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