PC 2016-10-04_8a Cherry Specific Plan Project
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: JOHN RICKENBACH, CONSULTING PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15 -001;
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 15-001; SPECIFIC PLAN 15-
001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15-001; CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 15-004; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-001) AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION – EAST CHERRY
AVENUE AND TRAFFIC WAY; APPLICANTS – SRK HOTELS,
MANGANO HOMES, INC., AND ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY
JAPANESE WELFARE ASSOCIATION
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue deliberations on the
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project and adopt a Resolution recommending that the
City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve the project as
conditioned.
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission has taken public testimony on the project on September 6
and September 20, 2016, closing the public hearing at that time to begin deliberation
on the project. No action on the project was taken on September 20, 2016, but the
meeting was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for further
deliberation and recommendation to the City Council. The current hearing is a
continuation of the previous two Planning Commission meetings. Please refer to the
September 20, 2016 staff report for this project for additional details regarding the
project.
There were nineteen (19) public speakers who provided testimony on the proposed
project during the meeting of September 6, 2016. Key issues raised at that meeting
included traffic, water use, and the scale and character of the proposed
hotel/restaurant component.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
OCTOBER 4, 2016
PAGE 2
At the September 20, 2016 meeting, there seventeen (17) public speakers, many of
whom spoke on September 6, covering many of the same issues. Some members of
the Planning Commission had additional questions that expanded on these issues.
Attachment 1 includes the key issues raised by the public and Planning Commission,
framed as questions, with responses by staff and technical consultants, for the
Planning Commission’s further consideration.
The applicant’s representative also gave a brief presentation on September 20, and,
in response to public concerns raised at the September 6 meeting,stated that they
wished to modify their proposed project as follows:
Withdraw consideration of CUP 16-001, which would have accommodated
the hotel and restaurant in Subarea 1;
Modify the proposed Collector Road A to “knuckle” at its southerly
intersection with the proposed local road serving proposed residential
development. The Collector stubout south of that intersection would be
removed and instead landscaped;
The proposed 0.35-acre park would be expanded to be an 0.5-acre park, by
removing proposed residential Lot 41; and
The number of residential lots would be reduced from 58 to 57.
Under this modified proposal, the Specific Plan would retain the proposed
hotel/restaurant concept, but development would not be possible until the landowner
for that area comes forward with a new application for a Conditional Use Permit. At
that time, the proposed development concept would be evaluated for con sistency
with the Specific Plan and additional CEQA review may be required, as appropriate.
Documentation illustrating these proposed changes is included as Attachment 2.
The proposed modification has been reviewed and because it represents a near-term
reduction in potential development, the existing CEQA documentation is anticipated
to be adequate to act as the basis for this proposal, and the related CEQA Findings
and Mitigation Measures could be modified to address these changes, should the
Planning Commission choose to recommend this option for the City’s Council’s
consideration. It should be noted that because the long-term development potential
under the Specific Plan would not change, the essential conclusions regarding the
significance of impacts within the Final EIR would likely not be substantially modified.
Further analysis of the potential modifications to environmental impacts would be
included in the City Council staff report, if the modified proposal were recommended
by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
OCTOBER 4, 2016
PAGE 3
Based on items discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting, several
modifications to the previously distributed Resolution have been identified and are
included as Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Please refer to the September 20, 2016 staff report for this project for a detailed
analysis of the proposed actions.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives have been identified for the Planning Commission’s
consideration:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council take the
following actions with respect to project approval:
a. Certify the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report as well as
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
b. Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 15-001, amending
the General Plan land use map in order to facilitate approval of the East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan;
c. Adopt a Resolution and an Ordinance approving the East Cherry Avenue
Specific Plan;
d. Adopt an Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 15-001,
which modifies provisions of the Development Code in order to facilitate
development under the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan;
e. Adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15-001 as
conditioned for Subarea 2;
f. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 15-004 as
conditioned, allowing development on Subarea 3; and
g. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 16-001 as
conditioned, allowing development on Subarea 1.
2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council
defer consideration of Conditional Use Permit 16 -001, approve the remaining
components of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project, and certify the
associated Final Environmental Impact Report and related CEQA Findings;
3. Make other modifications and adopt the attached Resolution recommending
the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the East Cherry Avenue
Specific Plan Project;
4. Refer the Project back to staff for additional analysis;
5. Recommend denial by the City Council of one or more of the actions listed
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
OCTOBER 4, 2016
PAGE 4
above (1.a. through 1.g.). Recommendations of denial will be forwarded to
City Council for a final decision and must be substantiated with clear findings;
6. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The proposed project provides the community with single -family residential,
commercial and cultural infill development.
DISADVANTAGES:
The project will convert undeveloped agricultural land to residential and commercial
uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The September 20, 2016 public hearing was continued to a date certain of October 4,
2016. No additional public notice is required. The Agenda was posted at City Hall
and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.
Letters received just prior to and subsequently from the continued public hearing of
September 20, 2016 have been received to date are included as Attachment 4.
Attachments:
1. Responses to Key Questions Raised at September 20, 2016 Public Hearing
2. Applicant-Proposed Modification to Originally Proposed Project (originally
submitted to Planning Commission on September 20, 2016)
3. Potential modifications to the previously distributed Planning Commission
Resolution
4. Comment Letters
ATTACHMENT 1
Key Questions
E. Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Planning Commission 10-4-16
1. Is there enough water for the project? Why were water supply-related impacts
found to be less than significant in the EIR? Can development under the SP be
limited in the event there’s a citywide growth moratorium put in place because
of water supply concerns?
The Final EIR evaluates whether or not there is sufficient water supply for the
proposed project, based on the City’s existing water portfolio in the context of
buildout under the City’s General Plan and adopted 2012 Urban Water
Management Plan. As described in the EIR, there is sufficient water supply to
serve the City at General Plan buildout, based on the technical information and
assumptions in the Urban Water Management Plan. The methods of the EIR
analysis look at a water cycle using a 10-year historic average and not a snapshot
in time, such as the current drought. In summary, the City’s existing water
supplies derive from three sources: the Tri-Cities Mesa Groundwater Basin, the
Arroyo Grande Alluvial Basin (a separate groundwater basin), and Lopez
Reservoir. Collectively, the City’s water supply of 3,813 acre-feet per year (AFY)
is sufficient to serve the City and its future development at General Plan buildout,
estimated to be 2,934 AFY in 2035 (Final Draft 2015 Urban Water Management
Plan, June 2016). This figure presumes there would be 921 additional metered
water connections for single-family residential development compared to the
year 2015.
It should also be noted that per capita water use has steadily declined since 2004,
largely because of conservation efforts, from 200 gallons per person per day
(gpcd) in 2004 to 113 gpcd in 2015, a 45% reduction (Final Draft 2015 UWMP).
For planning purposes, the 2015 UWMP uses an average of 138 gcpd to calculate
projected use, which reflects the average use from 2013-15.
Actual citywide water use in 2015 was 2,106 AFY, a substantial reduction from
the 2,782 AFY used in 2010. With respect to single-family residential use, the
total citywide water use dropped during that period from 2,031 AFY to 1,517 AFY
(a 25% decrease), despite the fact there were 106 new metered residential
connections established during that time. These figures support the accuracy of
long-term water use projections included in the 2015 UWMP.
As described in the EIR, existing water demand on the project site from irrigated
agricultural uses is estimated at 41.3 AFY. Projected water demand from
development on all subareas would be 36.2 AFY, which would replace the
current irrigated agricultural water use. Thus, there would be a net decrease in
PAGE 2
overall water demand of an estimated 5.1 AFY. For that reason, the Final EIR
found that impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
Note that the pre-and post-construction water use calculations are based on the
assumption that JWA will use water from their onsite well for landscaping and
orchard irrigation. Also note that return flows from agricultural use are not
factored in to the demand projections, but at the same time, the project would
be capturing urban stormwater flows and putting these back into the ground .
The net effect of these assumptions would not materially change the conclusion
that projected water use would be less than existing water use.
The agricultural mitigation parcel on Flora Road has historically been in irrigated
agriculture use. The purpose of acquiring this property is to ensure that it
remains in agriculture in perpetuity. Its past irrigation and water use
characteristics would not change as a result of this mitigation measure, so this
does not represent a net increase in overall water use citywide.
In addition, the agricultural mitigation parcel is not included in the Tri-Cities
Mesa Groundwater Basin, so its past, present and future water use at that
location is not subject to adjudication limitations set forth for the City’s
Gentlemen’s Agreement with the cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach, or the
community of Oceano, which share water rights to that basin.
As noted in the Final EIR, the Governor of California declared a Drought State of
Emergency in April 2015. In the event that the City were to impose a growth
moratorium in response to the possibility of continued drought conditions, the
Specific Plan could include language that assures that such growth restrictions
could be applied to future development under the Specific Plan.
2. Will the roundabout concept as described in the traffic study be required as
mitigation for the project?
As described in Mitigation Measure TRANS-3b, proposed development would be
required to pay its fair share toward whatever improvements are needed to
ensure that the East Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street intersection operates at
acceptable levels of service. The traffic study for the project considered several
alternate designs to accomplish this, concluding that two roundabouts would
best achieve this goal from technical standpoint. Other design solutions may be
possible, and less expensive, though they may not achieve the same level of
benefit. As mitigation, the applicants will provide their fair share of funding for
whatever the most expensive potential solution might be, which in this case is
the two roundabouts. In this way, if another solution is ultimately implemented,
the applicants will have paid their fair share to cover the needed improvements.
PAGE 3
It is not known when the City would have sufficient funds to construct such
improvements, even with the applicants’ fair share. For that reason, the Final
EIR concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable, since the timing of
the improvements would be uncertain, and impacts would remain in the interim.
That said, the applicants would also be required as a project condition/mitigation
to add a lane to the roadway to provide interim relief.
3. Shouldn’t Caltrans be informed to help determine the potential project impacts
with respect to the freeway and associated on/offramps?
Caltrans was formally consulted throughout the EIR process. The Notice of
Preparation (NOP) was distributed to Caltrans for their input regarding the scope
of the EIR. The Draft EIR was also made available to Caltrans for their review of
the technical issues. In each case, Caltrans did not respond to these outreach
efforts. It should be noted that Caltrans is not a “Responsible Agency” under
CEQA, because it does not have permit authority over any aspect of the
proposed project. Nevertheless, the EIR traffic analysis and subsequent studies
used input from Caltrans documents and technical studies as appropriate in
drawing conclusions, particularly with regard to crafting mitigation measures
related potential improvements that may require coordination with Caltrans
(Mitigation Measure TRANS-3b).
4. Is the traffic study valid if it’s based on a limited number of traffic counts?
The traffic study was prepared based on accepted industry standards. These
standards address methodologies (including data collection), analysis approach,
and conclusions. Therefore, the traffic study is valid.
5. Isn’t the potential removal of the hotel from a possible project approval
“piecemealing” under CEQA?
Under CEQA, “piecemealing” refers to the concept of not considering all aspects
of a project in determining potential environmental impacts, which would
potentially underestimate the environmental effects of the action as a whole. In
this case, the Final EIR considers the effects of all aspects of possible future
development under the Specific Plan, including all uses in the three subareas in
question. The possible removal of the hotel component, if the project is
approved in that fashion, would not change the Final EIR analysis that considered
its potential effects, which are fully disclosed in that document. Therefore, no
“piecemealing” would occur within the CEQA document.
PAGE 4
6. How can the EIR find that potential impacts related to agriculture are less than
significant, and yet at the same time find there is a significant impact related to
compliance with the City’s policies with respect to this issue?
As described in the Final EIR (Section 3.2), Subarea 2 and 3 are each currently
zoned AG, and contain prime farmland soils. Thus, development of these areas
is subject to mitigation requirements per City General Plan Policy Ag1-4.2. This
mitigation requirement was addressed by the City Council in July 2015 for
Subarea 2, and in July 2016 for Subarea 3. As a result of the City Council actions,
no further mitigation per policy would be required for either area.
The Final EIR also considers, apart from City policy, whether an actual physical
impact to agricultural resources would occur, since City policy does not consider
the size, shape, location or viability of the parcel in de termining consistency with
that policy. Based on these physical considerations, Impact AG-1 within the Final
EIR determined that the overall impacts to agricultural resources of the entire
Specific Plan area would be less than significant, using the CEQA-sanctioned LESA
methodology, an approach used commonly by jurisdictions throughout the State
of California. The determination was made, in part, by the fact that the 15.29-
acre Specific Plan area is too small to be economically viable in the long-term,
and the fact it is generally surrounded by non-agricultural uses that would hinder
its viability.
7. Why are impacts related to public services, such as police protection, found to
be less than significant in the EIR?
Impacts to police and fire protection services are described in the Final EIR,
under Impact UT-5. As stated in that analysis, development of the proposed
project would incrementally increase demand for both non-emergency and
emergency fire protection and police protection services; however, the
respective service departments were consulted and they determined they have
adequate facilities and staffing levels to accommodate the increase in demand
associated with the project. The project site is located within safe and timely
response periods (less than 3-minute response time) for local fire and police
stations and the proposed Project is not predicted to impede fire and police
protection services to the site.
8. Where is guest parking provided in the housing project? Does the City’s
Development Code allow for on-street parking to count as guest parking?
Parking for each component of the development would be provided consistent
with City standards and regulations, as described in the proposed Specific Plan
and related Planning Commission staff report of September 20, 2016. Parking
for single-family residential subdivisions, as is proposed, is regulated by
PAGE 5
Development Code Section 16.56.060, which requires 2 spaces per unit within an
enclosed garage. There are no provisions for visitor (or guest) parking for
conventionally sized single-family lots under the Development Code. However,
Planned Unit Developments are required to include guest parking at .5
space/unit as such lots usually are not adjacent to a public street. Since the lots
as proposed all have street parking available adjacent to each residence as in a
conventional single family neighborhood, guest parking would be
accommodated on the street. The proposed project would provide 25 new on-
street parking spaces on an improved East Cherry Avenue, along with 52 new on-
street spaces on the local road that serves the subdivision. If the Commission
determines that due to the design of the subdivision, for example, the inclusion
of alley loaded lots without driveways, though adjacent to public streets should
require additional visitor parking, then a condition should be added requiring
additional parking. A potential condition for this case is as follows:
“Subarea 2 shall include an additional 12 visitor parking spaces to be located
adjacent to subarea 3 or subarea 1 in the vicinity of Lots 1-25”. This condition
may result in the loss of one (1) residential lot.
9. Will the proposed park be considered a public park? Who will maintain the
park?
The proposed park would be publicly accessible, but maintained by the
Homeowners Association to be established as part of the residential subdivision.
10. Will the proposed collector location included in Subarea 2 determine the
location of the potential extension of that road to the south?
Issues related to the design of the proposed Collector road are clearly described
in the September 20, 2016 Planning Commission staff report, and repeated i n
the following paragraphs.
Relative to proposed “Road A”’s status as a Collector, and its relationship to
potential future development to the south of the project site, it should be noted
that this is intended that the extension of the stubbed end of thi s roadway is not
currently planned, nor is included as part of the proposed project. Thus, to
analyze impacts of a possible future roadway to the south would be speculative.
However, the collector stub is considered part of the proposed project and
environmental effects associated with this roadway stub are included with
project impacts in the Final EIR (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.
PAGE 6
The collector stub and a possible future collector road on the hillside south of
the project site are not included in the existing 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 appropriately analyzed as part of
the Circulation Element update and associated CEQA documentation. Based on
that analysis, it will be determined whether or not such a roadway should be
extended at all, or if alternate approaches could be considered.
11. Are the homes that take access from proposed “Alley A” adequately designed
to allow emergency vehicle access or evacuation?
Both the Fire Department and Police Department reviewed the proposed plans
during the planning and CEQA process, and determined that the subdivision as
proposed would adequately address emergency vehicle access and evacuation
requirements.
12. Can a reduced project (e.g., one without a hotel/restaurant component and/or
fewer homes within the subdivision) be approved?
Yes, a reduced version of the proposed project could be potentially approved.
Because potential environmental impacts would be reduced compared to the
proposed project, the Final EIR has disclosed potential impacts as a worst-case
scenario. Staff would need to work with its consultant team to determine
whether certain prescribed mitigation measures would still be applicable, and
revise the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) accordingly.
PAGE 7
The required CEQA Findings may also be modified somewhat to address the
revised project, and these changes would need to be included in an updated
Resolution. Any such changes, however, could be transmitted to the City Council
as part of the staff report to them, indicating Planning Commission direction as
appropriate.
13. How can the residences be considered compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood when the average lot size is less than the Village Residential
minimum of 6,750 SF?
The current average lot size for Subarea 2 (based on the map presented on
September 20, 2016 with the proposed park expanded and removing Lot 41) is
5,811 SF. This is consistent with the direction for smaller lot sizes for the project
site given by the General Plan included in Land Use Element Policy LU5 -13, which
states:
LU5-13: The 14± acre area southeast of Traffic Way and E. Cherry Avenue
is designated as “Mixed Use, Planned Development” (MU-PD), including
residential, agriculture related, and commercial components. The
residential planned development component may include single-family
residential development with lot sizes of 5,500 square feet or more . The
agriculture related component may include organic farms, teaching farms,
or similar specialty uses (not involving pesticide applications). The
commercial component of the Mixed Use, Planned Development may
include agricultural services and/or farm supplies, nursery, or other uses
allowed or conditionally permitted in the Mixed Use d istrict fronting on
Traffic Way (emphasis added).
Further modification to the project would need to maintain consistency with the
direction of this Policy.
A question was raised at the September 20, 2016 meeting regarding if the
entirety of proposed Road A’s right-of-way could be entirely constructed on the
project site. This would necessitate the road to be moved slightly eastward and
would be possible, but would require Lot 40 to be reduced in size. As a worst-
case scenario, assuming it would be reduced to the same size as the smallest lot
in the proposed subdivision (4,331 SF), this would reduce the overall average
residential lot size to 5,778 SF. Because the proposed average residential lot size
within this area would exceed 5,500 SF, it would be considered consistent with
this General Plan policy.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: ~\ <;>) • ~ .. -0~\ ~. I Subarea 2-1 \\\ Infrastructure Only \;··/ \ \ / ' / "'/// :< ' \ '/ ·/ _,, -. "' 4 ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Potential Resolution Modifications
E. Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Planning Commission 10-4-16
1. Administrative edits throughout the Resolution to appropriately reflect date action is
taken.
2. Modify conditions on page 20 and page 46 – Modify “[Date]” to June 30.
3. Add a condition to Subarea 2 for greywater infrastructure, to read: “Residences shall
include infrastructure to allow for a dual water use system, with separate connections
for potable and non-potable water, with the latter intended for use on landscaping”.
4. Add a condition to Subarea 1 for final design review by the Architectural Review
Committee, to read: “Prior to application for building permits, final renderings, site
plans, and civil plans reflecting the proposed language of the Specific Plan shall be
submitted to the ARC for review and recommendation to the Community Development
Director”.
5. Modify Condition 141 on Page 37 & 38 to require road improvements prior to issuance
of a building permit.
6. Modify Conditions 152 and 153 on Page 66 to require traffic signal installation and road
improvements prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. Modify Condition 147 on Page 94 to require road improvements prior to issuance of a
building permit.
8. Add a condition of approval to Subarea 1 to require electric vehicle charging station s be
installed, to read: “Any future development shall include the installation of two (2)
electric vehicle charging facilities on Subarea 1, in locations determined by the
Community Development Director.
9. Add a condition of approval to Subarea 2 to require electric vehicle charging stations be
installed, to read: “Any future development shall include the installation of electric
vehicle charging facilities within residential garage in Subarea 2.
10. Add a condition of approval to Subarea 3 to require electric vehicle charging station be
installed, to read: “Any future development shall include the installation of one (1)
electric vehicle charging facility on Subarea 3, in a location determined by the
Community Development Director.
RECEIVED
SEP 1 2 2016
TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
NO on the project at Cherry & Traffic at its current requested size.
Water --major issue
Traffic--major issue
Fleeting tourists looking for the beach, not lots of antique stores
Downsize this project or better yet, wait for rain.
Very concerned voting citizen
Robby Gussman
Arroyo Grande
RECEIVED
SEP I 9 2016
CITY OF ARllOVO GRANDE
COMMU~MEN'I
\j~ f\\(~ +o ~ ~o~
ffi~ · ffia.L\Ol od-~
-9D~, \\J\~.
ATTACHMENT 4
9-1s-1t,
ARROYO GRANDE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION:
WE LIVE AT 502 LAUNA LANE AND HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 43 YEARS.
ADDITIONALLY OUR FAMILY HAS BEEN HERE FOR SEVEN GENERATIONS
AND CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO THIS AREA.
I AM VERY OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING
CONCERNS:
RECEIVED
SEP 19 2016
CITYOFARRO
NO WATER -SO PEOPLE ARE TEARING OUT THEIR YARDS BECAUSE YO GRANDE
THERE IS NO WATER. YOU WANT US TO CUT WATER USAGE AND THEN
THE CITY RAISES THE RATE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MAKING ENOUGH
MONEY AND THEN ISSUE FINES FOR OVER USE. YOU SAY THAT WATER
HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOTIED TO THIS PROJECT BUT HOW CAN YOU
MAKE THE WATER APPEAR WHEN THERE IS NONE. IT WAS STATED AT
THE LAST MEETING THAT THE AGRICULTURE FIELD USES MORE WATER
THAN THE NEW PROPOSED BUILDING PROJECT WHICH IS A FOOLISH
DREAM. THE WATERING OF THE FIELDS ARE NOT CONTINUOUS AS THE
HOUSING/HOTEL/RESTAURANT WOULD BE. THE AGRICULTURE FIELD
USES WELL WATER AND NOT CITY PIPED WATER. THE HOUSING AND
HOTEL WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE CITY SUPPLIED LINES. JUST AS
A SIDE NOTE -IF YOU TALK TO FARMERS THE GROUND WATER LEVEL IS
EXTREMELY LOW IN ALL SURROUNDING FIELDS, AND EVEN IF IT RAINS
THIS WINTER IT WILL NOT RAISE THE LEVEL ADEQUATELY. THERE
SHOULD BE A BUILDING MORATORIUM PERIOD UNTIL ALL OUR WATER
PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED.
TOO MANY HOMES BEING BUILT ALONG WITH A BUSY HOTEL/
RESTAURANT-THIS WILL CAUSE HEAVY TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON
CHERRY AND TRAFFIC WAY. BECAUSE OF EXTRA TRAFFIC THE
SOUTHBOUND WILL BE MORE CONGESTED AND CAUSE SAFETY
HAZARDS TRYING TO ACCESS THE FREEWAY WHICH NOW IS A SUICIDE
TRIP. ADDITIONALLY TRAFFIC COMING OFF THE FREEWAY TRAVELING
NORTH TRAVEL AT HIGH/UNSAFE SPEEDS AT THIS TIME. EAST CHERRY
! IS ALREADY IS A VERY BUSY TRAFFIC ROAD.
c. c~~.~
-f_,t ~0 11'1 'Y'-·
THE JAPANESE ASSOCIATION PROJECT IS NOT A REAL CONCERN AS IT
WOULD BE A BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AND IMPROVE THIS HISTORICAL
SITE, BUT THE 10 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENTS SEEMS TO BE
TOO MANY. ALSO LAUNA LANE SHOULD REMAIN AS A CUL-DE-SAC AS IT
HAS BEEN SINCE THE HOUSING TRACT WAS BUILT IN 1961 AND NOT TO
BE OPENED UP TO THAU TRAFFIC.
YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS OF ARROYO AND NOT JUST
THINK ABOUT THE MONEY THAT THIS CITY WANTS.
STORY-POLES SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE PROJECT SITE TO
REPRESENT THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES
THAT WILL BE BUILT. THE SILHOUETTE PROVIDED BY THE STORY POLES
HELPS TO ASSESS POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT AND NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY. IF THERE ARE CONCERNS OR OBJECTIONS TO THE
BUILDING OUTLINE, ADJUSTMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE STORY
POLES MAY BE NECESSARY. THE STORY-POLES SHOULD REMAIN UP
FOR AN EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TIME TO ALLOW ALL CITY RESIDENTS TO
INSPECT.
IF THE BUILDING CONTINUES YOU MIGHT AS WELL REMOVE YOUR
UTILE NAME YOU THOUGHT OF AS THE "VILLAGE". NOT MUCH LONGER.
RESPECTFULLY,
JAMES AND FRANCES ASKINS
Subject: RE: planning commission
To:'
Subject: Fw: planning c
Reply-To: Jacki Nisbett
September 17,20016
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission
John Mack, John Keen, Terry Fowler Payne, Lan George & Glenn Martin:
I found out about the scope of the East Cherry Project on Monday 8/29 & attended the
meeting of 8/30. Most of the information I had knowledge of prior to this came from the
Tribune in late May.
They reported a hotel & homes were being considered.
Since I am .2 miles from the project, at 200 Trinity Ave.,
I expected a notification by mail about an up-coming neighborhood forum to hear about
this project.
That did not happen.
The water issue is paramount in my mind. 2% of 0 is 0.
The exchange of nonexistent water from one site for another is nonsensical.
Why is there no Xeriscapinq plan for this whole project?
The 50 room Branch Street Boutique hotel is estimated to consume 1. 7 million gallons
per year if used with "care" and not considering how much it will take to construct it. We
believe developers can buy property and develop plans and wait their turn on a list of
projects to be determined by you when we again have a reservoir sufficient to, take
residents off of restrictions.
Be that said, I wonder ifthe same logic used to calculate non existing water is being
used to calculate the geological report that states this land is highly subject to
liquefaction?
The active Wilmar fault under this area will need an earthquake study. I do not see this
in the Environmental Impact Report, only the Seismic Hazard Analysis which does not
go into detail and there is no structural engineering report. Why wouldn't the city pay for
its own unbiased
earthquake report?
Furthermore the top layer of soils, (made into a fine clay powder from years of
cultivation) will need to be removed to insure the foundations of the subarea 2 houses
will not crack & slide.
Why is there no mention of this?
The extensive excavation and considerable grading, that will have to be done to this site
will take many months and huge disruption of traffic not to mention an extravagant use
of water to keep the construction site wetted down dur'1ng the lengthy process.
The winds usually blow from the northwest to the south. How will construction dust and
pollutants be mitigated for all of us on the hill?
How will the city compensate the hill residents if the excavation hits a schist of Obispo
rock that will need industrial jack-hammering which (has in the past) done damage to
our homes?
The geology & soils report states its study is based on 44 single houses not 55-60. Do
you
not think that on this substandard expansion clay soil, this won't make a difference??
The report also mentions it's findings are for Subarea 2.
Where is the report on Subarea 1 & 3?
Why is there no report for the chain hotel and chain restaurant?
A 3 story building sitting on an active fault needs an "in depth" seismic report.
As stated in my letter to the CC, this land has flooded in rainy years. The older village
homes have had some flooding, but this has been relieved by the flow of drainage
southward to the dry creek bed at the base of the hill on the proposed site.
If this is covered up, flooding in the section of (some 100 year old) homes, will become
an issue.
The small proposed drainage basin/park is not in the right location nor adequate. If a
retaining wall is built along this drainage area how will the runoff from the hill be
channeled? The trailer park has flooded many times due to the dry creek and hill runoff
emptying into it. Where will the water from the hill go after the retaining wall is built?
These homes will most likely be purchased by off site owners who will want rental
income.
Renters may or may not be single families. This urban large city plan does not fit here.
My experience has shown that many many cars come with rentals.
Where is the over flow parking lot for the renters?
A freeway motor lodge attracts people passing through possibly
with their large RV's.
Where is the over flow parking for the hotel?
We wait months for code enforcement to paint tag transients who park along the
freeway side of Traffic Way Ext now, what will happen when this project adds to that
blight?
I can fore see a motoring travelers crash pad for over-night stays,
hook-up or drug deal. We already have 2 others on Traffic Way that accomplish this.
It will be a money drain on services not a money maker.
The Traffic Report is grossly inadequate.
It has not taken into consideration the congestion generated by 3 separate schools and
the daily car & foot traffic that generates.
It has not taken into consideration the traffic ebb & flow during the different times of the
year a tourist destination is burdened with.
Our festivals pose another logistical problem that has not been thought through. (Cars
park up the hill on Trinity Ave during these events)
Placing a light at Traffic Way& Fair Oaks will produce a disastrous back up of traffic so
no one will be able to exit Traffic Way Ext. during an event.
2
Traffic Way Ext. (currently a dead end, no through traffic)has no foreseeable future of
connecting with El Campo. There will be years of frustration and accidents for hill
residents.
Guidelines for true transparency have not been followed by city staff and planners. Why
else would there be so many unanswered questions?
The history of this style of operation was the policy of prior city governments. I believe
the ghosts of those bodies and individuals from them still play a hand in decision
making.
Allowing the developer to have so much time with staff, the council, and you,the
commission
promoting and propagandizing his vision while the citizenry is not given equal time is a
travesty.
Why are the citizens given so much less time to speak when the developer has been
given as much time as he dictates to "court" staff & council & planners?
Allowing Qlli!. developer to be the single draftsman of 3 key locations (North, South &
East side) seems monopolistic to say the least, a developer who will not be
remembered for his superior design integration ... will NOT be forgotten by those whose
properties are devalued by
a high-density footprint at the 1st entrance to our city.
It is true we are holding you to a high standard. A HIGHER standard than what is being
offered.
Any allegiance or alliances that effect decisions will not only be bad for us individually
but this is
our collective reputation.
Jaclynn Nisbett
The infonnation contained in this e1nail pertains to City business and is intended solely.for the use o.fthe individual or entity to 111hom
it is addressed. ff the reader o_f this 1nessage 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 e1nail or phone and
delete the 1nessage. Please note that en1ail con·espondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along vvith attachments, may be subject to
the California Public Records Act, and therefore 1nay be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
3
Debbie Weichinger
From:
Sent:
Lan George ............ ~
Sunday, September 18, 2016 11: 14 PM
Debbie Weichinger; Teresa McClish
Fwd: East Cherry Project Concerns
To:
Subject:
Lan George
Digital Media Consultant
Touchpoint Fix Media, Inc.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Deborah Love >
Subject: East Cherry Project Concerns
Date: September 18, 2016 at 9:39:01 PM PDT To: ____ _
[n preparation for Tuesday night's
scnl to Hiil and the Concil Members,
meeting, I am you a pn Email l recently
1. I was to hear that it is the corporation of I .a Quinta lnn building the hotel. It is sure to have a
strip mall motel feel to it. Quinta's representative stated that their itics in other locations in the county
arc top performers, they are lower cost? Lower priced hotel/rnote!s tend to much
due to cheaper practices and the clientele they attract. Ho leis of that attract the person
traveling through, not a tourist will spend money in our . Will ACJ just be getting the that cannot
aff(ird luxury Pismo boutique hotel. 50 rooms or would be much less objectionable.
2. Much has been mack of project favorably impacting local such as Miner's flardware,
corporate and large scale not buy building supplies locally. Providing more jobs? Again.
chain restaurants and motels do not pay enough to be able to aff<:Jrd to l in Arroyo Grande.
3. \vould to sec the Japanese \;\/el project be separated the other l\VO, or is it
pmposcly to garner because it is certain to addition to the ''rnmrm
4, At 4000sfit seems most likely that the restaurant will be a chain restaurant Given it's proximity to the
probably open 24 hours. Why do the Cherry Avenue neighbors not deserve
the same consideration as "'fhc Village" per a ban on c!Jain businesses"
5. ls a I chain motel and restaurant really a pleasing to our City? in any nice town 1
have visited m country.
6. a Specific Plan is to be Hcxiblc, docs this leave room the developers or bui to
follow plans submitted, and out elements as building progresses? ls not happened with the
retaii/office complex ai the wesl end it was people started complaining that
it did not fit in ihc rest of lhc buildings on East they told that the developer/builder strayed
the plans that had been approved') I low would that be kept from happening'> Are there repercussions or
Do any and have lo go the or can one City staff '"'r"rn
7. A traffic lights al Fair Oaks/Traffic Way will do little to slow down traffic coming directly offlhc freeway.
Having involved in two minor rear-end accidents between Allen Street and the Mobil mysel [ both
when I was stopped trying to make a turn, there must be many more. exit the freeway al much too high a
rate of speed. There is also much more 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 day.
8. Inviting more traffic to u.se the Traffic Way on-and of1~ramps will impact them to the point where
modifications will. need to be made, or they will have to be closed. They arc not safe for increased traftlc. Will
!be developers pay for freeway upgrades of both What will be the impact of ramps having to close
in the future')
9. East Cherry Avenue is extremely busy, as l am well aware as my back yard is long that street. 60 seconds
goes day or nighL a car does not go by. The new project, if allowed to go forward as proposed, will
and negatively impact the residents of East Cherry Avenue, and most likely affect their property values
as well. I-low can that be mitigated over time?
l 0. [ was not notified, nor was I invited to participate in any of the "neighborhood'' discussion, and apparently
are al least a dozen others not notified.I asked the question about f[1ilure to post signage on Facebook a
week before the Planning Commission meeting. Why did City staff not catch this sooner'!
1 I. l would not object to a housing development built with the same lot size and diverse styles as
Creekside Estates, provided that there were no two··story homes on Street.
12. It was insulting to me, and others who have either removed lawns and put in ground cover, or those who
\Vere ft)rced to let their lavvns and gardcrls die under threat of oppressi\;'e \Vater bills~ to see renderings
Florence shared lush lawns and gardens. Any and all new developments should required to install
only drought tolerant landscaping, and no lawns.
13. The net gain water docs not make sense. First, it is based on only 2.4 residents per house. Will there be
limitations in size famil allowed to purchase') Since that is unlikely, it seems as the equation
should not be used. Second, at the September 6 Planning Commission Ms. Florence mentioned a trade off iJ the
current agricultural land, for agricultural land elsewhere in the City. If the trade is for land currently not
rrrismeG, it will be an increase in water use. ff trade is for land being irrigated, it is just a
Fit her way us not net gain of water to the City.
14. Is has not whether it not the new development will be an l!OA, or if the City be e11,e11111h,1•n•r1
by additional park and landscape management.
15. At what basdinc will new residents be located for determine appropriate water usage. There are those
Arroyo Grande residents drastically cut their water usage before lowered and now are being
penalized because they cannol cul their water usage any lower. And yet, there is apparently waler for new
residents')
16. While there has been a mention of making gray water stubs required in this development, 1 understand that
it was decided NOT lo them required or recent developments.
17. I was pu;;,zlcd when the only person at the September 6 Planning Commission that spoke in favor of
the was the Principal of Mission Prep! School. Until\ was told that the children one of
(kveloners attends that school, in San Luis Obispo, and that !hey wili be receiving a sizable donation the
project 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 making of this decision?
18. Had f been a member of the Planning Commission I would have foll and insulted when
Florence continued to laud her clients for going above and beyond, as if we were not aware that those
were things that would have bad to be as more public hearing continued to take place?
19. Realizing that although this project may "in the pipeline" for a number of this drought
becomes more severe every year. As such, constant review of environmental, weather and economic
situation must allowed to influence this and all projects, regardless of how long may have been in
planning.
2
you again for being Council and Planning Commission that not only reads input from residents,
but also responds. for the most parL After my communication to Council, 1 heard back immediately
from Mayor Hill, Council Member Barneich and Council Brown. lt was greatly appreciated.
must be made be done so taking into account not just tbe rec1ucst of
or residents.
Sincerely,
Deborah ! .ewe
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
3
Debbie Weichinger
From: Teresa McClish
Sent:
To:
Monday, September 19, 2016 9:47 AM
Debbie Weichinger
Subject: FW: East Cheery
Teresa McClish, AICP
Director of Community Development
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
{805) 473-5420
fax (805) 473-0386
tmcclish@a rroyogrande .org
-----Original Message-----
From: Colleen Martin [rm121atliili!ct!]I····
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 4:50 PM
To: Teresa McClish
Subject: East Cheery
We're the hotel numbers included in the staff report? The three story buildings?
Thanks
Colleen
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
City of Arroyo Grande Committee Meeting: September 20, 2016
Hotel Construction: Not a positive revenue source for the community:
Please read the reviews available online for the following local hotels in the community.
Motels/Hotels in area:
Premier Inn -555 Camino Pacific Inn -617 E Grand GB Best Western -850 Oak Park,
Mercado formerly known as PB/AG
Hampton Inn -By Old Easy8
new name Premier Inn
Holliday Inn Express -775 N Seaview -150 N 5th St GB Alpha Inn -611 El Camino
Oak Park, GB Real, GB
Some reviews indicate: heavy transient activity, frequent and disturbing vehicular traffic
throughout the night, and disturbing pedestrian traffic throughout the night.
Motels are typically owned remotely by investors that are offsite and detached from the actual
operations of the facility. This contributes to the degradation of the facility as well as the
surrounding area. It also fosters an ideal location for criminal activity, which will deteriorate the
safety and charm of the historic Arroyo Grande Village.
Hotels in this area are unable to charge the same tourism rates as the oceanfront hotels that have
maintained a luxurious image and have continued to generate revenue and reinvest in the facility,
because they do not have the same amenities or high-end features to offer such as a fine dining
restaurant with ocean views or the ocean view itself.
Hotels and motels that are built and operate in surrounding areas outside of the tourist destination
become a common resting spot for homeless, prostitution operations, or other illicit activity that
ends up costing the community more in police surveillance and callouts than it generates.
The water used in any hotel/motel is twice that of residential property because the water usage is
not monitored and paid for by the occupant, therefore conservancy is not expected from the hotel
guests. San Luis Obispo has turned down a proposed hotel downtown due to the severe drought
throughout the county and state. You can read all about it in the meeting notes of their planning
commission.
8 .a.-.
City of Arroyo Grande Committee Meeting: September 20, 2016
Alternative source of revenue for the City of Arroyo Grande and positive addition to the
community:
The City and community would benefit from building a local grocery market such as California
Fresh. California Fresh is expanding to San Luis Obispo and our South County community could use
another grocery market that partners with our local vendors and farmers to provide food as well as
high end specialty items for consumers.
Ever since JJs Market went over the Mesa, the village and neighboring areas have had no access to
shopping except for Smart & Final, which offers limited groceries and bulk items and Vons that is
comparable in price to California Fresh but is extremely inconvenient and overcrowded. We are
inheriting a Food for Less, which offers low priced items and discounted food, which is great for our
low income residents, but there is a huge market that is being missed by not offering a local grocery
store to all other income groups or those that are looking for a healthier grocery store and fits the
Arroyo Grande Village culture.
The community of Arroyo Grande is interested in small business and community involvement. They
are not likely to support a big box corporation that will come in and destroy the small businesses
that we have worked so hard to develop and support.
If a hotel is a necessity due to demand, it should be built in more of a commercial zone rather than a
primarily residential zone. An alternative location for a high-end, small hotel could be next to
Mason Bar on E. Branch Street. The city should ensure that the hotel maintains an image that is
comparable to the Village, offering curbside appeal, easy access to shops and restaurants, and a
great location for visibility and marketing to make sure occupancy levels stay high.
The main things that must be considered are:
The Community (Stakeholder's interest) -what is their vision for Arroyo Grande? Do they want
more locations for crime to take place such as a dilapidated hotel on the outskirts of downtown?
People are already frightened by the increase in crime that is taking place surrounding our little
town of Arroyo Grande. How much revenue will a hotel really generate considering that occupancy
will only occur during the tourism seasons which is Spring Break and Summer Break Hotels and
Apartments also decrease property values, have the residents of the area been surveyed as to how
they feel about the reassessment of their property values?
The Environment (Sustainability) -Can we sustain more people taking up more of our resources
on a temporary basis? More water usage, more litter, more contamination. People that come to visit
do not invest and take care of the area; they expect the host to do that for them.
Roadways (Safety) -The off ramp on Traffic Way has already become a speedway for traffic. This
issue would need to be addressed before more traffic is added. It is unsafe and to put more people's
lives at risk by adding additional driveways to make left hand turns is just a careless act.
September 19, 2016
Trish Avery Caldwell
201 Trinity Ave
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Attn: City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission
300 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project
(General Plan Amendment 15-001;
Development Code Amendment 15-001;
Specific Plan 15-001;
Vesting Tentative Tract map 15-001;
Conditional Use Permit 15-004;
Conditional Use Permit 16-001)
and Environmental Impact Report; which impacts the following:
Location: East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way
Applicants: SRK Hotels, Mangano Homes, Inc., and Arroyo Grande Valley
Japanese Welfare Association
,
I am writing this letter to comment on the current proposed development and
amendment to the General Plan and zoning/land use of said property on the corner of
East Cherry Ave and Traffic Way, in the City of Arroyo Grande. The current zoning for
Subarea 2 of the assessment is agriculture and I support no changes to the
zoning or the General Plan.
Briefly my reasons for opposing the proposed development to this area are three (3)
fold:
1 . Lack of Water
2. Compatibility/Density with Existing Neighborhood
3. Traffic/Inadequate Infrastructure
WATER
The Water Use Assessment -DRAFT report (dated 11/6/2015), page 1, states that the
report will address Subarea 2, the 60 lot/single family home development. I did not see
a report that outlined how water for the Japanese Housing and Farming development
(which will require water), and that for the 3-story, 90-100 room hotel would be met.
Regardless, if 60 lot/single family homes were built anywhere in AG how is water usage
determined for these homes? The bottom line is California has a huge water shortage
Page 1of3
and San Luis Obispo County is not exempt. Until we have sustainable water levels,
commercial and multi-unit developments that require water should not be approved .
COMPATABILITY
The Water Use Assessment -DRAFT report dated 11/6/2015, page 2, states that the
typical lot size within the proposed development is 5,400 SF. The presentation given at
the Planning Commission Special Meeting, Tuesday, September 6, 2016, indicated this
development is similar/compatible with the surrounding homes. A quick analysis of the
17 homes directly in front of the proposed development on East Cherry Ave shows the
average lot size to be over 9,000 SF which is consistent with the current General Plan,
Table 3, page 9, of the Memorandum from Teresa McClish, Community Development
Director, dated September 6, 2016. In addition, the average size of the houses on
these lots is roughly 1500 SF.
The current General Plan allows for a maximum density of 5 dwellings per gross acre
for residential development per the aforementioned Memorandum, page 10, Table 4.
The proposed development is asking to increase the number of houses to at least 10
dwellings per gross acre. The new houses being proposed are on lots Yi the size of the
houses built in the surrounding area and would create a negative impact in the
proposed location due to increased congestion and traffic flow issues on the
surrounding neighbors(hood).
The density of the project being proposed does not follow the General Plan for the
proposed site and it also requires eliminating Agricultural land. It is asked that no
changes be made to the existing zoning or General Plan.
I see the number of cars from the development, the hotel and the restaurant being a
huge problem. Who is going to enforce parking restrictions?
I have not heard any mention about the natural habitat in the surrounding area. There
is a lot of wildlife that exists on both the property above the proposed development and
the East Cherry Ave property as well. Will there be a study on the impact on the natural
habitat that currently peacefully exists? We have a very large coyote population, foxes,
raccoons, rabbits, deer and other animals that live around the property proposed for
development. How much land do we continue to take from the animals that call this
area home?
TRAFFIC
The density of the development will be detrimental to the surrounding area. Besides the
impact on nature and the food chain, the traffic in this area is already stretched beyond
its limits. The size of the project will only increase the congestion, reduce visibility, and
create safety issues for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
This area of town is very busy with motorists, students and pedestrians. Currently we
have a well-liked and convenient gas station on the corner of Traffic Way and Traffic
Way Extension that if all pumps are being used cars sit in the middle lane/divider until
Page 2 of 3
space at the station is available. We have a freeway on-ramp and off-ramp within a few
hundred feet of both the gas station and the proposed development, not to mention the
residential area off Traffic Way Extension. This area is also home to 2 churches and
perhaps a landscape business. Exiting Traffic Way Extension can be difficult at various
times of the day as cars exiting the freeway are generally traveling at a speed of over
40MPH and if anything is in the way as they are exiting they past cars in the middle lane
(i.e., the oncoming turn lane). This area can be very dangerous.
When there is an event at the school, or school is starting or ending it is very difficult to
get through the gridlock with students/pedestrians walking and the numerous cars being
in the area. And when there are large events in The Village cars can be parked all the
way to Traffic Way Extension. People attending events will be competing with residents
that are parking their cars on the streets.
Placing a 3-story hotel and restaurant on the corner of Traffic Way and E. Cherry Ave.
will also create a visual block to the traffic flow which increases the likelihood of
accidents. The proposed development doesn't adequately address the entrances and
exits to ensure the safety of motorists, pedestrians and bicyclist due to the increase
traffic, especially during school starting and ending and special events. With the gas
station, the 2 churches, the Clark Center, community events, existing residences and
school(s) the traffic in this area is horrible.
I am opposed to the proposal that has been submitted. My opposition is not based on a
"no-growth" stance, rather a concern for the location and the safety and congestion
issues that are not adequately addressed for the scope for the project. The City is
being asked to rewrite all the rules for this one project and the infrastructure of the area
doesn't support the development. As presented this development is about taking and
giving nothing in return.
Thank you for considering the above concerns.
Page 3of3
Mike Mccombs
544 Ide St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
A Citizen Opinion Regarding City Responsibility
To Arroyo Grande City Residents
The following voices concern regarding water policies and practices now and in the
future that the City of Arroyo Grande will be placing on the shoulders of the residents; it
is time to emplace more comprehensive restriction on area newcomers and the City than
on exfiing citizenry.
Today, because of drought issues, the City imposed water usage restrictions across the
board causing many property owners to drastically allow property appearance go from
green to brown. Many opted to emplace drought tolerant yards to comply with mandated
restrictions. Most have chosen to allow some reduction in hygiene to further comply.
And, while somewhat painful, the citizenry efforts achieved Arroyo Grande's restriction
mandates. However, now that we are using less water per City mandated restrictions, we
were recently advised that the City will press to increase water prices as a result of our
using less water so they can cover "fixed" costs. Hence this appears to be a "double
jeopardy" situation, yet we see no indication/explanation of what/how the City plans to
pull its own weight other than to pass all the issue on to residents. We need to have the
City stand up and show us it endures the same discomfort it imposes on us.
Regarding the hotel developments near Branch and Mason streets, and near E. Cherry
and Traffic Way, we need City assurance that a key element of approval will be proof
that the developments will emplace absolute "state of the art" (not just Building Code
compliant) water management equipment from room fixtures and toilets to dishwashers
and grounds irrigation. Any swimming pools should be nixed as this region has water
activities in the form of public pools and the Pacific Ocean. Further, full approval of
development of 50+ homes along E. Cherry needs to be held to the same "state of the art"
water management fixtures and irrigation proof standard as the hotels mentioned above.
I, and many other residents, live on fixed income so increasing costs are a great concern
to me, especially when I am seeing no improved benefit from those increases. I do not
envy the tough choices the City has to face when having to survive, but simple placement
of costs onto residents is no longer an acceptable plan. The City Council and City are
required to manage City needs within the bounds of budgets, as are we for our own
households. Yet, the City and the Council lean toward scratching each other's back
rather than genuinely considering their responsibilities to the residents. It is time to cause
newcomers and developers to step up to b etter share the burden that is being shouldered
by the residential community. Unless we see the Council and the City tum the comer to
embrace community pains, we can only interpret they are slowly betraying our faith and
trust and thus are slowly. inching toward corruption and power mongering.
Respectfully Frustrated, /ft~ jtA t ~
DATE: SEPTE M ER I 8, 2 I 0 I G
TO: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PlANNING COMMISSION
FROM : EAST CHERRY AVENUE NEIGH BORHOOD COMMITTEE
REFERENCE TO: THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PlAN -AN ALT ERNATIVE DEVELPOMENT PlAN
SINCE SEPTEMBER 2014, THE NEIGHBORS ON EAST CHERRY AVENU E HAVE EXPRESSED THEMSELVES
BY WRITT EN S TATEM ENTS AND BY PRESENTATION TO TH E CITY COUNCIL, PlANNIN G COMMISION,
TRAFFIC COMMISSION, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT , AND THE CITY ENGIN EER TO RESOLVE ISSUES AND
CONCERNS RElATED TO EXCESSIVE SPEEDIN G AND RESIDENT/PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON EAST C HERRY
AVENU E WITH A M EASURE OF SUCCESS .
ON NOVEMBE R 3, 2015 , ILLU STRATIONS BASED ON VILlAGE RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS UNDER TABLE I G.32.050-A.2 "MINIMUM BUI LDING SITE* (NET AREA G750 SQ.FT.)
FOR NEW S UBDIVIS IONS WAS PRESENTED TO THE PlANNING COMM1SSION.
THE INTENT UNDER TH IS ALTERNATIVE , COM PO NENT REDUCTIONS WI TH IN AREA 2 REDUCED THE
NUM BER OF RESIDENCES AND BASED O N THE NUM BER OF TRIPS PER DAY, REDUCT IO NS NECESSARY
TO REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AT THE FAIR OAKS AVENUE/ TRAFFIC WAY INTERSECTION FROM A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, TO A LESSER THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
CEQA SECTION I 5 I 2G.G(a) REQUIRES DEV ELOP M ENT COMPO NENTS ACHIEVE A "LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT IM PACT LEVELS" WITH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND T HE ADJACENT COMMU NITY.
THE DEVELOPMENT MUST BE CONSIST ANT WITH THE COUNTIES 200 I CLEAN AIR PlAN.
FURTHER, PARK AND RECREATION STANDARDS WILL BE IN FULL CONPLIANCE WITHOUT MITIGATION
M EASURES SEEKIN G OFFS ITE IM PROVEM ENTS FOR DEDICATIO N OR PARK IMPROV EM ENT FEES.
AN ALTERNATE PlAN WOULD BE CONSISTANT WITH PREVIOUS RECORDED SUBDIVI SION DEVELOP M ENTS
IN THE VILlAGE COMMUNITY.
• NOGUE-RA PARK, TRACT NO. 409, A 4 ACRE DEVELOPMENT, 18 LOTS, AVERAGING 7,000 SQ. FT .
•TRACT NO . 22 I 7, A 14.5 ACRE DEVELOPMENT, 43 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AVERAGING 7,2 00 SQ.FT.
•TRACT NO . 2G53 , CHERRY CREE K ESTATES, APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES, 28 LOTS, AVERAGING 7,200 SQ. FT.
(I 5 PERCENT OF THE LOTS WERE DESIGN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, APPROXIMATELY G, I 00 SQ . FT. IN S IZE)
AN ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT PlAN WILL REDUCE THE SCALE AND DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED VEHICUlAR TRIPS, INTERSECTION CONJESTION, AIR POLUTION
AND GHG EMMISSIONS GENERATED BY THE NEW SOURCE O F VEHICUlAR TRIPS, ALLOWS FOR
INCREASED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND BENEFICIAL LIGHT AND AIR FOR THE OVERALL S ITE HEAT AND
COOLING TO THE DEVELOPMENT HOME SITES.
PAGE I
THIS ALTERNATE PLAN PRESENTS A FEE LING OF OPENNESS, SENSE OF PLACE, PRIVACY AND
SECURITY, FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE BLOCK AND THE
500 t GOO BLOCK OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE. (REGARDING FRONT YARD SETBACKS), ELIMINATES
TWO STORY CONSTRUCTION PRESERVING VISTA VIEWS, AND IMPORTANTLY, A 20 PERCENT
REDUCTION IN V EH ICULAR TRIPS PER DAY.
THE SPECIFIC PLAN
THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN HAS THE APPEARENCE OF BEING AGRESSIVE, THOUGH IS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS G5450-G5457 ARTICLE 8 -SPEC IFIC PLAN
COMPONENTS.
THE SPECIFIC PLA N IS INCONS ISTANT WITH THE COUNTIES 200 I CLEAN AIR PLAN.
FAILS CEQA SECTION I 5 I 2G.G(a) REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS ACHIEVE A "LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LEVELS" WITH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY.
SUB-AREA 2 -RESIDENTAIL LOTS
THE AGRESSIVENESS IS DIRECTED AT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS.
RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT SCALE AND DENS ITY BY INTRODUCING 1MF'ACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
VEHICULAR TRIPS, CONJESTED INTERSECTIONS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION , AIR POLLUTION
AND GHG EMMISSIONS GENERATED BY THE NEW SOURCE OF VEHICULAR TRIPS.
LOTS ARE BASED ON MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS RATHER THEN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE VR STANDARD
THAT PREVIOUS VILLAGE COMMUNITY SUBDIVISIONS WERE HELD TOO.
THE SCALE AND DcNSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENTS EXHIBITS HEIGHT, MASS, AND BULK ISSUES,
PRIVACY AND SECURITY CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY ALONG EAST CHERRY AVENUE WHERE PRIVATE
OPEN SPACE IS NEGLECTED FOR COMMOM AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE BY PERMITIED ENCOACHMENTS.
PARK AND RECREATION STANDARDS ARE NOT IN FULL CONPLIANCE. MITIGATION IS OFFERED TO
SEEK OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DEDICATION AND PAY PARK IM PROVEMENT FEES.
HOTEL SUB-AREA I
THE DEVELOPER EXPRESSED THAT GUEST "PROJECTION WILL BE 50 "PERCENT. THc PROPOSAL IS
I 00 ROOMS OF WHICH 50 WILL BE VACANT AND ON OCCASION FULL CAPACITY.
THE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES VARIOUS Off SITE AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDS.
BY REDUCING THE NUMBER O F ROOMS WILL RESOLVE ON -S ITE PARKING ISSUES AND TRAFFIC
IMPACTS AND OFF-SITE PARKING IMPACTS AS STATED IN THE ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND REDUCE THE HOTEL STRUCTURE TO TWO STORIES.
PAGE 2
SECTION I 51 2G(a) OF THE STATE CEQA GU IDELINES REQUIRE A REASONABLE RANGE OF
ALTERNATIVES FOR TO THE PROJECT BE CONSIDERED.
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION G5457.a AN EIR MUST BE PREPARE FOR EACH AMMENDED
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PER DIVISION I 3 SECTION 2 I 000 UNDER THE PUBLIC
RESOURCE CODE.
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION G5453a ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION OR AMMENDMENT
CAN BE A M MENDED AT ANYfl ME. THE RESULT WOULD IMPACT CITY DEPARTMENT COSTS , OV ER
BURDEN CITY STAFF, A ND ADDED COSTS FOR OUTSIDE CONSULTING .
PC082a RESOLUTION.pdf.
REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT REDUCTIONS WITHIN AREA I AND 2 WOULD REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF HOTEL ROOMS, RESTAURANT SIZE AND NUMBER OF RESIDENCES, BASED ON TRIPS
PER DAY REDUCTIONS NECESSARY TO REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AT FAfR OAKS AVENUE-/
TRAFFIC WAY INTERSECTION, FROM A SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT, WITH MEDIATION,
TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
THIS ALTERNATE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WOULD REDUCE THE HOTEL ROOMS FROM I 00 ROOMS TO
70 ROOMS, A 30 PERCENT REDUCTION. THE REDUCTION WILL ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
OFF-SITE PARKING AND RELIEVE TRAFFIC CONJESTION.
THE ALTERNATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD REDUCE THE RESIDENTIAL HOME SITES FROM
58 LOTS TO 40 LOTS , A 30 PERCENT REDUCTION AND VEHICULAR TRIPS PER DAY.
MOST IMPORTANT, DECISIONS MUST BE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL AND THE MOST COMPELLING
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
THE PRESIDENT FOR SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ABOVE APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS ON RECORD SINCE 1972, AND MOST RESENTLY 20 I 0 (CHERRY CREEK ESTATES).
THE NEIGHBORS OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT OUR EF FORTS HAVE MADE
A DIFFERENCE IN DECISIONS RELATED TO THE DOWN SIZING OF THE CONPONENTS AS PROPOSED
IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY WITHIN SUB-AREAS I AND 2 TO LESSEN
THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.
SEE NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY RES IDENTS COMMENTS ATTACH ED.
PAGE 3
LOT 07 909.20' x 181 -J ~.3b2 s.f. / 435GO s.f. • 0.4 acres ex1sfan'ca road improvement' to center line of sewer ma1ri ___ ___,,_ __ e~r~~v~ _ ~:::o~~~~=·~~!™~ rw'!'W'J.o.N f'/..i'.F..W'Y 1 rwt-;;rrJAN "rt:-' °'r.N!i' ;~1rl ----:~~=~c:=l~L-D:P:,:T ~ SUB-AREA I I I 2.1 ACOE5 ~ I i~ ~ 11:: ~ I 1 oNe-WAYAcc.ess 5TfeleT r".oM HWY. 1011 n:.Arr1c WAY TO i"11 I 1£ ,1teueve TR.Al"rtc CONJl!5TION ON !!AST CHl!R.RY AVl!Nu.e eiv (] r'UTlJKe oeV.eLOrMl!NT TAArrlC. ~~ '0""' Qj --= ----= ---= --= --= --= _--:iQr.J!L -----= ~ ~=--~..::10·W~A:g:~~~·=_:::;:-= = ;; GAS STATION '' ~ MOBILE HOME PARI\ I ILLUSTRATION SUB-AR£A 2 I I ,7 l'C,~5 A~A 2 (G~S) G/45 STATION o.,; At;~ A~A 2 NEW ADDITIONAL ~AD 1MP~VeM~Nrs !:..c.A. 0.5 ACR!:.5 CONVEYED ro .J.W.A. / IJ.)[ 41'> I 10,; AC~5/ A~A 2 (i'O~ R!:SIDENflALD!:V.!:LOPMENf) ~ IOGAC~5X45DllJAC, (Dl5f;i:;CT5rD)•4lll..Ot5 ( 45 8\JILDABL~ U)f5 AND fw.,) COMWM A;:,t.A PAA1.5 lul15TAAffOl MOBILE HOt><E PARI\ '\ \ L~L7~:;~~1.~~ED ~~~1~~15 ~ \ UTILIZING CITY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONING rKorosm ~ \STANDARDS WHER£ MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS STORM DRAJN ~ 1(j b,700 S,F, AND MINIMUM LOT DEM"HS ARE CUR~ 1~~· ti ~~~ 'fl I 00', ELIMINATES TWO STORY STRUCTUR£S ::;"!:~-,•· ~'~~'. :;\ AND MAINTAINS TH~ VISION Of THE c1n;_----"\\, )> SMALL TOWN CHARACTER. ---MOBILE HOME PARI\ ~~ , ~ 't ... ----.... -"" ... ~~ ~~ ~ I •"'"""'/___ ~ ~ ~~,~----\ _N_O_T_E_S _______ _ \ I. AS A NATURAL RESOURCE THE EXISTING GROUND WATER COULD POSSIBLY BE USE TO CHARGE, HOME Fifi£ SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, BE UTILIZED FOR fl£SIDENT AND PUBLIC COMMON AR£AS LANDSCAPE IRRJGATION. THIS COULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF POTABLE WATER PROVIDED BY T~E CITY TO MEET STATED WATER CONSLIMFTION R£QWIREMENTS. IT IS APPAR£NT THAT THIS WATER RESOURCE HAS FURNISHED THE NEEDS Of THE FARMERS OF THE AGRICUTUR£ FIELD FOR OVER A HUNDR£D YEARS, 50 IT CAN FOR THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT AS GRAY WATER HAS IN AR£AS WHERE WATER IS SCARCE. i I I r-,.., : 1. ,.H1-·"POOl!..,,11 !j: 8 •• lih,ii L~ i WOOD'S ADDITION r.ecO.~'!DMIV" IM7~..Stt:W~ANtANe 1!.fOl'.MW,f'!i;;':~f!N~M~ ~o'"°"''"" -!L!V,.,ftONeei"IO<JLOM!!ID~~c;., .. CfjferJ.f,ror',.'llOO'l'l:W: --11 ~rOi:MWAt!r.fLOOOC\l!Nf~ -+---rVfll-:.-J!:;:::=-~ t -~~~tt~~~~ ~--0 ·---,,;z,"'2'~--O 0 0 TRACT 1513 -------"'IO'·~ 0 C~IJSl!ilo,!-'l'Ji!!OA'I. T~!~~ AF'F'ROX. G ACRES SLOPE DRAINAGE TO 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT TOE Of SLOPE DRAINAGE EASEMENT "A" <;l'CM, __,., ~ g I; ' 0 I~ 6,. IL~ " "'s;; "'" I ',, I ~ ~ I G --J--1 IM'ANCI!.~ l';!LflV~ -'~~<:.<Xl.'lflON j C••lf11r.11t.C!Nftf: ,~ '!.!NIOr.CAi':.!HOOl':<NG:·.;.11NI~ ~ c.ll!!!.r0<1-"-:rer.'>·"''Nffi CM!fM.!f:P..!.<;iOeNC! r,er.t.ill!.l' . ...:e Af'rr.ox . .;.:JOO'>.r. ('>ffio1C~1r.i::$J II 1exieloM.: I ,OM.lr..i::e Ct•tl!.I~-: VlLL~!Ml~W'1~('VMll) I I -0 \[!) ~\ ,~,~ J ·;--~ """'" g~ z-,, 9~ Rl>' :;;" ;~ "' ~ ,.,,,~ .. "---r· LAUNA LAN" ~ I -a'~ ~y~~ NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND SCENIC RESOURCE AREA "~~ ':l>\~ ¢~" • ~Te~ .... ~A) 1Q 1;.;r.-~ <'~~G'C)_ (PROTECTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION G254, 2 I) REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE \"'' ~1'"' PRESNTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 3, 20 I 5 <:l "1'1',._ ,,""' ~
I EAST CHERRY AVENUE -"B" STREET I FRONTAGE LOTS -ALLEY GARAGES 1 20' ALLEY I o I G7.5' I : "' COM MOM OPEN SPAC~ : 0 ~ G---SO S.F. (ALLEY) ALLEY LOADED LOTS parking isle face of curb 11B11 STREET parking isle face of curb t ~ j I I Q \ / permeable sidewalk' "'G:) ~::::~· (G7 9 Ui-0 ln l-~5~F.-1 NOTE: 5'1. gl G, I 00 S.F. (NET) 52.3' ,375 S.F. (50% PER LU2-4.2 LOT COVERAGE 2,700 S.F. (40%) I . 10' lg <(g' I 0 lJ)• q (\) (<) "wider pedestrian walk way provides separation between private and public open space and a feeling of openness" 0 I ~I Q V>C<ed i < garage 70 setbac 2o.MIN. NO PORCH ~ ENCROACHMENT I BUILDING FRONT ARTICULATION 5 G,750 S.F. LOT SIZE I 2,700 S.F. (40%) I I -I BLDG. FOOT PRINT t I "-I 0 0 FLR. AREA RATIO Q Q f ,375 S.F. (50% PER W2-4.2l I LOT COVERAGE I I 3,375 S.F. (50%) I L PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 52.5' _J ----~1-z U1 G7.5' "B" t "D" STREETS DRIVEWAY FRONTAGE LOTS •MEETS RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Table I G.32.050-A) AND MEETS MINIMUM "VR" LOT SIZE OF G,750 SQUARE FEET •PRESENT A FEELING OF OPENNESS, SENSE OF PLACE, PRIVACY AND SECURITY, FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE BLOCK FRONTING THE PROPERTIES, AND AJOINING DEVELOPMENTS. • ELIMINATES TWO STORY CONSTRUCTION I LOW PROFILED PRESERVING VISTA VIEWS, ALLOWS LIGHT AND AIR FOR OVERALL SITE HEAT AND COOLING. 'ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE -NEAR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOTED IN FEIR REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
WE BELIEVE THAT THE CllY SHOULD EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CONSIDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPEC IFIC
S ITUATION TO S AFEGUARD LIFE, HEALTH, PROPERlY AND THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
NAM E: _____,_3 __ · __ CJ~O~_Grv.~_&L ______ _
AD DRESS : _/~Zf---~,4-i~_:/_~~~0---J_. ___ _
COMMENTS:
NAME Af 41:G'. [£_, ~ (;;:
ADDRESS 311 8. d~ ~
COMMENTS' tf-EL-p f'
COMMENTS :
COMMENTS:
NAME:
ADDRESS: ~)7
COMMENTS:
W E BELIEVE THAT THE CITY S HOULD EXCERCISE A REASO NABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CON S ID ERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THE Y APPLY TO THESE SPECIFIC
S ITUATION TO S A FEG UARD LI FE , HEALTH, PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC WELF ARE.
NAM E: J1!fµ;'o t?fez: ~ ~ ~
ADDRESS : , 5bD hf4rp1C,. 6 n.
COMMENTS : [,va_f&r UScr ie,, /mHcC.., {"fClP
NAME th 1Jz
ADDRESS:
COMM ENTS:
NAM E: /JN~ G,ey~?Jh ~
ADDRESSo m kl~ f!r;
COMMEITTS 7J;/'/J0 kf/-~ fr~«?;:;;µ
NAME: -~'J ~AA~K~1(.__..k1o~, -------
ADDRESS '?2 0 l \}I~
COMMEITTS ~w41~ ( l04''7 D f quUtt
NAME s v. le Ce, N~'\>\
ADDRESS: 1 ia-13 \\\\i r3
WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CONSIDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPEC IFIC
S ITUATION TO SAFEGUARD LIFE, HEALTH, PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
,,.-,. . (_ ~ l t~
NAME: ( Li.{A • Ji"~wa_r \ ,3;Z~:::::,t.....--
ADDRESS: 5<9={_ ~\l.uvv s+~-t
COMMENTS :
NAME kt~ ~{',t-\iA ~ ~
ADDRESS: 'Qo2-A \ lcn ?1-
COMMENTS:
NAME c ~-wt' 0\'0vvt (yt~
ADDRESS Zl23 f;,. CJ.i~VYj ~
COMMENTS: 0..301\tl/l ~ ot'li\J'dO\OWl~+
NAME ~L1 p~
ADDRESS J.J] f-~li AVi
COMME><TS Y:dU«.~u) ~~V!i ~ t;lOI 3 -Stan(
Sitt~ sWY"o h~& Ori E. (,N,rrr
WE BELIE V E THAT THE C ITY SHOULD EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CONSIDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPEC IFIC
SJTUATJON TO 5AFfGUARD UFf , HEALTH, PROFERTY AND THE f'UBUC WELFARE.
NAM E 5\ef=~ 3one~ ~ 8~..; ~cn=-
ADDREss, U2'D i £ . c b ef ( 'I
COMMENTS: N D de" e \ op('()U) ~
NAM E Sx,~l Perry
ADDRESS: -?-?! 61illw_~!I _Dr A6J .
coMM ENT s : Cur cornmvrutv@ Che71 CT-ex:( 1 f CL
cyod__ rnd-t!I -to ~ ! .
NAM E {1RflffJ2/,{)f;_ 5H J7lf ~~
/>DDRES ~UJ6tb/ZC6T.1 1£2;
COMMENTS:
NAM E: Johr-J ~ ~l~l.n
A DDRESS: s 1 ·1 -Al-~ s ..\-Al~ -
COMMENTS : &~ tr"2a-fL ~ ~ (\-&:u~ (Y'l~
ADDRESS: f/7 ;:}-//~ ~ / /f (.-
COMMENTS:
WE BELIEVE THAT THE C ITY SHOUW EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CONSIDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPECIFIC
SITUATION TO SAFEGUARD LIF.E, HEALTH, PROF.ERTY AND THE PUBLIC WELFARE ..
NAM E tJJ~~~
ADDRESS: fif) ( l iJ)
COMMENTS:
. ...----'
NAM E: n~~ ~a.. -t :r; ;v) / ~ () 1<1l l/
ADDRESS: s·;s ft; ;/CJ-i ~~ (
COMMENTS:
NAME:
ADDRESS: S 08 k.>n (L. L(/\
COMMENTS :
WE BELIEV E THAT THE CITY SHOULD EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CO NS IDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPECIFIC
SITUATION TO SAFEGUARD LIFE. HEALTH. FROFERTY AND T HE FUBUC WELFARE.
NAM Ec f{altf/ ~l/f1j
ADDRESS: 'lb 1 [:,, Chi,vf1 J/-µe..
COMMENTS: T sv.;pvrf PL Ndut..el !:.1 ~I k~!of!La'~+
Jv e&. y_ JtLalPJ h & u<Wt/d C 01.//J t sf} t7Vt •
.
sc--ze_.d COMMENTS:r 5 V--fp {)r-f t1
~~"'"+"
NAME: J \) N\P~ ~I L_V ~
r-l'i ' e . c ~ A--. "-=-ADDRESS: ~ ~ 1--\.-""'C--
COMMENTS: \ Sv \>f--2--<'"°' c:;___ ~9-..J c 0. c~~ ~----uz._ ~
'
~<.J.. 0 f .~ \. ~-\-o ~
NAME If\ sh()..,_ Olif s.Y\Q/\'
·~ '"""fc:>--<:_,t-,
ADDRESS: -s-cff t_ • ~ fiv.p.
coMMENTs l,Uz., V\.QQd) Uss i/°'-&)1c Qfld Om~ kr
LU::.J-er !S'S~ -
NAME K(l +~ 1('1 ti-<
ADDRESS: $]~ t9 b)a,,.,f<,h ( CJ f A. ~ 73l/2 0
W E BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD Of CARE IN
CON SIDERING ALL Of THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPECIFIC
SITUATION TO SAFEGUARD LI FE, HEALTH , PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CONSIDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPECIFIC
SITUATION TO SAFEGUARD LIFE, HEALTH, PROPERTY AND THE PUBUC WELFARE.
NAME: R.,_asEJ, f\\vl-\~[u ~AA ?'/2
I
ADDRESS: J, 2-1 s. C4~ f(~ \ AV6
COMMENTS:
NAM E:
ADDRE SS : 3 ;(, 3
COMMENTS:
c__ c h c (' {\ ~1
I
NAME '&!wt.ill ukfilt;i(~~
ADDRE55o 4 I ( E. ~ ~
COMMENTS:
COMMENTS:
WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD EXCERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN
CON S IDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARD S AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE SPEC IFIC
S ITUAT IO N TO S AFEGUARD LIFE, HEALTH, PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC WELFARE .
NAM E:
COMMENTS: I ..L '-
f" e..a u..e-r/ o /-t I
I~ de ve/6j/ )-'Vt e _;,, f-
NAME=~uBg~
ADDRESS:) Z1 J\=(1 D Jl &-
COMMENTS : lex Jw'of J\\.e. Id-\
I
NAME:~~J~~-~~n.___~~· ~~--xz_~~~~~~~~~
:,~3" e\ ~oclriD "'{)-~.G ADDRESS:
G Lwi -lo c/:fu, l?An1110 l1im , s-~°'-_9r) 9 /o10 /dd/ (Q
c:/' ff]QAJ-~ ~ fLJ ~
Petition Regarding the Specific Plan Proposal for Traffic Way and East
Cherry
There is an outpouring of community concern over the Specific Plan for Traffic Way and East Cherry and
these concerns stem from several factors:
Impact on residents in Cherry lane neighborhood:
In the EIR (Environmental Impact Report), there are two cumulative impacts (found on page four in the
Planning Commission packet from September 5th, 2015): air quality and traffic. It is openly stated that
neither factor is easily mitigated. What the EIR does not consider are the other impacts involved in this
project, which will be cumulative as well-those include a permanent change in the landscape, more
people moving through this area of the city, a chain hotel and chain restaurant which does not fit with
the overall flavor our city, the impacts to the two locally owned and operated motels currently located
on Traffic, an increase in noise (and not just during construction), and an increase in truck traffic for
deliveries for the hotel and the restaurant (to name a few). These are quality of life issues, not issues
something an EIR would necessary study, but issues the Planning Commission and the City need to study
and consider before approving this project and more importantly, issues the citizens in Arroyo Grande
are concerned about.
Water:
As of August 13th, 2015, Lopez currently has 12, 155.1 acre feet of water. We are at 24.5 % capacity.
The lake level dropped 155 acre feet in two weeks with current use . If the current use continues at the
same rate, we will reach 10,000 acre feet in about 15 weeks (2 months). I believe the 10,000 acre foot
mark triggers another stage to the Water Emergency Plan. It seems as though we have less than two
years of water in Lopez.
The statement made on the evening of September 5th, that the hotel is essentially bringing its own water
is less than accurate. Hotels use water, they do not bring their own. Even with the mitigation of ag land
being converted, the hotel will still use water from Lopez.
The project may be in compliance with the state emergency conservation requirements, but that does
not mean we have enough water to support this development as it is designed. It is clear that our
efforts to save water have paid off and we are using fewer gallons per day as a community, but that
does not mean we can sustain another development or achieve build out based on the General Plan.
If it is true that the expected gallons per day, per home for indoor use is 122 gallons per day for the 58
homes then it would follow that if you multiply 122 X 58, the 58 homes would use 7,075 gallons per day
(per capita, or in total). If you multiply 7,075 X 355 days that equals 2,582, 740 gallons per year (per
capita) would be used for indoor use in the residential portion of this project. If you divide this number
by 325,857 (the number of gallons in an acre foot) you arrive at 7.925 acre feet used in one year by the
indoor usage of the residential subarea . The total project usage is estimated at 33 .90 AFY . So, yes, the
project has mitigated the water use (based on the level of overall city use), but that does not mean we
t~ ~ -~(veJ. {YoyJ~~ ,., {J.:L ~~
~ Cl/,;1,"/~tJlb ~ ,/
~ 8.P--·
have water to sustain new development. Our city has been using around 156 acre feet of water every
two weeks. The point is that accumulated use, results in accumulated decline of the water supply.
Questions related to water use :
*Have we factored in the hotel on Branch, which has a pool?
*Have we factored in the new development on Courtland and Grande?
*What are the total acre feet per year usage for each of these projects?
Traffic:
A stop light is not going to mitigate the amount of traffic on Traffic. How will roundabouts improve flow
at East Grand and 101 and East Branch and Traffic Way? It seems though, on page 123, that these
roundabouts have not been determined to be the most appropriate fix to the traffic flow---but the
report fails to provide the additional options which could be considered to mitigate and improve the
cumulative traffic problems or if any option would work. It appears that even with the mitigations of
roundabouts, the LOS at East Grand Avenue and West Branch Street would only improve from an LOS F
to an LOS of D.
The theory of roundabouts is good but in real life people do not yield they either stop completely
or they just run through. Cars that don't yield make the cross traffic stop and wait which seems to
encourage people to just keep coming through. With a left hand turn -cars don't expect it and force you
to yield to them while you are in the roundabout while they just continue through.
There's really only one bad side to roundabouts: They're not pedestrian-friendly. When cars essentially
never stop moving through a roundabout, pedestrians have a hard time crossing an intersection (or can't
cross it at all). For pedestrians, roundabouts are less safe than intersections with lights or stop signs that
force cars to stop periodically.
Additionally, without a northbound 101 ramp at Traffic Way, traffic will have to go through town to
Grand Avenue 101 on ramp to head north. This will only add to the congestion we experience at the
Branch and Traffic Way intersection and towards the village .
Parking:
How is employee parking being handled for the hotel and the restaurant? Will the employees have to
park on East Cherry? It seems as though there are only two spaces for the hotel managers, what about
the other hotel and restaurant employees? Where do they park, especially when the parking lot is full?
When people come to the hotel in their large motor homes, where are they going to park, along East
Cherry as well?
Infrastructure:
Currently there are concerns that the South Sanitation District, during high use periods of time, is
struggling with managing amount of affluent circulated through the system. The question related to this
is, can the South Sanitation District continue to take on more affluent as overall demand rises with each
new development proposed and approved? Given the mismanagement of the San District prior to two
years ago, we are behind in repairs and we need system upgrades to continue to circulate and treat the
affluent. A conversation with John Clemmons, the San District Plant Manager would confirm this
information. More development means more affluent moving through an aging system .
Project Design:
It seems excessive to have 5 dwellings per acre. Why are we moving towards high density housing
coupled with a chain hotel in the same development?
It's interesting the negative slant that is given the to the Alternative 2: Reduced Development
Alternative where the homes in Subarea 2 are 40 and the number of hotel rooms is reduced from 100 to
70, and the size of the restaurant is reduced from 4,000 sq. feet to 3,000 sq. feet, it is lower density, and
has a lower impact on traffic and traffic congestion. "This alternative has been identified as the
environmentally superior alternative, but Project objectives would only be partially met."
Retain current local businesses
In reality, what does this development mean for the current locally owned businesses on Traffic Way-
especial'ly the two motels? Are we going to let developers continually sacrifice locally owned businesses
and in their stead offer large chains?
Will the developer employ local residents to construct it? Will the developer purchase materials from
the local stores like Brisco's, Miner's ACE, Cherry Lane Nursery? Will the developer and builder rent
heavy equipment locally? I think if one of our city council goals is to retain local business, we should
consider how local business is supported and retained through this project, or how it isn't before moving
forward.
We have signed this petition as we are not in favor of the project being proposed and discussed at
Traffic Way and East Cherry. There are many issues the developer has not adequately addressed and
we are requesting that the Planning Commission take action which will make the developer address
the issues brought forth in this petition. We do not feel the project, as it stands, is in the best interest
of the community of Arroyo Grande.
Name Address .
!fl ;t-/Jhn5f. frG c/l-" i~t/-2-tJ
J}--6._ cA.
5&;2 Mtty Sf . Af, cA-93Lf 2D
S&2 ~ &-r. A-{q CA: q 34 20
4t}..5 S 8111\ f1PH IPA-f'\&j (fr qQ!jJ()
~1z3s eun lt(Jt-tftJt+ frlt Cit q ~LfatJ
1071> t~-tiidt ~f?d 1/6 t&.. ?3'1-J.-U
rZ.1 ftut'VJ ~TJ k:,-0\-q_st 21>
1-iq .AJ l£n r \ AG-{}1 _ qs~zu
12G flLL£AJ sr AU-CA, 95L/2{)
1 ;;k ~t .4f a ,Ji. ~ 93 r :;.o
-_---=-;;...,;:.-••· .. --....... ~--=-' -
33\ ~1-l~~r-S-1' CPr
I
)L/ l t , t (1-v, a< ~t'
Sy7 E , -BR-~McP ~r rtv..
6~J<::>· }_6 (; ()(lVOC l l"{
. /ti~ =>
~~~-/
rl_«-.
~~
·.· u/!Ld: ~d'lncuJ
v N0L .
~WeJ1~
f2,IC-1G M.u.fa"
UM~
/Jlt ~ ~
~~ ) ~ ~~ =:>:. ++ -s s"'_,,___~ ~ '\"\:\"'"" ""'-'-\""' \<::::. / ~ ~ ,
~~ f rti1GWJ {JL;,5 {go8 {_amlodJ 014/IJL(), ft0