Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge review of Short Street apartment project; city staff cites state ADU and CEQA changes
Summary
Residents urged the Arroyo Grande City Council to re-examine an eight-unit project at 134 Nelson Street, citing parking, traffic and design concerns; city staff and the city attorney said recent state ADU rules and CEQA changes limit local subjective design standards and make the Class 32 infill exemption commonly applicable.
A group of Arroyo Grande residents urged the City Council on March 10 to review the approval of an eight-unit development at 134 Nelson Street, arguing the project oversteps village design standards, reduces parking and may be an inappropriate use of a CEQA Class 32 categorical exemption.
Multiple residents—Scott Miller, Sean McDonald, Lisa McDonald and Marcy Petita—told council the project’s scale and architectural style are out of character with the historic village overlay and that public notices omitted traffic impacts. Sean McDonald told the council he believes the project is an “unusual circumstance” under CEQA because it adds eight residential units and removes most existing parking; Lisa McDonald said public notices cited four of the five criteria for a Class 32 exemption and “conspicuously omitted paragraph d, the impact on traffic.”
A supporter, Brian Goodell, said the owners worked with the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and city planners, that the planning commission approved the project and that those who opposed had not filed a timely appeal.
Staff response: City Manager Matt Downing and City Attorney Rosen explained that California’s recent ADU and housing laws limit a city’s ability to apply subjective historic-design standards when projects include ADU components; Downing said that because the project includes ADUs “that’s really what the state is glomming on to now.” Rosen said the Class 32 infill exemption is commonly applied in built-out areas and that state environmental review now emphasizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than level-of-service traffic metrics.
What residents asked council to do: speakers requested the council or planning commission re-examine the development’s use of a Class 32 exemption, assess traffic and parking impacts, and consider design changes to better align with village character.
What council said: the mayor and staff acknowledged residents’ frustrations and emphasized state law constraints. Staff said the project went through ARC and planning commission review and that no appeal was filed by the deadline; because of state law changes, council members said they have limited authority to require redesigns for subjective design-style reasons.
Next steps: staff encouraged residents to submit written materials and to pursue outreach to state legislators if they seek changes to state statutes that govern ADUs and exemptions.
