Loading...
CC 2017-01-10_10a E Cherry_Attachment 7 Public Comment Letters or Emails Subject:RE: East Cherry Ave. Specific Plan - Collector Street From: Brian Pedrotti Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 5:05 PM To: Kelly Heffernon; Matt Horn Cc: John Rickenbach Subject: East Cherry Ave. Specific Plan - Collector Street Brian Pedrotti Village Court Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 August 8, 2016 Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Ms. Heffernon, I am writing this letter to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan and express my concern specifically with the proposed future “collector street” to the south. I am a resident on Village Court in Arroyo Grande, and my backyard shares a property line with the St. Barnabas church open space area (see Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map). I also am a land use planner with San Luis Obispo County, have a Masters of Urban Planning, am a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, and am familiar with CEQA and the requirements of Environmental Impact Reports. Future Collector Analyzed in Environmental Impact Report My primary concern is regarding the proposed future “collector” street that is shown to stub from the subject site to the south into the St. Barnabas property. Although this is proposed as a future collector, the draft plan 1 identifies the location of the stub with the current plan, thereby setting the location of the future collector, particularly since all the other shared property boundary between the Specific Plan and the church is proposed for single-family residential parcels. Since this plan sets the location of the future collector, the environmental impacts of this roadway are definitive and must be analyzed in the EIR. City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element - Map 3 At the time I purchased my home in 2015, I performed my due diligence in looking at the zoning and General Plan of the City of Arroyo Grande. The Circulation Element (see attached), which was posted on the City website (Planning Division) and remains there as of the writing of this letter, does not identify any collector street in the vicinity of the East Cherry Plan area, nor across the St. Barnabas church property. If the City is planning to locate a collector in this area, this needed to have been shown on the Circulation Element as part of the General Plan to forecast to residents the future road plans and their potential impacts to properties. Impacts to homes along Village Court and Trinity Avenue Based on the proposed location of the stub-out for the collector street, it appears that the geometrics would align the collector street on the west side of the church open space property, potentially with the greatest impact to adjacent residential properties. Most of these residents slope downward toward the site, thereby impacts associated with vehicular noise, headlight noise pollution, and aesthetics would be maximized for myself and my neighbors. I ask that you please reconsider a future “collector” through the church property given the impact on existing residents. We love this neighborhood - our backyard is a sanctuary for us and our three small children and a roadway directly next to our backyard would have an immense impact on our quality of life. If a future “collector” is approved, this should at least be located as far away as possible from the residential parcels along Village Court and Trinity Avenue. In this case, the stub street location should be moved further east, so that if the City decides at some point to provide this collector, it will already be located in a more desirable location. As a planner, I understand the need for connectivity and circulation, but if connectivity is desired, perhaps a pedestrian and bicycle path would be more appropriate for this location. Sincerely, Brian Pedrotti Attachment 1: Vicinity Map 2 Attachment 2: City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element – Map 3 The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. 3 Signal/Intersection Alternative Proposed Signal/Alternative Priority 1 Transit StopsPriority 2 Transit Stops Circulation Study Area Highway/Arterial Pedestrian Area Path/Trail Collector TT Commenter 25 – Brian Pedrotti This comment letterwasreceived after the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR, and while no response is required by CEQA, the City has provided a response to this letterfor considerationby City . decision-makers as they consider potential Project approval It is acknowledged that the commenter’s primary concern is the potential for a future collector road that may result from the proposed collector stub located between Subarea 1 and 2. While commenter asserts that impacts of the future roadway must be analyzed within the EIR, there is currently no proposal for a new roadway to the south ofthe Project site. As this future roadway is not currently planned, nor is included as part of the Project, to analyze impacts of a possible future roadway on the hillside would be speculative. However, the collector stub is considered part of the proposed Project and environmental effects associatedwith this roadway stub are included withProject impacts(e.g., Sections 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, 3.7, Land Use). Further, potential growth inducing impacts resulting from this collector stub have been identified within Section 4.2.4, Other CEQA Considerations. The commenter identifiesthat the collector stub and a future collector road onthe hillside south of the Project site is not included as part of the General Plan Circulation Element.However, the General Plan, Circulation Element Map indicates a “Circulation Study Area” that surrounds South Traffic Way, U.S. Highway 101, and Castillo Del Mar. The Circulation Element Policy CT5-5 describes the intent of this study area, which states: “Define and preserve “study area” corridors and alternatives for future freeway, arterial and collector street connections, extensions, completions, reconstruction, widening, frontage road alternatives or extensions, and/or other improvements to the Circulation and Transportation networks until cooperative resolution of Element revisions and/or capital improvement programs.” Further, Policy CT5-5.3 states “when new development occurs in the vicinity of study areas or plan lines, and where legally and financially feasible, require a portion of rights-of-way and improvements associated with new development.” The East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan and the proposed collector stub are within the vicinity of the study area. The proposed collector stub is considered an improvement that may be needed to accommodate future development to the south of the site anticipated under the City’s General Plan and zoning maps. The effects of extending this collector stub will be analyzed as part of the Circulation Element update and associated CEQA documentation. Please note that any project or program that includes the proposal for a future collector roadway on the hillside would be subject to CEQA review, and would be evaluated for potential impacts to the environment, (e.g., aesthetics, land use, noise, etc.). Under such a projector program, the CEQA process provides opportunities for the public to comment at the time a future roadway may be proposed. Subject:RE: East Cherry Ave Development - Public Hearing 9/6 From: Linda Keating 1 AM Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:1 To:jmack@arroyogrande.org;tfowler-payne@arroyogrande.org;jkeen@arroyogrande.org;gmartin@arroyogrande.org; lgeorge@arroyogrande.org; Debbie Weichinger; Steven Annibali; Steve Lieberman; lkeating@jltechnical.com Subject: East Cherry Ave Development - Public Hearing 9/6 RE:Useof650PrivateDrivewaytoservice24homesΑEastCherryAveDevelopment DearMembersofthePlanningCommission L͸ƒunabletoattendthemeetingon9/6.IncorrespondencetoMr.Rickenbach,Ihaveraisemyconcernsoftheuseofa proposedЏЎЉ͸privatedrivewaytoservice24homes.Thispresentsasafetyhazard.SanLuisObispo,limitsthenumber oflotsservicedto4.Mostothercitieshaveturnaroundrequirements. Forreasonsstatedbelow,IwouldsuggestthatboththeChiefofPoliceandFireChiefsignoffonthisplan. Thankyouforyourconsideration. LindaKeating Myrtle TO:JohnRickenbachviaemail:jfrickenbach@aol.com CC:ArroyoGrandePlanning RE:CherryLaneDevelopment TheProjectasdefinedhasseveralissues.Withthiscorrespondence,L͸ƒonlyaddressingthesharedprivatedriveway akaResidentialAlley.Asproposed,a650ftby20ftResidentialAlleywillserve24(54ftby102ft)lots.Theissuesand solutionarelistedbelow. AverageLotsizedeceptivelyinflated. BecausethedeveloperhasproposedusingaResidentialAlleyinplaceofaResidentialInteriorStreet,theAlleyis includedinthelotsize.Thismeansthat540sfofeachlotissharedwiththeotherlotsabuttingthealleymakingthe ͻǒƭĻğĬƌĻͼlotonly4968sf.IfaStreetisusedinsteadofanAlley,thelotsizewouldbereducedevenfurthertoonly (54*102)(54*26)=4101.Thisa25%reduction! Violationenforcement. AccordingtoarepresentativefromtheAGPolicedepartment,AGPDhasnoauthoritytoenforceillegalparkingina sharedprivatedriveway. In2014,Ibuiltahouseat313MyrtleDriveinArroyoGrande.Thishousesharesaprivatedrivewaywithtwoother properties.Evenwithnoparkingpostings,servicepeopleworkingatadjacentpropertiescontinuallyparkinthe 1 driveway.Whenavehicleisparkedinthedrivewayacrossfrommygarage,itisimpossibletobackoutoftheŭğƩğŭĻΓ evenwithamultiplepointturningeffort. Inmycase,IwastoldthattheonlyalternativewouldbetohavetheAlleydeclaredafirelane,paintthecurbsredand thenthenoparkinglawcouldbeenforced. Evacuation. Intheeventofanemergencyrequiringevacuation,havingadrivewayofthislength,serving24homes,wouldbe chaotic.Withadjacentgarages,bothoccupantscannotbackoutatthesametime. Security. BecausetheAlleyisconsideredprivateproperty,it͸ƭunlikelythatthiswouldbeincludedinstandardpatrol rounds.Withoutproperlighting,itwillevolveintoanattractivelocationforillegalentryintothehomessharingthe driveway. TurnaroundsandGuestParking TheplandoesnotprovideanyguestparkingorturnaroundsintheproposedAlley.Whilethecitycanencouragegarage onlyparkinginpracticethisķƚĻƭƓ͸Ʒhappen.AquicklookatEastCherryLaneonaweekendisevidenceofthis.Also, maneuveringemergencyvehiclesinthisareawouldbeextremelydifficult. HouseholdServicesandRepairs e.Theseincludewatersoftenerand Manycommonhouseholdservicesrequireaccesstothegarageareaofthehous bottledelivery,cleaningservicesetc.And,manyrepairpeopleneedaccessthroughthegarage.Anyparking(evenshort term)inaPrivateAccessDrivewayisillegalandrestrictstheaccessoftheotherusersofthedriveway.So,toprovide basicservicestothesehomesthisleavesnoviablealternative. Whatdootherlocalcitiesdo? AttachedisthecodesectionfromSanLuisObispo.Commondrivewaysarelimitedtoservingonly4residences.These shouldbetheminimalstandardsappliedtothisdevelopment.Additionally,ArroyoGrandeshouldincorporatecode similartoSLOintotheirownbuildingcodes.Ifthesecodeswereineffectwhenmyhousewasbuilt,Iwouldnotbein thedifficultpositionInowfindmyself. Solution. Reducethelotsinthisareaby4. ǒƒĬĻƩƚŅƌƚƷƭΜΜ Thetotalsizeoftheareais132,192sf.ΛЊЉЋΛƌƚƷķĻƦƷŷΜΫЎЍΛƌƚƷǞźķƷŷΜΫЋЍΛƓ ArearequiredforResidentialInteriorStreet(withoutlinearpark)is33,696 ΛЎЍ͸ΛƌƚƷǞźķƷŷΜΫЊЋΛƓǒƒĬĻƩƚŅƌƚƷƭΜ ΫЎЋ͸ΛƭƷƩĻĻƷǞźķƷŷΜΜ ArearemainingwithpublicstreetisIndividuallotsizefor20lots=4924.8sf Inadditiontoprovidingproperandprotectedaccesstothehomes,reducingthelotcountwouldsomewhatlessenthe ͻƷźĭƉǤtackylittleĬƚǣĻƭͼviewalongCherry.Theadditionalfrontagespacecouldbeusedforplanting. IsincerelyhopethattheCityofArroyoGrandewillconsidertheimportanceofthewellbeingoftheresidentswhowill occupythesehomes,overthepocketbookofthedeveloper. 2 LindaKeating MyrtleDrive ArroyoGrande,CA 3 San Luis Obispo Code Section 12.38.160 Common-access driveways. A. Where Permitted. Common-access driveways may be permitted in either of the following cases: 1. On lots of record, existing before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, if the community development director approves an administrative use permit; or 2. In new subdivisions where a common driveway is proposed as part of subdivision approval. B. Basic Criteria. A common-access driveway must meet all of the following criteria: 1. The driveway must not be inappropriately located (for example, too close to a dwelling, play area or sloped bank). 2. It must be determined that there is no significant potential for conflict between the parties sharing the driveway because of its location, length, grade, usage or other characteristics. C. For Residential Uses. The following provisions apply to common-access driveways to serve premises zoned or used for residential purposes: 1. Before granting any permit authorizing construction of a common-access driveway or structures to be served by such driveway, the city shall require an easement or covenant to be filed with the county recorder setting forth driveway usage rights and responsibilities for each parcel served. At minimum, the required easement or covenant shall include the following statements: a. All affected property owners will be jointly responsible for the improvement and maintenance of all parts of the common access driveway. b. All parking on the commonly used portions of the driveway is prohibited. c. Any affected property owner may avail himself of the vehicle-removing authority granted private property owners in Section 22658 of the California Vehicle Code when any vehicle is parked in the common-access driveway so as to interfere with entry or access to a parcel it serves. d. Property owners agree to hold the city harmless from all claims of damages or liability arising from any action to tow away vehicles pursuant to subsection (C)(1)(c) of this section. e. If the easement or covenant is abandoned or dissolved, each lot previously served by the common-access driveway shall be provided with standard access as required by these regulations. 2. The driveway shall serve no more than four residential units unless special circumstances warrant the grant of an exception by the community development director. 3. The director or planning commission may add other requirements or conditions deemed necessary or appropriate. 4. The community development department shall supply the police department with copies of all easement or covenants. 4 Subject:RE: East Cherry From: Otis Page Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:13 PM To: Barbara Harmon; Debbie Malicoat; Geoff English; Jim Guthrie; Jim Hill; Kristen Barneich; Tim Brown Subject: East Cherry For your information. Background on Easy Cherry. Watch the hearing today. The project should be divided into three parts and considered separately. This change should happen now before the continued hearing on the 20th! The Japanese portion should be approved immediately, with provisos for future changes in the road when and if the housing section (#2) is approved. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. 1 To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande Date: May 23, 2005 Subject: The General Plan Agricultural Policy of Arroyo Grande. Reference: Arroyo Grande City Council minutes of October 9, 2001; December 10, 2002; January 14, 2003; July 22, 2003; March 23, 2004; General Plan policy on Ag; email to Miclish on March 24, 2004 The City Council meeting of October 9, 2001recordsthe disagreement of Jim Dickens and Tony Ferrara with Mayor Lady, Tom Runels and Sandy Lubin on the Ag policy.The disagreement focused on the conversion of the Vanderveen, Japanese, and Dorfman propertiesto residential.Jim Dickens opposed both conversions to preserve Ag. Ferrara was in favor of the principle of preserving Ag but made a political compromise to support mixed use on the Japanese and Dorfman properties. Subsequently,Ferrara and Dickens ran for Council on the Ag issue.Ferrara ran for mayor opposing Sandy Lubin. Ferrara made Ag aprominentissue in his campaign, They specifically criticizedLady, Lubin and Runelseven though he politically compromised his principle to support AG by approving the Dorfman conversion. After winning the election in November 2001 on the Ag issue, Ferrara and Dickens instituted actions to change the Ag policyin the meetings of December 10, 2002 and January 14, 2003 with the intentto reverse the Vanderveen, Japanese, and Dorfman decisions by the prior Council. Theyuseda compellingargument to preserve Prime Ag Soil landseven though both the Vanderveen and the Japanese lots are not farmed and the fact that Vanderveen does not have water to allow Ag use. The issue of the 20+ acre areadesignated 7E (now the Creekside Estates development) was ignored by the prior and present Councilsin terms of it possessing Prime AG Soils and Open Space.No discussion occurred about the agricultural attributes of area 7E. It was defined to bea “transitional area” to be developed despite its “open space” and “prime Ag soils”. Itis contiguous to the Dixon Ranch and the Lopez stream.The prior Council had designated that the area required a “neighborhood plan”if it was to be developed. It is significant that in the Council meeting of March 23, 2004 the Council approved the new Ag policy – but in the same meeting considered the Creekside Estates plan to use property with Prime Ag soils for the development. This is an obvious contradiction. It appears the solemn principle in preserving Agpropertieswith prime ag soils and open space was being thrown on the alter of commercial residential development by thenew Council –except for agricultural advocate Jim Dickens because he had to remove himself from the matter since his Dixson ranch abuts the Creekside Estates property. This has nowled to a review of the Ag policyin 2005because of the Planning Commissions review of the Creekside Estates plan and the obvious issue of the use of Prime Age Open Space for the development.Council member Jim Guthrie has asked that the question come before the Council before it is decided by the Planning Commission after abrilliant analysis of the situation by Commissioner Nancy Parker. 1 Thisimportant question is now at issuebecause of the Creekside Estates proposal. Is the City serious in protecting lands with Prime Ag soils, or was this only a tactic to reverse Vanderveen, Japanese, and Dorfman? Further, how much of the issue was compromised by the fact that 1) the Director of Community Development, Rob Strong, is in conflict on the issue, 2) thatCouncilman Dickens is in conflict, and 3) that Mayor Tony Ferrara may be favorably disposed toward the Creekside Estates proposal because of his working friendship with Fred Bauer, who at the time, was working for the principals of the Creekside Estates project? The following record is fairly complete, and it speaks for itself. It was compiled from the City’s record on its website. I. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 Dickens said, “he found it ironic that four of the Council Members ran on a ticket in regard to protection of prime ag land and yet a majority of the Council is willing to undo an ag mitigation 25-years old that has stood the test of time. He requested the Council to address what the benefit to the public would be for this particular decision.” Mayor Lady responded “he did not feel an obligation to answer his question because he does not answer to another Council Member, he answers to the citizens of Arroyo Grande. He concluded by stating he stood by his decision.” Council Member Dickens “asked City Attorney Carmel if the decision to rezone the Vanderveen property is approved by Council majority, does the public have any recourse to amend this decision.” City Attorney Carmel responded yes, explainingthat “the other two ways are the powers reserved to the people under the California and Federal Constitutions, the referendum and initiative processes.” Council Member Dickens asked, “if the public chose to do a Referendum, would they need to look at the specific issue or would they have to look at the General Plan in its totality.” City Attorney Carmel responded “because it sits within a General Plan that is going to be adopted .he would speculate that they would be required to refer the entire document.” \[It is to be noted that a referendum and lawsuit resulted from this inquiry by Dickens. He therefore encouraged an action led by Ella Honeycut and Bill McCann to seek a referendum resulting in a law suit against the City on this issue. They eventually lost the issue in Court.\] Council Member Dickens referred to the Ag Element, Objective Ag1 where it says “Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate loss of prime soils He asked the Council to look again at the wording and eliminate the word “minimize” to avoid any loss of prime ag land. He he could not move forward and properly represent the people who elected himwithout those two changes.” Council Member Lubin “addressed the comment regarding four of the Council Members who were voted in based on a ‘preserve Ag’basis.” He explained “he believed that he was 2 protecting prime agriculture.”He then referred to LandUse Area 7E and said “in his discussions with several of the property owners, it appeared that the majority of the land would not be redeveloped and it would stay as it is today and stated he believed that it is infill and that it should be residential .and it should be changed to residential if there was not a majority to do that, then he would support the Mixed Use concept.” Council Member Runels “then referred to Land Use Area 7E and stated he had held discussions with individuals in the area about how to get hooked up to City services and receive street improvements. He supported the existing designation.” Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated with regard to the E. Cherry property and an overview of past discussions with Mr. Dorfman regarding the property, he stated he believed that a compromise was reached with the Mixed Use classification of the property. He emphasized ‘our rural character and our agriculture are the heart and soul of this community’ and stated that it has been this way for a long time. He said he would actually like to see it remain in agriculture, but that was the reality of compromise.” Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Land Use Area 7E and stated “he would like to see a lower density in that particular area and that it be consistent He believed there was a lot of validity to the notion that it is a transitional area, it abuts an ag conservancy, and he was led to believe that the majority of land owners out there do not want Medium Density, they would rather maintain the lower density. He said he would support a lower density.” Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the Vanderveen property said “there has been a lot of discussion about the precedent setting effect of this particular decision.”He said “he recalled this issue coming up along with several proposals for the development of small ag parcels.”He recalled former Council Member Tolley said “something to the effect that after reviewing the surveys, chairing the Long Range Planning Committee and being as involved, there is no way that he was voting to convert prime ag.” He stated that “he did not concur nor does he give his consensus to the rezoning of the Vanderveen property.” Mayor Pro Tem said “the last issue he wanted to raise is similar to the wordingsuggested by Council Member Dickens of Ag1. He said he believed if you look at the way Ag1 now reads, it has been changed from ‘No net loss of primefarmland soils ’ to ‘Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils ’ and he did not support that.”He said he could accept “Avoid and mitigate loss of prime farmlands ”, but not “minimize”. He stated as long as that wording stays in place, he could not stand in favor of Ag1. In conclusion, Mayor Lady stated “he was hoping for complete Council approval of the document.” Council Member Lubin moved “to adopt a Resolution adopting the 2001 General Plan Update including Land Use; Agriculture and Open Space/Conservationand on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Lady NOES: Dickens, Ferrara There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 3 II. MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2002 11.a. Consideration of Interim Urgency Ordinance or Standard OrdinanceSuspending Development Applications For Development of Any PrimeFarmland Soils. Director of Community Development Strong presented the staff report andrecommended the Council consider the following alternative methods to preventpossible “Prime Agricultural Land Conversion”: 1) Adopt an Interim UrgencyOrdinance and direct staff to immediately prepare a study considering all ramifications of allowing development of prime farmland soils; or 2) Introduce anOrdinance suspending development applications for development of any prime farmland soils for a 180 day period and direct staff to prepare a study considering all ramifications of allowing the development of prime farmland soils. Followingpublic comments, Mayor Ferrara “brought the item back to Council for discussion and consideration.Council discussion, questions and comments ensued regarding whether the policieswithin the Agricultural, Open Space & Conservation Element of the General Planneeded to be reviewed further.” Council Member Dickens moved to adopt an interim urgency ordinance and directstaff to immediately prepare a study considering all ramifications of allowing development of prime farmland soils. Council Member Costello seconded the motion,and on the following roll- call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion failed. (Note: an urgency ordinance requires a 4/5 affirmative vote to pass). Council Member Dickens moved to introduce an ordinance suspending development applications for development of any prime farmland soils for a 180-day period anddirect staff to prepare a study considering all ramifications of allowing thedevelopment of prime farmland soils. Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. III. MEETING JANUARY 14, 2003 10.b. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Suspending DevelopmentApplications for Development of Prime FarmlandSoils. 4 Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report andrecommended the Council adopt an Ordinance introduced on December 10, 2002 totemporarily suspend processing of development applications involving conversion ofprime farmland soils for a 180 day period during which time staff will prepare specialplanning and impact studies. After public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public commentperiod and brought the item back to Council for consideration. Council Member Costello “referred to the introduction of the General Plan document where he found a number of places that the issue of prime agricultural land isdiscussed and mentioned. He referred to page 5, Visions Workshop, where it statesthat the participants at the workshop were in general agreement regardingpreservation of agricultural lands; referred to page 6, Alternatives Workshop, where itstates that there is substantial public concurrence for the preservation of existingagricultural lands and alternatives that suggestedconversion had very little support;referred to page 6, General Plan Update Citizens Survey, where it states that about1,020 surveys were completed and returned with results that reiterated thecommunity’s desire to preserve agricultural uses; referred to page 12, Citizen’s Conservation Ethics, where it states that given the fertility of its soils and historicalassociation with agricultural activities in the Central Coast area, a responsibility for protection of its remaining prime agricultural land and the community’s agrarian character, is important. He stated that these different factors underscore his beliefthat the majority of the people in this community want to preserve agricultural land.” “He referred to Policy AG1 in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element which was changed prior to adoption of this General Plan Element. He supported the adoption of the ordinance which places a moratorium on the acceptance of land use applications which seek to develop parcels containing prime farmland soils in order tostudy the current and immediate threat of such developments to the public heath, safety, and welfare, for a period of 180 days.” “Mayor Pro Tem Dickens responded to public comments and then suggested thatareas of study over the next 180 days include an approach for rating the relative quality in land resources based upon specific measurable features; a methodology toensure that significant defects on the environment of agricultural conversions arequantitatively and consistently considered; and a means of weighing specific factorsand scoring thresholds for making determinations of significance under the CEQAprocess. He supported the proposed ordinance.” Council Member Runels stated this was a broad subject and there was a differenceof opinion among various experts and people who work the land on what prime landis. He spoke of requiring certain soil types for certain crops, water availability issues,property owner rights, and economic viability. He spoke of the developments outsideof the city limits which have helped to pay for the water and sewer services and theinfrastructure. He stated that each parcel of land needed to be judged on its ownmerits. He did not support the proposed ordinance. Council Member Lubin commented “that he did not think there was anyone in Arroyo Grande who was not prepared to protect prime agricultural land, including himself.” He stated “he felt that this ordinance was not being placed to protect prime agricultural land throughout the City, but wasfocused on one project in the City. He stated thatthe 5 General Plan, as approved, protects prime agricultural land throughout the City and the moratorium would not be necessary.” “Mayor Ferrara acknowledged and explained why he brought this issue forward. He acknowledged past actions and stated that his concern was for the future. He saidland use and planning is crucial for the future. He suggested focus and emphasis forthe study should be to provide for equitable alternatives to conversion of primefarmland soils using resources such as the Williamson Act and conservation districts;a reconciliation between smart growth principles and how they relate to theagriculture and urban interface; and suggested obtaining published documentsavailable from the League of California Cities regarding how to responsibly go about the process of preserving agriculture. He commented that prime agriculture parcelsshould not be considered on a case-by-case basis and that it should be decidedresponsibly from a land use position what parts of the City are going to be urbanizedand what parts of the City are going to be preserved. He concluded by referring to the 2001 General Plan Update process and said it was important to seek out documentation and understand at what point the Agriculture Element wording andzoning changed in certain areas. He said it happened at the end of the process, rightbefore the General Plan was adopted. He stated that these issues were brought forward without supporting studies and there was no focus on the impact of the conversion of agricultural parcels. He supported adoption of the proposed ordinanceto enable time to study and consider this important issue.” Following Council comments, Mayor Pro Tem Dickens moved to adopt an Ordinance suspending development applications for development of any prime farmland soils. Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. IV. MEETING OF JULY 22, 2003 9.a. Consideration of a Resolution Initiating an Amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map to Redesignate Certain Property to Agriculture and to ModifyCertain Policies of the Land Use Element and the Agricultural Open Space and Conservation Element; to Establish Agricultural ConservationEasement and Support Programs; and to Initiate an Amendment of Title 16 of the Municipal Code to Modify Allowable Uses, and Development Standards, Mitigation Measures Buffer Overlay District Text and Mapping, and Implementing Recommendations from the Report on the Conservationof Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande . Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report, and stated the Planning Commission recommended the Council adopt a Resolution to initiate an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate certain property to agriculture and to modify certain policies of the land use element; to establish agricultural conservation easement and support programs; and to initiate an amendment of Title 16 of the Municipal Code to modify allowable uses, and development standards, mitigation measures and buffer overlay district text and mapping and to implement the policies, 6 programs and proposed provisions discussed in the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande (Agricultural Report). After public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Costello stated he had reviewed the Agricultural Report andcommented that its purpose was to evaluate the cumulative impacts and alternatives toagricultural conversion and propose additional alternative agricultural preservation strategies. He acknowledgedthe methods identified in the Report which include buffers,mitigation ordinances and policies, transfer development credits, purchase of agriculturalconservation easements, forming a local Land Trust chapter, the Williamson Act, andsupported the recommendations in the study which look at alternatives to assist the Cityin preserving its agricultural land. He supported the Planning Commissionrecommendations and adoption of the proposed Resolution. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens stated his philosophy was to promote soil conservation. He referred to resources that are best suited for agricultural production and spoke of various soil classifications. He spoke of the importance of protecting Class I and Class II soils stating this is a resource that is irreplaceable. He suggested that there was a need tobetter define and clarify the process so that the Planning Commission and City Councilhas the tools to make objective decisions about future requests. He stated there were 30agricultural zoned parcels in the City that are 5 acres or less and that he believed thereis agricultural value and commercially viable use for smaller parcels. He encouraged theuse of buffers to allow the farmers to continue their farming operations. He stated thatthe Planning Commission recommendations expand on the policies already in place inthe General Plan. He concluded by stating his support for adoption of the proposed Resolution. Mayor Ferrara referred to page 4 of the Report which refers to two smaller isolated agricultural use properties surrounded by urban development and requested clarification with regard to how the approval of the proposed Resolution would affect theseproperties. Director Strong replied that the Council would not be implementing any ofthe Planning Commission recommendations for rezoning this evening; the recommendation was to initiate the General Plan Amendment process. Mayor Ferrara acknowledged correspondence received prior to the meeting from Leroy, Lorene, and Adam Saruwatari and read excerpts from thatletter (on file in the Administrative Services Department). He then responded to public comments regardingthe State housing mandate; he supported smart-growth principles which include lookingat small parcels that are considered to be in-fill in the City’s urban core and looking atways to meet the City’s housing demands; and he clarified that during the General PlanUpdate process, the Council had decided it would not convert the City’s small fringeagriculture parcels. He referred to and read excerpts from a letter written by formerCommunity Development Director McCants to the County Board of Supervisors just priorto the adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update, reflecting the City’s land use policyand the City’s strong opposition and concern regarding a County General Plan Amendment application rezoning a County property from Agriculture to Residential Rural. Mayor Ferrara concluded by supporting the Planning Commissionrecommendations and adoption of the proposed Resolution. 7 Mayor Pro Tem Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution to initiate an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate certain property to agriculture and to modify certain policies of the land use element; to establish agricultural conservation easementand support programs; and to initiate an amendment of Title 16 of the Municipal Code to modify allowable uses, and development standards, mitigation measures and buffer overlay district text and mapping and to implement the policies, programs and proposedprovisions discussed in the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande (Agricultural Report). Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: V. MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 9. PUBLIC HEARING: 9.a. Consideration of General Plan Amendment Case 03-003 (Agricultural Resources) Contract Planner McClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council approve the Negative Declaration and adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 03-003 amending the Agricultural, Conservation and Open Space Element to revise language in Objective Ag1 relating to conversion of prime agriculture land; Policy Ag3-11 relating to farm worker housing; and policies and implementation measures for Ag1-3, Ag3-5, and Ag3-6 for language relating to agricultural conservation easement programs. Assistant Planner Bergman gave an overview of the agricultural enterprise programs. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding farm worker housing. Mayor Ferrara openedthe public hearing. After public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Costello supported the recommendation to remove the word “minimize” from Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Objective Ag1; supported the proposed Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs; and supported the proposed language amendments relating to farm worker housing. Council Member Dickens supported the elimination of the word “minimize” from Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Objective Ag1; supported the development of an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; supported modifying the language for farm worker housing to be consistent with the Housing Element; and supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs. Mayor Ferrara supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs; supported the proposed revision of Objective Ag1 to remove the word “minimize”; expressed concerns regarding the provisions for farm worker housing and stated that this issue needed to be more clearly defined; and supported the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program. Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-003 TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURAL, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT REVISING OBJECTIVE AG1 RELATING TO CONVERSION OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND; POLICY AG3-11 RELATING TO 8 FARMWORKER HOUSING; AND POLICIESAND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES FOR AG1-3, AG3-5, AND AG3-6 RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS”. Council Member Costello seconded the motion. City Attorney Carmel asked for clarification whether the motion included the approval of theNegative Declaration. Council Member Dickens said yes and amended his motion to adopt the Resolution, as amended, to include the approval of the Negative Declaration. Council Member Costello seconded, and on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application Review Case No. 04-004; Proposed Residential Subdivision and Neighborhood Plan; East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street; Applicant – Damien Mavis, Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLCCouncil Member Dickens declared an indirect conflict of interest due to his beneficial interest in real property located near the proposed project and stepped down from the dais. Community Development Director Strong declared a conflict of interest due to an option to purchase a portion of the property that is the subject of this proposal and stated he had not and would not be participating in the processing of this application. He stepped down from the staff table. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council review the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant. Mayor Ferrara invited the applicant to the podium to address the Council. Fred Bauer, Arroyo Grande, gave an overview of how the project started, discussed ideas for smart growth, explained the efforts made to involve the neighborhood to obtain feedback on proposed development of the property. Mayor Ferrara invited other members of the public to comment. Carol Hoffmeyer, representing the Dixson Family Trust, read a letter into the record which requested the Council consider increased buffer distances, increased depth of landscaping; an 8-foot high block wall and a “no-climb” wood fence on the property line; cooperative improvement of the existing 15-foot private driveway; ensuring that prospective property owners are informed of the Right-to-Farm ordinance; investigating the potential for a detention, retention, and/or recharge basin within the proposed project; and ensuring that the drainage deficiencies are resolved. Otis Page, stated that he has no objections to development; however, he had a problem with developing prime agriculture land. 9 Jim Guthrie, Arroyo Grande, requested feedback from the Council on the concept of clustering. He also asked how the required agriculture buffer distance would be analyzed and determined. Bill McCann, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerned regarding the buffer zone and stated he was not sure that 100 feet would be enough. He proposed a minimum 150 foot buffer. He also expressed concerns about drainage. Wayne King encouraged the Council to review the comments made regarding the Vanderveen project. Leroy Saruwatari, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerns about the buffer zone and stated that the County imposes 300 feet. He stated that there should be a minimum 150-foot buffer. He also said that the City’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance should be disclosed to potential property owners. Ella Honeycutt, Arroyo Grande, stated that buffer zones are there to make good neighbors and urged the Council to ensure that the buffer zone is adequate to protect the homes and the farmers. Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Costello commented that there would be a need to carefully review the buffer zone requirement; and stated that the concerns in the Dixson letter were valid. Mayor Pro Tem Lubin commented that public comments about the parcel being prime agriculture land needed to be addressed. Mayor Ferrara stated the need for an adequate size buffer zone; addressed the density issue and the need for affordable housing; and favored inclusionary housing in the project. He agreed that the design and placement of any two-story homes needed to be considered to accommodate neighborhood privacy. He liked the idea of a bridge but expressed the need to get feedback from Lucia Mar School District; expressed concern regarding pedestrian traffic, however, the benefits of a bridge may outweigh other problems. He favored the development of a pocket park to be maintained by a homeowners association. Mayor Ferrara commented that buffer zones need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis; and there is a need to look at unique site factors to determine adequate buffer size. He requested additional review of the concept drawings submitted by the Dixson Ranch. He commented that the buffer zone requirement may set a precedent for future development. Upon conclusion ofCouncil comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project. There was no action taken on this item. Council Member Dickens returned to the dais. V. The following are selected provisions of the GENERAL PLAN,AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION and OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Principals: 10 That resources such as prime capability soils are highly productive whether for agriculturalpurposes, watershed or natural habitat. Resources that are irretrievable and/or irreplaceable need to be protected and preserved. Individuals and the community have a responsibility to future generations as well as to wildlife to preserve and protect finite natural resources. Resources lands contribute to overall public health, safety and welfare beyond provision of basic necessities such as food, fiber and livelihood. Land Use and urban development shall be managed and limited to that which can be sustained by the available resources and serviced by the circulation and other infrastructuresystems. AGRICULTURE OBJECTIVES and POLICIES: Ag1 Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve nonprime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Ag1-1 Designate prime farmlandsoils that are not predominately committed to non- Agricultural development as Agriculture (Ag) and/or Agriculture Preserve (AgP),whether or not in current agricultural productive use. Ag1-1.1 Prime Farmland Soils shall include all land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification whetheror not the land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. (Thisdefinition is derived from the Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as reorganized and amended in 2000. Section 56064(a)). Prime farmland soils shallalso include farmland of Statewide importance as identified in the USDA, NaturalResources Conservation Services, outlined in the Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, September 1984. AgC/OS – 2 Ag1-3 Support existing programs and develop strategies to retain areas of prime farmland soils in agricultural use and other conservation/Open Space (C/OS) areas in anatural, undeveloped state. The City’s objective shall be to maintain 100% of the conservation/Open Spacedesignation under interim or permanent open space or conservationeasements. Ag1-4 Establish and apply a significance criterion (threshold of significance) for CEQA analysis, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, that considers loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. 11 Ag1-4.1 Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for agricultural use. Loss may occur through natural causes or development such as coverage (e.g., paving, construction of buildings, etc.), orconversion to urban/suburban use (including residential yards/gardens and recreational areas). Cessation of agricultural use shall not constituteloss so long as the parcel remains fallow or is allowed to revert to anatural undeveloped state. Site improvements that are intended to support agricultural operations - such as grading, irrigation or drainage facilities, unpaved roads, or farm buildings and structures -- shall not constitute loss so long as the improvements do not substantially diminishthe capability of agricultural operations on the parcel or within the areaand the improvements are directly related to agricultural production onthe site. Ag1-4.2 Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils mayinclude permanent protection of prime farmland soils ata ratio of 1:1with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability foragricultural use. Permanent protection may involve, but is not limited to,dedication of a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement or othereffective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shallAgC/OS – 3 not be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of locationshall be determined by the City Council. The aim shall be to protect andpreserve prime farmland soils primarily within and contiguous to Cityboundaries, secondly within the Urban Land Use Element area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley within the Area of Environmental Concern. Other potential mitigationmeasures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include paymentof in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council. Ag1-4.3 Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are geographically specific, the only means for mitigation to less than significant is preservation. The City’s aim shall be to maintain contiguity of Ag andC/OS parcels and avoid fragmentation of areas having prime farmland soils. The City shall avoid development of prime farmland soil areas by directing growth potential to more suitable urban locations. Only afterthe imposition of available mitigation and consideration of alternatives to avoid the proposed action, may the City Council approve development onprime farmland soils subject to overriding considerations as permitted byCalifornia Government Code Section 15093. VI. The following is a selection from an email dated May 22, 2003 to: Teresa McClish tmcclish@arroyogrande.org Subject: City Council meeting of June 22, 2003 MARCH 24, 2004 Regarding last night’s meeting (City Council meeting of March 23). For me, the meeting’s two major agenda items juxtaposed a great irony: 1) the pre application review of the Creekside project on the Stillwell, Vanderveer and Peters’ “prime ag soil” and “open space” properties, 12 2) juxtaposed with the approval of the controversial new Agricultural Element of the General Plan that is supposed to discourage such development. Specifically, the irony of the proposed residential Creekside development expresses something different from and opposite to the literal meaning and intention of the new Arroyo Grande City policy as it pertains to the preservation of “open space” and agricultural land possessing “prime ag soils”. The Creekside proposal poses a deliberate and marked contrast between the apparent and intended meaning of the City’s new Ag policy and what would be implemented in the Creeside’s “Prime Ag Lands”. This suggest an incongruity between what should be expected from the newAg policy and what is actually occurring in the pre application approval in the proposed Creekside development as reviewed in the Planning Commission meeting of March 16 and the City Council meeting of March 23, 2004. The irony borders on being a fundamental hypocrisy when considering the fact that stout agricultural promoters and defenders, Bill McCann and Ella Honeycut, were in the audience and were silent on the matter. It is ironic considering the recusal of two major principals that have key interests in the matter: Rob Strong, the City’s respected Director of Community Development, whose Department administers both the new Ag policy and the legal process of approving the Creekside development, and Jim Dickens, the Council member who was the key proponent and architect of the City’s new Ag policy, and who represents the Dixon Trust that owns the farmland adjacent to the Creekside development area. Rob Strong proposes to buy the Vanderveer residence minus the acreage that could be used for development. Jim Dickens did not recuse himself when the 100 foot buffer was approved but is doing so now (?). It is ironic considering the fact that a major discussion and concern exists on the size of the “agricultural buffer” (100 to 150 feet) that separates the Dixon farm and the proposed Creekside development. The buffer intends to protect both parties, the Creekside residents and the farm, from each other, while the issue of the protection of the Stillwell, Vanderveer and Peters prime soil ag land was dismissed, except as acknowledged by Sandy Lubin in his comments that the Ag issue must be addressed. The background on the matter involves the campaign of Mayor Tony Ferrara. He alleged in his campaign that past Mayor Mike Lady,and present Council membersSandy Lubin and Tom Runels betrayed their constituents on the Agricultural matter by approving the conversion of the actively farmed Dorfman property and Vandeveen property, that is not farmed and has no water. Ferrara actually concurred to the conversion of Dorfman property. He has subsequently rationalized this decision as a “political compromise” because of the obvious contradiction of accusing the Lady, Lubin and Runels of a “betrayal” that he in fact agreed to. 13 A summary of theissue at hand:All that Ag and no place to farm! The City Of Arroyo Grande’sGeneral Plan was approved on a3/2 vote at the Council meeting of October 9, 2001. Mike Lady was mayor. Present mayor Tony Ferrara and Council member Jim Dickensdid not concur with the Ag part of the plan.Theydisagreed with theAg policy and the conversion of the Vanderveen, Japanese, and Dorfman properties. In2002, Ferrara and Dickens ran for Council on the Ag issue. They both criticized retiring mayor Mike Lady, mayoral candidate Sandy Lubin and Council member Tom Runels for being against Ag because of their decisions. Immediately upon attaining office, Ferrara and Dickens proceeded to change the Ag policyand reverse the conversionsin meetings on December 10, 2002 and January 14, 2003. This was finalized on March 23, 2004. Surprisingly,in the same meetingthat finalized the Ag plan on March 23, 2004,the Council consideredthe Creekside Estates plan. It proposes touse landsthat has prime Ag soils and is open space?Observers asked how couldtheCitypretend to preserve Ag while appearing to concur in the developmentof propertythat clearly has Prime Ag Soils and is Open Space?It appears the solemn principle in preserving Ag properties with prime ag soils and open space was being thrown on the alter of commercial residential development by the new Council. Council member Jim Guthrie has asked that the question come before the Council before it is decided by the Planning Commission after a brilliant analysis of the situation by Commissioner Nancy Parker. Director of Community Development, Rob Strong, and Dickens have removedthemselves from the matter because they have conflicts.But are they correct in removing themselves when the issue involves a critical policy on Ag they helped develop? And,what aboutmayor Ferrara? Where does principle give in to political compromise? He abandonedthe principleof defending AG and gave in to political compromise by approving the Japanese/Dorfman conversion! Willhe politicallycompromise himselfnow on the Creekside Estatesmatterconsideringhis relationship with proponents of the project?Will he defend the Ag policy? If he doesn’t, how will Ferrara explain this consideringhe strongly criticized his predecessor mayor Mike Lady and mayoral candidate Sandy Lubin on the Ag issue? It behooves citizens to understand the Creekside Estates matter. Does the City of Arroyo Grande really wish to preserve Prime Ag Soils and Open Space, or is this just another matter subject to political compromise? Otis Page Myrtle St Arroyo Grande 14 Subject:RE: East Cherry Avenue Project From: Deborah Love Date: September 9, 2016 at 9:52:27 PM PDT To: <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org> Subject:East Cherry Avenue Project Dear Council Member Barneich, I have recently become aware of the extent of the East Cherry Avenue project. While I was aware that the lot was to be developed, it is the details of the project that I, and many others, find of great concern. 1. I was disappointed to hear that it is the corporation of La Quinta Inn building the hotel. It is sure to have a strip mall motel feel to it. La Quinta’s representative stated that their facilities in other locations in the county are top performers, but is that because they are lower cost? Lower priced hotel/motels tend to deteriorate much faster due to cheaper building practices and the clientele they attract. Hotels of that type attract the person traveling through, not a tourist that will spend money in our city. Will AG just be getting the people that cannot afford the luxury Pismo hotels? A small boutique hotel, 50 rooms or less, would be much less objectionable. 2. Much has been made of this project favorably impacting local businesses such as Miner's Hardware, but these corporate and large scale developments do not buy building supplies locally. Providing more jobs? Again, chain restaurants and motels do not pay enough for a person to be able to afford to live in Arroyo Grande. 3. I would like to see the Japanese Welfare Association project be separated from the other two, or is it there purposely to garner favor, because it is certain to be a well-liked addition to the community? 4. At 4000sf it seems most likely that the restaurant will be a chain restaurant. Why do the East Cherry Avenue neighbors not deserve the same consideration as "The Village" per a ban on chain businesses? 5. Is a strip mall type chain motel and restaurant really a pleasing gateway to our City? Not in any nice town I have visited anywhere in this country. 6. If a Specific Plan is designed to be flexible, does this leave room for the developers or builders to NOT follow plans submitted, and trade out elements as building progresses? Is that not what happened with the retail/office complex at the west end of Old Arroyo? Once it was complete and people started complaining that it did not fit in with the rest of the buildings on East Branch, weren’t they told that the developer/builder strayed from the plans that had been approved? How would that be kept from happening? Are there repercussions or consequences? Do any and all changes have to go back through the process or can one City staff person grant such changes? 7. A traffic lights at Fair Oaks/Traffic Way will do little to slow down traffic coming directly off the freeway. Having been involved in two minor rear-end accidents between Allen Street and the Mobil Station myself, both when I was stopped trying to make a turn, there must be many more. Cars exit the freeway at much too high a rate of speed. There is also much more traffic in that area than was stated in the East Cherry Specific Plan. More studies should take place, but at 8:00am and 3:00pm, as well as other times of day. 8. Inviting more traffic to use the Traffic Way on- and off-ramps will impact them to the point where modifications will need to be made, or they will have to be closed. They are not safe for increased traffic. Will the developers pay for freeway upgrades of both ramps? What will be the 1 impact of those ramps having to close in the future? 9. East Cherry Avenue is extremely busy, as I am well aware as my back yard is long that street. Not 60 se ones goes by, day or night, that a car does not go by. The new project, if allowed to go forward as proposed, will greatly and negatively impact the residents of East Cherry Avenue, and most likely affect their property values as well. How can that be mitigated over time? 10. I was not notified, nor was I invited to participate in any of the “neighborhood” discussion, and apparently there are at least a dozen others not notified.I asked the question about failure to post signage on Facebook a week before the Planning Commission meeting. Why did City staff not catch this sooner? 11. I would not object to a housing development built with the same density, lot size and diverse styles as Creekside Estates, provided that there were no two-story homes on East Cherry Street. 12. It was insulting to me, and others who have either removed lawns and put in ground cover, or those who were forced to let their lawns and gardens die under threat of oppressive water bills, to see the renderings Ms. Florence shared showing lush lawns and gardens. Any and all new developments should be required to install only drought tolerant landscaping, and no lawns. 13. The net gain of water does not make sense. First, it is based on only 2.4 residents per house. Will there be limitations in the size families allowed to purchase? Since that is unlikely, it seems as though the equation should not be used. Second, at the September 6 Planning Commission Ms. Florence mentioned a trade off if the current agricultural land, for agricultural land elsewhere in the City. If the trade is for land currently not being irrigated, it will be an increase in water use. If the trade is for land already being irrigated, it is just a wash. Either way,here us not net gain of water to the City. 14. Is has not mentioned whether it not the new development will be an HOA, or if the City will be encumbered by additional park and landscape management. 15. At what baseline will new residents be located for determine appropriate water usage. There are those Arroyo Grande residents who drastically cut their water usage before the lowered mandate, and now are being penalized because they cannot cut their water usage any lower. And yet, there is apparently water for new residents? 16. While there has been a mention of making gray water stubs required in this development, I understand that it was decided NOT to make them required of recent developments. 17. I was puzzled when the only person at the September 6 Planning Commission meeting that spoke in favor of the project was the Principal of Mission Prep High School. Until I was told that the children of one of the developers attends that school, in San Luis Obispo, and that they will be receiving a sizable donation from the project proceeds. What??? A private, religion-based school in another town benefits from a project within the Lucia Mar Unified School District? How is that a partnership that should matter in the making of this decision? 18. Had I been a member of the Planning Commission I would have felt patronized and insulted when Ms. Florence continued to laud her clients for going above and beyond, as if we were not aware that those were things that would have had to be done anyway as more public hearing continued to take place? 19. Realizing that although this project may have been "in the pipeline" for a number of years, this drought becomes more severe every year. As such, constant review of environmental, weather and economic situation must be allowed to influence this and all projects, regardless of how long they may have been in planning. Thank you again for being a City Council and Planning Commission that not only reads input from residents, but also responds, for the most part. After my last communication to the Council, I heard back immediately from Mayor Hill, Council Member Barneich and Council Member Brown. It was greatly appreciated. With hope that the decisions that must be made will be done so taking into account not just the 2 request of developers, but also of residents, Sincerely, Deborah Love Grove Ct. Deborah Love "If I had but two loaves of bread I would sell one of them & buy white hyacinths to feed my soul." - Elbert Hubbard The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. 3 Subject:RE: thoughts on the East Cherry Ave Project From: Jacki Nisbett Date: September 10, 2016 at 9:08:12 PM PDT To: "kbarneich@arroyogrande.org" <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org> Subject:thoughts on the East Cherry Ave Project Reply-To: Jacki Nisbett Jaclynn A Nisbett Trinity Avenue Arroyo Grande Councilwoman Barneich: I am a resident at 200 Trinity Ave off Traffic Way Ext. We are unable to attend the City Council Meeting of the 13th. On this south side, Traffic Way Ext, only is the ingress/egress for about 200 residents (including 2 churches). We exit TrafficWay Ext right at 50' the No. bound off ramp from the frwy. It is approx, to the property frontage that is the East Cherry Ave Project”. “ Since my husband, myself and our neighbors have only known about this project from the Tribune article, last May, we wonder why the city of Arroyo Grande did not hold an open forum at the very inception of this sending us a mailed notification? There is no signage on the property announcing this change. The implications of a project of such high density will be damaging. th After the planning committee meeting of Sept 6we have come to understand that the neighboring residents on the No. side of Cherry and St Barnabas Church, were the only ones notified & invited to the discussions. We the impacted neighborhoods NOT INDIVIDUALLY NOTIFIED, need time to look at this project more No one attending the planning meeting believes that the water usage from the prior Ag use is than what is projected for; the hotel, restaurant, landscaping, Japanese retirement home, cherry tree orchard, individual truck farms and the small bed & breakfast, will use. The dry creek bed running the length of the hill is the drainage for the Village South of the creek. The plan to just cover it up could leave the village with a flooding issue if and when we do get big rains. (ask anyone who has lived on Allen St for more than 15 yrs about flooding). I have seen that land flooded twice in the 25 years we have been here. The Road “A” primary collector street dead ends into the hill . This area (behind the trailer park) will leave open the possibility of future development and more strain on Traffic Way Ext. (especially devastating will be the further opening of this street to Latitia Winery) To develop that lower section of the hill will require heavy excavation with industrial jackhammers as our hill is ripe with huge schist’s of very hard rock. (when the last house on Trinity was built we experienced broken windows from the jackhammers) None of the necessary roadway infrastructure will be in place BEFORE completion of this proposal. How round-a bouts will be paid for, or how traffic coming off the frwy North bound on Traffic Wy will be managed, (when the main entrance to the hotel will be on Traffic way) was never mentioned! My last criticism is the lack of thought put into making this look like “it fits” with AG. It does not. As a 30 year Visual Arts Director, I can say with some wisdom & experience it does not. 2 story Japanese style Craftsman facade with a farm to table “tea Garden” small restaurant to coordinate with the Japanese assc.property, came to my mind but instead I saw mundane & boring “stock” elevations produced by the planner. This property had train tracks running through it and an ode to that part of history could have been tied in with a large locomotive water tower with our city's name. Instead of water guzzling lush landscapes they could have chosen Xeriscapes in the Japanese tradition. 1 I am asking for an extension so the entire city can be notified and have their say. No one wants to inhibit our city's growth but restraint is necessary at this dry time. This is what is good about Arroyo Grande, we are small enough to be committed to trying to hold on to our uniqueness. 2 Subject:RE: East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan From:Cindy&GeorgeHansen Date:September11,2016at6:50:34PMPDT To:<tmcclish@arroyogrande.org> Subject:EastCherryAvenueSpecificPlan 1.ȏ!³leastasmanyacresofprimeagriculturallandshallbeprotectedaswas changedtoanonagriculturalusewithincity«¨¬¨³²ȁȐ AppendixNWaterUsageCalculations 2.ȏ4®thegreatestextentpossible,theagriculturalmitigationlandshallbe comparableinsoilqualitywiththeagriculturallandwhoseuseisbeingchangedto nonagriculturaluse.ȏ Theagriculturalmitigationlandshallhaveanadequatewatersupplytosupport agriculturaluseandthewatersupplyontheagriculturalmitigationlandshallbeprotectedinthe agriculturalconservationeasement,thefarmlanddeedrestrictionorotherdocumentevidencingthe agriculturalmitigation. Appendix NWaterUsageCalculations 1