New housing complex would add 92 units to SLO County city. Here’s where
Arroyo Grande took the first step toward approving a new 92-unit housing complex this week.
Creekside Junction, a 92-unit housing complex represented by RRM Design Group, made its first appearance before the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission on Tuesday evening.
The complex, which is planned for a pair of lots at 1271 and 1281 James Way, is planned for an undeveloped patch of land between Oak Park Professional Plaza and the Oak Park Leisure Gardens residential development.
At Tuesday’s hearing, the Planning Commission looked at the project’s significant size and density, and while some commissioners were less enthusiastic about how it approached providing a large number of housing units — of which 15% will be deed-restricted as affordable housing — they admitted that there was little that could be done to change the design due to the state’s increasing protections for higher-density housing.
Commissioner Glenn Martin said he was supportive of the project and its contribution to the city’s lower-income housing needs, but would have preferred to table the project for a later meeting to request more changes by the applicant.
“We certainly do have a need for smaller, affordable rental units for low-income and very low-income (residents) — in that regard, this project is a very good step in the right direction,” Martin said. “My next statement is our hands are tied, to a great extent, by what Sacramento allows us to do and gives us the freedom to do.”
New project includes affordable units
Consisting of two new four-story residential buildings, the residential units will be made up of 20 studios, 58 one-bedroom units and 14 two-bedroom units, supported by the Housing Accountability Act’s high-density provisions.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a project with 15% of its units deed-restricted for very low-income households that meets all other municipal building guidelines cannot be reduced in size for arbitrary reasons such as simple preference, according to the staff report.
Though it is planned in a mixed-use zone intended to support a mix of offices and residential development, no commercial uses are planned for the project, meaning its parking would be reserved exclusively for residents.
Parking proved to be a sticking point in the design for the applicant, who requested concessions to lower the number of required parking spaces under the city municipal code from 99 to 98. The applicant also requested a concession to reduce the minimum of 10% of the gross lot area for off-street parking to 8.23%.
Most notably, the applicant requested a concession to allow the building to stand 45 feet, waiving the city’s 35-foot height limit under the state density bonus law, which allows developments with 15% of units reserved for affordable housing to request three municipal code concessions from the city, according to the staff report.
The project also includes a community center, fitness area and common spaces, according to the staff report.
RRM architect Scott Martin, who represented the project, said the project is designed to nestle into the hills of the project site while working around the nearby creekbed on the eastern side of the property.
He also said sharing parking spaces will be necessary for the project, with negotiations in progress to share parking spaces with the nearby Hope Church and other existing parking lots and street parking that border the project site.
As proposed, the project features 31 one-car garages under the building, with 18 parking spaces proposed to be shared with the nearby Best Western hotel, 47 non-designated surface parking spaces and a pair of designated surface parking spaces, according to the staff report.
Planning Commission: City’s hands are tied by state law
During the meeting, several residents in attendance voiced concerns about the project’s size and appearance, with its concessions on parking drawing criticism from nearby neighbors.
These concerns were mostly echoed by the Planning Commission, but because most concerns about height and design aren’t within their purview, their conditions for the project’s approval centered on things that had less to do with its actual dimensions.
The commission ultimately voted 3-0 to approve the project — with commissioners Kevin Buchanon and Jared Worthen not present — and added several conditions to their approval, which removed a public pedestrian easement on the creek side of the project, along with a requirement to include more bike and ebike storage.
Commissioner Catherine Sackrinson said while she understood why some residents and commissioners may dislike the project’s size, that line of criticism tends to end with a smaller project, regardless of whether it’s allowable under state law or appropriate for the developer.
“I struggle because we have residents that are here that are making valid points — they’re saying, ‘OK, well why 92? Why couldn’t it be 80?” — that was a number that was thrown out, and I will always play both sides of the argument,” Sackrinson said. “That’s a valid statement, but who’s to say, if the developer had come in with 80, that the argument wouldn’t then have been, ‘Why couldn’t it be 70?’”
“We’re in this kind of cycle where, if we’re seeking to find a perfect answer where everybody’s happy, we’re just never going to build anything, and we’re never going to have anything new, because it’s just going to have to stay stagnant,” Sackrinson concluded.
This story was originally published January 21, 2026 at 11:49 AM.
