CC 2012-09-25_09.a.2. Supplemental Information/pRROy\
A. INCORPORATED �y
� r.- m
* JULY 10. 1911
FORN \P
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
-T tAC.
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NO. 2 — AGENDA ITEM 9.a.
APPEAL — CUP 12 -007
DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Attached is correspondence received today regarding the appeal.
c: City Attorney
City Clerk
Public Review Binder
City Of Arroyo Grande
Planning Division
300 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420
Re: Pike Place Apartments (Cup -12 -007)
RECEIVED
SEP 2 4 2012
ARROYO GRANDE
CITY CLERIC
24 September 2012
We are not against building apartments on this lot. We would like the City of Arroyo Grande to lessen
the density of this project, remove the commercial property, and move the footprint of the buildings
farther than ten feet from the property line. This project needs to be reconfigured to ensure the safety
of our property and to keep us from future financial risk due to this project.
The purpose of the current plan of this project is to get the maximum amount of units to the minimum
specs of City code to make this project work while maximizing the profit margin of the investors. If Peter
Burtness and Annie Roberts would lessen the density to 22 units and move the footprint of the
buildings, no one in the neighborhood would have a problem with this project. But as it is there is just
too much at risk to our homes and our neighborhood. Here's why:
The existing houses that surround the proposed project are (on average) 4 feet below this lot
and have wood retaining walls holding up their embankments. The ground soil that the lot and
the neighborhood are built on is oil -based sand. The architect, Steve Puglisi, says that the
ground will be graded to drain towards the east side of Elm St., however, there are no rain
gutters on the back side of this project. The footprint of these buildings stands at ten feet from
the property line (which is where the embankments are). The roofline on the west side
properties hits around the three and four -foot mark from the proposed "good neighbor" fence.
If the backsides of the buildings have gutters, the downspout drainage will be directed at our
fence line. Having the weight of these buildings with the roof run -off this close to our property
line puts our embankments at risk, raises our insurance rates and has potential for the retaining
walls to collapse and possibly flood our properties. Move the footprint and this problem reduces
greatly.
We have several issues concerning our privacy and property values. Put yourself in our place,
would you want an apartment building 10 feet from your property, lined with windows peering
into your yards, bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchens? Our houses are single story dwellings that
are subterranean to the lot. Having a two story building right on our property line will greatly
PRIVACY AND NOISE ISSUES
Our Residence(710 Paul PL)
(hopoted Quit w, lO ket iromthe hnce.Theemswdl be x nd 3-S'romfence:
® Gates, SlidiinO Doon 10 ket from the fence. Main (Side) Entry Do0n 20'from fence
Dryer EA..tvmt,
affect our property values
in the deficit. The previous
illustration shows what our
new view will look like
from our side of the
project.
According to the
blueprints, our property
alone will also have 2
walkways with 3 (main)
side entries, 3 backyard
sliding doors, 3 backyard
exit gates, and 4 dryer
vents, all less than 20 feet
from our fence line. There
will be a great increase of
noise directed directly at
our properties; these
walkways will act as a
megaphone. The daily
sounds of music,
televisions, conversations,
etc. will all contribute to
the added noise factor and
will greatly affect our
lifestyles and will also
affect our property values. The added noise will also cause problems with the dogs in our
neighborhood and I know there will be noise complaints due to barking. If the footprints of the
apartments are moved, all of these problems go away.
The City Planners, the architect and the property owners all admitted (in the last Planning
Council meeting) that the only reason they put the commercial property in was to get the
maximum density of 28 units (plus commercial) and that the commercial property did not serve
the community. Without the commercial unit, they would have to make the maximum density
22 units. If it serves no purpose; if there are no tenant plans for this building; if it does not
contribute to the neighborhood, than it does not belong in this project. Simply because the 7 -11
exists on the corner does not make it a viable commercial project. Having the tenants share
parking with the proposed commercial property is a recipe for disaster.
This property is zoned "Office Mixed Use" but they are claiming to put retail business in this
location. The commercial property has to share the parking lot with the apartment complex and
only provides 14 parking spaces for both. According to the City's code, they only have to provide
one parking space for a studio apartment even if there are two people living in the studio
apartment. There is no overflow parking for the apartment complex and the studio apartment
tenants are supposed to "share" their one parking space with the commercial property during
business hours. The other apartments are supposed to keep both cars in their crowded garage,
but if there are more than two adults in the apartment they do not have a parking space for the
third tenant. These people will be allowed to park in the commercial parking during "off hours."
This means they do not have sufficient parking available for the tenants or the commercial
property, so whomever rents this commercial property will not have parking for themselves,
their employees or their customers as there is no parking along the east side of Elm St., across
from the commercial property. This is a really bad plan. The 7 -11 was built in the 1970's, there
are no other commercial properties in the area. I don't think that because the 7 -11 exists on the
corner is reason enough to add a commercial property.
YI
W
Shared parking
Shared parking
i
— — _ teals w-13 HMOS
They have every square inch of this property drawn to the City's minimum code. The two -way
driveways are 25 foot wide from garage to garage, but with the bump -outs the drivable area is
only 18 feet wide. I don't know how the turning radius of the cars are going to maneuver that
narrow of a gap or back in and out without hitting the adjacent garage behind them. Not to
mention the apartment's driveways are less than 50 feet from the two existing driveways into
the 7 -11, a city bus stop, Lucia Mar bus stops, on top of which is already on a busy intersection.
There is considerable foot traffic to Fairgrove Elementary and to the 7 -11 daily. The driveways,
need to be one way entry, or at least marked "No Left Turns" to ensure safety on the Pike side.
• This project is not just an empty lot that will be developed. This project entails our
neighborhood to be part of the process by undergrounding our utilities. There is a lot of
intrusion on our part and no compromise on our behalf. The contractor is running this show and
we have no say in the matter, even though it affects us directly. If our existing utilities are
undergrounded, we will have to put our blind faith that the contractors the property owners
hire to do the job. We have to deal with the destruction of our properties with the promise that
all vegetation and landscaping will be replaced "in- kind" which has a vague definition of what
"in- kind" entails. Several of the houses have buried septic tanks, which will greatly affect the
process of digging. It's not the same as a new development where all of the utility planning can
be done beforehand, our lines will be zig- zagged across our properties. The outside electric
panels will all have to be replaced to upgrade to the new wiring. PG &E also told us that with our
old houses having internal wiring from 1963, the new wiring may not be compatible with our
existing internal wiring and could cause problems down the road. This would be an expense that
we are responsible for. There is a lot of liability that the builders would have to take on for this
size of project.
We know that there is no way that the builders are going to spend the money to bury 10+
homes utility lines and will most likely pay the en -lieu of fee. Our utility easement is 5 foot on
our side of the fence line and 5 foot on the project's fence line. Because the apartments are two
story units and our homes are single story, PG &E told us they will not be able to access the
existing poles from their side and will have to crane over our single -story houses. If the plan's
footprints were reconfigured than this would not be an issue.
We have too much at risk here at the density it's proposed. I ask anyone to drive to the 7 -11 on
the corner of The Pike and Elm St. and stand on the corner around 5:30 pm, watch what
happens at that intersection, then tell me there isn't a problem by adding two driveways 50 feet
from the chaos in that intersection.
This project, in the configuration that it is in, puts a lot of impositions upon us; it will cost us financially
and will change lifestyle and our right to privacy. We, the surrounding homes, are expected to make all
the compromises and blindly agree to contribute to the project in order to allow someone to profit on a
project that is unreasonable and does not fit in our neighborhood. If the project density would be
reduced to 22 units, were to be reconfigured in a way to protect our embankments, our privacy, and our
safety by lessening the density, we would all be in agreement. We are asking that the City take our
concerns seriously and protect our rights to privacy, protect our rights to safety, and prevent possible
future litigation due to traffic issues and property damages.
Joah`Dralle, 7,10 Paul PI., Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
n, 710 Paul PI., Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
I Z,3,,Z