Loading...
PC 2017-04-18_09a PRE 16-002 Orchard AvenueMEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: ~~:KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REVISED PLANS FOR PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002; LOCATION -207 PILGRIM WAY; APPLICANT -FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH; REPRESENTATIVE -HAMRICK ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE: APRIL 18, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Planning Commission review the revised conceptual plans and provide comments to the applicant. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: No financial impact is projected at this time. BACKGROUND: The 11-acre site is located on Pilgrim Way off of Orchard Street as shown on the map below and is located in the Public Facility (PF) zoning district. Proiect Site PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGE2 Surrounding land uses include single-family residential development to the north and south, Arroyo Grande High School to the west and US Highway 101 to the east. Site topography is relatively flat, and a drainage channel traverses from east to west through the middle of the property. The site is currently developed with a church, gymnasium with classrooms (Pacific Coast Christian School), several single family residences, miscellaneous accessory structures and a drainage basin. A summary of existing structures is provided below. S f E . f St t ummary o XIS mg rue ures Existing Structures Size (square feet) Church I classrooms 18,000 w Gym I classrooms 15, 157 Single family residence 3,452 Single family residence 2,462 Single family residence 2,462 Single family residence 1,854 Storage structures 3,791 Total: 47, 178 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission previously considered a Pre-Application for this site on December 6, 2016 (see Attachment 1 for meeting minutes). The original project proposed to develop half of the property (5.5 acres) with sixty (60) apartment units, a new gym and a public sports field in two phases. One (1) existing home and a portion of an existing storage structure would be removed as part of the new development. Phase I included development of sixty (60) apartment units divided into three (3) categories, including transitional housing, senior housing and workforce housing. The apartments were a combination of one, two and three-bedroom units in ten (10) separate three-story buildings arranged in clusters of four (4). In total, 120 bedrooms with 97 parking spaces were proposed. A recreation room was also included. The table below provides the breakdown of apartment units, required parking and proposed parking. Residential Parking Statistics Use Unit Type No. of Units Required Required Proposed ' Covered .. Uncovered Parf<ihg Parking Parking Apartments: 1-Bedroom 8 8 spaces 4 spaces 12 spaces 2-Bedroom 16 32 spaces 8 spaces 40 spaces 3-Bedroom 6 12 spaces 3 spaces 15 spaces Subtotal: 30 52 spaces 15 spaces 67 spaces PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGE3 Use Unit Type No. of Units Required Covered Parking Independent 1-Bedroom 4 4 spaces Living 2-Bedroom 20 20 spaces Senior 3-Bedroom 6 6 spaces Apartments: Subtotal: 30 30 spaces TOTAL: 60 Units 82 spaces Required Proposed Uncovered Parking Parking 0 spaces 4 spaces 0 spaces 20 spaces 0 spaces 6 spaces 0 spaces 30 spaces 15 spaces 97 spaces Phase II included development of a 9,600 square foot gymnasium and a 55,000 ±square foot soccer field that would also function as a drainage basin. Parking requirements for Phase 11 were unclear. Development Code parking requirements for the gymnasium include either one (1) space for every fifty (50) square feet of floor area, or one (1) space for every five (5) fixed seats (Development Code Section 16.56.060 for public and semi- public buildings -assembly, including auditoriums, theaters, lodges, clubs, churches, and mortuaries). Given the size of the gym (9,600 square feet) and lacking information about fixed seating, it was estimated that 192 parking spaces would be required. The Development Code does not include a parking standard for recreational facilities such as a soccer field. The overall parking proposed was 328 spaces, including 94 existing spaces and 234 new spaces as shown below. Overall Site Parking -Existing and Proposed Use Number of Parking Number of Parking •Spaces Required Spaces Proposed '.·.· Existing Site Parking (church and 94 94 school) Proposed Site Parking: • New Residential 97 97 • New Gym/Soccer Field 192 (gym only; soccer 118 field to be determined) • Additional Parking (pedestrian 19 bridge) Total Site Parking: 383 spaces 328 spaces PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION N0.16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGE4 Planning Commission comments on the previous project are summarized below: • Senior and workforce housing favored over transitional housing, especially due to the close proximity of the site to Arroyo Grande High School. • If transitional housing is pursued, suggest that a building be used for counseling and the length of stay limited to one year. • Pursuing a senior assisted living housing development would likely be an easier path since the use does not require a General Plan Amendment. • Reduce the number of stories from three to two. • A traffic study is needed to determine existing traffic patterns and project impacts. • Support a non-profit managing the affordable housing component. • Support the soccer field. • Shared parking concerns. • Stormwater management concerns. • Water demand concerns. • Suggested having workshops/community meetings prior to submitting the formal application. Overall, the Commission was in support of the project with the above concerns addressed. Revised Project Description The applicant has amended the previous proposal to include four (4) phases and to change the residential component from sixty (60) apartment units to ninety-seven (97) senior assisted living housing with and two (2) separate staff apartments. Phase 1 includes the new assisted living units and staff apartments. The assisted living units are proposed in a rectangular shaped two-story structure with community open space in the center that includes sheltered garden areas. The common indoor space includes the lobby and administration areas on the no.rth side, and the kitchen and dining commons on the south side in close proximity to the trash enclosure. Two (2) elevators are proposed, with one on each side of the building within the common space (denoted as a rectangle with an "X" on the project plans). The two (2) separate staff apartment units are located west of the assisted living facility. Below is a summary of the floor area and parking for the proposed housing facility. Although there are thirty-nine (39) more units proposed than the previous submittal, the overall square footage of living space has increased by only 544 square feet, signifying the reduced size of units. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION N0.16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGES A . t d L' . S H SSIS e 1vmg em or ousmg Use Number of Size (square feet) Units/beds Common Space n/a 9,951 Studio Units 57 11,350 One-Bedroom Units 40 9,900 Staff Residence #1 1 838 Staff Residence #2 1 874 Employees n/a n/a Total: 99 32,913 (22,962 square feet of living space) Required Proposed Parking Parking n/a n/a 19(1per3 33 beds) 14 (1 per 3 33 beds) 2 2 2 2 15 (largest 15 shift) 52 77 Although the project plans indicate that the south bank of parking stalls will be covered and include solar panels, it is likely that solar panels will instead be placed on the facility roof. This amendment is due to cost savings and because assisted living developments do not require covered parking. The design style of the facility would be similar to the original style proposed (Spanish Revival), but the proposed larger building will need to be articulated carefully. Phase 2 of the project includes development of a roughly 52,000 square foot soccer field, 36,000 square feet of which would function as a drainage basin during the winter months. Parking requirements for the soccer field remain unclear. A total of 65 spaces are included around the proposed soccer field. Phase 3 includes construction of a 9,600 square foot gymnasium. Parking requirements include either one (1) parking space for every five (5) fixed seats, or one (1) parking space per fifty (50) square feet of floor area designed for public assembly. Lacking seating information and using the total floor area, a maximum of 192 parking spaces would be required and 63 spaces are provided. This is unchanged from the Commission's previous review. Phase 4 includes the existing church and school classrooms. Parking requirements for the church are the same as for the gymnasium and include either one (1) parking space for every five (5) fixed seats, or one (1) parking space per fifty (50) square feet of floor area designed for public assembly. Again, lacking seating information and using the total floor area, a maximum of 370 parking spaces would be required for the church. For the classrooms, the parking requirement is one (1) parking space per classroom and office for faculty and employees. Without a floor plan, it is unclear what the parking requirement would be for the school. A total of 94 parking spaces are currently provided. Below is a PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGE6 summary of total required and proposed parking for the site. Note that the total required number of parking spaces is only an estimate lacking complete information, and likely exceeds what would ultimately be required as determined through the formal discretionary review process. The Development Code allows up to a 30% parking reduction for shared parking if a parking study shows that the off hours of operation accommodate the parking demand. The applicant has indicated that the property owners will manage campus programs in the event of tournaments to provide adequate parking. Overall Site Parking Use Number of Parking Number . of Parkil)g Spaces Required Spaces Proposed · Proposed Site Parking: • Phase 1: Residential 52 77 • Phase 2: Soccer Field Unknown 65 • Phase 3: Gymnasium 192 63 • Phase 4: Church/Classrooms 370 94 Total Site Parking: 614 spaces 299 spaces (49% of required) ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The property currently has a land use designation of Community Facilities (CF) and is zoned Public Facility (PF). Relevant allowable uses in the PF zoning district include churches, public parks and recreation facilities, assisted living facilities for seniors, and public buildings and grounds not otherwise mentioned. All of the proposed uses are allowed under the PF zoning, and therefore amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map are not required. The project as proposed will therefore require the following applications: • Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) or Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the property into separate lots based on different uses; • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to develop the gym, soccer field and senior assisted living facility. All applications will be considered comprehensively through the environmental review process. General Plan Consistency The General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site as Community Facilities (CF), which is intended to provide a variety of public and quasi-public uses, serving neighborhood, community or regional needs throughout the City. These community facilities are beneficial to the City, but their location, nature of operation, and scale sometimes creates compatibility issues such as noise, traffic, lighting and other issues. . PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGE7 Objective LU9 of the Land Use Element outlines a general goal regarding Community Facilities to "provide for appropriate maintenance, development and placement of Community Facilities relative to existing and planned land uses." Relevant land use policies under this objective are as follows: LU9-3. Balance the supply and size of Community Facilities with the existing and planned demand for the services they provide based on the General Plan Land Use Element. LU9-4. Ensure that new developments provide opportunities for recreation that are commensurate with the level and type of development. Ensure that recreational uses are compatible with surrounding uses and with sensitive resources that may be present. The proposed gymnasium and soccer field will be open to the public, providing additional recreational opportunities within the community. The Housing Element provides numerous goals, policies and programs related to affordable housing, including the following principal goals: Goal A: Housing for All Income Groups within the Community (Provide a continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo Grande residents in all income categories) Goal B: Affordable Housing (Ensure that housing constructed in the City is affordable to all income levels) Goal C: Identify Funding for Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low-Income Housing (Research and identify various additional financial and other resources to provide extremely low, very low, and low-income housing for current and future residents of the City) Goal D: Encourage Diverse Housing Stock (In order to provide affordable housing, especially for extremely, very-low and low-income households, encourage apartment construction) Goal F: lnclusionary Housing (Strengthen the City's inclusionary housing ordinance to require more affordable units in both residential and commercial development projects) Goal J: Special Needs Housing (Meet the housing needs of special groups of Arroyo Grande residents, including seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities, single parents, large families, and farmworkers) The proposed senior assisted living units would further assist the City with meeting the above goals. Environmental Review The formal application will require a thorough analysis of potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental issues of concern for this project include: PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION N0.16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGES • Water availability. The 2001 General Plan Program EIR identifies the change in quantity of groundwater withdrawals and the amount of water otherwise available for public supplies associated with increased population growth and agricultural preservation as a potentially significant impact to water resources, and therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations was approved. The subject property was included in the General Plan Update as eleven (11) acres of PF zoned land, and therefore did not account for a high density residential use. Because the 2001 General Plan and EIR did not anticipate residential units on this site, the applicant will need to determine how additional water will be obtained to serve the project, such as through water offsets. • Sanitary Sewer. The applicant is required to obtain a will serve letter from the South County Sanitation District. Currently, there is no sewer main located in Orchard Street, and older homes along this street have sewer laterals in their backyards. The project will either need to provide a lift station to connect to the sewer main at Castillo Del Mar near the existing gate, or install a new sewer main down Orchard Street to the 15" trunk at West Cherry and Arroyo Avenue. This will need to be engineered and is expensive, but gravity is preferred over a pump station due to the maintenance requirements involved. It is possible that the City could participate in the cost of installing a sewer main down Orchard Street since this is included in the City's Master Sewer Plan. • Tree removal. Several trees are proposed to be removed for both phases, although the species are not identified on the plans. An arborist report will be required to identify all trees to be removed and protected, and determine tree removal mitigation. • Fire protection. To provide adequate fire flow protection in addition to domestic water, the water system needs to be looped to include an 8" main that goes all the way around the project. A truck-turn exhibit for the Fire Department ladder truck (Appendix F of the Engineering Standards) is also required. • Stormwater drainage and retention. The property includes a sizable drainage channel that traverses through the site from east to west. The applicant proposes to place the drainage through new culverts. This proposal, plus understanding how post construction requirements will be satisfied, requires a hydraulic and hydrology report. More information is also needed for the bridge proposed over the existing drainage channel. All drainage improvements will need to be closely reviewed. • Traffic and Circulation. A traffic study is required to assess project related impacts at the intersection of Orchard Street and Fair Oaks Boulevard, as well as other potentially impacted intersections and road segments. Right-of-way improvements will be required on Pilgrim Way and Orchard Street, including ADA improvements. The driveway serving the existing residences may need to be wider for fire truck PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGE9 access. It is anticipated that the applicant will also need to pay a fair share for the extension of Castillo Del Mar. • Parking. As indicated above, the overall parking required is 614 spaces based on assumptions regarding the gymnasium, church and classrooms, and the lack of a parking analysis for the soccer field. The applicant will need to prepare a parking study for all four phases that includes information about how the shared uses justify a parking reduction. • Affordable Housing. All of the proposed units are considered affordable. The applicant has indicated that it is likely a local non-profit will construct and manage the housing component of the project, although specific details are not currently available. • Noise and Lighting. Noise and lighting impacts will primarily emanate from the proposed soccer field and will need to be adequately assessed during entitlement processing. Studies that will be required as part of the entitlement process include, but are not limited to, the following: • Water demand analysis and water offsets • Hydraulic and Hydrology Report • Sewer Study • Traffic Study • Parking Study • Arborist Report ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Planning Commission consideration: 1. Provide comments and suggestions to the applicant in support of the conceptual project as presented; 2. Provide comments and suggestions to the applicant in opposition of the conceptual project as presented; or 3. Provide direction to staff and/or the applicant. ADVANTAGES: The applicant is seeking comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission regarding the proposed conceptual design of the project. Ultimate approval of the project would allow an affordable housing development, consistent with the City's Housing Element and filling a large need in the community. The project will also provide needed recreational opportunities in close proximity to Arroyo Grande High School. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002 APRIL 18, 2017 PAGE ·10 DISADVANTAGES: Ultimate development of the site would increase traffic in the vicinity and develop property that is mostly vacant. The project will also place additional demand on the City's limited water resources. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. Appropriate environmental review will be required as part of processing the formal project submittal. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City's website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Staff has not received any comments to date for the current project submittal. Comments from the previous project submittal are included as Attachment 2. Attachment: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from December 6, 2016 2. Comment Letters (received from previous submittal) 3. Conceptual Project Site Plan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 if. there is public access to the restroom; the path for patrons going from parking lot to the building; and ADA access through the building/doors. Greg C btree, representative, responded to questions from the Commission regarding the number of patrons, food being served; the maximum amount of tasting; handicap/access through the kitchen; and ted he will work with the Building Official on the handicap requirements. Chair George ope d the public hearing. Shirley Gibson, Halcyon, spoke in support of the project. Upon hearing no further com ents, Chair George closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mack stated the us is compatible; ADA needs to be throughout the building; and is in support of the project. In answer to Commission questions, Mr. btree stated there are two parking spaces, 1 handicap and one regular; and there will be no shared rking. Commissioner Keen stated there should be som sort of signage stating location of parking and signage that states Handicap parking in the rear. M SCrabtree stated a sign will be posted on the front of the building. Action: Commissioner Martin moved to adopt a resol ·on entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF A OYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-006; ESTABLISHMENT A WINE TASTING ROOM IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE; LOCATED T 225 EAST BRANCH STREET; APPLIED FOR BY TIMBRE WINERY", with the ~lowing Conditions of Approval: 1) The applicant shall ensure compliance with all interior All requirements; and 2) A sign shall be posted near the entrance to the driveway stating t t ADA compliant parking is available at the rear of the property. Commissioner Mack se nded and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Martin, Mack, Fowler-Payne, Keen, George None None 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 9.a. CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 16-002; LOCATION -207 PILGRIM WAY; APPLICANT -FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH; REPRESENTATIVE HAMRICK ASSOCIATES, INC. Associate Planner Heffernan presented the staff report for review of the conceptual plans and requested the Commission provide comments to the applicant. Pastor Kevin Gotcha! presented his project and responded to questions from the Commission regarding when the site was last used to play softball, the abandoned well, use of the existing gym, parking for the housing, the reason for constructing apartments, the owner of the church, who will manage the housing, use of the church, definition of transitional living as managed by the church, details regarding the soccer field, setback requirement for the transitional living from the public and ' PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE3 MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2016 school, and potential flooding issues. Ms. Heffernen addressed questions from the Commission regarding the drainage channel, California Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction, and the definition of assisted living facility for seniors. Chair George opened the meeting for public comment. Cindy Naber, Director of Facilities, and Linda Pierce, Director of Student Services, Lucia Mar Unified School District, read a letter from Raynee J. Daley, Ed.D., Superintendent of the District, opposing the project. Shirley Gibson, Halcyon, stated the proposed project is under parked and over built and expressed concern with traffic. Frank Loversky, S. Via Belmonte Ct., stated the design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the density is an issue, there will be traffic problems, the water usage is critical, and parking is inadequate for the sports facility. Bob Larson, stated the Teen Challenge has substance abuse issues and would be too close to the school. Patty Welsh,· asked if the surrounding neighborhood was notified, stated she does not agree that the project would be no cost to the City, is concerned about sewer lines, believes the land is not zoned for residential, is concerned with the lack of water and capacity with the Sanitation District, believes more traffic will be added to Fair Oaks Blvd., has concern about impacts to adjacent property owners and there is inadequate parking. Kate Carson, N. Via Frenze Ct. opposed the transitional living adjacent to the high school and suggested to use the land for what it is zoned for. Rob Keim, Pastor of St. Barnabas Church, commended Pastor Gotcha! and spoke in support of the proposed project. LeAnn Akins, Cornwall, spoke in support of the proposed project. Jane Rattery, East Cherry, expressed concern with traffic and parking and is opposed to the project. April Mclaughlin, expressed concern with traffic and water. Pastor Gotcha! stated the land is offered to the community, he would like a conceptual approval and wants what is best for the community. Hearing no further comment, Chair George closed the public comment period. Commissioner Keen provided the following comments: concern with the transitional housing - eliminate; in support of senior and workforce housing; reduce to two story buildings; it is a benefit to the community; the traffic study will show traffic patterns; and supports proceeding and coming back with a formal project. ' PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE4 MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2016 Commissioner Mack provided the following comments: the density will work itself out through the environmental review process; in support of the Peoples' Self Help Housing component of the project; supports the transitional housing component if the length of stay is limited to one year; supports the soccer field; suggested a building be for counseling and have less units; and suggested a review how the fields will be used in relation to parking. Commissioner Martin provided the following comments: workshops and meetings will be held for the formal application; housing is a priority; traffic and parking will need to be dealt with; concern with stormwater; and would like the community included in the workshops and evaluation. Commissioner Fowler-Payne provided the following comments: the water needs to be re- evaluated; suggested holding study session/workshop before spending money on plans; notify residents over the 300' requirement; supports the sports field; not good for families due to the density; support senior housing complex; does not support the three story buildings; and is opposed to the transitional housing as it is too close to the school. Chair George provided the following comments: there is a need for transitional housing; suggested reaching out to the School Board for their feedback; traffic and water are issues; and questioned how closing Diablo Canyon will affect housing. 10., NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE NOVEMBER 15, 2016 This'iS,a notice of administrative decision for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals, denials or refer~, by the Community Development Director. An administrative decision must be appealed o 11 d m r . b th Pl . C . . b . "t t r ca e u ezrev1ew 1y e anrnng omm1ss1on 1y a ma1on :v vo e. '" Applicant Address Description Action Planner Case No. ~ PPR 16-017 Gra~ Elm 1221 East Establishment of a new A S. Propert1e~ Grand Avenue urqent care facility Anderson PPR 16-020 Robert Monra~ 1470 Sierra Establishment of a A S. '-, Drive vacation rental in a Anderson I" residential district n response to Commissioner Fowler-Pa)1 's questions, Director McClish gave a brief report on the ~acation rentals, and explained the HOA ~~ity rules for vacation rentals. ,, Commissioner Keen expressed concern with the 'Ste~ driveway at the vacation rental (PPR 16- 020). ~ 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS ~~ In response to Fowler-Payne's question, Director McClish stat~,there will be a Planning Commission meeting on December 20, 2016. ~ In answer to Commissioner Mack's question, Director McClish stated the Publi~"E>~s Director will attend the January 17, 2017 meeting to present the tree issue at 1029 Ash Street. ~ ~ In response to Fowler-Payne's question, Director McClish stated a project could be stopped'i(_the Conditions of Approval are not met. ",, '" Engage. Challenge.Inspire. December 6, 2016 Attn: Lan George, Chairperson City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Dear Chairperson George and Commissioners, ATTACHMENT 2 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 602 Orchard Street Arroyo Grande CA 934 20 Ph 805.474.3000ext1080 Fax 805.481.1398 Please consider the following concerns, expressed on behalf of the Lucia Mar Unified School District to Pre/application No.16/002, Location 207 Pilgrim Way, First Assembly of God Church, Hamrick Associates, INC. The applicant proposes to develop 5.5 acres with 60 apartment units, a new gym, and a public sportsfield in two phases. One existing home and a storage structure would be removed as part of the new development. Phase I includes development of sixty ( 60) apartment units divided into three categories including transitional housing, senior housing, and workforce housing. According to a web resource for "finding solutions to homelessness" (http://homelesshub.ca/ solutions/housing/accommodation/and/supports/transitional/ housing), Transitional housing refers to "a supportive -yet temporary -type of accommodation that is meant to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing by offering structure, supervision, support (for addictions and mental health, for instance), life skills, and in some cases, education and training". It is this housing that Lucia Mar Unified School District has concerns about. J Student Safety has always been, and will always be Lucia Mar's number one concern. As noted in a letter to Mr. Kevin Gotchal, Pastor of Pacific Christian Center, and Ms. Teresa McClish, Director of Community Development for the City of Arroyo Grande dated May 23, 2016, the Lucia Mar Unified School District has strong concerns about the site being used for transient and homeless individuals. City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission re Prerapplication No. 16r002 Page2 December 6, 2016 We feel strongly that the development of transitional housing in the proposed location poses a real and dangerous threat to our students. The path of travel to/from the proposed location is on the sidewalk adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School. If any of the individuals being housed in this proposed development have history of violence, sex offences, issues with drug addiction, or unresolved mental health, the proposed location is too close to a school to be deemed safe. Traffic flow is an additional concern. The location of the proposed development, with its proximity and traffic flow affecting the intersections of Fair Oaks and Orchard Way and subsequently Orchard Way and Traffic Way poses an unmitigated negative impact on the traffic pattern associated with the beginning and ending of Arroyo Grande High School each day. The ingress, egress and regress of those occupying the apartments in the development would impact the already heavy traffic congestion that occurs at the beginning and end of each school day. This negative impact would pose an additional safety concern for the students in our school district. The negative impact of increased traffic in not simply the opinion of the Lucia Mar Unified School District. In a letter sent to John Rickenbach, City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department, the California Department of Transportation also weighed in on the impact of the same intersections in our town. In this letter, it was noted that: "Caltrans does not support the following "less than significant" finding no mitigation needed determination for the TRANSr6 impact for reasons included and not limited to points stated above (see letter)". While the City found that the impact of traffic for the project to be "less than significant," Caltrans, in the letter cited above, could "not support this finding." Beyond the safety concerns that have the potential to negatively impact our students and our community, other concerns need to be addressed by the Planning Commission and eventually the City of Arroyo Grande. Full disclosure of impact on water, city sewer systems, and our local police City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission re Pre/application No. 16/002 Page 3 December 6, 2016 department need to be addressed. And finally, community engagement and input from the neighbors to the proposed project who may be impacted by the influx of the development is a must. While the currently proposed project admirably addresses some very real needs of San Luis Obispo County, we call for full discussion, disclosure, and impact studies that fully vet the pros and cons of said project. Thank you for your consideration of these critical concerns. ~:t:y.e~ Superintendent, Lucia Mar Unified School District December 6, 2016 COLLEEN TITUS MARTIN 855 OLIVE STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 COLLEENTITUSMARTIN@SBCGLOBAL.NET (805) 234-59 1 3 RE: Agenda Item 9a Planning Commission Meeting 12/06/2016 Dear City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission and City Council: "Many years ago Arroyo Grande citizens gathered at the Arroyo Grande High School Gym for a community visioning meeting to discuss the future of our City. The farmers came in droves to protect prime farmlands and the people were in an uproar about the density of proposed housing developments. The City leaders and stakeholders completed a thorough General Plan Update and Land Use Element that you and the City are proud of today. It seems that the proposal on your agenda this evening is willing to shred years' work by many people for one applicant." I wrote this on December 9, 2014 -just 2 years ago, in response to another project here in Arroyo Grande and I am here today to once again urge the City to do one thing: STICK to the GENERAL PLAN! The future of Arroyo Grande development will be primarily infill as most of the city's large parcels have either been developed or preserved for agriculture. This will be the challenge for us as a City as we try to complement development that is already in place with new applicant's desires. When a pre-application is received such as the one from the Assembly of God Church that asks for so many variances, it should be scrutinized on every point. However, the strongest consideration is whether the zoning is appropriate and consistent with the General Plan. This pre-application is from a Church wanting to become a High Density Residential complex. IF the City were to grant such a generous zone change (from almost anything to residential), it should ONLY be at a NEGOTIATED cost that benefits the City greatly. The owners of large parcels will reap huge financial rewards to convert to residential. That reward MUST BE countered by the City procuring a BENEFIT. The benefit cannot be for the City to "further assist the City with meeting goals of the Housing Element" or recreational ball fields. This would NOT be enough. The goal for the type of negotiation of COMPROMISING the GENERAL PLAN would need to be on the scale of a redesign, payment and implementation and of a new off-ramp at Fair Oaks Ave & Orchard St. I Please consider my comments and feel free to use them in your argument against breaking with the General Plan that our City so carefully crafted. Respectfully, ~ Colleen Martin M 1-z LU ~ :c u ~ Adjacent Properfy :ZO~e~\ Residential Estate <<. ,_...,, -<,;:--:--;-LifePoint Church 207 Pilgrim Way, Arroyo Grande, Ca I PROJECT SUMMARY I -~-~~~~n.I::> ~m-~C'Jr.14"'-E:::~ .... :";'~;~·"'-'~ °"""<"l"°"'""""""''~P<·~-~~,-~m ~?T$S...='1?J~=~~,~-~~:~:~~~l:~~~~·J.h ~~~"*5=~::.:;...~-~=z:~~~.~ r;;=:'*1~·::;~.~:~:~~~=="l:~~~"~ ~~~n~:!:_..,~/;..~::::.r~.n::,=.,,.,,.,,..,...,_10"""'"" e;;;m;;....~:=='""'"'r::.~" ....... 'l\.;...,.... ... ___ ~~-0 ............ "'""->"Rl""IOtw~ ........ """"'""-.-l'"""-~"""""'"""~ ~:~~r.~~;¥a~1~a:~E::.~: ===:;,~...,;:;.;::.:=.:.-'~"::'::..:=:: ~~ ... l::.!:" IC'"""""l:l;;,""'ro~O~'"" Flo!"""""~ ~~t~~--P2> ............ -.-~. ~'""~°""' •=cD<f ~ .. -,.,q., !SOllli>uw ~. l'm\111""-:""l• 1SFllll1>uM ,..,.,,. l:>l'~IH:nl.. llS< .. <lH••""""""""'' z:•·f>rrnm m;;;, :~:Dw.;:• ;;:;:~: ~•t• d (~,...,,.,,! r~?llH.;1: ~~•C""'I ~-~ ~=--·~...-. ..: -=·· ·~ ~..,,. ... , ~··· !!r.:~.:.~!:';'~~.~!~., .... ,.,. . ., -.,..,...,.,,..~ ... ,,...,~.. 1;7.,._...... gr;::er:a~=.:-n:· Ul-llnl" ~~eo.oul<eum ,~_ ==-1~--" nl~:·--"-~1.------__j.~-'=-I~-~ ... !~ ~...:1___ lodln<ISl>O ~ :g;,,,..-1--I ·~" I ·~~ I " iS:~~;;;~ II ~inity Map I ~ ==··--\~ ..c: 0 Ii..,, :l ..c: o<( .... (.) Car ·--c 0§ D...5 °' 0 ........ ~ ·-,.. -I< Associates Incorporated 03.0:3.17 SD-1