PC 2016-09-20_08a Attachments 1,2,4,5,7,8669 Pacific Street l Suite A l San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 l p. 805.242.0461 l omnimeans.com
Napa l Redding l Roseville l San Luis Obispo l Visalia l Walnut Creek
Technical Memorandum
The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate site access, onsite circulation and parking
requirements for Subarea 1 of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) in the
City of Arroyo Grande. The Project as a whole is made up of five parcels totaling approximately
15.29 acres and is located on the south side of East Cherry Avenue east of Traffic Way as
shown on Figure 1. Subarea 1 consists of three parcels totaling 2.16 acres located at the
southeast corner of Traffic Way and E. Cherry Avenue, currently zoned "Traffic Way Mixed Use"
(D-2.11) with a General Plan Land Use Designation of "Mixed Use." It is currently proposed to
construct a 90-100 room hotel and up to a 4,000 square foot restaurant within Subarea 1.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
The Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is currently undergoing consideration by
the City includes mitigation measure "MM TRANS-5a" to address access considerations to/from
Subarea 1. The measure states: "As part of review of permits for development of Subarea 1 and
the proposed hotel/restaurant, a circulation study shall be prepared to guide driveway location,
To: City of Arroyo Grande Date: September 14, 2016
Attn: Jim Garing, P.E., Interim City Engineer Project: E. Cherry Ave. Specific Plan
From: Nate Stong, P.E.
Re: Subarea 1 Access, Circulation &
Parking Study Job No.: 65-1275-35 (07)
Cc: File No.: C2089MEM004.DOC
ATTACHMENT 1
September 14, 2016
2
design, and ingress/egress access in such a way to ensure public safety and utility." This
memorandum serves as a circulation study for Subarea 1 and will also evaluate parking
requirements for the proposed hotel and restaurant uses.
The key issues evaluated in this memorandum are as follow:
1. The recommended locations and allowable ingress/egress turning movements of
Subarea 1 site driveways.
2. The amount of parking required based on the proposed uses.
3. Required intersection sight distances at the E. Cherry Avenue intersection with Traffic
Way.
The evaluation will take into account the functional classification of the roadways, traffic
volumes, speeds (posted and observed 85th percentile), and collision history. The following
roadways serve, or are planned to serve the Project:
Traffic Way is a north/south commercial corridor parallel and east of US 101 and is
classified as "Highway/Arterial" in the City General Plan Circulation Element, with a
posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of E. Cherry Avenue. Traffic Way connects
directly with the northbound US 101 off-ramp and southbound US 101 on-ramp near its
intersection with S. Traffic Way and connects to W. Branch Street at its north end where
it becomes Wesley Street.
Traffic Way consists of one through lane in each direction with a center two-way left
turn lane, on-street parking and Class II bicycle lanes between S. Traffic Way and E.
Cherry Avenue. Between E. Cherry Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue, Traffic Way has two
southbound vehicular lanes (the centermost becomes an exclusive left turn lane to E.
Cherry Avenue) and one northbound vehicular lane which widens to two lanes at Fair
Oaks Avenue. The Class II bike lanes terminate at Fair Oaks Avenue.
The daily traffic volume on Traffic Way is approximately 9,000 ADT with a measured
85th percentile speed of 41 mph in the southbound direction and 39 mph in the
northbound direction1.
E. Cherry Avenue is an east/west roadway serving residential and agricultural uses which
intersects Traffic Way south of Fair Oaks Avenue and north of the US 101 ramps. E.
Cherry Avenue is classified as a "Collector" in the City General Plan with a posted
speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of Traffic Way. At its intersection with Traffic Way,
E. Cherry Avenue is stop-controlled and provides one vehicular lane eastbound and two
lanes westbound, narrowing to two lanes approximately 300 feet to the east, at the east
end of the Subarea 1 frontage. East of this location, the roadway serves an existing
residential subdivision along its north side with driveways served directly from the
roadway and the existing agricultural use of Subareas 2 and 3 along the south side. On-
street parking is allowed on the unpaved shoulder along the south side.
1 2012 Citywide Engineering & Traffic Study Report, Begur Consulting, March 2013.
September 14, 2016
3
The daily traffic volume on E. Cherry Avenue is approximately 1,600 ADT with a
measured 85th percentile speed of 36 mph2
Road "A" is planned to be a north/south collector roadway proposed to intersect E. Cherry
Avenue east of Traffic Way and serve the Subarea 2 residential subdivision and in the
future may be extended to serve areas currently outside the City limits to the south and
east. Road "A" lies along the west boundary of Subarea 2 and can provide an access
point for Subarea 1.
Location of Driveways for Subarea 1
The City of Arroyo Grande Standard 1010 "Uniform Design Criteria" Section 4.1.5 contains the
following requirements with regard to driveway locations on arterial and collector streets:
Driveways on arterial streets must conform to the following requirements:
1. Driveway access must not be located any closer to the adjacent intersection than the
stopping sight distance for the posted speed limit of the roadway.
2. Driveways may only be served by a break in a center median when such a break is not
detrimental to the traffic flow.
3. The distance between driveways along commercially developed arterial streets and
roads shall not be less than 200-feet.
4. Where possible, driveways shall be located on cross streets or roads, rather than on
arterial or collector streets.
5. In new subdivisions, residential driveways along arterial or collector streets is not
permitted; these properties may take access from local streets.
For the purposes of this analysis, the distances stated above are assumed to be from roadway
and driveway centerline.
It is anticipated that Subarea 1 will be required to provide at least two driveway connections for
emergency vehicle response.
A new driveway on Traffic Way would be required to be located at least 250 feet from the
intersection of E. Cherry Ave based on the 35 mph posted speed limit and corresponding
stopping sight distance provided in City Std 7410. The distance from the centerline of E. Cherry
Avenue to the southern edge of the Subarea 1 property along Traffic Way is approximately 275
feet. An existing gas station driveway lies approximately 50 feet further to the south, a distance
of approximately 325 feet from E. Cherry Avenue. It is therefore not feasible to locate a
driveway on Traffic Way which satisfies both Requirement #1 and Requirement #3 of the City
Standards for driveway location.
Locating a full-access driveway on Traffic Way does not meet City requirements as stated
above, however a partial access driveway may be acceptable to the City. Limiting access to
prevent left turns out of a driveway located on Traffic Way would eliminate a movement which
requires navigating two streams of traffic and thereby enhance safety. However, guests of the
hotel leaving the site wishing to travel southbound would be required to make a u-turn on Traffic
Way after turning right out of the driveway, or use the secondary driveway to access E. Cherry
Avenue to make a left onto Traffic Way. A secondary access located on Road "A" would be less
2 Speed Survey conducted by the City in 2014
September 14, 2016
4
visible and convenient to patrons of the hotel and therefore if this option is selected, it would be
desirable to provide a secondary full access driveway on E. Cherry Avenue.
Evaluating a driveway location on E. Cherry Avenue, the proposed intersection of Road "A" with
E. Cherry Avenue is approximately 450 feet from Traffic Way as depicted in the Project Subarea
2 Tentative Map prepared by RRM dated October 23, 2015 (see Appendix). Given the posted
speed of 35 mph on E. Cherry Avenue and the corresponding stopping sight distance of 250
feet, no Subarea 1 driveway could be located on E. Cherry Avenue for Subarea 1 meeting
Requirement #1 based on the posted speed limit. However, providing the maximum separation
which could be achieved of 225 feet equates to a speed of approximately 33 mph. Given that
this distance is provided from a T-intersection where the initial speed of eastbound vehicles will
be less than if they were allowed to travel through without stopping, the slight reduction in
stopping sight distance may be justified.
Recommendation: Given the above considerations, it is recommended to place a limited
access driveway on Traffic Way (outbound left turns prohibited) and a second full access
driveway on either E. Cherry Avenue or Road "A." If a full access driveway is to be located on E.
Cherry Avenue, it is recommended to locate the driveway a minimum of 225 feet but no more
than 250 feet from Traffic Way to provide at least 200 feet separation from Road "A." A further
recommendation under this scenario would be to convert the existing eastbound exclusive left
turn lane to the 5 Cities Swim School parking lot to a two-way left turn lane terminating at Road
"A."
Subarea 1 Parking Requirements
The proposed Subarea 1 uses include a 4,000 square foot restaurant and 100 room hotel with
122 parking spaces as shown on Figure 2. For restaurants, City code requires 1 space per 100
square feet of publicly accessible space. 40 parking spaces would be required assuming the
Figure 2: Subarea 1 Site Plan
September 14, 2016
5
4,000 square foot restaurant is the publicly accessible portion. For hotels, one space is required
for every room as well as 2 for managers (102 spaces as proposed) bringing the total to 142
parking spaces. City Code §16.56.050 "Common Parking Facilities" allows for a 20% reduction
under a Conditional Use Permit with Planning Commission approval on the basis of a mixed use
development and internal capture (e.g. hotel guests eating at the restaurant) provided the
parking facilities are located within 500 feet of the associated use. The project appears to meet
the requirements of this section with a proposed 122 parking spaces which equates to a 14%
reduction.
E. Cherry Avenue at Traffic Way Intersection Sight Distance
Currently 40 feet of red curb no parking zone is provided on the east side of Traffic Way north of
E. Cherry Avenue, as measured from the face of curb on the north side of E. Cherry Avenue.
During the public meetings regarding the Project including the Draft and Final EIR, comments
were made that the sight distance for vehicles turning from E. Cherry Avenue can obscured by
parked vehicles in the area beyond the existing no parking zone. Requests were made to
extend the no parking zone. To evaluate sight distance the City Standard for Sight Distance
(7410) was applied (included in the Appendix). Figure 4 shows the sight distance triangles
corresponding to the posted 35 mile per hour speed limit and 250 foot stopping sight distance.
It should be noted that City Standard 7410 places the driver's eye eight feet from the edge of
traveled way, which in this case is the left edge of the bicycle lane, requiring the vehicle to pull
out beyond the stop bar after coming to a stop to view the roadway beyond the on-street parking
area as shown on Figure 3.
Figure 3: E. Cherry Avenue at Traffic Way looking North (Source: Google Street View)
September 14, 2016
6
As can be seen on Figure 4, the northeast corner provides sight distance conforming to City
standards when vehicles are parked at the limit of the current red curb and therefore no
additional red curb is required north of East Cherry Avenue. New curb and gutter constructed
south of E. Cherry Avenue as part of the project should similarly be marked no parking for a
distance conforming to City standard.
0
Scale: 1"=
40
40'
omni means
2089EX002.dwg
Figure 4
August 23, 2016Arroyo Grande, California
E. CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN TIAR
VISION TRIANGLES - E. CHERRY AVE AT TRAFFIC WAY
1. THE SPACE BETWEEN 2' AND 8' ABOVE STREET GRADE MUST BE
KEPT CLEAR PER CITY CODE 10.12.010
2. THE MOTORIST'S EYE IS ASSUMED TO BE 8 FEET BACK FROM THE
EDGE OF TRAVEL WAY PER CITY STD 7410.
September 14, 2016
8
APPENDIX
Project Sheet indexA1 Title SheetA2 Proposed Architectural Site PlanC1 Preliminary GradingC2 Civil Site PlanC3 Storm Water Control PlanPROJECT STATISTICS: ZONING: TRAFFIC WAY MIXED USELOT SIZE (3 LOTS COMBINED):2.16 ± ACRES (94,090 SF)PROPOSED DENSITY: N/AMAX ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE: 75%PROPOSED LOT COV.: 19,600 SF/94,090 SF = 20% < 75% OKMAX F.A.R.: 75% PROPOSED F.A.R.: (50,800/94,090) = 54% < 75% OKMAX ALLOWED HEIGHT: 36 FT. HOTEL PROPOSED HEIGHT: 36 FT. RESTAURANT PROPOSED HEIGHT 20 FT.PARKING STATISTICSREQUIRED PARKINGRESTAURANT PARKING REQUIRED:1 SPACE PER 250 SQ/FT OF GROSS FLOOR AREA (4,000 SQ/FT) 16 SPACES HOTEL PARKING REQUIRED:1 SPACE PER UNIT AND 2 MANAGER SPACES (100 ROOMS) 102 SPACES TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 118 SPACESRESTAURANT PARKING PROVIDED: 18 SPACESHOTEL PARKING PROVIDED: 99 SPACESMOTORCYCLE AREA PROVIDED: 5 SPACESTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 122 SPACESREQUIRED MOTORCYCLE SPACES – MUNICIPAL CODE 16.56.0801 DESIGNATED MOTORCYCLE PARKING AREA FOR USES REQUIRING MORE THAN 25 AUTO SPACES. MOTORCYCLE PARKING AREAS REQUIRED SHALL COUNT TOWARDS FULFILLING AUTO PARKING SPACES AT A RATE OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER MOTORCYCLE PARKING AREA.REQUIRED MOTORCYCLE PARKING AREA: 5 PROPOSED MOTORCYCLE PARKING AREA: 5 PROJECT DIRECTORY:OWNER: SRK Hotels APPLICANT: SRK Hotels ARCHITECT: RRM design group3765 S. Higuera Street Suite 102San Luis Obispo, CA 93401Contact: Darin CabralPhone: (805)-543-1794Email: djcabral@rrmdesign.comPROJECT ADDRESS: APN NUMBERS:Corner of East Cherry Avenue 007-621-076DQG7UDIÀF:D\ 007-621-078 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An approximate 90-100 key branded hotel and a 4,000 SF stand-alone sit down restaurant. Access to the project site is via new collector road ‘A’ onto E. Cherry $YHQXHORFDWHGEHWZHHQ6XEDUHD DQGDFFHVVRQWR7UDIÀF:D\²ULJKWDQGleft turn ingress and right only egress. HOTEL:The Hotel will consist of one 3-story building totaling an approximate 46,800 sf with 90-100 keys. RESTAURANT: The Restaurant will consist of one 1-story building totaling an approximate 4,000 sf footprint. Highway 101Site7UDIÀF:D\Bedloe Lane Arroyo AvenueEast Cherry AvenueAllen StreetWest Cherry Ave.Fair Oaks AvenueA1 DATE: 2/22/16#0354-01-CO15EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARROYO GRANDETitle SheetVICINITY MAP
Proposed Hotel90-100 Key46,800 SFEast Cherry Avenue(E) Commercial Use(E) Mobile HomesRoad A7UDIÀF:D\Proposed Restaurant / Retail4,000 SFDrop OffPatioOutside Dining Bike ParkingTrashTrashEntry Monument01020 40SCALE: 1:20 (24x36 sheet) NorthA2 DATE: 2/22/16#0354-01-CO15EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARROYO GRANDESite Plan
Preliminary Grading PlanC1 DATE: 2/22/16#0354-01-CO15EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARROYO GRANDE
~
I
PJIOIIOSB)
RIGHT OF WAY
EAST CHERRY AVENUE
.. 1P" P,.to ___ j__
TRACT 3081 -VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
~----
[
' I
' i"-...
JWA PROPERTY
October23, 2015
Job No. 01#01·RS15
VICINITY MAP
NTS
PROJECT INFO:
AI'N:
R.OOOlONE:
EIIIS!lNG EAIIEM8fli5:
~01'058)~
GilD$$ AREA (NE1): ex. ZONNG a.LANo we:
~01' ZONING I. LAND \liE:
AUOWAAIE DB<SIIY:
~01'058) DEIG1Y:
laTAI.INIS PIIOf'O.IEO:
1£11D!ti!W.IDTS:
HOA(LOT.I'9l:
REMAlNOER (1.01 64):
APPLICANT INFO:
NICI DEVB.Of'MfNT
eotaACT:
NIC~TOMI'«<t!S
684HIG\Jfi!A$TRffi,$UilU
!'.IINLUI!OBIIPO,Q\93401
PHONE: a.s41·1'004
C1Jl4>21-Qn
ZONE 'X'· II» No. 06079Cida:IG
NONE
10' WI)E PIJBLIC 1111J1Y~
If/ WI)E PIJBLIC 1111J1Y~
'111 WI)E PIJIILIC 1\C<DS EAIIBIIENI
'J!7 WI)E PIJIILIC ACaliS EAIIBIIENI
11.62ac(III».1Csq.ll)
11WAC WAY MIXB) \liE (IMU 04.11)
AGU:IJLl\JIIf (AGI
11WACWAYMIXB)IJIE (IMU I)<). II)
VIllAGE RSIIotMlAI.I\IRJ
VIllAGE MIXB) WE 1\!MU)
~PEOAC PLAN OVBUAY (SI'J
A.Sil\IIIILNG UNIIS PSI ACM;
ell DWEWHG.Ii /IU2ACRES •1.0 DU/ACIIE
n
~ .. m.sq.~~ ro U!l:tsct11Eo-l58TOTAil
1-4,972sq.II(110TIIl)
16,.$32oq.lt (1101111)
PREPARER'S STATEMENT:
l)fS PLAN SET WAS PIEPAREO BY:
RRM DEIIClN <li!OUP
3165 $, HIGUBlA $1,. SlE. 102
SAN Wll 01111'0, CA 11&401
PH(I!05)$417f.4
UNCERTHE DIRECTION Of:
JOII!UA I!ON:m. ~.£. 41.m
OWNER'S CERnFICATE:
WE HERSIY CX!NS91110 THE OfVB.OPM911 OF·~ PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS
/M!'ANDCElmFYIIWWE/'R.THEUEOAJ.OWNIIUANDTHAITHEINFORMA110N
HBli)N IS IWUEAHDCX)RillQ TO THE III:SIOI'OUR ICNC)WIJDGEAHD 88JEF.
Ha DIMl()I'MfNI
lo84 HIGIEIIA SIIEEI, SUIIE 8
SAN LUIS OBISI'Q, CA I'M)!
lEGAl DESCRIPTION:
PARCB."D'OfCERIIFICAilOOFCOMI'IWICEFOILOIUNEAD.AISIM911No.
OI>Q);I. RfCOIWED IN DOCUMENT Hc>.li01CQZ39.1'Z IN THE COUNTY llfCOUlBI~
OffiCE. COUNTY Of SAN WI$ 011~1'0. STAltOI' CAUFORNIA. AI'N: 007..s:ti.C79
BENCHMARK;
THE IENCH MAU FOI1HI5SURVEY
BBNG CITY OF AIII()YO GIW<OE
BENCH MARK NO. 30.
82;'An~~F&T
ENGINIBIING (DA1UM UNKNOWN)
unUTY SERVICES:
WA1BI: CIIYOFAIIIIOYOGIW<DE
~-CIIYOFAIIROYOORANDE
PilON£: VIRIZON
Eu;t;: PAa!C GAS a. EUlC!liC
~: SQUTHERH CJII.. GAS OJNI'ANY
CABlE: CHAIUB! COMMUNICA11()t!S
EASEMENTS:
~ I'IICI'O!EII~' WIDE 1'\JIIIIC OIAINAGUASEM911
~ 1'1101'058) ii)'WIDEI'\J!UC OIAINAGE~
<f> I'IICI'O!EI20' WIDE 1'\JIUC AOC::elO EAIIBIIENT
~ ~01'058) 3D' WIDE 1'\JILIC ACCBS EASBIIENT
~ I"'WW''OID 10' WIDE 1'\JIUC WAff~ UNE WfMfNT
rrm design
group
NORTH ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
EAST CHERRY AVENUE
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
SECTION NOTE:
ROADWAY
CENTERLINE
SECTION A-A ROAD "B"
-NTS-
FINAL SECTION THICKNESS TO BE DETERMINED BY APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC INDEX. LICENSED SOILS
ENGINEER, AND ACCOMPANYING SOILS REPORT.
R.O.W.
SECTION NOTE:
ROJ+DWAY
CENTERLINE
SECTION C-C ROAD "D"
-NTS-
FINAL SECTION THICKNESS TO BE DETERMINED BY APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC INDEX. LICENSED SOILS
ENGINEER. AND ACCOMPANYING SOn..s REPORT.
SECTION NOTE:
ROADWAY
CENTERLINE
SECTION E-E EAST CHERRY
-NTS-
FINAL SECTION THICKNESS TO BE DETERMINED BY APPROVED PROJECTTRAFRC INDEX. LICENSED SOILS
ENGINEER. AND ACCOMPANYING SOILS REPORT.
TRACT 3081 -SECTION DETAILS
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
EASEMENT
SECTION NOTE:
PROPERTY
UNE
SECTION B-B ALLEY "B"
-NTS-
EASEMENT
ANAL SECTION THICKNESS TO BE DETERMINED BY APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC INDEX, LICENSED SOILS
ENGINEER, AND ACCOMPANYING SOILS REPORT.
TRACT
BOUNDARY
SECTION NOTE;
ROADWAY
CENTERLINE
SECTION D-D ROAD "A"
-NTS-
R.O.W.
ANAL SECTION THICKNESS TO BE DETERMINED BY APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC INDEX. UCB>ISED SOILS
ENGINEER, AND ACCOMPANYING SOILS REPORT.
EXISTING
TOE OF SLOPE
EXISTING ./"'
-"' DITCH /
'-___....
VARYING WIDTH
{UPTO'l.fJEX.)
EASEMENT
SECTION F-F SOUTH HILLS DRAINAGE
-NTS-
"' 0 iw--"4'>.;J i i
{IN FEET)
1 INCH =40FT.
TRACT
BOUNDARY
r
NORTH
October 23, 2015
Job No. 0144-01-RS15 111 rrm design
group
STREET I STREET INTERSECTION
STREET
l
HIGH SPEED INTERSECTIONS
Curb
Face(TYP.)
EDGEOFTRAVEL WAY
STREET I DRIVEWAY INTERSECTION
The space between 2'
and 8' above street
grade must be kept
clear (TYP.)
STREET
~----------SSD --------~~~-------SSD ----------~
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (SSD)
POSTED SPEED LIMIT STOPPING DISTANCE
(MPH) (FT)
10 50
15 100
20 125
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
45 360
50 430
55 500
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE-ENGINEERING STANDARD PLAN
ISSUE DATE: MARCH 2016 SIGHT DISTANCE
20'
---R/W
Edge of paved
Driveway (TYP.)
7410
SHEET1 OF1
PROJECT DIRECTORY:
...WICtDee--*:
........ .,..W1"
:PUs......,_. a. .. Me-to-a
SO.~Cibllpo.C4n4 .,_...,C<MI
.l'holnr.~IJf• --
M~•JO.au.,~....,crd•UtOst~•a
~Mc:_kJ .. ~..._ • ...,_.,caltclra!:rooc~ A' .... t.O...,
A~~!Mt--...........,1 1.1 Cill"'dio;.c-•are~wlllt ·'at'Cir!IS
id~i'qlt.IICiftd"""'.,..,~
"""" ... ..,.. .. _......, .... ~tlo..tl:5nQl~O'I~....., .. _,.
'IO.ICDtcyt.
PARKING STATISTICS
"""""""_...,._,
1 RH'7 fll9! Z:OJO!I17 G!Q$5 RQCI!elllf..t.«tm IQ![D
10m _ _..
1 wq Pf11! tHJNIJ21MfWH1! Mw:n ft"*BIQ4A
fiDtH.JU.Hl ~IWMQED; HOT!L--W?ni'&YQ f WAflS!!'Im:
11¥!(10
ILISJ._,cu
~~~~~t~W::D-~CCC.U.,a.JJIIo
I~W01QIIICYQ.I.f'MII3rrGioMA~USU~IIICM 1lWo
l'IAJJOSPN:U..01ICIIC'rQ.f ~NIIILU~
~OOI..Ir TCJMIII)SI\.UI.aa MnO ~ WCOIIS A ttAlt OICM.
........,fPIIIClf'UWC~~NIEA.
~~~PAIIDGAA£A::5
f'IIIIOLI'OSU)WO~!"MKMM~S
PROJECT STA TISTI CS : ........
tci'IID(JtOIISCouaJCJ)I: 1J61 ACI&,UIIt0Sft
ttcf'OUa MAll'; N1A
IAAX olil.OYttD tofCOVUAIJit N$i
PIOfO.UD ~COY.;. lt.M»JifftCIIO P' .. lGS" Har.OIL
....UU.t.: ~Sa
rmPOSm tAI.: cs:a,.a:ltf...clq•S4<1SOC
ILU All.~ M8Cir. .MPL
10m PIOf'OUD leG» -"11.
mu.tt.Utr~smM,... »II.
EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARROYO GRANDE Title Sheet
Project Sheet index
A I Tille Sheet
A2 Proposed Archllecturol Site Pion
C I Preliminary Gradi ng
C2 C ivil Sile Pion
C3 Storm Water Control Pion
DA1E: 2/22/l 6
1Cl35Hli-CO l S Al
ATTACHMENT 2
-----------------------------------------
(E) Commercial Use
EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARROYO GRAN DE Site Plan OA IE: 2122/16
lfl35.4.0l.C015 A2
I I
II ........... """'
Of ... Of ...... .. _....,. ... ... --I !
"" ---.. .. ....... ~ .. --.. .......... . --.. .. --. ----a _, ....
I I
~ I• ~g~~~~~ -..... CIIIfCII'ICij.ll._, ..,.N_p:-.ftlltUI»
0'.-. 4aACf-......a .... ...-
---::=:-...:=co:::a-:-...~=" ·r----=-·-=--===-.:=~:=as~
I i
I i .
I
I
I • I
Q ~ iiil b;;j I -· I ....:II:·~
.
I
.....
EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARRO YO GRANDE Preliminary Grading Plan
i =::=-~~~ I .-. .. ~IO~M.D~~
I
DATE; 2122/16
f035-Hl1-C015
I'IOfiCilOING..C"'"""~O#MICIU
~*'~""40 ......... ~, -o,..Jt......,.,, ....
~ ......,_, --... -.o.-..w -------. ---....---.. _..._ 0 _.._. ----_..., _ __ .. --------·---•
Cl
I
I
I I II ' ..
EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARROYO GRANDE Civil Site Plan
I I
') l
.. -I t '
DATE: 2122/16
103S«ll-C015
~-:_ .. _ ...
PROJECT NO: --....... ........
. '
"--CCIICllt4 DCT·Wt#M-~
oa.o~ ... 'IOI'OIID'.......... 100111 GIOD.d$1.~ ~-»•P'-•IIIIrtl
DIC!Io*Ci a t..lr.IO..--~-...~..U-~O.lfll
..... ~._~,.._ • .t.Mt ... , ...... ~OU\.11
O!!JMl ct!I!!!CA!£;
PI.Efi'A!fln $!Ar!M&n'j
Nn..t&l!!llf.t.ltd"...-ft:
_....,..~
:llULMC.IIlii4St.121E.ta
SNJUII C*PO Co\ DO .. _ ........
..-:Jt~M~Cif':
...... ~,L~
...... ~10··~0~~ ...... Ooi .. _,......Oc:lla'f .............. ~~
HIO ...... H~---1-.0c:o-cs_,N
-00.~...0-
..,.,_..,., ---
_..,_, __ ,.. _...__ -----------_....,. __ ......,
_CDC. ... _,_
·~-·" _ .....
NOrGIII:t111:*6-.. --·--...,._,...... . --
.,
::==---'~ '(\! it,,
I II I \ • I.;\ I
.\i· 1 "t i' l ,I l' I I
I fl' l ,,
\~n l l I -il
h l h I li
.. I~ T~ l <./<:t
··--=
~!
\ ~ I
I 1 ., hi
1>-'<{ I~
I
1<2
IlL
I~
·~ II-
' I
' I
' I
' I
I
' I
I
I
' I .
I ·--· lliCII·-
~
~~··~~~~~----< ___ _
rR .... ~a-1+--->-a~==
z
J: u
~
PRO.lfCT STAT151lCS:
llAI»'GS. 1.1..501JIQ. fliJ
5P!WAU. UCD .:~ d g)
rA~ •l.a:D14'1\ 0
JI:JIAI. 1l,DXIIQI
I'WCW'05ID LNCIIIC.Ioft • l:I..BJ) .qJt ~
rB'\0.1!1.\VfiS • l,O::Xhq ft !1Jj
-~A.IU · n.aaa~·
~
He:~----~~ .------____ .... ---.-...Gwt~ •
~-.... ~
---0 l'.d;l'"t"'ff'M" _ ..... ---coc.-_,.,_
-"""""' ---------·-•
EAST CHERRY AVE SP SUBAREA 1 • ARROYO GRANDE Storm Water Control Plan
DATE:2/Wl6
t035-Hll-COI.S
~~n rr m design W:.ltJ group C3
ATTACHMENT 4
I
l
i .
' ' I
l
I
I
l
_j .
I
I
_l
-:.='-;
-~)
-----
·.·~· ('
EAST CHERRY AVENUE I TRAC T 308 1 -VESTING TENTA TIVE MAP J u ·-· 1..0·--
J(jy 13, 2015
f!OECJNQ: ---
' I,' r
.,. ,~
'· .
ftGCIOICIIIC: .,._T·"""...._MWKIGIC -..-.. -~1Ataoo1114. w~r..cl&lrt......,.
U11l'CaP...:~~ .... ...:..a~~~~
~.....c~~
O..,.,.,llollrl: •~Aw -.t v ... .. ~.\NIO--~-...y---... ~·· _,...
M:l'~lU.WC; ~_,.T ........... ~'lJIII ......... _,... ................. ,....
Sl'tD'!Ir::I\NICMILUIW'J
~~ u~--. .. 111(;11(
~ sa.....:att \..Q,o.CIG•h-..ot ---
eooa.co ..,._
.... ~-.-· ..... ~~Cio.,..
ftD«:.,.lAIOo
OWH!lt'l CEIIW:A"=
P!'fPA.im S!AlfMB:,'l:
.. ~--ot.Srwtfoloft:)~
...,ooc;;.~~
~L~---!IrlliU.~C,..,..
P'oi-IG-'""'
... ~a.-JOM~OIIIAlftCIP'tlm...,_.O.N
ftAIJINCCB!IPf~..W:-H~~AoO...,M.~
.-ara.,...,...~., .. -arUJr~~o---......................
IAMO.~CA1'MI
LfGAl OBC!If'!PN;
r....::a.YD~OI'~tollmDIII ............
..-a.~fiOCIC.'I.Iel*-~"'"aMtl'l~ CJ!I'ICt.OCOonOilN"IMia.va.IUIIIOI~~-.u~
~
.. 1801 .... 0 ... ~
..COn'OI...-.oeoe&Na
~-c.• ...,..,_.......,
~ ........ ~
U1UY !EI'I1CB
-..:c:nor4ftCI"JJ~
...et~ g. or .vtOta~ --I.IC: f'.AO'Co.-.J&e..cc:.:
&104 ...._,.CIIol.GMco--C.U,..... __
~
0~1JlCIC...-.r:-...............
0~-.... .wu::~ ........
~~ ..... '-'C...call .........
<!> .,._.-.... r.r. ...oclll.........,
!L_ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *» __ ~ __________________________________________________ _J
' ' \ I
I I
'J
~ ,I
.(
/I
I I
I I
/ \
EAST CHERRY AVENUE l TRACT 3081-PRELIMINARY GRADING
~
"""' «wa-IC'Cll'.a -al!C'-1•--
II;II.Aoi. .... CI'~tl"': ... l ..
.. ~~G~....-~..:...,_. ..
~A!a!~~~~~~-------~------~~~~~~
tf ,.... .. ,g ..,...;.Oli(IQ:........._ ... ,......,UAII&a.ll>(
tG ..-c<IUDl (..Qodl&1CIICM~~·~Iii'OU.IIC..
Mll.t"~ICI~-..,~~
"' ..eM. .. .. --._.. ......
--.ca:......, ... """"~c:I'MIOU
lllatiii-T~Y.rtCJMM<.LWOI~I -
l
!
l
I
i
I
l
EAST CHERRY AVENUE
--
5!CJ10N ':!. ROAD T ------··------...-~---
--
SECOONCC ROADV ---=--··---~~-------~-----I
I
·II i~l
I
I
"' --
I TRACT 3081 -PRELIMINARY GRADING
I<
--
!KjpN H Al1Et T -
--
--
UCl!OW H W!CHEI<IIT -
J u
ATTACHMENT 5
~--. -~L~---.---""\ ... ,-----\ \
) ,.--__.;. ..:.__~
---"\ ------
-~ \
--_j
r--------------~--
1 --
1 _f
~-----.. -
··~::.. ____ .. _
Garden of Enduring Values
Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (AGVJWA)
SUBAREA3
Februoty 18,2016
~· ~ . J
• an.,daanlo/1\o..~Jc:hetrJV..
• • d.tnelliM: pt.d!."onof1aa tht ~ ef J•PMf..K ~·to A.rro)a O"nd•
• • Pw-Uit" Couc R.lhd p!dt N"VNI"f •ria\n-.1 loc;&do11 olcht dt~a~ (ooc Itt(~
• • rtta1.1 fum land
• V\ Gbci"J lniJJdon wdl (Of" l•nchapc ~ferinJ . ,.,ld ..
Historic Orchard Japanese Cultural Garden
California Native Garden Farm Garden
Ccm•·oJ CuMt J~ponc•c Amcrknn: Gardm oJEndun'ng Values
Garden of Enduring Values
Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (AGVJWA)
SUBAREA3
February 18, 2016
ATTACHMENT 7
rrm
Ill design
group
Date: july 24, 20 16
To: Carol Fl orence Organization: Oasis Associates
From: Robert Camacho Title: Project Man ager
ProJect Name: East Cherry Ave Entitlement ProJect Number: 0144-0 I-RS IS
Topic: East Cherry Ave Specific Plan Sub Areas Water Use As sessment Addendum
Th e purpose of this addendum to the "Water Use Assessment" prepared by RRM Design Group, is to
demonstrate how the project known as "East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Sub Areas". is still in
compliance with the statewide emergency conservation requirements, even when compared to the 20 IS
Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Arroyo Grande.
(For methodology on determining residential water usage from Gro ss Baseline Data, see original report.)
Orieinal Data Er2m ~~ I~ Orieioal ~ata En~m ~Q IS
Urba!l Wat~r Msmae~m~ot Urban Wat~r Manae~m~ot
fWl f.JAn
Residential Residential
Gross (GPCD) Gross (GPCD)
(GPCD) Gross * .77 (GPCD) Gross* .77
UWMP Gross
Baseline Usage 186 143 191 146 .7
UWMP Target
Usage 149 115 153 117.8
(2010 UWMP) (2015 UWMP)
Pe r Capita Per SFR Unit Per Capita Per SFR Unit
Calculated Baseline
Usage 13 2 3 17 113 271
28% Reduction 9S 228 81 19 5
Note: Pee SEB unjt : Per Cqpjtq * 24
(2010 UWMP)
GPD
Total Residential
Usage 349
Indoor Usage
(39%) 13 6
Outdoor Usage
(61%) 213
(2015 UWMP)
GPD
229
89
140
Project
Estimated
Demand GPO
204
122
82
(II% Below 2015
UWMP)
The project's projected water usage (indoor+ outdoor) = 204 GPO (see original report for calculation) is
still I I% below the 2015 Calculated Residential usage per unit.
As stated in the Water As sessment Report dated Nov 20 15, the City has used the following ground
water sources, Santa Maria Basin and Pismo Formation, as well as Lopez Reservoir as supply sources.
However, this project currently is supplied water through an on-site well that provides 35-65 AFY,
which is in addition to the city groundwater entitlements.
Per the Water Assessment Report dated Nov 20 15, Sub Area 2 has an estimated annual water usage of
14 .4 AFY. which is about one third of the existing use for farming operations. In addition, the proposed
use represents approximately 0 .7% ofthe City's existing 2,106 AFY usage (2015 UWMP).
Sub Area I
Sub Area 2
Sub Area 3
Area
(Acres+/-)
2.2
11.6
1.5
15 .3
Current Usage
(* 3 afy per acre)
6.48
34.8
-
41.3
Projected
Water !:!.
Demand (afy)
(afy per acre)
13 .8 -7.32
14.4 20.4
2.7 -2.7
AF
30.9 I 0.4 surplus
The proposed project is projected to increase the City's Water Supply entitlement by about I 0.4 AFY
(see aboye table!. This Ag conversation adds approximately 0.3% back to the City's existing 3,813 AFY
entitlement (20 IS UWMP page 5-2)
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Sub Area 2
Water Use Assessment -DRAFT
Date
November 6,. 2015
Prepared for:
NKT Properties
Prepared by:
Joshua Roberts, P .E.
rrm design
. group
3765 S. Higuera Street, Ste. 102
San luis Obispo, CA 93401
p 1805~543-1794
I. Background
The project site, Specific Plan Su barea 2, is located on the south side of and front ing East Cherry Aven ue,
east ofTraffic Way. Residential subdiv isions are located to the north an d north east, a mobile home
park to the so uthwest, and undeveloped hillsid e to th e south.
Figure 1 -Project Vicinity Map
Like Subarea 2, Suba r ea 1 to the so ut hwes t has been historica lly farmed as ro w crops. Although zo n ed
for mixe d-use, It is expected that Subarea 1 will remain in active ag ri cultura l for the nea r term. Subarea
3 located to the northeast , is a va can t , un -farm ed, unimproved parcel owned by the Japanese Welfare
Association. Tentative JWA plans include future development of the site for senior hou sing, a cultural
center and associated amenities.
Thi s report will analyze the esti mated w ater usage for the proposed deve lopment of Subarea 2.
Development of the 11.6 acre s within Subarea 2 inc ludes 59 si ngle fami ly res id ences, roadways,
parkways, a com mon area, and dedication of about 0.4 acres of land t o JWA.
East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment -Nov 20 15 1
Figure 2 -Proposed Project Site Plan
In addition, this report will analyze projected water use for the project; taking into co nsideration, the
historic use of the site and City record data, the 2015 statewide emergency conservation requirements,
and site specific design features.
The typ ical lot size within the proposed development i s 5,400 SF . This size is consistent with lot si zes in
the adjacent neighborhoods, but generally sma ller than typical lots on a city-wide basis. As such, indoor
and outdoor usage will be separate ly assessed to determine a more representative total projected water
usage.
East Cherry Avenu e Wate r Use Assess ment -Nov 2015 2
II. Historic Use
Project Site Farm Operati ons
The enti rety of Subarea 2 has been historically farmed year-round with a variety of vegetable row crops,
such as: broccol i/ cabbage, celery/ l ettuce, etc. Crop rotation has allowed for approxi mately 2 to 2.25
crops per acre per year. Supplemental overhead spray irrigation fo r t hese crops is obta ined f r om an
existing o n -s ite water well.
The tabl e below lists published UC Davis water use factors for a variety of row crops .
Irrigation (Acre Feet/Acre)
Broccol i 1.5 to 2.5
Cabbage 1.5 to 2.0
Ce l e r y 2.5 to 3 .5
Lettuce 1.5 to 2.0
Historic and current an nual water use, based on acreage, crop type, ir rigat'ion and crop rotation is
estimated to be in the range of 35 AFY to 65 AFY.
City Water Supp ly
The City of Arroyo Gra nd e has lo ng term allocation entitle m ents to 31 813 AFY f rom grou n dwater and
surface supply sou r ces. As of 2010, usage was 73% (2, 782 AFY) of t he City's entitlement.
Groundwater-Santa Maria Basin
Groundwater-Pismo Formation
Lopez Reservoir
(AFY)
1,323 (35%)
200 (5%)
2,290 (60%)
Historically, t he City has used all of t h ese supp ly sources to varying degr ees, in order to meet customer
demand. However, the proj ect site i s currently served entire ly by an on-site well pumping at 35 AFY to
65 AFY, wh i ch is i n addi t ion to the City's gro undwater entitlemen ts.
Co n siste nt with the City's Agricu ltural Conversion Cred it Rule of the 2002 Arroyo Gra n de Groundwater
Basi n Management Ag r eement, the net difference in water u se due to the conversion of agricu lt ure to
r esidential (typically a net increase in water supply) will be appli ed to the City's water supp ly
entit lement. The agricu lture to residential co nversion is elaborated on furth er in the D iscussion section
of this report.
East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment -Nov 2015 3
Ill. City Use Targets
Urban Water Management Plan
In January 2012 the City of Arroyo Grande adopted the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The
UWMP covers many topics, including supply, reliability, conservation, and historic and projected usage.
The UWMP is based on total water production on a per ca pita basis. A gross baseline per cap ita usage
of 186 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) was established in the UWMP (based on average historic use).
The year 2020 and beyond target usage is 149 gpcd; which is an equivalent reduction of 20%.
For purposes of this report, the UWMP gross gpcd values have been converted to residential gpcd.
Based on residential metered data listed in the UWMP for the years 2005 and 2010, residentia l usage
was 76% and 78% respectively of gross production. To account for non-residential uses and syste m
losses, gross production was multiplied by 77% to determine residential use .
UWMP Gross Baseline Usage
UWMP Target Usage (2020 and beyond)
Governor's Emergency Water Conservation
Gross Residentia l
186 gpcd
149 gpcd
143 r-gpcd
115 r-gpcd
In 2015, California water suppliers were requ ired to reduce residential water usage by 25% on average
statewide. The actua l mandated reduction varies by community from 4% to 36%. The City of Arroyo
Grande's target reduction is 28%. It is important to note that these target reductions are tied to current
metered use and not UWMP values.
The State established residential basis is the average water usage for the months of July through
September 2014. The calculated per cap ita base line usage for Arroyo Grande is 132 r-gpcd (residenti al
gallons per capita per day).
For purposes ofthis report, the per capita use was converted to a per SFR unit value by multiplying it by
the person s per household. Based on a City and U.S. Census, there is an average of approximately 2.4
persons per household for single family residences in Arroyo Grande; the ca lcu lated baseline equates to
about 344 gpd. This value is consistent with historic SFR usage. Actu al SFR metered use in 2005 and
2010 were 369 gpd, and 313 gpd respectively.
Ca lculated Baseline Usage
28% Reduction Target
Pe r Capita Per SFR Unit
132 r-gpcd
95 r-gpcd
317 gpd
228 gpd
The current reduction target to 95 r-gpcd is about 15% below the UWMP (adjusted) target of 115 r-gpcd.
As of July 2015, Arroyo Grande had successfully reached the State mandated target reduction. The
actual calc ulated use was 92 r-gpcd . However, September 2015 usage rose to 100 r-gpcd.
East Cherry Avenue Water Us e Assessment-Nov 2015 4
IV. Indoor vs. Outdoor Water Use
Percent Actual Residential 2010 Usage -Indoor & Outdoor
Based on 2010 ac tual values for all r eside nti al uses from the UWMP and Waste Water M a nage ment Plan
(WWMP), the percentage of indoor vs outdoor usa ge were 39% and 61% respect ively. The 2 010 data
was used to determine indoor vs outdoor usage b ecause reliable domestic metering and waste flows
were available for that time period, and the actual values reflect the known decline in residential usage
as a result of plumbing retrofits of existing residences for the sa me period. Total residentia l usage In
2010 was 349 gpd or 122 per capita.
Total Residential Usage (UWMP 2010 Actual)
Indoor Usage (WWMP 2010 Actual)
Outdoor Usage (Calcu lated)
349 gpd {1 22 r-gpcd)
136 gpd (39%)
213 gpd (61%)
It is also worth noting th at the actu al 2010 per capita usage of 122 r-gpcd is similar to and slightly less
than the ca lculated 2015 emergency baseline usage of 132 r-gpcd .
As such, it is assumed t hat water use, especia lly in door use, h as remai ned relatively stab le from 2010 to
2015; up until the time of the Governor's emergency order.
Indoor Usage-Plumbing Retrofit & Water Efficient Appliances
The UWMP calculated a wate r savings of 156 AFY (~24 gpd per residence) res ult ing from the insta llation
of water con serving showerheads, f aucets, press ure regulators, and toilets. This value is co nsistent with
the declin e In indoor residential water usage from 159 gpd in 2005 to 136 gpd in 2010. The majority of
the conservation was du e to insta llation o f ultra-low flow toil ets (4,011 installations).
For the proposed East Cherry Avenue project all reside nces will include these water conse rving features .
In addition, it is anticipated that actual water conservation will be higher when considering the likely use
of high efficie ncy washing machines and di shwas hers in a ll the propose d homes.
Outdoor Usage
Based on UWMP data, hi storic outdoor water usage wa s ca lculated at 61% of the total household use .
This is a re latively high pe rcentage, especia lly when compared to oth er urbanized areas, su ch as the City
of San Lui s Ob ispo which ha s an estimated outdoor u sage of 40%. The higher perce ntage usage in
Arroyo Grande ca n be attributed to genera lly large r parce l sizes (~10,000) and extent of lawn areas;
co nsid ering lawn/turf require a higher water u sage when co mpared to low-use drought tolerant
land sca pin g.
Based on anecd otal evidence, such as brown lawns, etc., it would appear th at (following the Governor's
order) a majority of t h e City's r esi dentia l water u se sav ings has been through sig nificant reductions in
landscape usage on exist ing lots.
East Cherry Ave nue Wate r Use Assessment-Nov 2015 s
V. Project Residential Water Use
Indoor Water Use
In review of the historic data as part of the UWMP and the usage calculations associated with the State
emergency order, the projects indoor usage is projected to be consistent with the calculated indoor
usage from the UWMP for 2010 of 136 gpd per residence.
It is also safe to assume that the indoor usage for each home will be at least 10% more efficient than the
typical Arroyo Grande home in 2010, when considering the use of high efficiency washing machines and
dishwashers . That equates to an indoor usage of 122 gpd.
Indoor Usage (WWMP 2010 Actual)
10% Reduction Credit for Water Efficient Appliances
136 gpd
-14 gpd
Proposed Indoor Usage 122 gpd (51 per capita)
Outdoor Water Use
Parcels within the proposed project average 5,400 square feet in size. It is estimated that on average,
no more than 50% of the lot area will be landscaped with mostly low and moderate water use
landscape.
The project will include 'smart' irrigation controllers, which automatically revise watering schedules
based on climactic conditions . In addition, the use of lawn/turf is prohibited and high-efficient drip-only
irrigation (no overhead spray) systems will be installed. All proposed landscaping will conserve water
through the use of drought tolerant varieties.
In accordance with the above, it was calculated based on State of California standards for ETWU
landscape usage, that landscaping will consume no more than 29,800 ga l lons per year (average 82 gpd);
more than half the historic usage of existing developments in the City.
Proposed Outdoor Usage 82 gpd (34 per capita)
Projected Project Water Usage
The proposed project is estimated to use an average of 204 gpd, which is 11% below the State's
Emergency Ordinance. This reduction is achieved through the use of highly water efficient indoor
appliances and plumbing fixtures, and low water use landscaping.
Residential Water Usage (per unit)
Total Project Residential Usage (59 units)
204 gpd (85 per capita)
13.5 AFY
East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessmen t-Nov 2015 6
VI. Project Common Landscape Water Use
Parkway landscaping
The proposed project includes landscaped parkways with a mix of shrubs, trees, groundcover, and
mulch/bark. As with the residences, turf is prohibited. The project parkway landscaping totals
approximately 27,000 SF. In addition, to restricting turf, it is anticipated that the project will increase
the plant layout spacing (reduced plant density); as such a 20% reduction is included in the usage
calculations. This is the equivalent of planting at a 5ft spacing, vs a 4ft spacing. This technique not only
saves water, but reduces plant competition.
Proposed Parkway Usage 0.7 AFY
Common Area/Neighborhood Park landscaping
The proposed project includes a partially landscaped common lot intended to serve a mix of recreational
activities such as a 'tot-lot' play area, seating, pathways, BBQ, etc. It is assumed that no more than ha lf
of the common lot would be landscaped, with increased plant spacing (as described above). The
remainder of the lot would have use appropriate covering (DG, mulch, etc). The total common lot is just
over a third of an acre at 14,700 SF.
Proposed Common Lot Usage 0.2 AFY
VII. Total Project Water Use
The proposed project is est i mated to use a tota l of 14.4 AFY of water. This usage is approximately one
third of the existing use for farm operations. In addition, the proposed use is approximately 0.5% of the
City's existing 2,782 AFY {2010) usage .
Proposed Project Usage
VIII. Estimated Ag Conversion Credit
14.4AFY
(0.5% of 2010 Use)
The proposed project is estimated increase the City's water supply entitlement by 20.4 AFY . The Ag
Conversation add approxi mately 0 .5% to the City's existing 3,813 AFY entitlement.
Ag Conversion Credit (net) 20.4 AFY
(0.5% entitlement increase)
East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment-Nov 2015 7
IX. Discussion
The attachment section of this report includes calcu lations, break-downs, and summaries for
determining the above va lues.
Indoor vs Outdoor Percentage: The proposed projects indoor vs outdoor use is almost exactly a 60/40
percentage split. This value is consistent with i ndoor vs outdoor usage for the SFR categories in cities
like San Luis Obispo; which by comparison have (on average) similarly sized homes and lots as the
proposed East Cherry project.
A lthough, while the proposed east Cherry homes may be similar in nature to homes in San Luis Obispo,
there are a number of other factors which influence usage.
Project Usage vs San Luis Obispo: Per the Governor's order, the City of San Luis Obispo has a baseline
water use of 70 r-gpcd and a reduction target to 62 r-gpcd. However, there are a number of factors
which influen ce and should be accounted for in comparing SLO city values to the project.
When taking account of the following factors (and their differences), the actual projected per capita
usage for the project is not t hat dissimilar from San Luis Obispo.
The City of SLO has a slightly coo ler climate than AG, and as such, ET (evapotranspiration) rates are
about 6% lower (49 vs 52), requiring less supplemental irrigation. The City of SLO has a lower
percentage of residential water users than AG (60% vs 80%); this difference can skew per capita use and
account for about 5% difference in usage. The City of SLO has about 10% more MFR units as compared
to AG; this is combined with a typically higher percentage (about 10%) of indoor use vs outdoor. And
finally, the City of SLO has a genera lly younger demographic.
After taking into co n sideration the above factors, the proposed project not only exceeds the State
mandate, but is consistent with other loca l usages .
Grey Water Systems: Althou gh not accounted for in the above project analysis, each home in the
proposed project w ill include pre-plumbing for a grey water system. The effect iveness of grey water
systems can vary greatly depending on the type of system installed and t h e homeowner's application of
the system. That sa id, it is not unreasonable to get 20% or more in conservation from these syste ms.
Agricultural Conversion Credit: The Ag Credit Rule entitles the City of Arroyo Grande to increase urban
grou ndwa ter use by a factor of t hree (3) acre-feet per year per acre minus t he calcu lated urban usage
per acre per year. Per the City, Spec ifi c Plan Subareas 1 and 2 are qualifying "irrigated agricultural la nd "
in the 1979 DWR report. The gross credit for existin g use is 34.8 AFY based on the calculation in the Ag
Credit Rule.
The project's Calc ulated Urban Usage shall be based on an accepted methodology origin ally proposed by
Todd Eng in eers which has been employed and accepted by the City on previous projects. Upon
comp letion, the City will track act ual annua l water use for 3 consecutive years for the project, and
calc ulate the average usage. For purposes ofthis report, it is assumed that the actua l a nnu al use w ill be
consistent with the projected use calculated herein of 14.4 AFY. The net increase in the City's water
supp ly entitlement is approximately 20.4 AFY (0.5% of the exist in g entitlement).
East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment-Nov 2015 8
Attachments
East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment -Nov 2015 9
Meters Met ered Use (AFY) Ave Da ily Use (GPO} Notes
Urban Water Manage ment Plan Data
Actual 2005 Usage
Gross Production
SFR
MFR
Total
Indoor Usase Sailings (est imate)
lntlo/lotlon of Wollr eansrrvotlon Toll•t• & FIXturll
Actual 2010 Usage
Gross Production
SFR
MFR
Total
Hi storic Indoor vs Outdoor Usage
WWM P Act ual 2010
(Indoor use)
Net Outdoor Use 2010
Governors Emergency Water Cons ervation
Meters
5577
107
5684
5908
5801
107
5908
5897
Gross (AFY)
3415
Net Use (AFY)
2308
288
2596
76H
Of Grots
156
Gross (AFY)
2956
Net Use (AFY)
203 1
278
2309
78H
0/Grou
AAF (g pd)
804338
369
408
24
16%
313
349
136
212
Persons per household (City & US Census)
8·29 ·15 Order Baseline useage
Mtuo/Ju/y throug~ S.pf 201•
28% Red uction T~rget
July 2015 Reported Actual
Ca lculated Proj ect Usage
Projected Indoor Wat er Usage
Projected Outdoor Water Usage
TOTAL Project Water Usage
Auumed Rrduct{on
Ptrrrwu CQ/culo tlon
2.4 317
228
10% 122
82
20 4
gpd
0.23
AFV/unlt
Per capit a
183
Persons per hOusehOld
2.66 Persons Per Household
lndoorH Baud on 20J0Actuo/s
Per capita
139 2005 Pop • 16,682
Indoor" Bostd on 20J0Actvols
Ave Reduction
Per capita
156
Persons per household
2.56
Per capita
122
Per capita
132
95
92
51
34
85
Per Capita
13.5
AFV
Persons Per Household
Indoor H Baud on 20JO Actuoll
2010 Pop = 16,901
Indoor H Baud on lOJO Ar:tuols
39% Indoor Use
61% Outdoor Use
Per Water Boards
Calculat ed
Per Wate r Boards
60%
40%
11% Reduction Emergency Baseline
Calculated Max Annual Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU}:
Typical Residential lot
Enter values for your project in square feet:
Total landscape Area
Turf
low (Drought Tolerant)
Moderate
High (Thirsty)
Sports Field
Vegetables
[check toto/)
Typical lot Area (SF)
Percent Landscape Coverage
Plant Spacing Reduction
Average Eto for Arroyo Grande-UWMP (in/yr)
Mandated ET adjustment factor (Govenor's Order)
Conversion factor (ga llons to sq uare feet)
SLA adjustment factor
SLA =Special Landscape Area (sports field, vegetable garden)
LA= La ndscape Area
PF = Pl ant Factor from WUCOLS Ill
HA = Hydrozone Area square feet
IE= Irrigation Efficiency
Units= Billing Units or 748 gallons
MAWA = (Eto)(0.62)[0.5 *LA + 0.3 * SLA)
ETWU = (Eto)(0.62)((PF *HA)/IE+SLA)
96
75%
20%
5%
100%
SF
2700
0
2025
540
135
0
0
2,700
5,400
SO%
0%
52.13
0.50
0.62
0.30
85%
MAWA Gallons
MAWA Units
ETWU Gallons
ETWU Units
GPO
AFY
Gai./SF/YR
I
I
I
I
43,633
58
29,773
40
81.6
0.1
ll.O
Calculated Max Annual Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU):
Parkway Landscaping
Enter values for your project in square feet:
Total Landscape Area
Turf
Low (Drought Tolerant)
Moderate
High (Thirsty)
Sports Field
Vegetables
[check total]
Area (SF)
Percent Landsca p e Coverage
Plant Spacing Reduction
Average Eto for Arroyo Grande-UWMP (in/yr)
Mandated ET adjustment factor (B -29-15)
Conversion factor (gallons to square feet)
SLA adjustm ent factor
SLA =Special Landscape Area (sports field, vegetable garden )
LA = Landscape Area
PF = Plant Factor f rom WUCOLS Ill
HA = Hydrazone Area square feet
IE =Irrigation Efficiency
Units= Billing Units or 748 gallons
MAWA = (Eto)(0.62)[0.5 * LA+ 0.3 * SLA]
ETWU = (Eto)(0.62)((PF*HA)/IE+SLA)
%
75%
25%
0%
10096
SF
26982
0
20237
6746
0
0
0
26,982
26,982
100%
20%
52.13
0.50
0.62
0.30
85%
MAWA Gallons
MAWAUnits
ETWUGallons
ETWU Units
GPO
AFY
Gai./SF/YR
I
I
I
I
436,037
583
225,713
302
618.4
0.7
8.4
-
Calculated Ma>< Annual Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU):
Common Lot Landscapi ng
Enter values for your project in square feet:
Total Landscape Area
Turf
Low (Drought Tolerant)
Moderate
High (Thirsty)
Sports Field
Vegetables
{ch eck total}
Area (SF)
Percent Landscape Coverage
Plant Spaci ng Reduction
Average Eto for Arroyo Grande -U W M P (in/yr)
Mandate d ET adjustment factor (B-29-15)
Co nve rsion factor (gallons to square feet)
SLA ad j ustm ent factor
SLA =Special Landscape Area (sports field, vegeta b le ga rden)
LA = Landscape Area
PF =Pl ant Factor from WUCOLS Ill
HA = Hydrozone Area square feet
I E= Irr igat i on Effi cie ncy
Units= Billing Units or 7 4 8 ga ll ons
MAWA = (Eto)(0.62)[0.5 "' LA+ 0.3 * SLA)
ETWU = (Eto){0.62)((PF*HA)/IE+SLA)
%
75%
20%
5%
100!}6
SF
7360
0
5520
1472
368
0
0
7,360
14,719
50%
20%
52 .13
0 .50
0.62
0 .30
85%
MAWA Gallons
MAWAUnits
ETWUGallons
ETWU Units
GPO
AFY
Ga i./SF/YR
I
I
l
l
118,932
159
64,923
87
177.9
0.2
8.8
____ .,..
c:Al.O.AAfR)Totll~ ~ WM!W CALCUI..A.Tmfotlil~~ CAI.OAATm......,.a CALOAATt'D a..GPCD l!Ot.t/101S ~· .._ ................... P'rodbc:tloft lOJ.v»ts6111oM '~ wai~~==.::-s lDH/211U~of ~"rWIIC~fo;wdfl;alf .... --.._ ....... -.... -ec...ntDSblndard~ ~~ ......... at ~bfr'Wlit.t'r eo.nl Raft. Jt'IJ'IC:MtTD
IIOOIITlD ..... --
CALCUI.AJTO Total -...-.. ... _ --.. ..._101>1 -J--· ..... Jw TobiMollcNy~ W.-.et ~ Yh.tl!lf"~ ZOU·ID'ORltO ----""'vJ ____ ,__
"" ... .,_~~ ... .,.,lS·W'OKTti>-A&U.. Monttfr A& Ure 10~ conwrtad too Produdian lm.t/201S ,,_. .. _ ....... ,....-~ ..... 1/ .... ,...
__...,..,iwlb.-o/1 2G1C/'11Jl.S;~to~ __, .._) _ ..... ,___ .............. ..--odll
.. ,,..Gt .... cttvCif ... ...... -... 5l_,o:n•n lOJ...91.•.<DO ll21!M2&St 9>.0 10
llf11ot0GI .... Otyof ... _,. ,.,. ... 16.92'9.11J 99,3SUOO l01.D'1.)9104 1042 ..
Anvpo G<.-k Ot.,-af ... .. .,..u IMl. ... '~~292 ,-,_nz.ao 1£a26l39..513 107..5 ..
~~Otyo! '" ·-15 HULl "" 57~74t 512 16.S1l,990 Nul lOU ..
ano,.o c;,-;.. ott or ... t.t.ar-15 N\JLL ... M,235_.&S6 7.(,978,&1] Nul ,.. 10
.-uoyoGr..oc-atraf '"' f<l>-15 NULL ... S6.4UI'.812 S&,sss,scl Hul ..... 10
MoyoQ.,dt-Cif'r-af ,., -·~ NULL ... Q,002.112 >a.m.<>M ..... 911 10
ArroyoGnNk Oty-at , .. Oec-14 NULL "" •l.n9.95o9 7l,aJ7,9ll Nul >•o 10
IITWO~"Wk City or , .. No.U. HULL ... &2,1)12.111 n.n•.sc• Nul ,_, 80
'-''<IYOGrll"de atrar , .. Oct 14 N\JLl ... IO,.J59,tS1 !1:1 .. 10.090 .... U1A 10 ....,..G-..... 01-o'" Yu ~p-1« "'-'U ... "~67Ct,&7-4 94,2QJ,648 Nul m> ..
M'O,.O<inl'ldt otyGf ,., Auc·14 NUll ... 16.139.405 IOO.SSl,lSO ,. .. uu ..
..,.,..Groodeotyol , .. Jul. it HUll ... so..•S&.'SG-10J .. II4..QZO Nul U&.l .,
1\.~Gt~Ot,ct ,., lun-lC NULL Ho ---99.35UOO .... 1)9.2 ..
S*"'W.~Qyfll Yo M-15 ..... "' ln]Q,.In '"-"'-'<11 ~.130 su 5I) .......... -..01-f .. Yes .......15 llll No ut.I09 ... , tn.~las ..... uu &1)5 5I)
s.. .... -... a., .. Yes ...... .. NUU. No 131,sJ.S.Jl'l) lM.l41,100 <US•.JCO S&.S "" ................. 0., .. Yes ,t,p'·l.S IIUU No 133. ......... lsuauol ~ ... su 60
Sa'ILW.~Qyol ... MM-lS MJU. •• ~7'$7.197 1n.JOa.On -su "' ~IMISOtiico ChyO( ... ..... u IOJU ... 109,<m.U7 11~6 ... su "' SonlUiselt>o!>OCit-tol ... J,m.i.S ....... No UU>D,U7 UJ.tS&,l17 .... n.t "' s.otwa.-.ar.o~ ... Dlf'c·lt HUll ... 10!:t.,lol7.?U; Ul..z,&J.l" -.... ...
s..u..a.->a.,ol ... ..... ,. -. No l.lQ.S19.7Q 147.N&.D'l ... .,. .,
Sooot...~CIIyol ... ~H4 HIAl ... 156.""-"" 173.1)27JOJ ,... ... "' S.OU.Sabl>oo OO.,ol ... Sep--14 ....... .... 156,1>C,sJO no 010.200 ... .. .. "' ~LYII~OI:tfllf ... ...... 'iiA1 No lR»•.ou 118..140.711 .... OiU ...
Sats1..S Oblrrpo City ot ... lul-l' ~ .... u;•wns 111_1)').,»3 .... ]I.J "' s.tllUiJObcoo Clttfll ... ..... ...... "" .... 791,<09 11!.)S1_~ ~ .. , .. ""
1
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
ATTACHMENT 8
2
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
3
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.
My House
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CIRCULATION - MAP 3
= Revised October 9, 2001
Highway/Arterial
Collector
Circulation Study Area
Pedestrian Area
Proposed Signal/Alternative
Priority 1 Transit Stops
Priority 2 Transit Stops
Signal/Intersection Alternative
T
T
T
TTT
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T
T
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Path/Trail
Commenter 25 – Brian Pedrotti
This comment letter was received 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 letter for consideration by 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 of the 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 associated with this roadway stub are included with Project 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 identifies that the collector stub and a future collector road on the 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 project or program, the CEQA process provides opportunities for the public
to comment at the time a future roadway may be proposed.
TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RE: development at Traffic and Cherry
It is my opinion that this project is too big for all the water issues we are having. A new hotel
is going in with 54 rooms, why do we need 100 more, to keep up with Pismo? Cut down on
the amount of this project. I understand tourism is a big money maker, but what about your
residents , who are so concerned with dry wells, increased water bills, increased traffic thru
the village, besides finding it more and more difficult to find parking in the village.
Also, while I'm giving my opinion, keep Camp Arroyo Grande zoned for what is was deeded
as. Not development. Again, water issues primarily. Remember, Lopez is down to 26%.
I hope this gets read. Thanks much, Robby Gussman
Arroyo Grande
RECEIVED
AUG 3 I 2016
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 31, 2016
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Comm ission
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Planning Commission Members:
-I
RECEIVED I
AUG 3 X 20 1o
CITY OF ARROYO GRANO£
J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-001; DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 15-001; SPECIFIC PLAN 15-001; VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP 15·001; COND ITIONAL USE
PERMIT 15-004; COND ITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-001) AND EVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION-EAST
CHERRY AVENUE AND TRAFFIC WAY; APPLICANTS-SRK HOTELS, MANGANO HOMES, INC ., AND ARROY GRANDE
VALLEY JAPANESE WELFARE ASSOCIATION.
We are opposed to the 60 lot residential subd ivis ion and the 90-100 room hotel and restaurant, which are proposed in this
development project. Arroyo Grande has a seve re water shortage, wh ich will not be fixed for a very significant amount of time,
even If it ra ined this winter. The water table is so low that It will not be f illed to normal in one rain period. Because of this low
underground water tabl e and the extreme low capacity of Lopez, the city should have Imposed a moratorium on all building
permits for projects that will end up exacerbating the existing water problems. It is unfair to allow building projects such as the
ones proposed that will nega t ively impact other existing homeowners who are already bearing the burden of the water
shortage, and will become more st ringent and restrictive with no significant rains. To add any projects that will create further
shortages is un co nscionab le for the already difficult situation.
When and If projects suc h as the afore mentioned are allowed to continue to be up for review, the city should be able to prove
to the public that the underground water tables have retu rned to their normal levels, and that Lopez is once again at a high
capacity. Until then, no projects should be approved that exace rbates existing negative conditions. We would appreciate the
reading of this short message Into the re cords of your hearing meeting.
Mr. & Mrs. Leroy Sa ruwatarl
Launa Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RECEIVED
AUG 3 1 20 16
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1
Subject:RE: East Cherry Ave Development - Public Hearing 9/6
From: Linda Keating
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:11 AM
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: Use of 650 Private Driveway to service 24 homes – East Cherry Ave Development
Dear Members of the Planning Commission
I’m unable to attend the meeting on 9/6. In correspondence to Mr. Rickenbach, I have raise my concerns of the use of a
proposed 650’ private driveway to service 24 homes. This presents a safety hazard. San Luis Obispo, limits the number
of lots serviced to 4. Most other cities have turn around requirements.
For reasons stated below, I would suggest that both the Chief of Police and Fire Chief sign off on this plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Linda Keating
Myrtle
TO: John Rickenbach via e‐mail: jfrickenbach@aol.com
CC: Arroyo Grande Planning
RE: Cherry Lane Development
The Project as defined has several issues. With this correspondence, I’m only addressing the shared private driveway
aka Residential Alley. As proposed, a 650 ft by 20 ft Residential Alley will serve 24 (54 ft by 102 ft ) lots. The issues and
solution are listed below.
Average Lot size deceptively inflated.
Because the developer has proposed using a Residential Alley in place of a Residential Interior Street, the Alley is
included in the lot size. This means that 540 sf of each lot is shared with the other lots abutting the alley making the
“useable” lot only 4968 sf. If a Street is used instead of an Alley, the lot size would be reduced even further to only
(54*102) ‐(54*26) =4101. This a 25% reduction!
Violation enforcement.
According to a representative from the AG Police department, AGPD has no authority to enforce illegal parking in a
shared private driveway.
In 2014, I built a house at 313 Myrtle Drive in Arroyo Grande. This house shares a private driveway with two other
properties. Even with no parking postings, service people working at adjacent properties continually park in the
2
driveway. When a vehicle is parked in the driveway across from my garage, it is impossible to back out of the garage—
even with a multiple point turning effort.
In my case, I was told that the only alternative would be to have the Alley declared a fire lane, paint the curbs red and
then the no‐parking law could be enforced.
Evacuation.
In the event of an emergency requiring evacuation, having a driveway of this length, serving 24 homes, would be
chaotic. With adjacent garages, both occupants cannot back out at the same time.
Security.
Because the Alley is considered private property, it’s unlikely that this would be included in standard patrol
rounds. Without proper lighting, it will evolve into an attractive location for illegal entry into the homes sharing the
driveway.
Turnarounds and Guest Parking
The plan does not provide any guest parking or turn arounds in the proposed Alley. While the city can encourage garage
only parking in practice this doesn’t happen. A quick look at East Cherry Lane on a weekend is evidence of this. Also,
maneuvering emergency vehicles in this area would be extremely difficult.
Household Services and Repairs
Many common household services require access to the garage area of the house. These include water softener and
bottle delivery, cleaning services etc. And, many repair people need access through the garage. Any parking (even short
term) in a Private Access Driveway is illegal and restricts the access of the other users of the driveway. So, to provide
basic services to these homes this leaves no viable alternative.
What do other local cities do?
Attached is the code section from San Luis Obispo. Common driveways are limited to serving only 4 residences. These
should be the minimal standards applied to this development. Additionally, Arroyo Grande should incorporate code
similar to SLO into their own building codes. If these codes were in effect when my house was built, I would not be in
the difficult position I now find myself.
Solution.
Reduce the lots in this area by 4.
The total size of the area is 132,192 sf. ‐‐ (102 (lot depth) *54(lot width) *24 (number of lots))
Area required for Residential Interior Street (without linear park) is 33,696 ‐‐ (54’ (lot width) *12(number of lots)
*52’(street width))
Area remaining with public street is Individual lot size for 20 lots = 4924.8 sf
In addition to providing proper and protected access to the homes, reducing the lot count would somewhat lessen the
“ticky‐tacky little boxes” view along Cherry. The additional frontage space could be used for planting.
I sincerely hope that the City of Arroyo Grande will consider the importance of the wellbeing of the residents who will
occupy these homes, over the pocket book of the developer.
3
Linda Keating
Myrtle Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA
4
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.
1
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.
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, 2001 records the 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
properties to 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 a prominent issue in his campaign, They
specifically criticized Lady, Lubin and Runels even 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 policy in the meetings of December 10, 2002 and
January 14, 2003 with the intent to reverse the Vanderveen, Japanese, and Dorfman
decisions by the prior Council. They used a compelling argument to preserve Prime Ag Soil
lands even 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 area designated 7E (now the Creekside Estates development) was
ignored by the prior and present Councils in terms of it possessing Prime AG Soils and
Open Space. No discussion occurred about the agricultural attributes of area 7E.
It was defined to be a “transitional area” to be developed despite its “open space” and
“prime Ag soils”. It is 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 Ag properties with prime ag soils and open space was being
thrown on the alter of commercial residential development by the new 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 now led to a review of the Ag policy in 2005 because 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 a brilliant analysis
of the situation by Commissioner Nancy Parker.
1
This important question is now at issue because 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) that Councilman
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, explaining that “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 him without 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 Land Use 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 wording suggested
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 prime farmland 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/Conservation and 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 Ordinance Suspending
Development Applications For Development of Any Prime Farmland Soils.
Director of Community Development Strong presented the staff report and recommended
the Council consider the following alternative methods to prevent possible “Prime
Agricultural Land Conversion”:
1) Adopt an Interim Urgency Ordinance and direct staff to immediately prepare a study
considering all ramifications of allowing development of prime farmland soils; or 2)
Introduce an Ordinance 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.
Following public comments, Mayor Ferrara “brought the item back to Council for
discussion and consideration. Council discussion, questions and comments ensued regarding
whether the policies within the Agricultural, Open Space & Conservation Element of the
General Plan needed to be reviewed further.”
Council Member Dickens moved to adopt an interim urgency ordinance and direct staff 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 and direct
staff to prepare a study considering all ramifications of allowing the 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 is hereby declared to be passed.
III. MEETING JANUARY 14, 2003
10.b. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Suspending Development Applications for
Development of Prime Farmland Soils.
4
Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the
Council adopt an Ordinance introduced on December 10, 2002 to temporarily suspend
processing of development applications involving conversion of prime farmland soils for a
180 day period during which time staff will prepare special planning and impact studies.
After public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period 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 is discussed and
mentioned. He referred to page 5, Visions Workshop, where it states that the participants at
the workshop were in general agreement regarding preservation of agricultural lands;
referred to page 6, Alternatives Workshop, where it states that there is substantial public
concurrence for the preservation of existing agricultural lands and alternatives that
suggested conversion had very little support; referred to page 6, General Plan Update
Citizens Survey, where it states that about 1,020 surveys were completed and returned with
results that reiterated the community’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
historical association 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 belief that 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 to study
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 that areas 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 to ensure that significant
defects on the environment of agricultural conversions are quantitatively and consistently
considered; and a means of weighing specific factors and scoring thresholds for making
determinations of significance under the CEQA process. He supported the proposed
ordinance.”
Council Member Runels stated this was a broad subject and there was a difference of
opinion among various experts and people who work the land on what prime land is. He
spoke of requiring certain soil types for certain crops, water availability issues, property
owner rights, and economic viability. He spoke of the developments outside of the city limits
which have helped to pay for the water and sewer services and the infrastructure. He stated
that each parcel of land needed to be judged on its own merits. 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 was focused on one project in the City. He stated that the
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 said land use
and planning is crucial for the future. He suggested focus and emphasis for the study should
be to provide for equitable alternatives to conversion of prime farmland soils using
resources such as the Williamson Act and conservation districts; a reconciliation between
smart growth principles and how they relate to the agriculture and urban interface; and
suggested obtaining published documents available from the League of California Cities
regarding how to responsibly go about the process of preserving agriculture. He commented
that prime agriculture parcels should not be considered on a case-by-case basis and that it
should be decided responsibly from a land use position what parts of the City are going to
be urbanized and 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 and zoning
changed in certain areas. He said it happened at the end of the process, right before 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 ordinance to 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 Modify Certain Policies of the
Land Use Element and the Agricultural Open Space and Conservation 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 Buffer Overlay District Text and Mapping, and
Implementing Recommendations from the Report on the Conservation of 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 and commented
that its purpose was to evaluate the cumulative impacts and alternatives to agricultural
conversion and propose additional alternative agricultural preservation strategies. He
acknowledged the methods identified in the Report which include buffers, mitigation
ordinances and policies, transfer development credits, purchase of agricultural conservation
easements, forming a local Land Trust chapter, the Williamson Act, and supported the
recommendations in the study which look at alternatives to assist the City in preserving its
agricultural land. He supported the Planning Commission recommendations 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 to better
define and clarify the process so that the Planning Commission and City Council has the
tools to make objective decisions about future requests. He stated there were 30 agricultural
zoned parcels in the City that are 5 acres or less and that he believed there is agricultural
value and commercially viable use for smaller parcels. He encouraged the use of buffers to
allow the farmers to continue their farming operations. He stated that the Planning
Commission recommendations expand on the policies already in place in the 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 these properties.
Director Strong replied that the Council would not be implementing any of the 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 that letter (on file in the
Administrative Services Department). He then responded to public comments regarding the
State housing mandate; he supported smart-growth principles which include looking at
small parcels that are considered to be in-fill in the City’s urban core and looking at ways to
meet the City’s housing demands; and he clarified that during the General Plan Update
process, the Council had decided it would not convert the City’s small fringe agriculture
parcels. He referred to and read excerpts from a letter written by former Community
Development Director McCants to the County Board of Supervisors just prior to the
adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update, reflecting the City’s land use policy and 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 Commission recommendations 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 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, programs and proposed provisions
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 opened the 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 POLICIES AND 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
the Negative 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, LLC Council 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 of Council 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
agricultural purposes, 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
infrastructure systems.
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 farmland soils 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 whether or not the land is
actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. (This definition is derived from the
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as reorganized and amended in 2000.
Section 56064(a)).
Prime farmland soils shall also include farmland of Statewide importance as identified in
the USDA, Natural Resources 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 a natural,
undeveloped state.
The City’s objective shall be to maintain 100% of the conservation/Open Space designation
under interim or permanent open space or conservation easements.
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.), or conversion to urban/suburban use (including residential
yards/gardens and recreational areas).
Cessation of agricultural use shall not constitute loss so long as the parcel remains fallow or
is allowed to revert to a natural 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 diminish the capability of agricultural operations on the
parcel or within the area and the improvements are directly related to agricultural
production on the site.
Ag1-4.2 Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include
permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of 1:1 with regard to the acreage of
land removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may involve,
but is not limited to, dedication of a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement or
other effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shall AgC/OS – 3 not
be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of location shall be determined by
the City Council.
The aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and
contiguous to City boundaries, 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 mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime
farmland soils include payment of 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 and C/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 after the imposition of available
mitigation and consideration of alternatives to avoid the proposed action, may the City
Council approve development on prime farmland soils subject to overriding considerations
as permitted by California 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 new Ag 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 members Sandy 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 the issue at hand: All that Ag and no place to farm!
The City Of Arroyo Grande’s General Plan was approved on a 3/2 vote at the Council
meeting of October 9, 2001. Mike Lady was mayor. Present mayor Tony Ferrara and
Council member Jim Dickens did not concur with the Ag part of the plan. They disagreed
with the Ag policy and the conversion of the Vanderveen, Japanese, and Dorfman
properties.
In 2002, 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 policy and reverse the conversions in meetings on
December 10, 2002 and January 14, 2003. This was finalized on March 23, 2004.
Surprisingly, in the same meeting that finalized the Ag plan on March 23, 2004, the Council
considered the Creekside Estates plan. It proposes to use lands that has prime Ag soils and
is open space? Observers asked how could the City pretend to preserve Ag while appearing
to concur in the development of property that 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 removed themselves
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 about mayor Ferrara? Where does principle give in to political compromise? He
abandoned the principle of defending AG and gave in to political compromise by approving
the Japanese/Dorfman conversion! Will he politically compromise himself now on the
Creekside Estates matter considering his relationship with proponents of the project? Will
he defend the Ag policy? If he doesn’t, how will Ferrara explain this considering he 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
1
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
2
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
3
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.
1
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,
is the only ingress/egress for about 200 residents (including 2 churches). We exit TrafficWay Ext right at
the No. bound off ramp from the frwy. It is approx, 50' 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.
After the planning committee meeting of Sept 6th we 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
No one attending the planning meeting believes that the water usage from the prior Ag use is more 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.
2
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.
1
Subject:RE: East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
From: Cindy & George Hansen
Date: September 11, 2016 at 6:50:34 PM PDT
To: <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Ms. McClish,
According to Title 16, the city must require agricultural mitigation for discretionary entitlements
which will subdivide or change the use of land zoned agriculture or agriculture preserve to any
non‐agricultural use. That mitigation is to be satisfied by comparable size, soil quality and water
supply. Specifically:
1. “At least as many acres of prime agricultural land shall be protected as was
changed to a non‐agricultural use within city limits.”
Applicant’s Appendix N Water Usage Calculations reports an ag conversion of 13.78
acres, yet Applicant proposes only a 9.79‐acre property. This does not meet requirements
of Title 16, which sets a minimum 1‐1 ratio. How will the shortage of 3.99 acres be met?
2. “To the greatest extent possible, the agricultural mitigation land shall be
comparable in soil quality with the agricultural land whose use is being changed to
nonagricultural use. “
I can find no information regarding soil quality of the proposed 9.79‐acre property
proposed to mitigate 13.78 acres of prime agricultural land. Would you please direct me to
that information.
3. “The agricultural mitigation land shall have an adequate water supply to support
agricultural use and the water supply on the agricultural mitigation land shall be protected in the
agricultural conservation easement, the farmland deed restriction or other document evidencing the
agricultural mitigation. “
I can find no information regarding water supply located on the 9.79‐acre property to
support agriculture equivalent to 41.34 acre feet/year, as reported in applicant’s Appendix
N Water Usage Calculations. Would you please direct me to that information.
Thank you for your assistance.
Cindy Hansen
Arroyo Grande, CA
Google Maps 9/5/16, 6:39 AM
G o og le Maps ·
lttps://www.google.com/maps/@35.1177378,-120.5685017,1397m/data=!3m1!1e3 Page 1 of 2
From: Lan George··-~····
Thursday, September 15, 2016 3:16PM
Debbie Weichinger; Teresa McClish
Sent:
To:
Subject: Fwd: Cherry/Traffic Proposed Development
FYI.
Lan George
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Vicki Ramos" •••
Subject: Cherry/Tra c Propose Development
Date: September 15, 2016 at 12:36:59 PM PDT
To: <lan@touchpointfix.com>
I am a resident of Arroyo Grande and have lived in the Village (Old Arroyo) for almost 30 years. I am writing to
you today to voice my concerns over the proposed E. Cherry/Traffic Project.
• This project is not scaled to our small community. The plan to put in a low-cost chain 100 room
hotel like La Quinta is clearly not intended to serve our community. A 3-story hotel in a 2-story
town! There is not a single building in Old Arroyo with 3 stories. I find it interesting that there
had been no discussion of what hotel was planned for this property until the Planning
Commission session on September 6 when a representative from the chain spoke to the
Commission. What about the traffic, water, and parking issues that have not been adequately
addressed? How will our small, quaint neighborhoods and people fare with the addition of
large, commercial businesses doors away? Why a low-cost, no amenities hotel like LaQuinta
with the addition of a 4,000 SFT restaurant that will most likely be another potentially 24 hour
chain. That is not a favorable Gateway to our historic town.
• Why was there no signage on the property notifying residents of the planned development until
after it was discussed at the September 6 planning meeting? City staff stated it was city policy
to post a sign. If this project has been in development for 2 years, there was ample time to get
that done. It seems to be a convenient way to keep citizens out of the process.
• We currently have a hotel planned for the Village. Why would we need another hotel when the
occupancy rate in other AG hotels is not at capacity? How will that impact the existing motels
in AG near that location?
• The most unsettling thing about t~is project)s,.tf!e lack of consideration for the citizens and the
water issues that we face. We, as a community, have worked very hard to conserve our use
only to have large developments approved that will consume even more water. What about the
current residents? How can city leaders responsibly approve these deals when we have these
issues? We keep hearing there is "plenty of water" yet only enough for 2 years! If we have
plenty of water, why are the residents mandated to reduce our use? It is easy to see by the
level of water in Lopez how serious this issue really is. How can our city leaders continue to
ignore this by approving more large developments? The developers would have you believe
that they will bring water to this project. How is that possible?
• The other part of the project planned that includes 58 SFR is far too large a development for
Old Arroyo. Parking, water, traffic, schools will all be impacted. The housing is too dense.
Why so many houses per acre? The project should fit into the rural community with larger lots
and fewer homes. This is not an LA suburb. This is an agricultural community. I will say that
the addition of the Je1panese C.YLtural Center and Gardens is a great idea and should be
separated from 'this project. \/Vas~ is just a bone thrown to the community to ease the pain of
the rest of the project?
• Without a northbound on ramp to 101 and or a southbound off ramp to Traffic, all of the hotel
traffic that is intended to serve travelers will go through our small Village. Traffic is already
congested and safety is a concern. The cars come off the freeway onto Traffic at a very high
speed sometimes (yet another issue) but that continues to be a concern and with more traffic
will only get worse. The addition of a stop light at Fair Oaks and Traffic and the possible
installation of roundabouts at Branch will not alleviate the problem. It may regulate traffic but
the traffic will still be there. Another 1600 cars per day traveling over our already trodden
roads.
• I am not opposed to development and aware that this property would be developed at some
point. But the size of the project is too big. It needs to be, at a minimum, scaled back.
Please-No more large developments until we have a solid plan for addressing
our water issues!!!
Victoria Ramos
VJRamos Consulting
547 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA
2