. When the opportunity arises with the property across from the high school, a permanent round about would allow easier use, more safety and more traffic flow.

2. I think the traffic circle in front of the high school is okay, but the paint striping needs to be altered. The curved “painted islands “ at either end of the traffic circle are ignored, and should be removed or altered.

3. The traffic circle does not work like it’s supposed to help the traffic flow but most people drive right through it or it slows everyone down.

4. The traffic circle in front of the Arroyo Grande high school is too small and does not help the traffic flow. It in fact does the opposite and increases the congestion the area during high traffic hours.

5. I try to avoid this area during high traffic times. I think the traffic circle is confusing to some people. When there is high traffic, like leaving a performance at the Clark Center or exiting the parking lot after school, I see people making unsafe choices. Are there other options to alleviate this problem?

6. The traffic circle was too small and confusing. I don't know if it resulted in any accidents, but it seemed like it would.

ATTACHMENT 1

7. The so-called circle in front of AGHS is hardly a traffic circle. Most drivers on Fair Oaks go through it without slowing down and don’t yield to vehicles coming out of AGHS parking lot. This will eventually cause a tragedy. If you can’t get enough land to install a true traffic circle, then it should be removed altogether.

8. Thank you for asking the question. The round about at the high school looks temporary and doesn’t seem to solve a traffic issue.

9. Stop trying to sell us on a miniature traffic circle many people cannot use correctly.

10. The traffic circle is very hard to navigate

11. It’s unclear with the traffic circle if those coming from the school parking lot must yield.

12. Cars aren’t signaling to indicate turning thru the roundabout causing near misses. Drivers have “challenged” me by speeding up at and thru the roundabout. Have trucking companies had any input on this? I assume AGPD and Five Cities Fire have opinions as well.

13. The Fair Oaks traffic circle is a good idea, but it is way too small, and I'm sure it doesn't meet standards. People do not slow down when entering the circle. A speed bump at the e/b and w/b entrance to the tiny circle would help improve safety for people leaving and entering the school parking lot.

14. Traffic Way in front of high school needs to expand. Even at the expense of acquiring the residential and farm land. Current traffic circle does not allow proper turning radius for vehicles.

Needs to be up sized to full scale, appropriate size.

15. The circle's diameter is too small

16. If the traffic circle was 2 lanes and flowed better with multiple lanes it might work but the funneling into one lane is not the answer.

17. A true roundabout installation at either traffic light near the school would be safer and ease traffic flow better than the small traffic circle that was installed in front of the high school.

18. I think the current traffic circle needs to be more robust to clear confusion about right of way, however, I do believe it should stay as is even if not able to be improved upon just yet.

19. I’ve seen so many near misses in this circle, you’ve taken 2 lanes and necked them down to one each way. It is very hard to get out of side streets. Circle’s are good if done right. The one just completed on the way to Avila is ok but not big enough to avoid the offset angles. Use the ones in Santa Maria as good examples.

20. Please remove the traffic circle unless you’re able to make one similar to Avila beach with an actual roundabout. Trucks/ trailers and 2 lanes cat be used with current setup

21. Something needs to be done with that traffic circle. The road is way too narrow to support it. I've also almost been hit many times coming from Halcyon and going down Fair Oaks to the high school where I'm in the left lane to go straight through the traffic circle and the right lane is supposed to be a turn only lane to turn into the highschool. The problem is that many times they don't turn right and they illegally go straight instead and almost hit the left lane traffic entering the circle. I've had to slam on my brakes many times for this. If you're going to keep the circle, something needs to be done to prevent the right lane from going illegally going straight. Maybe put those tall 3' tall skinny plastic poles across the right lane which would basically create a dead end to that lane. This would then force them to turn because they literally can't go straight anymore because they'd run over the cones? That would be an easy solution to prevent accidents if we're keeping the cir

ATTACHMENT 1

22. Everyone agrees that some plan to not have a light but a true traffic circle that serves the freeway, the high school, and the neighborhood would be ideal. It would solve many problems.

23. Better patterns required if keeping the traffic circles, specifically the one in front of the high school.

24. It would be ideal id the permanent traffic circle outside of AGHS could be larger in scale but this setup is better than going back to the alternative mess.

25. The area around the high school had its best traffic flow with the temporary traffic light at the freeway and the traffic circle even though traffic was being rerouted through there due to the bridge closure. Expanding the existing temporary traffic circle to a full-sized one that could accommodate multiple cars at once would be ideal. Without a legal way to turn left out of the high school, cars will revert to making illegal left turns that endanger others and cause big backups exiting the parking lot.

26. The traffic circle in front of the high school is too small to be useful. If it was bigger, it would be better.

27. I would like to see more traffic circles, but more like the one in Avila not like the one at the high school

28. The roundabout should be increased in diameter to prevent traffic from speeding through it. It is a great idea but needs better implementation.

29. The traffic circle was/is too small to be effective. Too many large trucks can not maneuver through it. Unless you could expand the road into the fields across and make a larger one I don’t think it’s something that should continue.

30. I think the traffic circle is good, but needs to be larger

31. The small circle makes it difficult to judge if the oncoming car is driving straight or turning in front of you.

32. Fair Oaks roundabout: (1) Roundabouts are the best way to reduce traffic collisions, improves traffic flow and is safer for pedestrians/bicyclists. (2) Current roundabout is ~45’ in diameter. (3) Solution: Remove a small number of AGHS parking (~4 spots and no impact to solar installations) and create a ~80’ single-lane roundabout. For now, install a sign w/ “Merge” and an arrow where drivers should merge 1-to-1 when the dotted white line ends to reduce backups at stop signs.

33. I like the idea of a traffic circle in front of the high school, but the traffic on Fair Oaks doesn’t treat it like one because it’s so small. They do talk down when entering and the traffic coming out of the high school knows this and doesn’t enter when appropriate, instead treating it like a stop sign. I’m honestly surprised people aren’t getting t-boned on a regular basis.

34. If the traffic circle stays, it need to be made larger to lessen people speeding through. This would make a clear entering of the circle. The traffic circle does improve flow if used correctly however The way it is designed now is unsafe as people routinely speed through it and do not yield.

35. Make the roundabout larger and it would be great.

36. The traffic circle could be better if it was larger

37. I'm a big advocate for the traffic circle remaining part of the city especially in front of school. As an employee of the school and an avid bicyclist I must say that the traffic circle in its current form is not suitable for long-term success. I'd like to see it remain but it needs to be built properly to ensure that motorist slow down to a proper speed prior to entering the traffic circle. I

ATTACHMENT 1
think that it's tough for drivers to enter the circle exiting the high school lot in its current form and people seem nervous to take their right-of-way which creates problems and potential accidents for motorists and pedestrian/cyclist alike.

38. The traffic circle in front of the high school is just too small.

39. I like the round about but it seems temporary. It is not built correctly cars speed into it so you can’t leave the school. Maybe a speed hump to slow cars. Have there been less accidents after putting it in? Most round about are larger. Seems like it could be redesigned to work better

40. I think a more robust traffic circle is needed in front of the high school to clear confusion about right of way, however I do support keeping the current circle even if improving it is not immediately possible.

41. If you’re going to keep the traffic circle, please make it wider. Larger vehicles are doing 3+ pt turns to get around that tiny circle. Also please explain or put up more detailed signs/videos on how traffic circles work. I drive through it multiple times a day and almost daily some AGHS student/parent coming out of the parking lot will honk at me for not stopping before the traffic circle as if it’s a stop sign.

42. If the traffic circle could be done properly it has a chance of being helpful.

43. The traffic circle is too small to be effective, I feel like cars that actually use it as a round about are rare and cars drive too high of speed that I feel it's made it more unsafe.

44. The roundabout works great when sized properly, however the one in front of AGHS does not work. Drivers fail to yield and I’ve witnessed many close calls where traffic collisions were barely averted.

45. Enlarge and make the traffic circle a proper size

46. If there would be any way to make the current circle larger, I think it would help slow people down and make it more obvious that it is a circle. Even if it remained as is, still better than not having it at all.

47. I strongly support the traffic circle. I do wish that it was larger, like a normal sized traffic circle. I also would like more signage that tells people that they need to yield to people in the traffic circle.

48. I feel the traffic circle would be better if the street were wider. It’s just way too narrow of a street to accommodate a traffic circle to work appropriately. Also, people who are in the right turn lane that are supposed to turn into AGHS parking lot all try to merge into the left lane at the last second to go into the traffic circle, which causes a lot of problems. They act like they have the right of way to just go right out in front of people who are already in the left lane going straight.

49. The street needs to be a bit wider to allow room around traffic circle. The circle slows traffic.

Good for safety.

50. The roundabout needs a more permanent feel

51. The traffic circle has is way too small, needs to be big enough that a vehicle can pull into it without blocking the entire road of traffic, traffic circles are supposed to keep traffic moving.

Might also need some clear signs or even temp electronic saying, pull into circle, yield for traffic, etc etc. As mentioned on previous page. I work at the Lucia Mar Student Services office on Bridge, between Poole and Nelson. We house over 50 employees and host large trainings often. The removal of the stop sign entering Bridge has created this speed trap where it is hard to pull into or out of the driveway because cars are coming so fast. Could there be a flashing yield or something to slow people down? Thanks so much!!

ATTACHMENT 1

52. The micro-roundabout (traffic circle) at AGHS is a good start. Appropriate ROW and Traffic Design should be considered for a larger roundabout, maybe 90 ft diameter. My daughter was in a hit and run accident, turning left into AGHS, which almost totaled her car. Drivers try to go on outside shoulder around people using the roundabout. Either enlarge the roundabout (yes, there will need to be a ROW take), or restrict ability for users to go outside to pass going straight.

53. I actually fully support traffic circles in general. When built correctly, they are easy to use and helpful for traffic flow. The tiny fake traffic circle at AG High is so small, people don't know how to use it and end up stopped in the middle because they are scared or confused.

54. The traffic circle is not used correctly I think because it seems oncoming traffic has the right of way vs someone in the circle already. Possibly because it is so small. Also the two lanes going to one lane is hard because there used to be one lane that went straight And one for turning. I do like the lack of a left turn from the far driveway.

55. Traffic circle at AG HS does not act like a tru traffic circle. Needs to be larger, so that traffic turning into out out of the HS can actually enter the circle. Cars traveling along Fair Oaks Ave just blow through the circle. Good idea, poor execution.

56. Traffic circles in general work well, but they need to be bigger than the one at the high school, the radius is far too small, and traffic circle rules of the road is a learned skill, but there is too little time to react at this small circle and the signage comes upon drivers too quickly. New traffic circles like the ones built on highway 154 work well because of their size and adequate advanced signage.

Oppose Fair Oaks/101 Traffic Signal

1. Fair Oaks stop light: The connected 101 ramp backs up and prevents those drivers from reaching a reasonable speed to merge onto highway safely, more so for vehicles towing that also need more space to merge. Solution: Leave Fair Oak/101 as-is

2. The temporary traffic signal at Fair Oaks off-ramp did not have a signal changing sensor So there were long wait times for signal changes. If turning left, it was way too long

3. If you want to have less traffic, DO NOT put the temporary lights back up..

4. don’t reinstall the signal lights at E. Branch and Fair Oaks. The stop signs are sufficient.

5. It's great that the bridge on Traffic Way was reinforced/upgraded. Any temporary changes that were implemented, and subsequently removed, made sense for the project. But they are unnecessary going forward.

6. The temporary traffic light created backed up traffic when cars needed to turn left onto Orchard Street. I would not want a traffic light there again.

7. my kids hated (the light at the offramp) because it took forever to cross.

8. The temp light at Fair Oaks was not good in the afternoons. Traffic backed up onto the freeway making the already grid locked freeway traffic there worse.

9. don’t reinstall the signal lights at E. Branch and Fair Oaks. The stop signs are sufficient.

10. The temporary traffic signals were terrible.

11. The traffic signals significantly backed up traffic.

12. Installing a light at the off ramp (Fair Oaks) would significantly create waiting times.

13. traffic signal at the off-ramp was horrible and backed up traffic making the traffic flow much much slower.

ATTACHMENT 1
Support Fair Oaks/101 Traffic Signal

1. The light at the fair Oaks offramp is important because so many a lot of people don’t use stop sign appropriately.

2. I liked the traffic signal on Fair Oaks with the freeway offramp. You don't have to guess who's first to travel with a four way stop. It's very confusing. The signal was a blessing, surprised you took it away.

3. A traffic signal, instead of a stop sign, would lessen human error. Too many people, exiting the 101, who want to go straight through the intersection, turn on their RIGHT blinker, then halfway into the intersection they turn their RIGHT blinker off and head straight. They mess everything up at that already wonky intersection.

4. We absolutely need a signal at the offramp on Fairoaks and the freeway.

5. I am a resident of the Vista Del Mar neighborhood and regularly drive on Orchard/Fair Oaks during peak traffic times. With the temporary traffic light at that intersection, the high school kids were metered with the traffic for crossing the street, and people were forced to stop on fair oaks (rather than blow through a stop sign, which is shocking how often that happens). Also, for those of us who get off at the Fair Oaks off-ramp and have to do an offset turn onto Orchard, the traffic light made that infinitely more safe to accomplish. I have almost been hit trying to make that turn so many times. I think there are probably better solutions to fixing that intersection than a traffic light, but would all cost a lot more and be even harder to accomplish (realignment of the intersection or a traffic circle). So if a traffic light is on the table as a more tangible and realistic solution, I would say that’s a big safety improvement from the current set up!

6. Re install light at Orchard, fair oaks and off ramp intersection. Too many drivers don’t understand 3 way stops, I’ve almost been hit making a left onto Orchard numerous times. The students just walk out which is another problem the light helped mitigate.

7. I think a better traffic light situation at the freeway off-ramp was helpfull, but with a few changes.

I think we need that back.

8. The Fair Oaks off-ramp needs the temporary traffic signal back, because the teen drivers and parents need it to flow smoothly again

9. The students and their parents do not know how to use the four way stop. Please reinstall the traffic lights.

10. The Temp Traffic Light at Fair Oaks/Orchard/101SB-Offramp was great!!! I know Caltrans does not like it, but it sure made sense of this weird/offset intersection, especially with the kids around, heavy traffic, etc. A roundabout at this intersection would be great, too, but costly to implement.

11. I liked the light at the offramp,

12. A traffic circle or signal at the Fair Oaks offramp would be wonderful as it often turns into a game of chicken when attempting to turn.

13. I liked the traffic light at Fair Oaks off-ramp -but when it’s busy after school traffic, cars on Orchard would turn right and almost hit cars coming off the freeway that had the green light.

Every day. Would need a more complicated light with a signal for Orchard because of that. I am a neighbor on Cherry Ave. and I think it flowed better with that light. Thank you!

ATTACHMENT 1

14. Traffic signal at off-ramp was good only if there’s a no right turn from orchard as drivers turn right with little to no stopping while off ramp has green turn light. Cars turning right when there’s only one or two spots available for off ramp traffic causes more traffic and road rage.

15. As many are aware, since the Fair Oaks offramp intersection is off-centered, it causes cars traveling towards Traffic Way on Fair Oaks to cut off cars turning left from the onramp onto Fair Oaks. This happens with great frequency, and is only fully avoided when few cars are present, or when drivers anticipate this issue in advance and carefully coordinate to avoid it. Expecting drivers to have foreknowledge of this emergent behavior is not a safe solution, especially considering the large number of student drives present on school days. The temporary traffic light fixed this issue, and would be a greatly welcome change. It may also have a positive impact on the safety of the many students crossing, who on occasion are required to dodge a car that is trying to exit the intersection before being T-boned. Although I'm uncertain of the exact level of danger this intersection presents, It would not surprise me to learn that a disproportionate number of accidents occur there.

16. For as long as I have worked here (over a decade), the intersection at the Fair Oaks off-ramp has been dangerous for turns in all directions because the people going straight go through the stop sign. The signal really helped with this and seemed safer for pedestrians who had a protected time to cross. and bring back the signal light. Thank you!

17. I think a light is extremely necessary since is very close Arroyo Grande High School and that is a safety concern for the kids.

18. The traffic signal at the off ramp also helped clean up an intersection many people seem to find confusing

19. The light at the off-ramp of fair oaks actually improved the flow of traffic.

20. I fully support reinstalling the traffic signal at the SB Fair Oaks off ramp!

21. I found both the lights and the traffic circle to be very helpful. Because the streets are offset from the off-ramp, getting to orchard street from the freeway can be very challenging. The clearer we can be with an annual set of new drivers near the high school, the safer everyone will be.

22. The traffic light is a game changer for safety. Please lobby to reinstate that light.

23. Traffic light that improves the back up onto the freeway is safer.

24. The signal light at the Fair Oaks exit ramp did regulate traffic better in the off-center intersection.

Now traffic backs up again at the stop signs.

25. A signal would work just fine if they could program the timing of it's cycles to accommodate for the heavy vs. light flow hours. This should facilitate more flow at the front of the school during those busy times.

26. Traffic light was tons better than now or before. Caltrans, I bet none of you drive the road.

27. Traffic backs up when High School or Clark Center lets out. A timed light Fair Oaks one Oppose Bridge/Branch Traffic Signal

1. The traffic light that was set up at Fair Oaks took too long for cars to proceed. Backing up of cars onto the 101 freeway was worse & more dangerous. Especially for cars who want to proceed on the 101 south & not exit to Fair Oaks Drive.

2. It's great that the bridge on Traffic Way was reinforced/upgraded. Any temporary changes that were implemented, and subsequently removed, made sense for the project. But they are unnecessary going forward.

ATTACHMENT 1

3. Traffic lights in the village are less than desirable

4. Traffic signals in village make it very difficult for those of us who live in village … so more is NEVER BETTER. Thanks

5. The traffic signals significantly backed up traffic.

6. Please no more lights in the village. Thank you for the change at the light on Mason/E Branch so that direct traffic can get through the intersection.

7. I didn't mind the light on Bridge street as it enabled us to turn both ways but I don't think it would be good long term for the Village etc.

8. We absolutely needed traffic signal on bridge and branch street.

9. No traffic light at Bridge and Branch is needed. Leave Nevada open.

10. The temporary traffic signals were terrible.

11. The Bridge Street temp. light was great during the bridge closure but don't think it would be necessary now that the bridge is open.

12. I have lived near the village for over 35 years now. The traffic signal at bridge And branch was complete turmoil! The traffic was always backed up, Worse than it is now!

13. There is no need for a signal at E. Branch and Bridge

14. I can't believe you are considering putting the traffic light back at E. Branch and Bridge Street with all of the traffic that congests the village on a daily basis. The light there backed up cars all the way to the freeway when it was in use. If you want to have less traffic, DO NOT put the temporary lights back up..

15. Bridge St light: Would create unnecessary redundancy with Traffic bridge open. Reduce wear on inferior Bridge St bridge by prioritizing Traffic Way bridge. WB East Branch at Mason: Shorten left turn green light phase to move more EB Branch traffic.

16. please no traffic light in the village
Support Bridge/Branch Traffic Signal

1. I think the closure of Nevada street and would help flow of traffic. Too many people try and turn there and block traffic; and without a light it doesn't make sense. I think a light and a permanent closure make things more safe. especially on school days and other events going on in the village. I work on the corner of bridge and branch and watch the traffic all day there.

2. The light at bridge st & E Branch would be good, but the traffic signals need to be more in sync, instead of the green light shorter time heading east. Backed up traffic too much

3. I thought that pedestrians were much safer with Nevada street closed and the signal there.

4. I really liked the one way bridge street and the 2 lanes turning left onto branch.

5. Signal at branch was nice to deter illegal left hand turns, however I’m against a one way.

Issues not in the City

1. The intersection of Highway 1 and Halcyon Road presents significant and longstanding traffic challenges that warrant the City’s attention. This issue has persisted for decades, and traffic volumes have increased substantially over time without corresponding infrastructure improvements to accommodate the growth in vehicle demand. The current configuration, which relies on two stop signs, is not adequately designed to manage peak-hour traffic. As a result, extensive congestion regularly develops, leading to long queues and delays. This bottleneck also places additional strain on surrounding roadways, as drivers attempt to reroute and avoid

ATTACHMENT 1
the area whenever possible. A comprehensive solution—such as installing traffic signals and redesigning the intersection into a more streamlined, unified configuration—could greatly improve traffic flow and safety. Addressing this issue would not only benefit this specific intersection but also help alleviate broader traffic challenges throughout AG.

2. traffic at halcyon and hwy 1 needs to be solved asap

3. Need to add lanes at halcyon valley road. Add roundabout at HYWAY 1 and halcyon. Last friday 101 was backed up and both Halcyon and Valley were backed up for 30 mins or more.

4. Please install a roundabout at Halcyon and Hwy 1 over the creek! Brisco

1. The Brisco underpass is a mess, which needs attention please. Traffic on my street, Hillcrest and Sierra Dr is difficult to navigate with a parade of cars taking children to and from Oceanview. The street is narrow with parked cars on it, drivers go too fast, it's hard to get out onto Hillcrest from Sierra. Kids walk to school without a safe place to walk. Another route needs to be devised so that the neighborhood is not a thorough fare. People need to use Brisco instead.

2. Brisco underpass flow needs improvement. It's unsafe for ambulance and other emergency vehicles !

3. PLEASE consider stenciling "KEEP CLEAR" in the middle of the intersection of Brisco Road and the 101 on-ramp. It will stop cars from blocking the trafffic that has the right-of-way and are trying to turn left onto the freeway. Thank you~

4. Appreciate the work to help keep traffic moving while the bridge was under construction. Are there any other places roundabouts can help with traffic? Is there anything that can be done at the 101 on ramp at Brisco to help that whole area? Can pedestrian light(like in the village) be put by Strother park?

5. Do away with the north bound off ramp at Brisco. Any new housing projects need to require parking space for tenants so they don’t hog the public parking which will drive customers away from established businesses. Few families have only one vehicle. Most have a minimum of 2, so I believe any multi-housing units provide at least 2 parking spaces for each individual housing unit.

6. I'm strongly in favor of permanently closing the 101 Brisco on/off ramps. When they were closed for 6 months a few years ago for a study, traffic on Brisco/Branch flowed much more smoothly.

The usual congested mess disappeared. But apparently the owners of the Walmart shopping center- who almost certainly do not live in AG or even SLO County - complained it would hurt their revenue and the City caved in, once again proving that corporate tax dollars are more important to elected officials everywhere than quality of life for actual residents. I feel this is worthy of a lawsuit - the City demonstrated that a significant QOL improvement for Arroyo Grande residents was both possible and feasible, and then declined to implement it. Fail.

7. I think Brisco & the 101 could benefit from a traffic circle.

8. Southbound Branch, at Brisco, turning right under the overpass. Cars will turn right on a red, cutting off the left turn lane which has a green arrow. I have seen cars in a hurry to turn right block the intersection. Another issue noticed is when the line of cars on Branch, waiting to turn right on Brisco gets too big, cars will then drive straight down Branch and do a U turn at Rodeo and then get into the left turn lane. Just a matter of time.

ATTACHMENT 1

9. 2 intersections on W Branch St are Always problematic: Briscoe & Rancho Grande Parkway.

Driver's tend to flagrantly disregard the traffic signals.

10. The horrible back up at west Branch and Brisco.

11. Briscoe on off ramps need to be closed permanently

12. We need fresh ideas to help traffic at Brisco and the 101. Nobody rides bikes so stop wasting $ on bike lanes.

13. Restripe Rancho Parkway onto Branch to a single left turn and a single right turn. Too many people make the left from the felt lane then immediately need to merge to the right lane to turn onto Brisco. Right hand turners get held up behind left hand turners in the right lane. It used to be this way and it results in better traffic flow.

14. The city really needs to work on the problems at the Brisco Interchange.

Not related to this topic

1. No but would love to have sidewalk curb a gutter going from the High School down Valley Road towards Los Berros.

2. More pedestrian crossing is needed on Grand Ave. (flashing lights)

3. Can we open Miller Way to Emerald Bay?

4. To make the traffic flow smoother by the HS I think it would be helpful if- there was a right hand turn lane from Fair Oaks onto Valley. Right now the light turns green and pedestrians cross holding up traffic. The light changes to red and someone going straight holds traffic from turning right until the next green light. I don’t see a reason to have a designated left turn lane into the farm. A circle at orchard and Fair Oaks would help with the confusion of off-ramp traffic going straight into Orchard. A stop sign on The Pike at Garfield would help accidents that happen and almost happen regularly due to the farm.

5. DO NOT PUT A TRAFFIC CIRCLE AT THE HARLOE INTERSECTION. I already get almost run over there weekly at Fair Oaks and Halcyon with my small children. Why does the city turn a blind eye to people speeding and running red lights at a school crossing? Everywhere else I’ve lived, there are flashing lights and signs to go 10mph and actual consequences for reckless drivers. Children deserve better when walking to school.

6. Please fix the sidewalks in Allen St!!! They are a mess especially between traffic and Short People are tripping and falling and strollers and wheelchairs cannot get through!

7. I’d like to have traffic circles at two intersections: 1. W Branch/Traffic Wy and 2. Fair Oaks/Traffic Wy.

8. My complaint about traffic and not these questions are at Bridge Street and Branch. people are always making the left turn from Bridge onto Branch heading west. It is so dangerous. Would love to see some police action hiding out on that one. You’d make a fortune for the city. No one bothers with the no I’ve turn sign across the street or on the ground

9. Would 100% want crosswalks lighted in the street.

10. Fix the holes in Halcyon and Grand!!!

11. I think the police need to patrol and control the speed of the people on Huasna Road by the Bus Barn.

ATTACHMENT 1

12. Fix the El Camino Real and Halcyon turn lane. No parking on the cemetery side And a longer turn lane.

13. The Halcyon underpass under 101 is a mess. Still needs improvements.

14. Don’t have any solutions but problem areas are Paulding, Sinclair gas station and of course the whole Halcyon through the underpass problem.

15. I bike a lot past Traffic Way off-ramp. It's a little tricky watching for cars, but that's ok. For cars the intersection of E. Branch and Mason (Mason going north/east) seems a bit more wonky than it was before the bridge make over.

16. Alder Street at Fair Oaks needs improvement. Cars consistently run the stop signs, going east to west, and west to east, and more often than not they are going 50+ MPH. Please at least try solar flashing stop signs.

17. Just re-stripe Grand Ave. hard to see the lanes at night.

18. The intersection at ALDER/FAIR OAKS needs attention to improve/bring more awareness of the stop signs. People blast thru the intersection several times a day, usually in excess of 50 mph. (Many times just before children or families are crossing as they head to/from Harloe. PLEASE consider the possible improvement of stop signs with flashing lights.

19. Need a traffic light at Cherry and Traffic!

20. Yes, on The intersection of Huasna Road, E. Branch Street, and Corbet Canyon, there should be a Round About instead of a stop sign. That stop sign backs up traffic and every time I go through it, I think to myself, why didn’t they just make this roundabout?

21. When driving downhill on James Way after turning left from Rancho Parkway, one sign says "Watch Downhill Speed", followed by a 2nd sign "Speed Limit 40" increasing the speed limit. It would be better if the 2nd sign were AFTER the intersection with La Canada, and the road levels out after La Canada. I frequently turn right at the intersection, and cars are speeding up behind me. It would be much better if they actually were watching downhill speed, especially for those turning right at the bottom of the hill onto La Canada. Thank you.

22. I think the City should work on fixing the existing Roads (pothole landmines) rather that doing this survey

23. Need better traffic timing lights at Halcyon, under 101. Traffic backs all the way up Branch near Trader Joe’s.

24. Thanks for repainting traffic lines in city. They had gotten in dangerous condition

25. Stop allowing housing to be built. There are too many people/cars for the infrastructure in the city and county

26. Cars come FLYING off the stop sign at E. Branch/Corbett/Huasna going towards Huasna. They fly like a bat outa hell. It would be nice to see some speed bumps put in front of the bus barn or something to prevent this from happening. There are too many kids around for this behavior.

Not to mention a kid was hit in that area a few months ago. Please look into this issue!

27. At the Halcyon/Grand intersection, the median between Grand and Rena presents a block with getting cars into the left turn lane to get onto Halcyon. I frequently have to wait an extra traffic light cycle to make the turn because the median is in the way. Would love for that to be gone! Also, there is a tree root bump in the road on northbound Halcyon near the hospital that should be handled. And as always, eliminating the on and off ramps at Brisco Road would be so helpful. The traffic has never been smoother than when those exits were closed. I personally did

ATTACHMENT 1
not witness any negative traffic effects elsewhere in the city during that test period. Thanks for reading!

28. Allen street needs to be changed to dissuade commuters and commercial traffic. This can easily be corrected by making Allen one way south to traffic way on the last block and not allowing a left hand turn on to traffic way.

29. A roundabout should be in place at locations with dense and complex intersection traffic flow like the four way stop at the bus barn in Arroyo Grande.

30. From my previous comment—forcing traffic all different ways with 18 wheelers driving on 101.

This has been just an awful experience. Every morning is just waiting for a horrendous accident to happen.

31. Biggest need is to REPAIR theROADS!!!!!

32. We need a light at Dodson and Halcyon!

33. The crosswalk across Grand at the Fair Oaks Theatre is concerning. The yellow flashing light when someone is crossing doesn’t seem like enough to stop people heading either direction when someone is crossing in that crosswalk. We use the crosswalk regularly and people do not stop.

34. Do a traffic survey on Husana Rd. in AG the road and speeding is horrible.

35. The parklet in front of Humdingers is dangerously close to moving traffic. Allowing trucks to unload in the middle of East Branch, instead of the parking lots gives priority to the drivers over the patrons and visitors.

36. I’m concerned about the traffic congestion that the proposed apartment compex on JamesWay near Curl Fitness would create.

37. Pedestrian safety, enjoyment and cyclists safety should be higher concern throughout. More Safe crossings on Branch street as well as Fair Oaks from high school to Harloe Elementary should be a #1 priority

38. More red curbs for the pedestrian "daylight" crosswalk law. Look at Alder and Grand near Banner Coffee.

39. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE repave Halcyon between Hwy 1 and Grand Ave. It is full of potholes and is in terrible condition.

40. Traffic on Oak Park and El Camino is ridiculous. There is always one lane east bound closed because of construction. I can't imagine what it's going to be like when those apartment buildings are occupied. Now AG wants to build another apartment monstrosity on James way and Oak Park. I say no to that!

41. Thanks for finally repainting the extremely faded lines in front of the hospital and school zone on Halcyon, very dangerous situation there that took too long to address. The pavement in the Halcyon and Grand intersection is extremely rough and starting to fail.

42. I, along with all the families who walk young kids to Harloe daily from the Eastside of Halcyon, have major pedestrian concerns regarding the proposed traffic circle to be installed at the Halcyon/Fairoaks intersection. There are currently daily issues with drivers not yielding to pedestrians with a STOP light, crossing signals and a Crossing Guard!! The point of a traffic circle is to keep traffic flowing, which I feel it will do a wonderful job of, however, I beleive it's going to make it incredibly unsafe and nearly impossible for any of us to cross the road to school. There's been no clear communication on how that part of the project is going to be addressed or what SAFE alternative routes might be made.

ATTACHMENT 1

43. Please consider installing a decibel meter (noise sensor) at Elm and Grand and ticket loud vehicles. We automate the ticketing of red light runners, why not noise ordinance breakers? I don't mind the sirens going through that intersection several times a day because they have a purpose, but the revving engines are an unnecessary nuisance. CVC 27150 (Muffler Required):

Every registered motor vehicle must have an adequate muffler in constant operation. CVC 27151 (Modified Exhaust): It is illegal to modify an exhaust system to make it louder than the stock, approved system. Noise Limits: Passenger vehicles and trucks under 6,000 pounds must not exceed 95 decibels when tested, based on California personal injury lawyers blog. Strict Penalties: Since 2019, violations can lead to immediate fines, rather than just "fix-it" tickets, often exceeding $1,000 in total fines and fees Club Cobra forum post. Prohibited Devices:

Cutouts, bypasses, or similar devices that amplify sound are illegal.

44. Looking forward to the traffic circle at Halcyon and Fair Oaks

45. I am 80 % homebound.

46. All cross walks by high school should have solar flashers. Too much parking on streets by beach volleyball. Something has to change there soon!

47. The lack of mainenance of our streets is a disgrace. Please paint the traffic lanes. We cannot see any lane definition on most of our streets.

48. Consider putting a roundabout at the Portuguese Hall intersection of Huasna Rd, Corbett Canyon (227) and the bus barn road. There are times the intersection backs up unnecessarily.

49. AG is outrageously high compared to the rest of the county. Offer a discounted program for fixed income residents.

50. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE repave Halcyon between Hwy 1 and Grand Ave. It is full of potholes and is in terrible condition.

Other comments

1. No

2. No. Good survey.

3. the traffic through the village was a nightmare during the bridge replacement. I deliberately avoided driving through the village because of the backups. Also, time the lights on Grand Avenue including up to Oak Park. You have the technology so use it.

4. Is there any development plan for the land on the other of the high school? Get a direct connection to the high from grand ave? (Cut across from where the mcdonalds is? Cut down on the fact that there is basically just one road to the high school.

5. Have a volunteer help with directing traffic for the school

6. I was really impressed with how the city handled traffic challenges/changes during the bridge construction. I thought it would be a disaster, and it wasn't. Well done city of A.G.!

7. People keep making a left from bridge street onto branch. A larger sign that says no left might help.

8. I feel they need police presence at events with large crowds to assist with exiting quicker. It would decrease or diffuse frustration, accidents, and timeliness of crowd control. We need to step into the real world with road flares, police management and road control like other cities or communities. We have visitors that come to Clark Center or to our school and it's a real

ATTACHMENT 1
embarrassment when it's such a nightmare to get in/out OR people don't come at all because of the same. We aren't going to get any more parking lots, so let's actually police or manage it better.

9. traffic would help both with flow and Students crossing Fair Oaks.

10. I live a couple of houses off of So Halcyon near Harloe School (Fair Oaks area). Traffic has backed up to So Halcyon like never before, trying to turn toward AGHS. A nightmare. Seems like vehicles are trying to avoid the congestion at the roundabout. May I add that So Halcyon is long OVERDUE for a repave and striping. What ever happened to the measure we voted on to fix streets? Where is So Halcyon on the list? Seems it would be high because of the traffic:

Cypress Ridge and Hiway 1 vehicles, So Halcyon off ramp from 101 through to Hiway 1, not to mentions the Grand Avenue traffic trying to avoid AGHS by using So Halcyon.

11. Nice job getting the new bridge on Traffic Way done in a timely matter.

12. Thank you for all you do for our Community!

13. Traffic around the high school is a mess. Too many large trucks going through this little town on small rural roads also cause major delays and congestions now that there is so much more traffic, overall. That traffic should be kept closer to the freeways. New building projects are absolutely not taking traffic patterns and increases into account which is highly irresponsible and very frustrating. We left Los Gatos, California for the very reason. This town will soon be ruined...growth interests are taking over common sense.

14. The current "LAX-style" gridlock—characterized by illegal U-turns, double-parking, and students crossing outside crosswalks—is a tragedy waiting to happen. As a resident, I’ve seen this become an impassable bottleneck for local families. I urge the Council to coordinate with the District to explore "genius" mitigation, such as satellite drop zones, expanded busing, or rideshare incentives. We must reduce the vehicle count before a preventable accident occurs.

15. I think the city did a good job diverting traffic during the Traffic Way bridge construction.

16. I appreciate the ease of the survey and hope to see more like this in the future. It’s a great way to get the community to participate in civic events.

17. Thanks for asking my opinion

18. I'm sure it has been considered, but possibly make traffic one-way on weekday high school mornings with all traffic coming in from Fair Oaks at Halcyon heading toward 101, all Fair Oaks off ramp traffic could only turn left toward Chevy dealership. Stagger morning class start times at AGHS.

19. It seems wasteful to take out the traffic circle at AG high school after all the monies that have been spent to install it. Also, the residents of AG high school are fed up with students and/or parents ignoring the rules for extended parking in front of their houses.

20. Thank you for working on this! I appreciate you!

21. I’m pleased you asked

22. Great work trying to make the traffic flow better, especially during construction. Thankful for all City workers.

23. The traffic circle in front of AGHS is cute. Not sure how that translates to the real world. Thank you for asking

24. Has the experience with the traffic circle at AG High School been positive or negative? Have there been accidents because of it?

25. I don't think the stop light really made a difference either way.

ATTACHMENT 1

26. shutting down left turns from w/b E. Branch to Bridge would be helpful, and make the left turn to Nevada much easier. The way the road is striped now, drivers turning left onto Nevada technically have to drive on the wrong side of the road (into the w/b left turn lane). It used to be a two-way left turn lane, so the turn was legal. Now e/b Brand to Nevada is technically illegal.

The left turn to Nevada is more necessary, due to the Hart Lane parking lot. The left turn to Bridge is not necessary, as drivers can choose Mason St or Traffic Way.

27. Bridge and Branch should only be a right turn (i.e not zig zagging straight). Nevada should be right turn only.

28. The light on the corner of Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Ave. needs to have a right turn arrow added for cars turning right onto Fair Oaks from Traffic way so traffic can flow when the Fair Oaks to Traffic way light is green. The curb in front of Arroyo Grande Chevrolet needs to be painted red and designated as no parking. Cars that park here block the bike lane and stick out into the right lane on Traffic Way.

29. There needs to be a stop sign either at the base of the north bound off ramp on traffic way or at Cherry lane. The cars are speeding up in excess of 50mph to make the light at fair oaks and traffic way.

30. The stop sign off of Traffic Way bridge, heading towards the high school (south), was helpful

31. The only good thing from all of this is the left hand turn lane in front of the HS to go into the parking lot in the driveway closest to the Clark Center.

32. I think that they should Put in curbs to make you utilize the circle as people just drive thru the line

33. The village was a mess with the temporary traffic signal taking sometimes 10-20 min to get just from Westley St or the 101 off Ramp to Crown Hill St. I could actually walk faster from Westley to Mason St than Cars could drive that distance..

34. The closure of Nevada Street is completely useless and causes traffic to go through the private church property. It was terrible to have it closed.

35. Something needs to be done about the mess at Traffic Way, Nelson, & Bridge. We need a light on Traffic Way & Nelson, something to curb the daily & nightly speedway-drag track effect and the many near misses between Fair Oaks and Grand. The obnoxious traffic noise, congestion, and dangers of trying to pull out of neighborhood streets onto Traffic Way will only get worse with new housing units in the village.

36. I think the traffic signal at Fair Oaks off ramp could be a flashing stop during low traffic times.

37. Improve roundabout.

38. Don't allow both lanes after stop sign (light) to only then make you move lanes

39. The left turn signal onto fair oaks from traffic is backed up every morning. I live on E. Cherry and the line of cars is usually backed up to my street. Cars who need to go straight can’t get into the straight lane and cars who are turning left are stuck at the red light. Mornings are a mess on traffic way!

40. Yes stagger the times that the schools let out so that there is not traffic congestion.

41. The four-way stop at Fair Oaks/Orchard/101 is a problem exacerbated by the crosswalk there and the light at Traffic Way. Drivers routinely block intersections and ignore right-of-way. The crossing guards do a good job of controlling traffic on Fair Oaks, but not Station Way. However, they can better manage pedestrian traffic by holding up teens until there is a group of them ready to cross. Additionally, the crosswalk at Fair Oaks and Orchard is not controlled by a

ATTACHMENT 1
crossing guard and teens flow through there without any regard for vehicles; most of them are staring at their phones and are unaware of the traffic flow. Cross teens in clusters after letting vehicles through for a brief period - rinse, repeat. Once teens cross the street, they shouldn't be allowed to turn around and cross it again for at least 10 minutes. I don't care how good the donuts are. Safety and sanity. Okay, that's a joke, but I know you feel me.

42. The drivers who exit the freeway at Fairoaks have no way to indicate they are going straight onto Orchard. Lots of almost collisions

43. repaint the yield cars, forget to yield can't see

44. The traffic flows better during school hours, if you want to get rid of it, then add a light or four way stop in front of the high school

45. One way on Bridge street seemed to work well. The turn lanes at Mason and Branch continue to be weird. That is where I drive most frequently.

46. The morning traffic backups at the Fair Oaks off ramp - I assume with students/faculty - is truly getting dangerous on southbound 101 - needs attention before deaths.

47. It’s too bad there can’t be a middle turn lane in front of the high school. That would probably be required buying some of the land from the folks that farm across the street. In a perfect world, the school would buy that land across the street make another parking lot over there and then make a pedestrian bridge. So that people could safely get to the parking lot across the street.

48. If a light is reinstalled at Fair Oaks off ramp, the Fair Oaks turning lane onto Orchard street needs to have a turning signal during high school hours at least. It was difficult to turn when you have high school traffic with both pedestrians and cars.

49. Continuing - Fair Oaks is a thoroughfare and yet Westbound traffic is often forced to stop for a red light just because someone is turning from Orchard to Fair Oaks, even if they are turning right. Why are those driving on Fair Oaks not allowed to continue on through, yet those on Orchard are favored?

50. PS: Fair Oaks off-ramp could use a redesign

ATTACHMENT 2

AGHS TRAFFIC CIRCLE ALTERNATIVES
Option Pros Cons Est.

Cost
Leave as-is  Allows legal left turns onto Fair
Oaks.
 No cost.
 Reduces vehicle miles traveled.
 Reduces congestion to the east.
 Drivers feel it is too small for safety.
 Fender-benders.
 Drivers do not know how to yield.
 Size/orientation do not discourage
speed.
$0
Remove and
restore to
pre-project
conditions
 Reduces fender-benders  Prohibits legal left turns onto Fair Oaks.  Estimated cost $50,000.
 Increases vehicle miles traveled.
 More congestion to the east.
 More significant accidents.
$50,000
Increase size
into school
property,
farm, or both
 Allows legal left turns onto Fair
Oaks.
 Reduces vehicle miles traveled.
 Reduces congestion to the east.
 Reduces speed.
 More familiar roundabout size.
 Estimated cost $2 million
 Challenges obtaining property.
 Traffic disruption during construction.
$2 M
Install curbs
where lines
are painted
on the
ground
exiting the
traffic circle
 Slows vehicles upon exit.
 Maintains ability to legally turn left
onto Fair Oaks.
 Damage to cars hitting curb.
 Does not change concerns about size.
 Estimated cost $10,000.
$10,000
Speed tables
approaching
the traffic
circle
 Slows vehicles upon entrance.
 Maintains ability to legally turn left
onto Fair Oaks.
 Does not change concerns about size.
 Estimated cost $15,000.
$15,000
Speed
feedback
signs
 Informs vehicles of speed.
 Maintains ability to legally turn left
onto Fair Oaks.
 Does not change concerns about size.
 Estimated cost $15,000.
$15,000
Remove 1
tree from
each side of
AGHS lot
 Improves visibility.
 Maintains ability to legally turn left
onto Fair Oaks.
 Loss of 2 mature trees.
 Does not change concerns about size.
 Estimated cost $3,000.
$3,000
More
signage
 More education.
 Maintains ability to legally turn left
onto Fair Oaks.
 Does not change concerns about size.
 Estimated cost $2,000.
$2,000
More
enforcement
 Maintains ability to legally turn left
onto Fair Oaks.
 Limited police staff, unknown cost.
 Does not change concerns about size.

Depends
on staff
time

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
DATE:

Agenda Item 11.b – Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Detour Elements Discussion
April 28, 2026
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Director of Recreation Services
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

From: Laura Beth Amy
To: public comment
Subject: Light at bridge & branch
Date: Monday, April 27, 2026 10:04:00 PM
Hi City Council,
I’m a Village business owner and Arroyo Grande resident, and I wanted to share a quick thought as you’re considering which elements from the Traffic Way Bridge detour might stick around.

I know bringing back the traffic light at Bridge and Branch wasn’t one of the options being discussed, but it felt like a good time to mention it. While it was there, it really seemed to slow traffic down through the Village and made things feel a lot safer for pedestrians.

Since it’s been removed, I see illegal left turns coming off Bridge all the time—multiple times a day. It creates a pretty sketchy situation in an area that already has a lot of foot traffic.

One idea could be closing Nevada at that intersection again and doing a three-way light.

Nevada would still be accessible from the car corral or Mason, but it might help with overall safety and flow at Bridge and Branch.

It just felt noticeably better and safer with the light there, and I’ve definitely missed it since the project wrapped up.

Thanks for taking the time to consider.

Laura Beth Amy
Humdinger Brewing
Arroyo Grande Resident

Item 11.c.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works BY: Shannon Sweeney, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Halcyon Complete Streets Project Pre-Bid
DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Review specific details of the draft final design of the Halcyon Complete Streets Project (“Project”) and direct staff to advertise the Halcyon Complete Streets Project for construction as designed.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The construction phase of this Project is being funded by three funding sources. The largest funding source is a state Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grant totaling $8,169,000. This grant funding is further broken down as follows:
 Design and right-of-way: $1,304,000
 Construction: $6,765,000
 Non-infrastructure activities: $100,000
Approximately $120,000 of unexpended grant funds originally allocated to right-of-way activities can be transferred to construction, bringing the total ATP project amount for construction to $6,885,000. Measure E-24 Sales Tax Fund includes an allocation totaling $1,875,000. Transportation Facilities Development Impact Fee (DIF) can fund 50% of the roundabout at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection, totaling $788,500 based on the current roundabout estimated cost. Table 1 shows a summarized breakdown of the current construction funding.

Item 11.c.

City Council
Halcyon Complete Streets Project Pre-Bid
April 28, 2026

Table 1: Construction Funding
Source Amount
ATP Grant (including transfer) $6,885,000
Measure E-24 Sales Tax $1,875,000
DIF $788,500
Total $9,548,500
The draft final project cost estimate is $7,872,613.

Note that approximately 25 percent of the Project, from Farroll Avenue to The Pike, was moved to the 2026 Streets Overlay Project because it involves more paving than other complete streets elements. This portion of the Project, estimated to be approximately $1,675,715 will be paid out of the 2026 Streets Overlay Project.

BACKGROUND:

The City obtained grant funding for the Project through the state ATP. The stated purpose of the Project is to “transform Halcyon Road from a vehicle-centric facility to a welcoming environment that will provide for safe mobility and accessibility, connecting people by enhancing the built environment for all modes of travel.” The Project's conceptual plan was initiated in 2015 and completed in 2023.

Significant outreach occurred during conceptual plan development, including pop-up outreach surveys, four interactive charrette-style meetings, social media and online engagement, and a stakeholder and neighborhood group meeting.

City Council approved a contract with North Coast Engineering (NCE) to develop plans, specifications, and an engineer’s estimate (PS&E) on June 25, 20241. NCE has been working with City staff to convert the conceptual plans into construction documents.

City Council approved the City’s Circulation Element on July 27, 20212, the Halcyon Complete Streets Conceptual Design on July 25, 20233, and the ATP on January 28, 20254. All three documents helped inform staff of the Council’s and community’s desire for improvements on Halcyon Road. On February 25, 20255, the Council staff reviewed the 30% design of the Project and provided further guidance and clarification on the desired outcome of the project, including:

1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=e4fec941-ba9c-4535-932afa7d8ff7d8ad&Agenda=Merged&lang=English&Item=52&Tab=attachments 2https://www.arroyogrande.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07272021-1353?html=true 3https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=ba95ddc8-1575-42c7-ae71- 5ba712dab1bc&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=35&Tab=attachments 4https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=a9ffd954-d3f0-4b51-9ea9- 4dcb521e64ac&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=69&Tab=attachments 5https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=586fd20a-05f6-4770-946e9227030ef982&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=42&Tab=attachments

Item 11.c.

City Council
Halcyon Complete Streets Project Pre-Bid
April 28, 2026

 Class II bike lanes for the extent of the project, buffered where practicable;  200 trees as part of a residential tree plan;
 researching if there are alternatives to the use of green paint for bike lanes.

On March 19, 2026, the California Transportation Commission allocated construction funding for this Project. The City has six months from that date to award the Project.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

City staff received 100% drawings for this project on March 13, 2026. Prior to advertising this project for construction and because of the Project’s scope, budget, and community impact, staff is reviewing some final elements of this project with City Council, including:
 Street trees,
 On-street parking,
 Budget,
 Utilities.

On-street Trees
At the February 25, 2025, meeting, Council directed staff to maximize street trees included in the Project, which totals 200 street trees per Engineering Standards. Seventyfour street trees currently exist on Halcyon Road between El Camino Real and The Pike.

During design, City staff and the design consultant included trees in the design drawings at all available locations that would not affect sight distances or significantly impact sidewalk widths.

The construction plans include a total of 154 trees along the Project corridor. This includes 72 new trees, maintaining 55 existing trees, and replacing 27 existing trees with infrastructure-friendly species selected from the City’s 2025 Recommended Street Trees List6 as presented to Council on August 26, 20257. This was the maximum number of trees able to be accommodated due to the number of drive approaches (84), cross streets (19), and utility conflicts that present sight safety issues and limit tree placement.

Eleven small bottle brush trees on the west side of North Halcyon Road along the cemetery property are recommended for removal with no replacement because of the limited sidewalk width, and an additional eight trees are recommended for removal with no replacement due to impacts to sight distance.

Attachment 1 shows the properties whose frontages will be impacted by the removal, replacement, and installation of new trees.

6https://www.arroyogrande.org/139/Engineering-Standards 7https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=6e7c7c76-fee2-401c-8aa3- 090ededae737&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=40&Tab=attachments

Item 11.c.

City Council
Halcyon Complete Streets Project Pre-Bid
April 28, 2026

On-street parking
One of the main goals of this Project is to provide continuous bicycle lanes the length of Halcyon Road from El Camino Real to The Pike. This goal requires the loss of on-street parking in places where the street is not wide enough to accommodate all desired features. As the design progressed, staff and the design consultant prioritized features as follows:

1. Class II bicycle lanes

2. Parking, then

3. Buffered Class II bicycle lanes.

As a result of this prioritization, and as identified in the Halcyon Complete Streets Conceptual Plan, which is included with the staff report presented to City Council on July 25, 2023,
8 122 of the existing 161 on-street parking spaces will be removed, while 39 spaces will be retained in the final Project.

Budget
As previously shown in Table 1, funding currently available for Project construction totals $9,548,500. Staff has made significant efforts to align the Engineer’s Estimate with available construction funding. Table 2 lists the initial and current Engineer’s Estimates, which shows the Project is approximately $400,000 higher than the available budget for the project.

Table 2: Project Cost Estimates
Cost Item Initial
Engineer’s Estimate
Current
Engineer’s Estimate
Halcyon north of Farroll $11,228,890 $7,872,613
Halcyon south of Farroll $2,000,000 $1,675,715
Quality Assurance $385,000 $385,000
Total $13,613,890 $9,933,328
Difference from budget ($4,065,390) ($384,828)
Actual project costs will not be known until after the Project bid opening. City staff have not been able to identify any further reductions to the Engineer’s Estimate while still maintaining the goals and spirit of the grant funding. Staff will continue investigating funding options as the project is brought forward to City Council for award.

Utilities
The design engineer identified six utility poles in the footprint of the roundabout at Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue that need to be removed and/or relocated for construction.

Staff have been working with AT&T, Charter, and PG&E since September 2025 to

8https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=ba95ddc8-1575-42c7-ae71- 5ba712dab1bc&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=35&Tab=attachments

Item 11.c.

City Council
Halcyon Complete Streets Project Pre-Bid
April 28, 2026

develop a plan to conduct this work under the City’s franchise agreements, which requires that relocation of utility components to accommodate City infrastructure work be done at no cost to the City. On February 27, 2026, PG&E presented a plan that involves undergrounding their facilities, indicated that the undergrounding cannot be conducted under the franchise agreement, and estimated the cost at $1.1 million. The Project cannot accommodate this additional cost; however, PG&E is currently developing a strategy for relocating their utilities above grade. City staff will continue to work with utility companies on coordinating this work and do not anticipate that this to impact project completion.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Direct staff to advertise the Halcyon Complete Streets Project for construction as designed (recommended) (100% plan set is included as Attachment 2);

2. Provide staff with direction on minor changes to the project design, then direct staff to advertise the Halcyon Complete Streets Project for construction;

3. Direct staff to not advertise the Halcyon Complete Streets Project for construction at this time; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The City has six months from the CTC allocation on March 19, 2026, to award this project.

Should the City receive unfavorable bids, attempting to award the project provides staff the ability to request an extension of the CTC deadline. This project addresses many issues associated with Halcyon Road including sidewalk deficiencies, missing sidewalk, lack of bike lanes, poor pavement conditions, and stormwater drainage improvements.

Completing this project will provide a safer, more enjoyable travel experience for all modes of transportation, pedestrian safety, and traffic-calming and congestion-reduction features that will be especially beneficial for operations at Harloe Elementary.

DISADVANTAGES:

Project construction, which is expected to last until the end of summer 2027, will negatively impact all travelers. Drivers will experience delays, some large old trees will be removed, and some on-street parking will be lost. City staff will work closely with the contractor to minimize traffic impacts to the greatest extent possible. City staff will be communicating with all the property owners listed in Attachment 1 whose property frontage is impacted by either parking or trees.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

On July 25, 20239, the City Council adopted an MND for the Halcyon Complete Streets Project. The MND analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project in compliance with CEQA. Advertising this project for construction will have no direct or indirect physical

9https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=ba95ddc8-1575-42c7-ae71- 5ba712dab1bc&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=35&Tab=attachments

Item 11.c.

City Council
Halcyon Complete Streets Project Pre-Bid
April 28, 2026

impacts and does not constitute a substantial change to the Project such that revisions to the previously adopted MND are required. Thus, none of the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review called out in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or Public Resources Code section 21166 are present, and no further environmental review is required.

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. Street Tree and On-street Parking Impacts

2. Halcyon Complete Streets 100% Plan Set

ATTACHMENT 1

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TBMBENCHMARK

HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL

VICINITY MAP

BASIS OF BEARINGS

LOCATION MAP

CALIFORNIA

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

GENERAL NOTES

HALCYON COMPLETE

STREETS

IMPROVEMENT PLANS
FOR

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

MAX DEPTH CUT

CUTFILL
FT

CU YDCU YD

MAX DEPTH FILL FT
EARTHWORK QUANTITY:

AREA OF DISTURBANCE AC

5.864.20
352302

1.03 R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TTL.dwg, TITLE SHEET, 3/12/2026 2:50:28 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026 ATTACHMENT 2

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS
LEGEND

SHEET INDEX
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TTL.dwg, SHEET INDEX, 3/12/2026 2:50:29 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD NOTES

GRADING NOTES

UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TTL.dwg, GENERAL NOTES, 3/12/2026 2:50:34 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 101

EL CAMINO REAL FAEH AVE BENNETT AVE N RENA ST

BENNETT AVE

HALCYON ROAD
LEGEND
221
211
217
231230 231230 231230
231 230
231230

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
221
222
222
231230
231230
211
230 231
202
231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DEMO.dwg, DEMO 1, 3/12/2026 2:50:48 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

E GRAND AVE

E GRAND AVE

HALCYON ROAD
LEGEND

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
215
208
231230
220 220
221 221
220
220
221
215
220
222
214 214
214
213
218
211
211
231230
231
231
231
231
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DEMO.dwg, DEMO 2, 3/12/2026 2:50:55 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

PARK WAY

HALCYON ROAD
223
LEGEND

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
231230
215 230
215
220 220
221 221 221 221 220 221
220
231230 231230
241
219
234 203 212
213
211
217
202 237 219 213 211 211
231
231
231
231
231 231 231 231
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DEMO.dwg, DEMO 3, 3/12/2026 2:51:05 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

DODSON WAY

DODSON WAY

HALCYON ROAD
211
223
211
221
211
218
LEGEND

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
231230
230 231
230 231
231230
230
215
215
221 221
221
220
220
220
221
221 220
220 221 221 221
220
221
220
221
220
241
205 211
221
213 217 217
214 214
242 211 230 231
230 231
241
237
237
231
231
231
231
231
231
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DEMO.dwg, DEMO 4, 3/12/2026 2:51:15 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD SOUTH HALCYON ROAD

FAIR OAKS AVENUE FAIR OAKS AVENUE

HALCYON ROAD
240
221
221
207
240
240
221
226
240
221
221
221
240
221
240
225
225
LEGEND

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
230 231
230 231
230 231
230 231
215
215
220
220 220
220
252
252
252
252
252
222
232
238
233
227
228
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DEMO.dwg, DEMO 5, 3/12/2026 2:51:25 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TODD LANE

OLIVE STREET

FARROLL AVENUE

FARROLL AVENUE

HALCYON ROAD
211
221
213
213 211
221
226 217
LEGEND

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
230 231
231230
230 231 230
215
215
221
220
220
204
226
211
224 221
231
231
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DEMO.dwg, DEMO 6, 3/12/2026 2:51:35 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 101

EL CAMINO REAL FAEH AVE BENNETT AVE N RENA ST

BENNETT AVE HALCYON ROAD

TRANSVERSE KEYCUT

LONGITUDINAL KEYCUT

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

PAVEMENT TREATMENT ZONE LEGEND

PAVEMENT TRANSITION
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 BENNETT AVE PAVEOUT
1 STA 1+50 TO 16+50
ZONE 1 PAVEMENT REPAIR
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 PAVE TREATMENTS.dwg, PAVEMENT ZONE 1, 3/12/2026 2:51:50 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

E GRAND AVE

E GRAND AVE HALCYON ROAD
1 STA 1+50 TO 16+50
ZONE 1 PAVEMENT REPAIR
2 STA 16+50 TO 37+38
ZONE 2 PAVEMENT REPAIR

TRANSVERSE KEYCUT

LONGITUDINAL KEYCUT

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

PAVEMENT TREATMENT ZONE LEGEND

PAVEMENT TRANSITION
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 PAVE TREATMENTS.dwg, PAVEMENT ZONE 1 (2), 3/12/2026 2:51:55 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

PARK WAY

HALCYON ROAD
2 STA 16+50 TO 37+38
ZONE 2 PAVEMENT REPAIR

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

PAVEMENT TREATMENT ZONE LEGEND
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 PAVE TREATMENTS.dwg, PAVEMENT ZONE 2, 3/12/2026 2:52:00 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

DODSON WAY

DODSON WAY

HALCYON ROAD
2 STA 16+50 TO 37+38
ZONE 2 PAVEMENT REPAIR

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

PAVEMENT TREATMENT ZONE LEGEND
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 PAVE TREATMENTS.dwg, PAVEMENT ZONE 2 (2), 3/12/2026 2:52:05 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD

FAIR OAKS AVENUE

FAIR OAKS AVENUE

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD
2 STA 16+50 TO 37+38
ZONE 2 PAVEMENT REPAIR
3 STA 37+38 TO 47+00
ZONE 3 PAVEMENT REPAIR

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

PAVEMENT TREATMENT ZONE LEGEND
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 PAVE TREATMENTS.dwg, PAVEMENT ZONE 3, 3/12/2026 2:52:10 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TODD LANE

OLIVE STREET

FARROLL AVENUE

FARROLL AVENUE

HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

PAVEMENT TREATMENT ZONE LEGEND
3 STA 37+38 TO 47+00
ZONE 3 PAVEMENT REPAIR
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 PAVE TREATMENTS.dwg, PAVEMENT ZONE 3 (2), 3/12/2026 2:52:15 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 101

EL CAMINO REAL FAEH AVE BENNETT AVE N RENA ST

BENNETT AVE

HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

GENERAL NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ST.dwg, STREET, 3/12/2026 2:52:28 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

E GRAND AVE

E GRAND AVE

HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

GENERAL NOTES

DETAIL A
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ST.dwg, STREET (2), 3/12/2026 2:52:35 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

PARK WAY

HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

GENERAL NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ST.dwg, STREET (3), 3/12/2026 2:52:45 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

DODSON WAY DODSON WAY

HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

GENERAL NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ST.dwg, STREET (4), 3/12/2026 2:52:51 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD

FAIR OAKS AVENUE

FAIR OAKS AVENUE

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, ROUNDABOUT, 3/12/2026 2:53:10 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TODD LANE

OLIVE STREET

FARROLL AVENUE

FARROLL AVENUE

HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

GENERAL NOTES
324
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ST.dwg, STREET (5), 3/12/2026 2:53:22 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD

FAIR OAKS AVENUE

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, RBT GEOMETRY, 3/12/2026 2:53:40 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, RBT LINE & CURVE, 3/12/2026 2:53:44 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
N HALCYON RD.

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
N HALCYON RD.

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAILSIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
BENNETT AVE.

N RENA ST.

FAEH AVE.

R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, SW (1-3), 3/12/2026 2:53:59 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+90 1+00

126.32

126.17
2+00 2+05.02
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
N HALCYON RD.

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (1), 3/12/2026 2:54:10 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+90 1+00

113.54

113.29
2+00

113.04

112.79
3+00

112.38
3+41.09
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
N HALCYON RD.

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (2), 3/12/2026 2:54:15 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00

107.96

108.54
2+00

109.23
2+48.84

DODSON WAY

EAST OF HALCYON

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (3), 3/12/2026 2:54:20 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00

107.76

108.61
2+00

109.06
2+40.73
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

DODSON WAY

EAST OF HALCYON
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (4), 3/12/2026 2:54:25 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+95 1+00

109.51
1+53.60
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
S HALCYON RD.

R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (5), 3/12/2026 2:54:30 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+95 1+00

107.14

108.04
2+00

107.69

106.77
3+00

106.45

105.49
4+00

103.54
4+14.87
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
S HALCYON RD.

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
FAIR OAKS AVE.

CURB RETURN NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (7), 3/12/2026 2:54:35 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+95 1+00

103.08

104.46
2+00

105.59

105.61
3+00

104.23

102.25
3+74.85
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
FAIR OAKS AVE. S HALCYON RD.

CURB RETURN NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (8), 3/12/2026 2:54:40 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+95 1+00

103.79

104.37
2+00

105.30

106.16
3+00

105.45

103.85
4+00 4+04.12
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
FAIR OAKS AVE. S HALCYON RD.

CURB RETURN NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (9), 3/12/2026 2:54:45 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+95 1+00

106.67

107.57
2+00

108.11

106.99
3+00

105.71

104.20
3+64.62
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
FAIR OAKS AVE. S HALCYON RD.

CURB RETURN NOTES
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (10), 3/12/2026 2:54:50 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+95 1+00
107.87

108.17
2+00

108.40
2+03.30
108.36
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 11A, 3/12/2026 2:55:05 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

0+95 1+00
107.90

108.34
2+00
108.37
2+04.70
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 11B, 3/12/2026 2:55:10 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
107.81

107.05
2+00

106.29
105.33
3+00
103.91
3+15.01
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 12A, 3/12/2026 2:55:15 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
107.61

106.86
2+00
106.28
105.08
3+00
103.83
3+11.02
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 12B, 3/12/2026 2:55:20 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
106.82

106.13
2+00
105.28
104.05
2+93.18
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 13A, 3/12/2026 2:55:25 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
106.37

105.92
2+00
104.94
103.61
2+91.96
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 13B, 3/12/2026 2:55:30 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
105.40

104.04
2+00
102.22
2+05.77
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 14A, 3/12/2026 2:55:35 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
105.60

104.13
2+00
102.23
2+06.98
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 14B, 3/12/2026 2:55:40 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
107.02
105.99
2+00
104.99
104.37
2+56.09
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 15A, 3/12/2026 2:55:45 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00
107.34
106.05
2+00
104.80
104.24
2+55.76
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC 15B, 3/12/2026 2:55:50 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00

107.05

105.86
2+00

106.44

107.45
3+00

107.26
3+07.75

107.05
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
TRUCK CAP 1

FAIR OAKS AVENUE

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, TC CAP 1, 3/12/2026 2:55:55 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00

107.33

106.89
2+00

105.91

105.70
3+00

106.65

106.98
4+00

107.93
4+33.41

107.33
ROUNDABOUT 1
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

FAIR OAKS AVENUE

FAIR OAKS AVENUE
S HALCYON RD.

S HALCYON RD.

R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 ROUNDABOUT.dwg, RBT 1, 3/12/2026 2:56:00 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00

101.83

100.48
2+00


99.60 

98.53 3+00


97.73 

96.93 4+00


96.13 

95.00 5+00


93.78 

93.13 6+00


92.61 6+19.88


92.45 SIDEWALK INFILL DETAIL
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
S. HALCYON RD.

TODD LN

OLIVE ST
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TC.dwg, TC (16), 3/12/2026 2:56:13 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND

CURB RETURN - CASE CM
BENNETT AVE.

N HALCYON RD.

BENNETT AVE
895 EL CAMINO REAL
275 N HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 1, 3/12/2026 2:56:26 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
N HALCYON RD.

LEGEND
BENNETT AVE.

BENNETT AVE.

CURB RETURN - CASE C CURB RETURN - CASE CM
310 N HALCYON RD
270 N HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 2-3, 3/12/2026 2:56:30 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND

CURB RETURN - CASE C
N HALCYON RD.

N HALCYON RD.
275 N HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 4, 3/12/2026 2:56:35 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND
E GRAND AVE.

CURB RETURN - CASE C
S HALCYON RD.

E GRAND AVE. 823 E GRAND AVE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 5, 3/12/2026 2:56:40 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND

PARK WAY

CURB RETURN - CASE CM
S HALCYON RD.

PARK WAY 135 S HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 6, 3/12/2026 2:56:45 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND

DODSON WAY EAST

CURB RETURN - CASE C
S HALCYON RD.

CURB RETURN - CASE C

DODSON WAY
231 S HALCYON RD
271 S HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 7-8, 3/12/2026 2:56:50 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND

DODSON WAY WEST

CURB RETURN
S HALCYON RD.

DODSON WAY
236 S HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 9, 3/12/2026 2:56:55 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND

DODSON WAY WEST

CURB RETURN - CASE A & CM
S HALCYON RD.

DODSON WAY
260 S HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 10, 3/12/2026 2:57:00 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND
S HALCYON RD.

FARROLL AVE

FARROLL AVE

CURB RETURN - CASE A
901 FAIR OAKS AVE
903 FARROLL AVE
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 11, 3/12/2026 2:57:05 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND
S HALCYON RD.

CURB RETURN - CASE C

TODD LN
S HALCYON RD.
894 TODD LN
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 12, 3/12/2026 2:57:10 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

CURB RETURN NOTES
LEGEND
S HALCYON RD.

CURB RETURN - CASE C

OLIVE ST
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
S HALCYON RD.
894 OLIVE ST
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 CR.dwg, CR 13, 3/12/2026 2:57:15 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

HALCYON ROAD

SD PIPE PROFILE (MAIN)
SD PIPE PROFILE (COLLECTOR STA 24+86.44)

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 UG.dwg, UG 1, 3/12/2026 2:57:27 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SD PIPE PROFILE (MAIN)
SD PIPE PROFILE (COLLECTOR STA 28+97.30)

HALCYON ROAD
SD PIPE PROFILE (COLLECTOR STA 28+25.72)

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 UG.dwg, UG 2, 3/12/2026 2:57:35 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SOUTH HALCYON ROAD SOUTH HALCYON ROAD

FAIR OAKS AVENUE FAIR OAKS AVENUE

ROUNDABOUT

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 UG.dwg, UG 3, 3/12/2026 2:57:45 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TODD LANE

OLIVE STREET

FARROLL AVENUE

HALCYON ROAD

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 UG.dwg, UG 4, 3/12/2026 2:57:50 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

FAIR OAKS WEST

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

FARROLL AVENUE

S HALCYON ROAD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 UG.dwg, UG 5, 3/12/2026 2:57:55 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

FAIR OAKS EAST

GAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
xxx
’
x

FARROLL AVENUE

S HALCYON ROAD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 UG.dwg, UG 6, 3/12/2026 2:58:00 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 101

EL CAMINO REAL FAEH AVE BENNETT AVE N RENA ST

BENNETT AVE

HALCYON ROAD TREE PALNTING NOTES LEGEND

T TREE WELL

TREE COUNT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TREE PLANTING.dwg, TREE PLANTING 1, 3/12/2026 2:58:13 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

PARK WAY

HALCYON ROAD

TREE PALNTING NOTES

T TREE WELL
LEGEND

TREE COUNT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TREE PLANTING.dwg, TREE PLANTING 3, 3/12/2026 2:58:20 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

DODSON WAY DODSON WAY

HALCYON ROAD TREE PALNTING NOTES

T TREE WELL
LEGEND

TREE COUNT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TREE PLANTING.dwg, TREE PLANTING 4, 3/12/2026 2:58:25 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TODD LANE

OLIVE STREET

FARROLL AVENUE

FARROLL AVENUE

HALCYON ROAD

TREE PALNTING NOTES
7 TREE WELL
LEGEND

TREE COUNT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 TREE PLANTING.dwg, TREE PLANTING 6, 3/12/2026 2:58:30 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2 MULTI-USE PATH WITH SWALE
1 TYPICAL PAVE OUT SECTION
3 TRUCK CAP SECTION 4 4" MOUNTABLE CURB
5 CONCRETE BOLLARD

SECTION AA
STA 40+46 TO 42+78
STA 42+78 TO 43+92
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DETAILS.dwg, DETAILS, 3/12/2026 2:58:43 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

1+00 2+00 2+80.61
725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
RETAINING WALL 1
6 COBBLESTONE MEDIAN & PLANTER
7 OPEN BOTTOM MANHOLE

FAIR OAKS AVE

S HALCYON RD
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DETAILS.dwg, DETAILS (2), 3/12/2026 2:58:46 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DETAILS.dwg, STD DET, 3/12/2026 2:58:55 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DETAILS.dwg, STD DET (2), 3/12/2026 2:59:05 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DETAILS.dwg, STD DET (3), 3/12/2026 2:59:15 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

725 Creston Rd, Suite C
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 239-3127
northcoastengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAND SURVEYING

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
R:\PROJ\24120\Design\Plan Set\24120 DETAILS.dwg, STD DET (4), 3/12/2026 2:59:20 PM, BEA, 1:1 03/13/2026

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATHSHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

S FAIR OAKS AVE

S HALCYON RD
LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):
1 HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

FAIR OAKS AVE AT HALCYON RD ROUNDABOUT LIGHTING PLAN

AIP NS, RM,JAC ACM
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
1 3/12/2026

35 35
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

S HALCYON RD

N HALCYON RD

E GRAND AVE
1 HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

GRAND AVE AT HALCYON RD SIGNAL REMOVAL PLAN

AIP NS, RM ACM
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
4 3/12/2026

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

S HALCYON RD

N HALCYON RD

E GRAND AVE

CONSTRUCTION NOTES (THIS SHEET)
2 HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

GRAND AVE AT HALCYON RD SIGNAL MODIFICATION PLAN

AIP NS, RM ACM
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
4 3/12/2026

CONDUCTOR SCHEDULE
AWG OR

CABLE SIZE

POLE OR

CIRCUIT
RUNS
3-12 WIRE

CONDUCTOR
CABLES
TOTAL 3-12 CABLES
NO. 14NO. 10
NO. 6

TYPE C DLC

OPTICOM
CABLES

POLE AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
ĕ
ė
ĕ
ė
ĕ
ė
ĕ
ė

HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
GRAND AVE AT HALCYON RD POLE AND CONDUCTOR SCHEDULES 3

AIP NS, RM ACM
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
4 3/12/2026

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

S FAIR OAKS AVE

S HALCYON RD

TODD LN
4 HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

FAIR OAKS AVE AT HALCYON RD SIGNAL REMOVAL PLAN

AIP NS, RM ACM
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
4 3/12/2026

SIGN LETTER SIGN DESIGNATION PANEL SIZE SIGN MESSAGE NO OF POSTS AND SIZE NO OF SIGNS PER ASSEMBLY

AIP JAC CN
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
6 3/12/2026
1 N/AN/A

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES

HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

SIGN QUANTITY TABLE & CONSTRUCTION NOTES
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

7'-0"
1'-0"
4" 3'-0" 3'-2"

1.5' 3'-6"
7'-0"
1'-0"
4" 3'-0" 3'-2"
3'-6"
1'-0"
4"
2'-6"
7'-0" 3'-6"
3'-6"
6'

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

AIP JAC CN
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
6 3/12/2026
2 N/AN/A

HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

BENNETT AVE

BENNETT AVE

FAEH ST EL CAMINO REAL

N HALCYON RD
/
/
/
/
/
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /

PARK WY

S HALCYON RD

E GRAND AVE

N HALCYON RD
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/
/ / / / / / / / / /
/ / /

AIP JAC CN
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
6 3/12/2026
3 N/AN/A

HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN

STRIPING LEGEND (THIS SHEET)
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

DODSON WY

S HALCYON RD
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

S HALCYON RD
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

AIP JAC CN
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
6 3/12/2026
4 N/AN/A

HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN

STRIPING LEGEND (THIS SHEET)
/ / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / /

S HALCYON RD

S FAIR OAKS AVE

S HALCYON RD

TODD LN

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATHSHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH

SHARED PATH
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
///////
//////
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

AIP JAC CN
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
6 3/12/2026
5 N/AN/A

HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN

STRIPING LEGEND (THIS SHEET)
/ / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / /

S FAIR OAKS AVE

SANDALWOOD AVE

S HALCYON RD
AVE

FARROLL AVE

OLIVE ST
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

AIP JAC CN
AGR004
W-Trans
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-9500 Fax (707) 542-9590
6 3/12/2026
6 N/AN/A

HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN

STRIPING LEGEND (THIS SHEET)
/ / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / /

Item 11.d.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Isaac Rosen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Proposed Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement
DATE: April 28, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement Between the City of Arroyo Grande and Matthew Downing (“Second Amendment”) following an oral report by the City Attorney summarizing any changes in the salaries, salary schedules or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits consistent with the Brown Act.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The Second Amendment does not result in an immediate change to the City Manager’s existing salary; City Manager compensation may change when the City Council next amends its Salary Schedule. For the proposed change in the Second Amendment relating to deferred compensation, the fiscal impact to the City increases slightly: from an annual City match contribution of $2,200 to $3,000 for the City Manager. There is sufficient funding available in the current fiscal year’s budget to absorb this increase and no additional budget appropriation is required. Future fiscal year budgets will be adjusted as needed to account for the ongoing cost of this adjustment.

BACKGROUND:

Matthew Downing (“Mr. Downing”) has served as the City Manager since January 8, 2024, in accordance with the negotiated and executed Employment Agreement approved by the City Council on December 12, 2023 (“Employment Agreement”)1. On July 22, 2025, the City Council approved a First Amendment to Mr. Downing’s Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”)2.The Employment Agreement, as modified by the First Amendment, provides City Council with discretion to consider changes to City Manager compensation, among other existing terms.

1https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/13842/City-Manager-Employment-Agreement-forMatthew-Downing 2https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/13843/First-Amendment-to-City-ManagerEmployment-Agreement-for-Matthew-Downing

Item 11.d.

City Council
Proposed Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement April 28, 2026

Following a satisfactory performance evaluation and annual review held during a properly noticed closed session, the City Council provided direction to bring forward a Second Amendment to Mr. Downing’s Employment Agreement. That Second Amendment leaves Mr. Downing’s current salary at its current annual rate ($265,661.76). However, the Second Amendment clarifies that the City Manager’s salary amount will be increased automatically, based on top step for the City Manager position, when the City’s salary schedule is next amended by the City Council in open session.

The Second Amendment makes Mr. Downing’s deferred compensation consistent with that of the City’s executive management team (described below under Fiscal Impacts), and as approved by City Council resolution in June 20253. The Second Amendment also makes additional changes to the term of the Employment Agreement, the timing of when the City Manager may be terminated without cause, and changes to Mr. Downing’s annual management leave.

Specifically, the Second Amendment: extends Mr. Downing’s contracted term with the City from January 8, 2028 to January 8, 2032; Mr. Downing may not be terminated “without cause” for 60 calendar days before a general election (but may still be terminated with cause during that period); and Mr. Downing’s management leave is increased to 80 hours annually, starting this year. Those management hours are not entitled to be cashed out, meaning the increase in management leave hours does not create an additional financial impact on the City.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The attached, proposed Second Amendment is to be considered by the City Council in open session and approved by formal action, following an oral report by the City Attorney pursuant to the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54953).

All other provisions from the existing Employment Agreement and First Amendment remain in effect, including existing fringe benefits. If approved, the effective date of the Second Amendment would be April 28, 2026.

ALTERNATIVES:

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

1. Approve the Second Amendment;

2. Do not approve the Second Amendment and keep the existing First Amendment and underlying January 8, 2024 Employment Agreement for the City Manager in effect; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

3 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=14879

Item 11.d.

City Council
Proposed Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement April 28, 2026

ADVANTAGES:

Making substantive changes to City Manager contract is consistent with other cities that provide incentives to their local agency executive for high performance, encouraging the City Manager to exceed expectations, innovate, and deliver measurable results. Offering a competitive contract helps preserve institutional knowledge by retaining skilled staff who has valuable experience with and knowledge of local government operations. Retention also prevents disruption and reduces costs associated with frequent turnover.

DISADVANTAGES:

The City will be committing additional resources under the proposed Second Amendment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Find the action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (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. Proposed Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande and Matthew J. Downing

ATTACHMENT 1

SECOND AMENDMENT
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT – CITY MANAGER
This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Second Amendment”) between the City of Arroyo Grande (hereinafter “City”) and Matthew J. Downing (hereinafter “Employee”) (collectively, the “Parties”) is entered into this ___ day of April 2026 (“Effective Date”). Except as modified in this Second Amendment, the Employment Agreement, effective as of January 8, 2024, between the City and Employee shall remain in full force and effect, as amended by the First Amendment entered into on July 22, 2025. The parties to this Second Amendment agree to the following changes:

1. SECTION 4 relating to “Term” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“4. Term. The term of this at-will Agreement shall be from the Effective Date, through January 8, 2032 (“Initial Term”), unless terminated earlier by either party in accordance with the provisions set forth in paragraph 6. Unless either party provides notice of nonrenewal to the other party on or before one-hundred twenty (120) days prior to expiration of the Initial Term as set forth in paragraph 6(d), the Agreement shall continue in effect until terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions set forth in paragraph 6.”

2. SECTION 5(a) relating to “Compensation - Salary” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(a) Salary. Employee shall receive the base annual salary set at the top step of the City Manager salary schedule as adopted by the City Council and amended from time to time, payable on a pro-rata basis in the same manner as all full time City employees, and subject to all applicable payroll taxes and withholdings.”

3. SECTION 6(a)(3) relating to “Termination without Cause” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(3) Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agreement to the contrary, the City shall not terminate Employee without cause for a period of sixty (60) calendar days immediately preceding a general election and one hundred twenty (120) calendar days immediately following a general election unless (1) the City has cause to terminate under paragraph 6(b)(1); or (2) Employee is convicted for abuse of office or position as defined in Government Code section 53243.4.”

4. SECTION 8(c) relating to “Deferred Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(c) Deferred Compensation. The City shall contribute a dollar-for-dollar match of up to $3,000 per year to a defined contribution supplemental retirement plan established in accordance with section 401(a) and 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and California Government Code section 53215-53224. Upon successful completion of ten (10) years of service to the City, Employee is eligible for an additional $500 annual employer contribution.”

5. SECTION 8(g) entitled “General Benefits” is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1
“(g) General Benefits. In addition to the benefits specifically set forth in this Agreement, Employee shall be entitled to the same benefits as those provided to Executive Team Classifications, as such benefits may be amended from time to time. To the extent any benefit provided under this Agreement conflicts with or differs from the benefits provided to Executive Team Classifications, the specific terms of this Agreement shall control.”

6. SECTION 9(b) entitled “Management Leave” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(b) Management Leave. Employee will be provided with eighty (80) hours of management leave each calendar year. Hours do not accumulate from year to year. At the beginning of each calendar year, Employee’s management leave bank will be replenished to a total of eighty (80) hours. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon execution of this Second Amendment, Employee’s management leave allotment for the calendar year in which this Second Amendment is executed shall be increased from forty (40) hours to eighty (80) hours, and Employee’s management leave bank shall be credited with the additional forty (40) hours of use during the remainder of that calendar year. Any management leave remaining upon separation of employment will not be cashed out.” The City and Employee have duly executed this Second Amendment as of the date first written above. This Amendment is effective as of the date first written above.

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE EMPLOYEE
___________________________ __________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor Matthew J. Downing
Approved as to Form:
___________________________
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney