CC 2013-11-26 Supplemental InformationTO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL
TERESA MCCLIS~~MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AILEEN NYGAARD, ASSIST ANT PLANNER
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13-001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
13-001; LOCATION -1051 HUASNA ROAD; APPELLANT -JANIS
SCOTT
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
An additional issue relevant to the appeal has been identified and requires further
explanation. Although the City does own a public utility and street tree easement with
associated access rights in the Fortuna Court properties (APNs 007-861-071-Scott and
007-861-032-Kawoaka), the easement does not specifically include emergency or
pedestrian access rights. As a result, the developer will have to negotiate with the
underlying property owners to add emergency and pedestrian access rights to the existing
easement encumbering the properties (in approximate 41 square feet, 14 square feet in the
Scott property and 27 square ·feet in the Kawoaka property) to accommodate the 12 foot
emergency and pedestrian access easement required by Condition of Approval #29. If
negotiations are unsuccessful, the City will have to either waive the condition or require the
developer to pay for the City to acquire the expanded easement by eminent domain,
pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6. It should be noted that the burden on the
affected property owners to add these 2 additional uses to the existing easement is
relatively minor; however, the public health, safety and welfare benefits to the City and the
surrounding neighborhood will be relatively significant.
RECEIVED
Arroyo Grande city council, CITY OF t·.RROYO GRANDE
I am personally opposed to the easement you want to put througp3>AmP~3Ptf· J i>2t"7
together this petition asking other neighbors if they too were opposea."the part that is
crossed out was crossed out at the time of the signatures so you know. I did not realize I
printed the wrong petition until I asked the first person to sign it and did not have time to
correctly print another one, so it was just crossed out.
Webster definition of a cul de sac is as follows: a passage or position with only one outlet
2) a situation from which street with a turn around at a closed end. 3) a blind pouch; a
cecum
I purchased my home on a court/ cul de sac, so I had limited traffic on my street, be it
pedestrian, bicycle or vehicles. Since I own dogs it is less people for my dogs to bark at,
and less likely to have a burglary in my belief because there is only one way to leave the
cul de sac.
There is Stagecoach Rd for people to walk up if they want to come into our
neighborhood, I don't think we need another passage. And if it is for connectivity why
when Callie Court was built did they not have a passage way in that development?
One of the reasons the planning commission gave for this walkway was for
"connectivity". However, when I brought up and asked for the city to have the developer
to pave the 20 yards in front of 1051 Huasna so that I could walk safely from my home
down Huasna that was ignored. Is that not a form of connectivity from one neighborhood
to another? And why was that so readily ignored?
Sincerely,
/)5( --(~ cf
~ ((~ Jk-~oLt &
We, the undersigned, see that the city is choosing to decimate a long
standing Cul de Sac in our neighborhood, to give a new development access
to our neighborhood that is not warranted. · · d
~~~~~~title~~~~~~tai1~~0rs'~f:1be~ .. Wein
Oak.crest Estates have always had only 2 entances to our nieghborhood: La
Cresta coming from Huasna and Platino from Stagecoach from the other
side. We do not want another access into our development that pedestrians,
bicycles and motorcycles will find appealing.
Please do not allow a secondary access into our neighborhood.
J/t,Nvv);-}11~ rt :!Jlf ~~ e~
~Jlun ~ 2go Lr__ C',,,.fa_ orl'vc.,
~ ~ ~ \c\ \I ~ l9 v 'IA v 'IJ' \,\)Al WI,;., \.-'(\ A ,G-,
. ~ ~ a.roil J-.-O.~ec,f."t rl><-t'J_c;;,_
G-<::co,~..,_~~"\c::.J\... 9-~l \.-__q (_~ ~~ '\f\~
'-/,µ~H vf~ J.I{ U C/esh,, Dr"
..::f{~·&_alz_) ..ii~ .l~Cr~s~ Vr-AGJ /+f'fVjo W~ U-13~
Jinr5fe./1 0-{().rtlY>till S'i?"? f/~-hf-lo Ln. A-& 9~Yl{J
-f Ji wAf-/151 froclw>... U ~ t}3tjz,(J , ,
6'1J.,v1'/11 ~r,77 ~!Cl-??~~/?<! (/,e,rf)f' . '
J)Pu!YI c:/JlM~ 3lo ffdt11-u &l, /]~
\)cQw~·~ :ic;'-f j)\1't.;,v f\'vv~o (J.r._~
~1'1 ka Pa:)~. k=i q34w
"3'3o PlA-T//\(OL~ P'll< 1tupoG:i;<;fv)?
"t..1-lr-llll"°' /.....fo.J. 93q.2-(J. 3~6 ,..
I
! •
. ,-:.o . . --.
' .__--~-.. :,~
We, the undersigned, see that the city is choosing to decimate a long
standing Cul de Sac in our neighborhood, to give a new development access
to our neighborhood that is not warranted. la-~d t6'dff t'&i8'4i~ ~
~-~~e#l~1Fe4~~h6P.r ~·We in
Oakcrest Estates have always had only 2 entances to our nieghborhood: La
Cresta coming from Huasna and Platino from Stagecoach from the other
side. We do not want another access into our development that pedestrians,
bicycles and motorcycles will find appealing.
Please do not allow a secondary access into our neighborhood.
~~~~~~ Ll~'\ ~~i· ~·
~-Q~ df-7 /1/.e-1/~o ,l.,ut~ of~
~ {/ ;(~ 372 f,!Artl/)o LN
J>()roR1 '-Y ~ -· u.
!':1. 1, ierw1 \\~~ i( S ~ -Pro.&~r-d) c)\'
' U&'V\__l{)lo-e., \\5C\-Yra_~~ U.
Wof"&m/ :nq lr-; ((le&f-/J--AG"
j(6 I LA-C~E~/f it'G-
..... 1..,·