PC 2016-09-20_08a E Cherry Specific Plan
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: JOHN RICKENBACH, CONSULTING PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15 -001;
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 15-001; SPECIFIC PLAN 15-
001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15-001; CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 15-004; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-001) AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION – EAST CHERRY
AVENUE AND TRAFFIC WAY; APPLICANTS – SRK HOTELS,
MANGANO HOMES, INC., AND ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY
JAPANESE WELFARE ASSOCIATION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the project plans, staff
report and environmental review for the Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project, receive
public comment, and adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify
the Environmental Impact Report and approve the project as conditioned.
BACKGROUND:
Specific Plan
Area
Figure 1. Project Location
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 2
The Specific Plan area encompasses 15.29 acres of undeveloped, vacant, and
agricultural land at the southern commercial gateway of the City of Arroyo Grande
(Figure 1). The plan area consists of five (5) parcels (street addresses of 490 and
112 East Cherry Avenue, and 501 Traffic Way) under three separate ownerships.
For the purpose of the Specific Plan, these are organized into three subareas as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Properties
Subarea Current Ownership APN Existing Zoning/Land Use Acreage
1 Harshad and Vina
Panchal, et al.
076-621-076, -077, -078 Traffic Way Mixed-Use
(TMU D-2.11)/ Mixed-use
2.16
2 NKT Development, LLC 076-621-079 Agriculture/ Agriculture 11.12
3 Arroyo Grande Valley
Japanese Welfare
Association (JWA)
076-210-001 Agriculture/ Agriculture 2.01
Total Acres 15.29
Notes: TMU D-2.11 - Traffic Way Mixed-Use with D-2.11 Design Overlay. Acreages include 0.50 acres transferred from
Subarea 2 to Subarea 3 as part of an intended future lot line adjustment.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
The Specific Plan area is situated north of the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, single-
family residences, and the Saint Barnabas’ Episcopal Church; east of Traffic Way
and its interchange with U.S. Highway 101; south of East Cherry Avenue; and west of
Luana Lane and Los Olivos Lane. Note that the three applicants associated with this
project are referred to as a singular “applicant” throughout this report, unless stated
otherwise.
PREVIOUS ADVISORY BODY REVIEW:
Staff Advisory Committee
The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) conceptually reviewed the proposed project as
a “Pre-SAC” item on June 10, 2015. At that time, the SAC discussed various aspects
of the project, including but not limited to long-term development concepts, and the
design framework that would guide such development. The SAC’s input was used to
help develop the draft Specific Plan currently proposed. The SAC considered the
project again on April 27, 2016, and provided additional input and refinement to the
current plan.
Architectural Review Committee
The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) previously reviewed the proposed project
on March 7, 2016, and expressed general concurrence with the design concepts
presented at that time. The ARC formally reviewed the project’s proposed Design
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 3
Guidelines and other applicable standards, as well as issues related to architecture,
site layout and massing. The ARC recommended approval of these aspects of the
project, with recommendations for further clarification of the proposed design of the
hotel within Subarea 1, as well as so me of the language included in the Architectural
Guidelines section of the Specific Plan, as they relate to the Traffic Way Mixed Use
standards as they apply to Subarea 1. The ARC reviewed the applicant’s proposed
responses to these issues at its meeting on August 15, 2016, with an additional
condition of approval that the hotel and restaurant architecture return to the ARC for
a final review to ensure architectural treatments address concerns regarding building
height, massing and community fit. The ARC recommended approval of the project
with these changes. It should also be noted that the ARC expressed a general
preference for including two-story residential structures along East Cherry Avenue
within Subarea 2, which would be a modification of the appl icant’s proposal to limit all
alley-loaded residential units (including those along East Cherry Avenue) to a single
story.
Traffic Commission
The Traffic Commission (TC) reviewed the proposed project on July 25, 2016. Their
purpose was to provide input on various transportation design issues, including
parking and access within each Subarea. The TC unanimously recommended
approval of the project, subject to the following considerations:
1. Consider and review the proposed bike lane configuration within the Specific
Plan, especially on East Cherry Avenue.
2. The proposed Tract Map for Subarea 2 should include an exhibit showing
where trash would be collected, in such a way to allow for trash trucks to have
adequate access.
3. Trash and mailbox areas should be designed in such a way to keep sidewalks
clear.
4. Garages need to be big enough for large vehicles.
5. Clarify and confirm there will be two points of access to development within
Subarea 1.
6. Clarify how proposed CC&Rs could be enforced.
7. There should be no reliance on shared parking at offsite locations for the
proposed hotel and restaurant.
8. Clarify potential impacts to the Fair Oaks southbound off-ramp.
Although not specifically addressed by the Traffic Commission, the Final EIR
included a mitigation measure to address access considerations to Subarea 1, prior
to the approval of a CUP for that area. The Access, Circulation and Parking Study
for Subarea 1 has since been updated and is included as Attachment 1. In
summary, the study found that the primary driveway should be relocated from Traffic
Way to East Cherry Avenue, the existing eastbound exclusive left turn lane to the 5
Cities Swim School parking lot should be converted to a two -way left turn lane
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 4
terminating at Road “A” (which is the project internal road separating Subareas 1 and
2), and that the proposed parking is adequate given Development Code Section
16.56.050 which allows parking reductions for mixed use developments through the
CUP process. It should be noted that the mixed use parking reduction is only
occurring between the restaurant and hotel on Subarea 1. There is no consideration
for mixed use parking reductions between any of the other Subareas nor between
Subarea 1 and the existing commercial developments on Traffic Way.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission has not yet formally reviewed the proposed project, but
did take public input on the project at its meeting of September 6, 2016 . Following a
staff report presentation, an applicant presentation of the proposed project, and
public comment on the project, that meeting was continued without the Planning
Commission deliberating on the project, or without making a recommendation to the
City Council.
There were nineteen (19) public speakers who provided testimony on the proposed
project during the meeting of September 6, 2016. The following summarizes the key
issues raised through public comments on September 6, 2016:
1. Traffic Issues. Comments addressed a variety of traffic concerns, including
those related to the following topics:
a. Impacts related to high speeds and safety, including past accidents on
Traffic W ay related to tailgating;
b. Impacts related to schools, especially increases in traffic in the morning;
and
c. Whether or not proposed “Road A” should be designed as a Collector in
the location shown to accommodate poten tial future growth to the
south, as is contemplated under a possible (but not yet adopted)
Circulation Element update.
2. Water Issues. Two key issues were raised:
a. Whether or not there is sufficient water supply to accommodate the
proposed project; and
b. Whether the potential ag water use on the Flora Road property, which
is intended to be put into an agricultural easement to mitigate for the
conversion of Subarea 2, was considered in the assessment that there
would be a net increase in possible water supply as a result of the
project.
3. Scale of Hotel and Restaurant in Subarea 1. Some comments suggested that
the scale of the hotel and restaurant is too large, and that a three-story hotel is
too tall. Some believed the building height was either out of scale/character
with the City, or that it could block sunlight to neighboring mobile homes.
4. Bike Planning. Some comments suggested placing the proposed bike lanes
on E. Cherry adjacent to the curb, for safety reasons. Other comments
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 5
suggested adding bike trails from the end of the collector up the slope to the
south of the project site (included in Attachment 8).
With respect to the traffic and water issues, the following additional information and
analysis that address key concerns is included for the Planning Commission’s
consideration:
Traffic. Traffic issues were addressed in detail in the Final EIR, and
considered a variety of issues, including impacts to potentially affected roadways and
intersections, both as a result of the proposed project and cumulative long -term
development in the City. It also considers a variety of safety issues, particularly
pedestrian safety.
A review of the accident history along Traffic Way shows that the preponderance of
accidents have been concentrated near the intersection of Traffic Way and Fair Oaks
Avenue. It is expected that the proposed mitigation to signalize this intersection will
greatly improve safety conditions along Traffic Way.
With respect to impacts related to school traffic, especially in the morning, the EIR
and related traffic study considered AM Peak Hour trips in the analysis, including AM
peak hour conditions at the intersections along Traffic Way, to help determ ine the
level of impact and appropriate mitigation measures.
Relative to proposed “Road A”’s status as a Collector, and its relationship to potential
future development to the south of the project site, it should be noted that this is
intended that the extension of the stubbed end of this roadway is not currently
planned, nor is included as part of the proposed project. Thus, to analyze impacts of
a possible future roadway to the south would be speculative. However, the collector
stub is considered part of the proposed project and environmental effects associated
with this roadway stub are included with project impacts in the Final EIR (e.g.,
Sections 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, 3.7, Land Use). Further, potential growth
inducing impacts resulting from this collector stub have been identified within Section
4.2.4, Other CEQA Considerations.
The collector stub and a possible future collector road on the hillside south of the
project site are not included in the existing General Plan Circulation Elemen t.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 6
other improvements to the Circulation and Transportation networks until
cooperative resolution of Element revisions and/or capital improvement
programs.”
Further, Policy CT5-5.3 states “when new development occurs in the vicinity of study
areas or plan lines, and where legally and financially feasible, require a portion of
rights-of-way and improvements associated with new development.” The East Cherry
Avenue Specific Plan and the proposed collector stub are within the vicinity of the
study area. The proposed collector stub is considered an improvement that may be
needed to accommodate future development to the south of the site anticipated
under the City’s General Plan and zoning maps. The effects of extending this
collector stub will be appropriately analyzed as part of the Circulation Element update
and associated CEQA documentation.
Lastly, in response to comments regarding the proposed collector stub, the applicant
has provided an updated site plan that if the Planning Commission and ultimately City
Council finds is superior, would construct temporary asphalt curbing and a
landscaped area at the terminus. (Attachment 9). This would provide the area
necessary for the collector road to eventually be connected to a road in the future.
Water Use. The Final EIR evaluates where or not there is sufficient water
supply for the proposed project, based on the City’s existing water portfolio in the
context of buildout under the City’s General Plan. As described in the EIR, there is
sufficient water supply to serve the City at General Plan buildout. In summary, the
City’s existing water supplies derive from three sources: the Tri-Cities Mesa
Groundwater Basin, the Arroyo Grande Alluvial Basin (a separate groundwater
basin), and Lopez Reservoir. Collectively, the City’s water supply of 3,813 acre -feet
per year (AFY) is sufficient to serve the City and its future development at General
Plan buildout.
As described in the EIR, existing water demand on the project site from irrigated
agricultural uses is estimated at 41.3 AFY. Projected water demand from
development on the site would be 36.2 AFY, which would replace the current
irrigated agricultural water use. Thus, there would be a net decrease in overall water
demand of an estimated 5.1 AFY (refer to Attachment 7)
The agricultural mitigation parcel on Flora Road has historically been in irrigated
agriculture use. The purpose of acquiring this property is to ensure that it remains in
agriculture in perpetuity. Its past irrigation and water use characteristics would not
change as a result of this mitigation measure, so this does not represent a net
increase in overall water use citywide.
Staff will be available to address these and other is sues that may arise during the
September 20 public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 7
In addition, the Planning Commission took public input on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the project in a public workshop on May 17, 2016.
City Council
The City Council authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan for the project area on
July 8, 2014. The City Council also considered policy-related mitigation for potential
agricultural impacts related to the project on July 28, 2015. No action related to the
land use pattern or design framework of the Specific Plan was considered or taken at
that time.
On July 26, 2016, at the request of the applicant, the City Council considered
whether or not additional policy-related mitigation would be needed for potential
agricultural impacts related to development within Subarea 3. This request
responded to a mitigation measure included in the Final EIR, which provided
discretion to the City Council regarding how to appropriately address a City policy
related to agricultural preservation. The consensus direction of the City Council was
that no additional mitigation would be needed as part of approving the Conditional
Use Permit for development within Subarea 3, for the following reasons:
Historically, the Subarea 3 area has not been used for agricultural production;
Development would include a farm stand for the sale of agricultural products
grown in the area;
The proposed development would in part be intended to celebrate one aspect
of the City’s cultural heritage, which includes the development of cultural
gardens and other amenities related to the Japanese community’s importance
to the City.
PREVIOUS PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS:
The applicant has provided multiple outreach opportunities to engage the community
in general, with special focus on neighboring property owners. Input received
through these efforts has been instrumental in guiding the ultimate project design for
all three subareas. Applicant outreach efforts have included:
1. Kickoff “tent revival” meeting on January 31, 2015.
2. Formed a neighborhood group to help disseminate information.
3. Met with the neighbors approximately 5 times.
4. Continue to provide updates via email/mail.
5. Provided neighbors with a calendar of the tentative dates for all of the
hearings.
6. Met with Reverend Rob Keim, Pastor of St. Barnabas, who hosted the three
applicants to make a presentation after Sunday service.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 8
7. Met with the owners of the adjacent mobile home park.
8. Continue to update the website – www.eastcherryavenue.com.
In addition, the formal CEQA process provided several opportunities for community
outreach and input, especially during the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR phases
of the process. A formal workshop on the Draft EIR was held before the Planning
Commission on May 17, 2016. The Draft EIR was publicly circulated from April 8 to
May 23, 2016.
PROPOSED PROJECT OVERVIEW :
Project Description
The project is a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development Code
Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and two (2) Conditional Use Permits (the
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan). While the first three entitlements would address
the entire 15-acre site, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would only address the
central portion of the site encompassing 11.62 acres, which is described further
below as Subarea 2. Subareas 1 and 3 are each subject to a Conditional Use Permit
to allow development in those areas.
The site is divided into three subareas, with development envisioned in each as
follows:
Subarea 1. Proposed development within Subarea 1 would include a 90 -100 room
hotel and restaurant (up to 4,000 square feet). The proposed project plan and
related architectural and design materials are included as Attachment 2. These are
intended to be consistent with the overall proposed Specific Plan, which is included
as Attachment 3.
Subarea 1 is currently zoned Traffic Way Mixed Use (TMU ) with a Design Overlay
(D-2.11). The primary purpose of the D-2.11 Design Overlay is to encourage the use
of design elements to enhance the character and appearance of this southern
commercial gateway to Arroyo Grande.
The EIR evaluates potential hotel and restaurant uses, which is consistent with the
property owner’s goals for this site. Changes to the current TMU zone within the
Specific Plan area are proposed in order to be more consistent with the design
concept set forth by the applicant, and concurred by the Architectural Review
Committee (ARC).
Subarea 2. Subarea 2, the largest portion of the site, is proposed for residential
development. Conceptually, the Specific Plan includes a 60 -lot subdivision with a
total of 58 single-family residential lots, which are shown in more detail in a proposed
Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Access to the project site would be via East Cherry
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 9
Avenue. No private driveways will be located on East Cherry Avenue. All homes will
be accessed via residential streets and alleyways. A second access is located at the
future property boundary with the Subarea 3 property.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map and related materials are included as
Attachment 4. These are intended to be consistent with the overall proposed Specific
Plan (Attachment 3).
An existing drainage feature is located at the toe of the slope approximately twenty
feet (20’) from the southerly border of the property. This drainage feature, created in
this location due to the historical agricultural activities, takes sheet flows from th e
hillside below the St. Barnabas’ Church property. A 2- to 5-foot tall concrete retaining
wall/drainage facility would be located along the southern boundary of the residential
lots at the base of the hillside. A neighborhood park (about 0.35 acres) is planned for
the interior of the project site on proposed Lot 59.
Subarea 3. The JWA portion of the site is envisioned as a private historically-
oriented park, featuring several gardens, landscaping, pathways, and related
buildings. The proposed project plan and related architectural and design materials
are included as Attachment 5. These are intended to be consistent with the overall
proposed Specific Plan.
The proposed Arroyo Grande Valley JWA land use plan for Subarea 3, the eastern
1.51 acres of the Specific Plan area identifies a private historically-oriented park that
would highlight the Issei pioneers (first generation settlers) of Arroyo Grande.
Proposed land uses would include historical residential and public assembly uses,
and would provide expanded commercial use and residential density necessary for
present and future economic sustainability of the property. Specifically, Subarea 3
would include limited commercial retail (farm stand), passive recreation (historic
walking paths and gardens), limited residential (independent senior housing
consisting of approximately 10 units), public and quasi -public community facilities
(cultural archive and community center), visitor-serving (B&B guest house), and
public assembly (heritage and demonstration gardens) uses, as well as related
support amenities (e.g., onsite parking). While the current Subarea 3 includes
approximately 1.51 acres, an additional ap proximately 0.5-acre parcel would be
added via the Subarea 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and a future lot merger.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Legislative vs. Judicial Acts
Every decision a local government makes can be placed into one of three categories
– legislative, quasi-judicial or ministerial:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 10
Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates,
zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local law – rules
that apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under Calif ornia law, legislative
acts are subject to initiative and referendum.
Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislative acts)
to projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These
acts are discretionary, based on the decision-makers interpretation and
application of policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject
to initiative or referendum.
Ministerial acts are those that require no discretion on the part of the local
government, such as the mandatory issuance of a permit if certain conditions
are met.
The proposed project would be both a legislative (General Plan Amendment,
Development Code Amendment, and Specific Plan) and quasi-judicial action (Tract
Map and Conditional Use Permits). Therefore, the approval authority for the project
rests with the City Council.
Project Entitlements
Each of the proposed entitlements is briefly described below, with key features of
each summarized as necessary.
General Plan Amendment 15-001. The applicant has requested a General Plan
Amendment to modify the City’s General Plan land use map to accommodate
updated land use designations that would be envisioned under the East Cherry
Avenue Specific Plan. Land use designations within the 15.29-acre site would
change as shown on Table 2 below:
Table 2. General Plan Amendment – Proposed Land Use Designations
Portion of SP Area
Existing Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Acreage
Subarea 1 Traffic Way Mixed Use
No change 2.16
Subarea 2 Agriculture SFR Medium Density 11.12
Subarea 3 Agriculture Mixed Use 2.01
Note: The entire Specific Plan area will retain its existing Specific Plan overlay designation
With these proposed changes, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the
General Plan land use map as amended.
In addition, the proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Agriculture,
Conservation and Open Space Element Creek Locations Map. Based on an
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 11
evaluation of current and historic conditions, and the determination by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that the onsite agricultural drainage located at the southern
boundary of the Project site is not a W aters of the U.S. or a natural stream or river
under jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (City of Arroyo
Grande 2015d), this amendment would remove its status as a drainage way subject
to City policies from the General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space
Element’s Creek Locations Map COS-1.
The Final EIR evaluates this amendment, and agrees this conclusion, as stated in
Section 3.4.1.2. of that document:
“The drainage ditch along the southern edge of the Project site directs
overflows from the adjacent sloping hillside and fields within the site so that
the Project site does not flood. This drainage was excavated on dry land and
is regularly maintained under agricultural practices, and historic topographic
maps show that there was no historic tributary within or adjacent to the site
(see Appendix F of the FEIR; Erin M. Hanlon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
2015). The drainage ditch is listed as a riverine wetland type by the National
Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2015b), and a drainage way in the City General
Plan (City of Arroyo Grande 2007). Based on the evaluation of current and
historic conditions, the onsite drainage ditch does not fall under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; Hanlon 2015).”
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan 15 -001). Under California law
(Government Code §65450-65457), a Specific Plan is a planning tool that allows a
community to articulate a vision for a defined area and apply guidelines and
regulations to implement that vision. The City’s General Plan calls for a Specific Plan
to guide development within the project area that defines land uses, creates an
integrated circulation system, coordinates infrastructure, and provides development
standards.
The East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan) provides a bridge between the
City’s General Plan and detailed plans, such as development plans and subdivisions.
It provides guidance for all facets of future development within the area including the
designation of land uses, designation of required access and circulation elements,
location and sizing of infrastructure, phasing of de velopment, financing methods for
public improvements, and the establishment of standards of development. Projects
submitted to the City will be required to comply with the land use and development
standards in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is intended to also serve as the
City’s long-range plan for the development and on-going use of the various
properties within the boundaries of the Specific Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 12
Proposed development within each of the three subareas included in the Plan is
described more fully in this staff report under Project Overview. Proposed
development standards for each subarea are summarized below. The entire Specific
Plan is included in this staff report as Attachment 3.
Subarea 1. Subarea 1 is currently zoned Traffic Way Mixed Use (TMU) with a
Design Overlay (D-2.11). The primary purpose of the D-2.11 Design Overlay is to
encourage the use of design elements to enhance the character and appearance of
this southern commercial gateway to Arroyo Grande.
Uses allowed within the TMU zone are limited to automobile and light truck sales and
services and related automotive parts stores, repair shops, and similar vehicle sales,
services and accessory uses. All other permitted uses and Minor Use permitted uses
would be considered subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
The Specific Plan would amend the existing TMU standards to address architectural
and design issues, as directed by the ARC (see discussion earlier in the staff report).
However, these amended standards would apply only to the area within the Specific
Plan, and not communitywide. Existing TMU standards that apply elsewhere in the
City would remain in place unchanged.
A summary of development standards within the Specific Plan TMU district is
provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Specific Plan Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) District Development Standards
Development Standard Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) Requirement
Maximum Density Mixed-Use Projects New residential limited to live-work units in conjunction with
allowed uses. Density determined by discretionary action.
Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (gross)
Minimum Lot Width 80 feet
Front Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales
determined through discretionary action.
Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed-use
district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use
district, a minimum building setback of 20 feet measured from
the property line shall be required for proposed commercial
use.).
Side Yard Setback 0 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed-use district
abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use district, a
minimum building setback of 20 feet measured from the
property line shall be required for proposed commercial use.
Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales
determined through discretionary action.
Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less;
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 13
Development Standard Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) Requirement
a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the CUP process
for visitor serving uses. Maximum building size is 50,000
square feet; a greater size may be allowed through the CUP
process.
Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Maximum coverage of site is 75 percent. Maximum floor area
ratio is 0.75.
Site Design and Signs See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11. Additional sign
standards also in Chapter 16.60
Off-Street Parking and Loading See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11 Exhibit A for
shared parking locations. See Also Section 16.56.020.
Exceptions allowed by Section 16.16.120
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
Subarea 2. Development within Subarea 2 would be subject to the Specific Plan
Village Residential (VR) District standards, included in Appendix B of the Specific
Plan. These regulations, while based on the City’s existing Development Code, are
specific to this area, and supersede any existing Development Code requirements
that might otherwise conflict.
Development would also be subject to the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan D esign
Guidelines, which are included as Appendix E of the proposed Specific Plan. These
regulations are specific to this area, and focus on architectural and design issues.
These were reviewed by the ARC, who recommended them for forwarding to the
Planning Commission and City Council for potential approval.
A summary of development standards within the Specific Plan Village Residential
(VR) District is provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Specific Plan Village Residential (VR) District Development Standards
Development Standard Village Residential (VR) Requirement
Maximum Density (units/gross acre) 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre
Minimum Lot Size 4,475 net square feet
Minimum Lot Width 50 feet at building setback
Minimum Average Lot Depth 88 feet
Minimum Front Yard New Subdivisions
of 5+ Lots1
15 feet to residential structure, 10 feet to porch, 20 feet to
front loaded garage
Infill and Additions Setbacks listed above or the average setback of structures
to the street on either side and directly across block front
for properties in the same district.
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 5 feet
Minimum Front/Street Yard Setback1 10 feet building, 5 feet to porch, 18 feet to garage
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 14
Development Standard Village Residential (VR) Requirement
Minimum Rear Yard Setback2 10 feet (1-story), 15 feet (2-story)
Maximum Lot Coverage 55 percent at alley loaded residential structures, 50 percent
at street loaded residential structures
Maximum Height 30 feet or 2 stories, whichever is less; 14 feet for accessory
buildings
Minimum Distance between Buildings 10 feet, including between main dwellings and accessory
structures
Fencing Setback 5 feet from property line, 0 feet from access easement
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Lot Size FAR
0—4,000 square feet net 0.35
4,001—7,199 square feet net 0.55
7,200—11,999 square feet
net
0.50
PARKING3
Single-family Homes 2 spaces/unit within an enclosed garage
1 The East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourages varying setbacks by as much as 5 feet.
2 Infill development on a parcel within a previously approved project. Where the City has established specific setback
requirements for single-family or multi-family residential parcels through the approval of a specific plan, subdivision
map, planned unit development, or other entitlement, those setbacks shall apply to infill development and additions
within the approved project.
3 Chapter 16.32 Residential Districts Section 16.32.030 F. Special Use Regulations for the Village Residential District
shall apply.
4 Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
Subarea 3. Development within Subarea 3 would be subject to the Specific Plan
Village Mixed Use (VMU) District standards, included in Appendix B of the Specific
Plan. These regulations, while based on the City’s existing Development Code, are
specific to this area, and supersede any existing Development Code requirements
that might otherwise conflict. A summary of development standards within the
Specific Plan Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District is provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District Development Standards
Development Standard Village Mixed-Use (VMU) Requirement
Maximum Density 15 dwelling units per gross acre
Minimum Lot Size 5,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 40 feet
Front Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. 10 feet required when the project abuts a residential district.
Side Yard Setback 5 feet when the project abuts a residential district for single-story
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 15
Development Standard Village Mixed-Use (VMU) Requirement
structures and 10 feet is required, on one side, for a multiple stories.1
Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet.
Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a
maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP process. Maximum
building size is 10,000 square feet.
Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Maximum coverage of site is 100 percent. Maximum floor area ratio is
1.0.
Site Design See Specific Plan Design Guidelines (see Design Guidelines and
Standards for Historic Districts2)
Off-Street Parking and Loading See parking below. [See Section 16.56.020(C)].
Signs See Chapter 16.60 Signage
PARKING3, 4
Senior housing – independent living Studio - 1 space /unit
1+ Bedrooms – 1 space/unit
Public and semi-public buildings 1 space/5 fixed seats or 1 space/50 square feet of floor area designed
for public assembly
General retail 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area accessible to the public,
excluding restrooms
Hotels & motels, includes B&B 1 parking space/unit, and 2 parking spaces for the manager’s office, as
applicable
Outdoor sales 1 space/2,000 sf open area for the first 10,000 sf, then 1 space/5,000 sf
greater than 10,000 sf
1 The proposed archive building is exempt from these requirements, as it will be reconstructed in the original location of the former
hall building.
2 Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4) are noted for reference only, as the East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines shall prevail.
3 Parking required for residential use in mixed-use projects does not need to be covered. See Municipal Code Section 16.56.060
Item 1.
4 Required parking may be reduced pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.56.050.
5 Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
Development Code Amendment 15-001. The intent of the proposed Development
Code Amendment is to replace the existing zoning requirements within the Specific
Plan area with those in the Specific Plan, as described above. It would also amend
the existing zoning map to be consistent with the standards shown above.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 15-001; for Subarea 2). Development within
Subarea 2 would be subject to a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Attachment 4). The
map includes details that go well beyond those included in the Specific Plan,
including information on lot locations, roadways, drainage, grading, and other
information typically associated with Tentative Maps. That said, the Tentative Map is
intended to be consistent with the Specific Plan, and implements the VR zoning
standards as well as the Design Guidelines contained in the Specific Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 16
The Map also includes details regarding proposed roadways and circulation
improvements. These were reviewed in detail by the Traffic Commission, and there
was general concurrence, as described previously in this staff report.
Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map are included in the attached Resolution.
The 158 conditions cover issues ranging from inclusionary housing requirements,
building and fire safety, circulation design, grading, drainage and other infrastructure
design, water, sewer, utilities, fees, and a variety of mitigation measures that were
included in the Final EIR.
Staff’s review of the Tentative Map is that, as conditioned, it is consistent with the
Specific Plan, both in terms of development potential and design. The basis
development parameters allowed under the Map are described previously in this staff
report in the Project Overview for Subarea 2.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 15-004; for Subarea 3). Development within Subarea 3
would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and the Conditions of Approval are
included in the attached Resolution. The 150 conditions cover issues ranging from
inclusionary housing requirements, building and fire safety, circulation design,
grading, drainage and other infrastructure design, water, sewer, utilities, fees, and a
variety of mitigation measures that were included in the Final EIR. Many are the
same as those included for Subarea 2, but several are unique to this area, while
some that are required for Subarea 2 do not apply to this subarea.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 16-001; for Subarea 1). Development within Subarea 1
would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditions of Approval are
included in the attached Resolution. The 143 conditions cover issues ranging from
inclusionary housing requirements, building and fire safety, circulation design,
grading, drainage and other infrastructure design, water, sewer, utilities, fees, and a
variety of mitigation measures that were included in the Final EIR. Many are the
same as those included for Subarea 2 or 3, but several are unique to this area, while
some that are required for Subarea 2 or 3 do not apply to this subarea.
CEQA PROCESS – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR):
A Draft EIR that considered the potential impacts of the project was prepared and
addressed the following issues:
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Biological Resources
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 17
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Recreational Resources
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Other Required CEQA Disclosures
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[d]), the EIR assessed a
reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that could feasibly attain the project
objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of
the Project. These include the following:
No Project Alternative (two approaches: no development or development
under existing zoning)
Reduced Development Alternative
Other potential alternatives were rejected from further consideration in the Draft EIR
because they did not meet project objectives, or did not lessen potential ident ified
impacts.
The Draft EIR was publicly circulated from April 8 to May 23, 2016. A formal
workshop on the Draft EIR was held before the Planning Commission on May 17,
2016.
Based on input received through these efforts, a Final EIR was prepared (Attachment
6). The Mitigation Measures from that document are included as Conditions of
Approval, as applicable to the three subareas for which specific entitlements have
been requested. An addendum to the water use assessment was also prepared for
the project, included as Attachment 7. The addendum demonstrates how the project
is in compliance with statewide emergency water conservation requirements.
In addition, appropriate CEQA Findings have been made that would allow approval of
the Specific Plan and related entitlements. It also describes why potential
alternatives were rejected or discarded, either because they do not meet project
objectives, or because of other reasons related to not reducing potential identified
impacts. These Findings are included in the attached Resolution.
As identified in the Final EIR and CEQA Findings, t he following adverse impacts of
the proposed project are considered significant and unavoidable (not fully mitigable):
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 18
A. Project-Level Impacts
Impact AQ-2: The proposed Project would result in significant long -term
operation-related air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile
emissions.
Impact AQ-5: The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the County
of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan.
Impact TRANS-3: Project generated traffic would potentially cause delays at
the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection which operates at
unacceptable LOS F to increase by more than 5 seconds in excess of City
standards in both the AM and PM peak hours, causing a significant impact.
There are no feasible funded or scheduled mitigation measures available to
reduce this impact to a less than significant level consistent with the
requirements of City General Plan Policy CT2-1 which requires improvement
to LOS D.
B. Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Long-term operation of the
proposed Project would contribute cumulatively and considerably to localized
air quality emissions throughout the City and region.
Transportation and Traffic: Under cumulative conditions, significant LOS
impacts would continue to occur at the intersection of East Grand
Avenue/West Branch Street, which cannot be readily mitigated in a known
timeframe because of lack of funding and programming.
Although there are mitigation measures included to address these impacts, they
would not reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, there
are no potential project alternatives that meet project objectives that would re duce
such impacts to a less than significant level.
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a decision-making agency
balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed
Project against its unavoidable impacts. When the lead agency approves a project
that will result in significant effects identified in the Final EIR that are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons in support of its
action based on the Final EIR and the information in the record. The statement of
overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the re cord.
Accordingly, a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the proposed
Project's significant unavoidable impacts has been prepared, and is included as part
of the CEQA Findings.
The Final EIR must be certified by the City Council prior to (or concurrent with)
potential project approval. The Planning Commission has the opportunity to consider
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 19
recommendations to the City Council for potential project approval based on this
Final EIR and supporting CEQA Findings.
ALTERNATIVES:
It is recommended that after opening the public hearing and taking public testimony,
that the Planning Commission takes one of the five (5) options listed below:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council take the
following actions with respect to project approval:
a. Certify the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report as well as
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
b. Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 15-001, amending
the General Plan land use map in order to facilitate approval of the East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan;
c. Adopt a Resolution and an Ordinance approving the East Cherry Avenue
Specific Plan;
d. Adopt an Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 15-001,
which modifies provisions of the Development Code in order to facilitate
development under the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan;
e. Adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15-001 as
conditioned for Subarea 2;
f. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 15-004 as
conditioned, allowing development on Subarea 3; and
g. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 16-001 as
conditioned, allowing development on Subarea 1.
3. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council
defer consideration of Conditional Use Permit 16-001, approve the East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project, and certify the associated environmenta l
impact report and related CEQA findings;
2. Make other modifications and adopt the attached Resolution recommending
the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the East Cherry Avenue
Specific Plan Project;
4. Refer the Project back to staff for additional analysis;
5. Recommend denial by the City Council of one or more of the actions listed
above (1.a. through 1.g.). Recommendations of denial will be forwarded to City
Council for a final decision and must be substantiated with clear findings.; or
6. Provide other direction to staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
PAGE 20
ADVANTAGES:
The proposed project provides the community with single-family residential,
commercial and cultural infill development.
DISADVANTAGES:
The project will convert undeveloped agricultural land to residential and commercial
uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
A notice of public hearing for the September 6, 2016 meeting was mailed to all
property owners within 300’ of the project site, was published in the Tribune, and
posted at City Hall and on the City’s Website. Due to the site not being adequately
posted, the public hearing was continued to a date certain of September 20, 2016.
Although not required due to the public hearing being continue to a date certain, a
notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project
site, to property owners on Trinity Avenue, was published in the Tribune, and posted
at City Hall and on the City’s website on Friday, September 9, 2016. A sign
announcing the public hearing was posted at the Traffic Way frontage of the project
site on Thursday, September 8, 2016, in accorda nce with City policy. A second sign
was constructed on the Cherry Avenue frontage as well. The Agenda was posted at
City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section
54954.2. The letters that have been received to date are included as Attachment 8,
including those received just prior to and subsequently from the continued public
hearing of September 6, 2016.
Attachments:
1. Circulation and Access Study for Subarea 1 (September 2016)
2. Project Plans and related materials for Subarea 1 – Previously distributed
3. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (including appendices – under separate
cover) – Previously distributed
4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3081 and related materials for Subarea 2 –
Previously distributed
5. Project Plans and related materials for Subarea 3 – Previously distributed
6. Final EIR and Technical Appendices (under separate cover) – Previously
distributed
7. Memorandum dated July 24, 2016 regarding water use within the Specific
Plan area – Previously distributed
8. Comment letters
9. Alternate site plan for Subarea 2 with collector stub removed