Agenda Packet 2006-10-10
CITY OF
Tony Ferrara
Jim Guthrie
Jim Dickens
Joe Costello
Ed Arnold
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Agenda
City Council
~~LIFOR~.~
~.f:;/~~'_I
Sleven Adams City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 P.M.
2.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCIURDA
3.
FLAG SALUTE:
GIRL SCOUT TROOP 1016
4.
INVOCATION:
PASTOR ROBERT BANKER
OPEN DOOR CHURCH, OCEANO
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY - OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City
Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not
published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding
Council Member may:
. Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
. A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
. It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
. Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
. Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
. Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
8. CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes
to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council
Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit
discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may
approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
B.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period
September 16, 2006 through September 30,2006.
B.b. Consideration of ADDroval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of
August 29,2006, as submitted.
B.c. Consideration of DisDosal of SurDlus Bicvcles (AEIL TS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution declaring the listed bicycles as surplus for
donation to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office to be refurbished and
donated to needy children.
B.d. Consideration of Reauest for Fundina from Enerav Solutions Coalition
(ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve funding in the amount of $500 for the Energy
Solutions Coalition Smart Energy Solutions Summit.
AGENDA SUMMARY - OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (continued):
8.e. Consideration of Aareement with Tierra West Advisors. LLC for Redevelooment
Consultant Services (ADAMS)
[COUNCIURDA]
Recommended Action: 1) Authorize the City Manager/Redevelopment Agency
Executive Director to terminate the existing contract with Rosenow Spevacek Group,
Inc; and 2) Authorize the Mayor/Redevelopment Agency Chair to execute the
Agreement with Tierra West Advisors, LLC for redevelopment consultant services.
8.f. Consideration of Aareement with Tierra West Advisors. LLC for Redevelooment
Bond Fiscal Consultant Services (ADAMS)
[COUNCIURDA]
. Recommended Action: Approve the proposal received by Tierra West Advisors, LLC
to provide fiscal consultant services to the Redevelopment Agency to coordinate
issuance of bond financing.
8.g. Consideration of City-County Tax Aareement Reaardina Detachment No.1 of a
3700 S.F. Portion of a Laraer Residential Prooertv which is Predominantlv
Develooed in Unincoroorated Area. but bv Prior Leaal Descriotion Error is
Partlv within the City of Arrovo Grande. as Reauested bv LAFCO (File 4-R-06)
(STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution accepting the exchange of property tax
revenue and annual tax increment for the detachment of property from the City of
Arroyo Grande.
8.h. Consideration of Develooment Code Amendment 04-005A - An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Arrovo Grande Amendina Portions of Title 16 of
the Arrovo Grande Municioal Code. Revisina Land Use Reaulations for Desian
Develooment Overlav District OMU-D-2.20 within the Office Mixed Use District
(STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to revise
land use regulations for Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20.
8.L Consideration to Authorize the Exoenditure of Funds to Purchase a Pre-Owned
Bucket Truck (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Approve the expenditure of funds to purchase a pre-owned
bucket truck for the Public Works Department.
8.j. Consideration of an Award of Contract to Anderson Burton Construction. Inc.
for the City Hall Receotion Area Renovation (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) Award a contract in the amount of $29,969; 2) Authorize
the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $5,000
for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the
project; and 3) Appropriate $5,000 from the General Fund.
8.k. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase In-Car Video Systems for the New
Police Patrol Vehicles (AEIL TS)
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to purchase two (2) digital in-car video
systems from ICOP Digital, Inc. for a total cost of $13,458.35.
AGENDA SUMMARY - OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 4
8. CONSENT AGENDA (continuedl:
8.1. Consideration of a Resolution Intearatina the National Incident Manaaement
System (NIMSl into the City's Existina Emeraencv Manaaement Plan and
ODerations (AEIL TS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution integrating the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) into the City's emergency management plan, planning,
and operations to ensure that it will be consistent with the Standardized Emergency
Management System; and adopt the NIMS Implementation Matrix for Tribal and Local
Jurisdictions as a guide, effective October 10, 2006.
8.m. Consideration of Authorization to Lease Purchase a New Fire Enaine (FIBICH)
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Purchase Order,
not to exceed $410,000, to Pierce Manufacturing for the purchase of one
demonstrator 2007 Pierce fire engine; and authorize the City Manager to solicit a
Lease Purchase Agreement for this purchase and be authorized to dispose of the
surplus 1984 Van Pelt fire engine.
8.n. Consideration of Authorization of City Manaaer to Sian Contracts with Pacific
Gas & Electric for Phase 3 of "Let There Be Liahts" Street Liaht Installations on
East Branch Street Between Short Street and Crown Hill (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to sign two contracts with
PG&E for Phase 3 of "Let There Be Lights. for street light installations on E. Branch
Street between Short Street and Crown Hill to replace 14 existing generic lanters with
16 new decorative metal poles, Holophane fixtures, and accessories, in the amounts
of $44,329 and $6,444 from the SLOCOG Branch Streetscape Grant Funds, to be
partially reimbursed by continued volunteer donations per pole.
8.0. Consideration of Enaineer's ReDort and AdoDtion of Resolution of Intention to
Form the Grace Lane Assessment District (Tract 2236) (CARMEL)
Recommended Action: Review and approve the Engineer's Report and adopt a
Resolution of Intention to continue the process of forming the Grace Lane
Assessment District.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Consideration of Develooment Code Amendment Case No. 04-007.
Neiahborhood Plan 04-001. Vestina Tentative Tract MaD 04-002. and Planned
Unit DeveloDment 04-002: ADDlicant - Creekside Estates of Arrovo Grande.
LLC: Location - 22 Acres Located East of Noauera Court and North of East
Cherry Avenue Extension (Cherry Creek) (HEFFERNON)
Recommended Action: Consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for residential
development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of two (2) subareas.
Subarea 1 is a proposed thirty (30) unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit
Development configuration on nine (9) of the 22 acres. Subarea 2 encompasses
thirteen (13) acres where no subdivision is proposed at this time. The Planning
Commission recommends that Council find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration
insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project.
The Planning Commission further recommends that the project be retumed to the
Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental determination.
AGENDA SUMMARY - OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 5
9. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (continued):
9.b. Consideration of DeveloDment Code Amendment Case No. 06-001. and
Tentative Parcel MaD Case No. 06-004 - Location: APNs 006-095-001 & 002.
Includina and Adioinina Arrovo Grande Hiah School at VallevRoad/Fair Oaks
Avenue (STRONG)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate
the subject properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and Public Facility (PF), initiated by
the City of Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to Arroyo Grande High
School; and 2) Adopt Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 located
south of and including part of Arroyo Grande High School campus at Valley Road and
Fair Oaks Avenue, initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande, including improvement and
extension of Castillo Del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to Valley Road; 3) Authorize
the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with JH Land Partnership
in a form approved by the City Attorney; and 4) Authorize the City Manager to execute
an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting proposed
changes in the payment provided by JH Land Partnership and any other minor
modifications necessary to carry out the direction provided by City Council.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like
to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal
agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action
can be taken.
a. None.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to
receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be
taken.
a. None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council.
AGENDA SUMMARY - OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 6
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that
are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council
from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
17. ADJOURNMENT
AlAAAAAA*****************
All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda
are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If
requested, the agenda shall' be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a
disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related
modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon
as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
**************************
This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports
can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovoqrande.orq
**************************
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo
Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-soan.orq.
8.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES 41\
FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR/1&)
CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION W
BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period September 16 through September 30,2006.
FUNDING:
There is a $554,571.87 fiscal impact that includes the following items:
. Accounts Payable Checks 128232-128470
. Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks
$ 178,305.59
$ 376,266.28
All payments are within the existing budget.
DISCUSSION:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual
operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve staffs recommendation;
. Do riot approve staffs recommendation;
. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
Attachment 1-September 16- September 30,2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 2- September 29, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
~ I; 0 N 0 ~ 0 <D .... 0 ~
~ 0 <D 0 '" N ~ 0 0
G> 0 0 0 0 ;,;
l- I- I'- ~ .... CO 0
Cl .... .... N 0 N N 0 Cl
Z .. ... ~ <D .... "'- ..
W lL " lL
" I'-
:2 ""
:I: 0
()
<
~
<
'" 0 N 0 ~ 0 <D ceca 0 co <D 0 "''''''' '" '" '" ('I') ('I') ("') 00 cocoa 0 00
";;; 0 <D 0 '" N ~ c.q~~tq ": ":...r: 0 ~~~ mm m mmmN NN.... ": ~'"
11. 0 r--: 0 0 ~ .... ...-............ ..-([) ....0 0 "'Itv'V"I:tv v~~...tci ciONN ~ ~
- .... .... N 0 N N t--. ,..... ...... ,..... co "'0 vv"lt" V "'It 'VVVoq-M MMNC\I NN
C ~ <D .... ..-..-..-..-0' co <D
" ~ ~ - - -
0 ..-..-...... ............
E
<
<D <D <D <D <D <D <D CD CD CD (0 <D <D <D CD CD CD CD co <0 co COCOCOCO(O([)COCD
$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000'0 00 0 00 0 cocoa 0'0'0'0'0'0'0'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 coco 00 0 00 cacace 00'0'0'0'0'0'
.. N N ~ ~ ~ ~ N NNNN ~~ N NN ~~~~~~ NNNNNNN
C 05 - W ---- m men -------
,; N co 0 <D '" CO..-..- N NN mmm mmm..-LOO>CON..-LO
~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 000 ~ ~ N NN NNN NNNO NONa......
.E - m m - - m mmmm mOl 05 co 03 rococo ----------
m m co m co co 00 co co 00 00 00 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ceca 00 0 00 000 0'0'00'0'0'0'0'0'0'
ClW
CO
._ z
....<
.!!! 0::
....ICl
~o
0>-
....0
00::
.- 0::
J:<
..ll::u..
00
Gl>-
~I-
0-
()
'"
_0
1/10
:E~
"" N
()O
<>'0
..~
:2
<
'"
o::!
~
~
..
o
.c
Gi
'"
o
"
...
c
..
lD
"
"
'0
>
.E
"
-
..
c
'"
"0
~
..
G>
(3
il
~
o
'"
C
G>
>
$
..
C
..
...
"
"
""
o
<D
o
co
~
m
o
0::
..:
z
~
W
C/l
Cl
:1;
Z
~
I-
~
..:
'"
I'-
I'-
'"
o
o
<D
o
o
N
05
~
m
o
N
'"
N
co
N
~
'"
N
00
o
I'-
o
o
o
o
-
(J)
c::
o
c::
w
:2:
o
c::
..:
o
W
::l
Cl
..:
~
'"
I'-
'"
o
o
<D
o
o
N
05
~
-
m
o
....
....
N
00
N
~
<D
o
00
~
m
o
W
()
z
..:
z
W
I-
Z
<(
:2:
'"
o
....
o
o
o
<D
o
o
~
~
-
m
o
'"
....
N
00
N
~
o
<D
00
N
o
I'-
o
o/l
Cl
z
a
..:
lL
o
W
U
Z
~
o
..:
~
~
o
o
o
o
<D
o
o
~
N
N
m
o
<D
....
N
00
N
<D
o
o
~
'"
co
co
I'-
m
'"
m
N
co
I'-
'"
C/l
C/l
W
c::
c..
x
w
z
..:
u
c;:
w
:2:
..:
'"
'"
<D
....
o
o
<D
o
o
~
N
N
m
o
I'-
....
N
00
N
Cl
o
N
I'-
N
'"
N
'"
...J
co t-LOcomo..-
'V "I:tcooomoo
...... ......0'0' NN
LO I.OLOI.OI.OLOLO
'V'Vvvvvv
0'0'0'0'0'0'0
0'00'0'0'0'0
0'0'0000'0
Cl
Z
Cl
;)j
C/l
W
:2:
z
..:
u
c;:
W
:2:
..:
m
o
I'-
'"
o
o
<D
o
o
~
N
N
m
o
u
z
C/l
c..
:2:
W
I-
Z
..:
U
c;:
W
:2:
..:
o
'"
o
~
o
o
<D
o
o
N
N
N
m
o
00
....
N
co
N
m
....
N
00
N
~
......OCDCOM"l:tC\lmLOOOOONI.OCDLO
C"')C"')MNMC"')("')NMcoLOt-m..;;tt---v
corooococaccCOCOCO"l:tot---Nmvo
,.....,......,......t--.f"-..f'-..f'..t--.t---......MVr--CO..-C")
NNNNNNNNN;;;tLl)CD'VLO"ItLO
o 0000 oooor---.,.....,.....,.....,.....t--t---
u..LLu..LLLLLLLLLLu..u..u..u..u..u..ll..u.
<D
o
o
~
N
N
m
o
>
C/l
U
>
C/l
:2:
c::
o
u..
Z
::l
W
o
c;:
c..
c;:
W
:2:
..:
I'-
~
00
'"
o
o
<D
o
o
~
N
~
m
o
C/l
U
>
C/l
:2:
c::
o
IL
Z
::l
W
o
c;:
c..
c;:
W
:2:
..:
I'-
~
00
'"
o
o
<D
o
o
~
N
N
m
o
o
'"
N
00
N
~
'"
N
00
N
... 5 ~ ...
a; M
0 to CIl
'" .... m '"
co ... m co
D- " D-
Ol
.c
0
'" '" "'0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 M M ('i)M('t)lt)lJ')
".. "'": "'": co co co co <0 <0 co (0 CD 0 0 00 00 00 1'-1'-
lL ~ T"""cOc.OcDcDuiLriLriLri on on ..,: M M MNNOci
- N NT""" 'I"'"" T"""T"""T""................... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T"""T""" 'It"'"".........-
C
::J
0
E
<
'1"'""""" 0 LO It)......
......q-Lt)"l;I-vMC")
ocia.ia.io>cOcD
0000
<0(0(0(0
LriuiuiLri
000
CD 0 0
lri..o..o
~oo
~OO 00
~NN
.s
co
C
,;
.E
<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0'<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
OON~ro~N~oo~Nmmm~~m~~ooN~~mroNooN~ro~Nmoo~roooN
~~~Q_~QQ~~~~~Q~~e~e~e~~Q~e~ee~~~e~ee~
coco co co co co coco co co co co co co coco co co co co coco co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
ClW
CO ~ M 00 0 00 M m ~ m .... I'- .... CD ~
._ Z CIl CO('l')l'-mvv I'- m ........ I'- I'- 1'-00
...< " Nm .... Nom VNom I'- 1'-1'- ....
.!!! II: "0 I'- 00 I'-Moo T""!'--MCO .... ........ ~
vl.OvvlOl.Ovvl.OLO CD CD CD ....
...JCl > ,....,......r-...,.....,.....,.....r--r--r--...... I'- 1'-1'- I'-
~O .E U.LLU.u..LLl.L.u..u..LL..LL. LL LL LL LL
0> .s
...0 co
UlII: c
.- II: '"
J:< "0
.:o:LL ~
"0 co
Gl> CIl
=1- (3
O- il
0
::;;
<
'"
'?
-
-
..
o
J:l
Ul
_0
1/10
:Et:!
......
00
0.0
co_
;,;
'"
o
"
...
c
..
III
'l"'""C>>1.O "'It" I.()I'-NNMr--m
LOt---t--.q-COMCOLt).......COM
Of'-.'<t"OC'\.lmvOI"--NO'J
Mv Mr--CO'l"'""("')..qI'-CO
LO(OvLO.....LOvl.{)(O"o;tlt)
1'-""""""1'-1'-1'-1'-1'-1'-1'-1'-
LLLLlLLLLLLLLLlLLLLLLL
.... CDI'-m CD ~ LOCOOO"l::t M CD
00 MI'-oo .... .... 1'-0::>("')0) m ....
N m....N 0 m t--.NCJ)N ... m
t--.co......t--. M 00 "I:tt--.cot--. I'- 00
..;:t1.O"I:t..;:t '" '" <D..;:tI.O..;:t ....'"
t--.t--.t--.t--. t--.t--.t--.t--.t--.t--. 1'-1'-
LL LL LL LL LLLLLLLLLLLL LL LL
~
o
'"
c
CIl
>
.s
..
C
..
...
"
..
.c
o
'" ~ co '" "- '" ..,. N '" '" "- "- ..,. 0 0 0 0 '"
;,; CO "< CO '" C! ..,. N '" "- N 0 0 0
0 <D 0; .,; ... r-: 0 .,; 0 ;,;
.... N '" N co '" 0 CO
'" CO '" ..,. 0> N '" '" '" N N ~ '" ..,. 0 '" '"
.. "" ..,. N N ~ N ~ ..,. <D ~ ..
0.. " 0..
..
J::
0
'"
'n;
0..
-
c
"
o
E
..;
co '"
CO CO
'" N
CO '"
..,.
I'-- ~ <0 M
0:) LO <0 ("')
m ..q:r---:M
"i:t 0> <D ("')
......NO>C'\j
CO '" CO
0:) a:) a) a)
COCOC'\l..-
CO..,.O
CONO>
Nr-:
..,.
'"
..,.
o:i
'"
'"
N
...
'"
"-
r-:
N
"'~
~..,.
<Do
"-'"
lO("')C"')C"')
v<DlOO
a)o)mN
CO
<D '"
o CO
o>o:i
0>..,.
..,.,
o 0
o 0
cO u)
..,. 0
<D
o
o
o
'"
..
-
..
C
,:
.E
<D
o
o
~
~
'"
ro
o
<D
o
o
~
~
N
0;
o
<D
o
o
~
~
'"
-
CO
o
<D <D <D
000
000
~NN
r---t::t:::
000
- --
0> 0> 0>
000
<D<O<DCO
0000
0000
~NN~
..-t::OO..-
......00'1"'""
000000(0
0000
<D<D'"
000
000
~~~
"'''-0>
OON
t::OOCO
000
<D
o
o
N
co
o
0;
o
<D
o
o
~
~
o
0;
o
<D
o
o
N
-
'"
o
0;
o
<D'"
00
00
~~
..,. ~
N~
roo>
00
COCO<DCO
o a 0 a
0000
~NNN
LOmeN
.................. ......
cnmmrn
0000
'" '"
00
00
~~
~O
N '"
t:::U5
00
<D
o
o
N
;:::
~
ro
o
'"
o
o
~
~
~
0>
o
'"
o
o
~
~
N
0;
o
ClW '" N ..,.<D '" "- '"
CO ..,. '" 0 '" '" "'<D '" ..,. ~ f-
._ Z .. 0 '" CO CO '" CO ~ ..,. CO co ..,. ~ ..,. <D N 15 '" <D '"
......; " 0 0 0 ~ ..,. 0> CO '" 0> CO '" "- ..,. "- ..,. CO 0> 0 0 0
.!!1 lY '0 0 ~ ..,. 0 "- '" '" ..,.'" '" '" CO ..,. '" '" '" '" N CO W "- 0> ~
>< '" N ,:. , , ..,. ..,...,. ..,. ..,. '" 0 0> 0 "- '" '" 0 0 0 0 '" a:: ~ 0; N
...JCl > co co ~ "- "- '" '" '" '" "- a '" '" 0 0 ~ ~ '" '" '" '" N co 0>
.E <D 0 '" 0; 0; 0; f- f-f-f- "- co co '" N ~ ~ ~ ~ '" U 0 0 0
~O $
0>
....0 ..
tIllY c
.- a: '"
J:..; '0
..ll:LL ~
00 ..
Gl> ..
~f- U
O- Il
0
<( a:: f-
ro ill Z
e. $: ill a:: I
en 0 0 2 :J ill f-
a:: -' ill oil ro -'
ill ~ LL > en ill 2 U ill ..;
U a: en 0 Z U ill
> ill 0 ill ill f- => <{ I
a: 0 0 a:: 0 D.- a:: ill -' ill
I Z 0.. Z D.- ill oil ill D.- LL
ill ill a:: 0
en a:: C2 2 ill ill >< a:: -' u:: ill
0 ro ro ill f- -' > f-
ill C9 0 ~ >< en en a:: 0..
f- Z U a:: a:: >< 2 Z ill ill
en ill 0 ;0: ill I 0
~ > 2 I ~ 0 U 0 0 en
ill f- ro U ill f-
-' 0 j::: ~ f- Z f- ill
-' a: oil "'" U f- ill ill C2 en a:: a:: en U
0: 0 a:: f- f- <{ <{ ro I c:: => <{ <{ <{
<{ U <{ <{ <{ ro 2 <{ f- ro ro ro u u u
~ N <D N "- '" <D ..,. "- ..,. <D 0 <D '" "- co
0 '" "- ..,. 0 ~ '" "- "- co '" 0> 0> N "- '"
'" '" "- a '" '" 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0>
C N '" 0 '" '" 0 '" 0 0 ~ 0 0 N ..,. N
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" '" <D <D <D '" '" '" '" <D '" <D '" <D <D
:;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
..; $ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ N N N N ~ ~ N N
'" .. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
<;:! C N ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N ~
~ 0; 0> 0> 0; 0; 0> 0> 0> 0> 0; 0; 0> 0> 0; 0>
~ .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.c
.. N '" ..,. '" <D "- co 0> 0 ~ N '" ..,. '" '"
<D "" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" <D '" <D '" '" '"
- 0 .. " N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
.!!1 <> '" .. co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
'" 0 J:: N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
I " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.><'" 0
""
0<> C
<>'0 ..
..~ III
... ~ 0 0 I'- 0 I'- ;:: 0 '" 0) 0 0 <D 0 0) ~ 0 ... ...
CD '" 0 ... 0 0) 0 0) ... 0 '" <D 0 0) N 0 '"
0 c:i c:i N c:i .,.; N c:i ... N 0 oj <D c:i oi ,..: oi ~ CD
Cl .... ~ ~ N 0) '" N <D 0) <D 0 N '" N '" <D 0) 0) Cl
CO ... ~ N 0) ~ N ... 0 ... 0 ~ CO
D.. " D..
.. N
J::
U
"C <D N N 0 I'- 0 .... ~ 0 '" 0) 0 0 '" '" 00 "'''' 0 0) 0 ~ 0 0'"
.; "'N <D 0 ... 0 0) I'- 0 0) ... 0 '" I'- N"'''' O<D 0 <D N N 0 '" 0)
D.. ~ai oi c:i N c:i .,.; N c:i .,: N c:i cO .,.; Nr---:c.o 0:)0:) c:i .q:Lri ,..: oi c.O~
- 0) ~ ~ N 0) '" N <D 0) <D 0 <D 0) 1'-"'''' '" 0) N ...~ <D 0) "'...
" ~ N ac N ~ 0) "'~ 0. ~
=>
0 N
E
<(
<D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D CO CO CO CO <D <D <D' <D <D <D <D <D <D
.s 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO !::' ~~ !::' N N N !::' aJ !::' !::' !::' !::' ~~~~ N N !::' !::' !::' !::' !::' !::' !::'
c m ;;; a N N
:> 0) 1'-0) ~ ... N 0) ~ ~ ~.................. '" ~ ~ 0) ~ I'- I'-
~ ON '" ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ '" '" C"')C"')C"')C"') N 0 ~ '" '" ~ !::' 0 0
.5 - - - - m j:;: m m - - - - - ---- CiS CiS m CiS - - - m
0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) (0 (0 00 co 0) <D 0) 0)
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" 0'" '"
0) <D N 0) ~ 0)
0 0) ~ '" ... '" N'" '" <D
mW '" 0) <D
<D "'~ N '" ... I'- 0)0)0)0 '" ... <D '"
cO ... , N N t--- C"') 0 co I'- I'- ~ ~
0 00 '"
._ z .. ~ ~ 0 <D 0) I'- W ... ...... co r- ..- ... 0) <D <D <D ... N N
-<( " ..;. ~~ 0 I'- 0 '" ~ ... ... ~ 0000 ... 0 0 0) 0) 0) I'- I'-
0) 0) '" 0) '" 0 t: , I I I I 0) ~ '" 0) 0) ~ ~
.!!! a: .0 , ~ ........................ '" '"
~ ~ ~ '" 0) ~ N 0) '" '" 0) ... ... ~ u z 0 ... I'- I'-
...JCl > '" '" '" N ~ I'- N 0) ~ 0 <D Z '" MMMM N N 0) 0 ... 0 0
.5 ::J CiS - --- 2 2
~o I'- 1'-1'- <D 0 0 ... N ~ 0) ... co co co co '" '" 0 N ...
0>- .s
"liili1 co
c
.- a: "C
:I:<( .0
~... ~
00 co
Gl>- ..
.1::1- <3
0-
0 il
u (f)
(') a: z
(f) z w u w
f= ~ 0 Z 0-
I- U 2 <(
a: w z (f) (f) u
<( a: 1( a: I- <(
I Z (f)
D.. u: 0- W (f) Z (') 0 ci 0
0 u >- ><: (') w <( Z
l- I- I- U 2 z f= u
I- Z w (f) (f) (f) w (f) z U ::J ~
::J <( <( C3 ...J a: 0 1( 0- Z 1( oil
<( ui Z ...J ...J Z ...J
0 0 0 ~ 0 0- ::J W 0 W W
I- :; U U U I- (f) (f) a ::J 2 (f) (') a:
(f) 0 'a: ...J ...J ...J ...J a: u Cr: ...J W U <( I- <( W
W Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ w ~ ~ <( u.i w 1( w
::J Z ::J I- ><: w z I 0
a ...J l- I- l- I- a: I- u (f) (f) a: cr: ~ ~ z
a: u ...J Z Z Z Z <( Z 0 >- w 0 ..: I
<( <D W W W W W I 0 a: a: ::J z <( 0
u u 0 u u u u u u u u u <( c:i 0 0 ....,
~ '" '" 0) 0 0) N I'- 0 I'- N '" <D 0) N I'- ~ ~
0 0 '" <D I'- 0) '" '" 0) I'- 0) 0) 0) I'- 0 0) I'- 0)
"C <D N ~ 0 0) ~ ~ 0) I'- ~ ~ ~ I'- N N <D 0
" 0 '" '" '" '" 0 0 ~ '" 0 0 0 '" 0 '" '" '"
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D
::;: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<( .s N N !::' !::' !::' !::' N N N N N N !::' !::' !::' N ~
It) co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
~ c !::' N N !::' !::' !::' !::' !::' !::' !::' !::' N !::' !::' !::' !::' !::'
~ 0) m m 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) m 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
~ co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.Q
.. I'- 0) 0) 0 ~ N '" ... '" <D I'- 0) 0) 0 co N '"
It) a; ... <D <D <D I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- 0) 0) 0)
- 0 " N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
.!!l 0 "C .. 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
N 0 J:: N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
I - " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
... N ...
oe "
0.0 co
co~ IX!
'" "'iii " '" 0 " 00 N '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" ~ CO CO 0 0 '"
- N 00 0 '" N CO '" 0 0 0 0 I'- 0 '" " '" 0 '"
'" 0 CO '" 0 CO cD .,: '" 0 <ri cO <ri '" r-.: cO .,: cD '" OJ
Cl .... N 00
'" N '" '" N 0 '" '" 00 ~ 0 '" I'- '" CO N I'- '" " Cl
CO ... ~ N 0 " 0 '" N "'- " 00 CO_ CO
l1. u
.. '" " I'- l1.
.c
0
'" "OON '" 0 0 " 00 N '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 "''''Ol ~ CO <D 0 0 0
'OJ OlOl'" 00 0 0 Ol N CO '" 0 0 0 0 I'- 0 ""'N " ~ N'" 0 '"
l1. LOMcD '" cO cO cD cD " '" 0 <ri cO <ri N '" MMO cO .,: N<D cD '"
- '" CO '" N I'- I'- '" N 0 '" '" 00 ~ 0 '" I'- NO I'- CO N '" 00 '" "
r:: l{)~C")N N 0 " 0 ~ '" '" " CO~ CO
" ,,- r-:
0 N ~
E
<(
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO <D <D <D CO <D CO CO CO CO <D <D CO CO CO CO <D CO
$ 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @, 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~ ~~ N N N ~ N N N N N ~ ~ ~ N NN ~ ~ N N N N
05 N - i':: M 05 M - i':: co 00 05 i':: m 0
,; ~ ~ ~ N I'- Ol Ol '" I'- ~ 00 "
~ 0'" 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 '" 0 00 0 ~ N ~ ~ '"
.E - moo m m m - m m m m - - - - 05 m men - m 05 05 m 05
'" 00 Ol Ol '" '" '"
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
~
0
'" '" 0
ClW ~ N ~ 0
00 " ~ '" 00 ~ CO Z
cO '" '" N 0 " 00 ~ '" '" "
._ z .. N I'- <D " ~ N 00 '" <D <D CO <D <D ~ 0 0 I'- " '" CO N
....<( U " ~ '" '" I'- I'- 0 I'- 0 0 0 0 0 I'- 0 '" '" ~ '" I'- N 0 Ol
.!!1 0:: '0 I'- N ~ Ol 00 00 0 N Ol 00 '" Ol Ol Ol 00 N N '" ~ Ol 00 " N '" I'-
N 0 '" '" '" '" 0 '" '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ " '" "- do do N ~ 0 00 ~ Ol
...JC> > 00 I'-CO " ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Ol Ol '" '" Ol 00 '" 0 ~ '" CO '" N
.E m - -
~o l1. 0..0.. '0 0 '" ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 '" CO '" '" CO '" 00 '" 0 '"
0>- $
....0 co
1/10:: 0
.- 0:: '"
J:<( '0
"":LL ~
00 co
CIl>- ..
~I- (3
0-
0 il
a 0
0 -' 0
(f) (f) z a:: z
0 W LL >- a
w (f) a lD z a (f)
C> 1i: => <( Cl w 0
0.. (f) j::: 0.. 0 -' 0.. I- Z
-' => w a:: a 0 I o<l >- :;; Cl <(
C> -' 0 w :;; ~ z a <( C> -'
0.. Z -' w I (f) a:: <( w w i-
z f- (f) ~ Cl 0
f= 0 Cl LL Z 0 <( w a 0.. I a:: z
z w C> -' w Cii (f) >- a:: -' :;; o<l a:: C> w
w :;; z Cii u:: (f) a lD >- a a:: w C> a:: -'
~ ci Z LL (f) -' -' 0 ;:; 0 > -'
a:: (f) a a w w LL <( W <( <( w
~ C> w z 52 a I ~
<( a:: <( :;; (f) 0 I E <( C> C> rfJ Z
:;; a :;; z => z 0 0 z ~ (f) z <( z z a ~
-' Cl f- a C> w z -' 1i: C> w a (f) 0 w
-' 0 (f) x a:: a:: w w <( :'S -' w a :;; z => z
W lD a 0 x w w a:: > w <( <( I a:: <( <( I a
Cl -, Cl w W LL f- u:: u:: Cl LL C> C> f- C> I I 0 I
~ 0 00 '" <D Ol '" I'- CO '" 0 '" I'- N '" co <D I'- '" I'-
0 " 0 I'- I'- 00 N " " I'- '" N co I'- 0 00 Ol '" 0 ~
'" 00 N CO CO N '" N CO I'- I'- 00 N '" CO N N N " '"
r:: ~ 0 N " '" ~ 0 " '" " " 0 " 0 0 0 ~ N 0
" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<D CO CO CO CO <D <D co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO <D <D CO CO
:;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<( $ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N N N N N N N N ~ N N N N
'" co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
~ 0 N ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~
~ m '" '" m m Ol '" '" '" m m m m m m ",. '" '" '"
~ co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.c
.. " '" CO I'- 00 '" 0 ~ N '" " '" CO I'- 00 '" 0 ~ N
CD ... 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol '" '" '" '" '" '" Ol 0 0 0
- 0 .. U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N '" '" '"
'" 0 '" " 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
:f N 0 .c N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
- U 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" N ...
00 r::
<>.05 co
co~ 1Il
'" g 0 '" (') 0 0 <D '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 <D '" '" '"
a; 0 (') ": '" 0 <D '" ... '" (') 0 0 ... '" N
0 <6 aj ci aj '" ,..: .0 <6 ,..: a;
I- ~ <D '" N ~ r- <D
Cl ~ '" 0 0 '" r- '" (') ~ N '" ... N '" '" (') Cl
.. ... N ~ <D, '" N (') ~ ~ ~ (') 0 '" ..
lL " r-: '" lL
..
.c
0
"
"n;
lL
-
"
:>
o
E
<(
o
o
<D
~
N
'"
~
'"
'"
(')
r-
o 0
'" 0
<ri Lri
o '"
"'- '"
~
<D
<D
N
r-
N
'"
'"
'"
~
ci
(')
'"
...
aj
~
~
'"
'"
'"
N
~
'"
(')
,..:
'"
o
o
.0
...
o
o
<6
N
<D 0'"
~ 00 l"-
I"- MM
'" '" <D
(') ~'"
r- N~
NLO<Dt--OO
("') 0) ("') v
~o<ri""":O
CDNmMN
(')N~
OOr--NOO
Nomo.......
Lri""":MOLri
O<O.q-MN
~
o
~
~
'"
(')
s
co
Cl
,;
.E
<D
o
o
~
~
(')
-
'"
o
<D
o
o
~
~
~
-
'"
o
<D
o
o
~
...
~
-
'"
o
<D
o
o
~
~
~
'"
o
<D
o
o
N
to
o
m
o
<D
o
o
~
r-
o
m
o
<D
o
o
~
'"
~
m
o
<D
o
o
~
~
N
m
o
<D
o
o
~
~
N
m
o
<D
o
o
~
N
N
ii3
o
<D
o
o
~
<D
o
m
o
<D
o
o
~
'"
~
m
o
<D
o
o
~
'"
~
-
'"
o
<D
o
o
N
a
(')
-
<D
o
<D <D
00
00
~N
~ii3
~e
'" '"
00
(0<0(0(0(0
00000
00000
C\I~~~~
LO(OIt).....CO
00000
mmmmm
00000
CDCD<D<DCD
00000
00000
~~~~~
MNMNr--
T""" T"""T"""T"""Q
mmmmm
a coca
C1W ~
~ ~
cO '" 0 (')
"_ Z .. 0 ~ <D '" r- <D <D N <D <D '" <D 0 r-N N'"
...<( " N N 0 , (') 0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 N (') <D (') N N (') 0> ...'"
.!!! II:: '0 '" '" '" ~ <D ... '" 0 0 0 <D '" 0> 0> '" '" (') '" (')r- '" N "'0 "'N
N ... '" N 0 <D N N N 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 (') (')(')(') (') r- 0 ~ 00
..JCl > <D '" '" '" 0 0 (') '" '" '" '" '" '" <D '" '" '" "''''''' '" ~ 0 0 00
~O .E ... ~ ~ 0 N 0 ... 0 0 <D ... 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
0> S
...0 co
U)II:: Cl
.- II:: "
J:<( '0
.>l:LL ~
00 co
Q)> ..
~I- (3
0-
0 il
...J
I- '" en 0
U N U 0 w
n. z w I
W W ~ ~ U ell a::
0 ;,: > ...J en C> w ~
I Z OC C3 <( en 0 z U
u it 0 0 OC I- 5
w en en I- U W [l) II:: a::
W Z W I- en ;:) u:: :;; <(
I- :;; en > en en LL a:: a:: w
0 <( ;:) 0 a:: Z ;:) I
Z 0 OC en :::; 0 ~ W 0 W W ...J en
0 U n. z <( ell ~ ~ a:: z z ;:) n. 0 w
~ 0 a:: I en a:: > :.:: I 0- l- I- a:: W I- U
0 w 0 0 W 0 W Z Z Z Z <( I- ;:) <(
:;; 0 I- -, 52 ...J a:: :.:: z w z :::; :::; :;; ~ <( en
z ...J > 0 a::
a:: u.. w W 0- <( N en C> <( en
0 w U 0- :i: ...J I- en OC en <( w
en 3: w :.:: 0 a:: ;:) ~ ;:) C3 0 0 Z
u.. '-> Z W -, W Z C3 ::s I 0 ;:)
Z -, -, 5 :.:: -, :.:: :::; U 0 ...J :;; :;; ~
~ 0 '" '" '" 0 (') N '" (') (') <D ~ <D (') '" '" '"
0 (') ... ... '" '" '" '" <D '" r- r- ~ (') '" r- ~ N
" (') (') (') <D ~ r- r- (') r- (') (') '" ~ (') N ... ...
" 0 0 0 ~ '" ~ '" 0 '" 0 0 '" ~ 0 ... 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D
::;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<( S ~ ~ N ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N
10 co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
'? Cl ~ N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N ~
~ '" m m m m '" '" '" '" '" '" '" m m m m '"
~ co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.c
.. (') ... '" <D r- '" '" 0 ~ N (') ... '" <D r- '" '"
'" ;; ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- 0 " (') (') (') (') (') (') (') M M M M M M (') (') (') M
III 0 " .. '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
s: N 0 .c N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
- " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.... N ...
OS! "
0.0 co
..~ CD
" ~ '" <0 0 '" <Xl " N ~ ~ 0 0 "
"! 0 I'- 0> <<! 0 ~ 0 N
Q) 0 .0 0 cD '" m Gi
f- 0> I'- '" <Xl N N
Cl " N N '" 0> <0 I'- <Xl N 0 Cl
.. ... '" '" '" ~ N <Xl ..
n. " n.
..
.l:
0
ClW
cO
._ Z
..<(
.!!! 0::
...JC>
~O
0>-
..0
mO::
.- 0::
:1:<(
.><:u..
00
Q)>-
~f-
(,)-
U
'"
_ 0
1/10
ZN
.....
UO
0.0
..~
::;;
<(
'"
'?
~
~
..
o
.Q
;;
"0
o
"
...
"
..
lD
"C T""" U') 0 0 ("') CD T"""
'CO OT"""CO,,!OC"'>t"-:
D.. MO:)M...-cO~
_ N...-...-...-
"
"
o
E
<(
..
OJ
c
,:
.!;
lOCDlOCDlOCOID
0000000
0000000
~~~~~~~
O'>.......<<>r--r--O<O
00 00...-...-
mmmmmmm
0000000
..
"
.0
>
.!;
<O~<O
<0 <Xl <Xl
"'NI'-
001'-
o o~
~ ~
..-co......co
mONF'-
..-("")(0""-
000..-
0000
$
..
C
"0
.0
~
..
..
<3
II
~
o
"0
"
Q)
>
..
-
..
C
,.
...
"
..
.l:
o
<0
~
'"
<0
o
o
N
C;;
~
-
0>
o
0>
'"
0>
'"
~
~
o
0::
o
u..
>-
W
I
::s
...J
::J
::;:
~
"
"
o
o
o
<0
o
o
N
N
~
0>
o
o
N
'"
<Xl
N
o
o
o
N
<0
o
o
N
;;;
~
-
0>
o
<0
o
'"
~
0>
o
...J
...J
<(
Z
~
::J
::s
o
<Xl
I'-
'"
o
o
<0
o
o
N
N
~
0>
o
~
N
'"
<Xl
N
'"
I'-
,...:
N
.......NID...-.......r.o
oa:>.,....<oco..q-
co""": crioci McO
ID....... <0 1.0 "ItM
N
<0
o
o
N
25
'"
-
<0
o
<0 co co CO co CD
000000
000000
NNNNNN
co Ci5Ci5ii5c:\i03
....... ..-..--..--0...-
ii3ii30303ii5ii5
000000
o
~
I'-
o
I'-
o
..... ...,.. C"') l(') C"') CO
("') ("') C"') C"') LO ("')
(0 (O(()(().......CO
t- ..................... (0 .......
r.o LOLOLOI.OI.O
................. ..........
en
I-
0::
<(
0-
o
I-
::J
<(
<(
0-
<(
Z
o
'"
<0
'"
o
o
<0
o
o
~
N
N
c;;
o
U
Z
~
en
W
...J
OJ
o
Z
<0
<0
"
o
o
o
<0
o
o
~
N
N
c;;
o
N
N
'"
<Xl
N
~
'"
N
'"
<Xl
N
~
o.......co......lt)
~~<O'V("')
'VNLriroLri
<01'-"
"
co co CO CO CO
00000
00000
NNNNN
iO;n;::03;::
~~~~e
CX>coco.......m
00000
~ ~~
000
000
~ ~ M
"0>0
0> ~ ~
~ <Xl <Xl
I'- 0>"
'" 0> N
o 0> <Xl
'" ""
'" "'..,
I-
o
0-
W
o
W
U
u::
u..
o
<Xl
<0
"
o
o
o
<0
o
o
~
N
N
c;;
o
"
N
..,
<Xl
N
~
N 0> ~
I'-I'-~
""":":0>
,,~
~
<0 <0 <0
000
000
~~~
<0 0> 0>
~ NO
rococo
000
~~
00
<;>0
O>N
1'-"
1'-0>
~ '"
0'"
"'"
"'0
"'"
..,..,
~ ~
~ :; N
N N N
...., ...., "
" '" N
" '" ~
'" ~ I'-
<Xl N I'-
000
U
OJ
en
JC
X
<(
::;:
W
~
u..
u..
o
<0
<Xl
<Xl
~
o
o
<0
o
o
N
N
N
C;;
o
'"
N
'"
<Xl
N
~
I'- "
"'<0
"'<Xl
'"
N
<0 <0
00
00
N N
NN
~ ~
mm
00
<Xl <0
'" 0>
<Xl N
o ~
N <Xl
<0 I'-
N N
~ ~
m m
U
a:
I-
U
W
...J
W
O/l
en
<(
(')
U
u::
i3
<(
0-
~
<Xl
"
o
o
o
<0
o
o
N
N
~
0>
o
<0
N
'"
<Xl
N
~ 0
~ 0
N ~
<Xl N
<0
o
o
~
~
o
-
0>
o
0>
o
'"
"
"
I-
<(
U
O/l
(')
o
o
W
0::
<(
U
>-
0::
<(
::;:
a:
0-
..,
<0
..,
N
o
o
<0
o
o
~
N
~
0>
o
I'-
N
'"
<Xl
N
1'-<01'-
"~,,,
cicitO
00
<ON
<0
o
o
N
c;;
~
-
0>
o
<0<0<0
000
000
N NN
Mcoi?>
000
- --
0> 0> 0>
000
<0
o
0>
~
0>
o
<( <( 0>
0> 0> <0
<0 <0"
" "",
~ ~O
N N U
UUN
.., ..,'"
000
I-
en
<(
o
U
U
0::
W
i::!
::;
::J
0-
N
0>
I'-
N
o
o
<0
o
o
N
N
~
0>
o
>-
Z
<(
0-
::;:
o
U
Z
~
::J
o
o
N
'"
o
o
o
<0
o
o
N
N
~
0>
o
<Xl
N
'"
<Xl
N
0>
N
..,
<Xl
N
co ~ 0 I'- '" 0 0 0 0 0 ... N 0 <Xl CD 0 CO
0 ~ N ... 0 0 0 I'- I'- I'- 0 <Xl I'- 0 ;,;
CIl 0 0 .,.; .,.; .,.; 0 ,..: 0
.... '" ... '" N ... '" ~
'" 0 CD ~ '" '" ... ... '" N '" ... '" CD '" '"
'" '" '" N '" "'- ~ '" I'- '"
D.. " '" D..
CIl ~
.I:
0
'tl 0 I'- '" 0 0 0 0 CD'" "'''' ~ 0'" '" N<DCDCO ~ I'-<Xl N 0 <Xl CD 0
"n; ~ ~ N ... 0 ~ 0 CD 0 "'~ "": <Xl'" t--.C\INO'> '" CD ... I'- 0 ~ I'- 0
D- O .,.; .,.; .,; ... '" .,.; cia ~~ <Xl 0 ,,<.0 MMMr...: .,.; cicci ... .,.; ~ ,..: 0
~ 0 CD ~ '" '" ... ... <Xl'" ...~ '" '" "'~ (")("')(")"""" ~ ~'" '" ... '" CD '"
c '" N "'N ~~ , ~ '" I'-
= '"
0
E
<(
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD COWCOCOCO<DCO<O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00000000 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00000000 00 0 0 0 0 0
.. ~ ~ ~ N N ~ N ~ ~ N ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ N ~ N ~
C Oi Oi Oi co ii5 in
,; <Xl N ~ '" ~ ~ COCO LOCO C>>MO)OCOC"') <XlI'- <Xl ~ ~
N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N OOON~~OT"""'I""""'I"""" ~O ~ ~ '" 0 ~
.E ii5 ii5 - - Oi Oi Oi Oi Oi j:::: --------- mmm Oi Oi - - -
'" '" mmml'--t-mcocom <Xl '" '"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 000 0 0 0 0 0
I
en ~ 0 '" 0 '" CO I'- '" CD 0 N '" '" ~ 0 CO 0 0 0 en
c,; v ~ 0 N N '" ~ '" 0 V '" '" '" 0 '" '" 0 0 c,;
0 V ..,: cD .0 ~ '" ....: M 0 ..,: ~ M ex; ex; '" ....: '" '"
Cl I- '" N '" CO 0 '" CD '" CD 0 N ~ 0 N '" Cl
.. .>< '" CD "', ~ v, '" 0 '" ~ ~ N ~ ..
Q. " <D N Q.
.. N ~ CD
..c:
0
.., 0 '" 0 N.J CO 0 I'- '" CD 0 0 '" V '" '" '" CO~N 0 CO 0 0 0
'ii v ~ 0 '" '" N ~ '" '" 0 CDvN ~ '" '" vvv 0 '" '" 0 0
Q. ..,: ..,: cD cO <6 I'- V m ....: '" 0 .q:c.ricri~ ~ '" air'N ex; '" ....: '" '"
- '" N '" CD N I'- '" CD '" NT"""<OLO 0 N V"'''' 0 N ~ '"
C '" CD ~ '" '" ~ V, '" 1.0_ t'- to T""" '" ~ N ~
" <D N
0 ~ ~ ~ v
E
<(
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
.. !:::' !:::' !:::' N N !:::' !:::' N !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::' ~~~ !:::' !:::' ~ NN N N !:::' N !:::'
c iO N ;::: -- c;; a m
:> ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ co N CD CD 0 I'- ~ '" '" '" N ~
0 0 N 0 ~ '" 0 0 N 0 ~ 0 0"'0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ '"
.5 m m m m m - m m co - m - - -- - - - m m m co - m co
co '" '" '" co '" '" I'- '" '"
0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
0 ~ I'- ~
0
ClW .... I'- '" co I'-
~ '" '" CD
r::C I'- '" V '" '" CD CD '"
._ z .. CD I 0 '" N V co CD '" '" I'- 0'" '" v CD CD
..<( " N 0 0 0 '" CD '" '" '" N N '" N 0 I'- CD '" co ~ '" co 0 0 ~
.!!! II: '0 '" co '" ~ v CD CD V co v '" '" I'-~N '" co ~ ~N ~ '" N '" N
CD V ~ N v 0 0 ~ I'- ~ 0 I'- I'-I'-CO ~ co I'- 1'-1'- ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
...JCl > '" CD '" 0 0 N N 0 v 0 0 v vvv '" I'- 0 00 CD ~ '" '" co
~o .5 '" 0 '" '" N N ~ 0 N NNN ~ '" N NN I'- co 0 0
0>- s
..0 ..
UlII: c
.- II: ..,
J:<( '0
.>l:u. ~
00 ..
Q)>- ..
~I- <3
0-
0 il
0
>- (9 Z
...J Z I- 0::
a. :> (9 w
a.
ell ::> <( ::;; l-
i: en a. u en z
en z 0 u w
W ell ::;; ...J ell :J en u 0::
W <( en w z w
u u.. W 0:: ii: (9 ~ 0 ...J ...J I- Z >-
Z W <( a. 0 z ...J u.. ~ W u.f z ::;; 0 w
<( u en a: u.. I- is <( I- 0:: 0:: W >- ~ z
z 6 en I 0:: Z ~ ::;; W I-
W 0:: w 0:: z ::> ~ a. 0 w i= 3: <( J:
> US Cl (9 >-
I- ~ 0 ::> Cl (9 en a. 0:: z en <( <( I 3:
z 0 a. z l- t:: z <( Cl Cl 0 [u a. en 3:
<( (9 en :J <( ::;; z w z w W N Z I- en w w
::;; Z I- 0:: W ::;; ~ I- Q l- t:: ii:: >- en :J ~ >
<( '" ~ W 0:: en w
a. a. 0 l- I- ::> 0 z Z z w ~ w >- <( I-
en en '" en en (f) (f) i= I- ::> ::> ::> > 3: ::;; -, en
~ '" v '" '" CD 0 '" 0 N '" CD CD I'- I'- '" ~ CD CD
0 '" co 0 ~ ~ N ~ I'- V CD N CD '" co co co CD '"
.., '" I'- CD CD CD CD 0 '" CD CD '" CD ~ CD CD I'- co CD
c V '" 0 0 0 0 ~ N 0 0 '" 0 N 0 0 '" 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
::iii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<( S !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::' N N N !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::' N N N N N
.., .. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
c;:! C N N N !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::' N N N N N N !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::' !:::'
~ m m m '" '" '" '" m m m m m m '" '" '" '" '"
~ .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.Q
.. V '" CD I'- co '" 0 ~ N '" V '" CD I'- co '" 0 ~
CD .>< v v v v v v '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" CD CD
- 0 ;,; " '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
.. 0 .., .. co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
J: '" 0 ..c: N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
.><N " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00 ...
c
Q.o ..
..~ In
I
i
I
<> .. 0 0 0 N oo ~ 0 0 0 r- '" 0 <>
~ - 0 0 0 '" m ~ 0 0 0 "": m 0 ~
0 ci m ci CD ci M ci
Gl l- N ~ oo 0 ~ c.;
oo .... N .... CD N N CD CD .... '" CD
Cl ... '" I '" .... Cl
.. u ..
n. " I N n.
.c I
0
I
ClW
CO
._ Z
-<(
.!!l a:
...JCl
~O
0>-
_0
Ula:
.- a:
:I:<(
..ll:u..
00
Gl>-
.cl-
0-
o
to
_ 0
.!! ~
~N
OS!
0.0
..~
:iii
<(
II)
<>
~
~
..
o
.Q
c.;
'"
o
u
...
c
..
al
'"
';
11.
-
C
::l
o
E
<(
.s
..
C
,:
.s
"
U
'0
>
.s
.s
..
C
'"
'0
~
..
"
(3
jl
~
o
'"
c
~
.s
..
C
..
...
U
"
.c
o
o
o
ci
oo
'"
CD
o
o
~
~
o
0;
o
N
~
....
oo
I-
en
I-
a:
o
n.
:2
z
o
en
>-
I-
o
a:
W
:2
I-
:::
....
o
r-
o
o
o
CD
o
o
~
N
'"
0;
o
N
CD
'"
'"
N
~
o
o
m
....
CD
o
o
~
~
N
0;
o
'"
N
'"
'"
r-
oo
..
o
~
W
(,)
o
en
W
0::
:::>
I-
:::>
"-
o
....J
0::
o
S
'"
'"
....
oo
o
o
CD
o
o
~
N
~
m
o
'"
CD
'"
'"
N
~
o
o
ci
N
CD
o
o
~
oo
~
0;
o
CD
o
oo
~
m
o
o
....J
o
0-
0::
N
<(
(3
~
en
oo
m
oo
....
o
o
CD
o
o
~
N
~
m
o
....
CD
'"
'"
N
~
N
'"
N
....
~
CD
o
o
N
-
oo
~
m
o
CD
o
N
N
m
o
N
W
Z
~
<(
:2
....J
W
<(
:r:
~
:2
~
oo
~
oo
o
o
CD
o
o
~
oo
~
m
o
oo
CD
'"
'"
N
~
oo
m
Ig
I",
'0
'0
'N
,-
,~
~
:ii5
10
ID~~oro~~vMv~NNmNvv~
~roM~vNM~~vaMMvroIDIDm
cioNmro~~mmmMooroIDNMMro
N~vN~IDvMMNNoooamm~
MNNNNT"""'I"'"".......T'""T"""T"""...-....-.............
mmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmm
000000000000000000
000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O~'I"'""O"""'MOMOOO~v~Ovoororo
'l"'""N'I"'""MT"""OMT"""NNOONM'I"'""NNN
------------------
roro~~ro~~rooo~~ooro~~~~~
000000000000000000
'"
o
~
'"
,....
N
'"
,....
'"
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I-
o
0-
W
o
'w
(,)
u::
"-
o
'",
CD
,....
o
o
o
,
CD
o
o
N
(0
~
m
o
I
CD
'"
'"
'"
N
,~
--
~ N
~OT"""M~~~wroamMIDmMVV~
'l"'""Nm'l"'""T"""VmT"""T"""~mN'I"'""a'l"'""~a~
~~m~T"""~'I"'""~~~"""'ID~~m~aM
'l"'""aa'l"'""Va'l"'""VV~Nma ~aIDID
~VT"""NM NMMN'I"'""NvN'I"'""NNN
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
IDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDID
en
0::
w
0-
<(
0-
en
S
w
z
>-
I-
Z
:::>
o
(,)
o
....J
en
....
'"
oo
o
o
o
'"
o
o
N
(0
~
m
o
r-
'"
'"
'"
N
o
o
.,.;
N
CD
o
o
~
r-
~
m
o
CD
o
CD
N
m
o
~
0::
w
....J
(,)
>-
I-
Z
:::>
o
(,)
o
....J
en
'"
oo
oo
o
o
o
'"
o
o
N
r::
~
m
o
'"
CD
'"
'"
N
~
o
o
ci
CD
CD
o
o
~
'"
~
m
o
CD
o
'"
N
m
o
en
I-
....J
W
<(
>-
Z
o
l-
N
~
....
oo
o
o
'"
o
o
N
0;
~
m
o
N
r-
'"
'"
N
~
o
o
ci
'"
'"
o
o
~
'"
~
m
o
'"
o
'"
N
m
o
z
W
....J
....J
<(
Z
:r:
o
....,
'"
~
o
o
o
o
'"
o
o
N
0;
~
m
o
'"
r-
'"
'"
N
~
r-
~
~
....
....
'"
o
o
'"
(0
~
0;
o
N
o
CD
'"
'"
o/S
w
en
o
:r:
z
<(
(,)
0::
w
:2
<(
CD
'"
r-
oo
o
o
CD
o
o
N
0;
~
o
....
r-
'"
'"
N
'"
m
'"
'"
o
o
ci
'"
CD
o
o
N
it;
~
0;
o
'"
o
o
N
05
~
m
o
(:)
oo
~
r-
oo
....
N
oo
....J
'"
o
'"
N
m
o
(:)
Z
(:)
<(
en
en
w
:2
z
<(
(,)
0::
w
:2
<(
m
o
r-
oo
o
o
'"
o
o
N
0;
~
m
o
w
(:)
W
....J
....J
o
(,)
0::
w
>
0::
z
<(
(,)
0::
w
:2
<(
m
m
r-
oo
o
o
'"
o
o
N
0;
~
m
o
oo
r-
'"
'"
N
~
CD
r-
'"
'"
N
~
~ g N 0 ~ <D 0 0 .". I'- '" <0 0 0 .". 0 0 0 0 0 N ~
~ .". 0 CO ~ 0 0 CO '" N N 0 0 ~ CO 0 0 0 ~ .". ~
a; 0 ..,: 0 <0 N .,; .,; r--: ..,: '" .,; '" .". .,; <ri .,; 0 0 '" r--:
.... .". <0 N '" '" '" I'- <0 '" ~ 0 N ~ 0 <0 ~ '" '" .". CIl
Cl ... N. N N ~ .". .". .". '" N ~ ~ Cl
.. " I ..
D.. CIl N D..
.<=
0
I
I
i
." 0 N 0 ~ <0 0 0 LO M ('I) M I'- '" <0 0 0 .". 0 0 0 0 <0.". N
'OJ ~ ~ 0 CO ~ 0 0 O'J C"') (",)-M '" N N 0 0 ~ CO 0 0 0 <0"" .".
ll. ~N .,; '" N 0 .,; ""':MMM ..,: '" .,; .0 ..,: 0 <ri .,; .,; .,; <rial r--:
- 1'-1'- <0 N '" '" '" .....MMM <0 '" ~ 0 N 0 <0 ~ '" N .".
C ~O N N .". .". ~ .". '" N ~ ~
::>
0 I
E !
<(
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
CIl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. N !::! N !::! !::! !::! !::! !::! NN N N N N N N N !::! !::! !::! N N N !::!
c - - ;:::;:: ;::: ~ CO ~ ;::: <<; - ;::: CO M
,: 0> 0> CO 0> 0> <0 '" <0 <0 N <0 I'- ~
~ ~ N ~ :!::: N 0 0 00 0 ~ ~ ~ N 0 0 ~ N !::! !::! ~ ~ !::!
.E 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; -- - - - - 0; CO 0; 0; 0; - -
0> 0>0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i <0
0
I 0 0
mW '" '" N I'-
I'- .". '" '" X .... 0>
CO <0 '" <0 <0 0 0> <0 ~ .". 0
._ Z .. N <0 0 <0 <0 ~ <0 '" '" '" '" I'- <0 (f) .". <0 <0 <0
....<( " '" <0 0 <0 0 0 '" <0 0>0>0> <0 N <0 0 :) 0> 0 0 0 0 I'- <0
.!!! II:: '0 .". <0 <0 .". 0 I'- N 0> "''''''' '" N '" '" (!) '" <0 '" I'- I'- <0 '"
0 N N .". ...., N , , , , N '" <0 N <0 0: N N N N ~ <0
..J(!) > 0 '" 0> I'- 0> 0> tll <0 1'-1'-1'- ~ ~ .". 0> :) 0 0> 0> 0> N N '"
~O .E 0 .". 0 N <0 0 ::i; 0; mmm 0 (f) '" 0 < ~ tll 0 0 0 0> 0> '"
0>- S
....0 ..
UlII:: c
.- II:: ."
J:<( '0
.>l:lL. ~
00 ..
Gl>- ..
.1:1- t)
0-
<J il
:? a::
tll w
a::. e- o/! I <J
U w ~ I Z
:r: (f) ...J o/! (f)
Z W ~ :) ~ (f) U c..i
0 u (!) a:: (f) u w
z ~
(f) (f) D.. ~ I- Z ...J W W u:: W U
0- :r: a:: z < Cl (f) a:: (3 :) ...J'
::i; 0 w f= u z (f) D.. < (!) a:: W
w w w u X W W W X Cl Z tll W a::
I- a:: 0 (f) W ~ tll ...J a:: W 0- j}: ~ (f) u::
Cl Cl w w w w Cl 0- (!) tll W W
Z I- U ~ X W (f)
< Z :) .... a:: I Cl X X f!: >- a:: ...J Cl Z
~ < (f) Z u:: U Cii W tll a:: t::
0 '" < I 0 Z a:: 0
w .... ~ (f) tll a:: W
a:: > X $: :J w 0 t:: tll Z W ::i; ....
W W D.. U o/! U (f) a:: Ell w w < U tll :) a::
w ::i;
::i; .... D.. 0: 0- (f) .... > < < W 0 I a:: tll :J a:: :)
< (f) < < < < < < tll ::i; I tll .... tll LL < SC tll tll
~ 0 N 0 N <0 <0 I'- '" .". .". I'- I'- .". <0 <0 <0 '" .". <0
0 '" '" <0 '" 0> <0 0 '" .". I'- <0 0; <0 N <0 0> 0> 0> 0>
." 0 0 ~ <0 I'- ~ '" 0 0> 0 I'- 0 I'- 0 N I'- 0 0
c ~ 0 '" N '" N '" ~ ~ '" '" ~ 0 '" 0 '" '" 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
:;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<( S N N !::! ~ !::! !::! !::! N N N !::! N N !::! N !::! !::! !::! !::!
"' .. 0; 0; 0> 0> 0> 0> 0; 0; 0; 0> 0; 0; 0> 0; 0> 0> 0> 0>
'? c N N N ~ !::! !::! !::! N N N N N N !::! !::! !::! !::! !::! !::!
~ 0; 0; 0; 0> 0> 0> 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
~ .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 i
.c
.. I'- <0 0> 0 ~ N '" .". '" <0 I'- <0 0> 0 ~ N '" .". '"
'" ... I'- I'- I'- <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 CO <0 CO <0 CO 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
- 0 ;; " '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
"' 0 ." .. <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 CO <0 CO <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 CO CO
:i: N 0 .<= N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
.:<:(;j " 0 ~ "" .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...
<Jo c
<>'0 ..
..~ III
N 19 0 ." 0 '0 0 N ." ~ 0 '" ." 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 N
- ~ 00 0 0 0 N r-- 0 ." 0 0 0 ." 0 0 0 0 0 -
0 I ci m cD .,.; m .,.; ,..: .,.; ci ci ci .,.; ex;
CD .... 00 ." 0 N ." <0
<0 '" <0 I'" 0 ~ 0 '" r-- ~ ." ~ ." ... ." '" <0 '" '" Q)
Cl .... N '" ." 00 ." N ... N. Cl
.. u I ..
lL .. N lL
.c
0
'C 0 ... '" N 0 0 0 N ." ~ 0 ... 0 ." ." 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0
'n; '" '" <0 ~ 0 0 0 N r-- ~ '" ." 0 0 00 ." 0 0 0 0 0
Q. ex; .....:.q:c.ci ci ci m cD .,.; m ." LON m N .,.; criLri ci ci cD 0 .,.; ex;
- <0 N~ , <0 ." 0 ~ 0 '" r-- "'... '" ." ~ NN ... ." '" <0 '" '"
c: N '" ." 00 ." ~ ... "!.
" N
0
E
0(
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
$ 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. ~ N NN N N ~ N ~ N N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ ~
c N -- ii5 j::: N ;n a ;n <0 j:::
,; ~ <0 N ~ ~ ~ 00 0 00 r-- ~ ~ 00 '" 00
~ N ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" N ~N ~ N 0 0 ~ 0 N N ~ 0
.5 a; m~ a; a; - - - - - - -- a; a a a; a; a; - - -
'" '" '" '" '" 00 '" "'''' '" '" '" '"
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
."
... 0 '" ... N 0
ClW <0 0 ~
r-- N 0 ." Nr-- '" 00 Z
CO 0 0 ... 0 0 ." ... ~
._ Z .. ~ '" <0 ~ N 0 ~ <0 <0 <0 <0 0 0 <0 <0 <0 '" N
-<( U , ... '" 0 ' 00 r-- 0 00 r-- r-- 0 0 ~ ~ 0 '" 0 0 ." '"
.!!! II:: '0 <0 ... N 00 00 N ... 0 ~ '" 00 ... ~N 00 <0 '" '" ." ." <0 00 '" '"
0 ~ <0 N N ,'" <0 ~ ~ ~ '" <0 "'<0 N N 0 0 ~ 00 N N ~ 0
...JCl > 0 '" 0'" '" !~ ... <0 ~ '" ~ ~ ~~ '" '" <0 <0 '" r-- '" '" ~ r--
~O .5 r-- r-- ~ 00 0 r-- '" ~ [l. 0 ~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0>- $
_0 ..
UlII:: c
.- II:: 'C
J:<( '0
..ll:LL ~
00 ..
Q)>- ..
.t:..... 13
o- il
0
LL CJ) CJ)
CJ) 0 w :2: I <{
I- >- CJ) e:: 0 :2:
(!) e:: e:: 1i: ~ <{ ~
Z <{ 0 [l. CJ) lL W
i= [l. I- CJ) ...J :J e:: <{ m CJ) ...J
LL ~ Z S,;I
I 0 0 I- Z (!) ...J W Z e:: ~ w
(!) I- CJ) 0 0 Z [l. l- I 0 e:: w 0 0 Z
:J :J I- <{ 0 i= CJ) i= 0 z 0 >- W > 0 1i: 0
<{ [l. 0 m <{ o/l W W W CD 0 I- 0 Z W 0 ci e::
~ w .~ :2: u: CJ) e:: w
I- 0 0 S,;I CJ) ~ Z ...J W e:: <{ z l- I-
Z CJ) , ...J i= e:: CJ) 0 W LL ~ (!) rn w :J 0
e:: w e:: ~ ...J Z <{ e:: CJ) 0 <{ ...J I I W
0 :J !:!:! <{ :J e:: :2: 0 Z l- LL 5 ~ e:: ...J
S,;I :2: :J :J Z 0 (!) W W
LL 0 I I- 0 ...J I- (!) W Z <{ CJ) 0 0
:J e:: CJ) z Z :2: ...J 0 e:: e:: <{ w >- :J ~ :2:
<{ <{ <{ w :J 0 Z W 0 W W w e:: t:: ii5 I ~ CJ)
0 0 0 '0 0 0 ...J 0 0 LL I- 0 (!) 0 (!) 0 0 I I
~ '" '" 0 00 ~ ~ 00 0 '" ." r-- 0 00 00 ." ." '" ~ ."
0 ." 0 '" 00 r-- 00 '" ... r-- N ... '" ." 00 N 0 0 ~ ."
'C 00 <0 r-- '" ~ ~ ~ 00 <0 ." N r-- '" N 0 ... '" '" ...
c: '" 0 ." '" 0 0 0 ~ N ~ 0 ... N 0 '" N 0 0 ."
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
:;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<( .. ~ ~ N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N
II) 10 '" '" a; a; a; a; a; a; a; a; '" '" '" '" '" '" a; a; a;
c::! c ~ ~ N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N
- '" '" a; a; a; a; a; a; a; a; '" '" '" '" '" a; a; a; a;
- .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.Q
.. <0 r-- 00 '" 0 ~ N '" ... ." <0 r-- 00 '" 0 ~ N '" ...
CD .... '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- 0 ;,; u '" '" '" '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
.. 0 'C .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
:i: N 0 .c N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
- u 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"" N ....
OS! c:
0.0 ..
ca_ m
I
.., ~ '" N "', 0' a a a a a a a a N a a ..,
- N m '" a a a a a a a a t-- a a a -
CD 0 .0 m m ci .0 ... a m ci ci N cO m ci ci
.... t-- - "" - '" CD N "" CD co co - "" "" Q)
'" '" '" Cl
to <.> co
II. " II.
.c
0
'"
.;;;
11.
-
C
"
o
E
<t
'"
N
.0
ON
CD ""
cOM
CD _
'"
'"
m
-
a
a
.0
-
a
a
...
'"
a
~
a
CD
a
a
m
N
a
a
a
""
a
a
a
CD
a
a
N
co
a
t--
CD
co
-
C>>"-N~COa::>Ot'--r--NNN 0
COCO'l:tCO,.....LO O"-CO"l::tt- 0
cOai...-:r---:crir---:c.DNocri<<>...t 0
<O<OLONN..-..-"I"'"" M
N
a
a
a
""
.l!l
co
"
,;
.5
CD
a
a
~
CD
N
0;
a
CD CD
a a
a a
~~
- -
- -
mOi
a a
CD
a
a
N
ii5
a
ii5
a
a
a
ci
""
i
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
CD
a
a
N
ii5
N
-
m
a
CD
a
a
~
t--
~
m
a
CD
a
a
~
t--
~
m
a
CD
a
a
~
co
~
m
a
CD
a
a
~
co
N
0;
a
CD
a
a
~
N
N
0;
a
CD
a
a
~
co
N
0;
a
CD
a
a
~
a
N
0;
a
CD
a
a
~
'"
-
0;
a
co co co co co co co co coco coco co
000000000000 0
000000000000 a
NNNNNNNNNNNN N
mNLON;::;:i?)O;NNcoLO co
..-N..-N......NN..-NNN..- N
t::mmmrommmmmmm m
000000000000 a
CD
a
a
~
co
~
m
a
C1W
r::" a
._ Z " CD a - CD CD CD CD CD - CD .... CD t-- N_ "'....N t-- co .... - CD CD
...<( <.> a co a a a a a a '" a N .... t-- m NN N t--t--"" - CD t-- co a a
.!!! a: '0 CD "" CD .... '" CD CD co t-- a co CD '" CD - ""N t-- a.... co N_ O "" t-- t--
N '" '" co N N N N N a N t-- - CD N _ N '" N N_ N N m - N N
..JCl > m m m CD m m m m m t-- m N a "" a 00 CD 000 00 - a m m
~O .5 a t-- t-- CD a, a a a a a a m a m - - m --- - - - a a
0> .l!l
...0 co
U)a: "
.- a: '"
:J:<( '0
..ll:u.. ~
00 co
01> "
~I- 0
O- il
0
...J
0 en
u 0 w u.f
?; J: Z a:
~ u <( w ~
en CL
z 0 :;! U
<( w 0 ~ 0
a:
0 CL 0:: w u <( ...J >
W :;! I a: a: w ...J W
Z 0 a: w en z 0 ...J en J: W Z
W W Z ~ ...J
Z U z z z :;! ::> 0 w I 0
~ U I- ID J: U U
?; 0 0 l- I- Z 0 a: , I- 0
> 0 W Z z :J 0 <( U ~ ::> <( !:: :;!
...J :J :J :;! :;! <( en :;!
w u: 0 0 ...J ~
...J "- "- en (!) z 0 <( z en fl:: ~
...J 0 ~ <( (!) <( w
w en ~ ::> en ~ U > en
I 0 '-, <( I 0 ::> ::> w u 0 z [jj ~
en z ...., :;!, u 0 en 0 ...J ~ :;! :;! :;! ~ ~
~ m a '" - - CD co N "" co a m m N ....
0 m N .... m - "" co m m m a - N CD m
'" t-- co "" '" '" - (') t-- (') (') .... .... .... (') t--
C .... N a '" '" - a '" a a a a a (') '"
~ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a a a ~ a a a a a a a a a a a
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
::!: a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
<( .l!l ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~
.., m m 0; 0; 0; m C> C> C> m m C> C> 0; C>
0 co ~ ~ N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~
"
- C> C> 0; 0; 0; 0; C> m m m m m 0; C>
- co a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
0 ,
.a
.. '" CD t-- co C> a - N (') .... '" CD t-- co C>
lD ;,; '" - - - -, - N N N N N N N N N N
- 0 u .... .... .... ...., .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
.!!l 0 '" Q) co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
N 0 .c N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
I u 0 - - -, - - - - - - -
.><C;;
00 '"
c:
0.0 co
co- lD
L
I
I
I
... ;;; 0 ~ 0> CD CD CO 0 CD ... '" 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 ...
~ - 0 ~ 0> ..., 0 .,., 0 0 CO ~ 0 0 0 .,., 0 0 .,., .,., CD ~
0 ci aj ci "" ci cD ,.: .0 ci "" N N aj
'" l- N 0> N 0 ... CO a;
'" 0 ... co N co CD 0> co 0> CD N 0> t- .,., ... N N '"
Cl ... ~ .,., N N t- o N co ~ Cl
co .. co
lL '" ~ lL
'"
0
'"
";;;
11.
-
C
"
o
E
c(
o
o
ci
'"
~
0>
N
o
~
0>
0>
aj
...
.,.,
..
-
..
C
,:
.5
CD
o
o
N
0i5
N
en
o
CD
o
o
N
0i5
~
en
o
CD
o
o
~
.,.,
~
en
o
... N CD
'" co 0
....t..cf ci
CD N N
I
I
CD CD CD
00 0
00 0
~ ~ C:!
coco~
o ~ ~
(0 (0 0)
00 0
......CONCOI"-(() 0
I"-CO......CO.,....CO 0
r---:LOOOOm 0
"It""I:tMNNT'"" to
CD
o
cD
0>
N
...
co
,.:
co
'"
CD
N
0>
t-
o
o
ci
CD
o
o
""
N
0- co
o .,.,
Lri ci
0> t-
o N
o
o
...
.,.,
o
o
aj
...
co.
~
o
.,.,
N
N
o
on
N
N
o
CD
aj
'"
~
co co co co co CD CD
o cacaa a
000000 0
~~~~~~ NCO-
mO-q-(X)CON
...... N..................O N
C>> CDmmmo en
00000'1"'"" 0
CD
o
o
N
t::
N
en
o
CD
o
o
N
0i5
N
en
o
CD
o
o
N
;;;
~
en
o
CD
o
o
N
0i5
N
en
o
CD
o
o
N
-
~
o
t::
o
CD CD
o 0
o 0
~ ~
CD 0
o ~
en 0>
o 0
CD
o
o
N
t::
~
0>
o
CD
o
o
N
0i5
N
en
o
CD
o
o
N
;;;
N
en
o
CD
o
o
N
t::
N
en
o
CD
o
o
N
;;;
~
en
o
a
~ D-
o ,
t- I
0 ~ co 0> ...... 0> C/) ~
ClW N 0 ;; ~ 0 t-... co ~ c( N
co N '" 0> '" 0> t- 0 CD N () ~
CO CD N N N 0 ~ ....,., "'0> .,.,
._ Z .. CD ... CD -, -, t- O> 0.,.,'" o co CD ~ CD N CD CD CD CD CD t-
...C( .. 0 co '" CD CD 0 ~ 'CDN t-CO 0 N 0 0> 0 0 0 0 0 ...
.!!! a: "0 t- o ~ '" ... t- m o , , cO,], co co t- co t- CD t- CD co on CD ~
N ... '" i'! t- o N"'CO N N t- N co 0 t- N N N N 0
..Ie! > 0> ~ .,., co 0 ~ 05~~ ~ ~ 0> W 0> CD 0> ~ 0> 0 0> 0> 0> 0> 0
.5 en - -
,="0 0 ~ '" .0 0 0 00>0> 0> 0> 0 D- o N 0 ~ 0 .,., 0 0 0 0 D-
o> .$
...0 ..
I/la: C
"- a: '"
:tc( "0
.>o:LL ~
00 ..
Gl> '"
.1:1- <3
O- il
()
() Z
() () Z Z C/)
a: z ~ en ~ :2
z W
l- I- c( ::J I-
() en 0
> W ~ I- a () ~ a: C/)
() ...J 0 W C/) Z ::J Z >
a ca ...J W ii: c( a C/)
D- ~ ~ z
a: a: I- C/) D- o/S ~ ...J I- 0 0 Ci 0 z
W 0 0 ~ ::J () 0 C/) a: () ~ a: 0 z e. w
~ LL D- C/) C/) 0 I D- ::J D- :2 ~ w
> w X c( C/) a 0 () c( a ::J ...J
0 W a c( a <9 z c( ~ ;?; >- a: W 0 () C/) a: ~
:2 I :2 a: >2 z () a: W a z a: C/) w ~
c( w w c( w ~ I a: D- ~ ~ :J w ...J ...J ...J
Z ...J () () I LL D- ~ 0 ::J a > c( a: w w
~ ...J u:: u:: () <3 z > c( :J >2 c( w > c( Z LL
::J LL LL a: c( c( w a: w ::J ::J 0 I- 0 I c( ~
a :2 0 0 0 D- Z D- :2 D- ca D- o a: C/) a: () a
~ '" ~ co CD N ~ CD N 0> ... '" N co CD '" 0> 0> .,., 0>
0 0> ... CD co t- co co 0> 0 ~ ~ 0> co .,., '" co ... CD '"
'" t- ... ... co ... ... ~ ... co .,., .,., t- t- .,., co t- CD '" on
c .,., 0 0 ~ 0 0 .,., 0 0 0 0 N .,., '" ... .,., '" ... 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c( .$ N N N ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" .. en en en 0> 0> 0> en en en en en en en 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
'? c N N N ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ en en en 0> 0> 0> en en en en en en en en 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
~ co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
J:l M
.. 0 ~ N ... .,., CD t- co 0> 0 ~ N '" ... on CD t- co
tD ... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
- <> ;; .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
<II 0 '" .. co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
:I: N 0 '" N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
""'" .. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o~ ...
c
Coo ..
co~ III
10 ~ (J) 0 0 0 N 0 .... 0 0 " 0 0 0 '" .... 0 CO ~ 0 0 10
~ 1O 0 0 '" .... 0 CO 0 0 (J) 0 0 .... "! " 0 (J) 1O '" 0 ~
0 N 0 oj lei " 1O co '" oj " '" 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 r-: oj 0
CI) .... '" 1O co ICO co '" '" 0 CO 0 ~ N CO '" 1O '" '" .... '" '" a;
Cl ... I~ N ~ ~ N CO 1O CO '" 0 Cl
CO u ri CO
II. CI) ~ II.
.c i~ ~ N
0 I
I
i
" "'lOCO 0 0 1 0 N 0 .... 0 0 " 0 0 "'.... '" .... 0 "'''' ~ 0 0
.ftj CO (J) CO 0 0 I '" .... 0 CO 0 0 (J) 0 0 "N N ": 0 ....N 1O '" 0
II. O~<<> 0 oj ei ... <ri oj .,; oj ... .,; 0 u:>~ ~ ~ 0 c.O~ r-: oj 0
- "'''''' 1O CO CO CO '" '" 0 CO 0 ~ N ~1O '" 1O '" ....'" .... '" '"
c I " N N ....~ 1O "'.N '" 0
" oi ri
0 ~
E ~ ~ N
<( I
I
1O 1O 1O 1O 1O I 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O
.!l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N
C lO 05 ;:::: N N - C;; C;; 05 "" "" "" C;; 05
,: 0 " ~ CO N ~ ~ CO N N '"
N ~ N ~ ~ 0 '" N ~ N N ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
.5 0> men I - - 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> - - - 05 05 0> 0> 0>
(J) (J) (J) co (J) (J) (J) (J)
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
I
I .... ~
CO 0
CO 0
ClW ! .... '" do
CO .... " N
'" "'~ 1O 1O 1O " 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O '" co 1O N 1O " 1O
__ Z CI) ~ co '" '"
...<( U 0 0 0 0 1O 0 0 CO 0 0 N .... 1O N 0 ." '" (J) 1O 0
.!!! D:: '0 1O N 1O co N ~ ~ 1O '" '" N " co N 1O (J) (J) N .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
1O 1O 1O N N 0 N '" N N 0 N N CO CO '" (J) N 1O 1O ~ ~ N
...JCl > ~ ~ ~ (J) (J) (J) '" (J) 0 (J) (J) 0 (J) (J) " " '" CO (J) 0 0 1O '" '"
~O .5 Cl ClCl 0 0 0 N 0 '" 0 0 ~ 0 0 N N '" '" 0 N N .... " 0
0> .!l
...0 ..
UlD:: c
.- D:: "
J:<( '0
..ll:lL ~
00 ..
Gl> CI)
J::I- (3
0-
() il
1
I~ ~ lL
0:: :J
I~ ...J o/l 0 Cl <(
<( Z ~ en z u u U
'0:: 1i: ~ en 0 0:: Z Z <( U z
en IW I- W Z en w w ~ r: en en lL Z en
l- N ,J: en lL 0:: <( Z U ...J ...J :::> 0::
w :::> <( <( ...., u:: ...J ~ ~ 0 u.i
Z J: ~ Ii en Cl I- <( 0:: W I
;:;: 0 w 0:: lL 0:: 0:: Cl
U I- Z > J: Z Z W en
lL z ...J Z 0:: W en 0 0 l- lL W W ~ Cl f= 0 :::>
Ui <( 0 z 0
!!2 <( z w ~ W 0:: ;:;: Cl Z en 0:: 0:: ...J W en en
w :::> <( ~ U 0::
:::> en ~ 10 0 lL ...J lL 0:: Z 0 0 ::s Lu Cl
...J 0 iu a.. en w w I- Z 0 Z W W Z 0
~ W I- J: Z ~ u Q t:: t:: <( ...J >- 0 <(
z w 10 <( '" j:!: z w Z
<( Z 0 u 1i: z z z z ~ ~ 0 ~
0:: ' ...J ~ W J: $:
en 0 I- len en '" en ...., l- I- I- :::> :::> :::> f=
~ '" ~ 1O i ~ '" '" '" '" '" 1O co N (J) 1O co 0 '" .... .... ....
0 1O " 0 '" " 0 ~ '" co .... '" ~ 1O 1O " 1O co co '" '"
" '" '" N .... '" 1O 1O " .... " .... co 1O 1O '" .... 1O 1O co ....
c 0 0 '" 0 '" 0 0 N '" " '" N 0 0 '" 0 0 0 " '"
CI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O
::;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 I~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<( CI) ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N
10 - '" '" 0> 10> 0> 0> '" '" '" '" '" '" '" (J) 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
~ .. N ~ ~ I~ N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~
c 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
~ '" '" (J) (J) (J) (J)
~ .. 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.c IN
.. (J) 0 ~ '" " '" 1O .... CO '" 0 ~ N '" " '" 1O .... CO
'" Qj ... " '" '" ,'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O 1O
- 0 U " " " ." " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
III 0 " CI) CO CO CO I~ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
:r N 0 .c N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
..... U 0 ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
... I
()O c I
0.0 ..
co~ ID
,
L-___ I
!
'" ~ 0 0 '" '" '"
~ 0 "! '" '" ~
0 .0 .0
CD .... 0 CO
CO 0 0 .,
Cl '" 0> M M Cl
.. u <Ii ai ai ..
lL ., lL
.c t- t-
O ~ ~
ClW
1:0
._ Z
-c(
,!!! II::
...JCl
~O
0>
_0
U)II::
,- II::
:I:c(
-"II.
00
Gl>
~I-
0-
o
CD
_ 0
"'0
:i:~
'" N
00
Q,O
..~
~
:t
c(
'"
'?
~
~
'tl 0 "ItmQ)NT'"" N~ on .... MO
'OJ 0 tOvvCDCO COt- CJ) ~ 0>0
0.. ci cOMLOMol Lri.q:COol ........
- I'-("')ONO) MN"If"C"') M
C C\I..'I"'""_Q) 00 (0 MN "?
::l
0 N~ S '"
e '"
0 "
c( I- .,
.c
.. 0
0
CO (() (() '(0 CO <0 CO CO CO CO CO J:/ ii
.$ 0 00000 00000 -
0 00000 00000 0
.. I-
0 N ~~~~~ ~~~~~
:> Ci5 <<>rocococo c:o co 0000 CO
0 00'000 00000
.E - ----- mmmmm
0> mmmmm
0 0000,0 00000
..
o
'"
CD
'tl
o
U
'"
C
..
lD
"
u
'0
>
.E
.$
..
o
'tl
'0
~
..
"
(3
II
~
o
'tl
C
~
"
-
..
o
..
'"
u
"
.c
o
i
N M...-m 00 M...... V tON.......
<OOOCOIl)NCOM..q-MI'-m
I'- o LOD('I')'I"'""O "It" "I;f" NO
r- C'iJ~~~~~q>q>'"i<'i'
00 COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC:O
en mmmmmmmmmm
i
CO
o
o
N
(j;
!:::'
0>
o
>
c(
u
a:
w
:2
c(
II.
o
><:
z
<(
III
co
'"
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
!:::'
0>
N
(j;
o
<(
u
a:
w
:2
<(
II.
o
><:
z
C'1i
co
'"
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
!:::'
0>
N
(j;
o
..,
o
Q,
.,
~
'"
;S
.S
'"
-'"
"
<1l
.c
U
'"
N
N
0>
CO
....
CO
N
~
o
t-
....
CO
N
~
Attachment 2
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
0918106 - 09121106
09129106
FUND 010
FUND 220
FUND 284
FUND 285
FUND 612
FUND 640
'----
I
341,766.93
12,207.78
6130~
613.11,
5,489.84
15,575.55
376,266.28
I
i
I
I
,
5101
5102
5103
5105
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5121
5122
5123
5126
5127
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5143
5144
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
Salaries Full time
Salaries Part-Time - PPT
Salaries Part-Time - TPT
Salaries OverTime
Salaries Standby
Holiday Pay
Sick Pay
Annual Leave Buyback
Vacation Buyback
Sick Leave Buyback
Vacation Pay
Comp Pay
Annual Leave Pay
PERS Retirement
Social Security
PARS Retirement
State Disability Ins.
Deferred Compensation
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Vision Insurance
Life I nsu rance
Long Term Disability
Uniform Allowance
Car Allowance
Council Expense
Employee Assistance
Boot Allowance
Motor Pay
Bi-Lingual Pay
213,076.24
19,917.32
11,632.47
14,365.61
371.86
1,60746
4,172.54
6,085.97
5,608.90
5,976.79
72,381.17
19,543.51
409.92
1,116.52
376,266.28
8.b.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29,2006 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Tony Ferrara called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL:
City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tern
Jim Guthrie and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer Don Spagnolo, and Consulting Engineer Craig
Campbell.
3. FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Ferrara led the Flag Salute.
Mayor Ferrara acknowledged the Wood family who had experienced the loss of their young son
in a tragic accident that took place in the Village earlier this morning. He requested the
audience pause for a~moinent to send their thoughts to the family.
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
Bob Lloyd, AGP Video, announced that government access channel 20 had been experiencing
technical difficulties recently and encouraged the community to call 772-2715 if the channel was
down.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Ferrara invited any member of the public who wished to comment on any Consent
Agenda item to do so at this time. There were no public comments received.
Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to
approve Consent Agenda Items 5.a. and 5.b., with the recommended courses of action. The
motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council Members Costello, Dickens, Arnold, Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie, and Mayor
Ferrara
None.
None
5.a. Consideration of Temporary Use Permit 06-018 Authorizing Closure of City Streets
and Use of City Property for the 69th Annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest
Festival, Friday and Saturday, September 22-23, 2006.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3948 authorizing closure of City streets and use of City
property for the 69th annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival.
Minutes: Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Page 2
5.b. Consideration of Agreement with Bob Murray & Associates for Director of
Building and Fire Recruitment.
Action: Authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bob Murray &
Associates to provide consultant services to coordinate the recruitment process for the
position of Director of Building and Fire and approved an additional appropriation of
$9,000.
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
6.a. Consideration of Alignment Alternatives for Newsom Springs Drainage
Improvements.
Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to his indirect financial interests in
the Dixson Ranch and stepped down from the dais.
Consulting Engineer Campbell gave a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Administrative
Services Department) of the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Project, which depicted the
watershed, existing flood problem areas, potential source control sites, sediment yield
estimates, bank erosion sites, potential detention pond sites, sediment control sites, alternative
alignment locations (A, B, and C), a review of the four alternatives in Alignment A, including A-1,
A-2, A-3, & A-4; a review of the three alternatives in Alignment B, including B-1, B-2 & B-3; and
review of Alternative C-1; and concluded by giving an overview of recommendations including
selecting a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements.
Mayor Ferrara invited representatives from Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
(RCD) to address the Council.
Julie Thomas and Cheryl Lenhardt from Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
addressed the Council on issues regarding protection of downstream developed properties;
protection of agricultural lands between Newsom Springs Canyon and the Cherry Creek
extension; efforts to obtain grant funding for erosion control on stream sites; and the need for
sediment control mechanisms and stream restoration.
Council questions ensued regarding the use of detention basins to reduce sedimentation; the
use and effectiveness of the "low flow" channel along Branch Mill Road; sizes and effectiveness
of proposed collection ditches in the various alternatives; affect of flow volumes and speeds on
downstream sedimentation; and the capacity of the stone culvert under Branch Mill Road.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter.
Jim Dickens, Branch Mill Road, explained the content of the video taken of the area in 1997 and
during the March 10, 1995 storm (copies presented to the Council at a previous meeting), which
showed the extensive ponding that resulted in some damage to the agricultural fields. He
expressed concem about the capacity of the existing stone culvert, and the potential for more
extensive flood damage during a higher magnitude flood/storm event. He stated that there
would be continued development in the Newsom Springs area that will create more impervious
surfaces, which would increase the amount of water coming out of Newsom Springs Canyon.
He referred to the Dixson Ranch which, in collaboration with the RCD, have looked at widening
the low flow ditch to accommodate 200 cubic feet of water per second; and spoke of grant
Minutes: Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Page 3
funding opportunities for the project. He referred to the proposed alignments and pointed out
that there was an additional alignment along an existing dirt road that should be considered.
Julie Thomas, RCD, referred to a proposed collection ditch and inquired whose property it was
located on. In response to Consulting Engineer Campbell's response that it is located on the
Dixson Ranch property in order to be on the upstream side from Cherry Avenue, she
commented that because the Dixson Ranch is under a perpetual conservation easement, the
terms of the easement are very strict as to any non-agricultural uses for the property. She noted
she would have to research the issue.
Ella Honeycutt, Oak Hill Road, expressed concerns about erosion from future development
projects in Newsom Springs Canyon. She noted this is a regional project that needs County
participation.
Damien Mavis, Cherry Creek project applicant, explained how the proposed site and
development fits into the regional drainage solution. He noted that Alternative A-4 is a significant
component of the project, and noted that the Cherry Creek project applicants would pay for all
drainage improvements on the Cherry Creek property.
Marjorie Gilliano, Valley Road, read a letter into the record (on file in the Administrative Services
Department) expressing concerns about proposed future development that would increase
runoff water going directly into the creeks.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
Goals are to minimize or eliminate sheet flowing across agricultural land; minimiZe or
eliminate creek bank erosion and downstream sedimentation impact; minimize or eliminate
impact on agricultural production; and ensure that residents along Noguera Place get their
backyards back.
- Stressed the need to address bank erosion issues; ability to enhance creek maintenance
efforts through grants.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
- Makes most sense to pursue Alignments B or C configuration ali it is important to minimize
the sheet flooding on the agricultural land; channel the water as it comes out of Newsom
Springs to get it to the creek as expeditiously as possible;
Supports modified version of Alignment B or C as suggested;
Recommended pipe over ditch to minimize the impact on existing agricultural lands;
Pursue studying potential creek impacts and vigorously pursue grants for creek stabilization;
Goal has to be to minimize any of the flooding that occurs west of the existing low flow ditch.
Council Member Arnold provided the following comments:
- Concurred with Mayor's comments;
- Need to make sure to avoid flooding in residential neighborhoods and strive to minimize or
avoid flooding of the agricultural fields;
- Favors combination of alternatives; favors modified version of Alignment B-3 to realign the
road as suggested, as well as possibly raising Branch Mill Road to form some kind of
ponding basin;
- Also favors Alignment A-4; there may be funding issues related to Alignment B options;
Minutes: Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Page 4
- Need to support Dixson Ranch efforts to obtain grant to improve and deepen the low flow
ditch;
- Acknowledged that City does not have jurisdiction over County developments.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments:
- Need to pursue Alignment A; need to oversize pipes on lower Branch Mill;
Need to look at stabilizing Branch Mill Road if it is in our jurisdiction;
Would like a second look at the retention basin on south side of Branch Mill Road;
Look at sediment control in Arroyo Grande Creek
Need to look separately at bank erosion control in Arroyo Grande Creek;
Need to look at project in phases; Alignment A-4 is only part of the fix and must not stop
there;
Concurs that there will be further development in Newsom Springs Canyon; however. will
not increase runoff significantly.
Mayor Ferrara summarized the comments as follows:
- City has very large. comprehensive drainage problem;
Need a formidable, comprehensive solution;
Focusing on one alternative is not practical;
Alignment A-4 is a must to accomplish goals; however, should not be considered as the
sole, initial effort;
Acknowledged huge costs that should be planned for;
Plan should include action steps on a timeline as a single approach so elements are not
lost;
Comprehensive plan should include several elements, including Alignment A-4, a modified
B-3 (to provide a straighter alignment);
Look at feasibility for potential detention basin on the south side of Branch Mill Road;
Include treatment of bank instability into plan (as funding is available).
Move forward with environmental review.
Based on feedback from the Council. City Manager Adams amended staff's recommendation as
follows:
- Direct staff to develop a comprehensive plan for Newsom Springs regional drainage
improvements which would include Alignment A-4;
Direct staff to perform additional engineering analysis and to initiate the environmental re-
view process in accordance with CECA, to include all of the Alignment alternatives dis-
cussed;
Transfer $25.000 from the Pavement Management Program Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) budget; and
Direct staff to work with representatives of the RCD to identify and apply for grant funding to
further pursue future drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing
agricultural land.
Discussion ensued regarding environmental review on all the proposed alternatives and
associated costs.
Council Member Costello moved to direct staff to begin the engineering analysis based on all
the options presented. with the concept of a master plan that would include Alignment A-4 and a
study of the B & C options, as well as the potential for a detention basin; begin the environ-
mental review process and issue an RFP; direct staff to continue to work with representatives
Minutes: Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Page 5
from the RCD to identify and apply for grant funding to further pursue future drainage improve-
ments and creek bank stabilization in the areas that were identified in the study. Council Mem-
ber Arnold seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Dickens
Council Member Dickens returned to the dais.
7. CITY COUNCil REPORTS:
(a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Au-
thority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Executive Committee met; two locations identified
for alternate SLOCOG and SLORTA facilities:
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Voted to endorse
the multi-jurisdictional Creek Memorandum of Understanding.
(3) Other. Announced appointment as President of the League of California Cities
Mayor/Council Department, as well as another term as President of the League
of California Cities Channel Counties Division. Will be seeking appointments to
serve on various League Policy Committees.
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) No report.
(2) Other. None.
(c) COUNCil MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). No report.
(2) South County Youth Coalition. No report.
(3) Other. None.
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTEllO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. No report.
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Announced upcoming composting and
greenwaste workshops free to South County residents.
(3) Fire Oversight Committee. Joint efforts with City of Grover Beach working well.
Currently recruiting for a new training officer.
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. Reviewed potential cost savings by
consolidating purchase and use of certain equipment. Also pursuing study on
potential for joint dispatch opportunities.
(5) Other. None.
(e) COUNCil MEMBER ED ARNOLD:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report.
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report.
(3) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Discussed study on economic impact on
wine region.
(4) Other. None.
Minutes: Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Page 6
8. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting on
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers, 215 E.
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg
)
---.- ---'-'r-------~---~--------- - -.. .---.------.-~
B.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNC~
TONY AEIL TS, CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS BICYCLES
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution declaring the listed bicycles as surplus
for donation to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office to be refurbished and donated to
needy children.
DATE:
FUNDING:
There are no costs to the City associated with this proposal. In that it has been the City
Council's past policy to donate the bicycles to the Sheriff's Office, the City does not budget any
revenues to be derived from a bicycle auction.
DISCUSSION:
As has been done in past years, the Police Department is requesting that all unclaimed bicycles
that have been in the Department's custody in excess of 90 days be declared surplus. These
bicycles have been turned in over the past year as found or were reported stolen and recovered
by the Police Department. Attempts to locate owners and/or return the bicycles to their owners
have been made, but the bicycles remain unclaimed. Due to limited storage space for bicycles,
it is necessary to dispose of those bicycles held in excess of 90 days.
Upon being declared surplus, the bicycles will be donated to the Sheriff's Department. There
the bicycles will be renovated by prisoners at the County Sheriff's Honor Farm and
subsequently donated to needy children during the Holiday Season. In past years, some of
these donated bicycles have been returned to the Police Department to be given as gifts to
needy children during the "Santa Cop" Program.
The surplus bicycles are:
CASE #
0600149
0600193
0600291
0600298
0600312
MANUFACTURER
NEXT
MAGNA
PK7 VERT
RALEIGH
HUFFY
SERIAL #
M05B010996
D2TD80000814
38156653
ACF03A082213
F3813
COLOR
RED
GREEN
RED
RED
GREEN
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS BICYCLES
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
CASE # MANUFACTURER SERIAL # COLOR
0600339 MURRY SNFSD4424 BLUE
0600483 ROADMASTER RMC23039864 TURQUOISE
0601069 HONDA MCS4104533 BLACK
0601059 FREE AGENT U406600441 BLACK
0600820 NEXT OM050081005 RED
0600925 SCHWINN SN I DC04F32034 BLUE
0600247 HUFFY NO SERIAL # BLACK
0600906 GT NO SERIAL # GREEN
0600992 BLACK G504272762 BLACK
0601007 RED A397029489 RED
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
- Provide direction to staff.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY TO
BE DONATED TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PROGRAM TO REFURBISH
BICYCLES FOR NEEDY CHILDREN
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has certain bicycles that have been turned in to the
Police Department as found items, or for other reasons, and not claimed by the owners;
and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department is conducting a program to
rehabilitate bicycles and donate them to needy children; and
WHEREAS, in past years, some of these donated bicycles have been returned to the
Arroyo Grande Police Department to be given as gifts to needy children during the "Santa
Cop" Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
does declare as surplus the property listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bicycles declared herein as surplus be donated to
the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department for rehabilitation and distribution to
needy children.
On motion of Council Member
the following roll call vote, to wit:
, seconded by Council Member
, and on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of
2006
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A"
The following listed bicycles have been held for 90 days or longer with no owners located. It is
requested that these case numbers be declared as surplus, to be turned over to the Sheriff's
Department to be refurbished for needy children:
CASE #
0600149
0600193
0600291
0600298
0600312
0600339
0600483
0601069
0601059
0600820
0600925
0600247
0600906
0600992
0601007
MANUFACTURER
NEXT
MAGNA
PK7 VERT
RALEIGH
HUFFY
MURRY
ROAD MASTER
HONDA
FREE AGENT
NEXT
SCHWINN
HUFFY
GT
BLACK
RED
SERIAL #
M05B010996
D2TD80000814
38156653
ACF03A082213
F3813
SNFSD4424
RMC23039864
MCS41 04533
U406600441
OM050081005
SNIDC04F32034
NO SERIAL #
NO SERIAL #
G504272762
A397029489
COLOR
RED
GREEN
RED
RED
GREEN
BLUE
TURQUOISE
BLACK
BLACK
RED
BLUE
BLACK
GREEN
BLACK
RED
. -- -_.--~--._------r -
B.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGERjk
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM
ENERGY SOLUTIONS COALITION
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve funding in the amount of $500 to for
the Energy Solutions Coalition Smart Energy Solutions Summit.
FUNDING:
The cost of the recommendation is $500, which would be appropriated from the
General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance.
DISCUSSION:
On behalf of the Energy Solutions Coalition, Nick Alter has submitted a request
for $1,000 in funding to help underwrite the cost of a countywide conference on
energy policy and best practices. Entitled "Smart Energy Solutions Summit," the
all-day event will be held at the Veterans Memorial Building on Grand Avenue in
San Luis Obispo and will bring together public officials and area residents from
every community in the County. Co-sponsors of the event who make up the
Energy Solutions Coalition include the SLO Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club,
Home Builders Association, SLO Green Build, PG&E, Coast National Bank,
ECOSLO, Cienaga Energy Systems, Cal Poly, Air Pollution Control District, and
SLO County Board of Supervisors. The City is a participant as a member and
sponsor of the SLO Green Build program.
The conference will consist of eight panels, a keynote speaker and exhibitors.
Funding is needed to cover the costs of promoting the conference, renting the
venue and sound equipment, out-of-town speakers, recording the conference for
TV broadcasting and webcasting, and producing and disseminating materials
after the conference.
Due to funding restrictions in the existing budget, staff is recommending $500
rather than the requested $1,000. Mr. Alter has indicated that this amount would
be appreciated and helpful in funding a successful event.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM ENERGY
SOLUTIONS COALITION
OCTOBER 10,2006
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve the recommended funding amount;
Approve the requested funding amount;
Do not approve the funding request;
Provide staff direction.
Attachments:
1. Funding request from Energy Solutions Coalition
S:\AdministrationICITY MANAGERISTEVEICouncil ReportslEnergy Solutions Summit Report
10. IO.06.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION
DATE OF EVENT: October 10, 2006
1. Agency name, address, phone number and contact person:
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
1204 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 I
On behalf of the Energy Solutions Coalition
(805) 543-8717
Karen Merriam, Chair
2. Amount of funding requested: $1,000.
3. Snecificallv describe what City of Arroyo Grande funds will be used for:
The funds will be used to help underwrite the cost of a county-wide conference on energy policy and best
practices. Entitled "Smart Energy Solutions Summit," the all-day event will be held at the Veterans
Memorial Building on Grand A venue in San Luis Obispo and will bring together public officials and area
residents from every community in the County. Co-sponsors of the event who make up the Energy
Solutions Coalition include the SLO Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club, Home Builders Association,
SLO Green Build, PG&E, Coast National Bank, ECOSLO, Cienaga Energy Systems, Cal Poly, Air
Pollution Control District, City of Arroyo Grande and SLO County Board of Supervisors.
The conference will consist of eight panels and a keynote speaker along with exhibitors and a box lunch. A
preliminary program (attached) identifies the topics and speakers to be covered. Speakers will be from the
County and from other regions of the State and country. In addition to the scheduled events on the day of
the conference, a by-invitation mixer will be held the evening before the conference for guest panelists,
public officials, business and organization leaders.
Funding is needed to cover the costs of promoting the conference, renting the venue and sound equipment,
travel and hotel accommodations for out-of-town speakers, recording the conference for TV broadcasting
and webcasting, and, producing and disseminating materials after the conference.
4. What is the mission/purpose of your organization:
In this instance, the Sierra Club's purpose is merely to act as the financial holding account and bookkeeper
for the Energv Solutions Coalition, whose mission is to advance regional solutions for sustainable
energy policy and community action. In support of this mission, the Coalition aims to educate the
general public about what it can do as well as what local governments can do.
5. Describe the proposed project's goal's and objectives in meaningful, measurable terms:
The goal of the conference is to promote public awareness, public policy and best practices in the
generation, distribution and use of energy throughout the County for a more sustainable future. The
preliminary program presents an agenda for accomplishing this on the day of the conference. Among the
outcomes sought in the conference's aftermath are pledges from local goverrunents to endeavor to complete
updated General Plan Energy Elements in the ensuing 12 months, specifying targets for energy
conservation, the use of renewables and green building as well as for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
6. Describe in meaninl!ful, measurable terms how your organization will define the success of this project.
Include internal means of evaluating client satisfaction that your agency has developed:
Among the key measures of success will be a turnout of 250 registrants, positive feedback from participants
and registrants (in the form of a questionnaire), and pledges from local govemments to institute energy
plans.
7. Please provide a detailed description of the services that will be provided in order to attain the project
goal(s).
. Pre-conference marketing will include the production and distribution of press releases and a
flyer as well as TV and radio ads and appearances, including a scheduled appearance of
conference organizers on the TV show, "High Profile" (Channels 2 and 21).
. There will be an invitation-only mixer at the Novo Restaurant in SLO on the evening of
October 9 for conference panelists, presenters, coordinators and sponsors as well as public
officials and special guests.
. The atrached preliminary program provides details on the scheduled panels and presenters for
the day of the conference.
. There will be exhibits of energy-related products and services on the grounds outside Vets
Hall throughout the day of the conference.
. All conference presentations will be videotaped for later broadcasts on Channels 2 and 21,
and will also be uploaded to the slosoan.org website for webcasting. DVDs of the
presentations will also be produced for general distribution as well as for deposit with the
SLO Public Library.
. In the weeks immediately following the event, public officials and community leaders will be
invited to appear on a series of "High Profile" TV shows (Channels 2 and 21) to talk about the
possible impacts of the conference on public policy and best practices.
. Within three to four months after the event, the Energy Solutions Coalition is tentatively
planning to conduct a workshop for community planners and elected officials on "How to
Write an Energy Element for your General Plan."
8. Discuss the needs not met for which City funds will be used and include a description of the target
population.
There is currently no program or plan within the County for engaging the public in a full and open
discussion on this important subject. Consequently there is neither a coordinated planning effort within the
County to address the issues comprehensively nor a coordinated outreach effort to educate the public on
best practices. The opportunity presented here is to spark regional thinking and action toward countering
the adverse economic and environmental impacts of high energy costs, the depletion of finite energy
resources, the harmful effects of noxious emissions, and, ultimately, our nation's dependence on distant
sources of energy.
9. Describe how volunteers will be used in this project:
All members of the planning and organizing body ofthis conference are volunteers, as are nearly all the
presenters at the conference. Speaker costs are mostly to cover out-of-pocket expenses.
10. Define your organization's measure of service units (example: Meals on Wheels - number of hot meals
served; Counseling Service - hours or number of families counseled; Crisis Line - number of phone
contacts). Be as specific as possible, and use quantifiable measures.
The key measure will be the number of registrants at the conference, which is expected to exceed 250.
II. A detailed budget for the proposed project as well as a general organizational budget must be included as
an attachment to this application.
. Speakers 2,500
. AGP Video 4,350
. Graphics (poster and program) 185
. Other Marketing 2,000
. Reception & Refreshments 1,000
. Box Lunches (300 @ $9) 2,700
. Thank-You Ad 500
. Name Tags 300
. Post Event Educ Materials & Activities 500
. Contingency 500
Total Projected 2006 Expenses $14,535
12. Discuss other fund-raising activities that your organization engages in and anv other sources of funding that
vou anticiDate during the 2006 funding vear.
In addition to the following pledged sponsorships and projected sales and fees, the Coalition is actively
soliciting funds from private and public sources within the County to cover both conference and post-
conference activities and events. In addition to cash contributions, the Coalition has received
approximately $2,000 worth of in-kind contributions (e.g., free patio at Novo Restaurant, printing costs,
etc.).
Pledged Sponsorships:
. APCD
. PG&E
Projected ticket sales:
. 100@$15
. 50 @ $20
Projected exhibitor fees:
. 20 @ $50
Total Current Projected Funding:
2,000
5,000
1,500 (conservative estimate)
1,000
1.000
$10,500
13. Discuss the ways in which your agency works in coordination with the other agencies in San Luis Obispo
County and identify those "key" agencies.
The Energy Solutions Coalition seeks to bring together public and private agencies from everywhere in the
County to (a) exchange information and ideas and (b) coordinate regional planning and action. Key public
agencies include community development and planning departments and public works departments as well
as APCD, which as been integrally involved in planning this conference and developing program content..
Key private agencies include energy companies, public utilities, professional associations in the building
trades and environmental organizations.
14. Attach a copy of Articles of Incorporation for your organization, roster of Board members and Internal
Revenue Service Tax Exempt Status letter.
The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization whose tax ID number is 94-1153307. Further
information and documentation on the Sierra Club's tax exempt status as a national organization can be
obtained from Grainne Serrigan at (415) 977-5635.
Nick Alter
474-8062
nickalterra>.mindsDrine:.com
September 15, 2006
._,
8.e.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH T1ERRA WEST
ADVISORS, LLC FOR REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT
SERVICES
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of
Directors: 1) authorize the City Manager/Redevelopoment Agency Executive
Director to terminate the existing contract with Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.;
and 2) authorize the Mayor/Redevelopment Agency Chair to execute the
attached Agreement with Tierra West Advisors, LLC for redevelopment
consultant services.
FUNDING:
The FY 2006-07 Annual Budget includes $10,000 for ongoing Redevelopment
Agency consultant services related to redevelopment activities.
DISCUSSION:
The City entered into a contract with Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (RSG, Inc.)
for redevelopment consultant services in September 2001, which has been in
effect since that time. The primary staff that have provided services to the
City/Redevelopment Agency have established a new firm, Tierra West Advisors.
The City/Redevelopment Agency has had a productive relationship with these
individuals. Among other items, they have been instrumental in negotiating the
DDA for the Courtland senior housing project, development of the
Redevelopment Agency 5-Year Implementation Plan, and recent preparation of
the bond capacity analysis. Together, with the Redevelopment Agency legal
consultants, staff believes the Agency has assembled an effective consultant
team that is in the Agency's best interest to maintain. Therefore, staff is
recommending the existing contract with RSG, Inc. be terminated and the
City/Agency enter into a new agreement with Tierra West Advisors, LLC. The
fee structure proposed by the new firm is comparable to the existing contract.
S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Tierra West Advisors Agreement
9.28.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors' consideration:
Authorize the City Manager/Redevelopoment Agency Executive Director
to terminate the existing contract with Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.;
and authorize the Mayor/Redevelopment Agency Chair to execute the
attached Agreement with Tierra West Advisors, LLC for redevelopment
consultant services.
Request changes to the Agreement and authorize the
Mayor/Redevelopment Agency Chair to enter into the agreement;
Do not authorize approval of the new Agreement and continue to maintain
services under the existing Agreement;
Provide staff direction.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Agreement for Consultant Services
S:\AdministrationICITY MANAGERISTEVEICouncil ReportslTierra West Advisors Agreement
9.28.06.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, is effective as of October 10, 2006, between TIERRA WEST
ADVISORS, LLC ("Consultant") and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a municipal
corporation ("Arroyo Grande")/ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a
public body, corporate and politic ("Agency"). As used herein, Arroyo Grande and
Agency are collectively referred to herein as "City." In consideration of the mutual
covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on
and continue until terminated as provided herein.
, 2006 and shall remain
2. SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the tasks described in Exhibit "A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her
ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall
employ, at a minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION
City's City Manager/Executive. Director shall represent City in all matters
pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. Tim Mulrenan shall represent
Consultant in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement.
5. PAYMENT
Consultant shall be paid an hourly fee by City in accordance with the fee
schedule set forth in Exhibit 8. Total fees and costs to be paid to Consultant shall be
based upon the time and materials required to complete the tasks set forth in Exhibit A.
Such fees shall be payable following receipt of an itemized invoice for services
rendered. Consultant shall send and address its bill for fees, expenses and costs to
City on a monthly basis.
Page 1 of 8
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE
(a) The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend
or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at
least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
(b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination
of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the
City pursuant to Section 5.
7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS
This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any .of the
following events: .
(a) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party;
(b) Sale of Consultant's business; or
(c) Assignment of this Agreement by Consultant without the consent of City.
(d) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1.
8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a) The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement
shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the
terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the
Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it
shall not be considered a default.
(b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she
shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The
Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant
fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement
without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be
entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
Page 2 of 8
9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. Consultant shall:
(a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement;
(b) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those
engaged or employed under this Agreement, any materials used in Consultant's
performance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this
Agreement;
(c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to
observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
mentioned above;
(d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any
discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws; ordinances, regulations, orders,
and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or
provisions of this Agreement.
(e) The City, and its .officers, agents and employees, shall not be liable at law
or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate
to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain
adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of
services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant
shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable
times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said
books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to
this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained
for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files,
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City,
at the Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the
Page 3 of 8
necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring, and printing computer files.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a
professional standard of care for Consultant's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by
law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all
of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and
all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs
to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error
or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subContractors (or any
entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the
performance of professional services under this agreement.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Other than in the
performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant
shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City,> and any and all of its employees,
officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits,
actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings,
losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including
attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees),
where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in
whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual
or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers,
agents, employees or subContractors of Consultant.
(c) General Indemnification Provisions. Consultant agrees to obtain executed
indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section
from each and every subContractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or
on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this agreement. In the event Consultant
fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Consultant
agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to
monito[ compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City
and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify
and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of
Consultant and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section.
12. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit C attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Page 4 of 8
13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly
independent Consultant. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement
on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and
control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over
the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except
as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner
represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers,
employees, or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur
any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in
the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant
for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services.
hereunder.
14. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is
used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in
connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any
method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No
officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande will receive compensation, directly or
indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in
connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of
this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement
entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no
public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the project
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed
in connection with the project performed under this Agreement.
16. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior
written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors,
Page 5 of 8
shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the
City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work
performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the
City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents, or subContractors be served with any summons, complaint,
subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for
admissions, or other discovery request, court order; or subpoena from any person or
party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to
any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no
obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or
similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant.
However, City's right to review any such response does noUmply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
17. NOTICES
Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this
Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in
the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by notice:
To City:
City of Arroyo Grande
Attn: Steve Adams
.214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
To Consultant:
Tierra West Advisors, LLC
168 Annandale Rd.
Pasadena, CA 91105
Page 6 of 8
18. ASSIGNMENT
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part
thereof, without the prior written consent of the City.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of
California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this
Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation
concerning this Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with
jurisdiction over the City of Arroyo Grande.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to
the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged
into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into
this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each
party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
21. TIME
City and Consultant agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.
22. CONSTRUCTION
The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review
this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement
or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for
convenjence and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit
the provisions to which they relate.
23. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writinq and shall be made only with
the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement.
24. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on
Page 7 of 8
behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of
its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE/
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TIERRA WEST ADVISORS, LLC
By:
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
By:
Tim Mulrenan, Principal
Its:
Attest:
(Title)
Date:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
Date:
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES
Services to be provided by the Consultant will be on an on-call basis and shall include, but not be limited
to, the following:
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Consultant is available to assist the City in preparing the following documents and reports required
by State law:
1. Annual Budget and Work Program: Redevelopment Law (HSC Section 33606) requires all
Redevelopment Agencies to prepare an annual budget that includes the proposed expenditures,
proposed indebtedness, anticipated revenues, and a work program for the coming year, and an
analysis of prior year accomplishments. Consultant will utilize information from the City
budget to prepare the annual budget to comply with Redevelopment Law.
2. State Controller's Report: If needed, Consultant will assist staff in preparing this required
report, particularly the Housing and Community Development portion of the report.
3. Statement of Indebtedness: Consultant is available, if needed, to assist with the preparation of
this document, although likely this has been, and will continue to be done by the City finance
department.
4. Monitoring Deed Restrictions: Redevelopment Law requires the City to expand and improve
the supply of affordable housing and to record deed restrictions to assure continued income level
compliance. Consultant is available to monitor these deed restrictions on an ongoing basis.
B. IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENTS
1. Development Planning and Analvsis: Consultantis available to provide development planning
and analysis for specific project undertakings. Typically, this would involve preparation of a
Design for Development for adoption by the City that sets the basic parameters for proposed
development. The options available to the City for development of a specific site can be
analyzed to determine the optimal outcome and a recommended project.
2. Development Pro Forma AnalvsislNegotiation: Consultant is available to provide project
financial pro formas for potential redevelopment projects to assist the City in determining the
financial viability of a project and determine the degree of participation which may be required
by the City. Consultant is also available to assist with developer negotiations as needed.
3. Agreement Preparation: Consultant is available to assist City staff and legal counsel in the
drafting of agreements (typically, Disposition and Development Agreements or Owner
Participation Agreements). These agreements outline the responsibilities of both the proposed
owner/developer and the City.
4. Agreement Processing: Consultant is available to prepare the back-up materials, agenda staff
report, and summary report (required by redevelopment law) and assure that proper noticing and
hearings are held in conformance with law.
C. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
I. Comprehensive Strategv: Consultant IS available to assist. with the preparation of a
comprehensive affordable housing strategy. This could be done in coordination with the
updating of the Five-Year Implementation Plan.
2. Specific Proiect/Site Identification: The City has specific requirements to rehabilitate and
develop new affordable housing. It may behoove the CITY to identify specific projects and sites
that could be utilized for this purpose.
3. Developer SelectionlNegotiation: Consultant is available to assist in the developer selection
process, as well as in negotiating terms and agreements for future housing development.
4. Financing: Consultant has a background in developing various financing alternatives, making
use of 20% set-aside funds, tax allocation bonds, tax credit opportunities, and other revenue
bond formats to assure the most efficient and effective way of leveraging City funds for the
development of housing.
D. REAL ESTATE SERVICES
Consultant continues to be available to perform real estate related services. These services include:
I. Propertv Management: If needed, Consultant is available to provide property management
services for City-owned properties. Typically, Consultant has provided interim management
services when either the property will be held for only a short time, or when time is needed to
select a long-term, permanent management company.
2. Propertv AcquisitionlNegotiation: Implementation programs frequently require property
acquisition and negotiation services. Consultant is available as needed to provide such services.
All services will be provided in conformance with State guidelines regulating the acquisition of
properties by public entities.
4. Relocation: From time to time, relocation services have been required, and although Consultant
does not directly provide these services, Consultant has contracted with, and overseen the work
of, other specialty relocation consultants and can continue to provide this service.
Page ii of Exhibit A
E. CITY ADMINISTRATION
Consultant shall be available to assist the City with all other administrative activities as needed.
Consultant has experience in assisting staff with establishing procedures that can then be
implemented without consultant involvement.
Other administrative activities may include:
1. Agenda Materials: Consultant will draft resolutions, reports, notices, plans, agenda staffreports,
and back-up materials as requested by CITY staff.
2. Meetings: Consultant staff is available to attend meetings of the City Councilor Board of
Directors of the City, Planning Commission, project advisory committees, and meetings with
property owners and residents, when necessary. Consultant has a track record of developing
good working relationships with both affected citizens and with staff members.
3. General Administrative Services: Consultant is. available to assist the City with all other
administrative matters on an as-needed basis. These services could include assisting with City
filing document control systems, providing specialized services related to real estate appraisals,
acquisition negotiations, relocation, market analysis, detailed development analysis or goodwill
appraisals. Consultant may not directly provide all of these services but could assist by
identifying those consultants who have experience in the necessary areas of expertise and
coordinating the provision of their services.
F. PROJECT FINANCING
1. Tax Increment Financings: The City has been implementing its programs with funds realized by
prior bond issues. As revenue increases and funds are needed for additional implementation
activities, Consultant is available to provide fiscal consulting services needed for the issuance of
tax increment securities. These services would include tax increment revenue projections based
on current year assessed valuations, historical trends, building permits issued for in-progress
projects, review of planned new development, and the effects of pass-through agreements.
Consultant is also available to provide financial advisory services, assist with preparation of
Official Statements, and other issuance procedures.
2. Finance Strategies: Consultant has worked with cities in the past to determine the best use ofthe
funds available. Because the City is involved in both public improvements and private
developments, it is important that the tax exempt funds (which must be used for public projects)
and other less restricted funds be used to their best end. Consultant can advise the City
regarding its best use of bond proceeds, housing funds, land/real estate proceeds, and tax
increment funds.
G. SPECIAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES
Consultant will be available to prepare necessary analysis and documentation for any specific
implementation activities.
Page iii of Exhibit A
1. Specific Proiect Activities: As necessary, Consultant is available to analyze specific projects,
develop schedules and budgets, and prepare necessary documentation.
2. Economic Development: Implementation of the Redevelopment Plans should be accomplished
in such a way as to promote economic stability and future revenue flow to the City and other
taxing entities. With periodic slowdowns in real estate market activities, it is necessary for
redevelopment agencies to take a lead role in promoting local economic development.
Consultant is available to aid the City in analyzing the costs and benefits of specific
development proposals targeting specific users, and to help create an economic development
program which is beneficial to the local tax base.
Page iv of Exhibit A
EXHIBIT B
2006 HOURLY RATES
PrincipallDirector
Senior Associate
Associate/Acquisition Agent
Senior Analyst
Analyst
Research Assistant/Real Estate Technician
Word Processor
Clerical
Reimbursables
$175
$150
$125
$105
$ 95
$ 85
$ 65
$ 50
Billed at Cost
Rates shall remain in effect from the commencement of the Agreement between the City (City of Arroyo
Grande and the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency) and the Consultant (Tierra West Advisors, LLC)
through June 30, 2007. Thereafter rates shall adjust to Consultant's current hourly rates.
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will
maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant
will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage
does not meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend,
supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that
the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum
amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the
limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss,
will be available to City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no
event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If Consultant or Consultant's employees will use personal autos
in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability
coverage for each such person.
Workers Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit
requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying
coverages. Any such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a
drop down provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-
insured retention for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella.
Coverage shall be provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in
addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time
insured's liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There
shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one
insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of
Page 1 of 5
Consultant, subContractors or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage
provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required
herein.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and
a minimum financial size VII.
General conditions pertaining to provIsion of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general
liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials
employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition
prior to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all Consultants, and subContractors to
do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement
shall prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of
subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights against City
regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Consultants
and subContractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its
operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first
submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve
to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily
injury to an employee of the insured or of any Consultant or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification
and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction
of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of
certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional
insured endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at
or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is
Page 2 of 5
not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no
replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any
insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement
and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly
paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due Consultant, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to
City of any cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify
such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor" (as opposed t6 being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance
coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any subContractor, is intended to
apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subContractors, and any other party
involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant
agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for
ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this
section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subContractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions
or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it
will not allow any Consultant, subContractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or
person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by
this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing coverage
includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention
must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the
Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured
retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to
change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety
(90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increase benefit to City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps
that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
Page 3 of 5
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on
the part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirements
in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or
its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this
agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or
terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein
expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to eJ(piration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to
the renewing or new.coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration
of the coverages.
17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit
the obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to
use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this
section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as
a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a
given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue,
and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct
from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and
provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts
with or impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by
any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement.
Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to
reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall
be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect
thereto.
Page 4 of 5
22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss
against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
c'_ - ",.
"".,-'-'
Page 5 of 5
c-
8.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTORSA--
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL BY TIERRA WEST
ADVISORS, LLC TO PROVIDE FISCAL CONSULTANT
SERVICES TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
COORDINATE ISSUANCE OF BOND FINANCING
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of
Directors approve the proposal received by Tierra West Advisors, LLC to provide
fiscal consultant services to the Redevelopment Agency to coordinate issuance
of bond financing.
FUNDING:
Services are proposed to be provided for a not-to-exceed fee of $37,500. Total
issuance costs are estimated as follows:
Bond Counsel
Agency Counsel
Disclosure Counsel
Underwriter
Financial Advisor
Financial Consultant
Miscellaneous Costs
Reserves
Total
$25,500
$3,000
$25,000
$82,000
$16,800
$37,500
$10,000
$410,000
$609,800
Reserves are funds required to be set aside to ensure interest and principal
payments are made during the first years of the life of the bonds. All costs are
paid from bond proceeds. Therefore, no appropriation is necessary.
DISCUSSION:
In 2001, the City implemented a five-year strategy to address financial shortfalls
in the Redevelopment Agency budget aimed at providing the capability of the
S:\AdministrationlCITY MANAGERISTEVEICouncil ReportslTierra West Advisors Financial Consultant
IO.1O.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
REDEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
Agency to issue debt for redevelopment projects. The strategy has been
successful and the City's redevelopment consultants recently completed a bond
capacity analysis. Based on the results of this analysis, the Agency recently
purchased property on Le Point Street for future parking expansion in anticipation
of bond financing. The bond capacity identified the ability to issue approximately
$4.1 million in financing. This will result in net proceeds of approximately
$3,490,000, 20% of which is required to be dedicated for affordable housing.
This will result in a remaining amount of $2,792,000.
Bond proceeds are proposed to enable the Agency to repay debt to City
accounts that has been accumulated over the past several years. Current
Redevelopment Agency debt is $3,914,248. Staff recommends that it be
addressed through the following steps:
Bond financing
Sale of Faeh Street Property
Fees for connection to Poplar Ponding Basin
$2,684,248
$830,000
_$400.000
$3,914,248
Therefore, approximately $100,000 is projected to be remaining. It is
recommended that this funding be utilized for the Faeh Street hotel project.
If approved, the consultant will provide the following services:
1. Assist the Agency by coordinating the bond team that will be preparing all
necessary documents for the proposed bond issue;
2. Prepare a fiscal consultant report of anticipated and projected tax
increment revenues for the project area; and
3. Develop a bond package that will assist the Agency in repaying Agency
indebtedness and allow the Agency to enter into future development
projects.
The consultant's proposal is attached. If the contract with Tierra West, LLC is
approved for ongoing redevelopment consultant services, which is a separate
agenda item, the work can be performed under that contract. No separate
agreement is necessary.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors' consideration:
Direct staff to proceed with the proposal for bond issuance financial
consultant services.
Direct staff to proceed with bond issuance, but issue a Request for
Proposal for financial consultant services;
S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\CounciI Reports\Tierra West Advisors Financial Consultant
lO.1O.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
REDEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 3
Direct staff to postpone bond issuance;
Provide staff direction.
Attachments:
1. Proposal for Fiscal Consulting Services
S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Tierra West Advisors Financial Consultant
10. IO.06.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Tierra West Advisors, LLC
Real Estate and Redevelopment Consultants
Via Email
September 28, 2006
Mr. Steven Adams, City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, 93421
PROPOSAL FOR FISCAL CONSULTING SERVICES
Dear Mr. Adams:
Tierra West Advisors, LLC. ("Tierra West") is pleased to present this Proposal to provide
fiscal consultant services to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande
("Agency") for the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). It is
our understanding that the Agency requires the services of a qualified fiscal consultant to
provide the following services:
I. Assist the Agency by coordinating the bond team that will be preparing all
necessary documents for the proposed bond issue,
2. Prepare a fiscal consultant report ("Report") of anticipated and projected tax
increment revenues for the Project Area, and
3. Develop a bond package that will assist the Agency in repaying Agency
indebtedness and allow the Agency to enter into future development projects.
Tierra West is prepared to provide a team of experienced fiscal consultants who have
provided analyses for bond issues throughout California totaling over $800,000,000.
Tierra West has seasoned staff that has provided fiscal consulting services for cities and
redevelopment agencies. Tierra West is prepared to assemble a team underwriters, bond
counsel, bond insurers, rating agencies, other financial consultants or credit institutions
that will prepare a bond issue that is most appropriate for the Agency. Our team is
experienced in addressing the public policy concerns of a bond issue and preparing
financial projections that forecast reliable revenue for the Agency.
PROPOSED SCOPE AND COST OF SERVICES
Tierra West proposes to provide the following services:
o Bond Team assemblage and coordination of the Team will be conducted on behalf
of the Agency. Tierra West will solicit proposals and fees quotes from
underwriters, bond counsel, bond insurers, rating agencies, other financial
168 Annandale Rd., Pasadena, CA 91105 714-377-1555, fax 714-377-1554
tmulrenan@tierra westadvisors.com; http://www.tierrawestadvisors.com
Mr. Steven Adams, City Manager
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande
September 28, 2006
Page 2
consultants or credit institutions for the Team assemblage or as recommended by
Agency staff.
a Property Tax Increment Revenue Projections & Historical Analysis
a Working with the San Luis Obispo County Assessor, the State Board of
Equalization and the San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller, the
2006-07 equalized assessment roll will be analyzed.
a Historical assessment and tax rate information for the Project Area will be
analyzed for the Project Area.
a Projected property tax increment revenues for 2006-07 will be prepared.
a An analysis of the Project Area's redevelopment plan limitations and
taxing entity payments as mandated by California Redevelopment Law
will be ascertained and calculated.
a Building permit information will be researched to determine valuation
increases from completed permits and values that will accrue from permits
10 progress.
a Property resales, which took place from January I, 2006 through present,
will be researched, and included in the property tax increment revenue
projections as necessary.
a Anticipated future development projects currently in the final stages of the
planning will be identified, and assessed valuation of such projects will be
included in the property tax increment revenue projections.
a Delinquency rates and supplemental assessment values will be researched
with the County Auditor-Controller, to ascertain how these can affect
future property tax increment revenues.
a Property assessment appeals information will be analyzed to ascertain how
these can affect future property tax increment revenues.
a The 2006-07 top ten taxpayers in the Project Area will be prepared.
a Verification/auditing of property tax increment revenue to assure the Agency that
all entitled revenue is being collected.
a Bond Financing Capacity Analysis based on preliminary and long-term forecasts
of bonding capacity and project indebtedness.
a Certification of documents to allow for timely Escrow Releases as revenues
increase.
a A Fiscal Consultant Report will be prepared and if required presented to Bond
Insurers & Rating Agencies to fully explain the basis for the property tax
increment revenue.
a Tierra West will attend any meetings as a representative of the Agency as
necessary.
Tierra West is prepared to assist the Agency in this assignment for a not-to-exceed fee of
$37,500. This fee is inclusive of all normal incidental expenses associated with
preparation of the coordination of the Bond Issue and preparation of the Fiscal
Consultant's Report. Such expenses include copying, mailing costs; fax charges,
overnight mail, and normal travel within Southern California, etc. The fixed fee does not
Mr. Steven Adams, City Manager
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande
September 28, 2006
Page 3
include any extraordinary expenses related to travel outside of California to meet with
insurers or rating agencies. Such expenses would be incurred only after receipt of
authorization by the Agency and would be billed as a direct reimbursable.
Billing will detail work done by individual and title. Invoices will be issued monthly and
are payable upon receipt, unless otherwise agreed upon in advance. Invoices will identify
tasks completed to date, hours expended and the hourly rate.
Tierra West's hourly rate structure for 2006 is as follows:
PrincipaVDirector
Senior Associate
Associate
Senior Analyst
Analyst
Research Assistant/Rea] Estate Technician
Word Processor/Graphic Artist
Clerical
Reimbursab]e Expenses
PROJECT TEAM
$175
$150
$]25
$]05
$ 95
$ 85
$ 65
$ 50
Billed at Cost
For this assignment, Tim Mulrenan will serve as Principa]-in-Charge and oversee all
preparation of all documents. Jose Ometeotl and Mike Garcia, Senior Associates, will
assist Mr. Mu]renan and are available to attend all meetings, coordinate the collection of
data, finalize spreadsheet preparation and financial projections. The Project Team has
conducted fiscal consultant reports for the Cities of Desert Hot Springs, El Monte,
Firebaugh, Fountain Valley, Hercules, Palm Desert, Pino]e, Riverside, Rohnert Park, San
Bemardino, San Marcos, Shafter, the County of Orange and the Victor Valley Economic
Development Authority.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal for the Agency, and we look
forward to working on this important financing. If this proposal is acceptable as written,
please sign where indicated and return to our office at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
..z~ST ADVISORS. LLC
Tim Mulrenan
Principal
Mr. Steven Adams, City Manager
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande
September 28, 2006
Page 4
AGREED AND ACCEPTED
Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency
By:
Steven Adams
Executive Director
Date:
8.g.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DATE:
CITY COUNCIL
ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~2"
CONSIDERATION OF CITY.COUNTY TAX AGREEMENT REGARDING
DETACHMENT NO. 1 OF A 3700 S.F. PORTION OF A LARGER
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY DEVELOPED
IN UNINCORPORATED AREA, BUT BY PRIOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ERROR IS PARTLY WITHIN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, AS
REQUESTED BY LAFCO (FILE 4-R-06).
OCTOBER 10, 2006
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting
the exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment for the detachment
of property from the City of Arroyo Grande.
FUNDING:
There are no costs or revenues lost to the City as a result of this detachment and it will
eliminate potential confusion or municipal service responsibilities.
DISCUSSION:
Attached is a brief explanation memo from LAFCO to the Board of Supervisors regarding
this matter (Attachment 1). The City had been informed by surveyor Leonard Lenger that
the owners of the property at 379 Corbett Canyon Road wanted either to be annexed
entirely or detached entirely from the split jurisdiction created by a City boundary
description which does not follow property lines. Because the bulk of the property and
residence is within the unincorporated area and lacks water, sewer or street frontage in
the City areas nearby, the staff recommends this detachment. To annex would require
General Plan Amendment, Sphere of Influence amendment, prezoning of a
nonconforming parcel and the City would still be unable to provide utility service or
receive any offsetting benefit.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Adopt the attached Resolution.
2) Do not approve the detachment and/or agreement and provide direction to staff
regarding any alternative.
3) Continue the decision to a date when more information or discussion can be
scheduled for new business or public hearing.
Attachments:
1. Board of Supervisors report and resolution dated August 22, 2006
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND ANNUAL
TAX INCREMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AND THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REGARDING DETACHMENT NO.1 (LAFCO FILE 4-R-06)
WHEREAS, in the case of a jurisdictional change other than a city incorporation or district
formation which will alter the service area or responsibility of a local agency, Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 99(a)(1) requires that the amount of property tax revenue to be
exchanged, if any, and the amount of annual tax increment to be exchanged among the
affected local agencies shall be determined by negotiation; and
WHEREAS, when a city is involved, the negotiations are conducted between the City
Council and the Board of Supervisors of the County; and
WHEREAS, when a special district is involved, the negotiations are conducted by the
Board of Supervisors of the County on behalf of the district or districts, unless otherwise
requested by said district or districts pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section
99(b)(5); and
WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code 99(b)(6) requires that each local agency, upon
completion of negotiations, adopt resolutions whereby said local agencies agree to accept
the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues, if any, and annual tax increment and
requires that each local agency transmit a copy of each such resolution to the Executive
Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission; and
WHEREAS, no later than the date on which the certificate of completion of the
jurisdictional change is recorded. with the County Recorder, the Executive Officer shall
notify the County Auditor of the exchange of property tax revenues by transmitting a copy
of said resolutions to him and the County Auditor shall thereafter make the appropriate
adjustments as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (City) and the County of San Luis Obispo (County)
have previously agreed to a property tax exchange methodology pursuant to Joint
Resolution No. 01-96 which provides that in the case of undeveloped property, all of the
"base" property tax revenues will be retained by the County, with incremental property tax
revenues to be apportioned between the County and City as follows: in the case of land
pre-zoned for non-residential uses (such as retail, offices or manufacturing), the County
will receive all of the incremental property tax revenues; and in the case of land pre-zoned
for residential uses, the County will receive 66% of the incremental property tax revenues
it would otherwise have received from the Tax Rate Area, and the City will receive the
remaining 34%; and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the negotiations have taken place concerning the transfer of property tax
revenues and annual tax increment between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City
of Arroyo Grande pursuant to Section 99(a)(1) for the jurisdictional change designated the
Detachment No. 1 (LAFCO file 4-R-06) of property from the City of Arroyo Grande (Milne
Property); and
WHEREAS, the negotiating party, to wit: Dan Buckshi, Administrative Analyst, on behalf
of the County and Steve Adams, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande
have negotiated the exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment between
such entities as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that such negotiated exchange of property tax
revenues and annual tax increment be consummated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande,
as follows:
1. That the recitals set forth above are true, correct and valid.
2. That no annual tax increments shall be transferred from the City of Arroyo Grande
to the County of San Luis Obispo in the fiscal year 2007-2008 nor in any fiscal year
thereafter (because the property is a Low Value Exemption)
3. Upon receipt of a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the recorded
certificate of completion, the County Auditor shall make the appropriate
adjustments to property tax revenues and annual tax increments as set forth
above.
4. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the
Resolution to the Executive Officer of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency
Formation Commission, who shall then distribute copies in the manner prescribed
bylaw.
On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member
, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 101h day of October 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
ATTACHMENT 1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: DAN BUCKSHI, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST
DATE: August 22,2006
SUBJECT: Submittal of a resolution accepting the exchange of property tax
revenue and annual tax increment for the detachment of property from
the City of Arroyo Grande to the County (Milne Property).
Recommendation
The Board approve the resolution accepting the exchange of property tax revenue and
annual tax increment for the detachment of property from the City of Arroyo Grande
(Milne Property).
Discussion
This request relates to the detachment of 3,696 square feet from the City of Arroyo
Grande. The property is located at 379 Corbett Canyon Road, Arroyo Grande, CA
93420, which is North of Corbett Canyon Road and West of Royal Oak Rd (see
attached map). The reason for the request to detach the property from the City of
Arroyo Grande is to change the City/County boundary because it currently runs through
a portion of the property. The request is to change the City/County boundary in order to
follow the lot line (the majority of the property is within the County boundary. hence the
request to move the small. remaining portion of the property into the County boundary).
Jurisdictional changes such as this can change service area responsibilities and/or
impact operating expenses and revenues. The law requires affected jurisdictions (in
this case, the County and the City of Arroyo Grande) to negotiate an exchange of
property tax revenue prior to the Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO)
approval of the proposed change. This resolution is being presented for adoption within
the 60-day timeframe, which commenced on August 8, 2006. The County
Administrative Office and City of Arroyo Grande staff negotiated on behalf of their
respective agencies.
a'd
al.Oa-BBl. [SOBI
ods~qO s~nl ues OJ~~l
esa'BO 90 Ba 2n~
Other Aqency InvolvemenUlmpact
The Local Agency Formation Commission has the authority to oversee annexation of
property. This property is proposed to be detached from the City of Arroyo Grande,
therefore, as one of the affected agencies; the City of Arroyo Grande participated in the
tax exchange negotiations. The Auditor's Office provided the financial analysis.
Financial Considerations
The law requires that affected jurisdictions negotiate an exchange of property tax
revenue even in situations where there is not an actual exchange of property tax, as is
the case in this instance. The small parcel of land that is proposed to be detached from
the City of Arroyo Grande to the County has an assessed value of $795 (which
generates $7.95 of property tax annually). Because the assessed value is less than
$5,000, it is categorized as a Low Value Exemption. Property taxes on Low Value
Exemption properties are not collected because the cost of collecting the tax would
exceed the actual tax received. As such, there will not be an exchange of property
taxes between the City and the County as a result of this detachment.
Results
A fair and equitable exchange of property tax revenue as a result of the detachment of
property.
C: Steve Adams, City of Arroyo Grande
Marsha Stillman, County Auditor-Controller's Office
Paul Hood, LAFCO
E"d
2l.o2-BBl. (SoBI
ods~qo s~n, ues oJ~~1
eS2:BO SO B2 ~n~
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
____ day_________. 2006
PRESENT: Supervisors
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING NEGOTlATED EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
The following resolution is hereby offered and read:
WHEREAS. in the case of a jurisdictional change other than a city incorporation or district
formation which will alter the service area or responsibility of a local agency, Revenue and Taxation
Code Section 99(a)(1) requires that the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged, if any. end
the amount of annual tax increment to be exchanged among the affected local agencies shall be
determined by negotiation; and
WHEREAS, when a city is involved, the negotiations are conducted between the Clty Council
and the Board of Supcl\fisors of the County, and
WHEREAS, when a special district is involved, the negotiations are conducted by the Board
of Supervisors of the County on behalf of the district or districts, unless otherwise requested by said
district or districts pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(5); and
WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(6) requires that each local agency,
upon completion of negotiations. adopt resolutions whereby said local agencies agree to accept the
negotiated exchange of property tax revenues, if any, and annual tax increment and requires that
each local agency transmit a copy of each such resolution to the Executive Officer of the Local
A.gency Formation Commission; and
WHEREAS, no later than the date on which the certificate of completion of the jurisdictional
change is recorded with tha County Recorder, the Executive Officer shall notify the County Auditor
of the exchange of property tax revenues by transmitting a copy of said resolutions to him and the
County Auditor shall thereafter make the appropriate adjustments as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (City) and the County of San Luis Obispo (County)
have previously agreed to a property tax exchange methodology pursuant to Joint Resolution No.
01-96 which provides that in the case of undeveloped property, all of the ~b~e. property tax
revenues will be retained by the County, with incremental property tax revenues to be apportioned
beween the County and City as follows: in the case of land pre-zoned for non-residential uses (such
as retail, offices or manufacturing), the County will receive all of the Incremental property tax
revenues; and in the case of land pre-zoned for residential uses, the Countywill receive 66% of the
incremental property tax revenues it would otherwise have received from the Tax Rate Area, and the
City will receive the remaining 34%.
WHEREAS, the negotiations have taken place concerning the transfer of property tax
,evenues and annual tax increment between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Arroyo
Grande pursuant to Section 99(.a)(1) for the jurisdictIonal change designated the detachment of
property from the City of Arroyo Grande (Milne Property); and
WHEREAS, the negotiating party, to wit: Dan Buckshi. Administrative Analyst, on behalf of
the County and Steve Adams, on behalf of ~he City of Arroyo Grande have negotiated the exchange
of property tax revenue and annual tax increment between such entities as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that such negotiated exchange of property tax
revenues and annual tax increment be consummated.
v-d
ods~qO s~n, u~S OJ~~'
2l.02-BBl. (SOBl
, .~
" ,~,
~62:BO SO B2 ~n~
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the Board of SupeMsors of the
County of San Luis Obispo. State of California, as tollows:
1 Ttlat the' recitals sat forth above are tNe. correct and valid.
2, That no annual tax increments shall be transferred from the CUy of Ar,'oljo Grande to
the Counly of San Luis Obispo in the fiscal year 2007-2008 nor in ar.y fiscal year
thereafter (because the propArty is a Low Value Exemption)
3. i Upon receipt of a certified iA:lpy of this resolution and a copy of the recorded
certificate of c0rnpletlc~. the County Auditor shall make the approprj~te adjustments to property tax
revenues and annual tax incrernenls as set forth above.
. ,4. That the Cownty Clerl~ is authorized and directed 10 transmit a certified copy of the
resolution to the Executive Officer of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission,
who shalllhen distribute copies in the m'3.nnerprescrib~d by law.
Upon 'motion of Supervisor __ _, seconded by Sup0rvisor
__.__~_._____ . and on the following roll call, to wt:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABST.~INING:
~he foregoing resolution is hereby adopted.
Chairperson of L"le Board of Supervisors
ATTEST
Cierk of the Board of Supervisors
By
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
JAMES B. LINDHOLM. JR.
County Counsel
By: _
Assistant County Counsel
Date:
5.'"
2l.02-88l. (508)
D"'S~qO s~n, ueS O~~~,
:<;::
','. ~,;-
.'r"
.....:
.~ ',.:';::..::. ';'.., .~
eS2'80 SO B~ ~n~
a.h.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
ROB STRONG, COMMUNIT~ DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR W
TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNE~
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-
005A - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, REVISING LAND USE
REGULATIONS FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
DISTRICT OMU-D-2.20 WITHIN THE OFFICE MIXED USE DISTRICT
BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code
to revise land use regulations forDesign Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20.
The subject Ordinance was on the September 26, 2006 City Council Agenda for adoption;
however, due to a clerical error, adoption of the Ordinance did not occur. Therefore, the
Ordinance has been placed on the October 10, 2006 Agenda and it is recommended the
Council conduct the second reading, by title only, and adopt the Ordinance.
FUNDING
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION
Backaround
The proposal is an Ordinance to provide clarification of land use regulations applicable to
Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20 in the vicinity of Arroyo Grande Hospital.
Ordinance 557, which included specific provisions for the properties shown in Exhibit "A",
was approved by the City Council in 2004 as part of a periodic update of the Municipal
Code to ensure internal consistency and consistency with the 2001 General Plan
concerning the City's mixed use zoning districts. .
On September 12, 2006, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to revise provisions for
the OMU-D-2.20 Design Development Overlay District to clarify requirements applicable to
properties in the vicinity of the hospital in order to preserve land for medical office use as
well as accommodating workforce housing opportunities.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005A
PAGE 2 OF 2 .
The attached Ordinance includes text amendments pursuant to Section 16.08.01 O.R of the
Development Code which incorporates by reference the provisions for Design Development
Overlay District OMU-D-2.20.
The modifications proposed include clarification of the method of measuring the ratio of
allowed office and residential-potential development and added language to provide both
flexibility and a maximum for deviation from the current requirement of reserving 75% of a
project area for office use. The intent of the existing and proposed requirements is to
provide for compatible medical offices and/or hospital expansion for the only medical
hospital facility in the Five Cities area.
Environmental Determination
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for
Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff has determined that the proposal is
does not pose a potential for a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt
per Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
04-005A), REVISING LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR DESIGN
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT OMU-D-2.20 WITHIN THE
OFFICE MIXED USE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became effective
November 10, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary revisions to the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and Zoning Map for consistency, in accordance with
Government Code Section 65860; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2006 and
recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
for the purposes of clarification of standards and balance of uses within the Office Mixed
Use 0-2.20 Design Development Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered Development Code Amendment 04-005A at a
duly noticed public hearing on September 12, 2006, in accordance with the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearings, Planning Commission recommendations, staff
reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
A. The proposed revisions to Design Development District OMU-D-2.20, incorporated
by reference into Title 16, are consistent with the objectives, policies and
implementation measures of the General Plan, particularly those prescribed for the
Mixed Use land use designations within the land use element.
B. The proposed revisions to Design Development District OMU-D-2.20, incorporated
by reference into Title 16, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and
welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern.
C. The proposed revisions to Design Development District OMU-D-2.20, incorporated
by reference into Title 16, satisfy the intent of chapter, 16.36 within the Municipal
Code and provide for internal consistency;
D. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 are within the scope of the
Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update, and the potential
environmental impacts ofthe proposed amendment are less than significant.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.08.01O.R is hereby amended to
read as follows: "R. Ordinance relating to a Design Development Overlay District
OMU-D-2.20."
SECTION 3: Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20 is depicted in Exhibit "A"
and Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20 development standards, as
amended, are set forth in their entirety in Exhibit "8", both of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this
Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 5: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall
file a Notice of Determination.
SECTION 6: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text
of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative
Services/Deputy City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the
summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the
Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy
City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
On motion by Council Member
by the following roll call vote to wit:
, seconded by Council Member
, and
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this
day of
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
t:.^nIOII J-'\
r-:::~ I J /
'1
<;: \
~
.- ~ "-E-W-M-A-N-D
-A ~ D-O-D-S-O-N--W-A)J1-O-D-S-O-N--WA:Y~
.' ~
~
'1
-V-I-S-T-A-L-A , ,
'V .\ \ /
I I I /
-'nsu,_c1l~
/ ",
---
~ !,1
~ ;v
g OMU 0-2.20
<;:
j /J
I "
///
/
/
C-A-I-R--OAK-S-A-V C
ALl
; ,
~ "
~
- ;; /
:..o-D-D-I.-N !
~./ 9
rli /
I
I
"Ij
..u-V-E-S-:r I
/ !
7/7
/
h
F-A-R-R-O
~ !
EXHIBIT "B"
Design Development Overlay District 2.20: Medical Mixed Use
Objective of District: To provide for sufficient land for the orderly
development of Arroyo Grande Hospital and functionally related medical facilities.
Description of Parcels: APNs: 006-39- 044, 046, 047, 048, and 049 (see
Zoning Map OMU-D-2.20.)
Use Regulations: Mixed use development with a minimum ofJ5% of the net
building site (or equivalent area for vertical mixed use projects as determined by
the Community Development Director) shall be developed for office use to be
compatible with the anticipated needs for the Arroyo Grande Hospital.
Deviations up to 25% (reserving a minimum of 50% of the net area for office use)
may be determined to be acceptable, as determined by City Council, if they are
needed to achieve a logical and coherent site plan that meets the objective of
this district. All other uses are as specified in underlying zoning district (OMU).
Site Development Criteria:
1. As specified in the underlying zoning district (OMU).
2. Three-story building components allowed only with substantial transitional
space andlor lower story elements adjacent to residential districts or uses.
3. Future hospital redevelopment shall include public transportation
improvements (reference development approval CUP 02-006, Planning
Commissions Resolutions 03-1839, and 021-1841)
4. Maximum Building Size may exceed the maximum standard of 50,000
square feet specified in underlying zoning district (OMU).
Performance Standards: Section 16.48.065 Mixed use developments. Section
16.48.120 Performance Standards.
Design Guidelines: none.
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a -D overlay at the
time of the 2004 Development Code Update to clarify development standards
that pertain lothe subject parcels (reference Ordinance 557) and amended by
Ordinance ~~~ Demonstration of project compatibility with the Arroyo Grande
Hospital and/or coordination with a Hospital Facilities Plan must be submitted to
the Community Development Director prior to any use permit approval within the
OMU-D-2.20 District.
a.i.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO
PURCHASE A PRE-OWNED BUCKET TRUCK
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the expenditure of funds to purchase
a pre-owned bucket truck for the Public Works Department.
FUNDING:
Funding for this vehicle is included in the approved FY 2006/07 budget. A total of
$45,000 was budgeted for a pre-owned bucket truck.
DISCUSSION:
A bucket truck is specially equipped to provide access to areas that are beyond the
reach of standard ladders. The proposed truck would have a vertical reach of
. approximately 40-feet and a horizontal reach of 28 feet. This piece of equipment will be
utilized by both the Street and Utility divisions of the Public Works Department and the
Parks Department for maintenance of reservoir tanks, maintenance of traffic signal
heads, changing street name signs on traffic signal arms, hanging banners and holiday
fixtures, trimming trees, changing light bulbs on City owned street lights and
maintenance on buildings.
There are several utility companies that rotate used bucket trucks out of their fleet and
offer them for sale. At the present time, we are in contact with several used truck
depots in Southern California that specialize in the sale of this type of equipment.
These vehicles, when they do become available are usually sold very quickly. The
expenditure of funds is being requested so that when a vehicle becomes available the
truck can be purchased. However, before such a vehicle is purchased, the Fleet
Maintenance Coordinator will inspect the vehicle records and perform an on-site
inspection.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE
A PRE-OWNED BUCKET TRUCK
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation to authorize the expenditure of funds to
purchase a used bucket truck;
Do not approve staff's recommendations;
Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or
Provide direction to staff.
8.j.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER r/2fJ"
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ANDERSON
BURTON CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE CITY HALL
RECEPTION AREA RENOVATION
DATE: OCTOBER 10,2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council:
A. award a contract for the City Hall Reception Area Renovation to Anderson Burton
Construction, Inc., in the amount of $29,969.00;
B. authorize the CityManager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
of $5,000.00 for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction
phase of the project (total construction costs = $29,969.00 + $5,000.00 =
$34,969.00); and,
C. appropriate $5,000 from the General Fund.
FUNDING:
The FY 2006/07 Capital Improvement Program budget includes $30,000 for the City Hall
Reception Area Renovation. Funding will be from the General Fund. The projected
estimate for the total cost of the project is $34,969.00 and $5,000.00 will need to be
appropriated from the General Fund.
DISCUSSION:
On September 19, 2006, two (2) bids were opened for the project. The lowest responsible
bidder, Anderson Burton Construction, Inc., submitted a bid of$29,969. The bid has been
verified and found to be in compliance with the request for proposal.
The project consists of various improvements to the lobby portion of the existing City Hall,
which is approximately 350 square feet. The primary purpose of the project is to create a
common public counter serving Administration and Financial Services. This will provide for
better public service, while enabling a reduction in staffing costs. Specific improvements
also include, but are not limited to, reconfiguration of the existing entry door system to meet
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ANDERSON BURTON
CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE CITY HALL RECEPTION AREA
RENOVATION
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
accessibility requirements, the elimination of various structural elements as necessary to
provide support, various casework and finishes, and the relocation of electrical, alarm and
mechanical equipment. The contractor will coordinate with the City on maintaining public
and employee access during the course of construction.
The contract time for this project is specified at 30 calendar days. Work is expected to
begin at the end of October and be completed by the end of November 2006.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve staff's recommendations;
. Do not approve staff's recommendations;
. Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendations; or
. Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Bid Opening Log Sheet
S:\Public Works\Engineering\Special Projects\2006\City Hall Front Entry\Council Memo - Award.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
BID OPENING LOG SHEET
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEADLINE: September 19, 2006, 5:00 p.m.
City Hall Reception Area Renovation
SUBMITTED BY: TOTAL
Robertson & Robertson
Arroyo Grande, CA
$48,700
Anderson Burton Construction, Inc.
Arroyo Grande, CA
$29,969
"tt!!frU~M-
Kelly Wetmore
Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk
c: -Director of Public Works
City Manager
8.k.
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL
TONY AEIL TS~-;F OF POLICE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT
IN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEMS FOR TWO POLICE PATROL CARS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to purchase two (2) digital in-car video
systems and related equipment from ICOP Digital, Inc. for a total cost of $13,458.35.
FUNDING:
The FY 2006-07 Police Department Budget contains funding totaling $72,200 for the
replacement of two (2) marked patrol units. A part of this budget allocation is for the
replacement of the old VHS in-car video equipment.
DISCUSSION:
In adopting the FY 2005-06 City Budget, the City Council authorized the replacement of the
old VHS format in-car video system with a new digital video system. The ICOP system
was selected as the lowest responsible bidder and units were purchased for all but the
2003 patrol units, which are being replaced in this year's budget.
As presented in the supporting budget documentation for FY 2005-06, the in-car video
system is a critical system which directly supports the perceived credibilitylintegrity of the
Police Department. The Arroyo Grande Police Department was a pioneer in the use of
in-car video systems in all patrol cars in the County. The Department has been used as an
example by Grand Juries, the Courts and the District Attorney as to the benefits of using
such systems, including dealing with citizen complaints, evidence in prosecution of criminal
investigations, officer safety, evaluation of performance of field personnel and training.
The old VHS system currently in use in the patrol cars being replaced this year is over eight
(8) years old and is beginning to require frequent maintenance. This has reached the point
where a system in a vehicle has been inoperative for several days at a time and
unavailable during critical events where video evidence from the system would have been
beneficial. The District Attorney's Office has commented that the quality of the video tape
recordings is diminishing, greatly reducing their evidentiary value.
,
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT IN-CAR
VIDEO SYSTEM FOR TWO POLICE PATROL CARS
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
Staff is recommending the Council authorize the purchase of two (2) additionallCOP units
for the replacement 2007 patrol units, which will complete the conversion of the
department's marked patrol cars to the more reliable digital format. Competitive bids were
not solicited for this purchase as it is necessary to purchase the ICOP system to match the
existing systems in the balance of the fleet and to be compatible with the server into which
the digital videos are downloaded. It should be noted that the video units have increased
only $300 each in cost over the initial bulk purchase last year.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendation;
- Do not approve staffs recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
- Provide direction to staff
r .'-
,
I
8.1.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
TONY AEIL TS, CHIEF OF POLICE 1k
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION INTEGRATING THE NATIONAL
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) INTO THE CITY'S EXISTING
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OPERATIONS
SUBJECT:
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution integrating the National
Incident Management System into the City's emergency management plan, planning, and
operations to ensure that it will be consistent with the Standardized Emergency Management
System; and that the City Council adopt the N1MS Implementation Matrix for Tribal and Local
Jurisdictions (Attachment 2) as a guide, effective October 10,2006.
FUNDING:
City expenses will be minimal and will predominantly be for required employee training.
However, most of this training will be done locally or on-line and during regular business hours.
Other expenses will be primarily administrative for the production andlor purchase of training
materials.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) - 5, "Management of Domestic
Incidents," the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) developed NIMS. Compliance
with NIMS is a prerequisite to receiving federal preparedness grant funds, including funds
provided under the Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative.
California's Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) served as a model for the
federal government in their development of NIMS.
NIMS also provides a national emergency management model for all local and state
governments to use. Additionally, as local authorities have the primary responsibility for
preventing, responding to, and recovering from emergencies and disasters, NIMS provides for
a smoother integration of federal resources into local emergency management.
The current City Emergency Operating Plan states that "The City will manage emergencies
using the Standard Emergency Management System and the Incident Command System."
Therefore, current City emergency planning processes and operational procedures are already
compliant with many NIMS requirements.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION INTEGRATING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) INTO THE CITY'S EXISTING EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OPERATIONS
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
The federal government has identified September 30, 2006 (FFY 2007) as the target date for
communities to become fully compliant with NIMS. As the City is already compliant with many
NIMS requirements, the work left to do for full implementation is to provide NIMS and the
National Response Plan awareness training to City employees who are not police/fire first
responders.
Police and Fire personnel have received training. Plans are under way to complete training for
remaining personnel during the next few weeks. In addition, the City's existing contract for
preparation of the Disaster Mitigation Plan includes work to update the City's Disaster
Response Plan to be consistent with NIMS.
If the City elects not to adopt and become compliant with NIMS, the City will no longer be
eligible for DHS preparedness, mitigation, and/or recovery grants or reimbursement funding for
federally declared disasters. Further, not training City personnel to facilitate the integration of
federal resources during a major emergency could lead to ineffective use of these resources
and/or omissions in emergency management, potentially placing residents and visitors at
unnecessary risk or costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendation;
- Do not approve staffs recommendation; or
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Tribal Government and Local Jurisdiction Compliance Activities: Federal Fiscal Year 2006
(October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE INTEGRATING THE NATIONAL
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTO THE CITY'S
EXISTING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
OPERATIONS
WHEREAS, the President in Homeland Security Directive - 5, directed the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident
Management System, which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal,
state, local, and tribal governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to
prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters, regardless of cause, size, or
complexity; and
WHEREAS, California pioneered the development of standardized incident management
systems to respond to a variety of catastrophic disasters, including fires, earthquakes,
floods, and landslides; and
WHEREAS, in the early 1970's, the California fire service, in partnership with the federal
government, developed the seminal emergency incident command system that has
become the model for incident management nationwide; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, California was the first state to adopt a statewide Standardized
Emergency Management System for use by every emergency response organization, and
implemented a system to ensure the continual improvement of the Standardized
Emergency Management System; and
WHEREAS, California emergency management professionals have contributed their
expertise to the development of the new National Incident Management System; and
WHEREAS, it is essential for responding to disasters that federal, state, local, and tribal
organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures,
interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures,
uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform standards for planning, training, and
exercising, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during
emergencies or disasters; and
WHEREAS, the California Standardized Emergency Management System substantially
meets the objectives of the National Incident Management System; and
WHEREAS, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission)
recommended adoption of a standardized Incident Command System nationwide; and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California has directed his Office of Emergency
Services and Office of Homeland Security, in cooperation with the Standardized
Emergency Management System Advisory Board, to develop a program to integrate the
National Incident Management System, to the extent appropriate, into the State's
emergency management system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
will integrate the National Incident Management System, to the extent appropriate, into its
emergency management plan, planning, and operations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby
adopts the National Incident Management System which shall be consistent with the
California Standardized Emergency Management System; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande also
hereby adopts the NIMS Implementation Matrix for Tribal and Local Jurisdictions as the
guide for towards full implementation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the
Governor's Office of Emergency Services.
On motion of Council Member
the following roll call vote, to wit:
, seconded by Council Member
, and on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of
2006
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
..
U) -
LL1\O
e8
2:N
to
CCM
LLI Ill::
U LLI
Z co
C :E
.... LLI
~ t:
:E LLI
O~
U.
Zln
00
....0
I-N
U -.
........
C Ill::
U) LLI
~ CO
~O
""'t
Ci!o
U-
0\0
....0
CO
ZN
CCIll::
I- C
Z LLI
LL1)-
:E ~
Z C
Ill:: U
LLI U)
~.t:
c:J~
~i:=!
C LLI
CO C
~ LLI
I-u.
"~
~Vl
VlU
::E-"O
z~E C
~ '"
E QJ -
~QJ
QJ"'"O
+-' >-.-
'" Vl ;:
~-a.2:!
.I-l ~~.
lii E lon..
E E;;; "
WOe+-'
ClU 0 c:
ftJ .- Q)
c:c"tj:s:!
~Q)~g
..:.."'C ._
..."O"C x
liiS'~~
"CQJVlQ.
'O.r::. t1) E
c:+-'2g
____ U
_0,+-,,-
~ QJ 0 0
OVl........W
._::J c_
1OQ.JQJ{9
z..cEU')
~ 0. '
CU.c: 0 QJ
.c Ol Qj e'
........ :J > ra
"0 e QJ-
aLe"'C tlJ
ftJ +:J VI 0'1
~ ~ 2.!:
~ 0 0 5
...:0 E"tJ
t:~eQJ
Q) Q) Q.U
"'C Q..... C
-Vi 0-19
~ QJ ".!!!
o...V1U')(I)
C QJ '"
QJ 0 "- res
..c a. ~ en
+-'V)roc
'0 ~ Q)'c
- E .-
~l.9U'Jj9
Q)OVl..c
:::::s_ QJ 0
C"'-c c: "'C
~ c:~ c
Q) ftJ L. ro
.c-"'QJ
+:J~ Q.V)
1o'C ~ 5
~o.o.
~ lfi"O Vl
'C > C ~
:Jel'OO'l
Uo."'c
QJ E QJ.-
Vl ~ ~
._ :J ftJ
"'C.......-ol::
C '" ~.-
.!!!:60"E
QJ ~ 0
EEo.g
O.2:l-a L..
:c VI OJ 0
- >-.~ ~
o VI"'C VI
...QJ~E
1:..> ro VI
19 'Vi -g 'c
~ aJ 2 '"
uJ::Ln1)
Q) 2:- QJ
Vlo.oE
~E5""ffi
po.- c:
... u 10 0
o:::t" ro u.-
o = Cl
~.~ 8: 2:
..c:V)row
u::Ew+-'
L..-.cl9
roz"""l!!
::Ew"cQJ
c.c c.....
_~ re.!:
~ "0
- Q)- C
.~ 5 ~ to
"'C 1:: >- c v)...
CUC~::E
co (,I) tlJ.-_
VI"-_:!J z
.~ i!:: 0 L. OJ
U V)Q..J::
lii -= .9:! Z-+-'
rn~~.c1:
c.-Q)"-:J QJ
QJ-~uE
~13 iij-8J..!!!
Eo U"'C c..
-QJcE
e QJ.c.!!! .-
'+--5+-'Q)"O
Cl... C E lij
.S: ro~ 0 +-'
Qi c........:I: a.
> 0 L. 0
oB QJ ""0
~ .-10"5 to
L.~2:a..8
.- 0.
"'Osel:JV)
lij.......ro U'J.9:! .
...QJ~7d g Cl
.s en 2: ::s QJ .S:
Ql'!: to ~ ~-g
c VI c: E :J
.- ftJ 0 "0_
"'C >,"-..c: c VI
5.010 ClltJ VJ
a.U'lc5J!)~
ID"Vi ro 1: C"'C
a... lOVI+:J QJQ,l
....0 to L. E ffi
~>w~-eo.
:P~~-l-JlQ~
C:"OlI.,;.wfD"o.
g;!' lQ W g"Ojij
wc:3:-l-J'"i6l...
5.0(l)O'll...Q)
QJCQJ"O
~"O Ol.-"OQJ
o W ~ wl,a.;..
~_ c: L...lI.,;. Q)
"Owo >
.,::-c=;:= ._
.- lQ lQ lQ Q)
1S..c:-5~(I)lrl
.Vi w "- ~ l...
c: l... W 0-- 0
o lQ..c: ::J-l-J
5}.l!l~'jij iifVl
Q)c:11l,,-l...::E
l... w ::J 0 ~'_
dl ~ E fi;zQJ
ro c: ::J 'U
E--.o (I)~fi
.C (j(/) QJ G -l-J
o.c ::E :6 .!:; C
QJ- QJ
~OlZc:l5E
J::j l... Q) ro r.. Q)
Q)..c:..c: ;:;1-
Q)E-l-J-l-J'Uo.
~ Q)..c: Qj ~_~
..c:lI.,;.~-l-JQ-s
_...0 3: m~
~~>-l...c::i(l)
Q).Ci5..Cl~5
"0 0 E l...... ~ +=1
Q)........ W 'U V
"'- '" g > 0-._
-l-JE QJ~"O
gCl(l)3:~.~
(I)....~.~ ~ ~.2,
.!!!.stj,-,~'::!...
=c~~ g ...{9
o ,..- ~o
..c:r::l...Q)L/')-
~ Q) -2, ~ I "0
lQ .~ 76 >- ~ ffi
-g QJ -l-J l? (/)....
F"'~:I:QJ
.c ~~
- ~.- 2
"'C . -l-J 5 L/') (I)
c: ~ c:._ OJ VI
~ 2 ~ ~ .> ~
'" '" o"lii B'5
:9~c..c~CJ'"
t=ij.~.~C~
m~ "0
..c:.o ... c: as
3: 5. ID ro...:g
..._E ID 3:
w [9 c.- c:
aJOQ)~:8
--l...OlQ
B~~':C:
o::JQj(l)"O
-U(I)cQ)
QJ.!; Q) OJ~
..c: -l-JC:=
-l-J.8 lQ 0.0
10 -.> 0.19
(I) C E (I)
-l-J c: 0. 0 QJ
ID.Q (I)'" U Q)
"O-l-J-(/)U
.S: re'~::E c:
QJ.c Q) _ 0
1;jro1OZ1O
o E1Efifi
E ~ ~'j:.,::-
.~ ~ 0 >-=
(/) o"E i5...o
~o.lQE~
z!G~8~
,,-;::..c:... 0 Q):!d
o c: -l-J -l-J c:.-
-l-J Q) c: l....-::J
~"OQJQJw.o
:g'~ ~~ Xl~
~ - L... Ol~ c:
Q)~S.sVl~
FC:C:"::'::::Q)(I)
~ Q) 6~.~
..u 3: 3:=~
-ec:lQ .0=
0.-- Vi rq.o
l:t= c: (I)"'::J1i) ro
QJ '" QJ E QJ l5-
~.s.~--5U
'j: QJ QJ l!!._~
I Vl(l)QJijl...
.,::-c-:6'6::J
'c8.[9o.~lrl
::JVlij"'C5V1
E OJ Q) c: ........"0
L...ElQ-c:
E"O - [3 '"
0.2:1 >-[1 ow
UroUP-E
lQ L... C:'-"O
0'l<IJ= c: 0
~221~ro..c:
c: QJ ...-"0
ID.-E~~~
~ fij Q)....Q E ffi
t'(I)QJ-l-J >
Q)~,~ re~"O
"0 .....--- OJ ro
c: -S; -l-J'" ffi aJ Q)
::JeID~c:5
-g~E~U; E
lQC:~:S::E..c:
~~~~Z~
QJJ2tOEQJ;:
:g V) E ..c: c:
~ ~ () V)'" ~ 8.
o to c: 5 0 ::J
U 0. QJ._ c:
QJ~Cl1OoC:
.0 c.QjNP.Q
"'CQJE.c19lO
"'5 (5 Q) ~ tU-g
o..c: ... l... E ::J
~;:~'::QJ..E
~ro619c..lQ
c: ~ 3: 53 E (I)
ro UE-ro
~f:g E gj&l
g::JC.~5::J
E ... 0"0 QJ
Vl E:6 'i"~..o
::E8n:ic:oc:
zrol?ga[9
QJ
:0
'"
-SQJ
",..0
QJ=
~ .-
::J ;:
0'"
'" C
QJ 0
~'8
QJ.-
.c"O
~'"
QJ'C
> ::J
",.~
.cQJ
~'"
o QJ
c:6
>- -
'" '"
E 5
(I)'en
:25~
'c .:
::J QJ
E:6
E C
o .-
u '"
~ QJ
~E
;;;13
E 0
"'-
'" ~
QJ QJ
u.c
c~
20
",:6
C .-
.- ;:
>-~
C QJ
"'.c
E~
QJ
C Ol
-0
~
.c~
u ._
"'""'-
e ~
0.0
c.;:
"'>-
_..0
'" -
C ~
o QJ
.- >
OlQJ
~ ;:
'" 0
:I:
E "
e C
---;: "
~OVl
Ii:: ::E
QJ.:-
53~z
..o~~
_CC
=00>
;: Vl E
(I)::E2
c: __ 0.
.Q Z E
1::) "- .-
.- 0 0
"lii ~
._.l!l '"
~ C QJ
.2, QJ ~
-E::J
~ Q) 0
::J W (I)
l..._ ~
<5 n;_:
~~ QJ
"Oc.c
CQJ~
"'E-
=QJ8
'" - 0.
E ~ 0
(/)._ -l-J
ATTACHMENT 2
~
,
co
<5
u
i2
o
"
~
"-
~
o
,s
"
~
o
o
E
E
o
u
o
,s
~~
~-
E~
.20
0_
~u
0";
.~~
-~
. .
0"",;
oj,!
-" "
......:Ii
.~
~~
.:Ii .S
~::o
o 0
.t:::..c:
:5'B
~ 8
__.t;;
o .
. ~
2 ~
000.
H
.~
" "
. .
E-i'J
~<U @
!!3
00 "
, "
E-
o .
;;:E
,s E
.0
N-"
88
~z
o 0
-,s
<~
b-"
.~ ~
~ ~
00 C
-g ~
-" E
o 0
Eu
~~
.:;
,s 0
E E
"2~
. c
'" "
~ .g
< E
- ""
~~
- ,
."'8 p.,
b_ "
~ ~ ~
-;5.....0
, . "
. . 0
.S! 8 ~"
=@5J
Q..;;O-;:::
til a;:
u _ 0
..9. ~ ~
0.- 0
:.a~....
. ~"O
.00
;$'.i::'tii
.s:..= 8
. S E-
~ . 0
.s ~ g
,,;E~
T~. ,S i-
.€ 8 ~
[sa
.y ~ ~
S gp '-'
~8til
. 2
€.€~
::IC"'O
o . .
u _ .
.-. c ..
"" 0 C
,.-Eg
. E .
fi3 ~ a
" 0 E-
E " 0
. . u
'c"E <u
~ ~.~
ELsZ
~8~
~a.~
.00
(3-01~
.. <u ~
. "~
E . ~
~Zl<:
o c "
.s E 0
~s~
s ~ ~
N a'>
C ~ "
:2 0 ,:::
~ '= tii
ouz
'" !3 "
r..f 0 ~
ou~
o ..
Nu"g
~.E <:
u :;.9
<: ~ 8
b. .
.~ ~.~
gsll
~ ~(~
Ji.5 e!l
1.>.~ 0......
~~~~
;:r::.y .b;;
~ ~--g~
~ ..~ '-!
.- u 0 tIl
--g.5~~
tS~~:o
~a'O~
<-5,.e.~
N ",.b 1.>
" ,~., -, ',..
~
Q;
"E
'"
u
c:
o
~
~ '"
Ol 0
2 0
E<(~
CI)::;;....
::;;W~
-u..'"
Z_.Q
'" CI) 0
..c:.J:u
f-OO
-g
'"
.8'
"0
c:
o
0.
~
L
~'
V>
c:
'iij
01
'"
tj
2
e
0.
L'
.e
c:
'"
a.
.8
~
:J
l!!
'"
V>
Ql
a.
'0
c:
'C
.s a.
"0
c:
'"
Ql
:0
'"
Ql
.0
v>'
~
'B
.~ ~
c: 0.
g Ql'.,
u .!:;.l!l
~13ID
"i:: 0 >
:J "0 Ql
":' 1:: ~
o Ql c:
~ E c:
"c Q) ro
:::::I ~i5.
E c: l!!
E '" 0.
E"O
8 1:: lij
19 ~ll
.Q '0 ID
L. .s:"o
5 c'O
>- ~.s:
]f ~ ~
c: "0 Ql
Q) c ~
E '" OJ
OJ c: E
l5.. 0 OJ
.~ E E
Eo
~ 8':::
:2 L.
.!!! ~ ~
~ ~
WL
Vl
::;:
~
z
c:
Ql
.<=
:s:
~
c:
Ql
E
0.
'S
lif
"0
c:
'"
V>
Ql
"
:J .l!l
~ ",' c:
~ ~ ~
2 8. ~
~:i'J C\
~;:; ro
~ c: "0
.S: QJ "co
.s~70
.?;- OJ .a
:= f; E
-lijCl
aJ~ 5
.<= OJ ;:
~"O '"
-g~ -c
"'"0 "0
c: c: c:
o '" '"
:p ...
ro ~ fJ'J"
.a c c
.- co 0
tn tl :P
g"V) ~
:P fJ'J Q)
'" '" "0
~ ~ -g
Q)"5 ro
c: e g'
~ '?- "a.
~ 2 .?;-
E -G! ~
B .. :J
C\J!) ~
.S: lfi ~
12 E c:
L OJ
~~ ~
6j ~ E
b:Q 8
Q) rc g
~~ "Vi
a.:s :J
l3 E .l!l
Ql
5 2 ~
+=> .19 '"
~ ~ ~
2i.2:l c
o c: 8.
Q)~ fJ'J
VI C ~
5 '"
~.2:l
l!!j9
V>
'" '"
c:.l:>
Ei .!:;
.!:; E
'" e
::;:~
.
.
;;;
c:
o
+=>
:g
'"
vi
OJ
E
;;;
u
.Q
L
.e
L
Ql
.<=
"0
E
o
.:::
'"
l!!
'"
OJ
.<=
~
.8
.!:;
01
c:
'E
8
"0
'iij
"0
c:
'"
v>'
.!!!
a.
0.
:J
V>
-"
u
~
~ Cu"
c: u
'" c:
Lj9
Ql V>
"E .~
0",
~'
c:
Ql
E
0.
'S .i!J'
lifc:
~OJ
o E
c: 3:l
o L
:Pen
:J '"
-:f!-c
.b .-
V> '"
:070
ebB
L :J
~E
~.<=
LCl
.e:J
o
V> L
C:.<=
"'~
-~
o.c:
c: OJ
o E
DC
l3 ~
0>
=0
"'01
"0 -
c: ~
'" OJ
Cl~
c:=
'5'1 w
.19.<=
v>~
L
'<=0
III _
=(f)
.0 OJ
"'~
1;;.19
Wv>
.
~
c:
OJ
01
L
"0 OJ
c: E
'" Ql
01
c:
o
E
'"
V>
Ql c:
.<= 0
... :p
~ l3
ro "c
c: :J
'" E
E E
-w 8
>
'B
~
Ql
.8
l!!
fl
:J
L
~
V>
;;;
c:
o
+=>
~
'c
'"
e>
o
Vl
U
~
2
'"
'C
0.
o
L
0.
0.
'"
OJ
.<=
~
~
c:
OJ
"0
'0
.!:;
Ql "
2i'U;"
~ Q;
Ql~
0.C:
ea
2 V>
c: c:
.- 0
OJ+=>
> '"
'B~
OJ 0.
l[j0
OJ~
L c:
:J Ql
~e>
Ql Ql
=E
.~~
~ V>
'" E
:6 OJ
v> 1;;
8~
.8 c:
2:8
0.",
"C.!:
C:"E
'" 0
~ 8
~~
u OJ
001
a'P
..+:i
:51"'5
V> E
V>
~-g
e '"
0. '
c: ~
02
+=>c:
is ~
"c ....-i
:J,
Eo;'
E<3>
8 t!!"
.<=OJ
~ ~-go
-0 ..a a.
c: .19 V>
o V> Ql
U W L
.<=
.S!!
:0
tl
OJ
"0
c:
'"
.l!l
c:
OJ
E
V>
V>
Ql
l:l
'"
;;;
c:
o
+=>
'"
:J
~
'in
.
.
.
.8E
iii~ E
~ a.~
j9QjV)
W.c S
.ooc:
"O~'"
"S.l!l=
oc:o.
'<=QlE
V> E 0
10 c u1
.<=Lv>
+-'g;!E
VI 0 .-
C CL~
0_ V>
'Bl3~
'" 0 c:
---..
"'"0 >
:25&
c:'v "
.-- ro
Cl"'E
.S: :@ Q)
C+-,"-;
Pl...3=:
:J~ 3:
o V> ;:
.2:1'" 5:;:;
.19'- 0.
v>tj~
"'.<=
-0"0__
",Ql~
Ql"O '"
o lfi Q)
+-'E~
QlEo.
~o..c
~al~
'5 I.... (/)
010 ~
"O~~
aJ.!!!z
"O-Ql
"S: rc.c
o"O~
L Ql c:
0."0 0
~-""O
'C U Q)
:::::IC~
~~8.
o III
"0 E'-
c: Ql L
~>.2:l
Qlo~
E Ol~-o
o fJ'J II) Q) ...
:r: C: E"'C C
~ o.......:! ..gs
o~o ~ '0
(:-c >--- c
19QJCl..KJ -
~~ B:e
~.8<(:8
Vl L "
Q) Q) Q) ro
.<=~uVl
:P..9:!lij~
~..~~z
ot-ElI"I
N 00
L... . Uo
roU'l(,/}N
~~::;:it
-zz
(9Q)Vl~
.!:!! f3"'C"'C
L1...&-I ro COJ
-c:~
~ Q) > E
tlJEBE
""C Q)~ 0
..E2 i5. 0 lrl
oS.~ ;: '"
E'
~
;};
"0
c:
'"
E
E
o
U
1@
Ql
E
l!!
i::" "S
o CT
B in" ~
:J Ql Vl
e :g ~
+..I 8. z
oS OJ
c-gt;
<( '"
V>
Ql
a.
'0
c:
'C
0.
Vl
::;:
~
z
Vl
::;:
~
z
o
o
"-
,
Vl
~
Ql
~
:J
o
U
V>
V>
OJ
c:
l!!
'"
;:
'"
Vl
::;:
~
z
OJ
:6
Ql
.<=
~
'0
Ql
V>
:J
OJ
.<=
~
15.
o
"0
'"
"0
c:
'"
Vl
::;:
~
z
OJ
N
'c
01
8
l!!
2 ~
~ro
E E
8 ~
.~
;;;
c:
o
+=>
:J
~
1];
c:
~
.
.
.
~~vi
o~::;:
N.<=~
L...:!:Z
"';:.<=
~ >-~
-a.;:
l3E1::
V> 0 '"
u:u=a.
'OBE
t:ID8
2EQJ
V> >.0
OJ'B 0
.<="'~
;._1.0
..o~8
C~N
:8 ~ 0'"
j9QlM
c: ~ L
OJ OJ OJ
Eo..o
OJ E E
-02
o.uo.
~.8~
Vl"O >-
::;:Ql.o
~ L
z'5~
=SaT19
~L1;;
"E~:J
~;: E
.ss:~
V> 0
~.~ :e
~~i5
~:J .!!l
L E L
Cl.. E.2-
c ~ 8 itl
o c--5
:0 19 r3 V'I
19 If) 0 C
C ..0- 0
Q) ~ -g B
~ OJ to ro
a. ~ MJ ~
.~ E:@~
OJ ~ Ql
> ,.0
ttJ l..O'C
'<=Ou
_ov>
=NQJ
;:L"O
'" x
ID Q) "i::
E~1=C
5 l3 E
E ~ 5
E_:o
8~19
...Q) 53
~~ E
E~~
> ~ 0.
~--,-.~
il(:g~
OJ 0.<=
-5 No. ~
01..... ~
c: L '"
:0 ~ FOJ
.!lio
o.tj
EO -
o Vl
. . u .::;:
>-G.!_
aJ ;'::"z
"0
c:
'"
1i
E
c:
3:l
.0
>-
l
;;;
Ql
>
'"
.<=
~
'"
.<=
~
01
c:
'c
E
L
Ql Vl
OJ ::;:
"0 ~
>- z
.0
Ql
.!:;
Qj
V>
'"
.0
~
c:
.!!!
a.
E
o
u
Vl
::;:
~
z
'"
.<=
.!!l
:0
tl
W
"S
~
L
.e
OJ
.!:;
Qj
E
+=>
"0
c:
'"
>-
01
2
~
1;;
'"
0.
o
Qj
~
Cl
V>
OJ
X:O
'C "S:
1;;'B
E '"
Ql V>
F~
Ql
";:
~V>
~'"
QlVl
(:-~
OJZ
>~
00
lrl c:
Co
-0:0
c:j9
'" c:
OJ OJ
V> E
B..9:!
0.0.
l!] .~
1..... ~
c: ._
.2 tj
~Ql
C:iI=
~ Ql
l!! Ql
0.:6
Qlt::
fijl8.
C:o.
'" :J
E III
~.8
~u
.02
o~
~L
V> Ql
OJ~
Effi
5u
E 5 ~
E +=> '"
o ~ Q)
uCl>-
-OJl!!
(91:: ::J
..Q-~
"OVl~
1ij~.s
-zc:
~ <U.S:!
:sti:fi
c: >- c:
0.0 Ql
:O>-E
'Vi ttl QJ
01:0.
o.QlE
="C .-
';: c: Vl
:J::;:
::g~z
.2 rc L....
tj~o
rc~4-
Ql~~
ID ID.:
fiE 5-
b';?: ~
c ~ QJ
.2 V)..o
tl~=
Q.:p 3:
Ec:~
o Ql '"
u:2ti
N
Q;
"E
"
(.)
c:
o
~
01 :g
2 0
E<(N~
(1)::;;..-
::;;WL
-LL"
Z_.o
(1)0).9
.<=Io
f-ClO
(/1'" ~
wID ~
..c c:: 'C
Q) .!:: +-'"0 Q) .,!!;! Ul
pl,l).s~..c U::;E
OJ "'-0-
W....:o ..c ~ 0 ro c Z
-;:::;:'C U Q).... c CO_
......... l'tlL..V'lO "'5
E:Jea.Q):C~ll-
ro E Cl. "'O\z'" O-Vl
xEa.crc 0::1
Q) 0 tC .Q~ QJQ) 0
5u~c=t:i>~
u. ~ Q) Q) .... Q).-
,_c>c'O"O~
~~ftJ~~~ffi8
.Q 0 .!!!" 8.C:E aJ
tj.....~Q)Ero:J"5
ro 13 .... g .- o'+- :s
(l.JCl!lro..c(,!)~Vl
UcnC..c='=VlrtlC
.ffi'~~[i~~ID8
~~~-g~~~~
8:J~~e~=iO
"~aJO-aJi3.c
~ e.s ecL.'c 3:
Q) c.. !rl :J "T 0.. ..c
..c::rc~OQ)75u.s
~-ll-:G~c2V'l
L. 0 0 L..L..2"'C co
8.~...o 0..10 cU
c..c...~ L-z ro-
::JE-C:"', >-z
III to 0 Q) U Q)
"'x....:p ?" OJ =..c
.s aJ fI) to._..c 0......
::l N.:!:.... 0..
CJ'l C ........=:J. >-
l1Jn:sC:i:lEO-!IJ1..o
~Vlro:J c.l'O-o
:J.-..c Q)"'C Q) Q)
oc....>cco>:J
IDln~:groIO~
L..<(oQ).~Q)~'-
aJuElE:E.2:_g'
g::;:..cQ)rotJ=.-
l1]-uQ)EQ)3:~
.j.J Z :J L.. - L.. Ul
.~'-'Eo"Ol5:rl!l
~oVlEro__c
roo'-rolJ1tOzw
itil-"'o.~:gaJE
u~::E""'oQ)..c~
.- 0--0:0-0+-'.-
.E c..Z ro ro '(ii .s 5-
u o..Q)~c ~....... QJ
Q.l:J,c=Q)Q..cL.
......Vlt-.- E Q)-
-gc .3:Q)~E~
(l::Q)~tO"5.5~.Q
oE=..cEuQ::~
....... U) Q).......- Q) Q) "'C
OJ:!l VlQ)C/lUl L."O
L..ll)tOc::E"'Ocut"C
QJU)..oo_cL...C
..c <( QJ "2 It! :J.-
3:.2;g~=v"5=5
C= ro Q):J E L1.. VI
0.:0=-0'+-...0 . Q)
C 0..._ L...::J:"-"L..
o~EgQ) 0-=.
:0", 8.- > aJO- aJ"
IOU QJ@'5zS:C
E.......Ul 0'lL... ..._>-g,
L..C::Eroo~cro<LI
~~z~~a:.!S!E.o
.- QJ -l-' E Vi ~a.. .!:!!-g
a:l~ffi-g.~c:5Fro
:Ec:L...ro~.!S!~ '"
>roS,-:ca..u-=O
e~uoro<LI2~~
a..-l-' L... I,j,;;. c.. tn e w>-
Offi'ijj~(95a..=LL
.5!!-oErowQ.QJroc:
ro'o a.. VI tn l;;. c:.-
.~.s.~~5~t:8 ~
-l-'_ c: a..-::J ro c:
to ~ "E QJ ID ~ b c: .~
EOL...~L...otnQJa.
W:o 2 >--0 :0 ~ E E
.croQJ~C:tOc:-l-'O
~Z-o>roZ_rou
aJ
Cl
'"
0-
.0
aJ
;;:
~
.l!l
c:
a
c:
o
:0
~
Cl
.l!l
c:
-
'"
:;;:
-
Z
aJ
.c
~
c:
o
aJ
]5
.!!!
.m
>
'"
aJ
~
'"
'"
c:
o
~
aJ
::J
0-
"
]1
Vl
'"
>-
'"
c:
aJ
::J
0-
f!!
~
.s
l!!
aJ
~
c:
'"
"
c:
'"
aJ'
u
c:
.!!!
i5.
E
8
'"
:;;:
-
Zlii'
",' E
:::E 'c
z~
c:
o ni
5 E
:p..E:!
E ;i
~ ;;:
.E;;:
.!:
aJ
~j:j
0.<::
:;;:~
'"
~
Q)
c:
aJ
()
c:
.Q
m
Ci ~
2 0
E<("'..
CI)::;;....
::;;w~
z~~
mU).9
.<:Io
f-OO
.l!l
c:
Q)
"0
.0
c:
Q;~
O\~
'" 0\
c:
/'0 .S:
E Vl
::J
c=- .8.l!l
Q) c:
'" ::J Q)
Vl c: >
Vl :p Q)
Q)
aJ c:"o
c: 8 ~
. .
III
C
o
~
'C
III
'I:
:I
...
G
.9
'C
C
III
III
J:I
'I:
I-
..
oS!
><
'I:
....
III
::E
c
o
:c
.l!l
c
Q/
E
Q/
Q.
E
...
III
::E
...
z
.
Q)
~ Vl
o 8.C: ii5
co.. VI :5 -0
.Q <u c::...... C
+-' I- 0 c're
21:: P'i:ijco
~Q) 19:::l:p
Q) -0 C"'C rt'I
l....u EQ) c: ~
c....f: to OJ
o - ..!!1.l!l E
:p ~ ~ Q) OJ
reL.,. Ew-
~~ U;EE-
u~ ::E>-'-
e...!.. _"Otrl
0.(6 z~~
,,-"'- ~~z
OJ.~ +-' c=
"EeL: 4-02
0""0 0._
.....jj~
~ _VI c:.-..e
:pc: Q)~>-
:::10 E.CC1
~B ~.2.jB
x .- OJ L. ro
QJ~ tIl::J L...
..c "C ~ 0 tl
OI::J Q) >- rtI
5'~ .!:~a.
L..,C Qj:5.2 ro 0-::0 >
:Ei +-' Vl Q) Co ro - 0
Ul~ "'.l!l>ai"'EQ.
.... ..c c: Q) u U Q) E .
::Ec rcCU"CcVl""",wl'O
z.2 . c. E (1)'" ~ :E 3i +-' E
.....iU E.Q.g;~.E:lz ~"*-~
Cl.V5 Q) Q) ::J ~ .S: QJ $: E ~
.g"51tl [j 0"/'0 ro.,c.+.; ro $:
<(~ 0l0~..c Et- retrl 3:
"0
"'0 2-0
C ~2~6
roc "'Cl~t+=:P
Eo VI'- O'l'- /'0
EE~~25E
8 E 13 <L .S: -0'" ..e
... O.Q) 1... +-,'" c: c:
_UECl.cro'-
::~o--=-Q)E-g
.E:l.c:.o>e~Ero
Co u +-' 0...
rc::l+-'CC'luz-
t::..c:: tIl C 8 ~....._
.ouV)cu 1'00=
t1Vl'~ ~b EZ--2
'-::E~ClCQJ'CC
~ -'-rof'OU::J::J
OcZWCCl...L. 0
.- .- '+- 1:) ro VI :J "0" U
~.~ 0 ro E Q) ~ c u
!: to VI ro ..::is Q) ro ro
~cQ)..c:croL...EC1)
"'O.Qc.uOQ)Q)E~
.........._(/):00\> :::::I
-g~.~u ~ ~'Vi 8 fil+-:i
ro+-'I--'-roC4-Q)C
Vl~C.odijE~ol....Q)
E'- "'C C C'l Q.l '-"'0 E
lo... VI c =0 5 d 5.~ c ~
{!!..~~-fi"-'!:E~~ro
.. c ~ c .!2 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~
Vl .- ::J +-' E
u ~+-'"O.!S!"''''5
- cCOC.IDtn QJ
Q) oEQJEc:pCo~u
.~ u 0 .- QJ C
fij . QJ ~>:Bu~ c.~
c E 10 rc ~ rc J:! .~ -e'" =
:8.22 g,~occ: 5 ~2
B";I...:E.!:QJOJEE.!:
~~8-eEBBEE-e
c > c C OJ ~ ~ 0 0 c
_ ~ _ rc ~._._ U U rc
. .
v
Q)
:c
.!!!
.iij
>
'"
.!!J
~
l5
::<:
~
z
~
.
.
Q) .....
> QJ >- ID
..9:!~b.c -e
~c: E c: .g
.~~ ~:8.t: ~.~ ~
Effitn-8o:8ijc
Ec.rcrcCrcOJ8..
8 OJ- ... N tn VI
-e(U~~.E.2:l~
(])...... ~ .- rc rc
..c.CtnZ~~>-e
.....Q)E"'Q):po.c~
10 ....Cl:J- c. vi
Ul E lfl rc tn...j9 -e 1:: c
~ QJ.- I... C C C (]) 0
...:..>u:JoQJrcE:P
- 0 c 0._ E rc
Z Cl~g~ c~~.~
15..=rcQJu1i;orcc
orc-c"O~>~crc
-oI...CCtnozrc~
<e..ercftlftlCl......Eo
.
"....... Q)'" 0
Ulull~ :5 ~.~ ~
CWVlDcE..... '"
- QJ C.U 0'- ~ -0-
"O~--e"Oc=ca..
E '0 0'I..c. ... QJ 0 C. ftI VI
~'~.E:S; K1~~ g-Cl6
>-I...>~Q)~+->.!:::p
UlU:JQ)--'"OCCcrc
C U U U tn EQ) QJ c.~
-eOJ~C:J ~ftlc
c ~...... ftI b ro.....9:!.~ a: :J
E(])-o"Etntnc.ccE
E~~8~~.~8.Q5
876~M:8~~~~u
+-> c.CftlU_+->~C
C QJ QJ .- N 0 Q) C 0
QJO'Il...ll'-1... '-eQJE
-ercC.cCC.Ul:J-e
.- C-o QJ rtJ-e::E_-- E
~rcc>~c_u~o
_~ ftI (]) 0 rtJZ.!:_U
~
Q)
1:'
Q)
u
c:
.9
15
en ~
2 0
-= <( N.
(I)::;;"
::;;w~
zb!:~
Q)"'.9
.c:Io
f-OO
Vl
'"
Vl
Vl
'"
u
e
0-
'"
~
co
"0
0-
::J
"0 .
C Vl
co c
",12
VlO-
.~ "0
0:: fij
c c
COO
....... opp Q)
c: Q) rtI rtI en Vi
Q)>-cVl.~EVlrtl E
E'D Q) -"'0 L..::E c...
Q) c-o::l '-2- 'c
C1Q)cS8cz"ffi
~~2iEUi~3:Q)i3
~uQ)O()C:""'-~~
..:.. Vl -a 0 c 0 c Q) '....
(j.-.S:t;;Q)Poc .E
53~~~~:g~a~~
O'lUJ O'lu:b<Cti c~ s:
L...-C"'C- OOms:
Q.lQ).-c:::lvic...+=>>$:
E~g.rc:rEQ)~ro
w~""ffi >-Vl Q.l..o Ole
wt:i>""C:rt:i=2dJ
.r::. c Q) .a - >--- c..c :j:'j
t-_"'CVlZVl;::_;::..c
.
1l- '" ~ 13
c VI 0..= -a 0
Q,lc:::J .215ffi-..Vl
~ Q)"'C ~ c..E Vl l...
",Ec "'co :;;2
E"'co>-"OUE~c
"''''~U 2;-8c",
..... ro c: c: ~._ u"'u
'- c OJ OJ -- >...... Vl.
8. E ~ g V).. ~ lfi ~ 5 ~
0...... 0:6 E ~:2O"1:Pw
~53(jj"3~C:~1S~1l
-g~aiE~8::o~j9
"'"'C~"'2c.!:B-..OVl
(l)C..c.......Ol'OoVl>."'C
.......ro...ro:o1:-O"uc
ro 1.... ro.- c U c: co
C +-'..c 0\ c: ro Q) - Q)...........
rc~ c: Ollll-- E W"-ClVl
:b1-~::Ic"E ~l!lffiU
- 0-- 0._ o-o.c> Vl EO
::Iou..2_0CCIJO w
::Eu.!::.......O u rc..c a.. w.........
~ c
20 ui
a3 ID 3:l E
u u Vl 'c
c :e ...: >0
o ~ .....
~a.C1.
~ co co
O'l....... 0.. E
",Vl.o
c~~~
-Q)>~
VlSVl$:
:;;:~:;;:s:
-co-
2 ~ Z ..
2=2:!tJ
t-s:.........c
.
Vl
Q;
"E
'"
U
c
.2
li!
Ol :g
2 0
Ect:Nk
(I)::;;..,.
::;;w~
zb!::~
Q)U).9
.cIo
1-00
'"
5l
'"
.,
u
f:!
a.
2
'"
-0
a.
:J
-0.,;
lij c
.,.!!l
",a.
.~ "'C
0:: lij
c
o
;p
'"
E
~
.E
c
~~
.!.2 ~
-.,
.ou
:JiE
.oJCl.o
C-o
., ., C
E u 0
aJC:O
Ol"''''
'" > C
C -0 t:
",< 0
~ .~
~CXlC
-oCXl~
c M U
ro!t!..:B
-0 Ol :J
CcCl.
to._ u
E C .-
.- '"
E ~ It]
81-'"
C .
_....Q~
~~N
~"'~
2E"tJ
0-6c:
"'~ '"
6.5~
Ul~~
~.g1E
ZCl.O
C .,
~ 0 C:I-~ ~ IDe:
~~~~ ~~w~~ro~ ~~aJ
aJC:"'C~OC ~uaJE~~~- u"Ul/l"
C)Q)C:uO VI to .......Q)z ._
COL.-OJ :0 Oc:=>tnVlQJ c:1j
c:;a..Eltlrtio.otOOo5..c Ore
~uQ)oEC:Q):O~ ..co~ ~~~.
~~~eoo~ro ~~uc: L... fOro
~_-~~E=~~EC:Q)o ~~o.E
c:~cro-~~2..c~oID"'C., 2c~~~
Q)~ro-u_ C:~..c ~
cnW OlU=- c_ s: 5.......~ .- w:> ~
:U~.,.!:"'Cc~ .:8V'l ~S::o Q) 0 ~Ul 5Vl $:
a.. .... VI :E s: ro ....... a.. ro :E: ....... ::E 3:
E~oro~EE_~ E~Q)a..-ro_
w.......a:; >Vl2 L...Z..o" L.. 0-..0 Z.2z
Q.l.......>"'C::EVlO ,PE=..o.,.,=.,
~~~~-z>~Q)Q)~~o'_>~'-..c~
t- _ ...... w, Ul .!: ~ :s: ..c _ uS::> t- s: ....... ..s::
.
.
VI'" Q) ra 1::
~ ~~'o
::J a::s"-'
a:J2~e-g
u 13 o.s ro
~'2 ~ C E
:J E OJ OJ
",' E ~ -0 ti
~E.E'O>-~
V'loc:cVlQ}
Q) U .-'- c:.......
~ 02 ffi.Q iji
c.~ ~ O'liOu
C :J C C C
C ro W'e t: 0
c:(])"iS..~::J..e:p
- E i- ..-0 c: rc
uQJo>-u-E
.- ____-.-....... L..
:B"5.-o~::Cc..e
6:.5 ffip RQ.s
.
2
'"
.C
a.
f:! .
a. a.
a.'"
",Ol
"'~
to=
>.:0
Ol'"
.,a.
~'"
~ U
"tn~
., 0
itju
-0-0
a.c
=>'"
.
~
.1:
:J-
E g
EI-
01:
U 0
~a.
:Ja.
~~
ll~
C C
., .,
E E
., '"
.: ID
:J ~ ..
iif<.!!l
L-z,5
5=2
:o..cClJ
19 rc:t: .~
c: 0.= x
.,au.,
E ~"O
Q) Vl o.s:
-::E.........
0._ (lJ VI
.~ Z:o i3
UlQ).!2E
:;: .c .n; .-
_t->c
Z . ro >
.c ll., .sa 0
U .
~~~~
VI >-LS~
ID~:E:~
VlW-s:
~~3s:
.
"'
-0
C
'"
In
o
",0
}.N c:
1: it :8
:JE .,.l9
.cc
E ~.,
8 ti E
c., .
Q) -10 0.. II
:5 ~.~ ID
-& O,l\,O E
.- co OJ
::0--0 L...
~~~.~
w..cu..~
(;j
l'
Q)
U
l::
o
~
Ol ~
J!! 0
.Ec:(N_
Ul~'"
~w~
z!:!::]
Q) UlI Q
.c u
f-OO
al
E
- '"
~~E~
Otnec:
If') c::...... 0
-oSltno..
c c.n S K1
CO Q).- L...
fJ)~tj"'C
C c: ~ c:
CO :c c.. en vi
o..~,,-,Vl5
QJoID5:::o
1;J e-..o'~ ~
R8uQ)Q)
:J.!::6~g.
.
ffi ~
'" C
..c '" ~
QJ+,j "'C ~
> /'0 .5......
'" '" l.-' uu..
.r::;0l
"-'ra V)E.......
~ a. ID:t: ~
......0 C . c:
tn Q) Q) '+- ~!:g 19
ES ~"CL...Cl..tI'I
r:r.n ro ~~'Vi
8':<: :g l!!",~
L... - f~~ 0.. ~ V'I
a.z 'oJ lI) _ Q) VI
+-lID Ea~E~
C:.t::. ro 0 v)"c
r:~ L... :pVlCU
010 cn~roQ)L-
~Q) eoz~~
Q)_ Q..u-croQ)
c:~ "-' c'Q:"-
"0 '.... C"'O ro 1:1 0...
~~ ~Oro~~
~ro ~Ei8~ID
~~ 'C '(,I)~E
c.. co (I)::J'o (I) '0'8 >
ro~Elrl~~"@_O
mz"cUl::J~::J ra .
"'0 "'0' L... ci..ID ro
u..Q)E E; 5"0 ro......."C~
+-' ~.5tq~._.aJ.
E.8cO EaJ 3: a: 3:...... s: Q)E 3: a: 3:
..... E ;;: ;;: 0;;: ;;: ;;:
oalQ)~s:ro;:O\3:~3:ros:
-e 4'-; c::::::: 0 c:::::::
~ 0 s: ~ .. :8 Ci2 .. ~ ":8 i:i.
2-1Eoj:jz"'j:j",j:joj:jz"'j:j
c(L.:>N..c J::U..cNJ:: .r::.
.
.
.
.....
C
E ~ >.
2 Q).....
Vl -"c
f:i' E"::J
'" ._ E
,,-,_oE
c co +-' 0
.. Q.J L.... 01 u
E Q) c: Q.l
.~~:a~
0._ c: V)
E co 2 V)
~2~~
c ro QJ ro
roC::C:V)
a.=e ~:E:
00L..._
ID 0 ~z
> U Q) Q)
~ .s 0.:5
.
.
.
'"
a. J!l'" Q) c'"
Oc"'O 0
VlQ).2; :0
-g C ~ w'" ~
ro8.'o~ro
~E.....o[;
o _ a.
..!BUID~+-i"::g
0-lJ)._ Co C 0
Q):E U Q).-
..._=dEtJ
~z 8..!:.g./tl
a. Q) "'C c:: :J aJ
:JtOc'~g.~
"'CL...ro..... 1::)
c:: Q V) ... ui" OJ
ro ~~ g5:: t:
~ 8 .Q-.c'o 8
-- c U c:: 1-
>.- C ro Q) "'C
~.s'~c.~~
Q)
C Ol
'" '"
is: L... Q) CI.. vi
tI)~.o -gE
5c=(j)3:"c
p::l3::EL...>
r:.!:!2-o_ 20
QJQ)CZC
o..utOQ)wro
Oiij~:6uE
>--OQ) CQ)
u'-Eco"":
Iii ~ 0.. o:p ;:
Ol 0-0"';;:
ffi Cl:'Qi ~ ~;:
E@[i:Bt:.i..i
w __"'00.._ ro
.
"
~
Q)
"E
Q)
u
<::
o
""
~
Q) :g
.l!! 0
-= <( C\I~
CI)~..,.
~UJ~
z~~
Q) U) .8
.r::;Iu
f-ClO
enc L. ~~~
~...... .!:o E.~ ~ro:;:1:: .c_
Q.J C o:c c: 0'1-0 l/) Ell! .
Em O'l~ 2:J(J):J... ~~ro
ll!", ccnro~~~e~",~EQ.JQ.Jc
l!!ll!u ~m~~;~~Q.Jzo~~o
en ~c-cnuz~u uoc~
i'tI'~~ ....- ~ C C Q) e~"O..c &.c
"'C <1.l ::J Q)... (/) Q) = CO..c ~ 0....... C QJ V)
~V)~~c..~"'C'~~""'2""'cro~QJ~
~~~~~~B~~~~~o~~;'~
:J&oV)"OQJ-"'Ccn~uEi's"'C~Q)
~ c.~ c c ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) c g.~ QJ 2 ~ ~ .
E:Jcoro~zuroEo_oL.V)roroV)
V)QJ~~o~-:Cc.:CQJC.L.~:CE~
~~EroEo~L.~~O~~QJ~2mL.ro
roo~L.c.~2o"'C~cn"'C~QJc"'C~"'Cc
c.~:JOc.oc:CQ)>QJ =cn--mC
xQ)~-c:J~QJroL.QJ~~'~ro>ucoB
W~QJ_l/)QJUCU"'C_.....>c.~ Uln
.
.
.
.
-
'"
2
-
c
:::;
N
'of-
-0
ll!
'"
o
o
- ....
c c..
ll! 0
E N
~ 5;f
c.. :o<e
.gJ ~~
"C 0\ iJ.l
.jij .!!1~
fij :g <Zl
:J 1""1 ro g
~~~-o
E ('--...
::1'-''+-0
~....EO-o
sqQJ.D
0...0 +-' '1) C':i
U Q) ~ ~ .c_
I :;;: V) c.)
QJOItl~u...
-"'....E
J9Et: ...!.
VI OJ'- ~ ~
W ~QJ a: 0
-g;:-g~~
E;:E<~
u "U~:::R
<( <( 0
::Etj:E:;=B
w.c w...s:: e':j
B
~
-
c
8
'"
. .
co ~
-5 ~
E 2
2 (j~ ~
o C ::J'e
Ewuo...-
o O'l.!: Q) ~
a.~oEQ)
-02.1-1 E
f6.S: J!)"'E E
c"'CCS:~vi
.- ffi QJ l!l 0 25
2QJ~cll!'?:C
l'tl-l-'Q.J ere
.g.1*~Eo.~
.~ co co ~ c ~
~ '-"'0 l...."'C 01
&!.~'iij ~ffi 0
....
'"
c
'"
u
c
o
~
C>> ~
.m 0
.Ec:(~
(I)::ii'<t
::iiw....
z~~
",(I) 0
..cJ:t>
f-OO
;:
Q)....,tj
" ~ I!!
~=;ij q:: =a ~
'c~-gro ...5
'jij~ Itl Q) C a..
J:; E l!l ~ ~ ID
~'5.r.()'~::
8'b~c'-o
z L.. ~;:: ~V\"'.........
+-' a. L... V) C
ro Q) VJ"'j!! QJ (lJ Q)
:5:5~~~-6~
~O~5C~~
~~o..o"Q;o..c
craEV)-~1'O
wo..Q}~eo..E
....,
"
.
Vi
lE
~
z
o
o
.....
,
Vl"
~o
.l!ltl
Q) ::>
o..-g
E ~
0"'"
u.s
.!:!! 2 .-
~.l!l ;: Q)
2 Vl"HCC en vi
c 3:itij5.Q ~ E
Q) 0 L.. Q)....... .-
u _:a-tOc.n..c c
cC'CroVlo..E~Q} >
o..c=cEo_3:Q)o
~~'~:E 8~z L..Q)~ .
L...c I.J .- Q.J +-' ro
5rj9~~ ~~:5lii~ ~
1:: ID....c::J 0 cu..c4":
-oE.i2.8Eoc~~
Vl.....Vl_O"C"'OOro3:
~ Cl'C ~"'~2:l~ iQ ~
Zero 0 Vl VI L..
32 ..c: - VI . 0 0'1 C ..
Q)~<.>"OQ).l!lCl.Q)Q)
.c~EQJc~tOQ.Jc~:t:::
1-;> rorc"O..c_:>..c
.
'"
Jj
"
'"
c..>
"
o
~
0, :g
.$ 0
.E<(~
CI):;:v
:;:w~
z~~
Q)CJ).9
.<:::1:"
f-OO
1:
"'
c.. V)...~
.~ ~~
.~ .Q g
.~::;:ija.5}
~ L E <1.l
~ 0 Q) 10....
c..~3:""
~ ~ ~&
1O~.2:!-g
.p e .~ ta
Q.J a. Ci J!J
:s~ e's
~ ~ 15:0
wo/'C~
.
.~ ~ .~
.Ed lIl"HCC ~ ~
c 3:a:i:B.Q ~ E
w 0 L... QJ'" .-
U _iJ-ftIV}..L:l c:
croroU')Q.E::aQJ >
o..c=cEo_3:wo
~~'~E 81=2 wl-~ ~
L... ..0 '-' .- Q} "..
Clro+->.-Q.l-.r:::.t: .E
QJ~rc-ol!!ro...... QJ
.....U').!:Vl::3C uQ.JJ5~
cQ)+-"cooc .
-oE.2.uEoc~3:
Vl....trl_o-o",ooro3:
::E Ql'C ro +-,"'C Q) +:l > s::
-CroUVl<(i:;)~ro
z:5;2.c..2 Vl .0 Ole:
Q) I.... U "'C ~ 19 Cl. Q) Q)
.,c~Q)EcuraQ)c.;j::j
r--:> roro-o..o_:>.c
.
~ en
c: .!:
"'~ c:
:s! -0 'n:;
:J ~
~~~
~ wE 1:
w ~
Eo2
0.- w
Vl.2 ~"iS.
ro Q) Q) E
. > -C 0
8~ u
co c: "0
.!:!l ~'c"'5
VI 'c "iij ,g
- "(5 .b Vl
.0 ~ 0
wl-V)..c::
.:;;: E E :t
E ::3 'c L...
III "'5 VI.E
>.~ E VI 'JJ
o t: .- Q)
+.; :J C -0 E
rtl n:i U 4- 'S .-
OJE-o"Oe..e
:i5J!;!ro>Q.S
~ '"'C 0 Q)
.- c Cl'
~.s: ro . ra C\1
/'C.S:ViEa.E
Q)~_Q)..o~
Ill+-' ttl_ (IJ .
5;;: 6 ;;::s: ;>:
o :t :p :t 1Il ;;;
U :t "' :t::E ;;.
Q) Z _<
.S: .. Ul .. Z ;...
~jj~jjQ).....
o.<::z,<::~.E
s
.
.
.
c:
<(
.. 0:.
c<
z
o
o
co
,
1IlC:
- 0
2:e
w :J
0."8
E ~
o~
u.s
~
2
c:
Q)
U
c:
o
~
~ ~
2 0
E..:N
CI):2~
::;;w~
z!::!::~
Q) Ul 0
..cJ:o
1-00
OQ)C1 t:
~..CI~ ra
(/) >-.!S! 0.. ~
U ro1:: .~ 3:u:::
- E Q) 0lQ)-C
-C"'~ eec
era I..... 'c = rtl
rc fi u .- ro VI
~L...~
o C'l~ ....e.S
o eVIL...
M"C:O ~Eu
~"tO rn - to ~
-bo .1UEnvi"~
Q)w.....r.n..c:ewaJ
..... ..... -c -0 +-' 0.. Q)"'O
Q)Q)Q)L...Q) >c
a.a.L..fOL.,.Q)o
E E"s-g ~:5Ci.8.
oogj9c......EW
UUL.U'lWOQ)1-
.
Vl
:c
~
Q)
u
c
ro ..... JB
:2"OQ)
=> C.
~ (.!:) c E
~c Q) 0
g Q.lEu
N Eo:2
.~ o.._::J
~ i3~~
..CI~[j"Oo
CWCO ..c:
Q;.~ en C'l.S :::
E .S E .S .S c 5
OJ C Q) C c"co.....
.- .-.- L.
~~6~~""'2:l
_ _1-U'lClIi
6rci6E.S~.s
E C!1 E C!l..:! C "5 c
.2:!1'tI~ra:::::lU'lO'l
'E 'E'~EU'l6
.S~.S~ :;'E~ .
.~~.~~~i:).~ E
+-' :::::I ..... :J I- Co.2
~~~~-g6~~
::3:;:3:Ul19nj~3:
~ ~ E
"~"":-:--Q)-"Q)
0.. o..ro..... ..
tjtj:t:U:l 5 i;J:tj
..c..c::..c..c::O::Vl.J::
oooo~::~cn
0000 c
....-IT"""lNNVl..Z.c
u)U'JUlUl::E Q).-
uuuu-z~..c:~
____ ........1--.....
.
I
.
2
<=
Q)
c..>
<=
o
~
0, U)
2 8
-= <( N.
(I):;;"
:;;w~
z~~
Q) (I):c Q
.c u
t-ClO
.~ Q)
L... V'l CL.(R
JB c -02
c ~O ~"'Ccaj
Q) >:p oQJQ)-
U g.~Q):otlu..CI
croro"i~iJOc~
.Q..c::=="C:::::I"O 0..0 ro
iC'~3::JO<(Q):O~
1...::0 ....... U ...0 rc
~l91013Bl9= ~ID ~
t::fi-S.Q~~3:~~~
~B~"C~55-Q)~
~ ._Cu._:oUlC'l~
.:.. en c ro roaJ ro::E ro :>
zCtOU'l -E-o..
32..c Q) U 0.. L... Z..c ..
lVoa1tC~E.EQ)Q)
.c > E~.- 0 cJ:::>tj
1-:> Vl-au._+-,>.J:::.
Ul ";ij
~ c
z vi".Q
Q) ~;: 1j Q)
~ro-o5~
5 ~~ -.. ~
e-.c.21tJ=s
0.- u Vl_
~b.!:.O"O
.0 ro.s ~ lij
....... U .. QJ ... ui
~.Q1tJc.1tJ~
c~.!:!2.s.~.-
:P .... i:! QJ i:! i:!
5.s~:o~~
u.!: QJ 19 QJ QJ
...
"C
~
~
E
~
J:::
vi
&l
.~
Q)
&'j
.
<1l
-"
.C
~
_ "C
roffi
.s",
<= c
.- .c
u .~
t::.~
Ul-
~ ~
Z .9
'"
2 ~
~"O ui
o C Q)
Q.<1lVl
~~ .~
-.Q~
Vl
~~ ..!.
Z::J ::2
c:U
.- .!: If)'-g
2o~ra
~ -I-I..'~ ((lOJ'
'0 Kl Q.l
:e.~~'~
lO~a.Q:jvi
"'-OJox81
.s~1U(]J'e
~~~~ ~
c.... ow
:j::j C 1Il"':P QJ
c: .~- u_
89~.2~
.
~
c:
'" ~
'" '"
.5
l.:l
~
c:
OJ~
U'"
c:
'"
E c: E
~ .c ~
.c .c
vi ~ vi
OJ OJ
'" '"
.0 l~
~
OJ OJ
x &'l
.
.
.
.
Vl
::;: J!!
Z E.9-
0==
"'C c: '-::I
I..... 0 \I- E
~"'C ~-a
ro OJ Q) C
-T~-gro
=.oOVl
ra E ~~
crccu=
ra L. i- a.
.S ~ ID"S! vi
2 5.~ =0 25
~~g~B
'-.- c: 0.'-
.~ ~._:s::; ~
~ OJ 1Q"'5"C
g:~-5E.2,
OJ
'"
"e
Jj
C-
o
0
Vl
I :t:i
0 .c
.
0",
1:' c:
.- '"
~a.
o OJ
Bl:Q
'" 0
OJ"'-
> '"
.- ~
~'"
t:: C Vi
o ro SU
U'" _
Q)~~
~-5~
o ~ 0
e-ro5.
o "'-",
U OJ c:
.s B.. ra
'"
Ci 1:: ~ .25 ~Ea5
ra'~ ~~Z ~~~
.... Q) OJ c: c:..:;'~ ..c >=
ai"E ~~oc:c ~&~
EOE'CI....91aJO(J)>n:iro
..!!! ~Q)~ a ~ ~~:E Qj E.~
a.o~ .~::::IOlE-....Q)Q)
E.....>-()..-OraL...zc:"'-;;~
.-lfiU) _UC:OQJuOJ;;:~o:::J
"tJ>C\a3:Eroco';::J::
~ .S .S e'~ QlL = ~ c u
-"OJ C:OJro o_w
",-OJuEW-;::::;:uc:O+:i--
o~ro ~oL...o"O~o..-S
""[j::J.bW+-,-::JPQJOl~C
>o"cQJ~~Sli5t)2..c~
~ ~ 1ijF.s~~~ 8..51U ~
Vl
~t
z~
1!OJ
~a>
o c:
+-' '0..
~~
BID
.c ~
",:::J
OJ ~
"'l"
OJ
~~
fiLs ~
~c ~
;;:.Q E
~.2 Vi VI
L.. ~.~ E
0._ +-,"c
tfl '-'c >
25.E ij:: 0
._ '- OJ
.... QJ"O to
is ~ a> E
(j::CC
i5a.c.~
oc:~:i
E.Q OJ ;;:
&:~~~
o ~6;'
"'-OJ",
O+-'Q)j:j
6:.5c:::..!:
:::
E
~
.c
'"
'"
.iij
.
.
vi
"E
OJ", '"
"'c:'"
c: '" c:
0- '"
",-OJ~
'" E '"
OJoa>
~.c c:
~ 0.15-
'c+-'~
:::J E !lI
E ~ l:
E..e ::J
o c: 0
u 8 ID
i':"o~
o~~
1:: l!)'c
OJ OJ :::J
~ ~ lrl
-"''''
~
OJ
1::
OJ
u
c:
.Q
li!
C> ~
.2! 0
E <( N_
cn::;:v
::;:w~
z!:!::~
(])(/.)E
.cIu
1-00
,
I
.s::::
c.!:a
oECl~
c: c:
E w 0
oc:a.
U"(ij ID
~i5.~
'c"C ra
=> c: ~
~"'o
'" >-~
~ Cl Vl
Q) .Q "E vi
~gra~
pOEEo:;;
5L.5B
u2urc
.
CUI.I-
EU"C
~c:
.s::::'"
ui:2
w
::c co
"'"C c:
W c: ~
l6.o ro . jY:
::1= V)"'C c:
tJo_- ~o_
'" :;: !!J {g ,;:
>-cc:U
-g Q) l'IJ ra c:
ro-5Et)~
V10-C..c:li;
~U'lQj~E
.~ {g u:: g q;
QJ~..;wc:
~ E ~ .S: g
ClEE~Cl
o~8c:a.o~
I- 0 QJ "-
-6.c: .!::: fi .;:!
___.sa > .....
V) 'OdD ti "'Ow
c: c: W
OWC~~
~ c.2 ~ QJ
.~'ro~o.oui
5a.~~.86
E ~.~ ~ QJ:p
E .a "1'"> c:=> is
orc:o~._'c
U J!:!"S c:J
ill"CE~8~
6"'5 f'O-o >-0
0.. 0 c:"'5 ra u
Vl..c:.- 0 E...
Q) U') c: c:
l...'-'o-55VlQ)
~"'P wE
C C U 01"0
<U QJ C.S: 8 t:
"C-C:JC rtl
'2'~~'~sar
___ .......... "'C
. .
. . .
.
~
~.. .~ "'0 rou
'" .s:::: c:
>. ro :6 I'C... .Q
.ococ "'0
~:8""':8 ffi
.L:l rc QJ ra~_
- "iJi C Uc: U '" '"
Vl --..c ui
OE- 1:: ro 5 .2I"C E
ro:2E=.....
l... >:J .- 0 ~
2S...2:! 0'1 E ~ C 0'1
...~-g8ffi.-e
53 ..... ro ... c. ~ 0..
+-Ira .....o...c
~fi~ffiQj~.Q
Q)Q)~E~8.~
.c:L...-oa. L..'-
-I-I~~'5j98S-
~ lfi VI :if ~.s rc
~ '"
c: '"
.2:l 12
'" .s:::: U
.~ ~ ra
OQJOlU)
U...c c"E
-o4->Wra
ffi g.!:-g
.- rc 19 ~
ijl-ga."'{l
.t:!uo II) Q)
"E.S: ....... 5 VI
~ >:m:oz-
C:ClEiS2
.C3-@.r::.'Crtl
VI c .!:a :J Vl
>-.-:::c E.!:::!
~EI9E:g
<e2ID8c.
'"
~ Vl ~ ~E,"
Em ~z~ "'a."c::O
- -i~ _ra
QJCc 0)> .o~~
~~o EC Q)en>
c ::; 91"'0 Q).9 r.n s: rci to
ra u ~ c 011t):E l... E.!:a
:::EVl:Jro~E-2Q)CLJ
>-;=,oC:IlJI-ZC"-;Vl
u_uo~oQ)Q)3:L..
C:E rap":"t:.cU 3: 5
~WClr3c'-""'C3:u
c.- "-' C .- .0 ro c 0 _ Q)
Q) Q) .- C ~ C 0 +:i-.r;
E~ g-~ E.Q-o ~ c.+-'
W~Qj E L.~2 C'lt:: Cw
QJt;)> ~"'CVl2..c:
F.s~8.s~ 8..s1O~
M
~
~
w
c:
w
<..l
c:
o
:;:;
~
Cl :g
2 0
.f: <( N_
CJ:):;;",
:;;w~
z~~
m(/.).B
.s::::Iu
f-OO
S.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
TERRY FIBICH, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE W
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE PURCHASE A NEW FIRE ENGINE
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
Purchase Order, not to exceed $410,000, to Pierce Manufacturing for the
purchase of one demonstrator 2007 Pierce fire engine, soon to be surplus to the
needs of Pierce Manufacturing. It is further recommended that the City Manager
be authorized to solicit a Lease/Purchase agreement for this purchase and be
authorized to dispose of the surplus 1984 Van Pelt fire engine.
FUNDING:
Funding in the amount of $100,000 is budgeted in the FY 2006/07 Budget for the
first year's lease payment for a replacement fire engine. The recommended
purchase price for the vehicle, including sales tax, is $377,000. Additional
funding will be used toward equipping the vehicle with tools and equipment, and
will not exceed $35,000. The total purchase for apparatus, equipment, and
applicable taxes will not exceed $410,000. A lease purchase arrangement will
be utilized for this purchase with a five-year amortization schedule, and annual
payments are expected to be slightly less than $100,000. The recommended
lease purchase agreement will be presented to the Council for approval when
proposals are received.
DISCUSSION:
Backaround
In June 2005, the City Council authorized the purchase of a 10-year-old fire
engine that was projected to ultimately be a secondary fire apparatus, meant to
provide reserve capability in case of a large-scale incident or mechanical failure
of the front-line engine. Since that date, the used engine has been assigned as
the front-line engine, and an older, less reliable engine has been sold as surplus
equipment. As was described to the Council in June of 2005, an allocation was
included in the FY 2006-07 Budget to allow the lease/purchase of a new fire
engine during this current fiscal year.
Over the last year, staff has been diligently researching fire apparatus design and
standards, manufacturing trends, state-of-the-art technology, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) requirements, and EPA emissions requirements. Staff has
CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE PURCHASE A NEW FIRE ENGINE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
met with fire apparatus manufacturers, fire apparatus service organizations, and
with user groups currently using various late model fire apparatus. Finally, some
other factors that our staff took into consideration in this process included:
1. Size of the company and stability that help to guarantee that the company
is in business through the life of the unit purchased by the Department.
This would help to insure that proprietary parts are available, archived
construction drawings and parts lists can be easily retrieved,and future
units purchased by the Department will be built consistent. with units
already in service.
2. Age of the company and experience in constructing fire apparatus equates
to a thorough understanding of the fire service and ability to provide the
best product to the Department. It also helps to insure that they have a
long history of examining problems and solving them before the Fire
Department experiences difficulties
3. The larger and more stable the company is, the better it can provide
warranty support, not only for the entire unit, but for the individual
components such as electrical and structural components frame rails,
aerial devices, cabs, and bodies.
4. If the manufacturer under consideration is a single source builder, (Le.
builds both the cab and chassis and the body in its own plant), the
Department need only go to one place for support rather than have to
consult multiple parties if it needs technical assistance. Manufacturers of
bodies that purchase cab and chassis units from other builders can only
support what they construct. They are dependent on the subcontractor
accepting responsibility, assuming the subcontractor is still in business.
5. Larger, more stable manufacturers that build the entire unit integrate
properly engineered electrical, plumbing, and drive train components from
the ground up rather than depend on numerous subcontractors. This
helps to insure that everything works together as is designed and as it
should.
6. Engine and drive train components have never been as complex and
sophisticated as they are today. Motors and transmissions are fully
electronic and demand careful and meticulous engineering. The Fire
Department is obligated to evaluate the size and expertise' of the
engineering staffs of the manufacturers it is considering. Fire apparatus
manufacturers under consideration must be able to prove that they can
properly install, cool, and utilize diesel motors, transmissions, axles,
CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE PURCHASE A NEW FIRE ENGINE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 3
alternators, generators, and other essential components used in fire
service applications.
In light of the points above, Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. became the optimum
choice. Oshkosh Truck Manufacturing Co., a long-time manufacturer of heavy
trucks, wholly owns Pierce Manufacturing Inc. Pierce also offers its customers:
. Two dedicated service centers located in California (Ontario& Modesto)
. Most comprehensive warranties in the industry
. ISO 9001 Quality Certified to ensure consistent quality of all products
. 100% NFPA Standards Compliant
. Most stable financial status and management group
. Most extensive parts system with on-line and overnight availability
. Largest engineering staff with the most expertise in the industry
. Most consistent and reliable delivery schedule
. Honors tag-on purchasing arrangement stipulated by the City of Los
Angeles in their most recent engine bid award
. Extensive history of fire service product research, development, and
product improvement.
Interaoencv Purchasinq Arranoement (Pioov-Backrrao-on)
A common practice used by many agencies in the purchase of fire apparatus is
to utilize competitive pricing received by another agency through a bid process.
By doing so, an agency can be very selective, finding the manufacturer and
product that best suits it's needs and offers the best value over the life of the
asset - in this case, fire apparatus. Secondly, this process enables a jurisdiction
to take advantage of a competitive bid process without the expenditure of time or
funds to do so on it's own. The cost is saved when the process would have been
a repetition of what was done by the previous jurisdiction.
Large agencies expend time and money to advertise and award a bid because of
the large quantity of units they expect to purchase at one time and the
commensurate economies of scale that are realized from the lower unit cost. A
smaller jurisdiction would have no opportunity to purchase such large quantities
and, therefore, would not be able to benefit from the economies of scale realized
by the larger agencies. Utilizing the purchase process of another jurisdiction
allows a department to save in the cost of engineering, drafting, and design work
that has already been incurred by the larger jurisdiction. The smaller agency
takes advantage of that work that was already done to build the units specified by
the larger or previous agency. This allows the manufacturer to sell the unit to the
smaller organization at a reduced cost. This is the very process that the
CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE PURCHASE A NEW FIRE ENGINE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 4
Council has directed staff toward through its direction to pursue joint purchasing
opportunities.
The process of "tagging-on" enables a department to exercise greater discretion
in the selection of a manufacturer. A fire apparatus, because of its 20- to 3D-year
lifespan, is a long-term fixed asset. The initial purchase price of the unit
constitutes only a portion of the cost realized by the department over the life of
the unit. Lifetime cost is reduced if, after interviewing other end users, a fire
department can select a manufacturer that offers higher quality, greater
dependability, less downtime, and better technical and product support. This is
particularly critical to smaller agencies that do not have their own extensive repair
and maintenance facilities.
Incorporating the "tag-on" or "piggy-back'; process gives the department the
opportunity to evaluate and weigh end user satisfaction in other agencies.
Manufacturers must be consulted for serviceability; however, being able to
consult other departments and their experiences with a particular product is
critical to a well-planned purchase. When considering a long-term fixed asset,
product history within the fire industry is absolutely vital. Having the ability to be
selective of manufacturers prevents a department from duplicating the mistakes
of others in the products they select. By tagging-on, the department can find the
builder that does, in fact, provide the best value over the life of the asset, but not
necessarily the lowest purchase price.
Locally, the Fire Departments of San Luis Obispo County, Cambria, and
Atascadero have used this process. Please see Page 4 of Attachment 1 for
contractual permission for other governmental agencies to use the terms, prices,
and conditions of the Los Angeles City RFQ.
Manufacturer's Demonstrator Purchase Option
Fire apparatus manufacturers assemble new apparatus that are used by the
sales force as demonstrator units, showcasing latest technology and features
that highlight the manufacturer. These apparatus are built to a wide variety of
specifications depending upon geographical location, popularity of current
features and style, and to introduce new models.
'As soon as these apparatus are put on the street as demonstrators, they become
available for purchase by fire departments worldwide. Some of these units will
be purchased immediately; others will remain as demonstrators for a longer
period of time, with more mileage placed upon the unit. Because of the
demonstrator status of these units, a generous discount is applied to the
CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE PURCHASE A NEW FIRE ENGINE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 5
purchase price of the apparatus. Additionally, when ordering a new, custom built
fire apparatus it is customarily required that the customer must make a
substantial down-payment at the time of order, with a subsequent wait that might
be as long as 12 months before the apparatus is built for delivery. By purchasing
a demonstrator apparatus, the substantial down-payment is avoided, as is the
lengthy wait for delivery.
Proposal
Fire Department staff is able to recommend an opportunity to the Council that
combines a Piggy-backfTag-on arrangement with a Demonstrator purchase. A
Pierce fire engine has been located that is presently in the design/build process
as a demonstrator. The engine is a tag-on replication of an engine order that is
being produced for the Los Angeles City Fire Department under a large, multi-
engine contract. By locating this engine at its present stage of building, in spite
of it being built as a demo, our staff has been able to specify minor changes,
features, and equipment to the configuration that will allow our Department to
optimize the apparatus for our community. Upon completion of the apparatus it
has the potential to be initially used for display at several trade shows, and then
would be transferred to the full ownership of the City. A delivery date for this
apparatus would be anticipated during the first quarter of calendar year 2007.
Another opportunity for savings is the indirect result of new EPA emissions
standards that took effect in July 2006 for diesel engines. These standards
greatly increase the cost of the motors, and the configuration in which they must
be installed in the fire engines. Because the fire engine that we have located
was already in the design/build process, this standard does not apply, and the
cost savings to the City is in the range of ten to fifteen percent below future
pricing.
By combining the savings realized, first, from an apparatus being built as a tag-
on to an existing order, and second, by purchasing an engine that will be initially
used as a display demonstrator, the City's potential savings for this engine is in
the range of $23,000. An additional five to ten percent could be added to this
savings when considering pricing that is affected by the new EPA emissions
standards.
A further savings that can be realized by executing the purchase of this
apparatus from Pierce Manufacturing is through what is known as a multi-
apparatus discount. Because of the projected replacement of the City's aerial
CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE PURCHASE A NEW FIRE ENGINE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 6
ladder truck in the next fiscal year, a discount of $15,000 would be applied to that
purchase if a Pierce apparatus were to be chosen as a replacement within the
next 2 years.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; or
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. City of Los Angeles Request for Quotation dated 3/25/02
2. Letter of Proposal
. - 'ity of Los Angeles, Calitorf
Requesttor Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
111" E. 1 ST STREET Request Quote m. Date Buyer
ROOM 110 00000OO615 03I25l2OO2_
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 DateTlmeQuoteOpenl Close
00W112OO2 07:00:00 0S/1512OO213:OO:00
Ship To: ARE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140N.AVENUE19
LOS ANGELES CA 90031
ATTACHMENT 1
VENDOR ID: 0000034760
PIERCE MANUF ACTIJRlNG INe.
2600 AMERICAN DRIVE
APPLETON, Wl54913
I Line Item
Description
Quantity
UM
Need Datel
In order to receive an award with the City of Los Angeles, vendors must have on file an approved
Affirmative Action Plan and Cenilication. Contact Buyer for information on this requirement.
In order to receive Jlayments from the City of Los Angeles, vendors must have a valid Business Tax
Registration Certificate (BTRC) number. Contact the City Clerlt's Tax and Permits Division
(213-485-3916) for information on this requirement.
...........-.....................-.......................................................---...
Procurement Analyst Jenniler Abeleda Phone Number. (213) 847 - 0203
E-mai: jabe!eda@gsd.laclly.org Fax N~ (213) 847 - 2431
Bid TiDe: 1500 G.P.M. TRIPLE COMBINATION APPARAnJS for LAFD
Expiring Contract NEW
Subm~ Request for Quotes To:
Purchasing Agen1. ClIy of Los Angeles. Room 100
City Hall South, 111 E. F"lTSt St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
On or before Wednesday. 0511512002 01 :OOPM (OT 13:00 as in above)
--.......---..---..........-........-..-...--.-.-....................
Annual Requirements:
Quotes are requested tor furnishing the annual requirements 01 the City of Los Angeles tor the goods and/or
services desctibed within 1I1is document beginning 07~I/2oo2 (or upon the date of award of contract) and
ending 00I30J2003.
The bidder quo1es the following delivery lime and payment lerms:
360
State time of delivery: days after receipt of order.
TermsNET 20 .,QiIlstGUnt, for payment within days.
.................................................................................
Business Tax Registration Certificale (STRC):
"The contractor represents that Is has obtained and presently holds the Business Tax Registration
Cer1ifLCate(S) required by the City's Business Tax Ordinance (see Article '. Chapler.2. Section 21.00 of 1I1e
Los Angeles MLJl'ltcipal Code). The contractor shall maintain, or obtain, as necessary. all such certificates
required of ~ under said ordinance and shaD rot allow any such certificate 10 be revoked or sus~.'
Contact the C~ Clerk Tax and Permit Division Ioca1ed alClIy HaD Main, 201 Nor1hMain S1met, Room 101, Los
Angeles, Celnomia 90012 or 8t lelephone no. (213) 978 - 1540 tor ~iance details. Us! your BTAC account
no. here:
. '. ~ffiS-..s:LQ~t2i .
"'1. 0_ 0 r-...:) - O..;t 7 ...-")
.._......................_._...~._~~_..._~-~-.-
Bidder ResponsibllRY: . .
1 hiS IS NUl AN ORDER .
Afl returned quotes and related docwnents must be identified with our requ~t tor quote number.
,
\
';... "
\
ly of Los Angeles, Califo
Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
11 f E. 1 ST STREET Request 10. Date Buyer Page
ROOM 110 00000OO615 D3I25I2lXl2 ennNer 2
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 Daten- QuoleOpen! Close
D4Ill112DD2 D7:DD:DD 051151200213:00:00
Ship To: ARE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
LOS ANGELES CA 90031
N_ Datel
I Une Item Description Quantity UM
Responsive bidders shall complete and return all bid documents including addenda. specifications. drawings
and all forms. '
The Purchasing Agent may deem a bidder non-responsrve if the bidder falls to provide all required
documentation and copies. ,
.
It s!lall be the bidder's responsibBity to provide ONE (1) ORIGINAL AND ONE (1) COpy OF THE COMPLETED BID
DOCUMENT. The original and all copies shall include all forms. specifications, drawings, schematic diagrams
and any technical and/or Dlustrative literature.
If you are not bidding, please state below your reason for not bidding; otherwise it will be considered a .no
response'":
A bidder who lails 10 respond to three (3) consecutive bids may be removed from the City's bid-mamng vendor
database.
If you are receiving bids for convnodilies or services that yoo are unabie to provide 10 the City,lt shall be
your responsibility 10 intonn the Purchasing Agent, in writing, on company le\lerhaad, requesting that your
company be removed from the convnodity listing.
................--........-.......-..-.-.............----.-....-.......
Do not include sales taxes in your bid. Sales taxes will be added at lime of order.
ThiS Is NOT AN OHDeH
All returned quotes and related documents must be identified with our request for quote number.
I
... ;ity of Los Angeles, Califor'
Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
11 f E. 1 ST STREET Request Quote ID. Date Buyer Page
ROOM 110 00000OO615 03/2512002 Jennifer 3
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 Datel1meQuo\eOpen/ Close
04I0112Oll2 07:00:00 05l1513lO2 13:00:00
Ship To; FIRE SUPPLY & MAltlTENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
LOS ANGElES CA 90031
VENDOR !D: 0000034760
PIERCE MANUFACIURING me.
2600 AMERICAN DRIVE
APPLETON, Wl54913
IUno hem
1
DescriPtion
1500 G.P.M. TRIPLE COMBINATION APPARATUS
as perspecifilcation no. FO lsaR-l0
WBW/MJW 11101.
Quanli\y
25.00
UM
EA
Need Datel
FreightTermS: FOB DEST
Quantities:
Ship Via: VEN CHOICE
For bidder's infonnalion, a quantity ol25 units has been anticipated in budgetary planning lor the 2002 -
2003 fiscal ~ear. Fund rlfllitations may change this quantity at the time of award. It is, therefore, required
that unit prices be quoted in the quantity breakdown as shewn below.
Incremental Quantity Pricing lor an Apparatus with a Detroit Diesel Engine:
01-1)9 trucks: per vehicle $ 345,438.00
10-19 trucl<s: per vehicle $ 335,035.00
20-29 trucl<s: per vehicle $ 323,705.00
30-39 trucl<s: per vehicle $ 323,505.00
40-49 trucI<s: per vehicle $ 322,995.00
Prices quoted above shall Include the 3% contingency amount Staled In section 45.1.0 of specification no. FO
lsaR-l0 WBW/MJW 11101.
Optional Equipment
The City desires the option to purchase a Caterpillar Diesel Engine in lieu of the Datroft Diesel Engine.
Vendor shall state price below. Upon ordering, the price quoted for the Caterpmar Diesel Engine shall be
added to the price of the apparatus with the Detroft Diesel Engine, which was quoted above. Failure to supply
this information may result in the RFQ being deemed non-responsive.
Cateipular Diesel Engine: $ 0.00 per unft
If Independant Front Suspension is desired add $6,782.00 per unit.
Pre-Payment Discounts:
Bidder shall state below the discount the vendor offers for the pre-payment of the chassis, fire pump, andfor
engine, upon delivery to the manufacuring plant
Chassis $ 5 , 646 . 00
Fore Pump $ 685.00
D_ft Diesel Engine $ 1 ,098 .00
Caterptllar Diesel Engine $ 1,098.00
FaDure to fill in above CtScounts wm be interpreted.as -no prepayment disoounts-.
The discounted amount, if prepaid by the Los Angetes Fire Department, shall be deducted from the final
invoice amount for each apparatus. .
TIllS IS NO r AN ORDER c,
Ail returned q~ and related documents must be identified with our request for quote number.
. >
"
<' ity of Los Angeles, Califo:
Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
11f E. 1 ST STREET Request Qbo1e 10. Dale Buyer Page
ROOM 110 00000OO615 03/25/2002 AbeledaJennifer 4
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 DaleTbne Quote 0penI Close
lWOl/2002 07:00:00 05/151200213:00:00
Ship To: ARE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
LOS ANGELES CA 90031
I Une Item Description Quantity UM
Bidder shall state 1he net amount the City would have to pre-pay lor the following ftems (should the City
exercise the pre-payment option discount)
Chassis $ 1 BB , 207 . 00
Fire Pump $ 24,207.00
Detroit Diesel Engine $ 34 ,442 .00
Caterpillar Diesel Engine $34 ,44 2 . 00
Need Datel
CalUornia Tire Recylcing Fee:
Bidder shall state whether price includes California Tire Recycling Fee. Failure to supply this information
may result in the RFQ being deemed non-responsive.
Yes XX No
If "No,' state California Tire Reclyding Fee. $
Note: The California Tire Recyding Fee is $1.00 per tire.
per vehicle
..........---....---.-..-----.......--...................--...............
GENERAL CONTRACTUAL TERMS
Other Governmental Agencies:
Other government agendas may want to make purchases using 1he prices, terms and conditions of any contraC1S
resulting lTom this RFQ. Stale If you will allow such purchases:
Yes XX No
Contract Purchase Orders:
Contract Purchase Orders wlil be issued from time to time during 1he contrad period for such deliveries as
may be needed. Vendor shan make no deliveries until a contract purchase order number is given for a specific
delivery to 1he department concerned.
Desired Delivery:
The City desires delivery within 360 calendar days after receipt of orders.
Delivery Instructions:
Vendor shall contact the ordering depar1ment lor specific delivery instructions prior to making deliveries.
Ordering Department Contact Marl< Willardson
Telephone: 213.485.6136
Delivery .Costs:
Prices qlJoted shail include all delivery and unloading charges to the Los Angeles Fire Depar1ment, Supply and
Maintenance Division.
1 hiS IS NU I AN URDER
All returned quotes and related documents. must be identified with our request for quote number.
-:ity of Los Angeles, Califorr
Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
11 f E. 1 ST STREET Request"Quole ID. Dale
ROOM 110 1lOOOOllO615 03I25l2OO2
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 DateTlmeQuoleOpenl
04I01f.!002 07:00:00 0511512002 13:00:00
Ship To: ARE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
LOS ANGELES CA 90031
VENDOR ill: 0000034760
PIERCE MANUFACTIJRING INC.
2600 AMERICAN DRIVE
APPLETON, WI 54913
I Une Item
Descriotion
Quantitv
UM
Need Oatel
TInS P AGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT
BLANK.
~
ThiS IS NO I AN ORDEH .
All retumedquo1es and rela1ed documents must be Kl9ntifoed with our request lor quote number.'
ity of Los Angeles, Calife '.
. Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
11f E. 1 ST STREET Request Quote m. Dale ~ '- Page
ROOM 110 00000OO615 03I25I2ll02 ennKer 6
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 DateTlmeOUoteOpenl Close
04I01flOO2 07:00:00 0511512002 13:00:00
ShipTo: ARESUPPLY&MAImENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
LOS ANGELES CA 90031
I Una Item Descriobon
Authorized Distributor:
Quantity
UM
Need Datel
Vendor must indicate if they are an authorized factory distributor for the manufacturer being quoted.
.
Yes
xx
No
'If \he vendor is not an au1horized diStnbulOf. 1he vendor shall provide a formalletler 01 certification
from the manufacturer. with the proposal, stating that the manufacturer wftl honor any warranty claims by the
city of parts provided by 1he vendor. .
The manufacturer wRl be responsible lor any default of the representative1hat is not corrected by the
represenlative in a timely and ellicient manner. This responsibiUty includes replacing incorrect or
defective parts. trouble shooting and correcting problems that are traceable to the manufacturers parts.
Completion of Specifications:
A\\ached specification lonns must be fiUed in completely and a\\ached to your quote. Quote must be
submitted on the fonn, with appropriate descriptive data attached.
Drawings:
Bidder is to submit with proposal engineering drawings showing general arrangement, principle of operation
and load distribution as it pertains to California Vehicle Code. Failure to furnish such infonnation may void
bid.
Illustrative and Technical Data:
Bidder is to submit with proposal, complete Illustrative and technical data on materials or equipment
proposed to be furnished. Faiure to furnish such data may void bid.
SpecifICation:
All equipment purchased under this authority are required \0 be equipped with \he components listed in
specification no. FD 180R-18 WBW/MJW 11101. Exceptions to these specifications shall be included on a
separate sheet attached to the bid proposal. If there are no deviations, bidder shall state -no deviation:
No Deviation
Failure to comply ~ith the above RFQ requirements shall void quote.
New Vehicles end Equipment
The units furnished shaI1 be new and unused. current model. with standard factory fittings. trim, and
accessories, unless otherwise.- No rebuilt repIacemenl parts will be accepted unless prior apprtl'la! is
obIailied from \he Los Angeles Fore Department, Supply and Maintenance Division personnel. They shall not have
been used as detlllOl~bGtors or for any other prior service and shaD not have been driven or caravanned in
delivery to \he City.
Extended Warranties:
Bidder shall state below any extended warranties offered by the manufacturer that is not specified in
specification no. FD laOR-18 WBW/MJW 11101 at no additional cost to \he City.
a S~~ below: _months _mUes
rhls IS NUl AN ORDER
All retumed quotes and related documents must be identified with our request for quote number.
~ity of Los Angeles, Califor" _
Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
11f E. 1 ST STREET _ Request<luote ID. Date Buyer
ROOM 110 "00000OO615 03I25l2OO2 AbeIed
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 DaIl\>~QuoteOpenl Close
O<Wti2llll2 07:00:00 05'tS'200213:00:00
Ship To: FIRE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140 N, AVENUE 19
LOS ANGELES CA 90031
VENDOR!D: 0000034760
PIERCEMANUFACTIJRING INe.
2600 AMERICAN DRIVE
APPLETON, WJ 54913
I Line Item
Description
Quantity
UM
Need Datel
The Pierce proposal includes a five
(5) year bmnper to bumper warranty.
Sections 46.2.R-IO are per specificati
b. specify below: _months _miles
c. Specify below: _months _miles
d. Specify below: _months _miles
Vehicle Code:
All vehicles shall conIorm to the Calnomia Vehicle Code and an other governing requirements_
Safety Code:
Any equipment of material furnished shall conform to the current safety code of the California Division of
Indusbial Solety and an OSHA requirements. Any required certification necessary to place equipment into
service shall be the responsibility of the vendor. A copy of the certifICation shall be delivered with the
equipment.
Conveyance to Fonancing InstiluIicn:
At the direction of the City, the successful bidder shall convey legal title to the vehicles, at the quoted
price and terms, to any responsible party or parties which may be selected by the City for the purpose of
financing the cost of the vehicles.
MICLA Transaction Rider.
The City of Los-Angeles and the Purchasing Agent are acting asthe Municipallmprovemant Corporation 01 Los
Angeles (MICLA) on this transaction, The general conditions shall be amended as loIIows for all MICLA
transactions.
The term "City; wherever ~ appears, shall be deemed "the City" or "the City and MICLA" as appropdate to
the ccntext in which the term is used, and in sactlon 13 contracto<'s liabnity and section 14 patent rights, -
the term "City" shall mean the "City and MICLA"
MICLA Ucense:
The contractor shall make all necessary applications and complete all transfer papers, including applying for
exempt license plates. License plates (hard plates) shall be installed on the vehicle at time of pre-delivery
inspection.
The registered owner shall be shown exactty as outlined below on all forms where the registered owner is
listed, (use 8:bbreviations exactly"as shown):
Los Angeles City
c/o Purchasing Agent
555 Ramirez St, Space 8-10
I hiS IS NOI AN ORDER "
All retumed quotes and related documents must be identified with our request for quote 'number.
ty of Los Angeles, Califol '.
. Request for Quotation
City of Los An.Qeles Purchasing Agent
11 f E. 1 ST STREET Request Quote ID. Dale Buyer . . Page
ROOM 110 00000011615 03I25l2OO2 AbeIeda.Jennner 8
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 DaleTlme QuoleOpenl Close
O4JOlf.!002 07:00:00 051151200213:00:00
Ship To: RRE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
LOS ANGElES CA 90031
I Line Item Description
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Quantity
UM
Need Date I
The lienholder shaft be shown exacUy:as outlined below on all fonns where the I~holder is I!sted, (use
abbrOlliations exactly as shown):
.
Municipall~emenl Corp.
01 Los Angeles (Prcj. --.J
555 Ramirez St.. Space 6-10
Note: When the Los Angeles Fire Deparbnenl places an order, they shall notify the manufacturer which MICLA
Proj. to use in the space marked by" _" above.
Note: Prior to eppIying for exempllicense plates, the COiWacior shall con1acl1he City's Equipment
InspectDr at (213) 485-4992 to 00_ a City of Los Angeles equipment identification number for each
vehicle/equipment. This number must appear on the final registration certificate.
Price Reductions:
After the eward of a contract, or during the term 01 the contract, any reduction in cost of equipment to the
contractor shall be offered to the City in a corresponding price reduction. PeriodicaUy the City may request
the bidder to certify in writing that any and all reductions in equipment costs to the bidder are reflected in
the pricing set for the City.
Estimated Quantities for Renewal Options:
For bidder's information, a quantity of 10 (Ien) to 15 (fofteen) uliIs has been anticipated In budgetary
planning for each of the four (4) . one (1) year rerewaI periods. A. FuncllimitaIions may change this
quantity althe time of award No guarantee can be given 1hal this _ will be reached or 1hal "wi! not
be exceedt>d. Vendor agrees to Iumish mom a less at the unit prices quoted in ~di.lC8 wiIh acIuaI
requirements throughout the contract period.
Renawal Options:
The City reserves the right to renew any contract awarded !rom this bid lor four (4) additional one (1) year
periods. All renewals shall be on an annual basis and under the same terms and conditions of the original
contract.
Indicate maximum yearly percentage price increases, jf any:
Price increase shall not exceed 2% during the first renewal period.
Price increase shall not exceed 2% during the second ranewal period.
Price increase shall not exceed ~ % during the third renewal period.
Price increase shall not exceed ~ % during 1he fourth renewal period.
FaBure to fill In above percentages will be Interpreted as -no increase- for the renewal period(s). Price
Indexes for price Increases wUI not be considered. Maximum increase shown by bidder wUI be a factor in
detennining successful bidder.
Percent increase does not .include
cost due to NFPA. changes or EPA
requirements.
It is agreed that n any ranawal option is exercised. the City will notify the contractor prior to the
expiration elate. Escalating factors In options wDl not be automatically granted. Any increase in price must
be substantiated by corresponding increases in supplier costs and requested, in writing, to the Purchasing
ThIS IS NU I AN URDER
All returned quotes and related documents must be identified with our request for quote number.
I
. ~ity of Los Angeles, Califor'
Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent
11 f E. 1 ST STREET Request. Quote 10. 0aIe Buyer
ROOM 110 00000OO615 03I25l2OO2 Abeleda
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 OaIeTuneQuo\eDpen/ Close
0410112002 07:00:00 051151200213:00:00
Ship To: ARE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
VENDOR !D: ??oo034760 LOS ANGELES CA 90031
PIERCE MANUFACTIJRING INC,
2600 AMERICAN DRIVE
APPLETON, WI 54913
I Une l\em Descrip1ian Quantity.
Agent sixty (60) days prior \0 the contract expiration lor review and approval.
No Increases will be granted wilhouI prior approval of the Purchasing Agent The request shall state the
percentage increase end the revised price lor each IIem on the contract. The requested increase will be
evaluated by the City, end the City reserves the right \0 eccept or reject The City reserves the right .,
terminate contract in event price increases are not acceptable.
UM
Need Datel
Insurance:
Successlut.bidder shall furnish wlthin \en days of notification of pendlng award, the required 'City insurance
certificates. Coverages shall be as set tor1h below. Property completed lorms shall be submitled 10 the
office 01 the City Purchasing Agent, City of los Angeles, Rooni 100, 111 E. First Street, los Angeles,
CalUornia 90012. Failure to comply will result in the quote being rejecled as non-responsive.
Minimlnl coverages .shall be as follows:
(1) Bodily injury & property, damage - $1,000.000 combined single limit
(2) Work....s ~ - statutory limits in accondanoe wilh sections 3700 end 3800 of the labor code of
the State of CalUomia.
(3) Additional insured . the City of Los Angeles shall be named as additional insured by signing off on the
attached ins~ documents.
(4) Cancellation or reduction notice - 3O-day notice of cancellation or reduction shall be malled to the City
ollos Angeles, City Attorney, 18th floor, City Hall East 200 N. Main St., los Angeles, CA 90012
RFQ Contractor ResponslbRity:
Every Req.:lestlor Proposal (RFP), Request lor QuoIe (RFQ), Rquest lor Quafilicalions or other procurement
process is subject 10 the provisions of the ConIraelcr Responslbiily OrdInance, Section 10.40 el seq. of
AIticIe 14, ChapIer 1 of Division 10 of the los Angeles M"b..bative Code, unless exempt pursuant to the
provisions 01 the OrdInance.
This Ortf1llllnCe requires that all proposersibidders complete and return, wlth their response, the
responsibility questionnaire included In this procurement FaRure 10 return the completed questionnaire may
reslM in the proposer/bidder being deemed non-responsive.
The Ordinance also requires that ti a contract is awarded pursuant \0 this procurement that the contrncIor
must update responses to the questionnaire, wilhin thirty calendar days, aller any changes to the responses
previously provided U such change would affect contractor's fitness and abllity 10 continue pertonning the
contract.
Pursuant to the Ordinance, by executing a contract with the City, the contractor pledges, under penalty 01
peljury, to.COIJllIy with aD approcable Federal, Stale and IocllIIaws in perIorrnance of the contract, includIng
but not IImiIIed \0 laws regarding health end safely, labor end ~ wage end hours, and flCeOSing laws
which affect BfJ1lIoyees. Fur1her, the Ordinance requires each conlnIclor to: 1) notify the awarding
authority wilhin thirty calendar days alter receMng _that any goven.._ agency has initialed
an investigation which may fBl'ult In a finding thel the contrlIcIor is not In compliance wlth Section 10.40,3
(a) of the Ordinence; end 2) ilotify the ewanling authority wlthinlhlrty calendar days of all findings by a
govemmentagencyorcourtol~rtj",b.lio..1i<.., thatthe..........!u hasviolaled Section 10.40.3 (a) 01
the Ordinance. . ,
Chid Support Obligations:
I hIS IS NOl AN ORDER
All returned quotes and relatad documents must be identified wlth our request tor quota number.
-' ..-
___ .._._ _'_ ,.___ .._______._ ._...___......_..n__
.ty of Los Angeles, Califo, 'L.
Request for Quotation
City of Los Angeles Purchasing Agent .
110f E. 1 ST STREET Request Quote 10. Dale Buyer Page
ROOM 110 00000OO615 lI3I25/ZOO2 _Jennifer 10
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 Dater""" Quam open! Close
0410112002 07:00:00 05/151200213:00:00
Ship To: ARE SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE
140 N. AVENUE 19
LOS ANGELES CA 90031
I Una Item
Description
Quantitv~
UM
Need Datel
All bidders and proposers. are reqUired to complete 1I1e attached cerlificalion of compliance wilh Child
Support Obligations. Failure to return the completed cer1ificalion as part of the bid WIll result in 1I1e bid
being deemed non-responsive and being rejected.
MBElWBE and Other Business Enterprise Outreach Program:
It is the paIicy 01 the Cily of Los Angeles to provide M8lOIi\y Busiless Enterprises (MBEs), Women Business
Enterprises(WBEs) and aD 0Ihef Busiless Enterprises an equal opportunity 10 participate in the pertormance
01 aM Cily contracts. IIidde<s end proposers are encouraged 10 assist the City in ImpIemen1ing this policy by
1aIqng all reasonable steps \0 ensure thai aD evalIabIe business entefprises, Including local MBEs and WBEs.
have an equal opportunity to ~ tor and participate in Cily contracts. All bidders or proposers are
encouraged to perform a good faIIh effort in order \0 reach out to MBEs. WBEs and aD 0Ihef Business
Enterprises. especially when sulH:ontracting opportunities are avaDable.
Tenninalion for Non-ApprOprtations:
City's ollIigations 10 pay any amounts due hereunder for any of City's fiscal years after the cuneol fiscal
years are ~.Iil....,t upon legislative BPP'.... ialiuo IS 01 funds tor the purpose. City's fiscal year ends on
J..... 30th. in each calendar year. Accordingly, anything in this quote \0 the contrary roIwiIhstanding the
Cily may teminale any cordracl rt!Sldting from this quote end itS future monelaIy obligations hereunder,
effective as of the end of any 01 Its fiscal year.
Contract'" ennination:
The conllact may be lenninated in whole or in part withoul penalty by the City for Its convenience, provided
that the contractor is given not less than 30 days written notice (delivered by certified mal return receipt
requested) of the intent to tenninate. The City will pay for that portion of wort< performed.
The City has the right to cancel the contract for cause at any time.
Vendor Contact
Contact Person: Kevin M. Newell
r~e: Sales Representative
Telephone No.: 909-673-9900
Fax No.: 909-673-9700
24 Hour Contact No.:949-466-2663
'y of Los Angeles, callfomla
Request for Quot:ltlon
Signature Page
1. COMPLETE CONTRACT
This enllre RFO or any lIem(slthereof, shall become tho contract upon its acceptance by the
PurchasinQ Agent on behalf Of the City of Los Angeles. The cornplQlg contract shall consist of The
Notice of Awardl The Nollce Invlllng quotes. the entire RFO (InclUding speciltcattonsbor any
itemrs) thereof his pa~ and the reverse side. addendlims, and when required. INS RANCE AND
SONOrS). A Notice of Award will be furnished to the successful bidder Identifying the Ilems(s) to
be fumlshed under this contract. .
RFQ ID: 0000000615
2:. SERVICES TO BE PROVloeo BY THE CONTRACTOR
. The contractor agrees, upon acceptance of this offer by the City, to fumlsh the goods and services
herein specified according to the terms Bnd conditions BS set forth herein. .
3. AMOUNT TO BE "AID
The City agrees to pay the Contractor for the good:;! or sevices In the manner and out 01 the funds
described 1n the paragraph entitled .PAYMENTS' In this RFQ package under 'General Conditions",
4. CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE PROVISIONS; OPTIONS; NOTIFICATlONS . .
When alternatIVe provisions are reguested, or options are offered,. the Contractor will be notified
as to which provision, or option, Is oolng accepted at the same time that he/she Is noUlIed that
he/SM is th& successful bldder. .
5. DECLARATlON OF NON-COLLUISION ,
The undersigned certifies (or declllr91l) under penalty of perjury that this RFQ Is genuine and not
sham ot cctruslve. m made In the Interest or on behWf of any person, firfn, Dr corporation not
herein nB!T1e~ that the bidder hss not direttly or Indlrect1v Induced or soliCIted any bidder to put
up a sham bla, or 8(ly'other person, Rrm, or corporation fe.refraln from bldt1ltJg, and that the
bidder has not In any manner sought by collusIOn to secure to hlmseH any adVantage over other
bidders. . .
EXECUTED AT: Appleton
wisconsin ON THE 8th DAY OF May
2002
. -"-
(BIdder Complote) CJIy Slate
Finn Name pierce ManUfacturing Inc.
Address: 2600 American Drive Appleton WI
Street /:/7 _
. Jeff Resch -:;"~_____
MonIh
Phone p2'1 832-3000
54912
~
TIlle Vice President of Sales
IAppnlYad corpcitate Sigrl&luno Mo_
. .) TWtl 8I!lna1ll""" Onaby ChalrmBnGl _of~. PIHldent. or. V1ca Pn>~ond.... bySocno.r,......l
-.y.CI1I&f~Olftc&r"&I1Aa'" T.........
b) o....\gluIlLovbyOUO.......destgr"Iod___--"Y_~G1_ofClr~
~_...Ign~
AWARD CANNOT BE IIIADE TO THE sUccessFUL BIDDER 1INl.E8S THIS IlIGNATUIIE SEc;T1ON IS COMPLETED PROPERLY.
For contracts llXPecled 10 exceed $90,000 (Including taxes, handling, shlpplng and MY other fees Or c s)
bidder must complete the bottom aecllor1 of this page In addition to \hg secllon above. (Both .
conform to the signature methods below.) ?""'...~ ' 'IL,
~. ~'-._"'TI.:
Kelly K" Quinn ~ ~. ~h'\'\..V\ > .~..":??G!1.>~
. . Prtnt III1d gn it;. c,., h, ... ~ 'Z.
-: -... ,~-C)
TIlle Assistant Secretary (AiJx~~tin,
,. u...... ....\";j.,,J :
.... 1917 ....
.... ...
"'/SCO~S\~
NOTARIZATION: BidD OKecutea ou181Ce the State 01 Cail'lOrnla mU91 be sworn to and nuUlllzP.d bolow.
County of Winnebago
Slate of Wisconsin
Sub.c~bed' and .wom this 8 th day
In W1lhess ~recf tho City of Los
Angeleo hes caused this cootracl to be
executed by 100 Purchsslng AlI9nt 'of Bald
City, and Mid Contractor has executod this
contract tho day and year written below. .
JON Ie. MUKRI
P"""""1ng Aoenl. CIIY 01 Lao An;oloo
.AIlpmved as to Form
.~20_
.. 7
t-.
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO
CIIY Altomoy
By:
By:
Dole
Deputy
City of Los Angeles, California
Request for Qliotation
General Conditions
1. FORM OF BID AND SIGNAlURE.
The bid must be made on \his fDml only. No telephonic or telegraphic quOtes are acceptable. RFQ should be enclosed in
. a sealed envelope, showing the RFO No. in the lower left comer, and addressed to the City of Los Angeles Purchasing
Agent. The RFQ must be signed with the lirm corporate name and by a responsibile officer or authorized employee. In
case 01 error in extension of prices, unit price will govern. AU prices must be Iir'm unless the specifications provide
lor adjustment . . .
2. TAXES.
.Do not include any Sales Taxes or Federal Excise Tax in prices quoted unless the specs. specifically require that Sales
Tax be included. Sales Tax'will be added by the City.at lime of award. The CIIy will furnish Federal Excise Tax
Exemption Certilicate to Supproer. Any other taxes must be included in the RFQ prices.
3. SPECIRCATlON CRANGES.
If provisions of the specifICations restrict bidder from bidding, he may request in writing thalthe specifications be .
. modified. Such request must be received by the Purchasing Agent at least. five (5) working days belore RFQ opening date.
All bidders,wi11 be notified by addendum of any approved changes in the specifICation. .
4. BRAND NAMES AND SPECfRCATlONS-
The detaBed specffiCations and/or brand name references are descriptive and indicate quartly, design, and construclion
of Items required. Offers will be considered to supply articles substantiaRy the same as those described herein but
with minor variations. Bidder must describe variations in hislher RFO.
5. AWARD OF CONTRACT. .
RFO shaD be subjecl to acceptance by the City for a period of 3 months unless a lesser period is prescribed in the
quotation by the bidder. The City may make combined _ard 01 aU items complete to one bidder or may award seperate
items or groups of lIems to various bidders. Bidders may submit alternate prices'or name a lump sum or discount
conditional on two or more lIems being awarded to himIher. The right is reserved to reject any, or all, quotes and to
waive any inlormality in bids.
6. APPEAL OF AWARD:
In the event the Purchasing Agent proposes to award a contract to other than the lowest monetary bidder, the Purchasing
Agent wiI1, prior to such award, nolify each 01 those bidders submiIIing lower monetary bids whicb have conlormed to the
specifications set forth in the RFO. Upon issuance 01 such notification, each bidder submilling a lower monetary bid
may, within two (2) days, request a hearing before the Purchasing Agent. Upon such request. the Purchasing Agent will
furnish such bidder with a written statement setting lorth the reasons lor the proposed award. A hearing shaD be
provided no sooner than three (3) calendar days alter the request lor hearing, unless waived by the bidder.1U. or prior'
to the hearing, the bidder may present evidence as to why the contract should be awarded to said bidder. After the
close 01 the hearing, the Purchasing Agent shalt make B determination with aspect to the responsibUity of the bidder or
bidders involved, and thereafter shaD award the contract accordingly or shall reject aIt quotes. The determination 01
the. Purchasing Agent shall be final. .,
7. DEFAULT BY SUPPUER. . .
In case of defauU by supplier, the CiIy reserveS the right to procure the articles or services Irom other .sources and
to hold the supptier responsibile lor any excess costs occasioned to the City thereby. .',
8. PAYMENTS.
Payment terms are NET 130 days unless bidder Otherwise quotes cash discount terms. Cash discounts offered lor payment
under 25 days will not be considered by 'to - ~,.v"".,"" evaluating bids. AD Cash Discounts shall be taken and.comput!ld
lrom the date oldoovery or corn"leti.o-. ~..c: ,,,___ --- -'. ~_: ."aterial, or from date 01 receipt 01 invoice, whichever is
latest. Partial pa""'-~.,;, :r...- .-~ ""._'-"' by the Ciiy on oe.","" -'-.~. ..:C'" ;,c-- of !)oods and on receipt 01 vendors invoice.
9. ~..::..:;..."--:.~~MENT.
" ne supptier shall not assign or transler by operation 01 law any obligatiOn without the prior written con~b, \. v; :-c:.
Purchaseing Agent. . -
10.NONDISCRIMINATlON.
The provisions 01 Sections 10.8 to 10.13 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code pertaining to nondi~cimination in .
employment in the performance of City contracts are incorporated herein by relerence ~nd made a part h~'eol as U ,. .,.
were fully set lorth herein. During the performance 01 this contract, the contract", -"~~-'-,~ rt\scri,,,:r.at- - . "
employment practices against any employee or applicant for employment becausB 0: tho; . ,.v,," - - ..' .. lace,
religion, national origin, ancestry, sex. age or physical handicap. AD subcontracts ".,"ard,.- J..-.... ....'.
shall contain a hKe nondiscrirninalion provision.
/
ATTACHMENT 2
September 29, 2006
Terry Fibich, Fire Chief
Arroyo Grande Fire Department
140 Traffic Way
Arroyo Grande, California 93421
,'-..1. ;.,t.
. , ~.. .'.
. -'.'.'
Dear Chief Fibich:
,I, am enclosing our proposalf()r a",new, stock, fire 'engine with ,this, cover. letter: . ,Pierce
Manufacturing, Inc" has agreed to build it in anticipation of using it for a short period of time as
a demonstrator. I have configured the unit based on input I received from you and your
committee. In effect, I have support from the manufacturer to construct a "build-to-order" demo
that will reflect the features specified by the Arroyo Grande Fire Department.
There are two primary reasons for using this strategy. First, because the configuration has
already been submitted to Pierce, we are fairly certain that this unit will be,equippedwith a 2006
motor: This will provide a savings of approximately $15,000 over future units that must be
powered by diesel motors manufactured after January 1, 2007. Secondly, if the unit is built as a
demonstrator, I can save the department approximately $11,000 in inspection and delivery
costs. Unfortunately, I cannot anticipate how much interest there will be in it as a demonstrator:
It is very possible that the unit could be delivered to your department without any additional
mileage other than that which is required for break-in and delivery.
Some of the significant features you'll find include:
v' 485 horsepower Caterpillar motor with an Allison EVS 4000 transmission.
v' -Waterous single stage 1500 gpm pump.
v' Independent front suspension that improves the ride and handling, reduces maintenance
costs, and extends the life expectancy of the cab and its components.
v' Stainless steel plumbing that includes a ten-year warranty.
v' Ten-year warranty on paint.
v' Seating for six and a very large crew area with plenty of headroom.
v' A Husky foam system with refill pump.
v' Large diameter discharge on the passenger side.
v' Internal fully enclosed ladder compartment on the passenger side with extension,
folding, and roof ladders.
v' Handwheel controlled deluge outlet with removable monitor:
v' Installed and programmed Kenwood TK-790 two-way radio.
The cost of the unit described in this proposal, including California Sales Tax is $376,870 and
would be due within 15 days of delivery.
Here is some additional information for your review and consideration:
1) A Hale 1500 gpm pump can be substituted in place of the Waterous pump listed in the
proposal at no additional cost.
2) A cost comparison and documentation of the bid and latest purchase order for Arrow XT
pumpers for the City of Los Angeles has been included. Los Angeles stipulated in the
documentation that any jurisdiction wishing to may also purchase as a result of the bid in
the spirit of interagency cooperation. The City has already "tagged on" to that bid and
made additional purchases. Also, the price for their units increases 3% effective July 1.
3) I am currently working' with Pierce on the possibility of installing a 5.5kw hydraulically
driven generator. The representative for Smart Power Systems has offered to donate a
unit for marketing purposes. Additional cost would be incurred for its installation
(estimating approximately $3,000). I don't know yet whether this is feasible. The unit
must meet Pierce standards and that will not be determined for a few months.
4) If the City of Arroyo Grande should decide to purchase this unit and a purchase order is
received fairly soon, there will be sufficient time to make.a few additional changes the
department may desire.
A "Turning Performance Analysis" and an "Electrical Analysis Report" are included for your
review along with a preliminary drawing.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this information, and look forward to going over any
questions you might have. I realize the budget of the City is limited and I have been able to
work closely with Pierce to keep the price as low as possible. I know that you would like to
purchase additional loose equipment for outfitting a new engine and have made this a priority
throughout the process.
I would like to add that I have enjoyed meeting with your apparatus committee members. They
are very knowledgeable about apparatus and specifications and a pleasure to work with.
Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with and feel free to give me a call. My
cell number is (661) 342-1670 and thanks again.
Sincerely,
Cary Eckard
South Coast Fire Equipment
8.n.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Rs
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
CONTRACTS WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR PHASE 3 OF
"LET THERE BE LIGHTS" STREET LIGHT INSTALLATIONS ON EAST
BRANCH STREET BETWEEN SHORT STREET AND CROWN HILL
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign two
contracts with PG&E for Phase 3 of "Let There Be Lights" (L TBL) for street light
installations on E. Branch Street between Short Street and Crown Hill to replace 14
existing generic lanterns with 16 new decorative metal poles, Holophane fixtures, and
accessories, in the amounts of $44,329 and $6,444, from the SLOCOG Branch
Streetscape Grant Funds, to be partially reimbursed by continued volunteer donations
per pole.
FUNDING:
To expedite ordering the decorative poles and lights which require six to eight weeks
before delivery, it is requested that the contract deposits of $44,329 and $6,444 be paid
from the SLOCOG Branch Streetscape Enhancement grant funds. The L TBL account
has approximately $18,000 of Phase 3 funds and all of the Phase 4 donations, but an
additional $30,000 will be solicited for Phase 3 during installation or after.
(Approximately 10 poles are not yet funded by volu nteer donations.)
DISCUSSION:
Attached are two contracts prepared by PG&E including estimated cost for replacing 14
existing generic lantems with 16 new decorative metal poles, Holophane fixtures, and
accessories along E. Branch Street between Short Street and Crown Hill, Phase 3 of
L TBL Program. Approximately six of these additional lights have been contributed by
$3,000 per pole volunteer donations, but due to time constraints the City needs to deposit
the funds and order the new poles and fixtures so that PG&E can complete installation
during November 2006. The two separate contracts provide for replacement of 14
remaining generic lanterns, on or near E. Branch Street generally between Short Street
and Crown Hill, as well as two new locations adjoining City Hall and across the street at
Mason Street. This will complete the conversion of all PG&E lanterns to the new historic
character glass acorn with finials, ribs and bands and includes fluted, decorative metal
poles.
Phase 1 involved 12 similar City owned streetlights along Olohan Alley and the Creek
Promenade and Phase 2 involved 16 streetlights on West and East branch Streets from
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
CONTRACTS WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR PHASE 3 OF "LET THERE
BE LIGHTS" STREET LIGHT INSTALLATIONS ON EAST BRANCH STREET
BETWEEN SHORT STREET AND CROWN HILL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
Traffic Way to Short Street. Following completion of Phase 3 during 2006, the program is
already planned and funded for Phase 4 involving 16 new and 4 existing poles around the
Village Green and Heritage Square along Mason, Nelson and Short Street frontages, and
the Creek Walk.
It should be noted that Phase 3 voluntary donations are still needed for approximately 10
poles and lights at a cost of $3,000 per pole. I am confident that volunteers will provide
reimbursement to the SLOCOG Grant Funds, which are being committed as the required
deposit associated with these two contracts. When reimbursed, the grant funds will be
reallocated to landscaping, drainage or other street improvements, which are part of the
Branch Streetscape Enhancement Project grant.
It is evident that escalating hardware and installation costs, as well as accessories such
as the historic character finials, ribs, hands, banner arms, and commemorative brass
plaques now exceed the original $3,000 per pole donation. It is proposed that the
contribution remain at $3,000 per pole to complete this program in the Village during
2006-07 and utilize enhancement grant funds to offset the slight shortfall. This is viewed
as more equitable than changing the required contribution in the middle of Phase 3.
ALTERNATIVES:
- Approve staffs recommendations;
Delay purchase until all can be funded with donations;
Do not approve staffs recommendations;
Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Two agreements from PG&E
DISTRIBUTION:
REFERENCES:
Notification #
Contract #
ELS-PM #
102009047
1003953
30507009
<<Pacific Gas and Electric Company
I
,Agreement to Perform
)Tariff Schedule Related Work
o APPLICANT (Original)
o DIVISION (Original)
o ACCTG< svcs<
City of Arroyo Grande, A Political Subdivision of the state of California, (Applicant) has requested
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation (PG&E), to perform the tariff schedule related
work as located and described In paragraph 3 herein.
PG&E agrees to perform the requested work and furnish all necessary labor, equipment, materials and related
facilities required therefor, subject to the following conditions:
1. Whenever part or all of the requested work is to be furnished or performed upon property other than that of Applicant,
Applicant shall first procure from such owners all necessary rights-of-way and/or permits in a form satisfactory to PG&E
and without cost to it.
2, Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless PG&E, its officers, agents and employees, against all loss, damage,
expense and liability resulting from injury to or death of any person, including but not limited to, employees of PG&E,
Applicant or any third party, or for the loss, destruction or damage to property, including, but not limited to
property of PG&E, Applicant or any third party, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this
agreement, however caused, except to the extent caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of PG&E, its
officers, agents and employees. Applicant will, on PG&E's request, defend any suit asserting a claim covered by this
indemnity. Applicant will pay all costs that may be incurred by PG&E in enforcing this indemnity, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
3. The location and requested work are described as follows: (Describe in detail the materials and facilities to be
furnished and/or work to be performed by PG&E, If more space is required, use other side and attach any necessary
drawings as Exhibits A, B, C, etc):
LOCATION: E. Branch St.. Let There Be Liqht phase 2 Arroyo Grande, 93420
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Install Streellqht Service Point and/or Circuit (LS1)
Engineering & Administrative Costs
Streetlight Service - Facilities & Connection
Total Amount Subject to Allowance
Streetlight Service Point Allowance
Balance
Re-Engineering Costs
SL Svc Dlvry Pnt Extn and/or Circuit - Inspection
Subtotal
plus ITCC @ 0.0%
Streetlight Service Point - Connection Only
Less Applicant Provided Work:
Cost beyond Allowance by Applicant
Total Streetlight Non-Refundable Payment
Amount shown does not include PG&E Contributions of:
(+)
(=)
(-)
(=)
(+)
(+)
(=)
(+)
(+)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$535.00
$535.00
$0,00
$0,00
(-)
(=)
$0.00
$535.00
$0.00
Page 1 of 2
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02191
Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part A
4. Applicant shall pay to PG&E, promptly upon demand by PG&E, as the complete contract price hereunder, the sum of
Five Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars And Zero Cents ($535.00)
Upon completion of requested work, ownership shall vest in:
[~ PG&E
D Applicant
Executed this d.f.p -f::!::. day of
City of Arroyo Grande
Applicant
Ajud; 2cob
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
By:
By:
-~~-
Annette Hatzman
PrintfTypelName
Title: __..
Title:
E&M Supervisor
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande,
CA 93420
Page 2 of 2
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02/91
Automated document. Preliminary Statement, Part A
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
, Agreement to Perform
Tariff Schedule Related Work
DISTRIBUTION:
D APPLICANT (Original)
D DIVISION (Original)
D ACCTG. SVCS.
REFERENCES:
Notification #
Contract #
ERR-PM #
GRR-PM #
102009047
1003953
30507009
City of Arroyo Grande. A Political Subdivision of the state of California (Applicant) has requested
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation (PG&E), to perform the tariff schedule
related work as located and described in paragraph 3 herein.
PG&E agrees to perform the requested work and furnish all necessary labor, equipment, materials and related
facilities required therefor, subject to the following conditions:
1. Whenever part or all of the requested work is to be furnished or performed upon property other than that of Applicant,
Applicant shall first procure from such owners all necessary rights-of-way and/or permits in a form satisfactory to
PG&E and without cost to it.
2. Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless PG&E, its officers, agents and employees, against all loss, damage,
expense and liability resulting from injury to or death of any person, including but not limited to, employees of PG&E,
Applicant or any third party, or for the loss, destruction or damage to property, including, but not limited to
property of PG&E, Applicant or any third party, arising out of or in any way connected with the perfonnance of this
agreement, however caused, except to the extent caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of PG&E, its
officers, agents and employees. Applicant will, on PG&E's request, defend any suit asserting a claim covered by this
indemnity. Applicant will pay all costs that may be incurred by PG&E in enforcing this indemnity, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
3. The location and requested work are described as follows: (Describe in detail the materials and facilities to be
furnished and/or work to be perfonned by PG&E. If more space is required, use other side and attach any necessary
drawings a~ Exhibits A, S, C, etc):
LOCATION: E. Branch St., Let There Be Light phase 2 Arroyo Grande, 93420
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Replace existing streetliqht poles.
Electric Gas
Engineering & Administrative Cost $8.092.64 $0.00
Value of Applicant Design Work (+) $0.00 $0.00
Additional Applicant Design Plan Checks (+) $0.00 $0.00
Facilities (Cable, Transformers / Gas Pipe) (+) $36,088.36 $0.00
Trench, Conduits & Substructures (+) $0.00 $0.00
Tie-In (+) $0.00 $0.00
Trench Permits & Land Rights (+) $0.00 $0.00
Inspection Fees (+) $0.00 $0.00
Sub Total (=) $44.181.00 jQ.&Q
plus ITCC @ 0.0% Electric 0.0% Gas (+) $0.00 $0.00
plus Non Taxable Work (+) ~ $0.00
less Value of Relocation Applicant Design Work (-) $0.00 $0.00
less Work Provide by Applicant (-) $387.00 $0.00
less Salvage (-) $0.00 $0.00
Total Payment (=) $43.794.00 jQ,QQ
Page 1 of 2
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02/91
Automated document. Preliminary Statement, Part A
,
, 4. Applicant shall pay to PG&E. promptly upon demand by PG&E. as the complete contract price hereunder. the sum of
Forty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Four Dollars And Zero Cents ($43.794.00)
Upon completion of requested w~rk. ownership shall vest in:
[_~J PG&E
D Applicant
Executed this
day of
City of Arroyo Grande, A Political Subdivision of
the state of California
Applicant
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
By:
By:
Annette Hatzman
PrinVType/Name
Title:
Title:
E&M Supervisor
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande,
CA 93420
Page 2 of 2
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02191
Automated document. Preliminary Statement. Part A
!
,Pacific Gas and Electric Company
;Agreement to Perform
rrariff Schedule Related Work
DISTRIBUTION:
REFERENCES:
Notification #
Contract #
ElS-PM #
102009047
1003956
30521466
[J APPLICANT (Onginal)
D DIVISION (Onginal)
[] ACCTG, SVCs.
City of Arroyo Grande, A Political Subdivision of the State of California (Applicant) has requested
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation (PG&E), to perform the tariff schedule related
work as located and described in paragraph 3 herein.
PG&E agrees to perform the requested work and furnish all necessary labor, equipment, materials and related
facilities required therefor, subject to the following conditions:
1. Whenever part or all oNhe requested work is to be furnished or performed upon property other than that of Applicant,
Applicant shall first procure from such owners all necessary rights-of-way and/or permits in a form satisfactory to PG&E
and without cost to it.
2. Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless PG&E, its officers, agents and employees, against all loss, damage,
expense and liability resulting from injury to or death of any person, including but not limited to, employees of PG&E,
Applicant or any third party, or for the loss, destruction or damage to property, including, but not limited to
property of PG&E, Applicant or any third party, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this
agreement, however caused, except to the extent caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of PG&E, its
officers, agents and employees. Applicant will, on PG&E's request, defend any suit asserting a claim covered by this
indemnity. Applicant will pay all costs that may be incurred by PG&E in enforcing this indemnity, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
3, The location and requested work are described as follows: (Describe in detail the materials and facilities to be
furnished and/or work to be performed by PG&E. If more space is required, use other side and attach any necessary
drawings as Exhibits A, B, C, etc):
LOCATION: E. Branch St.. Let There Be Liqht phase 2 Arroyo Grande. 93420
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Install Streellqht Service Point and/or Circuit (LSll
Engineering & Administrative Costs
Streetlight Service - Facilities & Connection
Total Amount Subject to Allowance
Streetlight Service Point Allowance
Balance
Re-Engineering Costs
SL Svc Dlvry Pnt Extn and/or Circuit - Inspection
SL Circuit - Foundations & Protective Tubes
SL Circui,t - Internal Wiring
SL Circuit - Cable/Conductor/Connectors
SL Svc Dlvry Pnt Extn and/or Circuit - Conduit! Subst
SL Circuit - Poles/Posts
Subtotal
plus ITCC @ 34.0%
Streetlight Service Point - Connection Only
Less Applicant Provided Work:
Cost beyond Allowance by Applicant
SL Circuit - Foundations & Protective Tubes
SL Svc Dlvry Pnt Extn and/or Circuit - Conduit! Subst
Total Streetlight Non-Refundable Payment
Amount shown does not include PG&E Contributions of:
Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part A
Page 1 of 2
(+)
(=)
(-)
(=)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(=)
(+)
(+)
$2,070.74
$0,00
$2,070.74
$0.00
$2,070.74
$0.00
$134.00
$1,032.00
$3.00
$227.50
$252.00
$2,047.92
$5.767.16
$1,960.83
$0.00
(-)
(-)
(-)
(=)
$0.00
$1,032.00
$252.00
$6.443.99
$1,736.84
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02191
4. Applicant shall pay to PG&E, promptly upon demand by PG&E, as the complete contract price hereunder, the sum of
Six Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Three Dollars And Ninety-Nine Cents ($6,443.99)
Upon completion of requested work, ownership shall vest in:
[!] PG&E
D Applicant
"...., .;, dJ.O {), '"' 0' Ii u r ~} ;2 CO !.p
City of Arroyo Grande PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
Applicant
By:
By:
l d.:z:!.~r
PrintfTypelName
Title:
Title:
E&M Supervisor
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande,
CA 93420
Page 2 of 2
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02/91
Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part A
8.0.
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM THE GRACE LANE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TRACT 2236)
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the Engineers Report and
adopt the Resolution of Intention to continue the process of forming the Grace Lane
Assessment District.
FUNDING:
All costs and expenses associated with the formation and maintenance of the subject
assessment district are to be paid by the Petitioner, Vista Roble, LLC.
DISCUSSION:
The conditions of approval for the Grace Lane subdivision (Tract 2236) require
formation of an assessment district to fund operation, maintenance, and repairs costs
associated with the certain specified tract improvements, including a pedestrian trail,
common areas, drainage facilities and related appurtenances, weed abetment, and a
private drive. The City received a Petition from the property owner, Vista Roble, LLC
requesting formation of the assessment district. Pursuant to Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, which codifies this procedure, an Engineer's Report (Attachment A), and
Resolution of Intention (Attachment B) have been drafted for Council's review and
consideration.
,1.
The Engineer's Report establishes the costs of improvements, an
assessment district diagram and the amounts proposed to be levied
upon each benefit unit within the assessment district.
2.
The Resolution of Intention declares the intention to order formation
of the Assessment District and to levy and collect assessments,
describes the improvements, formally proposes a name for the
District and refers to the Engineers Report for certain specific facts
including the boundaries of the proposed Assessment District.
Upon adoption of the Resolution of Intention, a public hearing is held to hear protests to
the formation, prior to formal establishment of the assessment district and the intent to
levee and collect assessments.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, ENGINEER'S REPORT AND RESOLUTION
OF INTENTION FOR THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TRACT 2310)
. PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve staff's recommendation to proceed with the formation process for the
Assessment District to include approval of the Engineers Report and adoption
of the Resolution of Intention;
Do not approve staff's recommendation;
Request further information regarding the formation of the District;
Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Engineer's Report
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING AN INTENTION TO FORM THE
GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") is authorized under the procedures of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (commencing with 922500 of the Streets and Highways
Code) to form an assessment district to construct, operate, maintain and repair certain
improvements within the City; and
WHEREAS, Vista Roble, LLC, ("Owner") is the Owner and joint developer of certain real
property (the "Property") located within the City being developed as a residential subdivision
("Tract 2236" and/or the "Project") and including certain improvements; and
WHEREAS, Owner filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting the City to form an
assessment district to provide an equitable means for payment of the costs of the operation,
maintenance and repair (including City administrative costs, and establishing a reasonable
reserve), of the improvements described below, said improvements specifically benefiting the
property owned by Owner; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3953, initiating
proceeding for formation of the Grace Lane Assessment District (the "Assessment District"),
said Resolution requesting preparation of an Engineer's Report, and execution of a
Reimbursement Agreement whereby the Developer agrees, among other things, to pay for all
costs incurred in formation of the Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, City proposed to form the Assessment District for the purpose of providing for the
annual costs of the operation, maintenance, and repair (including City administrative costs and
a reasonable reserve) of certain improvements within the City, including but not limited to the
Tract 2236 improvements described as follows:
A. A pedestrian trail across the open space property (Lot B) including, but not
limited to, the existing informal hiking trail currently passing through Lot B,
signage, fencing.
B. All common areas and facilities, including, but not limited to, the open space
parcels and drainage facilities.
C. Maintenance of open space in accordance with fuel modification specifications as
described in Mitigation Measure number 15 in Resolution No. 3732 of the City of
Arroyo Grande.
D. A private drive and associated improvements for Lots 16 through 19.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as
follows:
1. The City Council hereby declares an intention to order the formation of the
Assessment District, and to levy and collect assessments.
2. The improvements are generally described in the Recitals.
3. The proposed Assessment District shall be referred to as the Grace Lane
Assessment District.
4. Reference is made to the Engineer's Report dated October 3, 2006 on file with
the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the
boundaries of the proposed Assessment District and any zones therein, and the
proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the
Assessment District.
5. Notice of a public hearing regarding the question of the formation of the
Assessment District and the levy of the proposed assessments shall be given by
the City Clerk pursuant to the notification requirements of the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, said public hearing being set and fixed herein for November
28, 2006, and to be held in the chambers of the City Council.
On motion by Council Member
call vote, to wit:
, seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of
,2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
Preliminary Engineer's Report
For
Grace Lane
Maintenance District No.1
Fiscal Year 2006-07
CITY
,5>.<'1
'/4'
.LUIS
OBISPO
(;'Y:
-"\"1. ,
COIJ~
Prepared for:
Gregg Nester Construction & Development, Inc.
Prepared by:
eda-Design Professionals
1998 Santa Barbara SI.
. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
. October 2, 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
City of Arroyo Grande ............................................................................... ....................................... 1
Certificates...................................................................:................................................,...... .... ........ 2
Section I ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Section II .............................................................................................................................. ............ 5
PART A ..................................................... ........................................................ ........................... 7
PART B ........................................................................................................................................ 8
PART C ........................................................................................................................................ 9
PART D ...................................................................................................................................... 10
PART E ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Exhibit C: ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ............................................................................................13
Exhibit D: FUEL MODIFICATION SPEFIFICATIONS ................................................................... 14
Exhibit E: FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES.....................................................................................15
Exhibit F: STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE..................................................................................16
Exhibit G: SLOPE MAINTENANCE/ROAD MAINTENANCE ........................................................17
Appendix 1: Cost of Improvements ................................................................................................18
Appendix 2: Benefit Exhibit ............................................................................................... .............19
Appendix 3: Tract 2236 Landscaping Bid ......................................................................................20
ii
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF MEMBERS
Tony M. Ferrara
Mayor!Chair
Joe Costello
Mayor Pro Tem! Vice Chair
Jim Dickens
Council! Board Member
Jim Guthrie
Council! Board Member
Ed Arnold
Council! Board Member
1
eda - Design Professionals
10!02l06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
CERTIFICATES
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
GRACE LANE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
The undersigned, acting on behalf of Gregg Nester Development, Inc., respectfully submits the
attached Engineer's Report as directed by the City of Arroyo Grande pursuant to the provisions of
Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, Sections 22500 seq. of the California Streets and Highway Code. The undersigned
certifies that he is a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California.
Dated:
/O(z,,/Ob
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and
Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed by me on the day of
2006.
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
City of Arroyo Grande
San Luis Obispo County, California
By:
2
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached Engineer's Report. together with the Assessment Roll and
Assessment Diagram thereto attached was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the
City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California on the day of
.2006.
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
City of Arroyo Grande
San Luis Obispo County, California
By:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and
Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed with the County Auditor of the County of San
Luis Obispo. on the day of ,2006.
City Engineer.
By:
3
eda - Design Professionals
1 0/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
GRACE LANE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
To insure a flow of funds for the construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of specified
improvements within the boundary of the subdivision known as Tract 2236 in the City of Arroyo
Grande; the City Council approves the City of Arroyo Grande's Grace Lane Maintenance District
NO.1 ("The District") this fiscal year. As required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
("The Act"), this Engineer's Report describes the improvements to be constructed, operated,
maintained and serviced by the District for Fiscal Year 2006-07, provides a most probable
estimated budget for the District, and lists the proposed assessments to be levied upon each
assessable lot within the District. The boundaries of the District are reflective of Tract 2236,
shown on the Assessment Diagram and incorporated into this report as Part "C".
The cost of operation, maintenance and servicing of the improvements to be funded by the
District will be apportioned to each lot within the District in proportion to the special benefit it
, receives. The method of assessment may be amended from time to time by the City Council, in
order to apportion the costs in relation to the benefits being received. However, if the
assessments are increased from the prior year they will be subject to the noticing and balloting
procedures reference in Proposition 218.
Payment of the 'assessment for each lot will be made in the same manner and at the same time
as payments are made for property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be
placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this report.
The City will hold a Public Hearing on to provide an opportunity
for any interested person to be heard. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council
may adopt a resolution confirming the levy of assessments as originally proposed or as modified.
Following the adoption of this resolution and recordation of the District's Tract Maps, the final
Assessor's roll will be prepared and filed with the San Luis Obispo County Auditor's office to be
included on the Fiscal Year 2006-07 tax roll.
4
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
SECTION I(
ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679
OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
GRACE LANE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
Pursuant to the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), this Engineer's
Report is submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande in connection with the
proceedings of the City CounCil to consider the establishment of the Grace Lane Maintenance
District No.1. Jeffrey Wagner, duly-authorized representative of eda Design Professionals, Inc.,
consultant to the City, submits this Engineer's Report consisting of the following parts:
PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
This part describes the improvements of the District. Preliminary design documents for the
improvements are as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of
the City Engineer of the City of Arroyo Grande, and are incorporated herein by reference. Plans
are incorporated into the assessment diagram, listed as Exhibit "C", Exhibit "0", Exhibit "E",
Exhibit "F", and Exhibit "G", as allowed under Section 22568 of the Act. Exhibit "C" shows the
public trail to be maintained, Exhibit "0" explains The City of Arroyo Grande's fuel modification
specifications by zone and Exhibit "E" shows fuel modification zones 1, 2 and 3 in Tract 2236.
Exhibit F shows the storm drain maintenance and exhibit G shows the slope maintenance and
road maintenance for Tract 2236.
PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST
This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements for fiscal year 2006-07,
including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith, as set forth on the lists thereof,
attached hereto.
PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM
This part incorporates, by reference, a Diagram of the District describing the exterior boundaries
of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District, and the lines and dimensions of
each lot or parcel of land within the District (see Exhibits "C", "E", "F", and "G"). These diagrams
have been prepared by the Engineer of Work. The lines and dimensions of each lot within the
District are those lines and dimensions to be shown on the maps of the San Luis Obispo County
Assessor following the recordation of Tract Map 2236. An assessor's map(s) will be prepared
following the recordation of the Tract Maps.
5
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
This part describes the method of apportionment based upon the parcel classification of land
within the District. and in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received.
PART E: ASSESSMENT ROLL
This part is a list of properties and proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2006-07.
6
eda - Design Professionals
10/02106
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
PART A
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The facilities within the Grace Lane Maintenance District No.1 will be constructed by the
subdivider. Those improvements to be constructed will be operated. maintained and serviced
generally described as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The following improvements are proposed to be operated, maintained and serviced within the
Grace Lane Maintenance District No.1 for Fiscal Year 2006-07:
Open space weed abatement, fire fuel suppression, and public trail maintenance.
Fire fuel suppression is to be completed on a continual basis per Tract 2236 Grace Lane. City of
Arroyo Grande P.U.D. Fuel Modification Specifications. (see exhibits D and E).
Drainage easements and the facilities as specified shall be maintained on an annual basis. Storm
drain lines shall be "jetted" and cleaned of any debris as necessary to maintain clear and
operational lines prior to the rainy season. Manholes, and catch basins shall be vacuumed and/or
cleaned of any debris as deemed necessary by City of Arroyo Grande maintenance Department
Manager.(see exhibit F).
. Maintenance of the slopes outside public right of way not including private lots are to be
maintained as deemed necessary by the City of Arroyo Grande Maintenance Manager within two
areas. Area "A", benefits lots 1-15, and Area "B", benefits lots 16-19. (see exhibit G).
Road maintenance for the private drive to lots 16-19, shall be a seal coaUslurry seal at 5 year
intervals, and 2" A.C. overlay at 20 year intervals if required, based on City of Arroyo Grande road
maintenance department recommendations. (See exhibit G).
Services include, but are not limited to: personnel; contractual services; grading; clearing;
removal of debris; installation or reconstruction of said improvements at the end of their expected
lifespan; and any other items necessary for the maintenance or serving of the facilities.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
operations, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, or appurtenant facilities; providing for
the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping. including cultivation, irrigation, trimming.
spraying. fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; and the removal of trimmings, rubbish.
debris and other solid waste.
7
eda - Design Professionals
10/02106
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
PART B
ESTIMATE OF COST
As Preliminarily Approved As Confirmed and
Recorded
Fund balance Oct 10th $0.00
Add Revenues:
Assesments $9,334.95
Use of money $0.00
Total Revenues
Less Appropriations
Maintenance $9.334.95
Total Expenditures $9,334.95
Revenues Over (Under) $0.00
Fund Balance on Sept 30th $0.00
8
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
PARTC
, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM
Properties located within the proposed City of Arroyo Grande Grace Lane Maintenance District
No.1 are within the subdivision known as Grace Lane (Tract Map 2236).
The lines and dimensions are each lot within the District are those lines and dimensions shown
on the Tract Map approved and/or in plan check with the City of Arroyo Grande Department of
Public Works for the year when this report was prepared.
9
eda - Design Professionals
10/02106
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
PARTD
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
GENERAL
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by Agencies for the purpose of providing
certain public improvements which include the operation, maintenance and servicing of
improvements.
Section 22573 of the Act requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to
benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states:
'The net amount to be assessed upon lands within as assessment district may be apportioned by
any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots of
parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the
improvements."
'The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel willllenefit from the improvements shall be
made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 commencing with Section 5000 of the
Streets and Highways Code, State of California)."
In addition, Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any
assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property.
Because assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee, not a
tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article iliA of the California Constitution.
The 1972 Act permits the designation of zones of special benefit within any individual assessment
district if 'by reasons or variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the
various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement" (Sec. 22574). Thus,
the Act requires the levy of true 'assessment" rather than 'special tax."
. Article XIIID provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment.
Exempted from the assessment would be the. areas of public streets, public avenues, public
lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and right-of-ways,
public greenbelts and public parkways.
BENEFIT ZONE CLASSIFICATION
The City of Arroyo Grande's Grace Lane Maintenance District NO.1 will be formed to provide a
funding source for the operation, maintenance and servicing of improvements within the
boundaries of the District. All lots within the tract 2236 benefit from the open space and public
trail. .
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The total operation, maintenance and servicing costs for the improvements are apportioned to
each lot as follows: lots 1-15 benefit from storm drain maintenance and a portion of the slope
maintenance covered in Area 'A", but do not benefit from the slope maintenance covered in Area
'B", which only benefits the private drive for Lots 16-19. Likewise, only lots 16-19 benefit from the
road maintenance for the private drive in Area 'B".
10
eda - Design Professionals
10102106
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07 .
BENEFIT DETERMINATION
It is necessary to identify the special and direct benefits that the improvements will render to the
properties within the Assessment District as distinguished from the general benefits to the general
public.
The proposed public trail easement provides a place for recreation and access through the
District, thereby providing special and direct benefits to each property located within the District.
However, the City of Arroyo Grande has determined that the public trail easement will provide
benefit to the general public. Since the trail is accessible to the general public, 15 percent of the
benefit is classified as general. The remaining 85 percent of the benefit is classified as special.
The open space parcels located adjacent to the public trail provide beautification of the
surroundings, therefore providing a special benefit to each property located within the District.
Because the proposed improvements do not provide benefit to properties outside the District, no
allocation of general benefit is required for the fire suppression maintenance of the open space
parcels.
The slopes identified in Area 'A" (exhibit G) provide for roadway access for the entire Tract 2236.
The maintenance for these slopes therefore provides a special and direct benefit to each property
located within the District.
The slopes in Area 'B' provide roadway access for lots 16-19, thereby providing a special benefit.
The storm drain maintenance provides a special and direct benefit to each property located within
the District.
The road maintenance in Area 'B" provides a special and direct benefit only to lots 16-19.
Therefore this benefit would be classified as special.
11
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
PART E
ASSESSMENT ROLL
.JIUII
As Preliminarily Approved As Confirmed and Recorded
APN (lot #)
APN (LOT 1)
APN (LOT 2)
APN (LOT 3)
APN (LOT 4)
APN (LOT 5)
APN (LOT 6)
APN (LOT 7)
APN (LOT 8)
APN (LOT 9)
APN (LOT 10)
APN (LOT 11)
APN (LOT 12)
APN (LOT 13)
APN (LOT 14)
APN (LOT 15)
APN (LOT 16)
APN (LOT 17)
APN (LOT 18)
APN (LOT 19)
TOTAL:
10/02/06
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$459.95
$608.93
$608.93
$608.93
$608.93
$9,334.95
12
eda - Design Professionals
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
EXHIBIT C: ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
;
"'8"
S......
~~{
t.:!
"' N
..
n
~
~
~
m
m
~
'"
..
() wW8
~Oo
ZN
I- w~i':i
- U(9g
(l) ~O~
>-
- (90
I 0::
0::
X .0:
lL
W 0
>-
f-
U
I-
()
0::
I-
C/)
o 1
W ~
w() ~
ZZ g
<c<C ~
...JZ "
WW i
()~!z.....~
- . ~
<COe
t92zf
. ~
(j~i
i 8
~
.f
11
13
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
EXHIBIT D: FUEL MODIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS
In accordance with Municipal Section 8.44.020 all grass, weeds,brush, and other combustibles
will be maintained in a condition that will make it unlikely that it will become easily ignited or
support the spread of fire. The Fire Department encourages the property owner to consider the
use of livestock (goats, cattle, etc.) to ecologically maintain the fire safety of this land.
Zone 1
Grasses shall be cut down to a length of 4 inches or less yearly, or as required by the City of
Arroyo Grande Fire Department. All brush and pampas grasses will also be cut down in this zone.
Zone 2
Shrubs under oaks and within 10 feet of tree canopies shall be removed. Brush in this area shall
be thinned to the satisfaction of the Arroyo Grande Fire Department to allow for minimal spread of
fire and to allow adequate access for firefighting suppression efforts. Grasses and brush shall be
kept mowed in this zone as well.
Zone 3
To eliminate ladder fuels beneath oak trees, oak tree limbs to be considered for removal shall be
less than 4 inches in diameter and within 4 feet of the ground. Branches must be chipped for
mulch and spread on site.
Grasses in this zone shall be kept mowed where practical.
Trees with shrubs adjacent to the canopy shall likewise have limbs 4 inches or less removed until
clearance is achieved between canopy and shrubs.
Some shrubs in this area may be indicated in the field to be thinned.
Existing fallen branches located in treated zones shall be chipped and used as mulch.
Removal of larger tree limbs over 4 inches in diameter which pose a hazard or are within 4 feet of
verticai clearance zone must be approved by an arborist and the Director of Parks, Recreation,
and Facilities.
All pruning work done on oak trees in this zone shall be done only after the issuance of a Pruning
Permit by the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities.
Notes
A site walk with the owner or Homeowners Association's Representative and the City of Arroyo
Grande Fire Marshall is required prior to the commencement of any work in the defined open
space areas.
All work on and around existing oak trees shall conform to the conditions of the City of Arroyo
Grande Community Tree Ordinance 431 C.S. All Pruning of oak trees shall be executed per
documented recommendations by a certified arborist using ISA approved pruning standards. All
contractors and subcontractors shall have read the community tree ordinance and be familiar with
the conditions therein.
14
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
EXHIBIT E:FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES
..w......
:~\~?!'!:: :
.
WWW8
SOo
I- ~~~
- ()(!)g
a:l ~o~
>-
-(!)o
I n::
n::
X <I:
W t
>-
I-
(3
.
....<.\./:.
:\:/:j:j)[:j:.
';:::::-:-';':'.
N
'"
:-:-..........
',.'.<-:-:. CD
....
..
..
Z w
0 i
!;;: '"
~
"
wU ~
i
Z~ ~
I <(0 ~
I ...JO oJ
~
I W:2:(/) i
I U...JW ~
~
I Q?WZ ~
~
I (9:::>0 ~
~ w LLN i
N ~ 0 z j
w ~ ~ ~ OJ ~~
t5 0 ..
N N ~ m ~ <
~
~
,
tn
i
.t
Ii
'"
'"
,
..... .
.....<<........ .
.:j.:i.....?...:.;.!....~.~N.~."'.)/>
.~...:: .
:;:::::::.-::,,-
:::;:;:::::::....<ri;.. .
15
eda - Design Professionals
10/02106
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
rdi Ii:
'"
'"
5UJtli ci
z~~ ...
;<aCIZ 01
~Z- '" CQgro
~i~ '" 6"''''
... .
..... III
. \:):i
t~"
1--
~
~ N
'"
...
on
'"
""
.,
'" I '"
'" I
-- ~
--
-
'"
&
0 Ol
UJ -
0
i!i ...
z -
~ ~
:t
~
10/02/06
EXHIBIT F: STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE
~
-
~
-
ZZtnt:
i!:~~1lI
zc....::i
~::;..UJ
~~~
~~
u. ww ~
zoo
I- ~~~
- ueJa
OJ ~O ~
-eJ>-
I ~
>< !It
w ~
>-
I-
(3
w
o
z
<(
z
W
I-
Wz
z-
<(<(
....12
W2
00::
<(0
0::1-
(!)Cf)
~
~
~
~
a
,
o
"
~
g
X
'"
~
I
~
.
. ..
(j.~t
III ~
g ~
'" 8
~
N
I
.1
!I.
16
eda - Design Professionals
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
,
\
\
,
\
\
,
,
\
i
,
,
\
\
\
\
/"
,"
,\.l
'--
"
~.~
t'!'
/
/
/ ::l
/
/
/
"
"
,,/ i\---1
:r-l ~_ -"
r'"" ~,l \
I\~-}~-\.
is \ a ,)
W \ - '\
~ r------.
~ ~,_n __"
</-,-
'"'-...~.
,
,
~
10/02/06
EXHIBIT G: SLOPE MAINTENANCE/ROAD MAINTENANCE
o
en
'"
"'
ci
I'-
en
'"
'"
CO~t'"J
>-"'1'-
0- .
-' '"
,G~
t~::
~i
:'
~."
'--
cu'-.
",:g
'.....~., !l ;!:
.,p
'~. '"
~
'"
ti
;;2",
f---.
~~/\
/ \
..--,
,
\
\
i
'''''' \
". -', \
',j
':'1' \
i
/
......-'
o
----
....--
" "~-a"O":;;';;.c_.
--.,..- ~"V!I ..
\ 'l"- '-_
j,;: ",,1""-
J'" ..../,"- ".
\ ':: I 'i, ,(""~, f ,,'
\\.L.[j:' /~,/;:;. ') ~Q~/
" "g '''" -,~-..s># (
, ~:-~~ ''':/~~,---, ",
\ \..). co _~./ /~~ ~ " ":
\. ,,-- ti ~ .' /' ,~\ \:.:. \
., <~:'<,> ..~~~~~! (,~~ ~l~;.<\ \)
'. ". \. \.,~. l';<; "'J 0 '-oj
,," \. \..', t- " / -"C' J, r~ ,: I
, ',' - /'.-' ~ I ',,-- /'
" " ',\. ,," ,'- ,I \ ~~ ""', -,_,. !
\.'\.,\." \./, /,",.,,,
. \. ", \. ',\. \. . '\ :~. ,,",:, :
" ' '" , '"," " ' " " ,0 ',-
\. 'I " \. \. '\ ." ..- \ r'~
\. :\"... ,," '\" .- '" ,'-
'- I \. ." \. " 'I }." "- -.,
" " '\ ',' " -,_ " ' .-:' i"- '
, " 1,' -." " . "-/- "" ", ': ''-,
" ", .', '-<' 'J..' ,'" /
, ',.. '1, ' ". "<, " '",'-" ". ,.l:;-<; ",,/
'- ,\, ',' ,," " '\. .-...., ,~- .""/ /
". '. "I '. '-i'~' ' '..." ~;"-=-:.
'. ... R, , , ... " ,
... '-I', ,Z ',', "" ."...._~ ";", /
'- ..., ' '. ~ '" ,-' . n "'" /
" ,I , ~'O'(j]" '\,,, "... t- j
... ". '" "'l'~' ", "', ;/" .
" 'I ," iii'" '- t.~ !
, ,'", '. UJ. '\, ...
, ',U' ' -.0', '. I i
, f '. .0.0( .......' . '!
' ',' ',- '~'" ,r--.::::.__! '
" ,'" ',', .~) --, I
" "~'~" '. " "., ", ~:.: ;'
, ," "-.--...../ i
, ;', ~~ 'r
'" '\", " ',' '- <.t~ i J
, "w " ,,'- . ~__..J I
. It-- ,-" , .-c, ; I
',\\" . , ',,' ,'p I!
,'"~.,,''\,~''\,, '.,;; '-~-"-1 I
. ',~', ", " ----:;:--.--; 1
''\, '. '- ,~l i
"-1\ '.',', 'I ;. j
. '1 , " ' _------- \ i
',~\','r-:_:, \\
", \', ';.. .--\
,'- ----"
~. \" '~',,', ..---x \ \
..... ~,. ~-'_"'04 l
,," ~ '\ ....-t.", cn~\ \
" ''', ,,', '::, ..;2..-:\ \
,', ",', ----':~. I- a: \ ~\
" '" \" \. ''::U2: '\0::\
" , '_ --_~-...t 0 1
'" ',', \pl- ~ i@!
" ", " -;:, --'i8!
" '. \. t::' Itr.j
;,' '-.".-:::-~. ! l
'\ .... --) i
',,'~ s/ ;'
", ~ ! /
!
~.
N
..,
...
'"
(p
... Ul
Z
., :5
Ul
0> ~
ex:
0 Cl
~
~
~
:;oC')
-~""
b~a:i
-'ti
z;;2"
tt-......
i
17
if
.,-~
~~~
z"''''
--~
~~-
l'$ ~~~
UU~
!~ d~
g~ ~~~
rni: crcnN
I~
glii
IL
'u.: lL u:
uj u; u;
~ Ul
~ rlcri
I~ ~
~ ~
~ < .,
<
~c
~~
",ww'"
'-/;;;;00
.- 2&~
- UCla
co ~o~
>-
- ClO
:r: 0::
0::
X <(
LL
W 0
>-
I-
U
w
U
Z
<(
Z
W
.-
Z
<(
:2:
wCl
z<(
::s~
w-
Uw
<(0...
o:::g
(9(j)
~i
'"
i
d
]
w
~
~
~
~
~
f
<>
~
"
~
i
~
.
~
.
.
o
."
~
~
i
G
G
G
N
~
UtI
.. "
It ~
.; i
hn
i-i ~
oj- 0
1 · ~
in
i.J!' co
'SR'" ~
1;.. i!i
N
~
eda - Design Professionals
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006'07
APPENDIX 1: COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
-All costs are from an estim~te by JC Landscaping dated October 10 2005 (see appendix 3)
18
eda - Design Professionals
10/02/06
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
APPENDIX 2: BENEFIT EXHIBIT
Unit Cost Revenue Number 01 Lots Total Revenue/year
Per Parcel
Trail maintenance $1,200.00 $62.16 19 $1,200.00
LS
Weed Control (fire $4,800.00 $252.63 19 $4,800.00
suppression) LS
Slope maintenance: $0.05/sq. ft. $33.63 19 $639.00
(Area "A") 12,780sq ft.
'Slope maintenance: $0.05/sq. ft. $31.69 4 $126.75
(Area "B") 2,535sq It.
Storm drain $2,100.00 $110.53 19 $2,100.00
maintenance LS
'Road maintenance $0.30/sq. ft. $55.20 4 $220.80
(seal coat/slurry seal) (3,680 S.F.)
'Road maintenance $1.35/sq. ft. $62.10 4 $248.40
(2" A.C. overlay) (3,680 S.F.)
TOTAL: $9,334.95
. For benefit of Lots 16-19 only
10/02106
19
eda - Design Professionals
Grace Lane Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2006-07
APPENDIX 3: TRACT 2236 LANDSCAPING BID
Ie laBiIscapbig
_.411"'140
F,...lIj~~__
OcIollctlG,~*S
GftBNCSIct C<lM~
1T.Il:t223' Ma!II,""""",,1WllQrFIlIlI ~I' Ro\IIII:d
Tnlll MJ/nlall_l
Clcotln;.....1iaIlI piIlh lllRI a!olls pnbwpy -1aol_ cqllfpa>ClIt
Trfalmill,ln:...ladS plIllIl< dll~1nc ,.,-rlll.;aclucl<:t oq.ijlll\CAl
O_11nll1 alClIilllp
'I'aIllllrlU R1alnlGllallCO per1'="
Pod Mml-pIllOllfJ>rTr=:223':
. MOIfllnfarm=d ~dcs cqulpah:ut
rtlmRlItIS"_llId ~llllIlOI'IoNlIClu&:s .pmOOI
Hwl-': 1IId1 wcod Oftr-lAclu&:s cqUIpIll_
%lQSo4lllla<S#
Amrta~e.. tu2I
5'00.00 pcr.)'COl'
Slillo.oopcr ~r
SIOlI.OI/ por 'CllI'
SlUOJlQ
$iooo.oo por)'OO'
51000.110 pet ~
SIllO.oo per,..,
!ttf'!l MSIIt:lceauft....., m.tO ,",I' ~r'
TallII lbr.l\ld ~QU per lI"'"' .14100.00
,gun.,",
'l1Iisbid docs 01ci.1Adud....1 '.'IM ~.d...... cplMcllIICI'rllt:lRllanmd'.I,'!, 1t3.
I_Ill bcS!otllasu\lcnlt. bM /i:Ir d"'ltLl&,....n..... "I'lIl1d 'l&lIlnmll.lloa.
TbOlllll'O" tilt II... OI'l'Onuully 10 bid
~.IIt"'ln""
J<<ry IClUIliIllll
JC IAmIlSClIpill&
20
10/02106
eda - Design Professionals
9.a.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a
public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET,
ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item:
1. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007, Neighborhood Plan
04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit Development 04-
002; Applicant - Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location - 22 Acres
Located East of Noguera Court and North of East Cherry Avenue Extension
(Cherry Creek). The Council will consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
residential development project within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of
two subareas. Subarea 1 is a proposed 30-unit residential subdivision in a Planned
Unit Development configuration on 9 of the 22 acres. Subarea 2 encompasses 13
acres where no development is proposed at this time. The City is concurrently
processing a Development Code Amendment to change the Residential Rural Zone
designation to Medium Density Single Family Residential which is consistent with the
2001 General Plan.
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item
listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the
public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds
for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was
given.
Information relating to this item is available by contacting the City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department at 473-5420. The Council meeting will be
televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
Publish n, The Tribune, Friday, September 29, 2006
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
CITY COUNCIL
,1 d KELLY HEFFERNON
,,-;fI'ACTlNG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-
007, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 04-002, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-
002; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO
GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION - 22 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF
NOGUERA PLACE AND NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE
EXTENSION (CHERRY CREEK)
OCTOBER 10, 2006 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2006)
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
residential development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of two (2)
subareas. Subarea 1 is a proposed thirty (30) unit residential subdivision in a Planned
Unit Development configuration on nine (9) of the 22 acres. Subarea 2 encompasses
thirteen (13) acres where no subdivision is proposed at this time.
The Planning Commission recommends that Council find the current Mitigated Negative
Declaration insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared
for the project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the project be
returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental
determination.
FUNDING:
There would be additional City costs associated with landscape maintenance within the
creek setback area if the City accepts the offer of dedication. There would also be City
costs associated with maintenance of drainage facilities. In addition, the City has
proposed to pay $280,000 towards the regional portion of the drainage improvements.
This funding is available in the Newsom Springs Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
budget. However, the need for allocation of some additional funding will be likely after
costs are incurred for environmental review of the regional Newsom Springs project.
DISCUSSION
Sackqround
The East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) area is roughly twenty-two (22) acres in
size and is generally bounded by a private fifteen-foot (15') wide extension of East
Cherry Avenue to the south and Myrtle Street to the north. Surrounding the site is
Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east, agricultural land to the east and south, and
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 2
medium-density single-family residential development to the west on Noguera Street.
Existing on the project site are fourteen (14) residences, including the historic
Vanderveer residence, and several accessory structures.
According to the 2001 General Plan (lU2-7), this area is subject to a requirement for a
Neighborhood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer,
Creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any
subdivision or parcel map. Included with this staff report is a copy of the EVNP and the
accompanying technical Appendix.
The EVNP area is currently divided into sixteen (16) parcels under twelve (12) separate
ownerships. The land Use Element of the General Plan designates this property as
Single-Family Residential Medium-Density with a Neighborhood Plan overlay (SF-MD-
NP). This is the only area within the City having a Neighborhood Plan designation. The
Zoning Map has not been updated to reflect the current land use and therefore is shown
as Single-Family Residential Rural (RR).
The applicant held several informal neighborhood meetings during the fall of 2003 to
gain feedback on various alternative designs for developing the project site and
conceptualizing the Neighborhood Plan. Discussions centered on opportunities and
constraints of the property, specifically addressing site layout and issues related to
circulation, density, and drainage. Alternatives were discussed and narrowed down to a
preferred conceptual plan, which was further refined and finally submitted for Pre-
Application review.
The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Pre-Application on March 16,
2004 and March 23, 2004, respectively, and generally provided favorable comments.
Concerns focused on the width and composition of the agricultural buffer, drainage, lot
size and street width (see Attachments 1 and 2 for meeting minutes). The conceptual
design included forty (40) single-family residential lots ranging in size from about 4,000
to 12,000 square feet and arranged in a concentric pattern around a central green
space. Included in the design were common landscaped areas, a 100' agricultural buffer
with a pedestrian/bike trail, and possible pedestrian linkage to the adjacent school property
by way of a bridge over Arroyo Grande Creek (the bridge would be located on City
property within the Stanley Street right-of-way). Based on concerns from neighbors of
increased traffic from parents using the bridge as a convenient drop off for children
attending Paulding Middle School and from the City regarding permitting, construction
and maintenance costs, the project plans eliminated reference to a bridge. However,
this does not preclude the City from pursuing a pedestrian bridge option now or in the
future.
The Traffic Commission considered the project on August 16, 2004. Comments
focused on the proposed 32-foot width of the streets (see Attachment 3 for
Memorandum to Planning Commissioners from Don Spagnolo dated August 18, 2004).
The majority of the Traffic Commission expressed concern that the 32-foot width of the
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 3
streets was too narrow. The project was later revised to include a 36-foot wide internal
street.
Although not directly related to this project, the City Council also considered an
interpretation of allowable uses within and composition of the Agricultural Buffer overlay
District last fall. The interpretation was helpful in guiding the redesign of the project prior to
the formal submittal process. Council directed staff to allow flexibility regarding the location
of the twenty-foot (20') wide landscape strip within the one hundred foot (100') agricultural
buffer, with a preference for keeping the landscape strip as far away from agricultural
operations as possible. Council further directed staff to not allow any residential uses
within the agricultural buffer area, including backyards and garages, and require the buffer
area to be maintained by either a) a homeowners association, b) a maintenance district, or
c) dedicated to the City.
The Planning Commission considered the formal Cherry Creek project on February 1,
2005, March 1,2005, March 15,2005, May 16, 2006 and July 18, 2006 and, on a 3-2
vote, recommended that the City Council require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
be completed for the project based on the following issues (see Attachments 4-8 for
Meeting Minutes):
. Drainage,
. Environmental impacts to prime soils on subareas 1 and 2,
. Creek sensitivities for subareas 1 and 2,
. Siltation, and
. Pesticide runoff calculations haven't been fully addressed.
The motion also requested that the project be returned to the Planning Commission
after Council consideration of the recommendation.
At the August 8, 2006 City Council meeting under City Council Member Items, the
Council unanimously supported the following request placed on the agenda by two
Council Members:
"Request to place consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007,
Neighborhood Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit
Development 04-002 (Cherry Creek project) on a future City Council agenda for
consideration along with consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation
regarding the environmental determination."
Council Members commented that, for a variety of reasons, including the need to
address critical City land use policies and timing related issues, they wanted to have the
flexibility to act on the Cherry Creek project as a whole, if deemed appropriate. Staff
has been asked whether the Council can consider and render a decision on the project
as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that the Planning Commission's formal
recommendation is limited to a determination that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is
inadequate and an Environmental Impact Report is required. Because of the Planning
Commission's determination on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Planning
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 4
Commission would not be able to recommend project approval as each required project
approval/entitlement requires a separate finding that there are no significant unmitigated
environmental impacts. However, it must be emphasized that this is a complex issue
and a formal Planning Commission recommendation on the project would not be
detrimental and could only enhance the process, regardless of the ultimate
recommendation.
On September 12, 2006, Council directed staff to further research issues related to
drainage, measurement of the creek setback area, prime soils mitigation, historical
status of existing trees on site, timing of the City's sewer upgrade at the Fair Oaks
Avenue trunk line, traffic impacts during the school peak hour, and consideration of
Subareas 1 and 2 separately in the Initial Study. These issues are addressed within the
report. Consideration of the project was continued to October 10, 2006.
Proiect Description
Proposed is a Neighborhood Plan, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to
coordinate infrastructure improvements and allow for ultimate development of up to
seventy-five (75) new residential lots on the twenty-two (22) acre site. The City is
concurrently processing a Development Code Amendment to change the Residential
Rural (RR) zoning designation to Medium Density Single Family Residential (MD - SFR)
consistent with the General Plan.
Neiahborhood Plan
Policy LU2-7 of the City's General Plan states the following:
The 2H acre area south of Anoyo Grande Creek east of Tract 409
(Noguera Park), and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single-Family
Residential-Medium Density (SFR-MD) is subject to a requirement for a
neighborhood plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural
buffer, creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to
approval of any subdivision or parcel map.
Although there are no specific guidelines in the General Plan or Development Code for
preparing a Neighborhood Plan, it was City staffs intent in recommending the requirement
of a Neighborhood Plan to ensure that utilities, circulation and infrastructure needs would
be designed to accommodate future development on the entire 22-are area. As a result,
. the Neighborhood Plan focuses on general infrastructure improvements for both
proposed Subareas, as further described below. The site layout for Subarea 1 has
been designed to accommodate development of Subarea 2 by providing access to
water, sewer and other utility facilities for the entire area. In no way does the
Neighborhood Plan authorize specific entitlements for Subarea 1 or Subarea 2.
Separate environmental and discretionary review will be required for any proposed
subdivision or development within the Neighborhood Plan area. The potential for a total
of 75 new residential lots (27 in Subarea 1 and 48 in Subarea 2) is estimated for the
entire area based on the current Subarea 1 proposal and 4.5 dwelling units per gross
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 5
acre for Subarea 2. Gross acreage includes unbuildable areas such as the creek
channel, existing riparian vegetation, creek setback, and agricultural buffer.
At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant prepared a conceptual design
of how Subarea 2 could be subdivided given existing development pattems and
environmental constraints. Based on that design (included in the Neighborhood Plan),
Subarea 2 could potentially have 26 lots, which represents 15 additional lots. Once
again, the purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is not to determine specific lots. Lot
layout for Subarea 2 is conceptual based on the existing pattern of development and
environmental constraints. Lot configuration for Subarea 2 will likely change based
upon proposals by individual property owners.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is to ensure Subarea 1 accommodates
maximum buildout of Subarea 2 under the existing General Plan with regard to
infrastructure and circulation. Per the project description and as conditioned, staff
believes development of Subarea 1 will accommodate future sewer, water, regional
drainage and circulation needs of Subarea 2. Therefore, if Council would prefer to
address Subareas 1 and 2 separately, they can determine that the Neighborhood Plan
requirement has been met based on the submitted plan and proceed with consideration
of Subarea 1.
Because no development is proposed within Subarea 2 at this time, the Initial Study
addresses the Aesthetics, Biological Resources, HydrologylWater Quality, Air Quality,
Cultural Resources and Noise sections of the Initial Study for Subarea 2 in a general
sense, and more specifically addresses the Agricultural Resources, Population/Housing,
Public Services/Utilities, Recreation, Transportation/Circulation and Land Use sections
in more detail. Separate discretionary and environmental review will be required for any
proposed development in Subarea 2.
Options for Council to consider regarding the Neighborhood Plan (with the applicant's
consent) are as follows:
1. Process a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to eliminate the Neighborhood
Plan requirement.
2. Retain the Neighborhood Plan requirement and process a GPA to change the
r land use of Subarea 2 from Medium Density Single Family Residential (4.5
dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Density Single Family Residential (2.5
dwelling units per acre) or Low Density Single Family Residential (1.0
dwelling unit per acre - original land use designation).
3. Determine that the proposed plan meets the General Plan requirement for a
Neighborhood Plan and consider Subarea 1 separately.
Subareas
Development of the 22-acre property is separated in two subareas as follows:
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 6
Subarea 1 includes nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) acres with primary access from an
extension of E. Cherry Avenue and secondary access from Myrtle Street. Proposed is a
thirty (30) lot residential subdivision (27 new lots) in a Planned Unit Development
configuration with lot sizes ranging from 3,905 to 12,980 square feet (average lot size is
7,100:1: square feet). Two duet lots are proposed for the affordable units. The proposed
density is 3.3 dwelling units per acre; 4.5 dwelling units per acre is allowed per the
General Plan. Four (4) parcels totaling 128,309 square feet (2.9 acres) are proposed as
open space. The open space parcels include a portion of the creek channel, the 25' creek
setback area, landscaping (turf, shrubs, trees), and pedestrian paths intended for passive
recreational use. Sidewalks are provided throughout the development with accent paving
at crosswalks.
The proposed width for the intemal street is thirty-six feet (36') with parking on both sides,
and the proposed street width for E. Cherry Avenue is thirty-two feet (32') with parking
provided on the north side of the street. A concrete curb and gutter is proposed on the
north side of the street with an asphalt curb on the south side. The site plan shows a
looped road system with Myrtle Street extended further east. Myrtle Street goes around
the historic Vandeveer residence so that it is visible from the public right-of-way.
Portions of the 15' wide "Dirt Cherry" are included within the proposed East Cherry
Avenue extension in response to neighborhood and Planning Commission comments.
Because of the uncertainty regarding fractionalized ownership, including Dirt Cherry as
part of the development will likely necessitate the use of eminent domain by the City.
Note that the applicant has provided an alternative for the access street to be separate
from Dirt Cherry area if preferred by the City. A thirty-foot (30') wide emergency access
easement is provided between lots 25 and 26 to serve Subarea 2.
Consistent with the City's Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2), a one
hundred thirty foot (130') buffer is proposed to separate the divergent residential and
agricultural land uses. The buffer extends 130' from the edge of the Dixson Ranch
property line to the residential property line and includes a sixty- to eighty-foot (60'-80')
wide landscape strip, fencing along the agricultural property, an eight-foot (8') tall masonry
wall adjacent to the proposed residential development, and a five-foot (5') wide
meandering pedestrian path. The buffer excludes any private property (i.e. residential
backyards) as was proposed with the Pre-Application. To minimize gaps in the Ag buffer,
the sound wall that runs along the E. Cherry Avenue frontage behind the vegetation has
been extended across the bio-swale (allowing a large gap with culvert at the bottom for
drainage to pass through), and landscaping is proposed within "Dirt Cherry" on the other
side of the proposed East Cherry Avenue extension where the two points of access are
proposed. The landscape plan has been updated to show additional detail regarding
selected plant species based on their buffer performance (see sheets L-1.0 and L-3.0).
Specific landscape design has also been prepared for the riparian area to include
appropriate plant species (see sheet L-2.0). Plant selection for all project areas is
based on recommendations from Kevin Merk, a senior Biologist and Botanist with
Rincon Consultants, Inc. and David Wolff, the City's consulting biologist.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 7
The three 72-inch pipes previously proposed for drainage has been changed to include
a longer bioswale (increased from 235' to 480') and culvert at the outfall. No pipes are
currently proposed. The landscape plan shall include exclusively native plants in the
bioswale area. Outfall details are provided on sheet C-3.0 of the project plans. The top
of bank and creek setback area has been modified at the creek outfall based on the
revised grading plan.
The architectural style of the residential units will be subject to the Cherry Creek Design
Guidelines, included as a separate attachment in the September 12, 2006 staff report.
Please let staff know if additional copies are needed. These Guidelines were modeled
after the City's Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and includes much detail to ensure
quality development. (Note that the project site lies outside of the D-2.4 overlay district
and therefore is not subject to the City's Design Guidelines for Historic Districts). The
objective is to present enough flexibility in design to enable unique development
opportunities, yet provide sufficient design criteria to create the desired neighborhood
"feel" consistent with the Village Area. Lots 1-7 (adjacent to the Noguera Place
subdivision) will be deed restricted to single story residences only. All other residences
will adhere to Development Code height requirements (2-stories or 30 feet).
The feasibility of a creekside path was explored, but proved to be infeasible given the
proximity of existing residences to the creek. However, the proposed development of
Subarea 1 includes pedestrian pathways throughout the development that would be
accessible to the public and connect the neighborhood to the west with the entire
Neighborhood Plan area.
Subarea 2 contains thirteen (13) acres with eleven (11) existing residences. If approved,
the new medium density zoning (MD-SFR) for the area will allow densities up to 4.5
dwelling units per acre or 48 new residences [(4.5)(13) - 11]. These properties are
accessed by a fifteen-foot (15') wide private road that is owned by many individuals,
including the owners of the Dixson Ranch. Staff believes it would be in the best interest of
future residents of Subarea 2 if East Cherry Avenue were extended to the full width of 32'.
The applicant has worked to obtain offers of dedication, but to date has not been able to
contact all of the owners of the roadway.
Another private access road within Subarea 2 is Lierly Lane, which connects perpendicular
to the 15' private extension of East Cherry Avenue between the Janowicz and Estes
properties. Lierly Lane also has a narrow width (approximately ten feet) and is considered
inadequate to serve future development. Upon future subdivision in this area, Lierly Lane
would necessitate widening to a minimum of eighteen feet (18') for emergency access
purposes.
The proposed utilities within Subarea 1 will be sized and extended to adequately serve the
future development of Subarea 2. Sewer easements would also be provided for future
development of Subarea 2, requiring hook up of existing residences on properties located
within two hundred and fifty feet (250') of the sewer system within two (2) years. Per
Municipal Code Section 13.12.050, "when a public sewer becomes available to a building
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 8
served by a private sewage disposal system, such building shall be connected to the
public sewer within twenty"four (24) months after such public sewer is available, and such
private disposal system shall be abandoned as provided in Section 13.12.080, unless an
approval is granted by the Council for the continued use of such private sewage disposal
system." Water and sewer lines will be extended and connected to existing lines to
serve both subareas in accordance with City standards. The proposed 8" sewer line to
serve Subarea 2 will adequately handle the flow from Subarea 2 at buildout. The 8"
sewer line is being extended to PC Railway Place and has an invert at the edge of
Subarea 2 of 116.94 feet. The sewer line is approximately 17.5 feet deep in E. Cherry
Avenue at the edge of Subareas 1 and 2.
The City's Fair Oaks Avenue Sewer Upgrade project consists of replacing the existing
12-inch sewer line along Fair Oaks Avenue with a new 18-inch sewer line. According to
the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Fair Oaks Avenue Sewer Upgrade is
expected to be completed in FY 2007-08. It is projected that the project construction
schedule will be adequate to accommodate demands of new Cherry Creek residential
units by full buildout of the subdivision.
All new residences would be subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Preservation
Overlay District (AG-2.2) including the proposed 130' wide agricultural buffer and
prohibition of new development within the buffer area. Additions to existing residences
would be allowed within the buffer area, as long as new dwelling units were not being
created.
The proposed drainage improvements constructed with development of Subarea 1 are
sized to handle drainage for Subarea 2. Individual grading and drainage plans will be
required for new residences, as per Development Code requirements.
Develooment Code Comoliance for Subarea 1
Compliance with Development Code standards, such as lot size, setbacks and
architectural style, are determined through the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
process. Deviations from standards are allowed to occur when there are provisions of
adequate infrastructure, emergency facilities and access, parking, screening,
recreational facilities, and environmental compatibility with adjacent properties. The
following table outlines the Planned Unit Development standards for Subarea 1.
Because of the single story restriction for Lots 1-7, the applicant is requesting a 5%
deviation from lot coverage requirements for these lots, and a 10% deviation for the
duet lots. Deviations from setbacks, lot width and lot depth are also requested.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 9
DeveloDmenlCodeReauirements (MD-SFRZonina District) ...
, . .,
<',-.;-:" ,'," 'I..,,::', '.<":-,:,...;' ;y, '."'.: '. .,;.
'. " " " . , ,.'\ ,-,',",.. " ,
Setbacks:
Front: 20'
Interior Side: 5' one side, 10' other side
Street Side: 15'
Rear: 10' 11-storv\, 15' (2-storvl
Minimum Lot Size 7,200 sauare feet
Minimum Lot Width 70'
Minimum Lot Deoth 100'
Maximum Densitv 4.5 dwellina units oer acre
Maximum Lot Coveraae 40%
Maximum Heiaht 30' or 2 stories, whichever is less
Minimum Distance Between 10'
Buildinas
ProDosed Proiect -:Subarea l'
"0",' ., ",. ,"
'.,' Item:'
i h,
Setbacks
Lots: 1.7
Front - Porch
Front -
House
Front -
Garaae
Side
!Internal)
Side (Street)
Rear - House
or Garage
Pr~posed .'
, ,'. ':
10' min.
15' min.
20'min.
5'min.
10' min.
(1 story height
restriction)
10' min.
(1 story
height
restriction \
, Des~ription
, ,~'.
<: ,...>
, ".:'
Measured from front property line adjacent to
street to closest portion of porch foundation.
Measured from front property line adjacent to
street to closest portion of house foundation.
Measured from front property line adjacent to
street to closest portion of the aaraae door.
Measured from property line to closest portion of
house or aarage foundation.
Measured from street side property line to the
closest portion of the foundation of the house or
side of garage. Applies only to corner lots. The
street side property line shall be determined as
the side with the longer measurement along the
street. For example, if a corner lot is 50' x 90', the
side along the 90' measurement shall be the
street side vard.
Measured from properly line to closest portion of
house or garage foundation.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 10
ProDosed Proiecf-'Subarea 1, ","" ,. .'
, ',' , ' " , ' '
, " ' , ~' ,
,', ',Item " ' Proposed Description "
."'.. "
, ,~...' . "., ' '
, ,"" " ' ' h,
, " " , ,~ "
Lots: 8-23
Front - Porch 10' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to
street to closest oortion of Dorch foundation.
Front -House 15' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to
street to closest oortion of house foundation.
Front - 20' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to
Garage street to closest oortion of the aaraae door.
Side 0' - attached Measured from property line to closest portion of
(Internal) 5' - non- house or garage foundation. Attached units shall
attached share an internal zero lot line. Non- attached
units shall maintain a 5' side setback.
Side (Street) 10' min. Measured from street side property line to the
closest portion of the foundation of the house or
side of aaraae. Aoolies onlv to corner lots.
Rear - House 15' min. (1 Measured from property line to closest portion of
or Garage story) house or garage foundation. 15' minimum rear
25' min (2 setback for the 2-story portion of the house on
story) lots 15 and 16.
Other Standards (aI/lots);
Maximum 3.35 units/acre Based on gross density (30 lots/9.0 acres)
Density
Minimum Lot 5,800 sJ.I 6,000 square feet for detached units and 3,900
Area 3,500 sJ. square feet for units that share an internal zero
lot line.
Minimum Lot 55'/35' As measured 20' back from the front property
Width line. 55' for detached units and 35' feet for units
that share an internal zero lot line.
Minimum Lot 80'175' As measured at the approximate center of the lot.
Depth 80' for detached units and 75' feet for units that
share an internal zero lot line.
Maximum Lot 40%/45%/50% Coverage includes all buildings and garage area,
Coverage but excludes unenclosed porches, decks, and
balconies. 40% coverage for lots 8-14 and 17-30.
45% coverage for lots 1-7 that are restricted to 1
story. 50% coverage for lots 15 and 16, which
share an internal zero lot line.
Planned Unit Development
The purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is to "facilitate
development of properties designated for residential and commercial uses or planned
development in the General Plan and Development Code. This process is used where
greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 11
be possible through strict application of conventional zone or land use district
regulations." (Development Code Section 16.16.060).
Therefore, Planned Unit Development applications provide a basis for deviating from
other Development Code standards if the proposed project is found to meet these
goals, as long as the overall permitted density of the project area is not exceeded. This
requirement is specified within the required findings. In particular, since Planned Unit
Developments frequently cluster units in order to achieve other design goals, deviations
from lot size standards are normally involved. The proposed project is within the
maximum density allowable (proposed is 30 units and allowed is 41 units).
Section 16.32.050(E) of the Development Code outlines additional performance
standards for Planned Unit Development projects. Listed below are the specific
standards followed by how the project meets or falls short of these standards.
1. When lot sizes less than that permitted by the underlying zoning district are
proposed for a subdivision, a Planned Unit Development permit application
(Section 16.16.180) shall be submitted concurrently with the subdivision
application. (Proposed lot sizes are less than 7,200 square feet. Therefore a
PUD application has been submitted along with the Tentative Tract Map. Lot
size was identified as a concern by neighboring property owners. As a result,
density of the proposed project was reduced to increase lot size to be more
comparable to the adjacent neighborhood. The average lot size of adjacent
properties to the west is 7,300 square feet, similar to the current proposed
average lot size of 7, 100 square feet for the overall project. The average lot size
of adjacent properties to the east is over an acre in size. The project includes
larger lots on the east side of the site for better compatibility).
2. Lot size, lot width, and lot depth for each unit shall be determined through the
Planned Unit Development review process. (Proposed lot sizes, lot widths and lot
depths are less than the MD-SFR requirements).
Development Code Ave. Proposed
Reauirement
Lot size 7,200 square feet 7,112 s.f. (min. is 3,905 s.f.
and max. is 12,980 s.f.)
Lot width 70' 55'
Lot deDth 100' 90'
3. Building setbacks required by the underlying zoning district may be reduced or
waived for lots created through a Planned Unit Development, provided the lot
coverage requirements of the district are met for the project. (The project
deviates from setback requirements as shown in the table on pages 7-9. The
project also deviates from the 40% maximum lot coverage requirement for lots 1-
7 and the duet lots. Lots 1-7 back up to the residences fronting on Noguera
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 12
Place and are single story as requested by the Noguera Place residents. Single
story units predictably have greater lot coverage than two-story units. The
Planned Unit Development process enables approval of the project despite this
deviation in standards in order to facilitate development where greater flexibility
in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would otherwise
be possible. In the case of this project, deviation from standards is enabling the
applicant to utilize larger than required agricultural buffers, partially resolves
regional drainage problems, and to address other City objectives such as
providing creek protection and open space areas).
In no case shall the minimum separation between buildings on adjacent lots be
less than ten (10) feet or less than required by other state or local laws;
excepting, however, for adjacent lots where a common wall is shared in a zero lot
line project. (Standard lots meet this requirement; the two duet lots have zero lot
line on one side).
4. For zero lot line projects where detached dwelling units are to be constructed
upon a lot line, a five-foot maintenance easement shall be provided on the
adjacent lot, along, and parallel to, the zero lot line dwelling. The easement shall
grant access to the owner of the zero lot line dwelling for purposes of maintaining
the zero lot line wall. (The project will be conditioned to provide said easements).
5. A Planned Unit Development must meet the following performance standards in
order to be approved:
a. The project shall be unobtrusive and environmentally compatible with
adjacent property. . (The project site is located between medium density
residential development to the west and low-density residential development
to the east. The proposed medium density units will be most compatible with
the existing neighborhood to the west since that area is already bum out. The
neighborhood to the east has the potential for innll development up to 4.5
dwelling units per acre under the existing General Plan and proposed zoning.
The project will be environmentally compatible with the adjacent Agricultural
land with implementation of the 130' wide Ag buffer including a 60'-80' wide
landscape strip and masonry wall to separate the two uses).
b. The project shall provide all infrastructure necessary to support the project.
(Yes).
c. The project shall provide adequate emergency facilities and access. (Yes).
d. Circulation systems shall be designed to promote smooth-flowing and non-
conflicting vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (Access for existing Subarea 2
residences improves with the proposed project. Pedestrian paths are located
throughout the project site).
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 13
e. The project shall provide adequate and well-landscaped parking and ample
drainage facilities. (Yes).
f. The project shall provide screening, as required, to separate different land
uses, minimize nuisances to and from adjacent property, and guarantee
convenient access to preserved open space. (Yes).
g. A property owners' association and covenants shall be established to ensure
that common areas are owned and maintained by Planned Unit Development
property owners. (Condition of approval).
g. All signs shall be appropriately integrated with the overall architectural theme
of the development. (Signage not proposed).
i. Pedestrianlbike paths shall provide safe, convenient routes within the
development and link with other systems on the perimeter of the site.
Unobstructed visibility shall be provided from and of these paths at
intersections. (Sidewalks and pedestrian paths are provided within the
development).
j. Recreational facilities shall comply with City standards, be made available to
residents, and shall be maintained by local property owners. The project shall
be designed to group dwellings around common open space andlor
recreational features. (The project includes landscaped open space areas
with the proposed vegetated swale in the center, along the Cherry Avenue
frontage in the Ag buffer, and adjacent to the creek. Where appropriate,
meandering pedestrian pathways are included. A homeowners association
will maintain all common open space areas. If the City accepts the offer of
dedication of the creek bed and 25' creek setback, the City would maintain
that area).
k. Planned Unit Development design must promote an attractive streetscape
and discourage monotonous streets dominated by asphalt, concrete,
garages, and cars. (The architectural design of the dwellings will be subject
to specific Design Guidelines for Cherry Creek. The intent of the Guidelines
is to provide creative and appropriate building design compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. With residential lot sizes ranging from 3,905 to
12,980 square feet, the proposed unit types will val}' accordingly. Note that
design of the duet lots will look like one large residence. Final design, colors
and materials for all new homes will be subject to ARC consideration prior to
issuance of building permit. The project will be conditioned to either place the
garages further back from the street than the residential units or provide side
loaded garages such that garage doors do not dominate the streetscape).
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 14
I. Open space shall be provided in accordance with Table 16.32.050-C and the
following requirements (the project meets PUD open space requirements; this
issue is discussed further below):
i. The area of each parcel of common open space designed for active
recreational purposes shall be of such minimum dimensions as to be
functionally usable. (The common open space areas have multiple
functions, including stormwater filtration in the bioswales, providing a
buffer between the Agricultural and residential uses, and passive
recreation. There are no proposed "active" recreational facilities such
as a tot lot or formal exercise areas).
ii. Common open space parcels shall be located convenient to the
dwelling units they are ,intended to serve. However, because of noise
generation, they shall be sited with sensitivity to surrounding
development. (Common open space areas are located adjacent to
the creek, along the East Cherry Avenue frontage, and through the
center of the project).
iii. Developed Common Open Space. The Planning Commission and/or
City Council may require the installation of recreational facilities,
taking into consideration:
(A) The character of the open space land;
(B) The estimated age and the recreation needs of persons
likely to reside in the development;
(C) Proximity, nature and excess capacity of existing municipal
recreation facilities; and
(D) The cost of the recreational facilities.
iv. Undeveloped Common Open Space. As a general principle,
undeveloped open space should be left in its natural state. A
developer may make certain improvements such as the cutting of
trails for walking or jogging, or the provisions of picnic areas, etc. In
addition, the Planning Commission and/or City Council (if project is
appealed or Council is decision-making body) may require a
developer to make other improvements, such as removing dead or
diseased trees, thinning trees or other vegetation to encourage
more desirable growth, and grading and seeding. (The open space
adjacent to the creek will be augmented with native riparian
vegetation. MM 4.2 requires that a Riparian Habitat Restoration
and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,
"Restoration Plan", be prepared by a qualified landscape architect
and/or restoration biologist for the dedicated open space 25-foot
creek setback area).
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 15
v. The Planning Commission may permit minor deviations from open
space standards when it can be determined that:
(A) The objectives underlying these standards can be met
without strict adherence to them; and/or
(B) Because of peculiarities in the tract of land or the facilities
proposed, it would be unreasonable to require strict
adherence to these standards.
vi. Any lands dedicated for open space purposes shall contain
appropriate covenants and deed restrictions approved by the city
attorney ensuring that:
(A) The open space area will not be further subdivided in the
future;
(B) The use of the open space will continue in perpetuity for the
purpose specified;
(C) Appropriate provisions will be made for the maintenance of
the open space; and
(0) Common undeveloped open space shall not be turned into a
commercial enterprise admitting the general public at a fee.
(This will be a condition of approval).
vii. The type of ownership of land dedicated for common open space
purposes shall be selected by the developer, subject to approval of
the Planning Commission. Type of ownership may include, but is not
necessarily limited to, the following:
(A) The City, subject to acceptance by the City Council;
(B) Other public jurisdictions or agencies, subject to their
acceptance;
(C) Quasi-public organizations, subject to their acceptance;
(0) Homeowner, condominium or cooperative associations or
organizations; or
(E) Shared, undivided interest by all property owners in the
subdivision.
(Proposed is a homeowners association, with the creek channel
and 25' creek setback area to be irrevocably offered for dedication
to the City. The City Council has the authority to either accept or
reject the offer of dedication).
viii. If the open space is owned and maintained by a homeowner or
condominium association, the developer shall file a declaration of
covenants and restrictions that will govern the association, to be
submitted with the PUO application. The provisions shall include, but
are not necessarily limited to, the following:
(A) The homeowners association must be established before the
homes are sold;
/'
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 16
(8) Membership must be mandatory for each home buyer and
any successive buyer;
(C) The open space restrictions must be permanent, not just for
a period of years;
(D) The association must be responsible for liability insurance,
local taxes, and the maintenance of recreational and other
facilities;
(E) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the cost, and
the assessment levied by the association can become a lien
on the property if allowed in the master deed establishing the
homeowners association; and
(F) The association must be able to adjust the assessment to
meet changed needs.
(This will be a condition of approval).
Open Space. There are various definitions of open space included in the Development
Code, as provided below:
Ooen Soace. "Open space" means land used for recreation, resource protection,
amenity, andlor buffers and dedicated, designed or reserved for public or private use.
Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways,
active and passive recreation areas, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, wooded
areas, and water courses. Open space shall not be deemed to include driveways,
parking lots, or other surfaces designed or intended for vehicular travel or areas
covered by buildings or accessory structures (except recreational structures).
Ooen Soace, Common. "Common open space" means open space within a project
owned, designed and set aside for use by all occupants of the project or by occupants
of a designated portion of the project. Common open space is not dedicated to the
public and is owned and maintained by a private organization made up of the open
space users. Common open space includes common recreation facilities, open
landscaped areas, greenbelts, but excluding pavement or driveway areas, or parkway
landscaping within public right-ot-way.
Ooen Soace. Private. "Private open space" means usable open space which adjoins
and is directly accessible to a residential or nonresidential unit; may be reserved for the
exclusive use of the residents, owners or lessees of the unit and their visitors,
customers, or employees; and which is maintained by a private entity. Private open
space includes private patios or balconies and tront, rear or side yards on a lot designed
for single-family detached or attached housing.
Ooen Soace. Public. "Public open space" means open space that is accessible and
used by the general public for active or passive recreational purposes or resource
protection.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 17
Open Space. Usable. "Usable open space" means outdoor or unenclosed area on the
ground, or on a roof, balcony, deck, porch or terrace, designed and accessible for
outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping, but excluding parking
facilities, driveways, utility or service areas.
The project meets open space requirements by providing an average of over 1,000 square
feet of private open space per lot, eliminating the requirement for provision of common
open space. Usable open space is also exceeded. Total common open space delineated
on the project plans is 92,950 square feet, or 2.13 acres. Since the project is conditioned
to irrevocably offer the creek channel and 25' creek setback to the City as public open
space, this area has been removed from the common open space calculations (see
table below).
Table 16.32.050-C: Ollen ~Ilace Requirements for Planned Unit Develollments
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Common Open I
i Space (minimum % i
i ot project area) I
i I
I I
I
Usable Open I
Space (minimum %1
ot project area)
I I
i JL
Public Open Space I
Private open
Space (average
s.t. per lot)
I
I.
General i General General JI'
Requirement .J . Requirement . Requirement
100-224 225-499 I 500-999 I
, . .1
i
. J.
35% I
I
i
,
i
i
I
--.J .
40%
, -General
" , : Requirement..
", +1000" ..;, ..,"
. Proposed'ilVerage{s ' .e:" ',.
approximately 4,000 sq, ft:. .'
(based on a 2;000 sq. ft. hous~ .' ,
, with a 400 sq. ft. garage and .
. ;400 sq. ft. driveway) . "
" :....' "'\'
'''; ~~,' ',:0%-';:', , ~~I
proposeclis approxifnately.
92,950 sq. ft. (includes Ag;.
buffer, bioswa/e, walkways; .
lanclscape strips ailci. portion of . ,;
area ne,ai creek bufllot within L'
. the. 25' setback area). '., .
.45%: or'180,000sa; ft.:,::. . ;
. Proposecl'is approximatelY !: :"
. 214,700 sq: (t. (includes: . "
. common and private open '
.space, 'and e~cludes public"~ ..
. ,open'space)" .
I Proposed is approximately
59,600 sq. ft. (includes. tile, '
J creek channel ~n,! 25' setback
area).. ',. .'
, ; .~
. "
30%
10%
40%
.-.
I 45%
I
i
I
j .
J
No PUD I
requirement - I
ded ication is per I
Develooment
J Code Section i
.. 16,64,060R,
No
requirement
......J
If the City accepts the offer of dedication, the City will be responsible for maintaining the
creek setback area. Otherwise, a homeowners association will be responsible for
maintenance. The project will be conditioned to show an irrevocable offer to dedicate
the streambed and 25' creek setback area to the City on the Final Tract Map.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 18
Issues
Drainaoe. Accommodating regional drainage is proposed by implementing one of the
drainage solutions outlined in the Drainage Master Plan and Newsom Springs Drainage
Project. The solution includes diverting drainage to Arroyo Grande Creek by installing a
72" drainage pipe along the east side of Branch Mill Road, which will drain to a forty foot
(40') wide bioswale through box culverts, eventually draining to the creek. This solution
also includes eliminating the diversion of runoff through the existing stone culvert on
Branch Mill Road.
It should be noted that the three 72-inch pipes previously proposed as the regional
drainage solution for the project has been changed to include a longer bio-swale and
culvert at the outfall. Outfall details are provided on sheet C-3.0 of the project plans and
shown below. The top of bank and creek setback area have been modified at the creek
outfall based on the revised grading plan.
~N):.=.K"'"
(E) TOP OF CRttK &AN)(
--- _/
", \ J ~24 CUL~RT TOP
/-118 CULVERT INVERT
112.8 HIGHEST RECORDED Flaw
BOXCUl\IERT. END /-BY8TREAMOAUa1:1.,_
PROTECTED TO // 104:1; ClR01NMY HIGH WATER
PAEVENT EN'IR.aHCE -....._ -" lOCh BOTTOM
+1tlN RI~ 8l.CPE PROTECTlON
SECTION c-c
N.I.1i.
^,
. previousSubrriittill, Current Submittal,:,., ,. <" '.," ,. ','~\' ,
, '
Combination of vegetated Combination of vegetated channel with
channel and three, 72" pipes. box culvert outfall to the creek. Pipes
eliminated and replaced with open
channel. Vegetated channel length
increased from 235' to 480' to provide
additional bio-swale value. Additional
detail added to planting plan for channel
area.
Note: Based on recent comments from
David Wolff, City's environmental
consultant, the applicant has agreed to
adjust the planting plan to use
exclusively native plants in the bio-swale
area.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 19
City Council considered the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project on August
29, 2006. Staff was directed to prepare preliminary engineering and environmental
review on a comprehensive drainage plan, including, but not limited to, the alignment
and alternative proposed by the applicant. If City Council considers and approves the
project, staff recommends that final construction documents for drainage require
approval of the Director of Public Works based upon the results of the environmental
review for the regional drainage project.
At the request of the City, a Flood Channel Preliminary Analysis was prepared by Keith
Crowe dated August 31, 2006 to determine if changes to the proposed drainage
solution were necessary to accommodate a 100-year flood event (see Attachment 9).
The report describes modifications to the drainage ditch, box culverts and modifications
proposed or related to the proposal as follows:
1. Lowering the ditch, especially on the upstream end.
2. Changing the cross section of the ditch.
3. Changing the slope of the ditch.
4. Modification of some of the street grades, generally within a foot or two.
5. Modification of some of the lot pad elevations, generally within a foot or
two.
6. The proposed box culverts will likely be widened.
7. A small (approximately two foot) retaining wall will probably be needed at
the back of lot 17 (with the existing house).
8. The ditch will need to be protected from erosion, most likely with
permanent erosion control mats and vegetation.
The proposed bioswale for the project is largely in conformance with design standards,
with exceptions related to watershed size. The proposed design is expected to provide
a significant benefit. Based on the recent hydraulic analyses of the swale, it will have a
4-feet wide bottom and a flat slope of about 0.75 percent. The side slopes are 2:1.
The proposed design has many of the aspects called for in the California Stormwater
Quality Association (CASQA) Best Management Practices (BMP) Handbook for New
Construction and Redevelopment. The design is described in the handbook as BMP
TC-30 Vegetated Swale. The handbook notes that vegetated swales are most effective
for small watersheds. Typically these facilities are related to the direct project impacts
and the small watershed criteria can be accomplished. In the case of the Cherry Creek
project, the direct project impacts for storm water quality are being handled by the
proposed inline infiltration system at each storm drain inlet.
The proposed bioswale is intended to provide some degree of water quality benefit
related to runoff from existing large upstream watersheds. It is expected to provide a
benefit during low flow conditions.. The slope is quite flat, and with the proposed
vegetation, it will have as much detention time as the site allows (comparable to
existing). The addition of the proposed vegetation and the maintenance of the swale
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 20
will provide a capability to slow and infiltrate pollutants in the low flow conditions
superior to that of the current non-vegetated and narrower swale.
Based upon the analysis provided by the City's consulting engineer, it appears the
property can be integrated into the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Project. In
order to do so, the consulting engineer recommends that the following conditions be
imposed upon the project (see Attachment 10 for correspondence with the Wallace
Group):
1. The proposed drainage facilities shall be designed to be compatible with the
Newsom Springs Regional Drainage project. System flowline elevations shall
allow for the extension of storm drains upstream with a capacity to convey the
100-year runoff and adequate cover.
2. The drainage system design shall include the connection of future Newsom
Springs storm drains. The design of the future connections shall direct the
1 OO-year flow into the system and provide a minimum of one foot of freeboard
below road overflow elevations without the use of a berm or wall to hold back
flood flows.
3. The main flow channel shall be designed to have a minimum of twelve inches
(12") of freeboard above the 100-year water surface elevation. The channel
shall be provided with a permanent erosion geotextile control rated to meet
the anticipated velocities.
4. The applicant shall install box culverts across East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle
Street, and an open channel connecting to Arroyo Grande Creek, as shown
on the tentative map and as required by these conditions, sized to collect and
convey the 1 OO-year peak flow.
5. The applicant shall extend a 72" storm drain line along Branch Mill Road to
the existing stone culvert at Huebner Lane. The applicant shall enter into a
reimbursement agreement with the City for this work.
The proposed wall/berm has been eliminated from the Newsom Springs Regional
drainage project due to potential impacts on the Dixson Ranch. As a result, the first
phase of the regional project no longer fully addresses a 100-year storm. However,
implementation of the proposed Cherry Creek drainage improvements will provide
significant flood control benefits by controlling an estimated 740 cubic feet per second
(cfs) of the 1,024 cfs 100-year storm runoff compared to the existing 240 cfs addressed
by the existing ditch. Future phases of the Newsom Springs Drainage project will
complete the flood protection to a 100-year storm level.
Based upon discussions with representatives from the RCD, NRCS, and Dixson Ranch,
staff has identified an additional option for the second phase of the Newsom Springs
Regional Drainage Project. The project would involve an underground pipe along or
through the Dixson Ranch property connecting to the proposed swale. The advantage
of this option is that it would eliminate the need for an additional inlet to the creek. Staff
proposes to study this alternative along with the other options identified at the August
29, 2006 meeting. Note that Craig Campbell from the Wallace Group will give a
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 21
presentation at the meeting on the additional analysis regarding the regional drainage
solution.
Bioloqical Impacts and Water Quality. A Due Diligence Report was prepared by the
Morro Group to study the site and provide findings and recommendations concerning
regulatory protection of the creek habitat (the Report is contained in the Technical
Appendix). The City subsequently hired a private consultant, David Wolff
Environmental, to provide additional review and research of the biology and water
quality sections of the Initial Study. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration were updated to more thoroughly evaluate impacts and provide additional
mitigation.
Based on detailed water quality sampling and analysis studies conducted for the County
of San Luis Obispo Lopez Dam project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), there does
not appear to be an existing water quality problem in Arroyo Grande Creek (the Final
Draft HCP can be found online at www.slocountvwater.orq under "Lopez Water
System"). The baseline water quality surveys conducted for the HCP indicated that
water quality conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitable habitat for
Steelhead, California red-legged frogs, and other aquatic resources. Impacts related to
water quality and biological resources are therefore restricted to those specifically
generated by the project. It is not necessary to analyze potential impacts from off-site
agricultural runoff since there is no existing water quality problem.
The approximate area of impact to the creek area is identified on the project plans and
the 25' creek setback and new setback after impact is provided. Most of the Cherry
Creek project site is vegetated with remnants of the walnut orchard and annual grasses.
Other vegetation includes non-native residential landscaping and native riparian plants.
Because the project is adjacent to and incorporates a portion of the Arroyo Grande
Creek corridor, it is subject to a variety of mitigation measures to reduce potential
adverse impacts to the riparian habitat. The riparian corridor contains Willow,
Cottonwood and Sycamore trees with an understory of Blackberry, Poison Oak and
native shrubs. Mitigation measures 4.1 and 4.2 require creek protection as follows:
MM 4.1: The Final Tract Map shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate to
the City the creek channel, the twenty-five foot (25) creek setback area
measured from top of bank, and any environmentally sensitive areas, as
determined by a qualified biologist, along the Phase I property boundary. An
open space easement shall also be recorded stipulating that no development
shall occur within 25' creek setback area.
MM 4.2: Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan) shall be prepared by a qualified
landscape architect and/or restoration biologist experienced in native habitat
restoration for the dedicated open space 25-foot creek setback area measured
from top of bank and any environmentally sensitive areas, as determined by a
qualified biologist. The Restoration Plan shall include at a minimum a detai/ed
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 22
planting plan for the 25-foot setback area and for all disturbed areas from
culvert/outfall construction and Myrtle Street extension. The Restoration Plan
shall also include at a minimum the number and location of other native trees
impacted and location of replacement plantings, specific plant species palette, a
non-native species removal plan, success criteria, a five-year monitoring
program, and contingency measures to ensure meeting the success criteria. The
Restoration Plan shall also include an erosion control plan and Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for all disturbed areas within the 25-foot creek
setback and exposed banks. The erosion control seed mix for the riparian
setback area shall be composed exclusively of native species. n
As proposed, the project plans comply with the above mitigation measures by restoring
the approximately 10,000 square foot area between the Myrtle Street extension and top
of creek bank with native plant species compatible with upland riparian habitat.
Although specific surveys have not been conducted to determine the existence of
special-status or threatened species within the project area, there are known
occurrences of Steel head, California red-legged frogs, and southwestern pond turtles
within Arroyo Grande Creek. The banks of the creek are steep and roughly thirty feet
(30') above the creek channel.
The Development Code addresses creek dedications in Section 16.64.060.R, which
states that the "developer shall dedicate to the City all the area that includes the stream
bed and 25' back of the stream bank, areas designated as environmentally sensitive
based on a biology report prepared by a qualified biologist or other appropriate areas
mutually acceptable for the purposes of open space, flood control or green belt." Staff
interprets the 25-foot creek setback to be from the top of bank, and not from edge of
environmentally sensitive areas. However, the dedication should include areas
identified as environmentally sensitive by a qualified biologist. General Plan policy
C/OS2-1.3 states "where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of 25' from
the top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside the setback. Except in
urban areas where existing development exists to the contrary, prevent removal of
riparian vegetation within 25' of the top of stream bank. n
The Cherry Creek project is bordered by Arroyo Grande Creek and a remaining narrow
band of woody riparian habitat typical of the creek through the developed portions of the
City. The creek itself runs well below steep banks more than twenty (20) vertical feet
below the top of the creek bank and the Cherry Creek project area. At the County's
stream gauge at the western edge of the project there is a break in the riparian habitat.
Further east the riparian habitat has a variable width between the top of bank and
existing dirt Myrtle Street in the Phase I project area. The riparian habitat through Phase
II essentially abuts the backyards of existing residences.
Through the Phase I Cherry Creek project area, the riparian habitat is composed of a
"wall" of thicket forming blackberry, poison oak, coyote brush, and willow trees with a
few large cottonwood and oak trees forming a canopy above the thicket. Several
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 23
remaining English Walnut trees occur along the edge of the thicket adding to the
contiguous riparian canopy above top of bank along the Phase I project area. The top
of bank occurs very close to the edge of Myrtle Street where it turns to the south
marked by a utility pole, a large multiple trunk box elder tree, and several yucca trees
(escapes not native to our region). The edge of existing riparian habitat staked in the
field and surveyed by the developer accurately reflects the outside extent of contiguous
riparian habitat that includes the English Walnut trees that are essentially now
incorporated into the riparian vegetation along the top of bank. The native Califomia
Walnut (often used as root stock for grafted English walnut tops) is a common element
within riparian habitats in the region. The westernmost walnut tree is reverting back to
the California Walnut form, the other two remain with the English Walnut leaves and
nuts. The extent of mapped riparian vegetation along part of the project reach extends
beyond the 25-foot setback zone as measured from the top of bank.
City Development Code and General Plan Open Space policy require, where feasible,
avoiding removal of riparian vegetation and establishing a 25-foot non-development set
back from the top of creek banks. The setback should also include areas designated as
environmentally sensitive as determined by a qualified biologist. In general, because
riparian habitats are known to support a high species richness and diversity they are
commonly considered environmentally sensitive areas under local and state statutes,
regulations, and policies. The consulting biologist working as staff to the City provides
the opinion that it would be appropriate to consider the Arroyo Grande Creek riparian
corridor as a designated environmentally sensitive area consistent with the generally
accepted designations of riparian habitat for the purposes of the planning and
environmental review process for the Cherry Creek project. The City's biologist also
suggests that the context of the riparian habitat is also important for evaluating the
project's impacts on the riparian habitat. In establishing the values and functions of the
riparian habitat, it is important to keep in mind the substantial English Walnut
component that pushes out the limits of the riparian habitat edge, the ecotone
(interface) with the developed Myrtle Street and nearby residential development, and
the active creek channel being well below the steep, near vertical banks. The biologist
suggests that the most important aspect of the riparian edge along the project area is
the screening and buffer of the creek to development. The narrow band of riparian
vegetation within the project area in and of itself does not necessarily represent a high
value riparian area within the specific context of Arroyo Grande Creek.
Phase I of the proposed project would provide for a 25-foot setback from top of bank
throughout the project reach. However, the proposed project would encroach in to the
edge of mapped riparian habitat. Direct impact on riparian habitat would result from
placement of the outfall structure for the regional drainage solution and a portion of the
Myrtle Street alignment. Encroachment into the riparian habitat setback zone would
result from a small segment of the Myrtle Street alignment. The applicant proposes
native riparian restoration planting within the available land between the proposed
Myrtle Street extension and the edge of existing riparian habitat to the maximum extent
feasible under the current proposed project. According to the City's consulting biologist,
the proposed riparian enhancement plantings in the available space between Myrtle
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 24
Street and the existing riparian area adequately mitigates for the limited direct impacts
on riparian habitat that are proposed.
Historic Status of Trees. MM 4.4 requires the following regarding native tree protection:
MM 4.4: Any native trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that
are greater than or equal to two (2) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and
less than twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Trees removed
that are greater than or equal to twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a
5:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be limited to in-kind replacement of
appropriate native tree species as approved by a qualified landscape architect
and/or restoration biologist, and the City Parks, Facilities and Recreation
Department's arborist. All trees, to be removed shall be clearly marked on
construction plans and marked in the field with flagging or paint. All trees to be
retained shall be clearly identified on construction plans and marked in the field
for preservation with highly visible construction fencing at a minimum around the
drip line.
Native riparian trees impacted shall be replaced within the 25-foot riparian
setback area. Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone shall be replaced
within the riparian setback area or incorporated into the development
landscaping plan.
The existing Walnut trees are English Walnut grafted to native Walnut root stock and
are considered senescent (aging). None of the trees on the project site have been
identified as landmark trees under the City's Landmark Tree Program and therefore
none have been designated with a "historic status".
Aaricultural Resources. Ordinance 550, approved by City Council on December 9,
2003, established farmland preservation requirements and created an Agricultural
Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2), placing a perimeter overlay of one hundred feet
(100') around agriculturally zoned properties for the purpose of addressing the
agriculture/urban interface. Included in the revised regulations was an amendment to
Development Code Section 16.12 regarding right to farm provisions that incorporated
regulations for new development proposed adjacent to Agricultural districts. The
following is the portion of Ordinance 550 that pertains to Agricultural buffers:
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 25
16.12.170.
Right to farm provisions and farmland preservation.
E. Agricnltnral buffer.
1. In conjunction with General Plan policies outlined in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open
Space Element, and specifically Objective Ag5, the City has determined that the use of property
for agricultural operations is a high priority. To minimize potential conflicts between
agricultural and nonagricultural land uses, including the protection of public health, the
reduction of noise and odor, and the reduction of risk to farm operations from domestic animal
predation, crop theft and damage and complaints from neighboring urban dwellers, all new
development adjacent to any designated agricultural district shall be required to provide an
agricultural buffer. "Development" as used in this section, means subdivision ofland, use
permits and building permits for new residential units.
2. The buffer area shall be a minimum of one hundred feet, measured from the edge of the
designated agricultural district. Optimally, to achieve a maximum separation, a buffer wider
than one hundred feet is encouraged and may be required if it is determined through
environmental review under CEQA and/or recommended by the San Luis Obispo County
Agricultural Commissioner. A decreased buffer distance may be allowed if it can be
demonstrated that a physical buffer exists (e.g. Arroyo Grande Creek) that is adequate and
approved by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner.
3. The minimum one hundred foot agricultural buffer area shall be comprised of two components:
a twenty-foot wide agricultural landscaped transition area contiguous to an eighty-foot wide
agricultural buffer adjacent to the designated agricultural district. The twenty-foot transition
area may include pedestrian access. The combined one hundred foot agricultural buffer shall not
qualifY as farmland mitigation as required by section l6.l2.l70.F,
4. The following shall be permitted in the one hundred foot agricultural buffer: native plants, tree
or hedge rows, roads, drainage channels, storm retention ponds, natural areas such as creeks or
drainage swales, utility corridors, storage, and any use, including agricultural or limited
commercial uses, determined by the planning commission to be consistent with the use of the
property as an agricultural buffer. No new residential use shall be permitted within the buffer
area unless it is determined there would be no other economically viable use of the property.
Restoration of a damaged residence within the buffer area may be pursued in accordance with
Section 16.48.110.
S. The one hundred foot agricultural buffer shall be established by the developer pursuant to a plan
approved by the Community Development Director and the Parks, Recreation and Facilities
Director. The plan shall include provisions for the use of integrated weed and pest management
techniques and soil erosion control. An agreement in the form approved by the city attorney
shall be recorded, which shall include the requirements of this section.
16.28.020. Agricultural districts.
C. Agricultural preservation overlay (AG-2.2) district. The primary purpose of the AG-2.2
overlay district is to provide for a mechanism to minimize potential conflicts between
agricultural and nonagricultural land uses. This district is to provide for an agricultural buffer
transitional area and requires that new development and changes in use require discretionary
approval in accordance with Section 16.12.170.E,
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 26
Prime Soils Mitiaation. The project site contains Class II soil, which is considered prime
soil per the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the City's General
Plan. Council asked for clarification regarding the following reference on page 6 of the
Initial Study: "Given that the property has historically been committed to non-
Agricultural development and that no impacts to prime soils will occur from the project
beyond what was already considered and addressed in the 2001 General Plan EIR, the
loss of prime soils is not subject to mitigation under CEQA." Council also commented
that the City might consider creating a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(LESA Model) more customized to the City's circumstances.
The following questions are asked under the "Agriculture Resources" section in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form):
Would the project:
a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance to non-agricultural use?
b) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Staff determined that impacts can and will be mitigated for item b) above. Proposed
mitigation includes:
MM 2.1: All new property owners within the Neighborhood Plan area must sign a
Real Estate Transfer Disclosure indicating that they acknowledge and agree to
the provisions contained in the City's Right-To-Farm Ordinance. The disclosure
shall have a bolded statement cautioning the purchaser that they are living close
to farmland.
MM 2.2: The final landscape plan for the agricultural buffer shall be prepared
by a landscape professional having experience with designing agricultural
buffers. The plant selection shall provide effective and appropriate screening with
fast growing evergreen trees and shrubs. The vegetative screening shall be
installed prior to issuance of building permit to allow time for the plants to
become established. The CC&Rs shall also include assurances that the
screening is sufficiently maintained.
It has been staffs interpretation that General Plan policies regarding prime soils applied
to areas that are zoned Agriculture and that any environmental impact resulting from the
conversion of prime soils to a non-agricultural use was evaluated and mitigated at the
time the non-agricultural zoning andlor General Plan designation was established.
General Plan Policy Ag1-1 states the following: "Designate prime farmland soils that are
not predominately committed to non-Agricultural development as Agriculture (Ag) andlor
Agriculture Preserve (AgP), whether or not in current agricultural productive use." The
project planning area has been predominantly committed to residential uses since the
early 1900's and has been consistently zoned residential since the City established
zoning. Although walnut farming has occurred on a portion of Subarea 1 as recently as
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 27
the mid 1980's, staff believes the area can be considered predominantly committed to
non-Agricultural development. Further, since the proposed project is consistent with the
2001 General Plan Land Use Map, the proposed density and land use of this project
would not result in any impacts to prime soils beyond what was analyzed in the 2001
General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff also bases this
interpretation on the conclusions reached in the Report on Conservation of Prime
Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande (dated July 22, 2003), whereby a
comprehensive inventory and evaluation of agricultural resources within the City did not
recommend that the subject properties should be designated and zoned Agriculture.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are considered significant
environmental effects, the CEQA Guidelines suggest that lead agencies refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. The California LESA Model was
developed to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that
potentially significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are
quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. The
LESA Model evaluates and measures soil resource quality, a given project's size, water
resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource'
lands. For a given project, the factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a
single numeric score. The project score becomes the basis for making a determination
of a project's potential significance. In applying the unmodified California LESA Model
to the proposed project, the result is an insignificant impact to agricultural resources and
therefore mitigation is not required for conversion of prime farmland soils under this
formula.
Based on General Plan policy and Council direction, staff can develop criteria
customized to accommodate General Plan goals. One alternative would be to utilize
some of the LESA Model criteria but modify the lot size restriction to better fit the
smaller parcel sizes within the City.
If Council does not concur with staff's above interpretation, a mitigation fee could be
imposed to address the prime soils issue.
CEQA Comoliance and Streambed Alteration Aareement Proaram. During the July 18,
2006 Planning Commission meeting, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
code requirements for issuing a Streambed Alteration Agreement was raised as a
CEQA issue. The attached memorandum from the City's project biologist, David Wolff,
provides clarification regarding this issue (see Attachment 11).
Affordable Housina
The project is subject to the City's affordable housing requirements outlined in the 2003
Housing Element, which requires ten percent (10%) of the units to be restricted to
families earning a moderate-income level as defined in the County's Affordable Housing
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 28
Standards (the vesting map was deemed complete prior to Housing Element adoption
with 15% inclusionary affordable housing required). With twenty-seven (27) new units
proposed, the project is required to restrict 2.7 units to the moderate-income level. The
applicant is proposing to restrict two (2) units to the moderate-income level (lots 15 and
16) and pay the balance (0.7 unit) in affordable housing in-lieu fees.
Cultural Resources: A Phase I (surface) survey was conducted on the site that
produced positive results for the presence of a combined historic and prehistoric
archaeological site. Specifically, a prehistoric archaeological site is located on the lots
on the terrace above Arroyo Grande Creek where marine shellfish were found. A
Phase II (subsurface) testing was also conducted on the site that produced positive
results for the presence of historic era cultural resources. As mitigation, a qualified
archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all grading activities and a final
monitoring/mitigation report shall be submitted to the City. The owner of the property
containing the Vandeveer stone house is also required to register the residence in the
California Register of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic Preservation
(OHP).
Transoortation/Circulation/Street Imorovements. A Traffic Impact Study was conducted
by Higgins and Associates dated July 16, 2004 to study traffic-related impacts resulting
from buildout of both subareas (see Technical Appendix). The traffic study was based
on buildout of 88 new residential lots, a worst-case scenario that did not take into
account the various site constraints for Subarea 2 (e.g. creek channel, riparian
vegetation, creek setback, Ag buffer, existing pattern of development). The conclusion
of the traffic study was that all studied road segments and intersections would operate
at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C" or better). The project (Subarea 1) as
revised with 8 less lots than originally submitted would generate 80 fewer average daily
trips, based on the San Diego Council of Governments Vehicular Traffic Generation
Rates. However, the project traffic would contribute to the cumulative impact on the
City's circulation system and therefore the standard condition of paying the City's Traffic
Impact and Signalization Fees applies. The project may also need to include a three-
way stop at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road, depending on
the approved alignment. If the project does not include "dirt" Cherry, then the
intersection alignment would necessitate a three-way stop.
At the Planning Commission public hearings, a number of residents expressed
concerns regarding the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. A vehicle
may experience between 15 and 25 seconds of delay to operate at a level of service "C"
for a two-way stop control, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual ("the
Manual"). The traffic study indicated this intersection will operate at an LOS "C" during
the PM peak hour at project build out, with an average delay of 18 seconds per vehicle.
Per the Manual, a vehicle may experience between 25 and 35 seconds of delay to
operate at an LOS "0" for a two-way stop control. Therefore, each vehicle would need
to experience an additional delay of seven seconds before the traffic operation would be
considered unacceptable and require mitigation.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 29
While the impact of the proposed project on this intersection does not appear to require
mitigation under the City's traffic policy, staff does recognize existing conditions as an
issue and is studying potential improvements as part of the Traffic Way Streetscape
Enhancement Plan. Currently, the potential for improvements depends on available
right-of-way width, which is being analyzed.
Similarly, the level of service on Myrtle Street is expected to remain at an acceptable
LOS "A" with project build out. Therefore, any traffic concerns would involve issues of
project design rather than environmental impacts requiring additional environmental
review. Partial abandonment of the Myrtle Street right of way is proposed to
accommodate the proposed development.
At the September 12, 2006 meeting, Council requested information regarding project
vehicular trips generated during the school peak hour (3:00 PM). The consulting traffic
engineer, Higgins Associates, conducted counts during the week between January 29,
2004 and February 5, 2004. Information is summarized in Exhibits 1-10 (Attachment
12). Exhibits 9 and 10 show that the peak hourly volume occurred between 4:30 and
5:30 PM on Alan Street east of Traffic Way, and between 4:45 and 5:45 on East Cherry
Avenue east of Traffic Way.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
project and a public notice was placed in the Tribune. Staff has received several letters
from the public, which are included as Attachment 13. (Note that letters to the Planning
Commission are also included).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CECA), the CECA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for
Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this project
will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a negative
declaration with mitigation measures for the Council's consideration (see Initial Study,
Attachment 14). The Planning Commission determined on July 18, 2006 that the current
Mitigated Negative Declaration is insufficient and recommended to City Council that a full
Environmental Impact Report be completed for the project.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are offered for Council's consideration:
- Take tentative action to require an Environmental Impact Report for the project;
- Take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve
the Development Code Amendment, Neighborhood Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map and Planned Unit Development and direct staff to return with the appropriate
resolution and ordinance;
- Take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and send the
project back to Planning Commission for further deliberations on the project;
Provide other direction to staff.
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CHERRY CREEK
PAGE 30
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004
2. City Council Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2004
3. Memorandum to Planning Commissioners from Don Spagnolo dated August 18.
2004
4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2005
5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2005
6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 15. 2005
7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2006
8. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18. 2006
9. Cherry Creek Flood Channel Preliminary Analysis dated August 31. 2006,
prepared by Keith Crowe
10. Correspondence with Wallace Group. dated October 3.2006
11. Memorandum from David Wolff to Kelly Heffernon dated August 21. 2006
12. Traffic Analysis Exhibits 1-10 prepared by Higgins Associates
13. Letters from the public regarding the project
14. Initial Study
S:\Community Developmenl\PROJECTSINPlCherry Creek\1G-10-06 CC rpl Cherry Creek.doc
If
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 2004
ATTACHMENT 1
B. PRE-APPLICATION CASE NO. 04-004; APPLICANT - DAMIEN MAVIS; LOCATION
- 756 MYRTLE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner - Kelly
Heffernon.
Mr. Strong excused himself due to conflict of interest.
Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the proposed preliminary residential subdivision and
"neighborhood plan" for property located off Myrtle Street; bounded by East Cherry Avenue
and Myrtle Street within a Neighborhood Plan designated area; explained the General Plan
policy addressing a neighborhood plan; stated there are no specific guidelines or
development standards for neighborhood plans and therefore staff has discussed using the
specific plans as guidelines; the traffic analysis will be included as part of the Environmental
Review for the formal project; in compliance with the newly adopted Agricultural
Preservation Overlay District a minimum of 100 foot buffer area must be established that
includes a 20 foot wide agricultural transitional landscaped area (can be either on the
agricultural side or project side). In conclusion, Ms Heffernon stated the applicant has held
three informal neighborhood meetings to gain feedback on various alternative designs for
developing the project site and conceptualizing the Neighborhood Plan; compliance with
Development Code standards will be determined through the Planned Unit Development
process; Village Design Guidelines will be used as the primary architectural style; all the
units will be subject to ARC review.
Commission Questions:
. Brown: Why have we gone from 7200 square feet to the smaller lots? Ms.
Heffernon replied that the PUD process allows smaller lots when open space is
proposed, as long as the overall density is not exceeded. The project is within the
density requirements.
. Brown: It may be the physical constraints that do not allow bigger lots.
. Brown: Was there going to be some kind of public access through the agricultural
buffer? Ms. Heffernon said that is what is being proposed.
. Brown: The gate shown next to Lot 1 is to stop people driving into Lot 2? Ms.
Heffernon said the applicant would address this.
. Brown: There is a long history of drainage issues on this property. Victor Devens,
explained there were 3-4 options contained in the Drainage Master Plan; the City is
looking for two 72" pipes to replace the ditch that currently runs across the property.
. Brown: Is there a wall going around this property? Ms Heffernon: there was a
request at ARC for fencing that can be seen through along Cherry Ave.
Fowler:
. Concern that the small lots may not be appropriate for this area.
Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment.
Fred Bauer, introduced Damien Mavis; stated he had asked him for help with neighborhood
outreach; the feedback was amazing and all town hall meetings were positive and
successful.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16,2004
PAGE 13
Damien Mavis, representative, explained the site plan and process that evolved to produced
their plan; described lot sizes; the gate is for the benefit of lots 1 and 2 sharing drives and
their will be no other gates; the 100 ft buffer runs through lots 11, 12,13, 14, 23, 24, 25 &
26, south of the line there would be no habitable structures; he asked for the feedback on
project as well as ideas on the mandated inclusionary housing (duplexes were not looked on
favorably in the neighborhood discussions). Corner lots were looked at for the inclusionary
housing (split with two family homes on them) and would have smaller setbacks, but would
have architecture conducive to the neighborhood.
Commission Comments & Questions:
Brown thanked the applicant for the outreach effort:
. Ag. buffers - this is the first major ago buffer we have dealt with since the 2001
- General Plan: How did you determine 100 feet was enough distance?
. Density: Is clustering justified? You knew what the constraints of the creek and
farmland were and think you need to work within the constraints. How would this
project be transitional and in keeping with other neighborhoods (this close to ago
operations)?
. Read letter received from property owner; asked why the private 15' dirt drive, not
owned by the applicant had been incorporated into the neighborhood plan when no
attempt had been made to purchase it? Mr. Mavis agreed that they were aware of
this and there is need to address this immediately.
. The interconnecting bikeways and walkways - why aren't they closer to the creek?
Mr. Mavis explained that this is just a concept extending sidewalk already there and
thought the creek side a great idea.
. Fence issue? Mr. Mavis:' it is shown around the Vanderveer resident in keeping with
the house (believes this is code on development of this .size to have wall or fence).
Commissioner Brown said this would help in terms of a buffer, but it may separate
this development from the Village/community.
Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public.
Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, representing 20-40 people on Myrtle Street:
. The representations on densit made here are for the people who wish to develop the
Stillwell property (high density area).
. Green space is taking credit for what is on the creek (not belonging to them).
. Traffic issue: do not use Myrtle; maybe time to use Cherry.
. I would like more people to know about this proposal.
. This is development of prime ago land.
. Jim Dickens is a strong supporter of ago land and this area adjoins his farm which is
prime ago land; it would be ironic that the City denied the Vanderveen property.
Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill, representative of Dixson Ranch preserve, spoke referenceing
his letter to the Commission. He stated the forty acre, commercially farmed parcel, is the
only designated land within the City that is currently covered under the Williamson Act
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 2004
PAGE 14
Contract. In addition, the property is also protected under an agricultural easement into
perpetuity, the only such agricultural easement held within City limits and within the State of
California. The proximity of this proposed neighborhood plan (NP) to the Dixson Ranch
requires special consideration and unique planning techniques to adequately mitigate future
land use conflicts and to ensure the long term protection in agricultural resources and
proposed activity. He then stated some options he would like the Commission to consider:
. Requiring a buffer distance of at least 150 feet in addition to a minimum of a 30 foot
depth of landscaping, planted sufficiently dense and mature to provide aerisol
protection within the first year.
. The 15 foot private dirt road: The applicant has made no attempt to purchase this
but has incorporated it into the NP. He would like the Commission to address this as
a condition of approval.
. Storm water drainage: He recommended placement of the catch basin to be within
. the agricultural buffer (GP Policy 1-5.1)
. Groundwater recharge: No adverse effects on ago water supplies. He
recommended a retention basin constructed in the middle of the proposed project to
act as a groundwater facility and decrease surface water runoff into Arroyo Grande
Creek.
. He recommended the establishment of a creekside pedestrian/bikepath, possibly
linking to a footbridge, providing access to Paulding Middle School.
Mike McConville, 529E. Branch Street:
. Not notified of neighborhood meetings.
. In developing this project the City could put 227 thru to Cherry Ave. This issue
needs to be addressed and asked if it was addressed at the meetings.
Victor Devens, stated he had learned from CAL TRANS that the Highway 227 realignment is
no longer being actively considered.
Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch, works at the School:
. Not invited to neighborhood meetings.
. Pedestrian/Bikepath suggestion in the NP would take their immediate school yard.
. Walnut trees on the Stillwell Property: Like to see a future plan on preserving these
old trees.
. Thinks density is too much.
. Need to make sure all interested parties are included if other sites are included in a
potential plan.
Mr. Mavis stated which areas of the site they owned; stated they were committed to
resolving the ago buffer issue.
Mr. Mavis then addressed the Commission Questions:
. Re concern with the proposal that traffic be directed toward Cherry/Allen Street: We
have a traffic study in process.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16,2004
PAGE 15
. Selling of the lots: It will be marketed primarily as in'dividual lots: We will build a
certain number of homes to establish the community and level of quality, The
inclusionary housing has yet to be established and they would probably be building
these.
In reply to a question from Chair Guthrie on inclusionary housing, Ms, Heffernon stated that
at this time it is a 10% requirement, but is still being discussed.
In reply to Chair Guthrie, Mr. Brad Vernon, partner, stated at the neighborhood meetings it
was obvious that the only logical access would be Cherry Lane as primary access.
Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment.
Commission Comments:
Keen:
. Has a big problem with size of lots being smaller than 6,000 sq. ft.
. Would not object to seeing a wall along the property line as a buffer.
. He commended the applicants for proposing to match the Village guidelines.
. It may be a good idea to move the Stillwell house over to the green area, since it
currently crosses a couple of lot lines.
Fowler:
. Liked the concept.
. Lots are too small.
Brown:
. Lots too small; it needs to be transitional or in keeping with the neighborhood.
. Assumption that the project buffer should be 100 feet, needs to be justified.
. Drainage is still an issue.
. Agrees with not using prime ago soils to provide an inlet (based on GP guidance).
. Not against having a wall if it is part of the buffer.
. Traffic: Allen Street is a concern.
Guthrie:
. The higher density and clustering with open space is acceptable.
. He has serious concerns with the proposed 100 feet being an adequate buffer.
. Landscape screen should take place along the ago property to have the greatest
impact of containing dust and pesticides.
. Block wall along ago property is a possibility - would have to be a smart buffer.
. The pedestrian/bicyle path should be developed along the creek side,
. Believes a 25% inclusionary housing has to be observed, based on what has
occurred in other projects.
. Fire access: A secondary access would probably have to be included in the NP for
emergency access; concern that Myrtle is closed off, but this could not ever be used
for emergency or any other sort of access for the development of the rest of this
property.
. Have to accept that the zoning is 4.5 du/a and there will be traffic, principally on
Cherry.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 2004
PAGE 16
. Great if a bridge connection was built.
Keen:
. If people dropped off and picked up their children at such a bridge on Myrtle Street
instead of at Crown Hill, could be a disaster in terms of traffic. Would a bridge be
worth it?
The Commission had no further concerns and they moved for adjournment.
C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-008; APPLICANT - CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - CITYWIDE. Staff report prepared and presented
by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish.
This project was not heard by the Commission due to the late hour.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: No discussion.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: No discussion.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: No
Discussion.
VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 6, 2004: None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :40 p.m.
ATTEST:
L YN REARDON-SMITH,
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
JAMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
(Approved at PC meeting of April 6, 2004 )
ATTACHMENT 2
/
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 4
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; supported modifying the language for farm worker
housing to be consistent with the Housing Element; and supported the Agricultural Support and
Enterprise Programs.
Mayor Pro Tem Lubin supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs; expressed
some concerns regarding farm worker housing; expressed concerns with removing the word
"minimize" out of Objective Ag1; and stated that he could support some components of the
proposal being presented for approval.
Mayor Ferrara supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs; supported the
proposed revision of Objective Ag1 to remove the word "minimize"; expressed concerns
regarding the provisions for farm worker housing and stated that this issue needed to be more
clearly defined; and supported the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program.
Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 03-003 TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURAL, CONSERVATION AND OPEN
SPACE ELEMENT REVISING OBJECTIVE AG1 RELATING TO CONVERSION OF PRIME
AGRICULTURAL LAND; POLICY AG3-11 RELATING TO FARMWORKER HOUSING; AND
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES FOR AG1-3, AG3-5, AND AG3-6 RELATING
TO AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION .EASEMENT PROGRAMS". Council Member Costello
seconded the motion. City Attorney Carmel asked for clarification whether the motion included
the approval of the Negative Declaration. Council Member Dickens said yes and amended his
motion to adopt the Resolution, as amended, to include the approval of the Negative Declaration.
Council Member Costello seconded, and on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
Runels, Lubin
None
There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application Review Case No. 04-004; Proposed Residential
Subdivision and Neighborhood Plan; East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street;
Applicant - Darnien Mavis, Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC
Council Member Dickens declared an indirect conflict of interest due to his beneficial interest in
real property located near the proposed project and stepped down from.the dais.
Community Development Director Strong declared a conflict of interest due to an option to
purchase a portion of the property that is the subject of this proposal and stated he had not and
would not be participating in the processing of this application. He stepped down from the staff
table.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 5
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council review
the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant.
Mayor Ferrara invited the applicant to the podium to address the Council.
Fred Bauer, Arroyo Grande, gave an overview of how the project started, discussed ideas for
smart growth, explained the efforts made to involve the neighborhood to obtain feedback on
proposed development of the property.
Eric Justesson, RRM Design Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and gave an overview of a
proposed development layout for the property based on the General Plan designation of
Neighborhood Plan with medium density. He stated that some of the issues to be addressed as
part of the project would be drainage, balanced access to the property from E. Cherry and
Myrtle, lot sizes, street widths, a pocket park, access to the creek, respecting the agriculture
property to the south, inclusionary housing, and architectural style.
Mayor Ferrara invited other rnembers of the public to comment.
Carol Hoffmeyer, representing the Dixson Family Trust, read a letter into the record which
requested the Council consider increased buffer distances, increased depth of landscaping; an
8-foot high block wall and a "no-climb" wood fence on the property line; cooperative improvement
of the existing 15-foot private driveway; ensuring that prospective property owners are informed
of the Right-to-Farm ordinance; investigating the potential for a detention, retention, and/or
recharge basin within the proposed project; and ensuring that the drainage deficiencies are
resolved.
Chuck Fellows, Arroyo Grande, favored a pedestrian bridge across the creek to provide safety
for children.
Otis Paqe, Arroyo Grande, expressed disappointment that the neighborhood was not specifically
noticed for this item tonight. He commented that there was no proposal from the applicant for a
park or a bridge. He also commented on existing drainage issues and felt that the neighborhood
objects to the high density being proposed. He stated that he has no objections to development;
however, he had a problem with developing prime agriculture land.
Lynn Titus, Arroyo Grande, expressed concern with the proposed density and commented that
the acreage figure was incorrect. She inquired whether anyone had talked to the Lucia Mar
Unified School District regarding a bridge and said she did not think they would like it. She
asked who would develop and maintain the park, stated there was a lot of poison oak in the
area, and inquired whether E. Cherry Avenue would be extended.
Jim Guthrie, Arroyo Grande, requested feedback from the Council on the concept of clustering.
He also asked how the required agriculture buffer distance would be analyzed and determined.
Bill McCann, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerned regarding the buffer zone and stated he was
not sure that 100 feet would be enough. He proposed a minimum 150 foot buffer. He also
expressed concerns about drainage.
Wayne Kinq encouraged the Council to review the comments made regarding the Vanderveen
project.
Larry Turner, Arroyo Grande, spoke about drainage and stated he needed assurance that
drainage will be addressed properly. He stated that the temporary ditch has stopped the
problems. He supported development of the property; however, he would not support two-story
homes against Noguera Street.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 6
Leroy Saruwatari, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerns about the buffer zone and stated that the
County imposes 300 feet. He stated that there should be a rninimum 150-foot buffer. He also
said that the City's Right-to-Farm Ordinance should be disclosed to potential property owners.
Ella Honeycutt, Arroyo Grande, stated that buffer zones are there to make good neighbors and
urged the Council to ensure that the buffer zone is adequate to protect the homes and the
farmers.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council Member Runels stated that the drainage problem must be addressed first and foremost;
he would prefer to see larger lots with less density; did not favor two-story homes; stated that a
100-foot buffer was sufficient; and commented that the Dixson Ranch would have to assume
some of the mitigation. He did not support the type of large walls being requested by the Dixson
Ranch.
Council Member Costello commented on the need to resolve the drainage issue; encouraged the
applicant to seek feedback from the Lucia Mar School District regarding the bridge and access
issues; supported the concept of smaller lots; liked inclusion of the Village Design Guidelines
and Standards;' commented that there would be a need to carefully review the buffer zone
requirement; and stated that the concerns in the Dixson letter were valid.
Mayor Pro Tem Lubin inquired who would build and maintain the bridge and the park; requested
clarification on plan #4; asked for clarification on the exact acreage of the property; stated that
traffic issues are significant and inquired whether the E, Cherry extension would remain as a dirt
road or be paved; favored smaller lots to meet housing goals; expressed concerns regarding the
buffer zone distance; commented that the drainage problem must be solved; agreed that no two-
story homes should be built on the Noguera Street side; agreed that new property owners need
to be informed about the City's Right-to-Farm Ordinance; commented that public comments
about the parcel being prime agriculture land needed to be addressed; and commented that
some of the ideas outlined in the Dixson letter were good; however, he felt that if they desired a
no-climb wood fence, it should be built on their property.
Mayor Ferrara emphasized the concept of a Neighborhood Plan and commented that the Plan
was partly driven by the drainage problem from Newsom Springs. He stated that drainage is the
first and foremost concern and that there is a need for additional engineering on a catch basin, a
pipe, or a combination of both. He commented on the need for an adequate size buffer zone;
addressed the density issue and the need for affordable housing; and favored inclusionary
housing in the project. He agreed that the design and placement of any two-story homes
needed to be considered to accommodate neighborhood privacy. He liked the idea of a bridge
but expressed the need to get feedback from Lucia Mar School District; expressed concern
regarding pedestrian traffic, however, the benefits of a bridge may outweigh other problems. He
favored the development of a pocket park to be maintained by a homeowners association.
Mayor Ferrara commented that buffer zones need to be analyzed on a' case-by-case basis; and
there is a need to look at unique site factors to determine adequate buffer size. He requested
additional review of the concept drawings submitted by the Dixson Ranch. He commented that
the buffer zone requirement may set a precedent for future development.
Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received
sufficient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project.
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 3
J
TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER If
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMISSION COMMENTS ON "SKINNY STREET"
PROPOSAL BY RRM DESIGN FOR THE CHERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION
DATE: AUGUST 18, 2004
At the August 16, 2004 Traffic Commission meeting, John Knight, representative with
RRM Design Group made a presentation on the Cherry Creek subdivision concerning
street widths. He is requesting a design exception to narrow the widths of streets to 32'
within the development from the standard 40' width required by City standards and the
Vehicle and Highway Code. He presented the proposed parking plan, roadway
sections, and tire access paths through the development.
The Commissioners provided the following comments:
Commissioner Brief Summary
Borda Believes the narrowing of the street width may have
a traffic calming effect. However, he is against the
elimination of parking on one side of the street.
Prefers a minimum of a 34' to 36' street width.
Rohloff Believes the minimum acceptable width to be 36',
consisting of two 8' parking lanes and two 12' driving
lanes.
Pilkington Expressed concern with fire trucks making turn on
32' wide street.
Metcalf Stated that he understands the reasons for wanting
to narrow the street widths but he believes that the
proposed 32' is too narrow. Believes 34' to be the
minimum but prefers the 36' width.
Scott I Absent
I have enclosed a copy of the August 16, 2004 Traffic Commission staff report which
explains the positions of the Public Works and Police Departments.
C: City Manager
Police Chief
Correspondence File
Street File
Attachment:
8/16/04 Traffic Commission Staff Report
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
TRAFFIC COMMISSION
i!f:[A
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLlCWORKS/CITY ENGINEER :Ps
CONSIDERATION OF "SKINNY STREET" PROPOSAL BY RRM DESIGN
TO:
SUBJECT:
AUGUST 16, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Traffic Commission review the enclosed information for the Cherry
Creek subdivision concerning street widths and provide comments accordingly. Public Works will
compile the comments for presentation to the Planning Commission.
DATE:
FUNDING:
There are no fiscal impacts at this time.
DISCUSSION:
The City has received a design for the Cherry Creek development at the former Stillwell property,
located at the southwest corner of the Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The developer is
requesting design exceptions to narrow the widths of streets within the development. The design
consultant for the project, RRM Design, has prepared several documents for review by the Traffic
Commission; "Information Regarding the Circulation in the Cherry Creek Subdivision" (see
Attachment No.1) and a four-page plan set for the subdivision depicting the proposed parking
plan, roadway sections, and fire access paths through the development (see Attachment Nos. 2
and 3). Although there is information concerning the width of streets in other jurisdictions and
descriptions of general guidelines, there is no factual engineering data that supports the
information. Accident data, information on driver comfort, or accessibility by homeowners has
also not been addressed.
The Fire Chief believes the emergency access requirements for the development is adequate as
the developer will install fire sprinklers in the residential units.
The standard plans approved by Council and California Streets and Highway Code Section 1805
establishes the width of residential streets as follows:
1805. The width of all city streets, except state highways, bridges, alleys, and trails, shall be at .
least 40 feet, except that the governing body of any city may, by a resolution passed by a four-fifths
vote of its membership, determine that the public convenience and necessity demand the
acquisition, construction and maintenance of a street of less than 40 feet and, after such
determination, proceed with the acquisition, construction or maintenance of any such street. The
width of all private highways and by-roads, except bridges, shall be at least 20 feet. This section
does not require that the width of city streets established or used as such prior to September 15,
1935, be increased or diminished.
The standard 40 foot width is composed of two 12 foot lanes of travel with two 8 foot parking
lanes. The City has approved roadways within developments that have widths narrower than 40
feet, examples of which are as follows:
The Hiqhlands - 32 feet wide (two 12 foot travel lanes, one 8 foot parking lanes)
The justification for narrowing the road was due to the hillside topography. The City
allowed the exception by the elimination of a parking lane from one side of the street.
Berry Gardens - 36 feet wide (two 10 foot travel lanes, two 8 foot parking lanes)
The development was approved as a Planned Unit Development as a specific plan
amendment to the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan.
All other residential developments are based on the 40 foot roadway standard.
Reduced street widths creates traffic congestion during trash pickup and parcel deliveries. These
large trucks block both traveled lanes of small street sections. Accident frequency may also be
greater for reduced street widths compared to standard 40 foot street widths.
It should be noted that the Traffic Commission has reviewed a number of complaints from
residents in the Highlands concerning the lack of parking. Public Works has also received a
number of complaints from residents in the Berry Gardens development, mostly concerning
parking of vehicles on both sides within the parking lane, that inhibit through traffic movements.
Speed limits on city streets are set in accordance with the regulations of the California Vehicle
Code. The "prima fascia" speed limit for the Cherry Creek roadways, which are classified as
residential streets, will be 25 miles per hour. Drivers on roadways have the right to travel at the
"prima fascia" speed.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve staffs recommendation;
2. Do not approved staffs recommendation;
3. Modify staffs recommendation; or
4. Provide direction to staff.
Attach ments:
1. Report - Information Regarding the Circulation in the Cherry Creek Subdivision
2. Cherry Creek Parking Plan
3. Cherry Creek Fire Access Map
TRAFFIC COMMISSION
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 16,2004
7:00 PM
Commissioners present: Larry Rohloff, Gary Borda, Derril Pilkington, and Scott Metcalf.
Commissioner absent: Kirk Scott.
Assistant City Engineer Michael Linn; Commander Steve Andrews and Traffic Commission Clerk
Debbie Weichinger.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,2004
It was moved by Commissioner Borda, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2004 meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF LIGHTED SIGNAGE ON CROWN TERRACE AT LE POINT STREET
Mr. Linn said this is a follow up item from the May 17, 2004 Traffic Commission meeting. Mr. Linn
stated the Commission requested staff research the placement of a lighted warning sign or a
flashing warning sign for northbound Crown Terrace to help warn drivers of the oncoming
intersection with Le Pont Street. Staff is recommending against the installation of a lighted
warning sign on northbound Crown Terrace. Staff indicated that the resident may install her own
convex mirror as long as it is on her private property and not within the City's right of way.
Mr. Linn further reported that the City is reviewing a proposal for the Creekside development, at
the intersection of East Branch and Crown Terrace. Staff will condition the developer to perform a
traffic study for the Crown Terrace and Le Point Terrace intersection to determine potE?ntial
impacts, which may require the placement of a stop sign at its intersection with Le Point Street.
The hearing was opened for public comment:
Barbara Freel, 502 May Street, reiterated her concern with backing out of her driveway while
vehicles are rounding the curve from northbound Crown Terrace. She did not believe the lighted
signs would provide any benefit.
Commissioner Pilkington left the podium at 7:10 pm.'
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to recommend against the installation of
a lighted warning sign on northbound Crown Terrace approximately 1200 feet from its intersection
with Le Point Street. However, Ms. Freel may install a convex mirror on her property.
Commissioner Pilkington returned to the podium at 7:17 p.m.
CONSIDERATION OF "SKINNY STREET" PROPOSAL BY RRM DESIGN
John Knight, a representative of RRM Design Group, performed a Power Point presentation on
the proposed Cherry Creek subdivision concerning street widths. The developer is requesting a
design exception to narrow the widths of streets to 32' within the development from the standard
40' width required by City standards and the Vehicle and Highway Code. He presented the
proposed parking plan, roadway sections, and fire access paths through the development.
The Commissioners provided the following comments:
Commissioner Borda believes the narrowing of the street width may have a traffic calming effect.
However, he is against the elimination of parking on one side of the street. He prefers a minimum
of a 34' to 36' street width.
Commissioner Rohloff believes the minimum acceptable width to be 36' consisting of two 8'
parking lanes and two 10' driving lanes.
Commissioner Pilkington expressed concern with fire trucks negotiating turns on 32' wide street.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that he understands the reasons for wanting to narrow the street
widths but he believes that the proposed 32' is too narrow. He believes 34' to be the minimum but
prefers the 36' width.
Commander Andrews said the 40' wide street is preferred but 36' would be acceptable. He also
said that the Police Department does not want to see parking eliminated from one side of the
street due to enforcement concerns.
After discussion, Mr. Linn said that the Commission's comments would be forwarded on to the
Planning Commission.
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF "NO PARKING" SIGNS AT VIA LAS AGUILAS AND REFUGIO
PLACE
Mr. Linn said staff received a letter from Fred Chaney of 855 Via Las Aguilas proposing to remove
"No Parking" signs along Via Las Aguilas, Mr. Chaney noted, in a phone call that day. that many
of the homeowners in the neighborhood expressed that there is not adequate parking in the area.
Mr. Linn indicated that staff had performed a site visit and determined that the signage and curb
markings were in accordance with the original parking plan for the development. Mr. Linn noted.
however. that the "No Parking" signs in the cul-de-sacs for Refugio Place and Via Las Aguila's.
were not necessary as there is a private roadway that connects the two cul-de-sacs. which allows
a secondary access for emergency vehicles. Following confirmation with the Fire Chief, staff
recommended removal of the "No Parking" signage within the cul-de-sac bulbs for Refugio Place
and Via Las Aguilas.
After discussion. it was moved by Commissioner Metcalf, seconded by Commissioner Borda and
unanimously carried that staff remove the "No Parking" signage along the cul-de-sac bulbs of Via
Las Aguilas and Refugio Place.
REQUEST TO REMOVAL RED CURB AT THE 400 BLOCK OF VISTA DRIVE
Mr. Linn said staff received a request from Doug Carmack, 489 Vista Drive stating that "No
Parking" signs and red curb were recently placed in the 400 block of Vista Drive. Mr. Linn
explained that the Public Works and Police Departments recently completed a mutual review of
parking restrictions in the Highlands area in an effort to ensure consistent parking enforcement in
the area. Staff verified the existing parking restrictions in the area against the parking plan
submitted by the developer for the original subdivision approval. Staff then installed the signage
and red curb accordingly to match the original development plans. After a site investigation, staff
recommends removal of the 100 lineal feet of existing red curb on the south side of Vista Drive
directly west of its intersection with La Canada.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
ATTACHMENT 4
\.----
B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-007, VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE
NO. 04-001 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-002; APPLICANT
- CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION - EAST
CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREETS.
Commissioner Brown requested a continuance of this item to a date certain to give
more time for review of the very large amount of information presented to them for
review.
Commissioner Fellows agreed that a continuance was in order, but would first like to
hear comments from the Commission and the public.
Ms. Heffemon then presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for a
Neighborhood Plan (NP) to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer
and open space considerations, and ultimate development of 83 new residential lots on 22
acres in two phases. She stated Phase I isa proposed 37 lot residential subdivision in a
Planned Unit Development configuration for 9 of the 22 acres; also proposed are two open
space lots and a 100-foot wide agricultural buffer; Phase II encompasses the remaining 13
acres where no development is proposed at this time.
In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Commission adopt a
Resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council and consider
alternatives depicted on the tentative map for the internal lot configuration and the road
alignment for East Cherry Avenue and recommend the preferred layout.
Commission questions and discussion:
Fellows:
. Is there a way to collect an in-lieu fee for the proposed pedestrian bridge over the
creek. Ms. Heffernan - an in-lieu fee program could be instituted.
. Is there any increased community benefit over the E. Cherry Avenue alignment?
Ms. Heffernon - it is the City's position that we would like to see E. Cherry
Avenue deveoped to it's full width including the existing 15 foot wide dirt access
road and we would like this issue resolved before Phase 2 is entered into.
. Mitigation 5.3, page 31, asked which "owner" shall be responsible to register the
residence in the California Register of Historic Places? Ms. Heffernan - it is the
property owner and this issue can be clarified in the mitigation measure.
. Are there retention basins in the plan? Mr. Devens - in this area onsite retention
of water is not required as. the entire watershed drains to the creek.
. Page 4, a) the Initial Study check list regarding ago resources, staff has marked
off "insignificant impact", but the Ag Commissioner's letter states "the projects
site soils are almost entirely prime soils..." Ms. Heffernan - the project is not
proposing to convert an ag use to a non-ag use, since the use has always been
residential (staffs interpretation).
. Page 4, also in regard to the Ag Commissioner's statement, asked for an
explanation of the relationship of Class 2, non-irrigated and prime soils. Ms.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
PAGE 6
Heffernon - the project soils are designated as Class 2, non-irrigated soils; prime
soils occur when Class I and 1/ soils are irrigated, such as with row crops.
Parker:
. The Commission is being asked to approve the NP (Phase 1 and Phase 2),
without receiving any information on Phase 2. Are all the residents in favor of the
new zoning? Ms. Heffernon - the new zoning land use for this property was
adopted with the General Plan Update and all the infrastructure will be provided;
the details will be addressed when someone comes forward with a subdivision in
Phase 2.
. By removing Myrtle Street as a through access road, Phase 2 would only have
access through Cherry Avenue, should there be two access roads for a PUD?
Ms. Heffernon - Myrtle Street has existing constraints and in this instance there
would only be one access street, unless an emergency access is required by the
. Fire Department.
. Concerns re the Neg. Dec., water quality, the runoff from the ag, taking away the
water percolation and allowing everything to run through two 72" pipes before
going into the creek; what happens when no response is received from WaCB.
Ms. Heffernon - the applicants are required to obtain separate permits from the
various agencies who will handle these types of issues. Mr. Devens explained
how the pipes would work, that they would not allow contamination because of
the high water velocity and that the proposed drainage solution is being done to
solve a historic problem.
. Do the houses that are already in Phase 2 have a 1 DO-foot buffer as designated
in the General Plan? Ms. Heffernon - they are considered legal non-conforming,
they could have accessory structures, but no habitable living space closer to the
buffer.
. Is there any area near the bridge location that could be considered for a drop off
location/turnaround for the school? Ms. Heffernon - the applicant could provide
more details on this.
Brown:
. Initial Env. Study, Page 36, Newsom Springs Drainage Report listed as
reference, asked if the Commission could have a copy of this report. Mr.
Devens - the analysis of the report is in draft form, but he would ask Don
Spagnolo if it could be given to the Commission.
.. Condition #67, of the Resolution: there is no discussion of the relation to
Subarea 2 or a time frame the Commission would need more information
for the next meeting. Mr. Devens - they cannot condition to connect to
property outside of the project, but the applicant has agreed to provide the
appropriate easements in the event the City has to enforce the connections.
. Condition 104, page 16, asked if the existing culvert at Huebner Lane was to be
used for the storm drain? Mr. Devens - the applicant had been informed by the
City that it would not be efficient to use this.
. Does the change in direction of the water flow and Condition No. 103 trip the
need for an EIR? Ms. Heffernon - it would not in staffs opinion (both questions)
and explained why.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
PAGE 7
o Is the road width on East Cherry Avenue to City standard and what is the
proposed circulation? Mr. Devens - it would be at typical dimensions for travel
and parking lane width; there has been no discussion on the ultimate extension
of E. Cherry Avenue, but there are several potential locations. Mr. Brown said
he would like to see staff comment and clarification from Public Works on
what the City's intent is for this road in terms of circulation.
o Re overlay of 100-feet on sub area 2 properties, asked Ms. Heffernon for
clarification on staff's interpretation of what is allowed in the buffer;
thought it was clarified at City Council.
o What is the buffer plan for sub area 2 that is required as part of General Plan LU
2-7 (it was not mentioned in the NP)? Ms. Heffernon - it would be whatever is
determined by Planning Commission and City Council, and agreed that whatever
is approved for Phase 1 would apply to Phase 2 and would be done at the time
someone comes forward with a discretionary project.
o Asked for clarification on the creekside trail along sub area 2. Ms. Heffernon -
the NP does discuss the alternatives.
o How does the current use of prime ag soil change the fact that it is prime ag soil?
He requested the next staff report contain clarification as to why this
property falls under the need to provide like preservation.
o Asked if it was normal to see approval from the agencies that require permits and
if there was a condition of approval re this? Mr. Devens - the City does receive
verification of approval from the WQCB. Ms. Heffernon - the applicants are
required to obtain permits and referenced the Initial Study (which are considered
conditions of approval). Brown requested that they be put in the conditions
of approval and the specific agencies named.
Parker
o Re theTraffic Study: There has been a significant increase in traffic accidents at
East Cherry and Traffic Way since the pool and Coker Ellsworth property went in.
Like to see some figures for coming from East Cherry onto Traffic Way
(especially making a left turn toward the freeway); a 22% increase in traffic is
going to cause a problem. Ms. Heffernon - the traffic engineer will be able to
answer these questions at the next meeting. Mr. Devens stated he would
clarify this specific question with the traffic engineer.
Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing.
John Knight, (project manager), Damien Mavis and Brad Vernon (applicants) each gave
a presentation. John Knight addressed the amount of homes proposed, the existing
units and parks, inclusionary/affordable housing units, the existing homes, two of which
would be retained having some historical value, the two sub-areas and the various
ownership; their efforts to inform the neighborhood of the proposal, the landscaping and
the fencing.
Damien Mavis addressed the NP and the policies, how subarea 1 would interface with
sub-area 2, street access, water and sewer infrastructure, the creekside path, open
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
PAGE 8
space, regional drainage associated with the proposal (explaining that this project
resolves a serious regional drainage problem for the City).
Brad Vernon addressed the ag buffer, how it would work, their efforts to get feedback
from the existing neighbors, pesticide applicators, County Ag Commission, farmers and
other cities and jurisdictions. He stated how they had increased the City's buffer
requirements; that according to County Ag the 115-foot setback complies with all but
one of the chemicals that are to be used. Toulone requires a 300-foot setback if used
more than one time in three years, but has typically has been applied every 6-7 years.
They are proposing to have a 115-foot buffer from a residential structure to the property
line; described the buffer and landscaping (to screen pesticide and dust along the
property) with an 8-foot wall; homeowners would be notified of the "Right to Farm
Ordinance"; City staff has approved their design; they had addressed pesticide use and
drift, noise issues, dust, crop theft, animal intrusion and lights.
The Commission took another five-minute break.
Cliff Branch, 'owner of the other two parcels in subarea I, stated the applicant's
representatives had done a terrific job; he was very impressed with the design and the
NP.
Lyn Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, stated that consideration should be given first to the traffic on
Cherry Avenue and the NP should be looked at first, not the subarea I development; this
is prime ag land, but the ag buffer will not allow a view of crops growing and this is the
joy of living in this area.
Sara Dickens, co-trustee of the Dixson Trust, sited the Co Ag Commission's letter which
addressed their recommendation for a 200-500 foot buffer between residential and
agricultural uses and that they do not feel the drainage solution is resolved in a manner
helpful to the farming operation.
Linda Osty, 309 E. Cherry, stated she was glad to be talking about the entire project;
lives right in front of the ag property with no buffer; has concerns with the traffic
(especially at school times) and even to turn right onto Traffic Way is really difficult; all
of the traffic is concentrated at this intersection.
Kendall Medina, 851 E. Cherry, just outside of Phase 2, concurred with concern about
the traffic and the proposed increase in homes; appreciated Commissioner Browns
statements re what will happen with East Cherry, does not want E. Cherry to go all the
way through as safety will be decreased; wants it to remain as a private road.
John Oberg, 613 Grove Court; 12 houses on 2,800 sq. ft. lots is unacceptable, eight
would be better; concern with the drainage pipe and the unintended consequence of
pushing farmland closer to his house; their will be a lot more pressure on the sewer
system, like the concept of putting in the ag buffer first.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
PAGE 9
Steve Andrews, 465 Tanner Lane, project looks good, his main concern is where Cherry
Lane hits Traffic Way - .you see many near accidents near the swim club and a 3-way
stop sign will not take care of this. The study only looked at streets near the project and
need more analysis to be further away; something needs to be done or this will become
a liability for City.
Larry Turner, 323 Noguera Place, gave congrats to everyone, looks like a good project,
likes the NP; this project has the best drainage solution he has seen yet; would like the
tract lots adjacent to Noguera to be single story homes and would like to see the
easement on Noguera be removed.
Otis Page, spoke for Don Shorts, 610 Myrtle, who requested the Commission to
expedite the reduction of the 10 foot easement behind his house and require the
developer to have onsite parking during the construction to relieve conjestion; asked
where the 10,000'gophers would go who will lose their homes?
Otis Page, submitted a letter to the Commission and stated:
. Development of this project would be a contradiction in terms of the present
Council and erosion of open space prime soil ag land; asked how could this be
justified with the denial of the Vanderveen's development of their land which has
less than prime ag soils.
. He was in support of this project, but asked that the density be four homes (in
the center) not eight and that they abide by the 7,000 foot criteria and discount
the use of the Vanderveer home and the other developed property.
. Agree the Noguera easement should be released, and that the housing facing
Noguera be one story.
. The traffic circulation analysis (specifically on Myrtle) does not make sense and
the traffic engineers should meet with the neighborhood.
Ella Honeycutt, Director Coastal Resource Conservation District, read a report from the
Coastel Resource District stating concerns with the buffer; flooding potential for the
Dixson farm; pesticide use in the future could be a problem; 85% of AG citizens support
protection of farmland; nothing less than 200 feet for a buffer should be acceptable.
Glen Mark, 855 Olive Street, stated that the City should not forget to look at the
potential impact on phase 2.
Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, the project would only lose four lots on Cherry Avenue if
the bigger buffer is chosen; would like to have the Public Hearing comment period
continued to the next meeting.
Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street, stated she appreciates the potential development of
open space and thought in the intial plan there was more open space near the
creekside; would not want to see a turnaround near the bridge as it would encourage
more school drop offs for Paulding School and cause traffic to go back down Myrtle;
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
PAGE 10
thought the gate for the estate not in character with the Village (does not see any other
gated communities in the Village).
Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated that the Cherry Avenue problem between
Railroad and Traffic Way needs to be addressed before further development: it is non-
conforming as a residential street and is now being proposed as a feeder street.
Eric Justason, RRM, spoke at length, describing the process involved in developing the
project and stated that a myriad of issues was involved in putting this together during
the last two years and the goal was to strike a balance and provide housing.
Vice Chair Brown closed the public comment.
Commission Comments:
Keen:
. All the problems had been discussed during the meeting.
Parker:
. Agreed with Commissioner Keen and would rather wait until the next meeting to
make further comment.
Fellows:
. Center homes of the development are they affordable and intermixed. Mr.
Knight explained the requirement and stated they would be mixed in and
unidentifiable.
. Eight homes instead of 12, is their a consensus on this (concern with parking)?
Mr. Knight - at this time there is no preference - eight may be more in character
with the surrounding neighborhood.
. The Stillwell Home - asked what the plan is for this? Mr. Knight - the plan is to
try to fix it up, put it on a new foundation and relocate it to a site next door.
. He would like to see it on a local Historic Register.
. Asked how long it would take the buffer to look like what is shown in the color
depictions? Mr. Knight - about five years; that is why a wall has been
suggested as an interim buffer.
. How will prospective future buyers be made aware of the "right to farm? Mr.
Knight - they would look into it.
Tait:
. Asked for clarification on the statements regarding Dixson farm and
flooding, the drainage and how this would enable farmland to be brought
back into production and would like to hear what the Dixson Ranch
owners feel about this.
. Would like a copy of the questionnaire on the buffer before the next public
hearing
. Would like to see a copy of the "Great Valley Center" document regarding
buffers.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
PAGE 11
Brown:
. Re the ag buffer study: He would like to see substantial documentation
provided as to how the conclusions were arrived at; the study needs a lot
more work before being recommended to City Council.
. Like further comment on the 25% rule for affordable units.
. Re the pedestrian bridge: He would like to know how the process took
place to make this determination.
. His biggest concern was the NP, but sub area 2 is almost left out of the picture.
He would like to see a conceptual plan that truly integrates sub-area 2.
. To reduce the agricultural interface the density should be lowered.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the
public hearing to the meeting of March 1, 2005, and requested staff and applicant to
return with information requested during discussion.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commis~ioners Fellows,Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker
None
None
IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None.
Asked for an update on Tract 1769 - the Busick Tract. Ms. Heffernan stated the
department had not received any further communication on this.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
None.
VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 15, 2005 MEETING: No
discussion.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen,
seconded by Commissioner T ait.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
ATTACHMENT 5
Mr. Strong excused himself from the following item due to conflict of interest and left the
meeting.
III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. (CONTINUED FROM 02/01/05 MEETING) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
04-007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-002, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT 04-002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001; APPLICANT -
CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION - EAST
CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREET.
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for the continued review of
a new development and Neighborhood Plan (NP) for a 22-acre area bordered by East
Cherry Avenue, Myrtle Street, and Arroyo Grande Creek. The staff report addressed
Commissioner comments from the February 1, 2005 meeting regarding:
. Drainage and Water Quality
. Sewer
. Traffic
. Circulation
. Agricultural Buffer Interpretation
. Additional Ag Buffer Information
. Class II Soils Classification vs. Prime Soils
. Other Agency Permits
. Affordable Housing Requirements
. Right to Farm Notice
Additionally, comments and clarifications addressed in response to a memo from Jim
Dickens to the Commission were:
. Neighborhood Plan
. General Plan Inconsistencies
. Negative Declaration
. Newsom Springs Drainage Project
In conclusion Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt a
resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council and that staff further
recommends that the Commission consider the alternatives depicted on the tentative
map for the internal lot configuration and the road alignment for East Cherry Avenue
and recommend the preferred layout. Development Code Amendment be processed
provided that the Neighborhood Plan is considered adequate.
Commission questions to staff:
Parker:
. Re final landscape plans - what credentials and experience has the City Arborist
had in working with environmental plantings and if they are not knowledgeable in
environmental planting could we get someone who is? Ms. Heffernon - the City
has a certified arborist.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 6
. Is there a drainage issue in subarea 2? Victor Devens - re mitigation for
Newsom Springs, there is no issue. Ms. Parker - so there is no water runoff
from the ag issues that run into subarea 2? Mr. Devens - he would have to look
at an overall tapa map of the ag land and see what the drainage patterns are.
. Exhibit IV, asked for clarification on why new poles were being put up. Mr.
Devens - there are two poles being relocated; he explained which they were and
stated PG&E would not put anything down on creek bank, but it may end up in
the 25 foot creek set back. Ms. Parker said that it should be addressed before
PG & E put a pole in a 25-foot riparian area.
. Will the City Water Plan be in place before this project is approved and if not
could this jeopardize the status of our current water supply? Mr. Devens - said
the City is securing additional water supplies and explained what the City is doing
to acquire more water; the project could be conditioned not to grant occupancy
until extra water is acquired.
. Mitigation 3.5, page 7, re air pollution mitigations, asked if the City expects the
wheel washers etc. to be used? Mr. Devens explained the various methods used
and that the City does oversee this. Ms. Heffernon - this is a soft mitigation from
APCD and they could be consulted if there was concern.
. Why is the bridge being eliminated and what is the City basing the elimination
on? Ms. Heffernon - there was no consensus to pursue it and Parks and
Recreation does not want the maintenance and the neighborhood does not want
it, but the Commission can suggest further discussion.
Fellows:
. What is staff's position on abandoning the Noguera Street property owner's
backyard easement? Mr. Devens - The abandonment is not being considered at
this time.
. Will the project convert prime ag land to non-ag land use and why is the initial
study checklist phrased this way? Ms. Heffernan - it is a standard question to try
to get issues resolved.
. Ownership of buffer maintenance later etc. Ms. Heffernon - the HOA would be
responsible for all maintenance.
. Mitigation MM4: Does this also refer to the Walnut trees, as they exist now? Ms.
Heffernan - it should say "and native trees" (Walnut trees are not protected).
. Re Page 4 of the staff report: Traffic surveys for the City have underestimated at
least one project for the City, how close would we be to LOS 'D' at build out of
this project. Mr. Devens said he would have to do some research to answer that
question.
Tait:
. Re Page 3 of the staff report asked for clarification on the 2nd sentence regarding
pollutants in the creek. Mr. Devens - this is a nexus issue' (an existing problem
is being taken and added to this project) and more research needs to be done.
. 2.2 new mitigation measure states the 4 lots adjacent to the buffer should be
single story, but Attachment 10 (design guidelines) conflicts with this as it
mentions 2nd story windows. Ms. Heffernon - said the design guidelines as
proposed to be amended is what staff is recommending and probably needs
more discussion.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 7
. There are 19 pages of mitigation measures, how can the City enforce all of these
concerns? Ms. Heffernon - the City does the best they can and all departments
do go out and check on them and they are important to include.
. The Arroyo Grande Creek wildlife corridor adjacent to the property site does
contain habitat for steel head and the red legged frog, would the Endangered
Species Act come into play, particularly if the 72" drain pipes are depositing ag
runoff including pesticides into the creek which is their habitat. Ms. Heffernon -
the applicant will be required to consult and obtain permits from both Federal and
State departments such as CA Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of
Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife etc.
. Re cultural resources: Are the results of the Phase 2 sub surface testing
available yet? Ms. Heffernon - not at this time, but before this proposal goes to
Council, Phase 2 testing should be done to determine if there are any
archaeological issues with this project.
. Re the vegetative screening for the Ag buffer: Should a condition be added that
the vegetative screen must be effective in reducing airborne pollutants prior to
occupancy (a wall would not be effective). Ms. Heffernon - suggested the City
could request the landscape plans be signed off by an outside consultant to
ensure that the screening is sufficient.
. Loss of prime ag land under CEQA is considered a significant impact so if the
project converts prime ag land to non-prime ag land why is this considered an
insignificant impact? Ms. Heffemon - the subject site is not agricultural/and and
is not being converted (it is prime soil for residential use).
Parker:
. Reminded staff that she had submitted a list of consultants who would be glad to
help with choosing correct buffers to decrease pollutants in the air and ground.
In reply to another question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Devens stated that the
existing 15" and 12" City Sewer line interconnected in the area of Fair Oaks and Hwy 1
at Valley Road, has been identified in the Capitol Improvement Program and we have
been assured that this sewer line does have adequate capacity and occupancy of this
project should not be the trigger for this line to be replaced.
Brown:
. What environmental review was done was done at the time the drainage master
plan was approved. Ms. Heffernon - she did not know what level of review was
done.
. The concept plan for subarea 2: Was there any discussion as to how that would
be part of a condition of approval for the NP? Ms. Heffernon - a reduced density
in subarea 2 is not being proposed.
. Is there a condition of approval to build the homes above the 1 DO-year flood plain
in subarea 2. Mr. Devens said he did not know about subarea 2.
. How is the hydrology going to work in the case of a 1 DO-year flood event if the
pipes are 17 feet plus under water? Victor - the outlet elevation was being
selected based on trying to be above the base flood elevation for the area.
. Page 7 of the Newsom Springs report: He had concern that the City was making
recommendations for a drainage plan for this property that is a regional issue; the
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 8
recommendation was based on the Master Drainage plan or the Newsom
Springs Report (which Public Works states in a memo is "informational only");
conditions of approval also state that the hydrology report is to be done after the
project is approved.
. Because this property is not zoned Agriculture is it not subject to overriding
considerations? Ms. Heffernon - stated that she did not believe it was subject to
overriding considerations.
. Concern that the staff report stated that the proposed project neither resolves
circulation nor does it preclude future road connections. Ms. Heffernon - ultimate
connections will be decided upon in the future; we show where secondary access
could be. Mr. Devens - agreed that there are other possibilities other than the
227 bypass.
. The Cherry Ave alignment: What is staffs opinion on the curved route? Ms.
Heffernon - staff would like to see this not curved; like to see the East Cherry
Avenue extension be a public right-of-way.
Tait:
. Mitigation measure 4.16 does not state when the survey of trees (prior to
removal) by a qualified biologist should be done; The Morro Group report states
this should be done from March 1 - August 31sl; this date should be added to the
measure. Ms. Heffernon - agreed that this should be added.
Vice Chair Brown opened the Public Hearing for comment:
John Knight, RRM Design Group, discussed four key issues: Traffic, the Regional
Drainage Plan, the Neighborhood Plan, Ag Coordination; he stated the archeological
study for Phase 2 was completed and was included in the binder (monitoring was the
only recommendation); gave an update on the Neighborhood Plan meeting; he
presented a new plan for the proposal received from Jim Dickens and stated the
neighborhood was not interested in this. In conclusion, he stated that emergency
access would be reviewed in the future as part of Phase 2.
Eric Justason, RRM, gave a brief summary of the agricultural issues; discussed the Ag
Buffer Study, prepared by Dameon and Brad and a publication regarding Agricultural
Buffer Policy that they collected during their research. He discussed the research they
had conducted on ag buffers and the and the need to protect farming and residents and
reduce impacts from farming operations to minimize complaints; he described the
design of the ag buffer, the proposed wall and landscaping proposed; explained that
there was 127 feet separation between edge of crops to first habitable structure. In
conclusion he asked the Commission to give clear direction as to what is needed if the
Commission feels that they are not providing sufficient protection. .
Ed Harrison, 441 Lierly Lane, concerns: 1) alternative plan from Jim Dickens would put
a road on three sides of his property 2) East Cherry Lane to Traffic Way is already a
bad road with no parking, the traffic study did not look at these things and it is not a
good plan to add more traffic to this street and needs to be addressed. The applicants
have done a very good job of communication and have been sensitive to the neighbor's
desires.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 9
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, gave history of flooding on Tally Ho Road (Tally Ho
Road twice flooded) and stated the water is similar to what comes out of Newsom
Springs; the new houses raised up will not get flooded, but the adjacent houses will; use
the mitigation measure money and build a dam in Newsome Springs and work with the
County.
JR Hoffmeir, 765 Branch Mill Road, discussed an email on the comparison between
Australia and USA ag buffers.
Linda Osty, 309 East Cherry Avenue, previously Commissioner Brown had asked that
the applicant recalculate the size of lots and she had not heard anything about that.
However, her main concern was with congestion on Traffic Way and East Cherry Ave
this i~ a huge problem. The project looks great but we do need to look at this for the
future.
Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, re her parents property at 404 Lierly Lane, stated that
when the 2001 General Pian was approved she had been assured by Council (on a
handshake only) that 4.25 units per acre was too much; she believes Cherry Creek is
part of something bigger; it is impossible to approve Cherry Creek without getting a
better idea of what type of density is planned for the remaining nine owners; density
should not be more than the smallest property existing now (1/4 acre). Other issues of
concern were fencing material (does not like the proposed wall); does not like the two
story, 4 units backing into ag land; concern with traffic and width of the road at Traffic
Way. In conclusion, she asked what project will it take to "break the camel's back"?
Carol Hoffmeir, 465 Branch Mill Road, has concern with the proposed 2-story homes
adjacent to the buffer; buffer will need to be bigger for future pesticide production, trees
will need to be taller for protection; the Negative Declaration for the Coker Ellsworth
project required buffer protection that never happened; what happened here, so how do
we know that this will happen with this proposal.
Nora Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, her property adjoins this proposal; she just received a
copy of Jim Dickens proposal and does not support having a road straight through her
property. She does support the Cherry Creek proposal and commended the developer
for working with them; they have had successful neighborhood meetings. The
pedestrian walkway ends up in her backyard and will not work; she would like the
Commissioners to come out to look at the property. She has mixed feelings on the
bridge, it needs to be reviewed and Lucia Mar consulted; road alignment is a big issue
and she would like to see it dedicated to the City. She was interested in hooking up to
the sewer, but did not like the language in the mitigation, which states, "I must" (within
a certain time~frame). The offer of private easements from the developers was great;
better alignment is needed where Cherry Avenue meets Branch Mill Road and a 3-way
stop sign. One-story units would be better than no windows on a two story. It is unfair
to require the developers to have the buffer screening with 5-year old trees when people
live there now with no screening.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 10
Otis Page, Myrtle Street, asked who in the City made the determination that this site is
considered to be residential and not agricultural. Ms. Heffernon - staff made the
determination as it is written in the General Plan. He stated he was in favor of this plan
but not the configuration - density is too high, two story not acceptable; he discussed
the circulation; the traffic analysis is understated and the traffic calming not adequate;
he would like to see one-way into the project; there has been no analysis in the traffic
study of the bridge that is being considered.
Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated concerns that 1) there is significant runoff from
existing ag land and this is not the responsibility of this development - owners of the
land should mitigate this, 2) requiring a developer to provide ag buffers five years in
advance of starting building would not be legally defensive for the City, 3) the current
traffic analysis did no counts on Cherry Lane or Traffic Way showing number of cars
moviQg down Cherry Lane to Traffic Way and none on the traffic moving to freeway at
this time; it is the City's responsibility to improve this stretch in conjunction with
development and not the developers.
Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill Road, discussed drainage and stated that moving forward
with the current proposal would preclude any future discussion about looking into the
possibilities of a Newsom Springs detention basin (that would have multiple benefits).
He questioned the claim that with this proposal no changes are being made as to what
is being discharged into the Arroyo Grande Creek; a 1 DO-year flood event could cause
900 cu. ft. per second traversing Branch Mill Road (the Dickson Ranch would have to
take care of this) and no one knows what would happen in subarea 2. He stated that an
appropriate hydraulic report should be conducted before the project is approved; no
environmental review was done on the Drainage Master Plan and we were told that
when a project comes forward the questions will be addressed; so a drainage analysis
needs to be completed. Re circulation: the staff report states the proposed project
would not preclude future road alignments, the 227 by pass was put to rest two years
ago; in the General Plan Update regional relief routes were discussed; if approved the
project would preclude routes for the future. Mr. Dickens stated that the intent of his
alternative conceptual Neighborhood Plan was merely to show how multiple factors
could be incorporated within the subject property site; his goal was to show that there
are different alternatives, look at all factors and deal with subarea 2. He recommended
the Commission look at the Ag study from the applicant; the Queensland Report
recommends a minimum of 40 meters for landscape buffers to mitigate between
agriculture and residential. In conclusion, he asked the question - at what point as
more and more neighbors move in do the farm operators have to be more and more
mindful and at what point does it become an economic burden.
Eric Justason stated that regarding drainage, it is not possible for the project to take
care of a 100-year flood; our proposal addresses a long-standing drainage issue, but
there is a limit to what we are able to do.
Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierly Lane, stated he though this was a good project that needs
much further review to resolve all the issues; he asked that sub area 2 be looked at a
later date; he would like the ability to split his property at the density given to him.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 11
The Commission took a 10- minute break.
10:00 p.m.:
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the
meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was unanimously approved on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown
None
None
John Knight stated that it did not make sense to do environmental studies for sub area 2
at this time.
Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Dickens re the 150-foot buffer, what data was he basing
the information that a 150-foot buffer would be adequate versus the 1 DO-foot buffer with
vegetation. Mr. Dickens - the County Ag Commissioner recommends this to allow for
protection (even though the exposure may only be a perceived) to alleviate complaints
that impact farming operations; additional distance will decrease perceived effects of
any kind of exposure and lastly it is The Queensland Report's recommendation.
Keen to Mr. Dickens:
. In his opinion did he believe that in five years the environmental impact from
pesticide use will only get better? Mr. Dickens - he could not say that, but even
if they were 100% organic they would still have complaints- fertilizer smell, dust
etc. that is why we need more space.
. Re drainage basin, should it be the applicant's responsibility to buy the land and
build it. Mr. Dickens - absolutely not.
. Should the farmers have any responsibility for drainage of their waste into the
local creek? Mr. Dickens - they have 100% of responsibility for everything that
leaves their property.
Parker to Mr. Dickens:
. Does the buffer accommodate for natural events when a farmer is spraying. Mr.
Dickens explained how the County Ag Commissioner's department regulates
pesticide use and permit conditions include adverse weather conditions; the most
important issue for a buffer is to create a comfort zone for the average person to
live and as more and more people move into the area it becomes more difficult to
educate people and we do not know what tomorrow may bring; it may be helpful
to bring a representative in from the County Ag Commissioner's office.
Parker to John Knight:
. Asked for clarification on the parking plan. Mr. Knight - we revised the plan to
demonstrate that there could be parking on both sides of the street; East Cherry
has parking on one side only at 32 feet (requested by the Public Works and
Police Department); further up East Cherry near Phase 2 we have not presumed
any widths, but the areas that will need parking would need wider street.
. Asked for clarification on the fence heights for the yards. John Knight - yard
fences are proposed to be six feet neighborhood fences.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 12
o Is there a reason why the Vanderveer property has been subdivided from the rest
of the proposed project and has a stone wall all around and a gate? Mr. Knight-
Myrtle Street will not go through because of the creek, it was the desire of the
person who is purchasing the house and the large lot that is behind the house.
. Concern that when driving into this project from East Cherry the street is
proposed to be named Myrtle and could get confusing. Mr. Knight - the Fire
Department identified how the streets will be named.
. Re the General Plan walkway conception, why can't the trail be put on the creek
side? Mr. Knight - if we did it would have to dead end, but we are proposing a
small pathway along the creek along with some other alternatives.
. Will the 72 feet drainage pipe have a grate on it and be cleaned out periodically?
Mr. Knight - there will be a grate and the City will clean this out.
. Asked for clarification on the site runoff from the project. Mr. Knight and Mr.
Devens explained how this would be taken care of.
. Tait:
. Will the Palm trees near one of the proposed homes will they be removed? Mr.
Knight - they will be removed.
. Asked for clarification on the Buffer surveys. Mr. Mavis - explained that originally
they talked to everyone in the neighborhood, left the questionnaire with them, but
none were returned, so the second time they went out with a new questionnaire
and these have been included.
. Asked for clarification on the width of the proposed Buffer. Mr. Mavis - the buffer
they are proposing is 100-feet from property line to property line and 115 feet
from property line to the edge of first habitable structure.
Fellows:
. Circulation plan for 2nd Phase asked for clarification. Mr. Knight - at the
neighborhood meeting we gathered the information, but no street widths have
been presumed.
. Asked about the storm water collection basin mentioned in the letter from Linda
Chipping? Mr. Knight - described the basin and stated it had to be fenced for
safety reasons.
Brown:
. Re the Buffer study, asked why language was used relating to the "evolving
agricultural buffer". Mr. Damien - when this was originally started this study it
was unclear.
. Re the Buffer issue, asked where does the study discuss the 1 DO-foot buffer in
conjunction with the "current intensity of ag use and possible future uses". Mr.
Mavis - the basis of this came from the fact that we are going to be providing a
higher performance buffer than what is currently there.
. Where in the material does it describe that 1 DO-feet is adequate? Mr. Mavis -
recommendations from the Ag department's office and it is a good minimum for
pesticide access-start at minimum.
. Re the proposed level of development including, subarea 2, how. does the
density fit the 1 DO-foot buffer and where is the supporting information? Mr. Mavis
- based on the fact that there are 6-8 lots that will be directly effected by the
buffer.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 2005
PAGE 13
. During the presentation that there a comment that there has been an attempt to
zone this area back to agriculture, where did this come from? Mr. Knight -
comments we received in the packet regarding an attempt to identify this area as
prime ag land and they had presumed it was for the purpose of converting back
to agricultural land. Commissioner Brown stated that there had been no such
suggestion to zone this area back to Agriculture". .
. Re drainage, on what basis was it determined that it was adequate, especially as
there is a condition of approval suggesting a study should be done. Mr.. Knight-
we decided on this design because it was the City's; we believe it is above and
beyond our responsibility, but we are willing to do it to get this proposal through
the City; there was no environmental review done for this.
Vice Chair Brown suggested that this project be continued to the next meeting, but he
did not wish to close the public comment.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to
continue the hearing to March 15, 2005 and that it be placed first on the agenda.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown
None
None
Commissioner Keen made a motion to adjourn. There was no, second.
C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05-004; APPLICANT - CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE; LOCATION - VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN AND VILLAGE MIXED
USE ZONING DISTRICTS.
Due to the late hour this project was not heard.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to
continue this item to the May 3, 2005 meeting.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker
None
None
B. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 03-001; APPLICANT - S &. S HOMES OF THE
CENTRAL COAST; LOCATION - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND
AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET.
Staff requested continuance of this item to the March 15, 2005 regular meeting of the
Planning Commission.
After discussion on the upcoming meetings and project status the Commission made a
motion.
ATTACHMENT 6
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 2005
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown
None
None
A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 04-002, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002, NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN 04-001; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE,
LLC; LOCATION - EAST CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREET (Continued from
the meeting of March 1, 2005).
Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, presented the staff report for the continued review of
a new development and Neighborhood Plan for a 22-acre area bordered by East Cherry
Aven.ue, Myrtle Street, and Arroyo Grande Creek. She recommended the Commission
1) consider the additional information included in the Initial Study and determine the
adequacy of the environmental determination; 2) consider the Neighborhood Plan (NP)
issues, and; 3) consider the project. The staff report addresses the following impacts:
. Traffic - primarily the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry
. Sewer
. Drainage
. Prime Soils
. Water Resources
. Neighborhood Plan -level of detail that should be in the Plan
Ms. Heffernon then stated that staff had made some recommended changes to the
Initial Study. In addition, as part of the environmental review process, staff is
recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. However, if
necessary the Commission can direct staff to prepare an expanded initial study under
CEQA. If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, then
an EIR shall be prepared; staff recommends that if such factual information exists, then
any deliberations on the project itself be reserved until it comes back to the Commission
with the EIR completed.
In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon requested the public hearing be re-opened and if the
environmental review is determined adequate, the Commission should adopt a
resolution recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve the project.
Commission questions and discussion followed:
Commissioner Tait:
. Drainage: He disagreed that the length of time required for performing
environmental review of the reservoir at the mouth of Newsome Springs Canyon
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 2005
PAGE 6
would not be feasible with the project time line; time should be taken for the
review- it's very important.
o Loss of prime ag land under CEQA: Asked for clarification on "prime soil zoned
for residential use". Ms. Heffernan - it is staff's determination that this is a policy
issue and not an ag conversion - this area was slated for development before
the City was incorporated; so City Council would need to make an interpretation
on this issue.
. Initial Study: He disagreed with the most current change to allow second story,
even with no windows against the ag buffer; this would need further discussion.
. Biological resources: Did not agree with the statement that the "project site
contains no habitat types that could provide suitable habitat". Ms. Heffernan -
she would get clarification from the biologist.
. Mitigation measure 4.20: A sentence has been deleted that weakens the
mitigation. Ms. Heffernan - they were waiting to hear from Fish and Game to
see if this was necessary, but they could leave it in. Tait - he would like to see it
left in.
. Mitigation measure 4.16: As requested at the last meeting he would like to see
the dates March 1-August 31 added (prior to removal of trees by a qualified
biologist) to the measure.
. Mitigation measure 4.28: Asked why the word "permanent" was added to
sentence. Ms. Heffernan - will get back to him on this.
. The creek foot trail: Who will revegetate this area after the developers leave?
Ms. Heffernon - a condition can beaded that the CC&R's require the HOA to
maintain this area.
. How can the initial study be complete until responses have been received from
the RWQCB and Fish & Game? Ms. Heffernan - the applicant must go through
these agencies before obtaining permits.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. Heffernon stated:
. The applicant has not yet secured a permit for discharge of water from the two 6"
pipes into the creek from the Army Corps of Engineers.
. Re Ordinance 550 language, wording to state "the design shall require an
adequate buffer" can be included.
. If an expanded initial study is not to the Commission's liking a full EIR can be
requested; a full EIR is a much larger scope of review, lengthier (at least one
year) and more expensive.
Parker:
. Asked for clarification on the abandonment of right of way - area of Myrtle Street:
Mr. Devens - it would be a privately maintained road - the City would retain an
easement over it.
. Is the Vanderveer house a registered historical house? Ms. Heffernon - it has
not been registered, but it may be considered to have historical significance.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 2005
PAGE 7
. Capital Improvement Program: Asked for an update on the sewer system for this
area. Mr. Devens - it will depend on when the design has been approved.
Keen:
. When will the City get the Neighborhood Plan? Ms. Heffernon - the
Neighborhood Plan for sub area 2 has been included in the information submitted
for Commission review, but it is only in discussion form (text only); the General
Plan does not give much guidance; the decision makers need to determine how
much information is necessary.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment.
John Knight, representing the applicant, answered the Commission's questions;
discussed changes made to the project to increase the buffer to 130 foot (measured to
habitable structure); discussed the Neighborhood Plan and sub area 2.
Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, had concerns with the easement on Noguera; traffic on Cherry
Avenue; the proposed bridge; he suggested an amendment to the General Plan
regarding the prime soils.
Carol Hoffmeier, 765 Branch Mill, had concerns regarding the buffer, drainage and
emergency access.
Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, had concerns regarding the buffer and ways to increase it;
prime ag soil issue and the ability of the Dixson family to be able to farm in the future.
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oakhill Road, had concerns with the drainage; past flooding history
of Arroyo Grande, the buffer and the proposed wall and stated the need to protect
families that had lived in Arroyo Grande for years.
Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, encouraged the Commission to ask for an EIR of the
Neighborhood Plan, requested the Commission not to accept the mitigation measures;
asked them to seek a General Plan Amendment lowing the density in Phase II. She
stated that the NP should be approved prior to the Cherry Creek development; Phase II
must be included in the study; suggested that the area is perfect for transitional zoning;
does not agree with the proposed two story houses or the proposed gate on the
Vanderveer historical residence; did not agree with the proposed construction hours, the
monument sign and the berm with fence on top; concern with the size of the drainage
pipes sewer mains and did not agree with the traffic report.
Bill Surry, 831 East Cherry, commented that there had not been any negotiation for
purchase on Cherry Avenue (private, dirt road), although it is being included as part of
the buffer area.
Noma Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, stated she disagreed with transitional zoning; there
would have to be further discussion on this.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 2005
PAGE 8
Tony Janowicz, 445 B Lierly Lane, stated he also disagreed with a transitional area; the
neighborhood needs to get together for further discussion.
Karen Estes, 811 East Cherry, referring to Ella Honeycutt's comments, stated that once
the dam had been installed there had been no further flooding; in 31 years she had not
seen the Dixson property wash any water across Cherry Ave; she did not believe a wall
would create any problem.
John Knight gave his response to the public comments:
. Noguera Place easement: This will need to be clarified.
. Buffer interpretation: His understanding was that within 100 feet, backyards
would not be included.
. Enforcement of buffer: Projects will be installed according to plans and should
. not be a concern.
. Fire access options: It is possible to get additional fire access if needed.
. Newsome Springs drainage: The City has agreed to look at this next time the
City's Drainage Master Plan is updated. In the meantime, there will be two 72"
pipes and an overflow route.
. If there were an initiation to alter the zoning and decrease the density in this area
we would have some serious concerns.
. We have moved the windows away from the buffer on the two story homes to
avoid nighttime noise and light (when farmers may be working).
. Construction times are typical and will be in compliance with the City's noise
ordinance.
. In some areas the wall is 7-foot high because of the grade change.
. The vegetative buffer areas should be irrigated and there should be no concern
with fire safety.
The Commission took a five-minute break.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment.
Mr. Knight said if the Commission requires additional environmental documentation on
the Negative Declaration (expanded Initial study), they would be willing to pay for a third
party consultant, hired by the City.
Chair Brown suggested that the Commission start with review of the Negative
Declaration, and stated that they would like to make all their comments before this goes
forward to the Council.
Commissioner Keen:
o He would like to receive RWQCB and Fish & Game responses before going
forward to further discussion.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 2005
PAGE 9
Commissioner Parker stated that she was submitting her detailed written comments on
the CEQA Negative Declaration (NO) to staff (copy to go to the developer); stated that
the NO was inadequate; her comments addressed each of the items that she felt did not
address the mitigating impacts sufficiently or identify additions required. Following is a
condensed version of Ms. Parker's comments:
. Traffic Report: Traffic is already a problem at the East Cherry and Traffic Way
intersection, especially with regards to left turn onto Traffic Way from East Cherry
(study provided to staff). According to the Traffic Study, this project will not be
adding that much to make it worse; the City should address the current traffic
issues at the Traffic Way and East Cherry intersection.
. Aesthetics: The wall and berm area should be made more aesthetically pleasing
and fit better with the rural area; the sign is not necessary and does not fit in with
the neighborhood; glare and light should be mitigated also.
.. Agricultural Resources: The buffer should be in this section - it's a good
mitigation. Ms. Parker stated that after much research and based on the findings
from quite a few sources she could accept a 130-foot buffer.
. Biological Resources: Wildlife corridor, wetlands and riparian habitat is a
significant impact - could be mitigated.
. Hazards & Hazardous Materials: Are a significant impact; the creek bed is
exposed to hazardous material and people are also exposed to the agricultural
runoff and spray (could be mitigated).
. Transportation/Circulation: An adequate secondary emergency access has not
been provided to the area and would be necessary for sub area 2 to be further
developed.
. Land Use: Ag. 1-1 of the 2001 General Plan, identifies this property as prime
soils (and a natural resource along with oak trees) and is classified as prime
farmland, class \I soils; once houses are built on prime soils, it does not require it
to be turned back to Agriculture, but this property falls under every criteria that
the General Plan has set up for saving the Prime Soils. As it now reads, must
either go to City Council for clarification of intent, and possible amendment; or
have a full EIR in which case itwould need an overriding consideration from City
Council to go forward.
. Mandatory Findings of Significance: The drainage system seems like a good
solution, but it may cause problems for the chemical flow into the creek (not
allowing chemical percolation through the soil); the mitigation measure is not
sufficient; there needs to be a response from Fish & Game & RWQCB before the
drainage goes in; this should be addressed.
. According to CEQA, a negative declaration is only permissible if "all significant
impacts are definitely mitigated"; Ms. Parker then stated the reasons why it could
not be certified at this time. .
. A full EIR has to be done for this project because of drainage (regional issue)
and prime soils (would require overriding considerations from City Council).
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 2005
PAGE 10
Chair Brown requested that documents given to staff from Commissioner Parker's
report be made part of public record and attached to any staff reports.
Chair Brown announced to the public that due to insufficient time Item III.B. Vesting
Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004, would not be heard this evening. After
discussion it was agreed that a special meeting date on Monday, April 4, 2005 at 6:00
pm. would be acceptable for continuance of this item.
The Commission then returned to discussion of Item IliA
Tait:
. Drainage: Perceives this as a major concern because of the runoff going through
the proposed 72" drain pipes, leaving no natural percolation taking place to
reduce harmful chemicals from going directly into Arroyo Grande Creek; good
buffers would trap pesticide runoff, but cannot happen inside a drain pipe; this
issue needs to be looked at in depth using expert opinion.
. Buffers: The applicant has taken many positive steps to reduce significant
impacts; he agrees with the Co Ag Commissioners Office that none of these
attempts replaces the benefits that adequate distance provides to adequately
mitigate potential conflict; Ordinance 550, in the General Plan states "the
protection of ag lands within the City is the City's greatest priority"; an inadequate
buffer may limit the potential of future operations of a farm to change crops; in
the revised East Village Neighborhood Plan, the ag buffer study presented by the
applicant, ends with "this buffer will serve an as example for the future"; it is a
concern that this project may be setting a precedent for future projects.
. Prime farmland soil: The Co Ag Commissioner's Office states "the project site
soils are almost entirely prime soils, with a small area of river wash (same soil
type as Dixson Ranch); Ag1.4-3 in the General Plan and comments from Brian
Troutwein to the effect that projects such as this in Santa Barbara almost always
trigger a CEQA review.
. Re the Parks & Recreation Element: The bridge to connect the middle school
with the recreation facilities should still be considered.
. Pesticide use: Re the Buffer Study prepared by the applicant, the pesticides
included are both "restricted use" pesticides; one of the pesticides is heavier than
water and inside an enclosed drain pipe would not be able to evaporate; Ag 2 in
the General Plan requires that water quality for agriculture be maintained and
direct discharge of the pollutants through the proposed drain pipes within
permeable land he believed violates the General Plan.
. Given the complexity of the environmental issues with this project he believes an
EIR is needed to provide everyone with a more in depth analysis.
10:00 p.m.
Chair Brown requested a motion to continue the meeting to 11 :00 p.m.
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 2005
PAGE 11
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the
meeting to 11 :00 p.m; the motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote.
Commissioner Fellows stated that after studying the Negative Declaration for many
hours he had come to the conclusion that a full EIR would be required. Commissioner
Fellows further comments:
. He disagreed with staff's interpretation that the project would not convert prime
ag land to non-ag use.
. A 100-foot ag buffer with 20-foot of vegetation is clearly inadequate; County Ag
Department lists factors why a wider buffer is needed; other jurisdictions have a
minimum of greater than 150-feet; The Queensland Report has good scientific
data recommending an acceptable buffer of a minimum of 131-feet, with half of
the width planted with specific trees and shrubs; it is very important that
. ownership and maintenance of the buffer is taken care of (not an HOA), it has to
be done by the City; Agreed with Commissioner Tait on drainage, groundwater
recharge and water cleansing; a minimum of 150-foot buffer, plus borders on
both sides (to be 37 feet of fire retardant plants) designed by a professional;
mitigation by City arborist is not an acceptable mitigation; ownership and
maintenance of the buffer should be agreed upon (not a HOA), City should take
care of it.
. Agreed with Commissioner Tait on drainage; hydrology and water quality:
discharge needs to be dealt with; the two 6 foot pipe system would be obsolete
before it was built; suggested vegetative basin for water filtration.
Brown:
. Aesthetics: not pleasing because of the proposed wall and gate on the historical
residence; this needs to be mitigated.
. Ag Resources: Prime Soils, General Plan, Ag 1-4, City Council must address
this issue; this parcel has been zoned residential for many years, but the City
Council may have to make overriding considerations for the loss of prime soils;
the secondary access for subarea 2 over possible ag land needs to be
addressed; buffer: there is sufficient information in the applicant's buffer study
and the Ag. Commissioner's Office (so a full CEQA review would not be
necessary) to require a buffer of 130-feet, property line to property line.
. Geology and Soils: This project does involve the 100-year flood zone so the
drainage and soil needs to be dealt with.
. Recreation: The General Plan clearly states that a neighborhood plan needs
trails and pedestrian bridges - needs to be addressed.
. Transportation/Circulation: Secondary access for sub area 2 needs to be
addressed; circulation has not been sufficiently addressed.
. Hydrology and Water Quality: He agreed with Commissioner Tait's comment.
. Newsome Springs drainage issue: the City Council cannot determine what is
appropriate without an environmental review; suggested that the City pay for part
of the cost to determine the hydrology coming from Newsome Springs and must
be done prior to approval of the project.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15,2005
PAGE 12
o Land Use: It may be potentially incompatible to surrounding land uses, due to
buffer next to ag land - needs to be addressed.
. Density also needs to be addressed.
. It is not appropriate to rely on future approval of government agencies; issues
must be resolved prior to approval of the project.
Commissioner Keen suggested that the Commission ask City Council for an
interpretation on prime soils for this area before proceeding with a decision on the
Negative Declaration because the whole project is hinged on this.
Commissioner Brown stated that the General Plan requires an EIR for this issue and the
Council can choose not to do this.
Ms. Heffernon asked the Commission for consensus before moving on to the
Neighborhood Plan.
Chair Brown suggested an expanded Initial Study be undertaken.
Commissioner Parker stated that an expanded Initial Study would not make much
sense as no matter how good it was, an EIR would be required.
Commissioner Keen stated that from his past experience EIR's do not solve the
problem. When someone has doubts about a project even after completion of an EIR,
they still have the same doubts.
Commissioner Parker said in addition to the ag issue she has doubts about procedure
and other issues; she did not need an interpretation of the General Plan from Council on
the prime soils issue; the ag issue may need an amendment to the General Plan.
Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Parker.
Chair Brown said he did not want to send the recommended environmental
determination to Council before dealing with the other project issues. Commissioner
Parker agreed.
John Knight said his clients were not prepared to do an EIR; he would like the
Commission to deny the negative declaration and this would allow them to appeal to
City Council.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to
recommend that a full EIR be done on the project and request that it not go forward to
City Council until the Commission has dealt with the drainage, prime soils, agricultural
resources, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and the neighborhood plan.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 15,2005
PAGE 13
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Parker, Fellows, Brown and Tait
Keen
None
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to continue
discussion of the project to a special meeting on Tuesday, March 29, 2005. The motion
was approved on a 5/0 voice vote.
IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Chair Brown requested CEQA handbooks for the new Commissioners.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
Ms. Heffernon: Brown Brown Bag lunch would be showing a video from the Housing
Trust re affordable housing on Thursday, March 17,2005, from 12 - 1 :00 p.m.
VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 5, 2005 MEETING: No discussion.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11 :05 p.m. to the special meeting of March
29, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
TIM BROWN, CHAIR
L YN REARDON-SMITH
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
(Approved at the meeting of April 19. 2005)
ATTACHMENT 7
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 16, 2006
6:00 P.M.
\.
/
. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session
with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Ray and Tait;
Commissioner Parker was absent. Staff members in attendance were City Manager,
Steve Adams, City Attorney, Tim Carmel, Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo, and
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the
meeting.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by
Commission Ray, approving the minutes of May 2, 2006, with one typographical
correction; the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Parker being
absent.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
All correspondence received was related to Agenda Item II.A. Cherry Creek proposed
project:
1. May 6, 2006, from Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street.
2. May 9, 2006, from Billie Tyler, 246 Garden Street.
3. May 9, 2006, from Noguera Tract residents.
4. May 16, 2006, from Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street.
5. May 16, 2006, from Thomas Pask & Barbara Cretzler, 314 Noguera Place.
6. May 16, 2006, from The Mike Titus Memorial Committee.
7. May 16, 2006, from Mrs. Jeannette Tripodi, 521 E. Cherry.
8. May 16, 2006, from Sara Dixson and Molly McClanahan, Dixson Co. Trustees.
C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-007; NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN CASE NO. 04-001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-
002; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-002 ('CHERRY CREEK").
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a
proposal for the development of fifty-three (53) new residential lots on a twenty-two (22)
acre site in two phases. Ms Heffernon stated that Phase 1 of the proposed
development is for a 38-lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development
configuration of nine of the 22 acres; Phase II encompasses the remaining 13 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 2
where no development is proposed at this time; the updated Neighborhood Plan did not
include "dirt Cherry" (the 15 foot wide access to the back lot) in the proposed East
Cherry extension. Ms. Heffernon then gave details of the drainage plan, the proposed
water and sewer lines, the open space area, which includes the proposed 130-foot wide
Ag buffer (for both sub areas), the vegetated bioswale, the area adjacent to the creek, a
portion of the creek itself, and pedestrian paths located throughout the open space
areas. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the Architectural Review Committee reviewed
and approved the architectural style and design of the residential units (subject to the
standards for historic districts). During previous public hearings, a number of
environmental issues and questions were raised and the expanded Initial Study was to
address these concerns. Ms. Heffernon advised the Commission that in making a
recommendation to City Council, they should consider the environmental review
presented prior to proceeding with deliberation on the Neighborhood Plan.
Ms. Heffernon then stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
the Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, approve the Neighborhood Plan, the proposed Development Code
Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development, after providing
direction on lot coverage and other issues identified, including approving the project as
proposed, recommending one-story homes be changed to two-story, or recommending
that lots be enlarged.
In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that if there are environmental issues that the
Commission feels have been inadequately addressed, the Commission may recommend
to the City Council that additional environmental analysis be conducted, that other
changes be made to the Neighborhood Plan and/or project, deny the Neighborhood Plan
and project, or provide other direction to staff.
Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed drainage system for the
project addresses some regional concerns the City has; the drainage design for this
area included in the City's Master Plan study in 1999, was chosen to cover a 100-year
storm event (per the Development Code) and with these proposed improvements there
is a possibility to eliminate some of the flooding hazards for the existing residents of
Noguera Place. He described the storm-water bioswale, stated that there would need
to be further studies and topographical survey to determine the size and depth for a
detention basin, and that a weir structure at the north end of the drainage swale may
provide some onsite detention.
David Wolff principal ecologist for the project, on behalf of the City, gave a presentation
and overview of existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures proposed for the
project site.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Wolf explained:
. The applicant would first provide a riparian enhancement plan to the City for their
. review and approval; the proposed plan would be simple with mostly top of creek
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 3
bank planting within the 25-foot setback area using typical native species for
habitat restoration; the City would monitor the plan.
. In regard to the footpath proposed and concern with the steep banks of the creek
and how would this be handled; the surface will most likely be permeable; the
surrounding areas will be planted with native plant species to encourage the
public to stay on the path.
. M 4.5 Re the pond turtle, and concern with the less restrictive measure being
used, the requirement for just one pre-construction survey is more in line with this
species; surveys for the red legged frog and steel head trout have not been
proposed as they occur throughout the creek; we presume they are there and
regulatory measures will be taken that are necessary to get a permit.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Ms. Heffernon stated that to date the
only response they had received, regarding State public agency review of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, was a letter from the Department of Conservation.
Answers to questions from Commissioner Tait:
Mr. Spaqnolo: re concern that the gauge construction is an impediment, it was his
understanding that the structure would be removed and replaced with a more
streamlined and environmentally friendly construction, with a gauge on the outflow to
enable adjustment; the drainage solution chosen was the one that was thought to
achieve the best regional benefit.
Ms. Heffernon: City zoning was first established in the early 1960's and the first
residential zoning in 1972 (earlier information is not available).
Mr. Spaqnolo: there is still funding available (from a former settlement) that could be
used for the City's portion of a regional drainage solution for this project.
Mr. Spaqnolo: re APCD's recommendation that all access roads to this development
must be paved, only the part of "dirt Cherry Avenue" that leads up to the tract and the
part that connects to the established road system will be paved.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray, Mr. Carmel clarified how the City
obtained (through legal process) a drainage easement for a portion of East Cherry
Avenue.
After some discussion with staff, Commissioner Brown requested staff review whether
the drainage easement (across the Dixson property) was done on an emergency basis
and if there was any environmental review at that time.
In reply to Commissioner Brown's concern that the proposed drainage would not be
able to handle the width of water (and siltation) that would sheet across the property in a
100-year flood event, Mr. Spagnolo explained that as part of the drainage analysis the
water that comes out of Newsome Springs was taken into consideration and the size of
the pipes chosen directly relate to this; in addition, due to the grade of the property,
ponding would occur first, water would slowly migrate towards the low point, then the
bioswale, and finally flow into the collection area.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 4
Commissioner Brown, referring to Attachment 11, (information from CEQAdocs.com) of
the staff report, asked if the thrust of the report indicates that a jurisdiction could do a
CEQA analysis (beyond zoning) as to the value of the loss of a prime resource, whether
or not it's prime soil and whether it needs to be mitigated? Mr. Carmel agreed that
Attachment 11, the "LESA" analysis does go beyond zoning and stated that the policy
(1564.7) links up with the provision of CEQA that allows jurisdictions to establish their
own CEQA thresholds.
Commissioner Fellows, referring to the letter from Sarah Dickens and Marianna
McClanahan, Co-Trustees, Gorden Dixson Trust, referencing the 72" culverts and
where they would connect to and who would maintain them, asked staff for clarification.
Mr. Spagnolo explained that the last design that he had looked at showed them
connecting to the grassy area in front of the box culvert that goes under the road and
through the biofilter. Chair Fellows requested that the Commission be provided with a
more" detailed plan in the future to help clarify some of these questions.
Chair Fellows asked staff if the City could gain an easement across the entire part of
"dirt Cherry" in the future, so there would not be two Cherry Avenues (if the project is
approved)? Staff replied that the Planning Commission could recommend this to the
City Council.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group, gave a detailed description of the project and history
of their application, addressed the Neighborhood Plan and sub area 2, the Nouguera
resident's request for a more substantial barrier between the subject property and the
Noguera Tract, and their concerns with the height of the proposed residences on the
lots next to their Tract.
John Knight, RRM, Project Manager, gave some further background information;
addressed the density and the drainage; explained that the purpose of the bioswale is to
capture the first flush in the lower flow storms not the 1 DO-year storm; explained how the
concern with access into sub-area 2 had been resolved; re the concern of the Noguera'
residents about the proposed two-story for sub-area 2, he explained that they are
proposing to have the first story setback 15 feet, the second story setback an additional
10 feet (staggered setbacks), or restrict all these homes to one story (if this is chosen
they would like to have an increase in the lot coverage); most of the other issues have
already been addressed in the staff report.
Dan Takacs, traffic engineer, Higgins and Associates, described the details of their
study for the project area and in conclusion stated that according to their analysis, with
the project trips added to the road network, the intersections would continue to operate
at an LOS 'C' or better.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 5
In reply to questions from Chair Fellows, re the Dickens/McClanahan letter and the
bioswale, Mr. Knight pointed out the location of the bioswale, the proposed size of the
pipes (three 72"); they would be designed for a 100-year storm with a velocity of 1,100
cubic feet per second.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait re clarification on the width of the
bioswale, Mr. Knight stated that one option discussed is to remove the pedestrian path
from beside the bioswale and locate it in the bottom of the channel to make it flatter,
wider, and more effective.
8:00 p.m.
The Commission took a 10-minute break
Public Testimony:
Rachel Shoemaker. 206 Mason Street. stated the traffic problems should be dealt with
before considering more residences be built; crosswalks need to be dealt with (she has
seen people almost killed at intersection of Nelson and Traffic Way (crossing at the
intersection of Poole and Fair Oaks is often blind due to parked vehicles; a stop light is
required at Cherry Avenue.
Sarah Dickens and MollvMcClanahan, Dixson Trust. 769 Branch Mill Road, addressed
concerns stated in their letter to the Commission; asked that part of "Condition No.6 be
changed: "No new uses or structures shall be allowed in the Agricultural buffer area,
unless approved through the CUP process", remove words "unless approved through
the CUP process". In summary, they requested a continuance of consideration of the
proposal to address the following issues:
a. A separate hearing on the Newsome Springs drainage alternative.
b. A clear direction on lowering the density and the use of a PUD.
c. Direct staff to develop a modified LESA model that is tailored to Arroyo Grande's
prime soil lands.
d. A permanent resolution to the existing 15-foot "dirt Cherry Lane" as part of the
application, Neighborhood Plan, and Agricultural buffer.
Reuel Estes, 811 East Cherry Avenue, resident of proposed sub-area 2, stated that the
130-foot buffer is a taking and will not protect the public; previously he had no problem
with the farm, but the new tenants claim they have "a right to farm" and they have been
using pesticides/fungicides quite often (even when the winds are not suitable); organic
farming might be a solution; if an earthquake occurred a retaining wall by Newsome
Springs would really cause some damage; when the Noguera residents bought their
property they knew there was drainage there and now want it deeded back to them.
However, it is being proposed that an easement be put on his property that he cannot
use; in the future he may not develop his property, but he would like the zoning in the
proper way; if a higher density is put in then it may make the price of the units more
affordable. Commissioner Brown asked if the issue of the 130-foot buffer all the way
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 6
across Mr. Estes' property (sub-area 2) had been resolved for him? Mr. Estes stated
that it had not been resolved, but they were open to negotiation if they were approached
in the right way.
Colleen Martin. 855 Olive Street, urged the Commission to deny the application for the
project stating the following reasons: the project requires a full EIR; the environmental
concerns are significant; the traffic study is outdated and insufficient; the East Village
Neighborhood Plan does not adequately address the future development in sub-area 2;
the strong entry feature for the access points to the Village, proposed for sub-area 1, do
not fit in with the Village; the proposed bioswale will not serve the use it is intended for;
the project and the neighborhood plan are not consistent with the General Plan; a
separate hearing should be required to decide if the parcel should be subject to a PUD.
Ms. Martin further stated that she had done a good faith estimate of the project site
including the area in the creek, and had figured out that no more than 21 homes should
be allowed for the proposed medium density; the City should take the leadership on the
ownership of "dirt Cherry"; the Air Pollution Control District requires all access roads to
the development be paved; the Mitigated Negative Declaration is incomplete - it does
not mention that the loss of prime soils is a loss of significant natural resources and
there is too much monitoring required (up to 5 years) and it is too vague. In conclusion,
she stated objection to the deviance from the General Plan (especially the density); the
last rural residential land should be properly planned; she would like to see East Cherry
straight and paved; less density: four estate lots and no more than 20 additional units in
Phase 1 (total of 24 units); the General Plan should be followed rather than allow a PUD
where it does not belong.
Greq McGowan. 432 Garden Street, is in support of residential use of the site, but
suggested the following changes:
1. Noise and dust causing activities should be limited to 9:00 - 5:00 p.m., Monday
thru Friday.
2. Re traffic: believes that traffic will find other ways through the neighborhood if
they have a long wait at an intersection - this should be reviewed.
3. The density may seem more dense because the three existing lots are being
included.
4. The 25-foot setback adequately protects the creek, but zero buffer is being
provided for the riparian corridor.
5. Concern with how the grading for the storm drains would be done without altering
the top of creek bank; one solution may be to use a direction drill to bore down to
eliminate disturbance of the creek.
6. MM 4.2 for native restoration is a great idea, but confused on the planting sheet
(L-1.0)- as it contains largely cultivars and aesthetic planting, not native; maybe
this could be integrated into the restoration plan.
7. He would oppose the access down to the creek; it is very steep and dangerous
and does not think neighbors would try to get down there.
8. He cautioned the City and applicant that from the mitigated negative declaration
there did not appear to be impacts to listed species, but the discussion today
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 7
indicated that there may be impacts and presence of these species - a deferral
mitigation is illegal under CEQA.
Kevin McCarthy. 222 Garden Street, stated concerns with traffic through the entire
neighborhood; that the increased traffic flow would affect both pedestrians as well as
drivers; asked that these traffic issues be considered.
Michael Block. 505 Ide Street, stated concerns that East Cherry and Allen Street will not
carry the increased traffic load (he worked for Caltrans for 36 years); traffic will filter
onto Ide Street (which during the last year has changed to families with young children);
also has concern with flood waters- as the sewer on his property is lower than the other
houses on the street; in 1995 the flood water came right up to his property.
Mike Kelley. 322 Noquera, stated concerns with traffic; agreed with Mr. Block that traffic
will divert to other streets; does not agree with traffic report on number of trips that
would be generated; the City has responsibility to do something about Cherry Lane and
Traffic Way intersection; does not want to see the project go through until the traffic
problem is solved; re the storm drains, there needs to be a design compensation to
keep debris out of them.
Pat Sanqer. 530 Los Olivos Lane, (exits onto Cherry Lane) stated concern with the
traffic; does not understand why a section of Cherry came into existence where
residents cannot park onto the street and have to back out into traffic, and if a bus or
mail delivery truck stops traffic piles up behind them; Allen Street cannot be called a
thru road- if traffic is parked on both sides two cars cannot pass; this project will impact
the Village and traffic needs to be addressed in a serious way.
Larry Turner. 323 Noquera Place, stated he had attempted to file an appeal of staffs
recommendation to the Commission (prepared by the Mike Titus Memorial Committee),
but the City rejected it; he would like clarification from staff. He described the
neighborhood concerns with the proposed residential development and he would like
the hearing continued to allow further discussion.
Lynn Titus. 404 Lierly Lane, stated she and her husband had worked long and hard on
the General Plan Update; there are items in the plan that should be directed by the City,
not the developer - such as the East Village Neighborhood Plan; at the neighborhood
meetings the developer was advised that the General Plan calls for 7,200 sq. ft. lots and
paving "dirt Cherry" should be part of the plan (the City should take charge of this); the
applicant cannot make an Ag buffer from land that he, or the City, does not own; she
does not agree with Ag. Buffers; does not want the 8-foot high block wall (proposed
along the Ag buffer) abutting her rural wooden fence; the lots for this area should be a
minimum of 7,200 sq. ft. consistent with the residential neighborhoods in the Village and
zoning in the General Plan; asked the Commission to deny the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 8
Jamie Ohler, 126 Allen, stated concerns with traffic problems on Allen Street and Cherry
Avenue; believes the subdivision is a good idea and will be an asset to the Village, but
traffic is a concern; there should be less parked cars on the street and the traffic at the
intersections needs to be addressed; the traffic is not a 'C' it's an 'F'.
Polly Tullis. 236 Garden Street, read the letter submitted to the Commission for the
record; it contained information on the heritage of the Village, the history of the Stillwell
property, the fact that at least five of the nine acres designated Phase 1 are Class I,
prime soil irrigated farm land (in production from 1913-1987); no development should
occur; there were inaccuracies contained in the mitigated negative declaration; she
agrees with Colleen Martin's comments; Phase 1 should require a complete EIR; only
one home per acre should be built, or the land sold and other alternative uses for the
land be made, such as hands-on community outreach. historic sustainable agric-tourism
using no pesticides as benefit to all, or other rural purposes consistent with the RR
zoning.
Greq Burdar, 201 Garden Street, builder/developer, stated concerns about traffic that
this project would produce; concern with the proposed three 72" pipes and believes
there would be serious issues with them; agrees that East Cherry will need to be
improved with sidewalks and parking before the project goes forward.
Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment.
Commissioner Brown stated that due to the volume of material they had received he
would like more time for review and suggested that the item be continued; he basically
considered this a new project. Commissioner Brown proposed a motion, seconded by
Commissioner T ait, to continue the matter to a date certain.
Commissioner Ray proposed a motion to recommend that City Council review the
requested interpretation from Mr. Coker, regarding whether Phase 1 is prime soil,
before the Commission reconsider this proposed development.
Commissioner Brown stated it was the duty of the Commission to make their
interpretation before recommending to the City Council. The Council will then ultimately
decide whether or not the Commission is correct.
Chair Fellows agreed that the Commission needed more time for review due to the
huge volume of public testimony.
Commissioner Ray requested that the Newsome Springs residents also be noticed
when this project is renoticed for the next hearing date.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the
discussion to the July 18, 2006. regular Planning Commission meeting, open the public
hearing and renotice the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
PAGE 9
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows
None
Commissioner Parker
III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
IV.
A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 2,2006:
Gospel Lighthouse
Church
1200 E. Grand
Ave.
710 Huasna
1200 E. Grand
1026 E. Grand
1570W. Branch
497 Fair Oaks
201 Wood Place
Nature's Design Center, Open House
and Art Show for Uni hi Foundation
Fundraiser cherry sales.
.~ction:. 'Plann~r.'~:'
A. K. Heffernan
1.
TUP 06-010
Jeff Strickland
2.
TUP 06-011
A B. Soland
4.
VSR 05-016
448 Allen Street
To allow continued use a non-
conformin 2nd residential unit..
Demolition of an existing one car
garage and construction of a two-car
garage and 2nd floor dwelling
a roved b ARC
A T. Ricard
3.
PPR 06-008
Wiley/Butcher
D. Osborn
A. T. Ricard
The Planning Commission had no concerns with the approved Administrative Items.
The Commission took a five-minute break.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
Ms. Heffernon advised the Commission that the first meeting in July falls on the July 4th
holiday and asked the Commission if they would like to meet on an alternative date.
After discussion the Commission decided they would prefer to have just one meeting in
July. Commissioner Ray made a motion to cancel the July 4th meeting and meet next
on July 18, 2006.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Ray, Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows
None
Commissioner Parker
,--...-.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
ATTACHMENT 8
,
I
"
" ./
C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None.
VA NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JULY 13, 2006:
A public hearing is not required for the following items unless an administrative decision
is a ealed or called u for review b the Plannin Commission throu h a ma'orit vote:
. ; !-:W~,,}::De~c'tiptiol1::':',,:_:";~1~~;*:t~;,~Adtf6M:-~,:'"
1. MEX 06-017 (Changed J. Mocan
to PPR - no new#
assi ned,
375 & 375A
Walnut Street
MEX for FAR and possibly
garage/2nd du
A.
R. Strong
2. MEX 06-015 & VSR 06-
011
3. ARC 06-005
J. Godwin
527 Arroyo Street
On file
A.
B. Soland
J. 522 E. Branch
Severance Street
4. VSR 06-013 B. Stote 381 Zogala Street On file A. M. Meier
Community Development Director Rob Strong reported briefly on each item and
Commissioners made comments:
1. Commissioner Parker requested a condition be added requiring insulation installation
in order to bring the atrium up to code, since the atrium is included in Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) calculations to allow the secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner
Brown agreed. Mr. Strong noted he add the condition and communicate it to the
building department.
2. Commissioner Brown noted he would prefer not to have additional items added to
Administrative Decision reporting after agenda preparation, but he will discuss this
further during upcoming procedure discussions. Commissioner Tait agreed.
3. Chair Fellows noted there has been public complaint about time lag to finish this
project. Mr. Strong responded that the applicant returned with these new plans
after City encouragement (in response to the complaint), so the process is working.
Also, the applicant is now in a better financial position and he is motivated to get it
done quickly. Mr. Strong will still pass along the comment to the Building
Department.
4. No comments were made on VSR 06-013.
The Commission had no other concerns with Administrative Items 1-4.
On file
A.
R. Foster
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-007; NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN CASE NO. 04-001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-002;
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-002; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE
ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC & ALAN LITTLE CUSTOM HOMES;
LOCATION - EAST OF NOGUERA COURT/NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE
EXTENSION ('CHERRY CREEK")-Cont'd from 5/16/06 Planning Commission meeting.
Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for consideration of
development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area, generally located northeast of
the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue, consisting of two sub-
areas. Sub-area 1 is a proposed 30-unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit
Development configuration on 9 of the 22 acres. Sub-area 2 encompasses 13 acres
where no development is proposed at this time. In regards to drainage, the City's
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 3
Drainage Master Plan will be discussed at the City Council meeting on August 8, which
would be a better arena for discussion on a regional basis. She outlined changes to the
project as outlined in the staff report. The request for tonight's meeting, however, is to
first determine if the Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) is deemed adequate by
Planning Commission. If not, then it's suggested the Planning Commission stop
discussion of the project and report their recommendation to City Council. If it is, then
it's suggested they proceed with discussion on the Development Code Amendment
(DCA) and Neighborhood Plan (NP), followed by the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and
Planned Unit Development (PUD). Staff answered numerous technical questions from
commissioners in regards to environmental issues.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
John Kniqht and Joslyn Broome. of RRM Desiqn GrouP. made a powerpoint
presentation. They made minor modifications to the previous design in terms of: density
and lot size (from 38 to 30 lots), drainage (extended length of bioswale), street design
(showcasing the Vandeveer home), Ag buffer (additional detail and only two "holes" in
the landscape screening), and creek enhancement (additional detail). He answered
many technical questions from commissioners in terms of environmental issues.
Carmen Ortiz. 331 Garden Street, voiced concern about losing the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) designated prime soils.
Elizabeth Scot-Graham. 2410 Cima Court. San Luis Obispo. read her letter dated June
23,2006, suggesting increasing the density to avoid losing more farmland.
Meqan Bochum. 823 Turquoise. spoke as a resident of Zone 1/1A, requesting further
study on the amount of sediment dropout in the bioswale and how it will affect others
further down the creek.
Otis Paqe. 606 Myrtle Street, commented that City Council had already decided the ag
determination issue, the NP has never been defined objectively and the neighbors aren't
in agreement on it, and there are neighbors who don't agree with the 130' ag buffer.
Lance Tubell. 834 Creekside. voiced his "strong support" of the project. The bioswale
issue has been addressed and it's more than adequate. The applicant continues to
meet requirements and extend efforts to make it a nice project.
Steve Ross. 211 Garden Street, clarified the tree ordinance and mitigation process.
The ag buffer won't be an issue for small remodels of existing homes (only for demol
rebuild or larger development). He is concerned about traffic on' Cherry, even as it is
now. Also, the steps to the gauging system by the creek are used daily and, if
considered a safety hazard, should be mitigated with a fence now.
Cindy Hansen. 775 Santa Manuela. voiced her preference that the project remain as it
is.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 4
Ron Janelli. Lopez Drive. spoke in support of the project, noting that Mr. Branch "goes
the extra mile to make it right" in his projects.
Cliff Branch. co-owner/applicant. spoke in support of the project. They're working on
helping to solve the regional drainage issue. It's zoned residential so it's not against the
General Plan. They can go either way on improving Cherry. There are several letters
showing support for the project. Lyn Titus requested that he purchase her house and
she would "go away", but he declined the offer.
Molly McClanahan. 617 Malvern Ave., Fullerton. CA. (co-trustee of Gordon Dixon Trust
at 769 Branch Mill Road), read aloud Neil Havlick's letter (on file) and suggested that
Planning Commission add a condition prior to recording the final map (after COA #23)
adding his list of potential issues that need to be addressed prior to final map approval.
She also suggested that "unimproved Cherry" should be part of the NP, because it
makes sense to use the land. Third, instead of allowing structures in the ag buffer
through the CUP process, they should be completely disallowed, especially since the ag
land is in conservation and will be there in perpetuity.
Grea McGowan. 432 Garden Street. responded to Commissioner Tait's questions. He
agrees that CEQA involves a public disclosure process. Mitigation isn't so much
disclosure, as a method to provide for impacts. If it can be mitigated, then do a MND. If
not, then do an EIR. The question is does the MND reduce impacts to less than
significant. There's a problem with deferring mitigation to other agencies, when they
don't have enough manpower and resources to follow through. The conditions need to
have qualitative measures. Parkers' suggestion to require seeding afterwards is a good
idea. He answered further technical questions from commissioners.
Colleen Martin. 855 Olive Street. requested commissioners to follow the General Plan,
provide for less density and require an EIR.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the
meeting to at least 11 p.m. Motion approved on 5/0 role call vote.
Dr. R.D. Estes. 811 E. Cherry, gave a brief history of the project since 1997. He felt
things fell apart with this project when the developers said they would pave dirt Cherry
and then changed their position. The monetary offer of mitigation of prime soils for
$35,000 is bribery. Noguera owners should get their easement back. The walnut trees
are almost at the end of their useful life. Traffic is already a problem. It's a good
project. If increased density is encouraged, nobody will farm that land again, so if
Commissioners don't want that to happen, then buy back the property.
Larrv Turner. 323 Noquera. agrees with Mr. Estes on a couple things. Noguera
neighbors should get their easement back. He's very concerned about drainage, but
this project will help. Condition of approval #108 should be deleted, so Noguera isn't
lined in concrete, as it was only a temporary easement to start out with.
Chuck Fellows closed the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 5
10:10 pm
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
Commissioner Comments:
Parker
. She discussed CEQA/MND checklist issues one by one, and came up with the
conclusion that the project impacts can be mitigated to less than significant.
. 1. Aesthetics: A, C and D - change to "impact can and will be mitigated,"
because the aesthetic compatibility, visual character and glare of lighting will be
impacted, but can be mitigated.
. 2. Agriculture Resources:
a A) Prime Farmland - change to "impact can and will be mitigated." This
area has prime soils not from a zoning perspective, but as a natural
resource as classified by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
One of the biggest problems is General Plan Ag1-4 and the "threshold of
significance", which hasn't yet been established, so Planning Commission
and City Council need to use their best judgment. One way to go is that
no project on prime farmland soils can be mitigated and a full EIR must be
done. (However, she believes this land cannot be used for ag production,
which she acknowledges are two separate issues). The other way is to
acknowledge the prime soils and consider mitigation on a case-by-case
basis, which she's chosen. to do. Because of natural constraints (the 25'
creek setback and 130' ag buffers), there isn't much room left (about 1.3
acres) to rezone the property and convert it back to active farming. If the
basic notion of the General Plan was to preserve prime soils to continue
farming, then it won't work in this situation. Turning it into open space will
be mitigated by the 130' ag buffer, itself. The applicant has made a
generous offer of $35,000 to mitigate the prime soils. Ag1-4.2 "Possible
mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include
permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of 1:1 with regards
to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use."
This doesn't have to be 1:1 for the entire property, since it couldn't all be
used for ag anyway. In addition it says, "Other potential mitigation
measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of
in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council." In this
case, she thinks that mitigation measure would be appropriate.
a Remove paragraph two from MND page 6 that says it is not an impact.
a Add language that says why this would be considered prime land.
a Add the reasons why it's been mitigated, and allow a mitigation measure
of 1: 1 for useable ag land soils remaining as a fee to help farmland down
the road.
. 3. Air quality: Delete MM's 3.12 through 3.16, as they didn't deal with air quality.
. 4. Biological Resources:
a Change MM 4.3 to read "Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone
Gafl shall be replaced within the riparian setback area..."
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 6
o Attachment 6, page 25, the next to last paragraph reads "This would be
considered a potentially significant impact." She understood this to mean
the checklist box #4A needs to be marked "potentially significant."
o Change MM 4.8 to spell out California Red Legged Frog (not CRLF).
. 6. Geology and Soils:
o Silt flow needs to be addressed.
o CC&R's need to address continued maintenance of the bioswale in regard
to vegetation, sedimentation, reseeding and water quality monitoring.
These should be written in.
o Add to the end of MM 6.5 "... Creek and the project shall comply with all
County ordinances and mitigation set forth by this agency."
. 12. Transportation/Circulation:
o MM 12.1: She doesn't agree with the Traffic Study that it's a level of
service C. There are existing traffic issues, not just measured by the
number of cars, but by other factors. Accidents have been seriously
increased in the area. The project won't make much difference, but since
it's already an issue, she suggests to City Council that it be 'studied
further.
o MM 12.2: She agrees with the neighbors about E. Cherry extension. It's
a difficult issue, and should be resolved however possible.
. Drainage:
o Normally she wouldn't approve the NP and MND until everything IS In
place, but the best thing to do in ,this case is to move forward with the
MND and place regional drainage issues back with the City Council. The
project should be contingent on the regional drainage issue and separate
environmental report being approved by the City first. There needs to be
time for public comment on the regional issues. She considers the Branch
Mill easement a temporary fix done on an emergency basis.
o It's important to know how much water will have to be provided for, in
terms of which solution will be best.
. Phasing of NP: is okay and has been done before.
Tait
. He felt the project could not be mitigated with the negative declaration due to the
impacts on prime soils, drainage. to the creek, regional drainage and protecting
threatened species.
. It was a good idea to remove the pipe, because a longer bioswale is better for
water quality.
. Prime soils: There is a significant impact to prime soils. In regards to mitigation,
he doesn't think a dollar amount can be put on replacing prime ag land.
. He's okay with the Ag buffer - 130' will do an adequate job. However, per
Nanci's notes, Susan E. Kegley, Ph.D., a senior scientist with the Pesticide
Action Network of North America stated: "The main thing I would worry about in
terms of the buffer being taken out of the development property is what would
they do with it. Landscape it? Would that make it an attractive place for kids to
play? How will they ensure that people won't spend time there?" Her and my
concern, is about the pesticide use from the adjacent farmland.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 7
. Per Ag1-1.1, "Prime farmland soils shall include all land, whether a single parcel
or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in
the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability
classification whether or not the land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation
is feasible." Polly Tullis' letter says this area has had irrigation rights since 1913.
. Ag. 1-4 considers the "loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse
~nvironmental impact." The SLO County Ag office said this has been classified
as prime soils, it has no limitations if farmed, and it's suitable for orchards.
. Ag 1-4.1 states, "Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for
agricultural use. Loss may occur through natural causes or development such as
coverage (e.g., paving, construction of buildings, etc.), or conversion to
urban/suburban use (including residential yards/gardens and recreational areas.
Cessation of agricultural use shall not constitute loss so long as the parcel
. remains fallow or is allowed to revert to a natural undeveloped state." Per that
statement, the farmland has not been "lost" yet and is still prime farmland soil.
. Ag. 1-4.3 states, "Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are
geographically specific, the on Iv means for mitiqation to less than siqnificant is
preservation. "
o He read from Ella Honeycutt's article "Arroyo Grande Valley Prime
Farmland a Natural Treasure to Protect" which states, "We cannot dig
deeper into the earth and find new productive soil. We must keep what
we have or do without".
o Ag 1-4.3 continues, "The City shall avoid development of prime farmland
soil areas by directing growth potential to more suitable urban locations."
None of these ag elements are dependent on zoning. While not zoned ag,
this land has been in production from 1913 to 1987.
. He can't agree with or approve a MND that states conversion to non-ag use is an
insignificant impact. He can't approve a MND that uses a state-wide LESA
model. The City followed County Ag Department advice to determine the buffer,
and should follow similar considerations in determining a local LESA model.
. Drainaqe: There were three experts: Carmen Ortiz, USDA, Elizabeth Scott
Graham, American Farmland Trust, and Greg McGowan, Biologist, who made
public comment tonight in addition to the following:
o Megan Bucham, zone 1/1a resident, said "we all live downstream" (in
relation to sedimentation dropout).
o Molly McClanahan said, and he agrees with, "the City needs to look at the
list of RCD issues prior to approvaL"
o Newsom Springs drainage needs to be separated from this project. He
read from Neil Havlick's letter, "the basic problem with properly handling
flood flows from Newsom Springs remains unaddressed, and the District
feels that some form of stormflow detention ... would benefit all
downstream landowners (including those in Zone 1/1A who are already
heavily impacted by siltation and flooding on lower Arroyo Grande Creek).
The Cherry Creek project provides ample reason for starting anew the
investigation undertaken in the late 1990's as well as more recently
regarding the Newsom Springs watershed but never acted upon".
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 8
'. Other: They have received many letters recently that maintain it's time to move
forward and the process has gone on too long. For perspective, the creek and
prime soils have been there thousands of years, farming has been there
hundreds of years, and it would take a dozer and grader half a day to destroy it.
We need to take time with this case, because it's important. .
. Given the complexity of the issues: ag land, drainage, water quality and
protection of species, an EIR is needed to provide the Planning Commission and
City Council a more in-depth analysis and more alternatives. It's important to do
it right the first time.
Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the meeting
to midnight if need be. Nanci Parker commented she would only like to go to midnight
for discussion on the MND. Motion approved on unanimous roll call vote.
Ray
. She went through a different process than Parker regarding the prime soils issue,
but also determined that project impacts could be mitigated to less than significant.
. When the General Plan was updated, environmental impacts to land use
changes were evaluated at that time. Since this project is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use map, there's no reason to request an EIR.
. She talked to the City Attorney via the City Manager. The question is not
whether impacts to prime soils are "significant", but "mitigatable".
. The General Plan Land Use, zoning and the current use are not ag land, but
there are prime soils. There's no clear way to move forward, so she chose plain
common sense, which tells her this is mitigatable. She appreciated the detailed
analysis of the MND that Commissioner Parker went through.
. We're losing an aging orchard and protecting ag land by creating infill, which is in
itself mitigation by preventing sprawl. In addition, there are other mitigations built
in like open space and buffers.
. The RCD issues will be resolved by City Council.
. She appreciated Mr. McGowan's comment that when there's a MND, the onus is
on the applicant, whereas with an EIR it's on the City. Because it's a gray area,
instead of going to court, the applicant is working to agree with the mitigation.
The MND gets us to a point where we can say they did mitigate a loss.
. With Commissioner Parker's changes, she's ready to approve the MND and send
it to Council.
. She's ready for Council to also address the regional drainage issue. The
developers did a good job with a problem that's not originally theirs. If it can't be
solved on a regional basis, it will return to Planning Commission.
Brown
. He agreed with Tait that the project impacts could not be mitigated because of prime
soils, and also due to the possible lack of environmental review on subarea 2
projects if brought in individually. Therefore, he can't support the MND at this time.
. Prime soils: He disagreed with Commissioner Parker about mitigating the loss of
prime soil to less than significant, because Ag1-4.3 says the only true mitigation
is preservation and even then, the Council has to approve a statement of
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 9
overriding considerations. It does warrant at a minimum that the City Council
develop a threshold of significance as required by the General Plan. Given the
lack of that threshold, this is subjective and guesswork. While this has been
done previously, with money put aside for conservation as opposed to analysis,
his sense is that in the absence of the threshold of significance, the loss of prime
soil becomes a negotiation and City Council needs to decide whether it's
appropriate. He thinks it is, because the City doesn't have a LESA-type model to
determine significance for this property. The State LESA model, as is, would
wipe out most if not all of the ag zoned parcels in the city limits, so it can't be
used in its current format, but he supports and appreciates staff's willingness to
make it part of documentation and discussion. He believes, from an
environmental standpoint, some of the major environmental issues not resolved
are:
. Regional drainage issue with Newsom Springs: The applicant does have some
responsibility based on timing of the project. The Newsom Springs issue should
be separated, with the environmentally preferred path determined by the Public
Hearing process before determination for this project.
. There are best management practices that have been developed since 1997.
Stakeholders like DFG and other parties like the farming community need to be
brought into the process.
. Sedimentation and pesticide runoff need to be addressed.
. If there's streambed alteration, he believes an EIR is required by CEQA.
. In terms of the NP, he's disturbed by discussion that CEQA would be
categorically exempt for small projects. Unless an environmental review is done
now for subarea 2, it must be dealt with as a separate tract.
Fellows
. He felt a full EIR is still necessary and the negative declaration would not mitigate
his concerns appropriately.
. He's supported infill to save ag land from development, but it's not appropriate for
this location surrounded by riparian area and conservation ag land.
. 16 months ago Planning Commission chose to recommend a full EIR. Applicants
and staff chose to do an expanded initial study instead. Some improvements
have been made, but that hasn't changed environmental effects.
. From Appendix G in the CEQA handbook, an EIR preparer would review:
o Land use - b) Conflict of adopted environmental plans and goals of the
local community? He thinks this project still does and major questions
have not been dealt with.
o Water - b) Interferes with groundwater recharge? It does without a
retention basin.
. c/d) result in substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? - They don't
need to solve a regional problem, but without an EIR the water
sheet flowing across the ag land needs to be dealt with before they
break ground.
o Traffic and noise - With density proposed now, it does cause traffic and
noise probl~ms that require further study.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
PAGE 10
o Agriculture Resources - Does it convert prime ag land to non-ag use?
Yes. Literally, it does.
. He quoted from the CEQA Handbook "If there are one or more 'Potentially
Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required."
. We're all self-educated volunteers, but EIR reports are done by experienced
experts and non-biased analysis is performed. There's been a fair argument in
favor of preparing an EIR.
Brown
. Regarding the process, since the regional drainage issue is going forward at this
time and only the lack of an EIR has been discussed, would it be beneficial to the
applicant to forward commission's opinion on the need for an EIR first and then deal
with other issues at a later date? Mr. Adams answered, "Yes."
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to find the
current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and recommend to City Council that
a full Environmental Impact Review be completed based on the following issues:
. Drainage,
. Environmental impacts to prime soils on subareas 1 and 2,
. Creek sensitivities for subareas 1 and 2,
. Siltation, and
. Pesticide runoff calculations haven't.been fully addressed.
Due to the insufficiency of the MND, a full EIR should be done. In the event that City
Council disagrees, he requested that these issues (as listed above) be more fully
addressed in any future Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown, Tait and Chair Fellows
Commissioners Parker and Ray
None
Commissioner Brown requested the rest of the project issues be scheduled for the first
Planning Commission meeting after the Drainage Master Plan is discussed at City
Council. Commissioner Ray replied that it can't go forward at Planning Commission
without an EIR per the above motion. .
III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
None.
~
Cherry Creek Flood Channel
Preliminary Analysis
Prepared at the Request of:
Above Grande Engineering
Prepared by:
Keith V. Crowe
Consulting Engineer
P.O. Box 832
Atascadero, Ca 93423
#11/ ~
August 31, 2006
l
ATTACHMENT 9
.;-'
Background
Above Grade Engineering is proposing the subdivision northerly of the intersection of
East Cherry Road and Branch Mill Road. Included in the subdivision proposal is a 40
foot wide right-of-way for a channel to carry storm water runoff from a problematic area
southerly of the project. This report is intended to demonstrate the right-of-way is of
adequate width to accommodate a channel that wiil carry the required flow. This is not
the final design of the channel.
The city has provided the flow rates it expects the channel to carry. The return
frequency and associated flow rates are:
. 100-year 1024 cfs
. 50-year 878 cfs
. 25-year 707 cfs
. 10-year 531 cfs
. 2-year 197 cfs
The starting water surface elevation at Arroyo Grande Creek was taken from the Flood
Study for the City of Arroyo Grande for the 1 OO-year and 50-year floods. The flood level
in Arroyo Grande Creek was below the invert of the new channel for lesser floods so the
normal depth in the new channel was used for the starting water surface elevation.
HEC-RAS is used to model two potential channels. The first channel proposed by
Above Grade Engineering that was created without benefit of hydraulic analysis. The
second is a modification of the first channel that corrects certain hydraulic problems with
the first channel.
It is important to note this is not the final design. The channels do have certain issues
that must be addressed in a final design. The analysis only demonstrates it is possible
to install a channel of adequate capacity with the 40-foot right-of-way.
Analysis of Channel Shown on Tentative Map
This channel has 2:1 side slopes. The bottom width varies from 0 at the downstream
end to about 12' wide at the upstream end. There are 20' wide box culverts at the
upstream and downstream project limits. The slope of the channel bottom is 1.2%.
The HEC-RAS output for the channel is included as Table 1. The profile is included as
figure 1.
A plot of the tentative map with the sections is included in figure 2. The section station is
the number on the right side of the plot; the 1 OO-year water surface elevation is the
number on the left side of the plot.
Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 1
Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer
August 31, 2006
,5
'0 C")lt'J(J)t--tn
~ ~~~~~
15Z-\OV"'<tMC\l
I-'=-
~
e ffi~ro;1jCD
<Z-tONMuiO:
~-OCO~O~
u::.eN..-"....,....
"2
B_~~~~~
a:;:~vv"'<tIJ')\o
>'=-
~ ~:er::~~
.Q ll'l<OOlOlt'J
(I) oo~~~
cj~O:O:O:O:O:
W~OOOOO
"C
.,
III
o
c.
e "t:e
C.OU-
f/).~6; "'<t....ll'lm..-
CU....m C\lt--cocor--.
_0. . C\i""':c:iair--:
Q)..rn MMMC'\IC\I
I:.c .-.-.-,....,.....,....
c~3:E.
~~m
(.) .c "'f;~~<o:t:'<t;
.... ~ () ~:n{n{nG :;Q
Oml: ...-..-..-..-.-
_.c'-Z-
(1)(.)::2:::::'
- ..
:i~_ ~COI'-....."
~,,~ 0.....0(")0>
... I-tIl......COt--lt)......
"''''00
~i -
o~~ ~~~~~
wffii3 0. 0. a. a. a..
:::Co::a:
en
s:
"":OOm
.,0:;.,
:Culi>
<<l W.:::
I- J:<"
00000
00000
00000
...........................
ro~~or;~
MC'Jc:icO..t
MMMNN
....... N
ON<o(")(J)
"":""':McriC\i
~~.....~IJ")
~:J:~~~
lrillitn..tM
.....vl.Om.....
OC'\l..-.....r--.
~~~~~
00000
00000
cicadc:i
~qg~~<<!
. 'CO 'CO
mO>C\lcoN
~~......~.....
"'I:tCO<Cl'--t'--
OIOt--CO,....
C\i""':cicri"
~~~~~
o:t'Ctv"'<t"'<t
t.riIliI{)Lriui
~~~~~
~cor--.....t--
O.....OMCf)
......OOt--lO.....
.....NM'<tU1
U.LLU.u..U.
Q.a.Q.o.Q.
00000
<<lCOCOCOCO
OlO'lmO'lO'l
o~~3~
""':c:icria::i'<i
MMNNN
~~~;1)~
aCOM . .
'<tN.....We<')
..........,....O'll.O
roco C\i 141m
r-:u::iu::ilt'JC"i
~~Slfn~
~~M{:\j~
gg~88
ooOc::ic:i
(OMMNO'l
.N..........'o:I"
o . . . .
"'omen.....
.....~~~~
........................
llilrilrilrilii
~~~~~
"
~
>
'3
U
~c:o,.........,....
OI'--OMal
..-COI"-It).....
.....NMo:tU"l
lLlLu.U.LL
n.a..a..a..a..
'"
N
'"
00000
t--t--t--t--t--
co co co co co
LC)O>O>t--N
tOoot--OJ
C\i"": aicO 0
MMNNN
~m;b~~
::m~ff:i~
~.......LC)tOLC)
.......o:)Mt--O>
aio::io::i"":ari
,....(Ooot--N
~~~m~
,....,....,....,..../x)
00000
00000
ddddo
.....<OOJN
tON,....N
criaicdo::i
~~~~
m"!""':&1~
. 0> 0> . .
O>NNoo.....
~...........~~
0000 OJ co co
00000
ariariarilriU"i
~~~~~
~cot--.......,....
0,....0("')0>
.......CO""'LC).......
.....NM~I,()
LLLLLLLLLL
a. a. a... a... a...
00000
1i}1D1i}1i}1D
0000 OJ co co
"!&1~~~
Mgi~~~
~~~~ffl
~cOo~ai
.....O>cotON
O:)....vCO(O
M............NtO
aicria:icOcO
~~co~~
V,....~(oN
~~g:g~
00 .00
ddodo
<C....
"''''
"":Iri
~~
co(O....,....,....
.........NIDO>
cricciccir--::lri
C'\lNN~~
co co <X) OJ co
00 <X) <X) co co
MMMMM
NNNNC'\l
..........................
veo............t--
~t--OMO>
........COt--ID.....
.......NMVlO
LL. LL LL. LL. 0."
a... a. a. a... a...
00000
1i}1i}1i}1D1D
t--t--t--,....,....
"!~..--;PJcn
~g~~~
,....<O,....N.....
tq<<:!:<o......o
............. . . .
NOONN
.......,... 0>...... M
~~~~~
coco.........:u:i
~~~mm
1i}<OIDO,....
IDlOO<OO
gg~g~
00000
~~~o~
a:i aq:~....: lri
~~.....~~
co 0:) co <X) <X)
<0<0(0<0<0
~~~~~
~COt--.....,....
Ot--OMO'l
....COI'-ID......
.....NMVlO
LL.lLLLo.o.
a... a... a.. a... a...
00000
Ii} lO Ii} Ii} Ii}
(0 <0 to <0 <0
co
o
o
N
~
(')
-
<n
::J
0>
::J
<(
~
Q)
Q)
e
"6>
e
UJ
0>
e
:;:::
<'1"3
Q) <n
Ole
ctl 0
c..O
ai
==
e
<nO
"Ci.) "
>->
ro.<::
c::=:
<(Q)
-:>::
Q)
e
e
ctl
.<::
o
ex
Q)
Q)
~
o
~
~
Q)
.<::
o
J:;
'E ......COM
0- "'. N~
~ E"~ ,-
o.-~c;;re~~
~
'"
~_"ltCD
<C;:::~C!
3: llM ~
0-..-.....
u:
",~N
.N'"
~gr;i
c
t5 ~~ l.r.!
Q.j~,...:"'"
>
8. N~~~~
c112g<lH'"
'=0000;3
(!)-.oooo
u.i ooocio
en
;:iE.
'E
()
Ii;
W_~~
uiSre~
:i ,.....-
iIi
"''''
6 Z'~ ~
c:~NN
~ ..........
ro -v
(5cnC\l
1-'00
o-~
~
e
a.
'"
U5
Ii;
>
;;:
;::~N
t--:<<iui
M(D~
....:c.d~
NNN
~~~
"'''''''
~~~
NNN
~ ~ ~
~8C:;S;
a).....LO.....
('\lM"'flO
u.u.L.L.IJ..Li..
a...a...a...n.a...
00000
Il)l() I,() 1.0 1.0
LOlOLOLOlO
M.....<ON...,.
<00><00<0
cic:Oc.O-.:t<ci
MNNN.....
~~NCl).....
. . It) ,.... ("')
~~a).,....:-.i
.......... co,.... C")
~~m~t!
.a::ia::i,...:....1l'i
("')l() M...... co
M"<t...,. l() co
aooma::>
t.O<OCOLOlt)
00000
00000
cicicicd
co ",...........<0
tt).....lOcnO
,...:,...: cO r.r:i..t
NNNNC\l
.........................
co co co co co
~~~~ci
NNNNN
.........................
~c:o...........r--
O""'OMCTl
.....<:O,.....Il).....
...-('\l(t)"<t1O
u..u.u.u.u.
a... a.. a.. 0. a..
00000
lOl.OLOlOLO
~vv'<tv
......'"
...~'"
"":tOM
NNN
",'"
.'"
N;!
~~Sl",,::2
~~~~~
~~~~~
ci~a)a)r--:
~~;!3m
T""MLnNIl)
OOO.....N
00000
cicidcici
<l3~~~
tOu:i::G~~
;::!~""'....."'"
;;g~~,"":
cdcci~"<i~
~~.....~.....
"' "'
aioi
~ ~
"' "' "'
malo)
;::;::;::
~C:OI'-"""""
~~~fri~
NM"<tltl
u.u.u.u.u.
a...a...D-a...n..
LOl.OLOlOlO
Q) co co co co
MMM(",)C")
"'''''''
..."''''
MN"ci
"'''''''
t!:;t
a::i-.i
NN
~~~t;:Sl
LON"<tCOa::i
~~~~...,.
N '<tcn(")
lO""tNmo
ui..oLt'i-.i-.i
~~;1;
"'''''''
888
cicici
....'"
......
0'"
NN
00
00
dd
al8~t'!'<t
(,,)NNN~
~~~..........
m~~~~
Lt'i~..tMN
~.....~~.....
OJ CD CD O)lj)
.........................
............-..........
~fe8MS;
~CO,....1.().....
NM'lt\O
LLLLLLLLLL
n..n..n..c..n..
lillil\O\Ol.{)
co co co co co
MMMMM
~U:;~N~
criccir--:c.6C"'i
NNNNN
vcx:lMcn......
L()COcncnN
ccir--:...rdd
cncx:l......COM
~~;~u:;
~~criccic.6
ffSb1b1~~
m~:g~~
:50000
cicicidd
"''''
...~
NN
"''''
~~
",...",
~ cri
~
~
NN
~~
cnNCO'ltcn
~~~"":cri
NNNN.....
.........................
\0 l.{} l.{) l.{} l.{}
~cciccicci~
~~ ~
~~
t
"
>
"3
()
~~~MS;
~cx:l......l.{}
NMv l.{}
LL LL LL LL LL'
n..n..n..n..n..
o
;;;
l.{} l.{} 10 l.{} l.{)
l.{}1l)1l)1l)l.{)
NNNNN
<0
o
o
N
~
C')
-
III
:>
Ol
:>
<(
o~
...",
"'N'"
N"''''
C"'i"-:ui
"''''N
~
lD
lD
e
'0,
e
W
Ol
e
""
C')"S
lD III
Ole
m 0
0..0
<Ii
3:
e
III 0
"00 .
>->
ro.r:
C~
<(lD
-~
lD
e
e
m
.r:
o
.>::
lD
lD
~
o
~
~
lD
.r:
o
~a:;~~~
.....~&5~M
~~mC;;M
c.6crir--:r--:c.6
N"''''
"'o~
"'~"'
00...
o~o
.00
o . .
00
N",
0",
"'",
~o
o .
dO
cx:lIl)MIl)......
l'-:~Oll)(")
NN~~~
.........................
Il)N(")......
(")~Mcx:l(")
N.......-:dcri
.....NNN.....
....................
cx:l cx:l cx:l <0 <0
.........................
.........................
~~~MS;
~<O......Il).....
N(")'ltll)
LLIJ..IJ..IJ..IJ..
n..n..n..n..n..
Il)lilll)ll)t{)
("') ('1')('1')("')(")
NNNNN
"'C ..- N (V') "'" L!) ~
Iii u. u. u. u. U. is
a... a... 0.... .0... a...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (!J i.:J
~ <0
C>
<0 C>
0 N
0 -
~
~ '"
-
Ul
..... ::J
CI") 0>
::J
-- <(
CO
~ ~ ~
Q)
..... Q)
c
C '0,
CO e c
w
c.. .......
~ 0>
C
:;:::
C '<t::J
CO &l ti Q) Ul
o>C
0 co 0
c.. .~ ~ a.O
a... ~ ai
~ ~ ~
~ e
Q. UlO
() "en .
CO c .?:->
E 'ttJ CO.J::
t::!:::
~ " <(Q)
+-' .,
C III -~
0 Q)
2 a. c
., 2 c
~ ~ a. co
.J::
Q) III 0
'"
IE a; "'"
c Q)
U c Q)
~
'" 0
.c
~ u ~
~
... .g ~
Q) Q)
~ .J::
.J:: I;:: 0
U 2
a.
0 '"
, , , , , <
~ (SIj pj ~ ~ ~ Ci!i Rj ~ Co 0::
..- -0
..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- W
:I:
.,.:
(y) UO!lBA813 l!!
:I
Cl
;:;:
:~
-, ,~~'~!~~~~:,,'
. :'i_;lill.--.
~~} ~: ';ii,.~~~~:
-. !~<rr
13
'JI
f '.'
I,~ I:
II
j ,+ ~, II!'
! 1,'
(: ~: - T "
'. ~ J" i
I't ~'1~1
". !
< ~,d
\.." ~;J
I
(I);. I
~ i
'LI
i
!
III'
I' ,
,; I:i
':'~
,if
~1
,~;
~'~'I~
/'!J4'I!,,~k" '
I,. _'\"'.,
''''''':'',. -FIj,
!~~~vt:~~~~';\ '
''-';';''-'' I(.;,-..'~
".{;,"
."
>"'~"~~i
i,-,.~ r~:,
~: )
"
"
- ~'j/:-'
"
"iL r
.17",rf
...)- ~o
\1
!~3
( '}"'--,
, ''':';~.,<
.......~-
'I
"
~'
T
,J ' '''. _:~;i
14
f,. .::'"
,
;;
./:'.:~,:;~
12 ~ ,
':.--'
.~_) 19
'.'"
'"':?-,
,-""',
,
i
"j-'~-,
" _/
~",)
\
.,c"
.(2~~
:..~~,
10
,:-,,:.-
r~-"
~
~'-.r"
23
, ',~
..E~~~S~iR~Y~~~~'
~~"~~~~:=,
Figure 2. Re~ults of analysis of channel as proposed
~
,
">
'1,-,.
-'~
,
1
.
..--.... ;ro
,."
--.v
~ ~ ;~:::::=--.
'.\
f.o.,"~-~'
,..i----
; ,',"
.-'
"', .::
.s-"'-
,-
.'
,
\~ .
t,\
.. i
~~ 1
,-
;/1
!
I~;~i I"
,....--a..- ' (} /
, ;'7:- _. ~ _'_..<,J .-
,~"t.'~. _-) /~ i.
':.2Q -~[,f'
'~-,:,~h,
"
"y'
"y
J
~:t'"'"
W -"
;;1, :~J;,
'" c
y
~ f"
I- ,
~ <1"
~ ,~
,ll
;
{
,;
'ii
(I
C~)24
[]
->~~~,',)
( .
.,._".~,.. -----.....
\ ~-......~ :,
(Z)'.
.L
3~.. .-,' :J. ~rll
--'->'\"'".,~
(.. .....~'. , ;,--
" Ii
" "'l,=?:
./
.-'
~T.~
'-c...:. '
~~';
Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 5
Keith V, Crowe, Consulting Engineer
August 31, 2006
There are several issues with the results of the channel analysis. They are
. There is not adequate vertical clearance between the proposed lots and the
water surface in the lower reaches of the channel
. The velocity in the channel is erosive
. The street Intersection at the northwest corner is not high enough above the
flood elevation.
Analysis of a Modified Channel
In an attempt to address some of the issues with the channel described above two basic
modifications to the channel configuration were made. First, the longitudinal slope of
the channel was reduced from 1.2% to 0.75%. Second, the channel cross section was
changed to use a consistent bottom width of 5'.
-The HEC-RAS output for the channel is included as Table 2. The profile is included as
figure 3.
A plot of the tentative map with the sections is included in figure 4. Again, the section
station is the number on the right side of the plot; the 1 DO-year water surface elevation is
the number on the left side of the plot.
Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 6
Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer
August 31,2006
.c
~ NO)(\IIl)CX)
3:2'qr:~C7!~
a.-MOIOOC>>
o CDCDIOIOM
I-
~
f1)_LOtOO'l..-l()
<;:::"'"":~~(CO
:1= grn~t:oio;
O-MMNN
u:
c
c3cn~~
'i)SNN
>
<oN'"
. ... <0
N . .
N~
2t 1l)1l)t--.....(")
.2-~~~~~
~~88888
C)-qC!C!C!o
u..i ooooc::i
<Ii
'il:;i-
=...s
= .~
"u
...
... >
"'~
"w
=00
'8:;i
E_
...w
~c5
11~
'E~
~
tg-'<t<<:l/"-......,...
CI:I~ti~t--O("')Ol
~O_.--COr--l/')
U.!l: ....C\lC"')"l;l'lO
~~ u.u.u.u..u..
:cct a.a..a.a..o..
. ~
"'W
" ~
:c >
~c::
_~~-a;dI;~
s~C;;ggj~
.....................
1l)lt)l.l)Il)lt)
z-f'-:""':t-:t-:""':
~~~~~~
.........................
00000
00000
00000
..................
N.....C\l("')C\l
.....'<tlOC\l
~t6~Na:i
C")(")(,,,)N
c;:;~~~~
~~~C1icri
NN.........cn
<0 "" <oM '"
~"" .N "!
'<icoi M .
M
N"" ~<ON
r-<O "''''
0<0 "'M
00 g8g
00
.0 000
o . dcid
0
M'" "" '"
<0 N r-N",
,...;,..: u:iwN
~~ NN~
'" lOCO I,() f'--
CO . 00 .
N .,...:goi~
M ~....~:
~
"'''' "'''' '"
"'''' "'''' '"
MM MM M
NN NN ~
"
..."" r-~r- "
Nr- OM'" >
~"" r- "'_ "S
U
N M"''''
u.u.u..u.u.
a.. a.. a.. a... a..
00000
a) CO Q)Q) CO
cncncnc>>C'l
gjC18f2~
~~~g~
<0 '"
r- N
Nr-.:
",r-
~~
~~~
tn~,..:
~~r-
M~~~tli
lO..t..tMN
mO)ll)Il)N
~M~~~
00008
00000
deiddd
1'-..........<:0""'"
cc'<tcooo
c:ricriccicciw
~~~~~
<0 co co co co
1"--"1'--"""""
NNNNN
NNNNN
'l:tM.....COCO
co N..... l{)......
criccia::iMa::i
N N N N....
~~~~~
~tO<<;cO=
..... 0) co ..~
~~~;;~
oiaiajo:icO
~~o;~1.O
'<t,...'VV"'"
""otil:;8
gC!oo .
ciOccio
'<t~~
cO....,:,..:
~~~
(O(OMO)Ol
,...MCO.......;r
ccicci,...:.....:ui
~~~~~
(o<O(oCOtD
NNNNN
NNNNN
.....................
Il)vNcn<o
IX) N.... l.t)"
oioOcOMcO
NNNN.....
~~~~~
l:;c.d"-:u:i"-:
.....OlCO<DM
~~;za~
e)e)cOa:lr.ci
I"-t.O co I"-
COl"-l"-COt.O
~'lt'o::l"'o::I"J'-..
I"-I"-I"-J'-..O
00000
~~:;:;o
"'...-
<ONr-
,..:,..:tei
~~~
C;CD~;r!
cO"":"":r.cio;;t
~~~~~
<D<O<OCO<O
~~~~~
NNNNN
<D
o
o
N
~
('")
-
If)
:>
Ol
:>
<(
~~~~~
gj~~~~
~
Q)
Q)
e
05:>
e
UJ
Ol
e
:;:::
1'-:;
Q) If)
Ole
III 0
0..0
Q)
~
e
If) 0
"Vi "
>->
ro.<:
C:t:::
<(Q)
-~
Q)
e
e
III
.<:
o
-'"
Q)
~
o
~
~
Q)
.<:
o
~~a~~
~~~~C;;
CO..... N NC\l
'0::1" COON
mma:la:lr.ci
;::~~~~
'o::I"'o::I"'o::I"'o::I"t.O
~~~~~
00000
ooodd
"''''<0
""...'"
teir.cilri
N NN
~
~~~l'-:~
~~~~gj
, . ...............
NNNNN
.........................
~ CO,.......... I"- ... "" r- ~ r- ..."" r-~r- c;!iCO,...............
.....OMOl N r-OM ~ Nr- OM'" Of'--OMOl
~ co ..... t.O ..... ~ ""r-", ~"" r- "'_ ......COI"-a.n.....
C\lM'<ta.n NM ... '" NM'o::I"t.O N M ... '"
u..L1..L1..L1..L1.. u..L1..u..u..u.. u..L1..L1..L1..L1.. U. u.u. u.u.
c..c..a..a..a.. a..a..c..o.c.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. 0. 0.0. 0.0.
'"
N
'"
00000
,.....,....................
CO CO CO CO CO
00000
t.Oa.nt.Ot.Ol.O
CO co CO CO CO
00000
a.nt.Oa.na.na.n
...............,..........
00000
t.Oa.nl.Oa.nl.O
<DCO<D<O<O
.<=
'5
:i:2
0.-
o
f-
ro
~-
<'"
~.g
u:
"E
.<=-
()~
Ci::::"
>
"
0.
o
00$
ci::::"
W
oj
;':s
<:5
>
"
[jj
cti-
;;:
[jj
.<=
()
,,-
':i1
<ii
o~
f- "
0-
2
~
Q.
ro
1ii
Q;
>
;;:
00 m 1.0 Cl) m
coC"1C\lcor--.
c:DoocciC"'icci
NNNC'\l.....
CXIM.....Mcn
.....('t),....t--r--;
ccir--.:c-.icri
~mooco;;;
~~::g~N
aicriccir--:cO
~i1)~S;N
vNNNv
~r:;~~~
00000
ocicicici
;!
cO
N
~
NI.C).....,......l.O
1.0..... <0 m N
cdc.ciLri..tM
NNNNN
....................
<D co CD co co
("')MMMM
ddddci
NNNNN
.........................
~~~Mb;
~co,.....l.O.....
NM"<tLO
u.u.u.LL.u.
a.. a.. a.. a.. a..
0.0000
It) I.C) I.C) 1O 1.O
1.01.01OLOl.O
c;~ffi""'~
g~re~~
~~~
aioLd
~~co
"''''
N'"
aiM
"''''
<O-.:tl"--f'-..LO
Mr-..NCOCO
oiccicci"":Lri
co ...... ...... ......
re~~g~
~ co co ecHO
qgggg
Ociccio
~~~~~
ui..t...tMN
NNNNN
.........................
CO~S;~f.O
tr.llri"":"';N
~~~~~
to to to <0 to
~~~~ci
~ ~
'Veo..... J'-..
N""'OMO>
OCO......l{).....
NMV I.l)
LLL1.U.U.U.
a.. a.. a.. a.. a..
00000
lOlOLOlOLt'>
'<t '<tv V V
CO,....COLO-.:t
Or--;~""'V
dCO'<:tNaO
MC'\lNN.....
ffi::~S3~
ai cO N ,...: cO.
~COr--.lON
'o:tNVCOr--.
C'?: Cp'""; ""': V
cn.....mmr--:
COcnMl"--o:l
<O(OC\I(J')('")
.....OMCOM
r---OOON
0....................
00000
OOOOC
"';;;
...t...t
NN
~ ~
CO.l.O CO
"'''''''
~~~
~~~
~LO~
Lri...tM
N NN
~ ~~
'" 00
"'''!
,.;~
NN
~~
~~~M~
S'iS'i~S'iS'i
~~
~~~MS;
~a:lf'-..L()
NM'<tlO
U. U. U. U. u.
a.. a. a.. a.. a..
lOlOl.Ol.Ol.O
CO CO CO CO CO
MMMMM
mO)cov.....
......MCO........,.
<"iNocci...i
MMMNN
~ 00
"'N
.oN
00 '"
~~
~~~
~~cci
~~...
N~
"'...
Lrilri
..."''''
N"'O
LO...t...t
~Sl~
'" '" 00
oC;o
000
dcid
~'"
......
000
NN
00
00
dd
S~~~~
MNN~~
~~~~.....
~"!~~"!
lri~...tMN
~.....N~.....
mmmmm
.........................
~ ~
~:::~MS;
;:!COl'--1(')
NM'"'t1(')
lLlLlLlLlL
a.. a.. a.. a.. a..
1(')1.01.01.01(')
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0
MMMMM
~;n~Nre
o)o:i""':cOM
NNNNN
~~~~~
co.....:~oo
mCOl'--~M
~O~l'--I(')
~~oio:icO
CON M'"'t CO
tOmmNOO
mN 1(')0 00
mOO.....N
80000
00000
mN<O'"'tm
~~~'"":oi
NNNN::
....................
"'N
...~
NN
NN
~ ~
~~~
.",
~~::
I(') I(') to I(') LO
o:icd~~~
.....~...............
t::
"
>
"3
()
~:::~M~
;:!OOl'--LO.....
NM"'tLO
lL lL lL-lL lL
a.. a.. a.. a.. a..
o
;;;
I(') LO I(') I(') I(')
I(')IOLOl(')l()
NNNNN
O~re
'"'t~~
N'"
"'...
""':i.O
"'N
Oa;~
~N.o:i
'" 00
;!;"!
~M
~~~MM
<6oi""':""':u:i
NMMNM
l() o;n 000
(")Ol'--~N
0.....00.....0
0000 .
CociciO
COl(')MLOl'--
l'-:'"'tO..q~
N~~~~
.........................
"'N
M'"'t~
N.....:.....
~NN
"'...
00'"
ooi
N~
~~
~~~OOOO
~~
~~~c;;~
;:!<Ol'--l(').....
N M '"'t 10
lLlLlLlLlL
a.. a.. a.. a.. a..
LOl()LOLOIO
(,,)MMMM
NNNNC\l
<0
o
o
('oj
~
M
-
en
::>
Ol
::>
<{
~
Q)
Q)
e:
"0,
e:
ill
Ol
e:
:;::
co:;
Q) en
Ole:
t1l 0
0..0
ai
3
o
~
enO
'm .
>->
CO.<:
c::=:
<{Q)
-~
Q)
e:
e:
t1l
.<:
o
""
Q)
Q)
~
o
~
~
Q)
.<:
o
"C ..- N C'? """ lC) -e
5i u.. u.. u.. u.. u.. ~
0... 0... 0... 0... 0... B
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CJ
~
<.0 (!)
0 0
0
0 N
~ "
~
C')
..- -
(Y') '"
;:J
--- Ol
CO ;:J
<{
l!) ~
..- ~
OJ
C OJ
e:
CO a? "0,
e:
a.. "-' w
~
Ol
C e:
.,
CO &1 1i5 Cl):;
OJ '"
a.. .~ -~ 1:5 Ole:
ro 0
0... ~ o..U
~ ai
~ 3:
~ 0
0.. ~
",U
CO c:: 'W .
E "m ~>
ro.s:::
:2: C~
...... <{OJ
C -:>:::
.$ OJ
e:
~ e:
.::.::: ro
Q) .s:::
U
~ -'"
0 OJ
OJ
~
~ G> U
i;: ~
.... 0
~ ~
Q) a. OJ
.c Qi .s=
0 c U
"
III
r-
-0 u
, , , , , "
~ (lIj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Co G>
Ul
..- "S;
..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- G>
0::
..;
(y) UO!l8AaI3 l!!
::J
Cl
;:;:
",~,0:.,
~I",-::--"
",j-
I'r'
1,.[, ~,
~;~~~0::~~'~;
:~~=-=',sri~~;~:t~X%l~f~,
..""
,
~
,
''',J
n~_~_
-,.~
L
't"1"--'''~:~'
,
:-1
"
+'
to
~.
;ro
~"
-'
,:....---.
'.j
~...d' ".,.
,-
-:-
)
':'
/
, 'X
'"
i '
28
,/i
I
-.. (.,
"_ .f
"
! , .r;"\'5-~~~",
"~::-~: -; \-
,
.I I
fl-
,
2'1-'"
.~.~t
.',~,;"'~-~~~"(S t;~
i ' ~_." ,_. _. _-~fi:
~ t:i rf.. '.'- 'Yi; ,;' ,.!
~ I~," il='o~iH-,r) I'
'.) i /,;i'!
i,' j 'I ""-.,,L ; I
!=::-::,'-:--::-'~~':::"-'i:~<~ 1
. ~ :i ~.
.'. ;
'i'"
\,~ ,"
"'.. J~'-
I- .:....
w,.r
Lii -"'
~.\.:tp
'" ~~.
\
t---.,.,
'!
23
(.n
, ,
"
-'-"24
"
'~'I~'. - :;~
"
,L
/,(1'
-.,.... ~~ ~
,-0:; > ;._~
(. Ii
"_-Ii,;
C:J
"
.,..,
,-t"':'l.)
Figure 4. Revised channel project plot
Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 10
2006
Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer
August 31,
This channel is an improvement over the first channel because
. The fiood levels have been lowered to a more acceptable level
. The channel provides some flat bottom to work with
. The velocities are slightly lower
This channel still has some issues
. The velocity in the channel is still erosive
. The box culverts need some adjustment to eliminate undesirable hydraulic
characteristics
However, the analysis does demonstrate a channel can be installed within the 40-toot
right-ot-way that will handle the maximum flow rate proposed by the city.
Some additional modifications that could be implemented to turther improve the situation
include .
. Using a flatter channel slope
. Optimizing the box culverts to eliminate adverse hydraulic characteristics
. Maximizing the bottom width to the widest that can be constructed within the
available right-ot-way
Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 11
2006
Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer
August 31,
Keith V. Crowe, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
a member of:
.lit,,-:;;?;!' ':~i':i:___~~<.'~,';\J[I-::~---_--
'"rfrvthm~' .
September 1, 2006
.\-;,:, _"..-.~:<.J ;~C;';"";-"';'F'
MEMO
RE: Cherry Creek Flood Channel- response to questions
.To: Craig and Scott
From: Keith
In the calculations, the two culverts are 20' wide. I used very tall culverts in the
calculations to keep the entrance from being submerged. Because the water
surface elevation at the downstream culvert entrance is just below elevation 126
the culvert soffit could be set at or near that level. This would require the road to
be raised.
However, as I stated in the "report" the culverts need to be optimized. This
could, and probably would include widening the culvert. Other options include
using a much wider culvert with a lower soffit and allowing the culvert entrance to
submerge. This would help deal with the transition from subcritical to
supercritical flow at the culvert entrance by forcing the drop to occur inside the
culvert rather allowing the potential for the drop to occur in the transition.
This same discussion applies to the upstream culvert.
In addition, I believe additional modeling will find a channel configuration that will
lower the HGL throughout. It will, however, take some additional modeling time
to get things nearer the optimal condition.
You are correct that the road grades need to be adjusted to accommodate the
hydraulic characteristics of the channel. I will leave the redesign of the road
elevations to Above Grade.
P.O. Box 832 . Atascadero CA 93423-0832 . Phone: (805) 464-0975 . Fax:(805) 464-0978
E-Mail: KVCrowe@Charter.net
October 3, 2006
Ms. Kelly Heffernon
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Subject Tract 2207 Cherry Creek and Newsom Springs Drainage
Dear Ms. Heffernon,
The following is presented as a follow up to the discussions regarding the Newsom
Springs Drainage project and Tract 2207. In considering the Newsom Springs project,
the City Council directed staff to consider a more comprehensive drainage solution and
to work with the RCD to determine funding opportunities. The Council indicated that the
following be among the factors considered:
1. Protect existing developed areas - construct facilities along alternative A-4,
as the first phase of an overall solution.
2. Protect agricultural properties by constructing facilities along alignment C,
modified near the creek.
3. Improve sedimentation problems by addressing the related Arroyo Grande
Creek Bank erosion sites.
4. Consideration of detention and/or sedimentation basins along the Newsom
Spring drainage.
5. Work with the Resource Conservation District (RCD) regarding potential
project funding.
As an initial response to this direction, a meeting between City staff, RCD staff, and
representatives of the Cherry Creek and Dixon Ranch properties was held on
September 19th. This meeting was attended by City staff, RCD, Cherry Creek and
Dixson ranch representatives, At this meeting additional concepts were discussed for
the regional drainage project, as they relate to the proposed Tract 2207 and to Dixon
Ranch. In particular, the following was discussed:
1.
A desire to eliminate the wall{berm called for in Newsom Springs alternative
A-4, due to impacts to Dixon Ranch.
A desire to extend the storm drains across the Dixon Ranch and other
agricultural properties, with potential funding assistance by the ReD
A desire to increase the proposed pipe along Branch Mill Road to be
compatible with a forthcoming 250-300 cfs perimeter ditch.
2.
3.
ATTACHMENT 10
).
WALLACE GROUP<i\>
CIVil ENGINEERING
i
'I
"
i
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING
i,
PLANN!NG
"
,
PUBliC WORKS
ADMINISTRATION
SUHVEY1NG /
G!~ :,OlUTIONS
WATER ReSOURCES
WALLACE SWi\NSON
H-f;ERNATIONAl
WALLACE GROUP
A.<:"lii,.,,,;,l::o"(,,,',,,,,),,
4115 BROA:) 5"[
.:>lJli[B..5
SMllLJISOHIVO
CA: ,FOIH":lA '~1'~01
r!l(}SS.:14.4011
,aOS:;4:,n,L/94
www.wallaC(~gf'Oup.U5
Ms Kelly Heffernon
October 3, 2006
Page 2 of 4
THE WALL I BERM
The wall I berm was included in alternative A-4 due to grades along the Ranch perimeter.
Currently flood flows are directed to the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue,
and not to the proposed collection area of alternative A-4. The wall I berm would allow flood flow
to enter the drainage system without being diverted down Branch Mill Road without placing
drainage facilities on the Dixon Ranch property..
Either the addition of facilities along alignment C (as discussed by Council) or across Dixon
Ranch (as discussed at the stafflRCD meeting) have the potential to eliminate the need for the
wall I berm.
PIPE ACROSS DIXON RANCH I AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES
This concept was suggested by the RCD as an alternative to alignment C facility as discussed
by Council. This would be a pipe system installed direct from the Branch Mill culvert at Newsom
Springs Canyon to the Tract 2207 drainage system. It has the significant advantage of avoiding
multiple outlets to Arroyo Grande Creek. The Dixon Ranch representatives appeared willing to
consider the approach as long as concerns such as adequate cover to allow continued
agricultural operations were included. Other property owners along the route have not yet been
contacted by City staff. because it protects agricultural land from flooding, and reduces
sedimentation (by removing the flood waters from flowing over the ag land) the RCD indicated
there was a likelihood that they could secure significant funding assistance with such a project,
although maybe not for the cost offacilities sized for a 1 OO-year design flow.
There are some difficulties with implementing this concept. The existing Branch Mill culvert has
a capacity estimated at 240 cfs. The estimated 1 OO-year flow at Branch Mill Road is 891 cfs.
Therefore, for the system to properly collect the flood flows, the Branch Mill Road culvert should
be enlarged also.
Also, the agricultural properties are very flat. Tract 2207 as proposed drops 6 feet in about 600
feet (from Cherry Avenue to Myrtle) for a slope of about 1 percent. The agricultural properties
(along a direct pipe alignment) drop about 8 feet in 2700 feet for a siope of about 0.30 percent
The capacity of storm drains diminishes rapidly at these flat slopes, and this change would
reduce the capacity of a concrete storm drain by about 40 percent. Therefore to convey a 100-
year flow direct from the Branch Mill Culvert to Tract 2207 would require more storm drain
capacity than the 2-72 inch pipes considered in the Newsom Springs alternatives across the
Tract 2207 property. To convey the full 1 OO-year flow of 891 cfs would require 3-76 inch storm
drains, however a smaller system may be used in conjunction with an enlarged perimeter ditch,
andlor a detention basin.
ENLARGED PERIMETER DITCH
The RCD indicated that they were considering providing funding for a project that would improve
the perimeter ditch along the Dixon Ranch and improve its capacity to 300 cfs. Various options
for integrating this into an overall solution were discussed. In particular, it was requested that
the proposed pipe to the stone culvert be increased to a compatible size. The design of this will
need to be integrated with the enlarging of the Branch Mill Road culvert and the main pipe
system. The ground elevations over the pipe system to the stone culvert is even flatter yet.
Essentially, the ground eievations from Tract 2207 at the drainage inlet to the stone culvert are
flat. The slope therefore must be made up in the pipe underground. Aiso, the pipes must cross
the lowest elevation at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry with adequate cover.
Assuming a 72-inch pipeand a slope of about 0.4 percent this would require a flow line elevation
Ms Kelly Heffernon
October 3, 2006
Page 3 of 4
at the Tract 2207 boundary of approximately of 121.0 which about 2.75 feet lower than that
proposed by the Tract 2207 applicant (per August 31, 2006 Keith Crowe report). This pipe
would have a capacity of about 270 cfs.
DESIGN CONCEPT
Considering the above, the following concept appears to be viable for the Newsom Springs
project:
1. Extend a 72 inch diameter storm drain from Tract 2207 to the stone culvert. Design
for a capacity of 250-300 cfs
2. Increase the capacity of the perimeter ditch to convey 250-300 cfs to the proposed
storm drain.
3. Extend 2-78 inch diameter storm drains from Tract 2207 to the Branch Mill Road
culvert. Design for a capacity of approximately 650-700 cfs depending on actual
ground and flowline elevations. Possibly reduce the size if an upstream detention I
siltation basin is determined feasible.
4. Enlarge the capacity of the Branch Mill Road culvert. Integrate the outlet design with
the storm drain and perimeter ditch.
5. Extend the proposed storm drains and direct the runoff into the proposed Tract 2207
ditch.
6. Design the Tract 2207 ditch and box culverts to be compatible.
7. Consider repairing the related Arroyo Grande Creek Bank erosion sites.
Implementation of this design concept will provide for a 100-year storm.
AFFECT OF TRACT 2207 PROJECT DESIGN
The drainage system recommended above is generally compatible with the design proposed on
the Tract 2207 vesting tentative map and the revisions recommended in the August 31,2006
report by Keith Crowe. The Crowe report recommended that the ditch shown on the tentative
map be modified to a consistent trapezoidal shape, and be lowered on the upstream end. To
accommodate the recommendations listed above, the upper end of the ditch will have to be
lowered further still. Based on a preliminary analysis, the 1 OO-year flow could be contained
within the ditch easement shown provided that the pad elevations are also adjusted and that the
box culverts are designed to not restrict flow. This means that the box culverts will likely need to
be wider than shown. Finally the entrances of the upstream drainage system should be
integrated into the design of Tract limits.
To allow the Tract 2207 project to proceed and be compatible with the above, we recommend
the following conditions of approval be included:
1. The proposed drainage facilities shall be designed to be compatible with the
Newsom Springs Regional Drainage project. System flowline elevations shall allow
for the extension of storm drains upstream with a capacity to convey the 1 DO-year
runoff and adequate cover.
2. The drainage system design shall include the connection of future Newsom Springs
storm drains. The design of the future connections shall direct the 1 OO-year flow into
the system and provide a minimum of one foot offreeboard below road overflow
elevations without the use of a berm or wall to hold back flood flows.
Ms Kelly Heffernon
October 3, 2006
Page 4 of4
3. The main flow channel shall be designed to have a minimum of 12 inches of
freeboard above the 1 DO-year water surface elevation. The channel shall be provided
with a permanent erosion geotextlle control rated to meet the anticipated velocities.
I hope that this is helpful to you. The analyses and pipe sizes presented here are preliminary
and will be refined when a detailed topographic map
of the project site is available. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
WALLACE GROUP
~~
. aig.Campbell, PE
rincipal Engineer
Draiangf1<doc
Page 1 of 1
Kelly Heffernan
From: Craig Campbell [CraigC@wallacegroup.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:14 PM
To: Steve Adams
Cc: Don Spagnolo; Kelly Heffernon
. Subject: Newsom springs
As discussed here is some additional information:
EXISTING
. Capacity of the existing Branch Mill Road culvert = 240 cfs, approximately 5 year storm.
. Capacity of the existing Cherry Avenue Culverts = 50 cfs, this is fully controlled flow causing no fiooding
. Capacity of existing stone culvert = 100 cfs, approximateiy equal to upstream ditch capacity, but
contributes to downstream flooding
. In a 100-year storm, it is estimated that 324 cfs would cross the over Branch Mill Road and cause flooding
downstream in that direction.
. In a 100-year storm, it is estimated that 550 cfs would cross the over Cherry Avenue Dirt road and cause
flooding along the neighboring homes.
. Total100-year flow uncontrolled and/or causing flooding: 974 cfs
INTERIM
. Branch Mill Road culvert = 240 cfs, approximately 5 year storm.
. Existing stone culvert is closed, assisting flooding in that direction.
. 72 inch pipe to the stone culvert carries 250-300 cfs (approximately a 5 year storm 100 percent controlled).
. In a 1 OO-year storm, it is estimated that 284 cfs would cross the over Branch Mill Road and cause flooding
downstream in that direction.
. In a 1 OO-year storm, it is estimated that 490 cfs would cross into the Tract 2207 collection ditch and be
controlled by the new facilities.
. Total 1 OO-year flow uncontrolled and/or causing flooding: 284 cfs
Let me know if this helps or if you need more information.
Craig Campbell, PE
10/5/2006
ATTACHMENT 11
David W oHf Environmental
C!TY c'~ /,-~:':"~ ('"yo,.. ,- ':
cc:,:::: ':',: ~,.~',,::.::: ; :::',
MEMORANDUM
P.O. Box 6552
Los 0505, CA 93412
805.235.5223
805.528.3504 FAX
DATE
August 21, 2006
Kelly Heffernon, City of Arroyo Grande
David Wolff
CEQA Compliance and the California Department of Fish and Game
Section 1600 et seq. Streambed Alteration Agreement Program
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Kelly,
This memorandum follows the July 18, 2006 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
meeting on the Cherry Creek project. At that meeting, two Commissioners stated as one
reason in recommending to City Coundl that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared was that it is required as a part of the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) for issuing a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Based on the Fish and Game Code,
information on the CDFG website, and my experience in obtaining many Streambed Alteration
Agreements, I would suggest this is not a statutory or regulatory basis for requiring an EIR. The
following provides the background information to support this position.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602(a)(1)(D) states that a notification shall indude a copy of!DX
(emphasis added) document prepared pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section
21000) of the Public Resources Code (the CEQA Statute) be provided.
The CDFG Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement webpage question and answer link
indudes the following information on CEQA compliance (I have added bold and underline
emphasis on applicable text; bold/italics are CDFG emphasis).
4. Does the Department need to comply with other state laws or regulations before Issuing a
Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement?
Yes. The Department must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.
Resources Code, !l21000, et selj.) before it may issue a final Lake or Streambed Alteration
Agreement. Issuance of a final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement occurs after the
Department receives a draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from the applicant and the
Department signs it. In many instances, the Department will receive a signed draft Lake or
Streambed Alteration Agreement from an applicant before the lead agency has fully complied
with CECA. In those instances, the Department must wait for the lead agency to fully comply with
CEQA before it may sign the draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, thereby making it
final.
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
David@DKWEnvironmental.com
www.dkwenvironmental.com
Cherry Creek CDFG SAA CEQA Memo
Page 2 of 2
David Wolff E.nvironmental
Under CEQA, the "lead agency" is the local or state governmental agency that has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving the activity. All other local or state agencies with
discretionary approval authority are "responsible agencies."
The lead aaencv must determine first whether the activity is exempt from CEQA. If the
activity is not exempt. the lead aaencv must prepare an environmental document. which
will be a neaative declaration. a mitiaated neaative declaration. or an environmental
impact reDOrt. A lead agency is entitled to recover all of its CEOA-related costs from the .
applicant. If the Department acts as the lead agency for the activity your draft agreement covers.
it will instruct you to submit an initial deposit to cover its initial CEQA-related costs. The deposit
and any further CEQA-related costs will be in addition to your notification fee.
If the Department is a responsible agency. you must submit with your notification package a copy
of anv document prepared by the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, if one already has been
prepared. You must also identify in your notification package the lead agency. Also. Fish and
Game Code section 711.4 requires the lead agency to collect a fee on behalf of the Department
whenever the lead agency prepares an environmental document, unless the activity is exempt
.from the fee. If the lead agency prepares a negative or mitigated negative declaration, the fee is
$1.250. If the lead agency prepares an environmental impact report. the fee is $850.
For a detailed explanation of CEOA. you should consult the statute itself. the CEOA Guidelines
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14. ~ 15000 et seq.) that implement CEOA. and CEOA handbooks and
guides. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines are available at www.ceres.ca.oov/olannino.
Furthermore, it is my experience that CDFG accepts lead agency findings that a project
qualifies for a CEQA Categorical Exemption, and in the absence of a CEQA lead agency or
any existing CEQA environmental document, the CDFG can make their own findings that the
project as it relates to issuing the Streambed Alteration Agreement is determined by the
CDFG to be Categorical Exempt under CEQA.
In summary, the Fish and Game Code provides for CEQA exemptions or imX CEQA
document from a lead agency to satisfy the CDFG CEQA requirements. In practice, many
forms of environmental documents have been submitted, accepted, or determined by the
CDFG to satisfy CEQA compliance that include EIRs, Negative and Mitigated Negative
Declarations, and Categorical Exemptions. There is no statutory requirement or practice of
CDFG to mandate an EIR for processing and issuing a Streambed Alteration Agreement.
I hope this clarifies the CEQA compliance issues related to the CDFG Streambed Alteration
Agreement program. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Thanks very much.
fPJ!(t/Jo f
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
David@DKWEnvironmental.com
www.dkwenvironmental.com
j
g .=
J:
~ ~
m _
a.o~
~~=
~i
6 .=
J:
x
~
~..... 'C
0>-
:;; .
<(;;<:::;a:
"
(I)
w
>-
Ol
z
01:- a. l1>
~'i;j;:: to
Ol">-a:
w
z
w
"
..
iii:
>-
'5
o
'"
.
o
..,
;J.
o
....
'"
o
;;;
<;
>-
o
'5
o
;J.
o
....
;J.
o
..,
~
;J.
'"
;;;
<;
>-
'"
6
~
>-
m
~
::>
"
c
~
~
'"
c
.~
,
o
J:
"
.
~
o
Jll
m
"
'"
E
~
u.
.
0.
c
i1i
~
o .s
J:
x
~
m
Q.;o~.Q
~~O~
~
o EO
J:
.~
'"
"
a.o~.~
~~8~
z
o
~
w
z
w
"
0..
iii:
>-
>-
o
w
...
o
a:
0..
'5
o
"'-'"
NN~
;!."$.';f!.
S?'~ ~
~
o
>-
gt")~
'5
o
~..-~
....-'"
*~$.
"'''''''
;;;
~
~N~
~g
",::
000
gM~
.
N
i1i
tl
.j?
e
..
~ ~ ~
::,:,:,
000
0..,....
.., N
"
~
::>
"
c
'"
-'
-
"
~-
~ ~
ct~
....;;Ccc
U -.Qg
wgiUe
a'w:U ~
a:~~"
o.~ClO
o"~a.
wt.!},c i.:
(f) a..........
O'c ~ ~
o.l-c:lV
OlU~Z
a:: O:'x Q)
O"....LL1Z
"'..,'"
~co::
~~ *?J!.
~;?~
"'-'"
N__
~lD<1l
"'..,..,
~ c,~ ~
"'''''''
_N
N"'_
000
lO-..-1O
N__
~ '" ~
::>=>~
000
"'_<r>
N_ _
N
"
'"
~
.c::
0..
>-
::>
o
o
~
5$
alo
-'
i.5<cc
IX: -..- 0.2
c(c.;:;!!
tDol!!~
;1~~~
u.~(30
o 111 .~a.
w"';::;;;
0"'>-
z~-g~
:'i-""z
><( -5'~ G>
m....wz
ATTACHMENT 12
c:v~
en 00)
('1-,<""<'.1
* o~ '6e.
000
"'''N
o.n.....",.
P;f"-~
~VO)
$$.';f.
"'''''''
"'-"
,,-..,
--
0,0 0
<OVN
"'-"
~ ~ ~
:,=>~
000
<0 V N
"'-v
'"
"
'"
~
.c::
0..
+
"
'"
~
.c::
0..
>--
8-5
o~
5~gg
m g 15'~
::\ ~ ~'11
(2ecQ,)
<(~~o
~ ,3gc
<n 0.1- I-
;t~gi
b ~-514)
t-t-wz
g
'"
'l!!
o
1!
"
c
"
'"
.s.
,::
o
'"
"
6
c
~
~
E
o
"
."
"
c
.~
J5
o
~
"
1!
c
.2
;;;
~
c
"
'"
.9-
,::
;,;
.'!!
o
z
~
~z
t-O
!jji=
;r:~
Xw
wz
w
Cl
n.
ii:
t-
t-
O
W
-.
o
n:
n.
o
w
l/l
>
W
n:
;"
~
8
..
'"
l':'
"
o
o
'"
'"
<(
~
G
D
:;:
0; ;,-!i'..
0 0
'"
5 E ;1<
0 0
:I: ""
-'" 0
ill
0.. O~ ;1<
::: <:ft.:,;:::;: 0
0.. ..
0
j'j ~
0
f-
0; '"
0
0 0
""
5 E <f-
0 0
:I: '"
-'" 0
..
'" '0;=
0.. '"
::: 0
"'- '"
<t '" '(0
0
(/) 1ii
W '"
f- a 0
;Ii f-
Z
0
t= ~Q. $ 0
.c( co "C m ,-
!rOI-a:::
W
Z
W
l'l
0..
a:
f-
- 0 -
~ ~.CO '1' '!!U1 ,- "'" -
0 , N_
5 E "''''''" ,,"0 '" "",<0
0 N_' "'- '1' <ON'?
:I:
-'"
'"
'"
o..--"'~ ~'# '" <ft.;!. ~ '* oR;;~
0- 0 0
5:*~~ 00 0 00 0 000
- - - - - -- -
1ii '1' '" <0 "" roN<O
a "' ,- '?
f- "'''' <0 _ to-v"f
0; "'''' '? gJ", 0 ",<0'"
0 - - '1' 'VN~
5 E '? ~'" 0 NO'l~
0 ill", -
I N ,
-'"
::: ..
'"
"'0.. o~.g. '#"6'? '" fft?f!. ;1< tf!$~
"'::: {'C.- "
~ ~ <t #0':: "'''Xl "" (0'" (0 (0(0(0
(/)0..
0:'0 1ii '9 NN 0 0"'"
<t '" a (ON '? f"--C')"'(
o...!!! f- NN ,,-
::;; >
0'"
u'"
'" >-0 0 000
z " 1ii8 000 00
"- CX)('<lID
0 f? "''''''' N'" '?
- " o~ "'N' "'- (0"'1
~>
'" ..
!q :!l '" '" 0 o 0 0 '" '" '"
:,:, ::, ::,:, ::, :,::,~
Wo Cii 000 00 0 000
l'l~ 13
0..0.. '" "'''"''' N<O "" (ON'"
f")N~ <0_ '? (0"'1
ii::& e
f- ,~ ,0..
'I:
2-
f-
;;) N
0 "
0 '"
..J 1-'"
5 ;;).c
co 00..
" - ~N 0+
~ ~ ..J~
::> I- " '" " 5 "
"0 U '" <'" '"
c w" co! co "
..,.c .c
.5 00.. - ~~1ii(ij ~o.. _
"",1ii :Jl O::(hm~
D.. ~r3'o '" '" 0
~ Co 0, ~ <0. 0 ~
C,';:: a. g 0"1: Q. al'e 0..
UJf-e.... i'l w....ee i'l ::)....ee i'l
(/);10..0.. 03:0..,0.. (j) ~ 0.. ,n.
0'&-"'0 c Z,Q,J--o c .;;J .4) ro "0 "
a.Z~~ ~ Z m,ill ~ <(Zc~ ~
0-"0,"> ~ :"i _ ,S 51! ~ .... -'(;)"S ~
0:: <l.I,c W <C( (l) ~~ 0$.;:: (1)
0. eo 0:: 0 coeO'Q: 0 .... e.'o a::: 0
Ol
c
.;;;
:l
0
:I:
"0
"
.c
"
..
1;)
" 0
-'"
f- E
:l: '"
u.
::> "
"0 0>
c c
.. en
..J
"'Z
1-0
-U)
m-
-n::
J:<(
><0.
W:z
o
o
z
o
i=
<(
n::
W
z
W
Cl
0.
02
I-
2
~
n
E
0
<0 v
'" i2
'" N
- 0
0
.~ .;,
B
..
:;;
c
"
l'l
9-
,::
0
Ol
"
0
c
'"
\'l
E
g
"0
"
c
'iij
J5
0
0
2
~
"
.2
1;;
:;; '"
c ~
"
Ol
0. '"
~ G
0
;,; '"
,,- '"
15 <(
z '"
;;;
l')
l')
1:
!2.___.___ e. e~~I,'T'~~5._"_
)1\
"-,
-(-_.._.2
.r'
^
~
--'"
",'
,>
(
-'y
..
rl.I(.....FuO.~s
0 . 0 .,~ 4;
! \ 0('-.--".
./ , /'
, .j- ", 1 -.
o._~
. '\,
"
Tlil'f><"J...llr."
j \
^,
"'- ,
i ('
. 0
~
._...__~!t
/.,\
'--
0(,--.'-',
-/
,.j-
, --->
, -y
\ir>
Q ...~ ..
Higgins Asso<:iates
--,.-
4;
4;
~ E6'J'ldv"!~;,?2,
"- 4;
~) I \. ';'.~
< if
, / "'" i r>
, ---,).
, '\,
" M~r.4n!M4n
"- 4;
\ ,
) ". .;:-. ,
,/
,-
Nelson t.
~
~
o
~
~
Felr O/lktl Avo.
"'..-
SO,,"
ChenvAVfJ,"
AIlf!n~t_
:0% 2l'fI4
I t
~____2~.:~!.".
4;'-
1 \,
"-
if '
i r>
..
<lll".tIIC~"'''Y
4;'
I
~-
I\,
.
"-,
<(--- ~
if '
", i {/
01-/
5--)>
, '-y
o 0 0
,
,)j
~
.
~
,
...",,'.'.......r..'.';,....,\l
,,,,,..
F Aram:h St.
20'4.
IdoSt.
"
~
t
~
"
~
"
.
.
~
MyrtleSt.
PROJECT SHE
30 Total LQI$
(27 Net Now Lotsl
EXHIBIT 30-
AM PEAK HOUR
PHASE 1 PROJECT
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(Traffic Generated By 21 Net New Lots)
" E amMnlr'~~i::
" . 0 "'- t/;
<) 1 \~ ~
,J-
^
-/ '\1
-" r
~________._2~~_~~J.!'..~ 0'".:_____ .
) l \~
,J
(j---;'
'~
--
t/;
"-.. 0
,
,
~
./
<\ ^ r
1 \,
lml11rjAijer
t/;
"--,
/-'
1 ('
q
Tull;c.;CrwHY
)!~
"-
~
./
'\I/"
,.---"
,---->
'~
Higgins Associates
~__._~,_~~"::~iI.:>''-'-''._
)~
~
'-----
<<;---.
./
t/;
./
---->
'\fr
\,
_ ,'-_____""c'c,", ---c-._-~-
-\_-
)
~
.r,-.--
,./
1,--''''
~
3
f{;- ~
FlIl,Otlk,AII(J.
,-
."'.
20'\i.. 20'i.
I I
1 on St.
Alhll" St.
~.!!.~.!'!Y_~'!!:.__.
.,
. .
1 ~
~:!.:'H,...\!yl1io)
1/;-
-'-
./ '
I (..
~--
_.___._~~':.~~t!I'ry
.J ! \"
,J
1;1 .-.--,)0
, --"
"-
<0-'--
r
'\ir
.."...., '"
t/;
"
"
c
3
.
~
.
....."',,,......'....;1....1'\.1
.
"
~
.
;;
~
20'-
'" .
E. Brand'lSl.
""..
"
"
J
MynleSI.
PROJECT SITE
30 Tot/ll lot..
j21N41NllIwL(ltsl
EXHIBIT 3b-
PM PEAK HOUR
PHASE 1 PROJECT
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(Traffic Generated By 27 Net New Lots)
iii
~
'2
'"
:;;
UJ i
I- ~ 0
-0-'
(/)-'~
1--",
~l$z
'"')I-Ql'
o""z
"''''...
a. !:!.
8
B
/
a
..
(/)
.c
"
c
E
IXJ
W
iii
'"
:!l
15 ~al"I!4M
N {
~ 15 uosew
~
..
(/)
c
.. .!!
(/) ;;:
c
0 .;
<I) ~
Gi
Z
~
"
.c
U
;? 8+ ~
~eM ~!JIeJJ.
~
"n;
u.
, >- 1--
''It...Jz,23
I--wo
iXi (3':; ...J
i:t-z~
XUC)1ll
ww(j)z
-,cnO)
O<(z
"'a....
a.-N
~ '" '"
wl-IXJ
(/) "0
<( .$
J: ..
a. ~
"
c:
"
Cl
"
IE
E
!:.
~
.Ii
2
!
~
~
~
~
u
o
M
:1
M
C
"'
..
x
':...._____.._E~r..~dlfTl'llffoe
o 0
)!
"
\
'>
~7
<::.--..
,r
"'1lf
,J
, -->
'-y
. 0 .
u
T'!~.~.!:!:?!..~L__._
t/;
o . 0
)1\
"-.,
~-..-- il
v""
"'1 I ('
oJ
11-.".-.0)-
'-y
.. :! <:>
_1
l.m-....JAll,;!!>
~.It
,
1\
o
v"- c
t f
"
trllf'iV,::.!',r,v
o
)1\
"-.
<--
if
'\tf
,J
c -->
'""
<;l .:> <:>
Higgins As.soclates
~----~~~.~~~.~!>".-
0 "--
J \ 0
< 1 <-- ,
V"~
ll.....-' l-
II ----"). "'11 ('
'""
t/;
"
\I3%l''''AI'~!>
I
/
<
\
o -~/'
n ----~
'\.....
--
t/;
<.-.
/fl'
:
o
"
(,
NelsonSt.
AlhmSI.
CherrvAve.
"
o
1 \')
G.rojm,M~~
-I/;
,
~o
/~- \l
Y
f. .'
{
._~..'.,:'!.,:".:~..!:c..__.
-I/;
''-'-
"
)1\
oJ
, -->
'""
"
'"
,
s.
i
,
~,." ...""",f.'''''...........,..','''
.,.-
"'~- 0
'\ if
. 0 0
ERl3llchSl.
tdeSt.
"
'"
~
.
~
~
"
'"
,
.
1!
Il
MYII18St.
PHASE 2
26 Tol!l1 lots
115 Net New loal
.
EXHIBIT 5a-
AM PEAK HOUR
PHASE 2
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(Traffic Generated By 15 Net New Lots)
" EBTanch-'T'a~ " ("ara!\O>,V,)s~t; " C"'rlW",Myt1i~
'- t/; '- t/; , -';f
0 0 0 Q 0 0
) \. ) , , 1 \ '-
1 ...- '" ! '" <(..-..... , .,.
,f" /c , ,f"
~ . ,_I'
, --> "d (' 0--,') \1 .> I ?
, ( I
" - 0 Q " o Q - 0
" Tr-tIf;t;f'u'Oll\j " MU">'l!>'l~t> " Gartll!"fIiC."!lI""V
t/; t/; "'- -/I;
0 - 0 '- Q 0 "'- 0
l\. , , ,) \.
,) ~ , ) \. <- , I .(....m._
v-' 0 " /.
v
,J I' oJ
'\1 r ,- '\If
(l.--;. o __-'t> lj: ---,.
, " ,
. , Q ----. o 0 0
" lr.~>CIAAetI_.
....1/;
^
. 0
! \. ,. ,
",.'
I t
~ Q
" TllrrlCiC~fl)'
0 0 "-
I I \. . ,
,/ <---. ,
. v.
oJ \rf
' -->
'" o 0 ,
F. fkaneh St.
2
Nel$onSt.
ldeSt.
i
u
"
.
>-
~
c
~
i
"
w
~
.
~
3
"
w
c
.
E
~
3
MyrtleS!.
AllenS,_
5
PHASE 2
26 TOlallot'
j1SNetNewLotsj
""<';'l!!"!Y~~'!.:
.
Higgins Associates
...c;, '''-'' "......,~.._.".......
EXHIBIT 5b-
PM PEAK HOUR
PHASE 2
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(Traffic: Generated By 15 Net New Lots)
...
tJJ
..c:
"
c
e
III
u.i
'"
~
8
oj
c
o
..
;;
z
"lS uapJe~
...
tJJ
"
:E
"lS uosew
~eM ~meJl
a
"lS ~alal!l,IM
...
'"
"
t:
~
"'
,l!l15
",o..J
w-l~
CI),- ~
.c($!!:z
J: 0 _
Q....."
",z
"'..,
::::.
I
B
8"
...
tJJ
c
.S!
;;:
Er
a
.,;
>
<
~
"
.c
()
~
>
<
..
""
..
o
~
'..
u.
. N 1--
tDwzZl
t:(I}Wo
m<:e:-l
;:J:z~
xQ.C>~
W -z
"'-
'" "
<z
Q.",
a:;'
....m
>-'0
d"
<-
oe
"
c
"
Cl
"
iE
E
t:.
~
j,
<
"
"
"
~~
-
~
o
1;
'u
o
~
.
'"
.
c
';;,
..
i
"
o 0 0
) 1 ',->
.. f;._~.r~:E!1'T:.~.':_ ._..'..__--;-
t/;
"'-\1
4:-- 1
,j' ,
'lit
j
----.,.
--v
;: '" do
.,
'"m<1,,:;fIMClll.s
.,.-.......-....---------
.JI\.
. .
"-.
<
.;-
t/;
'lit
,j
,->
'--V
~., ~ 0
"
I:'" a'all4liMllsem
___.__..__.........u..
'" Q 0 "--
)1 \
',. <---
-/
,j 'Ii t
c ._~
'--v ' . .
t/;
'"
Mil$<;T\;Nlan
.---.-......--.---.-,
.
)
'"
\
.,.
,../
, w.>
"--
<(--..-.
t/;
IF Tf"ff~Nlor"
'--, t/;
. -
I \.
. 0/"- 0
i t
- .
.. r,,,,K.'Cl'ietry ~
'if;' ,!(
:;
. . . "--
) 1 \. "
<--- ,
.;- ,
,j F.:lI,Oak$ Av
,-> 'lit
"" . 0 .
Higgins Associates
_~!!!..~ve.
Nelson St.
AllenSt,
"
l \.
Glftlt....;Myrlto
If;'
"-
,j"
it
"
r.;tI'dlm"Cher",
1/;'"
)l\'
"--,
"
,
",..
./'
,J
,--->
'"
\ i ('
CI 0 '-~
-
~
e
~
.
~
447"-.""""'-"'-"""""'1-""
2
E; R~neh Sl.
ldeSt.
~
~
~
.
s
~
"
~
e
-E
.
"
3
Mynhl$t.
PHASE 1 .. PHASe 2
$GTotaILQu;
142 Net Nt1W loUi)
.
EXHIBIT 7.,
AM PEAK HOUR
PHASE 1 + PHASE 2
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(Traffic Generated By 42 Net New Lots)
.;
'"
'"
12
'"
:l!
...
w .,
"'l!!-
<o.s
b:..J~
+s~
_0_
WI-'"
"''''z
..:"'N
:c ..,.
"- -
..oO::N~ti1
r--.:;:)WZ,Q
....O(/)WC!
-:c..::l!-
!!ll<::CZ~
:c<("-Cl'"
Xuj+-Z
Wo..'I""~()
:EW<Z
0..(1)0..<'"
..:-..,.
:c Q: '"
,,-l-lJl
'0
'"
-
..
~
'"
c:
'"
Cl
'-'
E
l!
t:.
'"
-IS uapJeQ
.; Qj
III '"
.s;: :!2
'\... '-'
0 c:
\ l!
+-- 0 lJl
u.i
" 0 ;;
}
t
z
.
"
,-
'\1 ( 'IS Aalal!4M ~
"
<
~
>
000 ... "
N b
"IS uosell\l '"
.;
'"
c:
o
..
<i
Z
.J
'"
c:
oS!
;;:
,;
~
~
'"
;C
u
\1
ON
AeM ~!ueJl
>
..:
..
'"
8
~
';;
u.
S
.!!
u
o
~
~
~
e
..
!I'
:J:
II
~
..
II)
J:
"
"
!!!
cc
W
N
~
e
..
II)
"
o
<II
Ci
Z
en
"
!!
1S yosew
AeM.omeJl
~
'IS Aal"l!4M
..
II)
"
t
>.
::;;
N
W <ii'
u;~o
<(0-'
:r-,;:
0.._
+J3~
_ 0 ~
w"'''
II)"'Z
<("'N
:J: ::t
0..
I
B
{
oj
"
,g
:(
&
B
.,;
>
<(
~
"
J:
o
~
>
<(
<II
...
..
o
~
'iij
u.
tbN)o.t-y;-
)-w:dZo
iii~!3~-'
-:r z;:
~ll. ClllJ
UJ+ qs:Z
.- (I)'Q;
w <(Z
</) o..N
<( -...
:J: '" >.
0.. "'cc
'C
S
..
~
"
"
"
C)
v
IE
g
,.
l
,
l.
~
~
"
~
o
,
~
fI
'0
o
.
:(
.
c
'0,
'"
;:
III
~
E
:I
o
>
>-
i:
:I
o
::I:
....
~
~
....
I/)
c:
CIl
<i
:3
~
0>
N
~
~
QJ
E
:::>
o
>
>-
l'O
"0
,""
QJ
:~
>-
;::
:::>
o
::I:'<t
o
1C>>l?)
i~N
: I
i.~;-:-'-,:: ~::l~j}.,'
I: d: :,;:';!;:',!:."
','::,,;;';::.:. ,
I ....: ',,':'
.,,!
I
I
I'
,
r
;
::';< ~,,:<
",'I:'r;,jl;;':;"
,i'"" .
.,,><
" . ':!{;~: .
',"
,'+;
:~ti .:::t~ :
:>t.
::;,<:
-: ;~'
>'.~!
J
,
1
j
I,'
I ,~>/;r:
,':.;/:"I'i:;;'
:;,'-:P,.., .
" ,,'j ".'
;"'> I.,'.. "
q)ii;.::;;i:~1.i~:.C '
. ",<"-~i :::~':;:<:
:1
,":' ,
-':., < "
,,_."
."""
. 'f,'
-/<;'/:.;:,
..:, i'i:~ir~ ;,,~:: '
. .:. '~, -" '.
..,.,p...., .
",,"
" '.~(,
-"J'
'':):; t;~~~;:,::!:,'
",,".,'
, ',' ,~,
:,/1"':::
.f,(,:"':,';
I~
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, <0 '<t N 0 co <0 '<t N
l ... ... ... ...
...----...----..
.,,',
:~. :;
i
i
I
I
,"
>" '.,,'
, ,'"
"~:;;;:~!,.~,ij :,~,:;!~1~;i :
..." :,<' "
,'.',', ". >'1'
,.':~d ;, . ,
':,)' ~!,
'J!' i;':..
/,;;; ~:<, )
...:j:~ ;l'
,,;"1;:'."
!}~~:L'
, ,,!,,;~ ~~,rf?~~
I'
::.>
'1-(y
p, .$''&.
-I(y '~~
00'_
'1-(y -O~
p.$'~,
-v.. '6'
(yO
~ VJ>
(y
p, .$',&,
-v.. ',9
(yO
'1-(y "'~
p,.$'~.
. v.. ''&
(yO
~ 1'.6'
(y
P. .$''&.
-v.. '~
(yO
'1-~ ~,;.>
.$' ~
p '1:,
-y~ '~
a ~
'1-~ 0.21
S1 'I:
p, ;6,
-y~ '<9
p,O.,..
-y~ '<'
p..$'~
.Y~ ',9
a
'1-~ v~
L" .$'....
-y~ '6'
o
'1-~ "'""
L", .$'~
-y~ .~
a
0.,;.>
~
',','
';'>-WI->;
!::~~tl:l~
;co ::s:: ...I 0::1- >
-WO c.>
'::I: W 1/)""
'X > "'"
WS:UZf!
. >--<(1-
...11.1....1_
0::1.1.<(0
:J~Z7ij
01-0",
::I: !:!:!..
W
~
<(
0::
W
~
~
~
E
~
'0
~
J:
~
N
;;;
1J;
.
E
~
'0
>
f
..;
'"
N
;;;
~
E
~
o
(J
N
o
j
..,
0>
9
!9
o
o
~
o
"'
9
.
.0
o
~
C)
10
g
~
"'
.!l
..
'e:;
o
"'
"'
4:
"'
c
's,
'"
:i:
>. ,>-ww-
ctl ~ <( :!: ::::l iU'
'"0 !::~3ffi3:
..::r:: I
0)",," ~ltl~~E
0)0 ~3:U>-E
$05 >--~I-
...Ju..~....
>.N ~u..wo
-- ::::l~:J:Ui
'-..- Ol-Um
~O) :J: z!!:!.
w 0
IE""" C>
0 <(
0)::::1- ~
>ol.() w
>
<(>N <(
en I ~
~
(I) E
~
E <5
~
>> V\ld 00: ~ ~ J:
::s >> ..
- >>> V\ld OO:O~ '1'
0 --.. N
>> <;
> .... V\ld 00:6 ..
>>> ~
>> ~
.". E
- V\ld OO:g
~ - ~
<5
- ~
... >>> V\ld OO:L J:
::s - ..
-
.". V\ld 00:9 N
0 > N
> 9
J: V\ld OO:g "
!l
- V\ld OO:p c
(I) ~
0
::s - V\ld OO:~ y
> N
C >> <;
>> V\ld OO:Z ,i
(I) - M
>> '"
> > V\ld 00: ~ 0
> !9
<( 0
>> V\ld OO:Z~ 0
>
- 6
~ >> V\I'V 00: ~ ~ ."
- 9
"'
"'
... - V\I'V 00:0 ~ 0
- ~
(I) -> 52
- V\I'V 00:6
J: >- :g
0
0 V\I'V OO:g ::
- V\I'V OO:L
- V\I'V 00:9
>>> V\I'V OO:g
-
>
> V\I'V OO:P
>>
....
> II\J'V OO:~
> '"
II\J'V OO:Z '"
-
..
>> V\I'V 00: ~ >0
-> 0
- '"
V\I'V OO:Z ~ '"
<(
'"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
'm
0 l.() 0 l.() 0 l.() Ol
M N N ..- ..- :i:
ATTACHMENT 13
OTIS S. PAGE JR.
606 MYRTLE STREET
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420
805-489-5811
\
REceIVED
February 1, 2005
foE8 0 I 2005
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNI1Y DEVELOPMENT .
City of Arroyo Grande
The Planning Commission
Subject: Creekside Estates
Respectfully, the following comments pertain to the subject:
1 - The project is proposed to be located on land that is predominately Open Space
that has excellent Prime Agricnltural Soil. The City should consider its preservation
consistent with the City's policy in preserving prime agricultural land. The lands
prior residential zoning should not prejudice the opportunity to preserve this land.
To not do so is an obvions contradiction with the intent of the City's new
agricultural policy to preserve prime agricultural soils and open space!
2 - The traffic study on circulation impacts on Myrtle Street need verification. The
Myrtle Street traffic impact should be stated clearly. Access to Myrtle Street should
be constrained or limited.
3 - Housing constructed backing to Noguera should be limited to one story.
4 - The Noguera easement should be released.
5 - Planned prices for the houses and property should be stated. It is unrealistic to
use affordable home criteria since the houses will not be "affordable" in the strict
sense of the term. A PUD strategy for development of affordable houses doesn't
make sense for the area.
6 - The planned use of high density lots should be denied and the existing criteria of
7200 sq. foot lots should be the planned design criteria.
My neighbors have paqicipated in the prior planning sessions with the proponents.
There has been a consistent view that the project's house density is much too high
and that "affordability" criteria, what ever that is, is unrealistic. That the project
should mirror the existing high standards of the area, as exemplified by the
Ellsworth development, and not be an exception to it.
,~:Po"7Afl /
Lj4~ //'''
...-----~
f
Feburary 1,2005
To Planning Commission Members
Tim Brown Vice Chair
John Keen Commissioner
Nanci Parker Commissioner
Doug Tait Commissioner
~ Chuck Fellows Commissioner
Steven Adams City Manager
Timothy J Carmel City Attorney
Rob Strong CDD Director
Subject: The "Cherry Creek" Project
Dear Sirs:
I would like to express my support of this Project as this is the first plan that
reasonably addresses the drainage issues. It appears to be sized correctly and can be
reasonably maintained. It provides a straight path from the Dixon Ranch to the Arroyo
Grande creek. This should provide a storm water path which wilfhelp flush the drainage
lines. It has been 30 years since the last home was built on the Noguera Tract 409 and it is
time for the drainage issues to be resolved.
I have only two issues which need to be included with this project for my total support.
One is the requirement of single story on lots 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. Second is the
abandoment of the easement on the east side of Noguera Tract 409. Both of these issues
were discussed in the neighborhood meetings on this Project and noted on pages 5 and 6
of Attachment 2 of the staff report.
Thank you for the consideration of my request.
~~
Larry Turner
323 Noguera Place
Arroyo Grande
RECEIVED
I-t.d 0 J 2005
CITY OF AR
COMMUNITY Rg:VEO GRANDE
LOPMENT
~-
Arroyo Grande Community Development Department.
Planning Commission
reo Cherry Creek Project
Feb. 3,2005
On Feb. 1st I spoke with tvlr. Perry Judd who is the facilities director at Lucia Mar School
District. His phone number is 474-3000. I asked Mr. Judd about his opinion of the possibility of
putting in either a street bridge or a footbridge from Myrtle Street over to Stanley Rd. with a
project we were currently looking at. He said someone had spoken with the school district about
a year ago, and that they had provided input at that time, and he was happy to have the further
opportunity to readdress the issue at this time. He provided me with his feelings on the matter
and then suggested it would be helpful to speak with the Lucia Mar School District
Superintendent, Debra Flores.
I wro.te down what Mr. Judd had to say and felt it might be beneficial for other commission
members. These are Mr. Judd's comments; He felt that overall "it was a no-brainer"; that by .
installing a walking bridge over the creek to help provide access to the middle school for the kids
would be helpful as well as safer than having them walk along and across East Branch Street in
the village. He said the ease of children's access to the school with the addition of a footbridge
across the creek at that area was obviously beneficial.
He did express his concerns, however, regarding the potential crossing of possible unruly
children or possible gang members during school hours from the Myrtle Streetneighborhood that
may not otherwise go over to the school fields with the Stanley Road access. He was concerned
with possible vandalism in the field area from potential problem people from the Myrtle side that
may not otherwise use the Stanley Road access due to the fact that Stanley Road is a dead-end
street. He was especially concerned with the problems occurring during school hours.
He cited two problems over the last 6 years or so, one being a case of vandalism by someone
driving a car over the fields and tearing them up, as well as an altercation over a weekend by two
adult soccer teams that both wanted to play at the same time in the same field. Apparently police
were called to settle this later dispute. The school has since installed fencing along the field
areas for protection. Mr. Judd felt that by adding in a footbridge the school may have to add
more fencing somewhere along the fields to keep the students and the area protected during
school hours. He stated that after the Columbine situation things had to be more closed up at
schools overall.
He also added that the school fields are open to the community for use during after-school hours,
and that the Stanley Road access running between the fields was city property and that the city
had not abandoned it. He believed it to be 60 feet across. He could not remember the history
behind the division of the school fields, but thought it to have occurred a long time ago. He said
two houses have been built at the end of Stanley Rd recently.
Respectfully submitted,
.~ '/2L
Nanci Parker
Planning Commissioner
,
" -.---"
Steven L Andrews
465 Tanner Ln.
Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420
(805) 489 8520
~
:.~l
"
February go, 2005.
To: Nanci Parker
Planning Commission
RE: Cherry Ave., and Myrtle St., Phase 1 and also Phase 2 Project.
Re; TRAFFIC
Dear NANCI;
First, I want to thank you for your keen observations, especially the mention of the
Traffic Study.
At the meeting on 2/01/05 it became clear to myself, that the only traffic fix was to be
a three way stop at: Cherry and Branch Mill Rd. That was a surprise, but
understandable, that the Traffic impact on Cherry and Traffic Wy., was not considered.
Or maybe it was considered, I am 'not sure.
-
-
In this letter, I once again what to go on record, and express my feelings.
The overall project is a good one, and will be a asset to the City of Arroyo Grande, and
the Village. I am not opposed to the actual site, the plan seems to fit the
Neighborhood.
My concerns have to do with Traffic congestion at: Cherry and Traffic Wy.
This intersection is already dangerous, and creates Drivers to take much RISK.
At this intersection, we have multiple problems,
1. fast moving traffic coming off of the 101, they just don't slow down to a safe speed.
2; a Driver on Cherry trying to turn left must be super cautious, and sometimes after
waiting, is forced to take a chance.
3. A row of vehicles often forms on Cherry, trying to get onto Traffic Wy. leading to
the long wait, this being frustrating, and then leads to bad judgment.
4. I do strongly feel that the CITY may have liability. When you are aware of a hazard
and yet potentially increase, I see possible litigation.
The FIX; ftz-e-- YI<f}-Wi'Nt
~'
Traffic wy., even though a main travel street, is by no means up to City standards.
The section between Traffic Wy., and PC Railroad (the small side street) is only two
lanes, with NO PARKING.
Cherry Ln., needs to be made into a full on approved City Street, this means Curbs
and Sidewalks on both sides, and YES parking on both sides.
:~.
:~.
...\
.(~;l
~.
.,'if
f'A'.
:,,~
.:~
.~~4::
,
Now, politics enter the picture, because the Farm Field on the corner of Traffic Wy
and Cherry are still zoned ag, meaning the Farm operation isn't going to pay for the
Curb and sidewalk improvements, also, the Farm isn't going to want to give up any
of this Land. This means that the CITY will have to purchase some of the Farms Land.
The bottom line being that the expense for all street improvements, will become a
CITY expense, paid for by the CITY. I realize that is a Big obstacle to any change
happening. But, on the other hand, do we have any other option. ?
If, the CITY w9,uld allo':!!-the property owner of the Farm Land to Sale for development,
then all i/l/fjrcN'3fTi"{hf'would be paid for by the Developer, costing the City z;to, U~5 .
My feelings are that by leaving this property as ag has created this dilemma.
No one wants to pay for the needed and actually up to code requirements.
So, it puts all in a bad place, called boxed into a corner.
If we leave the ag land as is on Traffic and Cherry, no change will take place, so best
FIX is give the property owner the Zoning needed, to enable a Sale and then a
Development. This will save the City much expense on street improvement.
I have taken the LIBERTY of drafting a very rough (not to scale) and not accurate
drawing of the Street improvements that I myself envision as being correct. Please see
the attached, also, I would like to offer my feelings on this matter to the CITY
Planning Commission, especially yourself, at any time that fits schedule.
I feel strong enough that where ever, or whom ever wants to meet, I am available.
Please don't hesitate to give me a Call.
Thank You; ~I! /!
7f%e:~~ drews 489 8520 Home, leave message is OK.
....... '../
PS; I have no financial or political agenda, - g..:
as for the project at Myrtle and Cherry, it should get the gken light, it is not the
builder or developers responsibility to improve off site City streets. This is just a City
issue that needs to be addressed and resolved, before we have a injury accident.
-~#.
,',.
'".:,(
;~t~
,~(
."
. "'-
. ...:~~
~:i-
.,.......
.~~~
R'
.~:~
.t';",
..:~t::.:
~.-- ;"- "
~
)
()
N~~
1&/
r b"~/
I
,
!
fY\of~ /'
___ /</ - ~34\
(::f;;:" (frr~~' .' I
/_ --7.(/ -- I
// / / -,,>
-:---/7 " .7
.>- _// '7 /7' .:
..~ / / // _/
,-,' /' / - "
_-,--zf
---- .-/./'/ .-
/
I " /7
./-
~
~ ~..; i \0
cvv
w
1 i
~
If,e.f'\
l) 1'-..,\
)"1'.:.1'1
t f1-'l
1'v(l.~
o rJ ~1
tJ\ tI e,
1\
_I
- ~
_ ':t>
L~~, _I
- ~ -
~ },tle. iJ;p,lk'
velJ~Y
_.>--7
" -"'7
r=
c~:--. -- -~"/ /
_/ ./
5'/ q; ---_/
V- 0:. Ll.-
eu IJ(I;-
___, R.13
L,'-'------J
/
,t
"-
~
~
t(
"."'~~-- .~....,
L-- _,7
'-~, -
---"
,/
Pd
to IZ 13
~i-.._..,- :.:~,;.:7
. ~'7
/
~/ _ ?, __ ~:-::__---..- -:~7
;?('~':-- )
~ ~ /f[tfX~~~i~
r;~ C'()~~wz!;' " .... "
1
~
~-
-~T---
_ 77.
_m_t;
- -
_J c. F-ftt l r-o A-~
r
4~f'
..
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<LynnTAG@aol.com>
<agcity@Arroyogrande.org>
2/17/20054:50:25 PM
To the Planning Commission
I know the drainage situation out our way (Branch Mill and Cherry) has been
studied and studied. I keep wondering why no one suggests that the water from
Newsom Springs isn't channeled in a straight line downhill path to the creek.
That is what water wants to do -- rather than making all those right angles.
Maybe it is so simpie planners haven't thought of it. If the developers of
Cherry Creek are planning to use two 6 foot pipes to carry the water to the
creek (full of ag chemicals) then why not under the ag land across from Newsom
Springs. I realize Newsom Springs is in the county, but surely there could
be some cooperation there.
You should see that corner today -- water, water everywhere, and the "ditch"
put in place on the Stilwell property to take it has none in it.
Lynn Titus
404 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande
'~ '
---
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VIA: KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FROM: JIM DICKENS, 769 BRANCH MILL ROAD, ARROYO GRANDE
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007; NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN 04-001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-~CE'VED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002 ~c:
DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2005 FEB 2 2 2005
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVElOPMEN'
The following is an itemized response to the continued public hearing item held on
February 1, 2005 and the public workshop conducted February 16, 2005 as
described above. I have reviewed the Draft Conditions of Approval and the Draft
Negative Declaration and submit the following comments regarding its adequacy
for the City's consideration. The authorizations these documents recommend
inciude:
Draft Conditions of Approval: "This approval authorizes ultimate
development of eighty-three (83) new residential/ots on twenty-two (22) acres in
two phases. "
Draft Negative Declaration (ND): Description - "Proposal by Creekside
Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC for a Neighborhood Plan, Vesting Tentative Map
and Planned Unit Development to allow for ultimate development of eighty-three
(83) new residential/ots on twenty-two (22) acres in two phases."
The material presented to date is simply a proposed thirty-nine (39) lot residential
subdivision and preliminary discussion in relation to subarea 2. Approval of a
Neighborhood Plan authorizing eight-three (83) residential lots will require
greater c;Ietail and additional public review.
Nei~hborhood Plan: The staff report fails to describe the Neighborhood Plan at
a level of detail sufl)cient to facilitate meaningful public review and impact
assessment. The Neighborhood Plan is not adequately described, in part,
because Phase II of the Plan has yet to be designed. The public workshop
conducted by the City this past Wednesday was an attempt to gather additional
feedback in relation to: Land Use Plan; Circulation Plan; Fire (Emergency)
Access; Public vs. Private Streets; Agricultural Buffer Width; Street Widths;
Creek Buffer Setback; and Pedestrian Bridge I Trails. This would indicate that
the configuration of the Plan is far from being final. Design criteria for factors
such as: road configuration, emergency access, agricultural buffer design,
1
biological impacts and recreational trails have yet to be addressed and yet the
recommendation before you is to adopt a resolution approving this Plan, .
including the Draft Conditions of Approval and the Draft NO, to the City Council.
Resolution: The Resolution before you states that "the proposed project" is
consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, program, intent, and
requirements of the General Plan. The following are three examples to the
contrary.
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Ag1-1.1 Prime Farmland soils shall include all land, whether a single
parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for
rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Services land use capabilities Classification
whether or not the land is actually irrigated, provided that
irrigation is feasible.
Ag1-4 Establish and apply a significance criterion (threshold of
significance) for CEQA analysis, as provided by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.7, that considers loss of prime
farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact.
The project site is situated on a uniform strip of potential highly
productive "prime agricultural soil." This Class lI(e) Mocho silty clay
loam soil parallels the south side of Arroyo Grande Creek and extends
across the valley southeast to East Cherry Avenue. (See Attachment A)
This Mocho soil meets all of the NRCS criteria for "prime agricultural soil"
and is the same soil found on the adjacent Dixson Ranch.
"This soil type is typically very deep, well drained and found on
alluvial fans and plains adjacent to the flood plains of coastal
streams. It has no limitations if farmed and is well suited for
irrigated vegetable crops and orchards." John Warrick,
Agricultural Technician, SLOC Department of Agriculture, letter to
City of Arroyo Grande, May 1, 1996.
As per the CitY's policy, the Negative Declaration, Agricultural
Resources, Will the project a) convert prime agricultural/and to non-
agricultural use? A significance criterion must be checked and mitigation
proposed to maintain consistency with the City's policies and objectives.
Parks and Re,creation Element
PR4 A network'of recreational trails, bicycle lanes and bikeways
should be established for use by local residents and visitors to
the Arroyo Grande Valley. .
PR4-1 Trails should be located generally as shown in Figure PR-2.
(See Attachment B)
2
PR4-1.1 Review development proposals for consistency with this
element and require easements, dedications, and
improvements when necessary.
PR4-1.2 A regional recreational trail should be established along the
Arroyo Grande Creek greenbelt from Strother Park to the
ocean.
PR4-1.3 Proposed trails, especially bicycle lanes which serve as
connections to schools and recreation facilities, shall be given
high priority in implementation.
The Neighborhood Plan as proposed has eliminated the pedestrian
bridge which would provide a direct connection to both Paulding Middle
School and recreational facilities. The Draft ND states on page 25 that
"the project is expected to add approximately twenty-four (24) school-
aged children to the Lucia Mar Unified School District based on a
student yield factor of O. 7, which will impact the capacity of local
schools." It would be reasonable to believe that throughout the life of
this neighborhood, many of the school-aged children would attend
Paulding Middle School and participate in recreational activities on this
site.
It is also important to point out that a bridge at this location is part of
Arroyo Grande's history. The 1909 Map (Attachment C) clearly identifies
the "Stanley" Bridge and the road alignments in this area nearly 1 00
years ago.
The Plan further fails to adequately provide for a regional recreational
trail along the Arroyo Grande Creek greenbelt and a scenic trail
alignment as depicted in Map 4. The applicant has merely provided the
Commission with three (3) Arroyo Grande Creek Trail Options. The staff
report makes no recommendation as to the preferred option and has
failed to address these trail alignment options in relation to the General
Plan objectives. These elements are essential and require greater detail
for General Plan consistency.
Circulation I Transportation Element
CT5-5 Define and preserve "study area" corridOrs and alternatives
for future freeway, arterial and collector street connections,
-extensions, completions, reconstruction, widening, frontage
road alternatives or extensions, and/or other improvements
to circulation and Transportation networks until cooperative
resolution of Element revisions and/or capital Improvement
Programs. (See "study areas" on Circulation Element, Map
3, Attachment D)
3
As identified on the Circulation Map 3, the Neighborhood Plan is
encompassed within a designated Circulation Study Area. Prior to any
Plan approval in this area, reconciliation of regional circulation
deficiencies must be addressed.
Based on the above-described General Plan inconsistencies, approving the
Resolution as presented without additional mitigation and/or detailed information
is premature.
Neqative Declaration:
Agricultural Resources - As indicated on the previous page, the soil type of
the subject property is identified as prime agriculture. As per City policy, the
conversion of prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use is Potentially
Significant and requires adequate mitigation.
In addition, the public workshop held on Wednesday, February 16, 2005
presented several proposed "emergency access" alignments across property
zoned Agriculture. If these alignments are to become part of the proposed
Neighborhood Plan, the Draft NO will need to identify the "conflict with existing
zoning or Williamson Act program" as Potentially Significant. The secondary
growth inducing impacts of the proposed emergency access alignments need to
be analyzed as well to be adequate pursuant to CEQA's standards.
The Draft NO states, "The project adequately provides separation of uses that
mitigates potential conflict by means of a tOO-foot buffer......" The Draft NO
provides no evidence that the minimum 100 foot buffer will provide adequate
separation and minimize land-use conflict. The only reference identified in the
Draft NO in relation to the agricultural buffer, is the November 18, 2004 letter
from the San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture. The concluding
comments in this letter state that "the Agriculture Department would recommend
that specific findings be made for why this particular buffer distance in combined
with the proposed additional measures are sufficient to address the potential
impacts of this additional development." Finding .have not been made nor an
environmental review conducted concerning the buffer design (Phase I and
Phase II of the Neighborhood Plan), a list of landscape materials to be used, a
maintenance plan and timing for implementation.
Biological Resources: The Draft NO states, "The project site does not support
any sensitive or special status native plants species regulated by the federal
and/or state agencies." The "Project Site" consists of twenty-two (22) acres and
the ultimate development of eighty-three (83) new residential lots. The Arroyo
Grande Creek traverses the east portion of this Neighborhood Plan and will
undoubtedly have potential impact on riparian habitat, unique or special status
species and/or the diversity or quality of native or other important vegetation.
The aerial photo within the staff report identifies very dense Oak Woodlands
adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and well within much of the eastern portion of
4
the proposed plan. How will the proposed plan impact these biological
resources? What evidence is there that would suggest that forty-four (44)
'residentiallots in Phase II will not have a post construction adverse
environmental impact on biological resources. The environmental review,
completed by the Morro Group, was only conducted on Phase I. This review is
insufficient per CEQA.
The environmental review in relation to the "two 72-inch drainage pipes that
daylight at Arroyo Grande Creek" (Draft NO, page 9) is vague. The final design
has not been completed and thus difficult to ascertain the potential impacts on
Arroyo Grande Creek. It should also be noted that future review and possible
mitigation by state and federal resource agencies as a means of addressing
potential biological impacts is not adequate. The Draft ND states, "According to
the Report, the project may be subject to regulatory review of the Army corps of
Engineers (ACOE).......the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)......
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS)........and the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG)". Negative Declarations cannot be based on the
presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the
time of project approval. The City cannot defer mitigation or rely on other
agencies to fulfill its role as lead agency under CEQA.
Newson SprinQs DrainaQe Proiect: Stormwater flooding generally occurs as a
result of rainfall in the "Newsom Canyon and Guaya Canyon" watersheds which
encompasses approximately 1,116 acres, southeast of the proposed project..
The combined stormwater runoff from "Newson/GuayaCanyons", the hillside
above Branch Mill Road and the farmland below equals approximately 1,024
cubic feet per second (cfs) in a 100 year storm event. (Data referenced in the
Draft Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, Newsom Spring Drainage Project, April 7,
1998)
The Newsom Springs drainage area has been the subject of much controversy
and has been identified by the City as a problem area for well over thirty years.
The City's Drainage Master Plan lists the Newsom Springs Drainage Project as a
"High Priority" capital improvement project and provides three project alternative
alignments for public review and consideration. The construction alternatives
proposed to correct the historic flooding in this area consist of diverting all of the
Newsom Springs runoff directly into Arroyo Grande Creek. As depicted in the
1909 Map (Attachment C), the seasonal creek, "Arroyo Yegua Flaca Y Las
Aquas Calientes", created from the Newsom Springs runoff is in the general
location as it is today and flowed to Los Berros Creek.
The "Project" under consideration proposes to construct a drainage facility "in
accordance with the Drainage Master Plan" (See Conditions of Approval 97, 102
& 103), yet a preferred alignment has yet to be adopted by the City.
Furthermore, the staff report provides very little detail in regards to this regional
drainage project, sti.f1ing meaningful public and environmental assessment. As
5
per Condition 99, "the applicant shall perform a detailed drainage analysis
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California." Obtaining a
drainage analysis after a project is approved would appear to have little value to
the public process. Much like a Traffic Study, there is no doubt this analysis
would assist with the appropriate level of project review.
According to the Draft Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, Newsom Springs
Drainage Project, the outlet of these storm drains will require careful
construction. "Diverting the Newsom Springs Creek flow upstream of the stream
gage will upset the integrity of future gage readings. For this reason, the County
has indicated that they prefer projects along alignment A, and that projects along
Alignments Band C should include a recording stream flow gage in order that the
stream flow records may continue to be statistically valid." (page 1 0) Given the
current material provided in the staff report, it is unknown whether the outlet is
being proposed upstream or downstream from the County's Arroyo Grande
Creek stream gage and whether there is need to condition the applicant to install
a "stream flow gage" to calculate additional flows as a result of the regional
drainage project.
Although the conceptual Newsom Springs Drainage Project appears to provide
sorely needed and long-overdue drainage improvements to this area, there are
many unanswered questions. Will there be an increased ponding effect on the
Dixson Ranch as a result of the proposed project? What responsibility does the
owner andlor operator of irrigated agriculture have in relation to storm water
runoff flowing into the proposed drainage project? How does this proposed
drainage project reconcile to the City's Safety Element?
I believe, given an appropriate level of review, Alternative alignment A, as
identified in the Drainage Master Plan, will be found to be fundamentally flawed.
The basic premise of this conceptual design is to allow stormwater runoff at
approximately 900 cubic feet per second (cfs) to traverse Branch Mill Road (this
volume cannot be accommodated within the existing box culvert under Branch
Mill Road), then sheet across over 70 acres of prime agricultural soils, then
deposit water, sediment and agricultural chemicals and fertilizers into drainage
pipes which are discharged into Arroyo Grande Creek. These concerns are real
and potentially problematic for the City, the agricultural operator, the public in
general and the wildlife living in the creek.
These concerns could be addressed through the establishment of a detention
basin within Newsom Canyo"O. Stormwater detention basins are specifically
designed and engineered to receive and temporarily hold large amounts of
stormwater. The basic concept would be to provide storage of the excess
watershed runoff produced in a large storm event, reduce peak flows, and
release only the amount of stormwater which can be appropriately
accommodated downstream.' Since the basin drains by gravity, it will only drain
as fast as the discharge will allow. The water stays in storage until the
6
downstream channel can gradually remove it. Holding the water in a detention
basin will eliminate flooding of public roads and homes and significantly decrease
sheet flow over agricultural property.
Entitlements: The Neighborhood Plan assumes the ultimate development of
eighty-three (83) new residential lots based on single family residential zoning.
The Plan specifically identifies the proposed thirty-nine (39) lots for Phase I of the
Plan, yet fails to identify the location, placement and circulation for the remaining
forty-four (44) residential lots. How many Oak Trees will need to be removed
within the Oak Woodland along Arroyo Grande Creek to fulfill this entitlement of
Phase II? What will be the impact on the wildlife corridor? Are there impacts to
biological resources within Phase II that have not adequately been reviewed in
the Negative Declaration?
Approval of this proposed Neighborhood Plan at this time, without sufficient detail
and further policy consideration, would be remiss. The City is currently faced
with a similar phased project, Rancho Grande and Tract 1998, where if given the
appropriate level of environmental review at the time of approval would have
resulted in a significant reduction in time and resources on the part of the City,
the developer, and the community. It is far more productive to get it right the first.
time than to postpone challenges into the unforeseen future.
As a result of the February 16th Workshop, I developed an alternative conceptual
Neighborhood Plan. (See Attachment E) This Plan is merely an attempt to show
how multiple factors could be incorporated within the subject project site.
Reasonable density, traffic circulation, secondary access, buffer distance, Creek
side trail and a pedestrian bridge can and should be all incorporated within the
proposed plan.
7
189
ATT..\Cl\\\lE'\T .\
~o
189
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'"" ATTACHMENT B
:c: x
~~ Q)
0-
lI.I~LU E
0
QQid 0
:c:~:c: <Il
t
0
~:c:2 0- -i': <Il
en Q)
~Sf.; :g m "S
0- m
m <Il ~ 0
OQ.,~ 0- ""0 Q) 0::
0 :E <(
>..,Q: ~ 0 Q)
-E 'u c: .:.:
O~U '2 m m ~ ro
It LI.I ::J 0 u.. ';::
.c 0 - 0 z.
a::LI.Ilt E .s:::; ~ <Il '2
E Ol Q) 0 Q) .s:::; ';::
~ ~ "" i '0; .s:::; .s:::; ""0 - Q) 0
0 - 0 Q) m 0 'c
LI.. LI.I ~ 0 Z 0 en 0- 0- en 0-
O~ ~ I ~~l;]~DrnrnD
>-.... a:: &
,",,0 I
<:;~:::
.w';;; .~
.c'ifJ'~1 .~"'
...~~. ';"~~
o &'! f%:?'~~~
t:~~~~~
0:'::1 :,": s:t=~=
..1:;. iI =:;.~ -;1~
,.. 'l ~....-,)
ta t:( 1 ~~"-g
.~\~~}~;
'~'.:r"'-
~l
;g
. ~ D
~e
~i u
'~
~.
~."'~
,
e.
h
J/
/:,
,y;
0"
.-
,1i
. /:1
4.trr. ,
]/
$'
.i~
,-
"
'iC "
dr.' \:1
'1/'
~i
(qj.)
I~'
.,
,"
/
g' dr.'
,7 V;U
/.;
../
II
../'
;:
f
-;
.-
~
. .
-.:t
0-
ct!
~
.
.
q
d
Q:
G
.....
......]
~
Q,
~~
~CI)
<:~
~1
Q)lij
~Cl
~<
()~
~<D
ltJ
CI)~
OC)
~
00::
~n:
,,~
~
h
Q
~
/ / ~[f\"
\ ~
,f.!i
, "
.~
'-.
'-
'"
'.
......"'- ( ~ )
. -S- ~
". \S).
". 6...
. .
'. \f'\
". ~
':"~
. '.
8
i-
,.
ATTACHMENT C
, '.
'",
>.;
"
"
~
~ ~. .~ ~
~" , . .. ~
~ ~ .
" ~
"JI() III <:l ">.... to ~.
'oo">l\ll\l'}:~
....:. -;:.""--....: Q) Q;) I'l1
I ' t I' I It) (\{ N
, . I : I I .
I . I 1 r I 0<:5' ~
I . r t . I I I I .
. ~ I '.J : t I I I I
b Q I ~ I I 1 I
~ I . I I
'i.l '" (;:J I.' I I' I
. ' , "W
"~ I)...., I:: I::
t~~~ t: ~-l: ~::::~
1..0., ... 1>"<\ .. "~ I>
'I ~ " 1i.1< \) ~ C4 '<,J ')
~J'\]~~~ ~cj<<:
~ ., '0,: 13~ t:(j 'f,; .
\!i ~:>..~ . "\.....Cb
~~~~~~~~ ,
ct _
"\ ~ .~
., t~
~ P.l
'\
ii' ....
'.
'.
.'
'.
.'
.'
.'
())
~ CJ .1
~ (J) ~ iQ
()) ~" " '"
<hCl'~ 1Qt..l ~ ~
CJ(J):::';: -;-. ~ Q'
(I)" 'l-~() III
't. c: ". ll- ll::
~,<Il \l -q~
C\)o,(j I~: \
~ "" .1::
~ ,,~
-<ll." CO ~ <:l .
QJ '<., \l ~:u fl:l
l( O)'(b ~ .~ ~
... ......~,
'h Q\Jl r~~ ~..
\l ~ 't--.J "
~.,,, " ~
t:-:" ~ ~ l!.i
1- \,~ ::i . '"
"q, () ~~ <;) .
~Q..) '<).,
'>>(~ ~~~;
~"J , () I} ~ '
'>.'I.,S lJ II . . .
l'..()~ \, .;r .
\l \I f~'~'
~~ ~ I..'~ ~,
~ \, ~ "
I:\fh ~, \l
.() "J "\ I ()
~~~ ),~ It
1~ ~ ~~
I.. 1..11
.~~l( ~
iJ I.. \,
.~C) ~
~
.... .~.
..
~
~
lQ
..
~
~
~
~
@~
~
~.
~
. f,.
..,........ )~
. .
. .
.. .
. .
....
:<:
Q
fO\~
We)
S:
~
~
~
i;:
'{
... ~
~ ~
"
., .
i
. .
."(
.'
.:i
I
.,.:,1
',' ~!
.,
.' ;
.'
.'
...i~
;Il..
';"1'\
. "j;.",.
..:!:;;'..... .
~..'r:\;11.. .. .;.'
;:;:::~/'..:-: ~/i;;fnt:;;;.
ATTACHMENT D
~
IIJ~ "
Clo.. ." "
:i!:;:) 16 ."
~:i!:l') E 16
'" .& E '" '"
l!! <c .& 0. 0.
<:l:)o.. 0 0
<{ C ~ 1i5 1i5
~o..~ >- 0 ro
'" ro "0 U '.. '..
l!! 'C => " c c c
O-.l:i!: <{ ~ en Ol '" E
~ (i5 t=
l:l::~O c ~ c " f-
ro 'E 5 .9 ;g "0 N
.;:: >- "
l:l::1IJj:: "' I::: ro 13 16 "' z:. ~
~:i!::) _ QJ ~ 2 :; ro 0 .;::
"0 .<: .<: <! c 0. 0 5
Il.IIJ I " 16 Ol (5 Ol e ~ ~
o <:l:;, i "- "- I () C3 (i5 "- "- "-
~....o Drnrnrnrn~~tJG
ol:l::l
~c"'l
0\'110.
-~~ll>
gr.; );".;
....t. ~.:.\
" I" ..;'l "l~
i;. ~ ~r.
';;' .' ~
"'.'J,
." ~ .
0,,& .;<j'
~~Ul
'!':?-
'I'
I; I
"""1
,.
J
I
''1,
,
,
...
,
,
, -
, ~
... , ... ..;.
,
,',/ _I
/
.'
-~.
~
~
I
.~c.",.,. ~
h
,. "J I ," I,
I '.!.)!'
Ii 11Cf"...t1Ol\all9
,
CE-3
CV)
0..
CO
~
~..."" '.
~ -.,,,
V -.
'1/.-.
,'"
,.. I'" I
. ,--/
4'
-'
,..::1
. - -)
. 1',.
J, IiI i
:.. J._
. 11.._
I
"- --
~I
-. I
;::'(.
--. j-- ...JJ
.-1 __
..-
II
'. ~
ATTACHMENT E
I,
, ,
L..L.-
r---~-
!:!~
. "
L.=__
,
"
,
,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
No!:1 King. Dir~ctor
Count;y Government; CenUr, Room 207 . San Luis Obispo CA 93408 . (805) 781-5252
Fax (805) 781-1229 email address: pwd@co.slo.ca.us
February 24, 2005
RECEIVED
f-L'i:J
'- .Q S 7005
CITY OF
COMMUN:ROYO GRAND
DEVELOPMEN~
Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works
City of Arroyo Grande
PO Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Subject:. Cherry Creek Estates, Tract 2653
Interference to Arroyo Grande Creek Gage #2
Dear Don:
It has recently come to our attention that the subject tract is currently in the City's development
review process. Our review of the plans for the project indicates that the drainage from the
project will discharge into the Arroyo Grande Creek just upstream of the Flood Control & Water
Conservation District's Gage #2. As a result, the approval of the project as proposed would
forever alter flow data associated with the gage. The turbulence caused by the confluence of the
proposed discharge with the existing creek flows will render the gage ineffective. Even if the
gage could remain effective, the ability to correlate past data with future data would be extremely
problematic. As you can imagine, the future usefulness of the gage could be jeopardized both
by the change in the volume of flow and by the turbulence caused by the discharge.
It should go without saying that the relationship of this gage to the Zone 3/Lopez Operations is
important and beneficial for both the City of Arroyo Grande and for the other Zone 3 agencies.
Monitoring creek flows at this gage is identified as a crucial part of the Arroyo Grande Creek
Habitat Conservation Plan. As the City is completing its review of the proposed development
project, which we understand includes appropriate consideration of NPDES II requirements,
replacement of the existing gage upstream of where Tract 2653 discharge point is warranted.
If you have any questions on this you may contact Frank Honeycutt (781-5269) on my staff or
myself directly.
Sincerely,
Nut~
NOEL K~
Director of Public Works
I(? c: Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, City of Arroyo Grande
Frank Honeycutt, Utilities Division
File: CF 210.10.01
L:\UTILlTYlFEB05\MEMO ON CHERRY CREEK ESTATES AG NO 2.DOC.FH:MAC
9b 24 05 02:42p
1\,
---------.
February 24, 2005
RECE\\fEU
Draft Negative Declaration
(The "Cherry Creek" Project)
Planning Commission
Harch I, 2005
, i' " ,t 2005
-r::-_:) ...' '
'(0 GRANDE
CI1'l OF i\RR~E\fELOPMEN1
COMMUNI1'l
BUFFER ZONE
In the comments regarding the adequacy of the agricultural
buffer, I see no stated findings indicating whether the buffer
zone is, indeed, adequate. How does staff come to the conclusion
of what is adequate?
Secondly, this draft negative declaration becomes,
proposal for Phase II of the development as well.
is not even addressed here. May I remind you that
General Plan, agricultural land is not to bear the
furthering residential development.
in effect, the
An ag buffer
under the
burden of
Which brings up another point that I feel is glossed over in the
Negative Declaration and that is that the property in Phase I is
prime ag land regardless of whether that has been its most recent
use. There needs to be some mitigation for that fact. What does
Staff propose here?
DRAINAGE
In addressing the drainage issue, it seems to assume that a civil
engineer will make a report as to the adequacy of the proposed
drainage project. After the negative declaration is approved and
the project is approved, does that mean no public hearing on the
specifics of the project? The Dixson Ranch should not become a
holding basin for water unable to drain into the proposed swale
due to a heavy storm. The treatment of the drainage solution
seems very cursory to me. I urge you to consider a proposal to
dam a narrow canyon where Newsom and Guaya Canyons come together.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The question of roadways especially for Phase 2 are inadequately
addressed. Some serious thinking and decisions need to be made
for a second entry to Phase 2.
I also want to support the request for a traffic light or three-
way stop sign where Cherry Avenue meets Traffic Way. With the
additional traffic from the new residences, traffic will impact
that intersection even more.
Sincerely,
Sara Dickens, Co-Trustee
Gordon F. Dixson Trust
-----------.
t<E~c6
-ROM N.Rice NOCCCD D_
red 2. <\ 2005
TO: Planning Commission, City of Arroyo Grande
A TTN: Kelly Heffernon, Assoc.iate :Planner
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: Molly Dixson McOanahan, Co- Trustee Dixson Trust, for the Dixson l4Inch
617 W. Malvern Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92832
13J;ECT: Development Code Amendment 04-007; Neighborhood Plan 04-001; Vesting Tentative
Tract Map OW-02; Planned Unit Development 04-002
DATE: February 24, 2005
lhese comments are provided in response to the Proposed Negative Declaration:
1. Page 4. 2. Agricultural Resources. b) Impair agricultural use of other property or result in
conversion to other uses? The response should be "Potentially significant." It should be noted in the
staffreport that the 100' agriculturiLl buffer is a minimum requirement. The reasons for going
beyond this minimum are several: the reasons spelled out in the November 18, 2004 letter from
Michael J. Isensee, County Department of Agriculture. Section 16.121170 - Right to farm
provisions and farmland preservation, paragraph two. "Optimally, to achieve a maximum
separation, a buffer wider than one hundred feet is encouraged and may be required if it is
determined through environmental review under CEQA andJor recommended by the San Luis
Opispo County Agricultural Commissioner." The fact that the Dixson Ranch has been under the
Williamson Act for 25 years, the fact that the property is also preserved in perpetuity for agricultural
use, under a conservation easement adopted in 200 I, the prime quality of the soil in this area: these
reasons alone demand a higher level of protection. The long term economic viability, given the
higher restrictions mentioned, need to be protected for the broadest possible range of agricultural
uses permitted on agricultural land. It should also be noted that this development sets a precedent;
therefore, the minimum standard is unacceptable. Specific findings have not been made for the
minimum 100' buffer distance. The statement in the staff report that "The project incorporates a one
hundred foot (100') wide buffer that complies with City Ordinance No. 550,... serves as adequate
mitigation." The supporting data for this finding is lacking. The seven factors listed in the letter
from the letter from the County Department of Agriculture, need more thorough, detailed and data
supported response. d) "Other" The following considerations .need to be listed. They are: the nature
of prime soil and its protection and the fact that the Dixson Ranch property is under a legally
binding Conservation Easement.
2. Page 29. 14. Hydrology and Water Quality. T~e final paragraph in the November 18, 2004 letter
from Michael J. Isensee, County De'partment .of Agriculture, under Stonnwater, needs a response
that answers the concerns raised as to drainage, erosion, and sedimentation as it impacts the adjacent
. agricultural land. Condition 99, requiring Ua detailed drainage analysis prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer in the Sate of California," needs to be done prior to approval in order that an analysis
of the impact on the adjacent agri9Jlturalland can be quantified, and drainage plans designed based
on that analysis. The prior Draft Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, Newsom Springs Drainage
Proje<::t, should ?e part of this specific drainage plan. The drainage plan should have no impact on
the adjacent agnculturalland.
Call l:j oY\e f> ~e.. )
FRO~l
FAX NO. 0
Feb. .25 2005 12:C)[1pr,! P.2
'. ~......... ,......_c......".-
'"
.y .-- .. .-." ,
-
Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
Ms. Kelly Heffemon
Associate Planner
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
545 Main Street, Suite R.I, Morro Bay, C^ 93442 805.772.4391
February 25, 2005
RECEiVED
RE: Cheny Creek Development
~E8 2 5 Z005
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear-Ms. Heffernon:
The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District regarding the residential development known as Cheny Creek development.
At our Board of Directors meeti'ng on February 18'h, we heard a presentation from Mr. Damien
Mavis, Mr. Bradley Vernon and their represcntative. Mr. John Knight of the RRM Des,ign Group.
The presentation provided the Board with a good description of the proposed project design,
including the buffer distance between the project and Dixson Ranch, and plans for SlOrmwater
drainage.
Our agency is the holder of the conservation easement on the Dixson property. With this easement,
the property owners committed, in perpetuity, to the continued use of their property for agriCulture.
The Coastal RCD has the responsibility and interest to help ensure that the Dixson property remains
a viable farming enterprise. Hence, we are very concerned about certain aspects of the proposed
Cherry Creek development, because of previous problems that have resulted when residences are
constnlcted too close to agricultural land. All too often, these situations have resulted in limitations
being placed on the farmers' ability to work their land, and clearly demonstrate that when residential
developments are planned, the design must include allowances to ensure the continued viability of.
adjacent agriculture lands.
The District is also heavily involved in management issues, including siltation, stormwater
management, and habitat maintenance, affecting Arroyo Grande Creek. We are therefore concerned
about projects and activities that can affect either the quality of water being transported to Arroyo
Grande C~eek from urban areas, and the nature or intensity of that discharge.
With reference to the Cherry Creek development, our specific concerns are that any new residential
development meet the following requirements:
I. Tj1e best possible buffer between the agricultural fields and residences must be required in order
to allow for noise and drift that are an unavoidable part offarming. Farming activities may be .
necessary ditril1g all hours of day and night, and an adequate buffer is essential to allow for good
relationships between the residential area and ag fields. The burden of proof is upon the project
sponsors'to show that such is the case.
www.CoastaIRCD.org
. ,
..132/2;'/213135
23:55
813547481383
NICK ALTER
PAGE Ell
...-----_._~._..---~ "-_.. '--' .~--
Nicholas A. Alter
354 Corbett Canyon Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 474-8062 Voice
(805) 474-8083 Fax
nickalter(a).mindsDrinlJ .com
FAX MEMO
Date:
Pages:
To:
Subj:
2/27/05
3 including cover sheet
Kelly Heffernon 473-0386 Fax
Planning Commission Letter
----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi Kelly,
Attached is.a letter I'd appreciate your distributing to the Planning Commission. I'll try to
deliver the original to you sometime on Monday, but can't be sure I'll be able to.
Thanks.
~//~
. 07.127/2005 23: 55
8054748083
NICK ALTER
PAGE 02
Nicholas A. Alter
354 Corbett Canyon Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 474-8062 Voice
(805) 4i4-8083 Fax
nickalterlalmindsprin ~.com
Date:
To:
Via:
Subj:
February 25, 2005
Planning Conunission, City of Arroyo Grande
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner
Cherry Creek Project
This is to comment on and express my qualified support of the proposed Cherry Creek
development. The developers seem to have done a fine job ofinvolving the community in
the planning and design of the project, and in creating a model for other developers to
emulate in this regard. I nonetheless have some serious concerns.
Above all, I am concerned about the City giving anything less than its full measure of.
commitment to the spirit and letter of our General Plan's Agriculture Element. By "full
measure," I mean doing all we can, and not simply what is minimally required, for the
long-term protection of farmland in general and prime soils in particular.
Voters have made it plain in two successive elections that the long-term health and
preservation of ag comes ahead of development, no matter how appealing the
development might be. But by proposing the absolute minimum requirement for buffering
adjacent prime farmland, Creekside Estates is asking the City to compromise on its
priority to protect agland.
In this regard, I find the opening quotation of the developer's Agricultural Buffer Study to
be paradoxical:
"General buffer guidelines and implementation plans need to incorporate fact-based or science-
based solutions.... Impartial fact and best practices rather than emotion or ideology should drive
decision -making."
The argument here is for science rather than the opinions of individuals with vested
interests. I couldn't agree'more. And I was heartened to see this, coming from the
developers themselves. The trouble is, I found no science supporting their proposed 100-
foot buffer. To the contrary, Development Code Section 16.12.170 tells us:
"Optimally, to achieve a maximum separation, a buffer wider than one hundred feet is encouraged
and may be required if it is determined through environmemal review under CEQA and/or
recommended by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner."
52/~7!2005 23:55
8054748083
NICK ALTER
PA~E . 03
February 25, 2005
Planning Commission
Page 2 of2
This Code-excerpt is buttressed by the County Ag Department's November 18, 2004 letter
to our Community Development Department, stating:
"The proposed project creates the potential for significant conflict between existing use and new
residences. .,
"Experience has shown physical distance buffers to be the mOSt effective mitigation measure. For
irrigated row crops, the county buffer policy is a distance of200 to 500 feet."
"Serious attempts to mitigate for a buffer distance of only 115 feet between the agricultural
operation and the proposed adjacent habitable structures have been incorporated into the project's
proposed buffer area design.... However, none of these either alone or in combination replaces the
benefits that adequate distance provides to mitigate potential conflict."
"Finally, it appears that the City of Arroyo Grande, in implementing its recent agricultural buffer
ordinance, will be establishing a precedent for its future use. Will the standard set in this instance
represent the maximum buffer potential for future projects? If nol, the Agriculture Department
would recommend that specific findin2s be made for why this Darticular buffer distance in [sic]
combined with the oroDosed additional measures arc sufficient to-address imnacts of this. additional
develQ'nment." .
Given the above, it seems to me that there is a clear need for an indeDendent
environmental review (as recommended by the County Ag Department) to ensure that an
appropriate buffer distance, design and maintenance schedule be established both to
protect the Dixon farming operation and to establish a clear precedent for future decisions
involving farmland protection.
I also believe that the Project's conversion of prime farmland constitutes a potentially
significant adverse impact under CEQA, and therefore triggers mitigation.
Another concern I have is with the potential impact ofthe proposed drainage solution on
both the Dixon farmland and the Arroyo Grande Creek. Again, referring to the Ag
Depa,rtment's November 18 letter (last paragraph), it would appear that the proposed plan
could worsen drainage problems on the farmland without adequate '~detention or
retention." If this is the case, then it seems to me that consideration must be given for a
detention basin within Newsom Springs, which might also slow down and filter the flow
of water (including ag runoff) draining into the creek.
My parting comment is that the City of Arroyo Grande has an opportuility and an
obligation, here, to put teeth into the farmland-protection policies we fought so hard to get
into our General Plan. Failing this, we facilitate the continued displacement offarmland
by housing developments. Were it not for such a threat of displacement, I would be all for
the Creekside Project and developments like it.
(ftr:c---
;
~~~ .; '-
-
~
~ ,~,~:7'~~,- ~>
,
-~
-'
"./
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LYN REARDON-SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
SUBJECT: INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONER PARKER
DATE: MARCH 2, 2005
Attached are copies of letters and information that Commissioner Parker requested be
distributed to the City Council. They were received from Commissioner Parker at the
March 1, 2005 Planning Commission meeting,
i<t:\';l:1 V i:U-
.~ ';--'~~~ .'t,.
MAR 1 7 2005
1
CEQA: Neoative Declaration
Nanci Parker, Planning Commissioner
Arroyo Grande
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
According to CEQA, a NO is only permissible if all significant impacts are definitely mitigated.
This NO is inadequate and cannot be certified for the following reasons:
1. The NO fails to analyze the proposed project's consistency with the Arroyo Grande
General Plan:
2. Does not accurately classify potential impacts to environment.
3. Issues listed are not fully or adequately mitigated.
4. Sub area 2 has not been addressed although this NO states it is for the entire project
5. The due diligence report states on pp 4-5 #4 that IF we find impacts then it will
. mitigate. This is not an appropriate response. According to CEQA you cannot mitigate
this through a future study. We can not rely on the expertise of responsible agencies to
find environmental'concems after a document is approved. The Draft NO defers analysis
of biological impacts, inappropriately shifting the burden of identifying and mitigating
biological impacts to the City. As a result, without additional fieldwork by qualified
biologists, this CEQA document is fatally flawed.
6. Mandatory Findings of Significance cannot be made as listed because it is not
known, based on the information in the NO, whether or not the proposed project, or the
proposed drainage system would cause significant impacts to biological resources,
including steelhead trout and red-legged frogs. Additionally, the proposed drainage
project would achieve short-term reduced flooding to the disadvantage of long term
regional flooding and long term preservation of agricultural production and land
environmental goals.
It is my recommendation that a full EIR must be done for the following reasons:
1. Drainaoe. The regional Drainage issue is a historical issue that has never had a full
CEQA process. Studies at the time showed several possible drainage sites. These
possible solutions are now out of date and have never been given public comment.
Since this is a regional drainage issue that changed the course of a streambed, as well
as caused several environmental impacts on its own, the EIR process needs to continue
on the project. This issue muse either receive a full EIR of its own for study, public
comment and mitigation in order to decide the best course of action for the City, or a full
EIR needs to be completed on this project if it continues to carry the burden of the
Regional Drainage issue. The developer states that there is no possible way to handle a
100 year storm with this drainage system, the City Staff agrees that this system is not
designed as such. Yet, this system historically was designed to do so. Staff feels the
drainage issue can return at a later time to add on if it turns out this system is
inadequate. This is inappropriate, if this is an attempt to settle a regional drainage issue
for this area, the system needs to be addressed more fully. According to documents
provided to the City by various agencies involved with the original Regional Drainage
Issue, a full EIR must be done of the project.
"The (Drainage) Draft NO (which was never concluded) fails to
describe the proposed project in a level of detail sufficient to
facilitate meaning full public and responsible agency review and
impact assessment." Brian Trautwein, Environmental Analysist dated May 11, 1998
at time of Drainaye Project.
According to the City: "The final configuration of the project is
subject to refinement through final design:. This final design needs to go
through the process of public review and City Council decision on a final plan that meet
the best needs of a regional drainage system,
2. Prime Soils: The impact on our prime soils according to CEQA and our General Plan
must trigger a full EIR. Although a mitigation recommendation has been established by
the General Plan, loss of a City mandated Natural Resource that would require an
overriding consideration of the City Council. This cannot be fully mitigated.
\. -....,..,. ~
3
the two 72-inch drainage pipes that daylight at
Arroyo Grande Creek will require removal of riparian
veqetation, some qradinq, installation of rip rap and
a gabion retaining wall to protect the bank.
Construction of the proiect may therefore result in
the loss of and damage to existing
vegetation/'botanical resources and species habitat.
In addition, potential loss of trees within the
riparian corridor could have substantial effect on
. habitat suitability for special status wildlife
species."
Impact to the wetland areas along the Arroyo Grande Creek, as well as
the Creek itself will be endangered with this project. Runoff from the
site, as well as runoff directed to this site from farmland sites upland that
flow across farm soils are potentially laden with chemicals, silt and
debris that can and will harm these protected species in and around the
Arroyo Grande Creek and wetland/riparian sites. The only way we will
know if these impacts are identified correctly and entirely as well as
mitigated fully is by a qualified biologist before approval has been given
to the CEOA document.
MITIGATION/CONCLUSION: sretes "Potentially significant
impacts to bioloqical resources can be mitiqated to
less-than-siqnificant level with implementation of
the below measures" Since the impacts are not fully listed, we don't
know if this answer is correct. All impacts need to be listed, and
mitigations listed.
MM 4.8 The applicant shall submit a notice of Intent
to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
to obtain a...construction Storm Water Permit. " According
to CEQA regulation, agencies need to be notified, you cannot mitigate
these impacts through a future study, only monitor. The RWQCB
needs to be aware of the drainage plan that may 1. alter the course of a
stream, and 2. deposit direct agricultural drainage (debris, silt, chemical
run-off) directly into a protected stream with presence of protected
species. This needs to be part of the fact gathering data of the SEQA
review and completed before the project is approved in order to
determine if the current drainage plan can be completed as presented.
MM 4.16 states "This is a potentially significant impact
that can be mitiqated to a less-than-siqnificant
.level with implementation of the followinq mitiqation
measures." These mitigation measures deal only with biological
monitoring. Although biological monitoring is appropriate, they will not
substitute for responses from responsible agencies during the fact
finding and mitigation finding process of CEQA.
MM 4.26 This proiect results in significant impacts
to Steel head and their habitat due to direct and
indirect impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek...discharqe of
other pollutants that could affect downstream
habitat. This is potentially significant impact that
-"
5
After study and proper mitigation, this impact could be identified as can
& will be mitigated. . Channeling water through an enclosed drainage
system will prevent recharge. Preventing water recharge (e.g., by
paving permeable land and/or placing runoff in a storm drain through
within permeable land) violates the gen plan. "Ensure that urban land
use and Residential Rural or Suburban development projects result in
no net decrease in groundwater recharge (Ag2-3).
15. Land Use:
a. Be potentially inconsistent with land use, policy
requlation (qen plan, dev. code), adopted to avoid or
.mitiqate for environmental effects? Consistent.
This impact is "inconsistent". for the following reasons: According to the
2001 General Plan, this property is listed as a natural resource, and as
such must be listed as an environmental issue: According to the general
plan, loss of prime soils is Class I - significant and unavoidable impact
under CEQA. Only through preservation can this impact be mitigated to
less than significant according to the gen plan.
AG1-1 "Oesiqnate prime farmland soils that are not
predominately committed to non-Aqricultural
.development as Aqriculture and or Aqricultural
Preserve, whether or not in current aqricultural
productive use." Under this section, specific lands were to be
identified. However, this does not remove the fact that the property has
been classified as Prime Farmland Class II Soil. Prime farmland soils
have been identified as being a natural resource and must be classified
as such; just as Oak Trees or water are also classified as natural
resources. Just because a parcel of land may be zoned single family, it
does not entitle one to remove an oak tree without first mitigation, just
as a zoning does not give one automatic entitlement to 'ignore other
designated natural resources in our city. Tract 1998 was zoned to build
single family homes, but first the development must plan for the
protection and mitigation of riparian habitat and oak trees found on the
property. The same is called for in protec:ting t~e designated natural
resource of our prime alluvial soils.
AG1 Avoid, minimize and/or mitiqate loss of prime
farmland soils and conserve non-prime Aqriculture use
and natural resource lands.
Agl-l . 1 PdfueI'Sbi1s~/shaH~ihcHid€j;'allllflaYldiW\'iMtl')'l\~
srnql-e'.*\parcelf>'';'.oi:';*ic6ri:t.iquous~pafce1:s ~'4:li~~li
:!.ri:"iqal:edi';~qualifies;"!ffof:Jii::"ting1fiias~Ola's'''~~~I''lj'.i1
~r~iri:futne'USDA~Natijral~Resburces%Cohser-Yatibn~erWA~~
larid!tU:Se'~''CapabH1'tytel,rssnicatioi\'~wnet!1er-<l.or~l1o~h.~
land :as ract'uaH v;'li:irigated;<:"proviaed;;:that~i'i"'i:;;;'Qa1:'lbI1
:!.s""m~'fea-sib1e-;1 [Definition derived from Local
Government Reorqanization Act of 2000 as reorqanized
and amended in 2000 Section 56064 (a)]. This property has
been recognized in this 2001 General Plan as Prime Farmland Class II
Soils in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use
capability classification. "The city determined that aI/ Class I and Class II
.,
-,
,
7
Inconsistent. Once mitigated fully, this impact will be PotentiallY
Sionificant
The impact of having med density zoning next to rural residential zoning
with no transitional zoning causes an impact to the existing rural
character next to a sudden increase in density. Currently this impact is
Inconsistent with our general plan.
Both of these impacts are real and must be mitigated.
16. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance:
a. Have the potential to deqrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaininq levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the ranqe of a rate or endanqered plant or animal. Can &.
Will be rnitiqated.
Since impacts have not been fully identified, the mitigation potential has
not been addressed. Since impacts listed have not been fully mitigated,
this finding is currently potentially significant. Potential chemical and
nitrate run-off into the stream will affect endangered species such as
Steelhead Trout and Red Legged Frog as well as currently unidentified
possible endangered vegetative species along the creekbed and
riparian habitats. Once a qualified and responsible agency has identified
all impacts related to the run-off water flow from ag lands directly into a
protected stream, and mitigations have been discussed and decided
upon, this impact can & will be mitigated. According to the letter from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "The proposed project may require a
permit, especially in regards to any activity in Arroyo Grande Creek that
may temporarily re permanently impact by...allowing runoff or overflow
form a contained land to re-enter a water of the United States."
The impact of loss of wildlife corridor has not been addressed. This
project is causing the loss of open space along a stream corridor open
to wildlife trayel. The entire project area will be fenced and walled off,
causing loss of corridor from the eastem regions along open ag lands to
the stream. This can cause the direct as well as indirect loss of wildlife
in the area. This impact must be looked at and mitigated.
c. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beinqs~ either directly or
indir~ctlv? Insiqnificant Impact.
This impact is being addressed by providing for a buffer area between
ag properly in use and new med density zoning.. Because it has been
identified, the impact has been improperly identified and should be
"Impact can & will be mitigated".
-l -.
East Cherry Traffic Studv;
NanciParker
Right Turn onto Traffic:
Mike Titus prepared a study, complete with data and pictures for the City to present to the Traffic
Commission of the East Cherry turn onto Traffic Way. The visual on the right is more often than not
blocked by the parking of trucks on'the street in front of the pool and Heacock Welding. Heacock often
has trucks delivering goods or coming in fortrailer or hitch-work, that park on the street making visual
access nearly impossible. This not only increases the hazard for the right turn, but blocks cars going
through the stop sign from the Village side making a left turn more hazardous as well.
Four wav stop sil!:n based on Accident rate (safety issues);
Associated Transportation Engineers: according to the stop sign warrant criteria contained in the Traffic
Manual, Calif Dept. of Transportation, 1996, other than above criteria based on total vehicular volume,
which East Cherry and Traffic Way intersection apparently does not yet meet, is the following criteria that
warrants a multiway stop installation; "An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported
accidents within a 12-month period ofa type susceptible or correction by a multiway stop installation."
[#2, criteria multiway stop]
In order to meet the partial stop sign warrant, the requirement is "on less important road at its intersection
with a main road where accident history justifies the placement of stop signs".
Due to the nature of this particular intersection, computer data does not accurately reflect the situation.
Traffic approaching East Cherry from the left off the freeway travel at high speeds without a stop. They
travel only one block before the intersection of East Cherry and Traffic Way. East Cherry has poor
visibility of traffic traveling from the left due to trucks and cars parked along Traffic Way in front of the
pool and Heacock Welding.. Traffic from the right pull out only one shortened block from this
intersection. This makes the decision on whether to proceed with a left turn from East Cherry based on
split second timing, and is not safe. The combination of poor visibility from the right, the shortened
distance of where traffic proceeds from Oak Park intersection, high speeds of travel off the freeway to the
left, as well as high traffic volumes on Traffic Way make this particular intersection unsafe. This is
reflected in the high rate of accidents reported.
The following data was provided by the Arroyo Grande Police Dept. on the intersection of Traffic and
East Cherry as well as the block before and block after (full information enclosed)
1992 1 accident reported for the year
1992 to 1997 there were 15 accidents reported to the police dept. in front of this intersection
over the 6 yr period or about 2 a year.
In 2004, one year alone, there were a total of 14 accidents between the Mobil station and East
Cherry and an additiona14 at Fair Oaks and Traffic Way.
Four wav stop based on vehicular volume:
Higgens Memorandum of 2-24105 states the following criteria for a 4 way stop to be the following: A
30% decrease in values can be allowed if traffic on the main street is over 45mph.
1. Major street traffic 300 average per hour over 8 hrs.
Traffic meets this criteria with peak of 768/940 an hour before build-out.
This can be dropped to 210 an hr if the percentile rule applies
2. Minor street traffic flow of200 average per hour over 8 hrs. dropping to 140 cars avg. over 8 hrs with
the percentage rule.
E Cherry build-out traffic will be 185 during the peak hours. Average over the 8 hrs was not
studied.
-.~ .
City of Arroyo Grande
Police Department
CAD CALLS-FOR-SERVICE QUERY LIST
EVENT
CALL TYPE te
UNIT
RP NAME
DATE EVENT CALL TYPE
01/13/04.15:37 0401130011 TC
01/20/04 11 :30 0401200006 TC
01/30/0416:44 0401300022 TC
02/02/04 14 :56 0402020009 TC
JJUfML04 16:49 040)040026 TC
02/05/0414:39 0402050018 TC
02/05/0415:12 0402050019 TC
02/28/04 21 :07 0402280043 TC
03/17/0409:27 0403170018 TC
03/21/0417:58 0403210027 TC
04/09/04 12:33 0404090017 TC
04/10/0408:30 0404100004 TC
04/29/0412:45 0404290014 TC
04/29/0413:37 0404290016 TC
05/02/04 11 :28 0405020017 TC
05/11/0418:10 0405110042 TC
05/13/0418:41 0405130031 TC
05/19/0416:49 0405190024 TC
05"1/0407-32 0405210002 TC
OS/22/04 19:28 0405220025 TC
OS/25/04 07:45 0405250006 TC
. OS/28/04 12:12 0405280023 TC
05/30/0415:01 0405300016 TC
05/30/0415:47 0405300018 TC
06/08/04 16:40 0406080020 TC
07/06/0410:47 0407060011 TC
07/16/0414:31 0407160021 TC
07/21/0418:20 0407210020 TC
07/26/0408:54 0407260002 TC
08/05/0402:36 0408050012 TC
09/01/0408:33 0409010007 TC
09/25/0409:42 0409250010 TC
Q9!28L05-1~~.~40928002~C
10/03/0418:23 0410030023 TC
10/17/0410:12 0410170006 TC
10/19/0422:04 0410190027 TC
10/26/0414:11 0410260018 TC
11/08/0412:11 0411080010 TC
12/28/0413:33 0412280013 TC
TOTAL CALLS: 39
CASE.
FINAL TYPE
DISPOSITION
KEYWORD
DATE 01/01/20041012/31/2004
LOCATION %raffi%
RESPONSE ZONE
REPORTING PARTY
LOCATION
215 TRAFFIC WY
155 TRAFFIC WY FIRST INTERSTATE BUM
TRAFFIC WYIW BRANCH ST CARR, JASON
_3~3 IBt;FFIC WY. 'co t--i.,,~ \
CHERRY (/j) TRAFFIC
GRAND & TRAFFIC WY ,\-
~~EElG.wr bo..<;> s .:.
-~2.llBAfBC-WA.Y. ("o..S -;"
GRAND AND TRAFFIC WY SHIRLEY SPENDLOVE
GRAND /TRAFFIC WAY
FAIROAKSfTRAFFIC WAY
TRAFFIC WY AND NELSON
200 BLK TRAFFIC WY
400 TRAFFIC WY l:. ~
101@TRAFFICWAY
500 BLK TRAFFIC WY lOA'So
215 TRAFFIC WY
500 BLK TRAFFIC WY <;,'" ~
E CHERRY@.TRAFFIC WY
FAIR OAKS & TRAFFIC WY <.
TRAFFIC WY@FAIROAKS
330 TRAFFIC WY
TRAFFIC WAY/NELSON
TRAFFIC WAY/NELSON
PQQ.LE & TRAFFIC \NY.
TRAFFIC WY & BRANCH
100 TRAFFIC
GRAND AND TRAFFIC WAY
TRAFFIC WY / FAIR OAKS
.52?I8AFFIC WY c;,o.~
WESLEY / TRAFFIC WY
STATION WAYITRAFFIC WAY
TIll.EElG.WY ~ C~!="RY
TRAFFIC WY / BRANCH
TRAFFICWAY@BRANCH ANONYMOUS
TRAFFIC WAY @ GRAND
AOOBLKTRAFFICWAY ~ 4637
_5_~g TRAFFIC WY ~..G<. <;. LILLY
j_17TRAFRCWY .;ea.~ MICHAEL THOMAS
RAMEY, LARRY
JANA DEBRUYNE
STA28
WILD LIFE ARTS
GONZALES, JENNIFER
WILD LIFE ARTS
SCOTT KAWAOKA
PAUL ASHWORTH
HORATIO SANTOS
STA 28
PETE FALERIOS
FINAL TYPE
TCINFO
TCNIA
TCINFO
TCNIA
TCNIA
TCNIA
TCIA
TCHR
TCINFO
TCINFO
TCINFO
TCNIA
TCINFO
TCINFO
AOACHP
TCINFO
TCPP
TCNIA
-TCINFO
TCNIA
AOA
TCINFO
TCNIA
5497
TCNIA
TCINFO
TCNIA
TCNIA
TCINFO
23152
TCNIA
TCNIA
TCNIA
TCINFO
TCNIA
TCNIA
TCIA
ORPT
TCIA
ZONE
E-mail correspondence with Michael Isensee
Cherry Estates Project
Re: buffer zone
March 9, 2005
MichaelJ.Isensee
County Department of Agriculture
San Luis Obispo County
Dear Mr. Isensee,
I am a commissioner on the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission. We are currently in the process of
responding to the project known as the Cherry Creek PUD with the overlay know as the East Village
Neighborhood Plan. I have a copy of your letter dated Nov. 18,2004 in which you quite thoroughly go
over the project in regards to agriculture buffer.
You state in this letter the following:
"Experience has shown physical distance buffers to be the most effective mitigation measure. For
irrigated crops, the county buffer policy is a buffer distance of200 to 500 feet. " You then go on to
explain the process 'of establishing these buffer distances.
The developer of this project is requesting a buffer of 100 feet. In response to your letter, he claims that
the reason the county requires this much distance is due to the fact that the row crop farmers in the
county do overhead copter or airplane spraying of pesticides; where this would be nearly impossible
within city limits. He feels that since we do not do overhead drop spraying, we would need less of a
distance in our city's buffer zones. I do not see this in your list of ieasons why you set yoUr buffer limits.
I would really appreciate it if you could respond to this, as your expertise is important in helping
me to make an adequate decision.
Thank you so much,
Nanci Parker
If you would prefer to talk by phone, my number is 473-2233.
March 10, 2005
From: misensee@co.slo.ca.us
Sent: Thursday, March 10,200512:28 PM
To: Tim Brown
_ Subject: Re: buffers
Mr. Brown-
Nanci Parker contacted me earlier today via email. Let me forward what 1 sent to her (1 also forwarded it
to Kelly Heffernon in the Community Development Department). Please contact me if you have any
additional questions.
1 spoke with the project applicant (Damien) in January and explained our policy regarding buffers.
Pesticides are one of a number of issues that buffers are meant to address. In the majority of instances, the
possibility of aerial spraying is not a significant factor to evaluate, as aerial spraying is infrequent for most
of the county's cropland~ In fact, a new policy limits the application of a restricted material a quarter mile
from urban areas. Thus, restricted pesticides could not be applied at the Dixson Ranch.
The Agriculture Department attempts to fully consider the multiple potential sources of conflict between
agricultural and nonagricultural land uses, site and project specific considerations, and then develop a
buffer recommendation based on weighing all of these factors. 1 believe my earlier letter provided a fair
amount of detail about the factors considered for the Cherry Creek project. The issue of aerial spraying
was not specifically considered for this project, although the continued use of pesticides in general was
considered. If the Department was attempting to protect future occupants and growers from conflicts
relating to aerial spraying, the Department would generally recommend a buffer in the highest range (400
to 500 feet). For instance, this is the range we generally recommend for projects along the Nipomo Mesa
edge adjacent to the extensive array of agriculture in the Oso Flaco area, where aerial spraying is still a
fairly common occurrence.
The buffer policy recognizes that distance buffers are the most effective mitigation measure, but it also
recognizes there are instances when other measures may be used in combination with a reduced buffer in
order to accommodate competing land use issues. In the realm offull disclosure, you and the Planning
Commission should be aware that our Department recently recommended a buffer below our
recommended minimum for a project located near the A.G. city limits on Halcyon. 1 have attached our
comments on this project. In that case our recommended buffer was only 130 feet (coupled with
additional measures to increase the likelihood of compatibility),
Please call if you have any further questions or if! can be of further assistance.
Michael
From www.rrmdesign.com
To: TBrown@hq.dir.ca
'misensee@co.slo.ca.us'
Subject: RE: buffers
03/15/200502:23
Michael,
As we discussed this morning, could you please confirm that the County's
policy allows measurement of the buffer distance to the first habitable
structure? In other words, the 130' buffer distance suggested could
include the rear yard area of the lots. .
Thanks,
john
John Knight
rrmdesigngroup
3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
P: (805) 543-17941 F: (805) 543-4609
further address potential concerns. These concerns are largely based on
more recent experience which is showing that today's home buyers are
less familiar with the realities of current agricultural practices and
often have a romanticized ideal of living next to the fann. As you are
likely aware, complaints can become very time consuming and frustrating
for growers.
The project which our office made the 130 foot buffer recommendation is
both similar and different to Cherry Creek. Some of the differences include:
The parcel is very small and it was recognized that a buffer within our
typical range would essentially eliminate all development potential
It is also grade separated from the adjacent field and upwind, so dust,
noise, trespass, and even the possibility of chemical exposure is reduced
Finally, the project has not come forward to a decision making body
and it is possible for the decision-makers to recommend that a project
needs to meet the minimum buffer.
As decision-nmakers, I think it is important to weigh your own buffer
policy, the specific facts in this case, the precedent this may set,
seeking a balance between the elimination of a portion of development
potential in order to adequately protect agriculture with the
need/desire to develop on the Cherry Creek property. In my professional
opinion, I think that the Cherry Creek proposal, if its buffer is
properly implemented and adequate at the time of home occupancy, will
significantly reduce the likelihood of conflict between the proposed
homes and adjacent agriculture. In fact, I remain more concerned with
whether the drainage plan for addressing Newsome Springs runoff is a
more significant issue for agriculture and has been adequately
addressed.
Michael Isensee
Agricultural Resource Specialist
March 15, 200511:32 AM
From: Michael Isensee
To: John Knight
CC: Kelly Heffernon
Darnien Mavis
Nanci Parker
It has not been uncommon for our Department to allow a portion of the
agricultural property to be included as a portion of the buffer. lbis is
. typically done in consultation with the owner of and/or operator on the
adjacent farmland after we understand their current operation and future
plans. To be honest, we have become less inclined to include areas on the
adjacent farmland. The inain rationale is the fact that these areas (in this
case of row crops and vineyards) are typically field roads and are often
some of the most intensively used portions of the property (for such
activities as turning farm equipment and packing produce). These roads
create some of the incompatibilities we are trying to mitigate for,
including both noise and dust.
I would encourage you to drive by the Coker Ellsworth Tract prior to the PC
hearing. I have not worked on the project but my understanding is the site
is quite different from Cherry Creek. It is a significantly smaller site
and no portion it is more than about 260 feet from the edge of the adjacent
farmland. The developable portion of the site is both above and upwind from
the adjacent fields, two factors which limit dust and, to a lesser extent,
noise. Implementing even our minimum buffer range on that project would
essentially remove all development potential. While this can be recommended
under our policy, it has been the norm for our Department to try to
recommend a solution that we feel will protect agriculture and enable
reasonable development.
I just got your message. Here is the specifics related to habitable
structures:
Building setbacks specify distance between agricultural property and
future building sites. The buffer will allow for such uses as
landscaping, barns, storage buildings, orchards, pastures, etc., while
protecting agricultural use and the public's health and safety.
Michael
DATE: December 13, 2004
TO: Marsha Lee, Project Planner
FROM: Lynda L. Auchinachie, Agriculture Department
SUBJECT: Ellsworth Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit SUB2004-00160 (0977)
Summary
The Agriculture Department's review finds that the proposal to develop a 1.69-acre project site
with 23 units within the Residential Multi-Family land use category to be unacceptable due to
the location and inadequate size of the proposed agricultural buffer. As proposed, the buffer is
inconsistent with Agriculture and Open Space Element (AOSE) policies and the project would
result in significant impacts to agricultural resources and/or operations. To mitigate impacts to
less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures should be incorporated into the
project.
Recommended Mithmtion Measures
I. An agricultural buffer of 120 feet located entirely on the project site, along the length
of the southeastern property line. This would result in an overall buffer distance of
approximately 130 feet from the edge of the vegetable field. The buffer applies to
future residential homes. The buffer is not intended to restrict other appropriate land
uses such as detention basins, parking or other uses which are not for human
occupancy.
2. 'Enhance the proposed fencing and landscape screening by replacing the fence
material with a solid masonry type wall at least six feet in height and increase
landscaping to be a minimum of30 feet in depth and from six to 30 feet in height
with a variety of evergreen vegetation. All landscape screening should be located on
the project site. The planting material at the time of occupancy should be of
sufficient density and maturity to provide an adequate screening for fine particulate
matter. .
Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP
December 13, 2004
Page 3
operations. Protecting the Cienega Valley's prime farmland and productive operations has
been a long established goal of the county's General Plan.
The applicant has recently submitted development proposal with a 50-foot "agricultural
buffer" located on the adjacent agricultural property. A buffer on agricultural property is not
an appropriate mechanism to address land use incompatibility created by urban development.
A. Proiect Description and Al!:ricultural Settinl!:
The applicant is requesting to develop 23 residential units on a 1.69-acre project site
located within the Residential Multi-Family land use category. The project includes a
50-foot "agricultural buffer" with fencing and landscaping located on the adjacent
agricultural property.
The adjacent agriculturally zoned property is part of the greater Cienega Valley region
that is recognized as one of the top producing areas in the county due to the combination
of prime soils, mild coastal climate, and water availability. This area supports the most
intensive farming operations that involve labor-intensive use of heavy equipment and
chemicals.
The adjacent site consists of Marimel silty clay loam and Mocha Variant fine sandy loam
soils that have historically supported a variety of intensive agricultural activities
including irrigated vegetable crops and the current vegetable seed production operation.
B. Impacts to Adiacent Al!:ricultural Lands
One of the primary goals of the Agriculture and Open Space Element is to ensure the
long-term viability and protection of agricultural resources and operations. Part of the
land use review process is to identifY potential land use conflicts between proposed
development and existing production agriculture.
The proposed "agricultural buffer" is inconsistent with AOSE policies due to the location
of the buffer on the adjacent agricultural property rather than the site of proposed
development and the inadequate size of the proposed agricultural buffer. The intensity of
agricultural activities for vegetable seed requires a larger separation between the
locations of future residences could be built and agricultural land.
As indicated with the onginal project, the larger separation is necessary to reduce impacts
associated with the intensive activities associated with the generally year round
operations. Additionally, pesticide applications occur, usually early in the morning, on a
frequent basis with equipment which causes considerable noise, dust, 'and odor issues.
With these activities, residence in such closes proximity to the vegetables would create
significant land use compatibility issues.
Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP
December 13, 2004
Page 5
3. Due to the close proximity of proposed ground disturbing activities associated with
the residential development, the seed operation manager should be consulted to
coordinate the timing of such activities to ensure adjacent crops are not impact by
dust and any water spray used to control dust does not adversely impact the crops.
4. A revised project should be reviewedforincorporation of sound reducing
construction and inclusion of air conditioning or mechanical ventilation that would
serve to reduce noise and odor impacts.
5. Disclosure to prospective buyers and occupants, of all parcels created by this
proposal, of the consequences of existing and potential intensive agricultural .
operations on adjacent parcels including, but not limited to: dust, odors, legal
agricultural chemical use, noise, and hours of operation and the county's Right to
Farm ordinance.
Ifw~can be of further assistance, please call 781-5914.
Susan E. Kegley, Ph.D., Senior ScientistJProgram Coordinator
Pesticide Action Network, North America
49 Powell Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 981-6205 ext. 316, Fax: (415) 981-1991, Cell: (415) 999-9071
March 14,2005
re: agricultural buffers
Hi Nanci,
You may be interested to read the attached document, which is the expert testimony of
Alan Felsot, an agricultural specialist who is a professor at Washington State University.
His opinion is that 150 feet is barely enough for most pesticides. I'm appending the first
few paragraphs here--this part starts on page 4 of the attached document.
} know it may be a while before you finalize this, but it would be useful for us to have a
copy of your final policy. It will be precedent-setting and } would like to be able to pass it
along to others as an example of a negotiation that protects public health and doesn't
penalize farmers.
Best,
Susan
23. ,Expert testimony was provided by Dr. Allan Felsot, an associate professor in the
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Washington State University regarding the
issues raised pertaining to the use of pesticides near residences. Given Dr. Felsot's
expertise and extensive experience in studying pesticide chemistry and toxicology, we
fmd much of his testimony very credible. Dr. Felsot testified, orally and through his
written report, that in his expert opinion a 150 foot buffer was the minimum necessary if
the objective was to ensure that pesticide exposure to nearby residents of the Site was
within the Acceptable Daily Intake ("AD}") and ensure the safety of such residentS.
*324. We fmd Dr. Felsot's opinion was based on an acceptable review of the facts of
the.matter and the available scientific data. We realize Dr. Felsot did not have time to do
an extensive study, but we fmd his testimony more credible with respect to this matter
than Ms. Bremer's [the landowners' attorney], because she was relying primarily on
general literature that did not address the particular facts of this situation. We find, based
on the testimony of Dr. Felsot and Mr. Pringle, that pesticides are sprayed by Mr. Pringle
at least four to five times per year on his apple orchard and foUr to five times on his
cherry orchard. We further fmd that at least three different types of pesticides are used on
each orchard, with the most toxic substance currently used by Mr. Pringle being
azinphosmethyl. Another more toxic chemical, diazinon, may be legally used on cherries,
but currently is not being used. We also fmd based on Dr. FeIsot's testimony that the
prevailing winds in the area would carry chemicals from South to the North.
Westlaw Download Summary Report for PHILLIPS,JOHN 4758791
Your Search:
DatefTime of Request:
Client Identifier:
Database:
Citation Text:
Lines:
Documents:
Images:
FELSOT
Wednesday, May 12, 200421:05:00 Central
RIOS
WA-CS.
1999 WL 219783
703
I
o
(C) 2004. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a u.s. government officer
or employee as part of that person's official duties. All rights reserved. No part of a Westlaw transmission
may be copied, downloaded, stored in a retrieval system, further transmitted or otherwise reproduced, stored,
disseminated, transferred or used, in any form or by any means, except as permitted in the Westlaw
Subscriber Agreement, the Additional Terms Governing Internet Access to Westlaw or by West's prior
written agreement. Each reproduction of any part of a Westlaw transmission must contain notice of West's
copyright as follows: "Copr. (C) 2004 West, a Thomson business. No claim to orig. U.S. govt.
works. "Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and used herein under license: KeyCite, Westlaw and
WIN. WIN Natural Language is protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 5,265,065, 5,418,948 and 5,488,725.
1999 WL 219783
95 Wash.App. 10 11
(Cite as: 1999 WL 219783 (Wash.App. Div. 3))
Page 2
subdivision complies with the Comity's Comprehensive Plan.
The landowners objected to the I50-foot setback requirement, arguing the County had no authority to impose such a
condition. Because many of the lots on the proposed development's south boundary were less than 150 feet deep, the
requirement would have eliminated those lots or required a redesign of the plat. The Planning and Building
Department then issued a revised Determination of Non significance, requiring that the landowners plant poplar trees
on the south boundary of the proposed subdivision and that no residential structures be located within 35 feet of that
boundary. The landowners did not and do not object to these mitigation measures.
After conducting hearings, the County's planning commission recommended denying the plat because of health and
safety concerns related to the neighboring orchard. The board of commissioners agreed with the commission's
recommendation, adopted the commission's fmdings as its own, and denied the 'plat.
The landowners filed this action in the superior court, asking (among other things) for reversal of the board's
decision. The superior court determined it 'Just can't conclude anything from [the board's] findings without making
some assumptions," The court thus remanded the case to the board for entry of more complete fmdings. IFN3I The
board then entered new fmdings, among which are the following:
FN3, Neither party has appealed this order. The board's initial findings thus are not at issue here.
19. Mr. Pringle testified both orally and through written materials. This testimony included assertions that his
adjacent orchard operations involve the application of over 50 different kinds of poisons and that even though no
drift is allowed during application, toxic substances will migrate to the neighboring properties for a period of time
after application through a process known as volatization [sic] or "lift-off." Mr. Pringle further testified that,
depending on the pesticide being used, his employees were prevented under state law from entering the orchards for
up to 72 hours after application unless protective clothing was worn. The 'inference [is] that the pesticides do move
about for a period of time after application and do pose health risks. Mr. Pringle testified that in his opinion the
proposed subdivision, as designed, would place the residents of the lots bordering his orchards in a situation where
there would be exposure to toxic materials.
*2 20. Mr. Pringle also testified that his orchards function similar to heavy industrial uses and that at any given
time, equipment and people may be working and operating throughout the day and night. He further testified that the
noise level in his orchards sometimes rises to a level of 20 decibels due to a variety of sources, including frost
protecting wind machines containing large industrial engines without mufflers and with twenty foot propellers
running at full speed; chain saws and brush shredding equipment; engine noise from trucks, tractors, and forklifts;
noise from workers; and bird repelling measures consisting of loud speakers emitting a distress signal and propane
cannons emitting a loud "bang." Mr. Pringle compared the noises emitted from his orchard to at times being more
noisy than a running helicopter sitting 50 ,feet away. Mr. Pringle further testified that many of these noises occur at
night and that he has had complaints from other persons who live near one of his orchards about the loud noise.
Additional testimony by Mr. Pringle was that his orchard activities include the operation of smudge pots that create
smelly smoke; mowers and tractors that create dust; smoke from brush burning; and bright lights that would likely
shine into the windows and bac~ards of the homes proposed to border his orchard.
21. We find based on Mr. Pringle's testimony that poplar trees grow fast, but are short-lived with a life expectancy
of approximately 20 years at most. The life of such trees would be shorter if the trees are not adequately watered.
Conifer trees generally do have a longer life than poplars.
22. Mr. Forgette, an attorney for Mr. Pringle, testified that in his opinion the proposed plat would lead to less than
satisfactory living conditions for the future residents due to the proximity of residential lots to the intensive use of
Mr. Pringle's farmland that will result in noise, dust, smoke and activity at all hours of the day and night. The
inference is that Mr. Forgette was referring to the residents of the homes proposed for the South boundary of the
Site. Mr. Forgette also testified al;>out his past experiences regarding lawsuits over pesticide uses and the diSharmony
Copr. (:) West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
1999WL2l9783
95 Wash.App. 10II
(Cite as: 1999 WL 219783 (Wash.App, Div. 3))
Page 4
could be reached within two to three years of planting, provided sufficient irrigating.
29. Dr. Felsot further testified from personal experience that orchard operations often cause dust and significant
noise that can impact nearby residents.
30. Dr. Felsot also testified that in addition to the health risks of pesticide residues, locating residences in close
proximity to spraying causes anxietY and problems between neighbors due to the public perception of spray drift
dangers.
31. Counsel for the Applicants, Ms. LeAnn Bremer, testified that she did not believe the county had the legal
authority to require a larger setback or buffer. The bas[e]s for this opinion were her conclusions that: a) the nearby
orchard and not the proposed plat was the cause of any problems resulting from any incompatibilities in use; and b)
protection from the pesticides applied within the neighboring orchards was satisfactorily found in regulations issued
by the State of Washington and the EP A. Ms. Bremer cited a state regulation that prohibits any person from
applying pesticides if weather conditions are such that physical drift may cause damage to adjacent land, humans,
animals or plants, and an EP A regulation requiring a notice to farm workers of a pesticide application if such
workers might pass through the treated area or any area within 1/4 mile of the treated area during the application or
during any restricted-entry interval after application. The EPA regulation implies to us that the EPA is concerned
with the travel of pesticides [sic] particles to areas outside of the treated property for a period of time after
application.
32. Ms. Bremer also testified that she believed some of Dr. Felsot's assumptions and analysis were flawed and were
inconsistent. Ms. Bremer further testified that the proposed row of trees on the South border and a 35 foot rear yard
setback from the property line of the neighboring orchard adequately mitigated any harmful effects of pesticide
application, and that she did not believe that there was sufficient evidence produced that any drift was going to occur
or cause any harm. In support of her conclusion, Ms. Bremer introduced scientific literature that explains farming
techniques, which she referred to as Best Management Practices, can be used to minimize drift or the harmful
impacts from drift to thereby reduce the likelihood of harm. Ms. Bremer then posed the question as to whether Mr.
Pringle used the Best Management Practices, but she did not introduce any evidence that would indicate Mr. Pringle
did not use Best Management Practices. Ms. Bremer did admit that incompatibility problems may exist if the
development was approved.
33. Ms. Bremer also testified at various times that the imposition of a 150 foot buffer or setback would result in the
loss of somewhere between 2 I and 30 lots under the current design of the subdivision. No testimony was given as to
whether the proposed plat could be redesigned in a manner to accommodate a setback larger than 35 feet while still
maintaining 87 lots or some number close to it.
*534. No evidence was presented as to what degree, if any, a 25 foot or 35 foot rear yard setback along the South
border, a row or two of poplars or conifers, or a fence would diminish the movement of dust, smoke or noises from
the orchards bordering the proposed subdivision. Based on the, uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Pringle, Mr.
Forgette and Dr. Felsot and the reasonable inferences therefrom, we find that significant noise, dust, smoke, smells
and annoying lights will be generated as part of the adjacent orchard activities at all hours of the day and night
throughout the year. We further fmd that given the design of the plat, these conditions will be particularly prevalent
in the area of the small lots proposed along the South border of the Site, these conditions will likely interfere with
the general welfare of the residents in those lots, and these conditions may cause some potential health problems at
least for any neighbors particularly susceptible to the effects of smoke or dust. We further fmd, based on common
sense and the lack of evidence to the contrary, that these negative conditions will exist notwithstanding a 35 foot
rear yard setback, the proposed row or two of trees, and/or a fence.
35. Based on the testimony of Mr. Pringle and Dr. Felsot and Ms. Bremer, the state and federal regulations brought
to our attention and the implications contained in the Applicants' own proposal, we fmd that some pesticide drift,
either during application or more likely after application through the process of volatization [sic], almost certainly
will occur and result in the movement of toxic chemicals from Mr. Pringle's orchard to at least the proposed lots
directly adjoining the orchards even with the proposed mitigation measures. We reach this conclusion after weighing
the statements of all those testifying as weII as the credibility and qualifications of each witness with respect to this
Copr. <!:> West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Gov!. Works
,; ~
1999 WL 219783
95 Wash.App. lOll
(Cite as: 1999 WL 219783 (Wash.App. Div. 3))
Page 6
Based on these fmdings and its authority under RCW.58.17.110. the board again denied the plat.
The superior court held the board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and its denial was not based on
an erroneous interpretation of the law, was not clearly erroneous, and did not violate the landowners' rights under the
federal or state constitutions. The superior court dismissed the land use petition, and the landowners appeal.
A party seeking relief from a land use decision bears the burden of establishing that one or more of the following
standards is met:
(a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a
prescribed process,unless the error was harmless;
(b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such.deference as is due the
construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise;
(c) The land use decision is not supported y evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record
before the court;
(d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts;
(e) The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision; or
(t) TIie land use decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief.
RCW 36.70C.130m.
The landowners contend on appeal that the County's decision implicates standards (b), (c), (d), and (t). The
dispositive issue involves standard (b).
The landowners contend the County's authority is limited to that granted in the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), which provides that an agency may deny or place conditions on a proposal:
PROVIDED, That such conditions or denials shall be based upon policies identified by the appropriate
governmental authority and incorporated .into regulations, plans, or codes which are formally designated by the
agency (or appropriate legislative body, in the case of local government) as possible bases for the exercise of
authority pursuant to this chapter. Such designation shall occur at the time specified by RCW 43.2IC.120. Such
action may be conditioned only to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the
environmental documents prepared under this chapter. These conditions shall be stated in writing by the
decisionmaker. Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. In order to deny a
proposal under this chapter, an agency must frod that: (I) The proposal would result in significant adverse impacts
identified in a fmal or supplemental environmental impact statement prepared under this chapter; and (2) reasonable
mitigation measures are insufficient to mitigate the identified impact.
*8 RCW 43.21C.060.
The landowners argue any denial for environmental reasons must follow SEPA's substantive ad procedural
requirements. But RCW 43.21C.060 unequivocally provides that the SEPA requirements "are supplementary to
those set forth in existing authorizations of all branches of government of this state, including state agencies,
municipal and public corporations, and counties." See Deoartment of Natural Resources v. Thurston Countv. 92
Wash.2d 656.663.601 P.2d 494 (979), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 449 U.S. 830(980). Thus, SEPA is not
the only basis upon which an agency may disapprove a project because of environmental concerns.
Here, the County acted pursuant to RCW 58.17.110. which requires a legislative body, in considering a subdivision
request, to determine "(a) [i]fappropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to,.the public health, safety, and
general welfare ...; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication." Because
SEP A's requirements are supplementary to all other requirements, the authority granted in RCW 58.17.110 is not
limited by SEPA.
The landowners also contend, however, that the County has no authority to deny their proposal on the basis of
environmental concerns arising from neighboring property. WAC 16-228-185 provides in pertinent part:
Copr. <l:> West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
.;
..
J
1999 WL 219783
95 Wasb.App. lOll
(Cite as: 1999 WL 219783 (Wasb.App. Div. 3))
Page 8
Buchanan v. Simolol Feeders. LId Parlnershio. 134 Wasb.2d 673. 677-78. 952. 952 P.2d 610 P.2d 610 (998).
Under RCW 7.48.305. agricultural activity is presumed to be reasonable and is not a nuisance wben: "(1) the activity
does not bave a s.ubstantial adverse effect on public bealth and safety; (2) the activity is consistent with good
agricultural practices, laws, and rules; and (3) the activity was established prior to surrounding nonagricultural
activities." Buchanan. 134 Wash.2d at 680. 952 P.2d 610.
*10 Assuming Mr. Pringle's orchard operation does not substantially affect neighboring residents' health and safety
and is consistent with good agricultural practices and laws, tbe right-to-farm statute would sbield him from nuisance
liability. rFN41 Residents of the proposed subdivision thus would have no recourse against Mr. Pringle despite the
nuisance-like conditions. The resulting tension between residential and agricultural uses arguably wnuld affect the
"general welfare" of the subdivision's residents. Certainly the County had the authority under RCW 58.17.110 to
consider wbether the proposed plat was compatible with the lawful operation of the neighboring orchard.
FN4. RCW 7.48.305 would not apply if the orchard operation substantially affected neighbors' bealth and
safety. Also, the statute does not bar other non-nuisance claims. See Buchanan. 134 Wash.2d at 685-91.
952 P.2d 610.
We briefly will address tbe landowners' other arguments, which challenge the legality of the board's decision. First,
they contend the board's findings are legally insufficient and unsupported by substantial evidence. Much of their
argument on this issue relates to the board's fIDdings regarding tbe risk of pesticide use. "The test of substantial
evidence is whether evidence is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the declared premise."
Soarks v. DOlllllas Countv. 127 Wash.2d 901. 910. 904 P.2d 738 (995), In considering the testimony on this issue,
the board found Dr. Felsot more credible than the landowner's attorney. Substantial evidence supports the board's
findings as to the use of pesticides.
Regarding noise, smoke, dust and lights, the landowners contend in part that the board's fIDdings are legally
deficient.
"Findings of fact by an administrative agency are subject to the same requirement as are fIDdings of fact drawn by a
trial court." SIale ex rei. Bohon v. DeoarlmenlofPlIb. Serv.. 6 Wash.2d 676. 694.108 P.2d 663 (940): SIale ex reI.
Duvall v. Citv Coun.. 64 Wash.2d 598. 602. 392 P.2d 1003(964). Tbe purpose offmdings of fact is to ensure that
the decisionmaker "has dealt fully and properly with all the issues in the case before he [or she] decides it and so that
the parties involved" and the appellate court "may be fully informed as to the bases ofbis [or her] decision when it is
made." (Quotation marks and citations omitted.) In re LaBelle. 107 Wash.2d 196.218-19.728 P.2d 138 (986).
Findings must be made on matters "which establish the existence or nonexistence of determinative factual matters
...". In re LaBelle, at 219. The process used by the decisionmaker should be revealed by findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Hovden v. PorI Townsend. 28. Wash. ADD. 192. 622 P.2d 1291 098l). Statements of the
positions of the parties, and a summary of the evidence presented, with findings which consist of general
conclusions drawn from an '"indefmite, uncertain, undeterminative narration of general conditions and events", are
not adequate. SIale ex rei. Bohon. 6 Wash.2d at 695. 108 P.2d 663.
*11 Weverhaellser v. Pierce COllntv 124 Wash.2d 26. 35-36. 873 P.2d 498 (994). It is noi unusual for written
findings to be more detailed than the wording of the governmental body's motion, and "[t]be important aspect is that
the decision be consistent with the issues discussed in open hearing and the oral decision made at that time."
Snohomish Countv In/orovemenl Alliance.v. Snohomish Countv. 61 Wash.ADD. 64. 72. 808 P.2d 781099]); see
TUf!lI'ell v. Kittitas Count1/. 90 Wash.ADD. I. 14.951 P.2d 272 0997\.
In this case, the board's revised fIDdings quoted above are more detailed than the board's or the commission's
decisions, and many of the findings are simply statements of tbe parties' positions and sununaries of the evidence
presented. However, in Finding 34, the board specifically found that Mr. Pringle's orchard operations would create
significant noise, dust, smoke, and annoying lights, that these conditions would be most prevalent near the boundary
between the orchard and the proposed subdivision, that these conditions would interfere with the residents' general
welfare, and that there was nq evidence the landowners' proposed measures would adequately mitigate these
Copr. ~ West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
, ~
",J f
1999 WL 219783
95 Wash.App. lOll
(Cite as: 1999 WL 219783 (Wash.App. Div. 3))
Page 10
or other proper proceeding for redress."
8. An additional concern for the Macri court was that the substantive due process claim should not be an
easy "loophole" for avoiding the ripeness doctrine for takings claims. Macri, 126 F.3d at 1128-29.
*12 The determinative question here is whether the landowners may raise a substantive due process claim in this
context. Macri v. King County. 126 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.1997). cert. denied, 118 S.C!. 1178(998). is directly on
point. In that case, King County denied a plat application under RCW 58.17.11O.ld at 1127. The landowners filed a
Section 1983 action in superior court alleging, among other things, violation of their substantive due process rights
and a taking of property without just compensation. Id. King County removed the action to the federal district court,
which dismissed the taking claim because it was not ripe and the substantive due process claims on grounds the
landowners had not proven a violation of their due process rights. Id
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit court affirmed. Addressing the substantive due process claim, the court held that
"when an explicit textual provision of the Constitution protects against the challenged government action, the claim
must be analyzed under that specific provision alone and not under the more general guarantee of substantive due
process.:' Id at 1128 (citing Armendariz v. Penman. 75 F.3d 1311. 1325-26 (9th Cir. I 996)),
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a land use restriction that does not "substantially advance
legitimate state interests" or "denies an owner economically viable use of his land" effects a taking. AI!ins v. Citv of
Tibllron. 447 U.S. 255. 260. 100 S.Ct. 2138. 2141. 65 L.Ed.2d 106(980): Hollon v. California Coastal Comm'n.
483 U.S. 825. 834.107 S.Ct. 3141. 3147. 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (987); Dolan v. Citv of Til!ard. 512 U.S. 374. 383-85.
114 S.C!. 2309. 2316. 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994), In Dolan, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Fifth Amendment's
Takings Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, rejecting the suggestion that the case was
actually grounded in substantive due process. If Appellants can prove that King County denied their plat application
without advancing a legitimate state interest or under circumstances denying them any economically viable use of
their property, King County's actions would constitute a taking.
Since the Takings Clause "provides an explicit source of constitutional protection" against the challenged
governmental conduct, substantive due process has no place in this context. Armendariz. 75 F.3d at 1325: see Patel
v. Penman. 103 F.3d 868 (9th Cir.1996). .
Id at 1129.8
Under federal law, he takings clause provides the appropriate remedy for the landowners' alleged damages in this
context. The superior court did not err in rejecting their substantive due process claims.
*13 Both parties have requested attorney fees on appeal. The landowners' claim is based on 42 U.S.C. sec.1988,
which provides for fees.in a Section 1983 action. Because there is no basis for their substantive due process claim
under Section 1983. they are not entitled to fees.
The County requests fees under RCW 4.84.370(1), which provides: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
chapter, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party
on appeal before the 'court of appeals or the supreme court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue,
condition, or deny a development permit involving a site-specific rezone, zoniog, plat, conditional use, variance,
shoreline permit, building perniit, site plan, or similar land use approval or decision. The court shall award and
determine the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under this section. if:
(a) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing or substantially prevailing party before the county, city, or
town, or in a decision involving a substantial development permit under chapter 90.58 RCW, the prevailing party on
appeal was the prevailing party or the substantially prevailing party before the shoreline[s] hearings board; and
(b) The prevailing party on appeal was the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party in all prior judicial
proceedings.
Copr. <l:! West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Gov!. Works
, ~
of)
Cherry Creek Proiect
Prime Soils
City Council
Planning Commission Members
City Staff
Nanci Parker
This is information I received from Brian Trautwein, Environmental Analyst with the
Environmental Defense Center. a public interest environmental Jaw firm
My comments are in italic
I asked Brian about CEQA review with regards to the issue of
whether or not the prime soils status on the property pertains
to zoning or as a natural resource in deciding CEQA review
and/or mitigation. I also asked him briefly about ag buffers.
Mr. "Trautwein said his department was very busy right now and he
was .not able to reply officially, but could respond to questions
informally.
Brian Trautwein's quick reply is that under CEQA, the baseline is the physical
existing conditions at the beginning of review, currently the conditions on the
property on East Cherry includes its soil. This is different than zoning. Brian
suggested thaUhere can be environmental impacts to the soils on the project site
regardless of the site's zoning.
Under CEQA the city can do a comparison of the project's impaCts to those that
would result from build-out under existing zoning, but under CEOA it must
analyze the impacts to the existing conditions - e.g., to the existing prime ag soil.
If it is deemed significant (e.g., if the City has thresholds defining what is a
significant ag (or soil) impact and the project would exceed the threshold) then
pursuant to CEOA the impact(s) has to be avoided or mitigated to the maximum
extent feasible (i.e., not making the project infeasible i.e., impractical to proceed
with) while allowing the project to fulfill most of its basic objectives. It is up to
the City to determine what a significant impact is, and that decision must be
based on some evidence in the record, e.g., a report from a farmer, soil expert,
etc., classifying the soil as prime and/or making a reasoned case for why it is a
significant impact (to soils and to agriculture). This has already been done within
the city's general plan; an(l the area has been determined to be prime soils.
,"
".J-' :~;'
Yes I think it can be mitigated through an ag easement (over ag land that could
someday be developed (maybe not prime soils if they are already protected), but
maybe on county land adjacent to City near urban rural boundary - also
addressed in Ag 1.4-2). An easement or land can be purchased by applicant and
held by the City as perpetual ag lands - maybe a 1:1 acre ratio as noted before.
On one hand, the "land zoned residential and potentially up-zoned
is only adding more homes to ~and that is not used nor has it
been zoned age and never will be unless down-zoned to age (not
likely). But it is prime soil that technically could be farmed and regardless if it
could be farmed it this is a CEQA impact to soils and maybe to the physical ag
land (even if not zoned for agIo Are we looking at prime ag as a land
issue or as a natural resource issue despite the zoning? If so,
we might as well look at 1/3rd of Arroyo Grande, as most of us
live on what used to be prime ag soil and is now our city. Is
the amount of land as well as the location the factor?
This Ilrotection you have for prime ag soils probably should not really apply to
existing residentially zoned and developed areas (and block granny units for
instance) - perhaps only to parcels where there is a viable size for economically
viable agriculture to occur. 5B County has minimum parcel sizes for ag viability
depending on product(e.g., grazing lands (-300 - 600 acres), row crops, orchards
(-20 - 40 acres)).
In 5B County a project would violate the Ag Element of the general plan if it
subdivides ag land into particles too small to be viable (they have quantitative
standards).
Or on the other hand; Do we do a CEQA review, call it a natural
resource, and either mitigate it perhaps by requesting money to
help keep other more workable ag lands in production, (or an ag
easement nearby), or go one step further and disallow the
upgrade on it completely ~ecause it lies contiguous to prime
soils already placed in perpetuity and under the Williamson's
Act, or go the other way and perhaps City Council would grant an
over-riding consideration? I believe you can find that the significant
impacts (e.g., to soils) are grounds for project denial, or you can override a
significant impact (once it is mitigated to the maximum extent feasible) and
approVe the project. Maybe it gets down to what the community and planning
commissioners want. If the community thinks the land should not be built on, or
should have half built on, there may be ways to achieve that making findings
based on the general plan;and CEQA.
~ 8,..J ..
,,'
I provided some other contacts Monday (re; ag buffers and water quality I ag and
urbanization).
For now, regarding the issue you are working on in Arroyo Grande, you may want
to contact Eric Cardenas at EDC cardenaS@edcnet.org re: ag buffers to protect
human health. I will cc him. Or please call him: 963-1622 (X102).
letter #2 from Brian Trautwein, Environmental Analyst with the
Environmental Defense Center
I printed out and looked over the general plan and will try to provide niy thoughts briefly
below:
The general plan seeks to maintain contiguity of ag and C/OS parcels. This calls for
looking at how the project site is located relative to the other ag and C/OS areas. If the
project would go againslthis (by splitting areas of prime soil, ag and/oropen space), it
would seem to violate the general plan.
An applicant with rural residential land use designation is not automatically guaranteed
a rezone to.higherdensity residential. Did you say the draft general plan envisions this
area being rezoned to dense residential? If so, I think you must have already made
sure that would not work against ag contiguity because that would be inconsistent with
the ag element. If no!, though, it is worth looking at now - will a rezone here violate the
general plan by avoidably developing on prime soils. Is there a way to avoid it (or part of
the development in prime soils) to comply with gen plan? To maintain contiguity? An
EIR will help answer that. .
The general plan says loss of prime soils is Class I - significant and unavoidable impact
under CEQA. Only through preservation can this impact be mitigated to less than
significant according to the gen plan. I believe this means this project will have a
significant unavoidable impact and an EIR is required based on the plain language of
your general plan. (Throw in the other issues (e.g., water quality, traffic, views, land
use, creek) and you really need an EIR. In fact, you'd need one anyway based on the
general plan prime soil language and the fact this project will not preserve the onsite
prime soils.)
An EIR is exactly what the community should want, and deserves. It provides a
requirement that alternatives be studied. Alternatives may better preserve the onsite
prime soils (e.g., a reconfigured alternative that only develops some of the
properties/areas involved and preserves the rest in ag). Remember, significant impacts
must be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. If it is feasible to have a workable
project that also preserves s.ome onsite prime soils in ag, CEQA disallows approval of
the project. (This may entail 'looking at project costs and expected revenues to see what
-4 Jj. ~ .'
drainage were allowed to flow overland, through a swale of appropriate size, it would
fitter pollutants through soil, soil 'microbes, and 'plant roots, which act to breakdown
pollutants and render some harmless and uptake others, it would also expose fecal
bacteria to sunlight (killing it). It would do this without erosion or flooding concerns if
engineered right.
Brian
Not sure if this info from the
board is relevant. Funding and
re: water quality.
Critical Coastal Areas (CCA) public workshops have been set for
8 locations along the coast in March. A central coast workshop
will be "held in our office in San Luis Obispo on March 10 from 2
to 4 pm. Please see the attached flyer. We hope to see you
there!
regional water
technical help
quality control
may be available
Workshops are also being conducted in other areas of the state.
Please go to the Coastal commdssion's website to view all the
locations: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/cca-nps.html
The CCA Program is a state program to foster collaboration among
local stakeholders and government agencies, to better coordinate
resources and focus efforts on coastal watersheds in critical
need of protection from polluted runoff.
*
workshops will include:
Update on the CCA Program
watershed Assessment and Action Plan development
The benefits of becoming a Pilot CCA
Your input on selection of Pilot CCAs
Grant funding opportunities
The
*
*
*
*
At these workshops, we invite participation from those of you
interested in your coastal watershed becoming a Pilot CCA. We'd
like to hear about the Nonpoint Source pollution issues in your
CCA, current efforts to address these issues, and poten~ial
partnership opportunities.
Please come prepared to discuss the CCA(s) of interest to you.
If you can't make it to one of the workshops, you can complete
the attaGhed CCA Feedback Form and send it to either me or Julia
.. .,.~ ~~ .....
CheJ;..EY_~st~tes
Na.tlci Parke:::
EIR vrs. a Neg Dec:
According to our ag element of the Gen Plan, Agl states " Avoid,
minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and
conserve non-prime Agricultural use and natural resource
lands."
Agl-l.l Prime Farmland Soils shall include all land, whether a
single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated,
qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II etc. [Definition is
derived from the Local GOvernment Reorganization Act of 2000
Section 56064 (a).]
Agl-4 "Establish and apply a significance criterion' (threshold
of significance ) for CEQA analysis, as provided by CEQA
guidelines section 15064.7, that considers loss of prime
farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact.
Neg Dec preparation:
"After preparing an initial study and identifying a project's
potentially significant environmental impacts, a Lead Agency
(city of AG) may avoid preparing an EIR if it develops
mitigation measures to c1ea~ly mitigate significant impacts and
those mea5ure~ ~re agreed to by the project proponent prior to
public reviews. This concept sometimes leads to extended
,"
negotiations between the Lead Agency, the project proponent,
other concerned agencies, and even concerned individuals or
organizations. Such negotiations are informal and with the
concurrence of a project applicant, may prolong the formal neg
dec review process for months. "
"A neg dec is only permissible if all significant impacts are
definitely mitigated.
Although the mitigation process under a neg dec is subjected to
public review, sometimes meaningful participation by the public
is eliminated when an EIR is not prepared. Another possible
problem with a neg dec is that alternatives need not be
evaluated in a mitigated neg dec. so sometimes agencies
sometimes jump directly to mitigating a project's impacts rather
than considering alternatives.
.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<misensee@co.slo.ca.us>
<kheffernon@arroyogrande.org>
3/10/200510:24:50 AM
Re: to Michael J. Isensee re: arroyo grande (Cherry Creek Project buffers)
Kelly-
FYI.
Michael
----- Forwarded by Mike Isensee/AgComm/COSLO on 03/10/2005 10:22 AM -----
Mike Isensee
To: ParkerNR@Pacbell.net
03/10/200510:21 cc:
AM Subject: Re: to Michael J. Isensee re: arroyo grande(Document link: Mike
Isensee)
Mrs. Parker,
I spoke with the project applicant (Damien) in January and explained our
policy regarding buffers.. Pesticides are one of a number of issues that
buffers are meant to address. In the majority of instances, the possibility
of aerial spraying is not a significant factor to evaluate, as aerial
spraying is infrequent for most of the county's cropland. In fact, a new
policy limits the application of a restricted material a quarter mile from
urban areas. Thus, restricted pesticides could not be applied at the Dixson
Ranch.
The Agriculture Department attempts to fully consider the multiple
potential sources of conflict between agricultural and nonagricultural land
uses, site and project specific considerations, and then develop a buffer
recommendation based on weighing all of these factors. I believe my earlier
letter provided a fair amount of detail about the factors considered for
the Cherry Creek project. The issue of aerial spraying was not specifically
considered for this project, although the continued use of pesticides in
general was considered. If the Department was attempting to protect future
occupants and growers from conflicts relating to aerial spraying, the
Department would generally recommend a buffer in the highest range (400 to
500 feet). For instance, this is the range we generally recommend for
projects along the Nipomo Mesa edge adjacent to the extensive array of
agriculture in the Oso Flaco area, where aerial spraying is still a fairly
common occurrence.
The buffer policy recognizes that distance buffers are the most effective
mitigation measure, but it also recognizes there are instances when other
measures may be used in combination with a reduced buffer in order to
accommodate competing land use issues. In the realm of full disclosure, you
and the Planning Commission should be aware that our Department recently
recommended a buffer below our recommended minimum for a project located
near the A.G. city limits on Halcyon. I have attached our comments on this
project. In that case our recommended buffer was only 130 feet (coupled
with additional measures to increase the likelihood of compatibility).
Please call if you have any further questions or if I can be of further
assistance.
(See attached file: Ellsworth 977.doc)
Michael Isensee
Agricultural Resource Specialist
San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture
2156 Sierra Way, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.5753
805.781.1035 (fax)
misensee@co.slo.ca.us
Nancy Etteddgue
To: Mike Isensee/AgCommlCOSLO@Wings
03/09/2005 04:43 cc:
PM Subject: to Michael J. Isensee re: arroyo grande
----- Forwarded by Nancy Etteddgue/AgComm/COSLO on 03/09/2005 04:43 PM
"Nanci & Royce
Parke~' To: <AgCommSLO@co.slo.ca.us>
<ParkerNR@Pacbell cc:
.net> Subject: to Michael J. Isensee re: arroyo grande
03/08/2005 02:06
PM
Michael J. Isensee
County Department of Agriculture
San Luis Obispo County
Dear Mr. Isnesee,
I am a commissioner on the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission. We are
currently in the process of responding to the project known as the
Cherry Creek PUD with the overlay know as the East Village Neighborhood
Pan. I have a copy of your letter dated Nov. 18, 2004 in which you
quite thoroughly go over the project in regards to agriculture buffer.
You state in this letter the following:
"Experience has shown physical distance buffers to be the most
effective mitigation measure. For irrigated crops, the county buffer
policy is a buffer distance of 200 to 500 fee!." You then go on to
explain the process of establishing these buffer distances.
The developer of this project is requesting a buffer of 100 fee!. In
response to your letter, he claims that the reason the county requires
this much distance is due to the fact that the row crop farmers in the
county do overhead copter or airplane spraying of pesticides, where
this would be nearly impossible within city limits. He feels that
since we do not do overhead drop spraying, we would need less of a
distance in our city's buffer zones. I do not see this in your list of
reasons why you set your buffer limits. I would really appreciate it
if you could respond to this, as your expertise is important in helping
me to make an adequate decision.
Thank you so much,
Nanci Parker
If you would prefer to talk by phone, my number is 473-2233.
Outgoing mail certified Virus Free
NortonSystemsWorks 2005
DATE: December 13,2004
TO: Marsha Lee, Project Planner
FROM: Lynda L. Auchinachie, Agriculture Department
SUBJECT: Ellsworth Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit SUB2004-00160 (0977)
Summary
The Agriculture Department's review finds that the proposal to develop a 1.69-acre project site
with 23 units within the Residential Multi-Family land use category to be unacceptable due to the
location and inadequate size of the proposed agricultural buffer. As proposed, the buffer is
inconsistent with Agriculture and Open Space Element (AOSE) policies and the project would
result in significant impacts to agricultural resources andlor operations. To mitigate impacts to
less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures should be incorporated into the
project.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
1. An agricultural buffer of 120 feet located entirely on the project site, along the length
of the southeastern property line. This would result in an overall buffer distance of
approximately 130 feet from the edge of the vegetable field. The buffer applies to
future residential homes. The buffer is not intended to restrict other appropriate land
uses such as detention basins, parking or other uses which are not for human
occupancy.
2. Enhance the proposed fencing and landscape screening by replacing the fence
material with a solid masonry type wall at least six feet in height and increase
landscaping to be a minimum of 30 feet in depth and from six to 30 feet in height
with a variety of evergreen vegetation. All landscape screening should be located on
the project site. The planting material at the time of occupancy should be of sufficient
density and maturity to provide an adequate screening for fine particulate matter.
Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP
December 13, 2004
Page 2
To ensure the effectiveness ofthe buffer landscape screening, a landscape plan should
be prepared including specifics regarding location, size and species of proposed
landscape screening and a vegetation maintenance plan.
3. Due to the close proximity of proposed ground disturbing activities associated with
the residential development, the seed operation manager should be consulted to
coordinate the timing of such activities to ensure adjacent crops are not impact by
dust and any water spray used to control dust does not adversely imJ:nct the crops.
4. A revised project should be reviewed for incorporation of sound reducing
construction and inclusion of air conditioning or mechanical ventilation that would
serve to reduce noise and odor impacts.
5. Disclosure to prospective buyers and occupants, of all parcels created by this
proposal, of the consequences of existing and potential intensive agricultural
operations on adjacent parcels including, but not limited to: dust, odors, legal
agricultural chemical use, noise, and hours of operation and the county's Right to
Farm ordinance.
The comments and recommendations in our report are based on policies in the San Luis
Obispo County Agriculture and Open Space Element, the Land Use Ordinance, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and on current departmental policy to conserve
agricultural resources and to provide for public health, safety and welfare while mitigating
negative impacts of development to agriculture.
Proiect Historv
The Agricultural Department originally commented on the applicant's proposed development
at this location in 2001. The original proposal consisted of eleven units including a 50-foot
agricultural buffer, located on the project site, with fencing and landscape screening. At that
time, the Agriculture Department recommended a buffer of 120 feet located on the subject
property with fencing and landscaping to mitigate impacts to agricultural resources and
operations to less than significant levels.
Subsequent to the original comments in 2001, the Agriculture Department has commented on
the necessity of an agricultural buffer consistent with AOSE policies during the LAFCO
annexation process and in a meeting with the applicant. While meeting with the applicant,
the Agriculture Department explained the need for a minimum buffer of at 120 feet on the
subject property and that removing adjacent lands from agricultural production to create a
buffer was inconsistent with AOSE polices aimed at protecting agricultural resources and
Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP
December 13, 2004
Page 3
operations. Protecting the Cienega Valley's prime farmland and productive operations has
been a long established goal of the county's General Plan.
The applicant has recently submitted development proposal with a 50-foot "agricultural
buffer" located on the adjacent agricultural property. A buffer on agricultural property is not
an appropriate mechanism to address land use incompatibility created by urban development.
A. Proiect Description and Aericultural Settine
The applicant is requesting to develop 23 residential units on a 1.69-acre project site
located within the Residential Multi-Family land use category. The project includes a
50-foot "agricultural buffer" with fencing and landscaping located on the adjacent
agricultural property.
The adjacent agriculturally zoned property is part of the greater Cienega Valley region
that is recognized as one of the top producing areas in the county due to the combination
of prime soils, mild coastal climate, and water availability. This area supports the most
intensive farming operations that involve labor-intensive use of heavy equipment and
chemicals.
The adjacent site consists of Marimel silty clay loam and Mocha Variantjine sandy loam
soils that have historically supported a variety of intensive agricultural activities
including irrigated vegetable crops and the current vegetable seed production operation.
B. Impacts to Adiacent Aericultural Lands
One of the primary goals of the Agriculture and Open Space Elenient is to ensure the long-
term viability and protection of agricultural resources and operations. Part of the land use
review process is to identify potential land use conflicts between proposed development
and existing production agriculture.
The proposed "agricultural buffer" is inconsistent with AOSE policies due to the location
of the buffer on the adjacent agricultural property rather than the site of proposed
development and the inadequate size of the proposed agricultural buffer. The intensity of
agricultural activities for vegetable seed requires a larger separation between the locations
of future residences could be built and agricultural land.
As indicated with the original project, the larger separation is necessary to reduce impacts
associated with the intensive activities associated with the generally year round
operations. Additionally, pesticide applications occur, usually early in the morning, on a
frequent basis with equipment which causes considerable noise, dust, and odor issues.
With these activities, residence in such closes proximity to the vegetables would create
significant land use compatibility issues.
Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP
December 13,2004
Page 4
The goal ofthe agricultural buffer policy is to protect agricultural resources. To achieve this
goal, buffers are located on properties proposed for development adjacent to production
agriculture. The applicant's proposal to locate the 50-foot buffer on the adjacent agricultural
parcel would result in the conversion of prime farmland to facilitate residential development
that would then conflict with the remaining agricultural operation or future agricultural uses
on the adjacent parcel zoned for Agriculture. This proposal is in direct conflict with AOSE
policies and such impacts would be considered significant. Additionally, the precedent
setting nature of this proposal could result in potential significant cumulative impacts to
agricultural resources.
To mitigate impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures should
be incorporated into the project.
C. Recommended Mitie:ation Measures
I. An agricultural buffer of 120 feet* located entirely on the project site, along the
length of the southeastern property line. This would result in an overall buffer
distance of approximately 130 feet from the edge of the vegetable field. The buffer
applies to future residential homes. The buffer is not intended to restrict other
appropriate land uses such as detention basins, parking or other uses which are not for
human occupancy.
2. Enhance the proposed fencing and landscape screening by replacing the fence
material with a solid masonry type wall at least six feet in height and increase
landscaping to be a minimum of 30 feet in depth and from six to 30 feet in height
with a variety of evergreen vegetation. All landscape screening should be located on
the project site. The planting material at the time of occupancy should be of sufficient
density and maturity to provide an adequate screening for fme particulate matter.
To ensure the effectiveness of the buffer landscape screening, a landscape plan should
be prepared including specifics regarding location, size and species of proposed
landscape screening and a vegetation maintenance plan.
'The current range of recommen<M buffer distances for vegetable crops is 200 to 500 feet (AOSE Appendix D)
OUf experience with buffers and vegetable crops indicates that, in some circumstances, smaller buffers may be
adequate to address potential incompatibility problems. There are two site specific features which are beneficial
for land use compatibility and support using a buffer distance less than the distance in the policy. The prevailing
wind direction is from the project site toward the vegetable operation. With respect to dust, agricultural chemical
use and to a lesser extent noise, this feature improves compatibility. The other issue is the extent of existing
residential development. A mobile home park exists north of the vegetable seed operations with eight units in
fairly close proximity to the agricultural field. With this existing condition it is acceptabJe to reduce the buffer
distance below the buffer policy distance. (Letter from Robert Hopkins, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, July,
2001)
Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP
December 13, 2004
Page 5
3. Due to the close proximity of proposed ground disturbing activities associated with
the residential development, the seed operation manager should be consulted to
coordinate the timing of such activities to ensure adjacent crops are not impact by
dust lind any water spray used to control dust does not adversely impact the crops.
4. A revised project should be reviewed for incorporation of sound reducing
construction and inclusion of air conditioning or mechanical ventilation that would
serve to reduce noise and odor impacts.
5. Disclosure to prospective buyers and occupants, of all parcels created by this
proposal, of the consequences of existing and potential intensive agricultural
operations on adjacent parcels including, but not limited to: dust, odors, legal
agricultural chemical use, noise, and hours of operation and the county's Right to
. Farm ordinance.
Ifwe can be of further assistance, please call 781-5914.
- ~-.- -~- - .-
...;..,-;',,';'::,.:;
Subj: Area 7E
Date: 3/9/2005 5:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: bi'-ODJ1\G
To: tferraraCiilarrovograndecCllil
CC: Citvc@I1~1!@9rr91'Qgran_@_org
RECEIVED
404 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
March 8, 2005
MAR 1 1 2005
CllY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Tony Ferrara
. Mayor -
City of Arroyo Grande
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Tony,
It concerns me that the City Council has not voted on any Neighborhood Plan for
the Area 7E ofthe General Plan. When the General Plan was adopted in October
2001 it was indicated that this Neighborhood Plan was to be in place before any
development could take place. This is a new concept, and there are no guidelines.
Therefore the city should be thorough in its planning for this area.
The responsibility for this Neighborhood Plan does not lie with the developer of the
proposed Cherry Creek development. The City should be proactive, take the lead
and show how the area is to look, where the streets are to be laid out, drainage
solutions, and what kind of density is best for each area. For instance, the eastern
portion of 7E (east of Lierly) should probably have transitional zoning with a lower
density between the village residential and the agricultural land.
Sincerely,
Lynn Titus
cc: City council
"",-:-'...
RECEIVED a:'
March 10,2005
MAti 1. 4 2005
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY . DEVELOPMENT
Planning Commission
City Of Arroyo Grande
PO Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Dear Planning Commissioners:
My family has owned the property on East Cherry (see enclosed map) for almost 40 years.
While we have no current plans to develop the property, neither do we want to be prevented from
developing it in the future. To that end and through this letter I wish to make clear to the
Planning Commission our position regarding development in the East Cherry Lane area
. We strongly support the maximum housing density allowable. While this obviously
serves our economic interests, our greater concern is urban sprawl and housing prices.
Large lots increase both.
. We support a 100' agricultural buffer between the existing farm land and future
development.
. We support narrow "country lanes" rather than wide city streets. Shell Beach and Grover
Beach offer excellent local examples of each. Shell Beach's narrow streets offer less
asphalt (and less City maintenance), more landscaping, and much slower traffic.
I appreciate the difficulty of your position, especially when you consider the very strong,
very different, and very emotional feelings the various property owners in this area have
exhibited. Nevertheless, I believe that the direction supported by this letter will lead to a
development plan that will best serve the future of the City of Arroyo Grande.
Sincerely,
1Mjfl~
~
3jjli/05
Mike Miner
,-;:..
~ .,f
~ "
~X II"IUJ 3'.03,,",' /'- r
. 1 ,
,.... >1 lo .:!
U :1 ~CO ,. \!
to " ....>-
~ "CIl..~5 Q....
I "''''-
it lO~U) " <l",
,.. , "'-0
\ (0,0 ct
1 00 ;;:
I >- II. lr
00> 0
"'- - lL
0:'" -
) <l: 0 -J
0>'"
:.c: lL_ lJ
0::>
0 e -J
>-:z
- - !:..
CJ)
- .. "0>
" :::..
~=
Q
.' OJ ...---
, "-',,-'---....0<>---
......_,
r.;'d
~.
:
.
.
.
.
@
,
.
~
If \
..:.::~~~~F~~t:~
.
,
h
..~
Bi~
@ .
...: 51 Ill'"
"Ii
CI) ;. ~p:
tl,.:::5 . . .....
!l ....
. ol!! 1Q:i1ll
. /-..~ ~....
~ ) N' lII~tI wI-
Q:I '" ..".. 0 otn
..."'-
.~ 0 ....u ~~
"0.,
.....- W
Of. I U"">
.@ OQ C . ... > = (.!)g
llJ @ .. = !:!:'
<:zt @~ \U 0 '" ~r;:,
'"
- ..",
Q..., .. W 00
1 .. @
!!?Cl ~~ ,...., 0::__
U 0,: f-
0:: ~-
'. 'g' . <l: z
Ill~!a :;;; u.. ::::l
@) I W O~
. ::10:::5 ~11vOfJ7 ~ '" --=
f3U"l: I 0 t.:: 1,
ll:,iS I e () ;.)
I
I
1tJ:t; .. ...
ILl . ii:I<;l~
. r...:l~-J
:
..J t;~~ :l 0 " ~
..... . -
0: ~ .
....
>- "
~ ..,.,... .
-~ '41 .!I ;.. .
.
. ~. @
...010... . "''''..,., co,nl'l l., TTonT I
....,^.nj.".......^n
VU.I +01. I I
"00"'0/
..
Dl$tu.t;~i.pt:i.on: san. LuiS. Ob:L~.Po"CA AS'.!IeSSor'Mag 7_57 1'ag8: 1 Of .1
Drder: JD.il,p Commant:
RECEIVED
March 21, 2005
MAR 2 1 Z005
Mayor Ferrara, CllY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT
Recently, I have heard remarks concerning the validity of SANDAG traffic studies for
n.vo projects before the Planning Commission. You may be interested in the attached
pages concerning the Input data necessary to perform a reliable study of traffic.
The following 4 pages are copied from a SANDAG traffic study presented on the
Internet. This study predicted the traffic in San Diego extending to 2030. The web site
of the traffic study is shown at the top of the first page.
Notice in Section 6.2 Survey Inputs, it is stated the transportation models need survey
data to establish relationships between input variables and model-estimated results. I am
concerned that the local traffic studies do not have adequate input variables to provide
reliable model-estimated results.
MJZ
Earle Balgeman
505 Le Point St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
CC: Planning Commissioner Nanci Parker
hnp:iiwww.metrofuture.orgidocsiSANuAG%20forecasts.pdf
l~(Gr :/5
-....
6, 2 (J)uICViY_~t1;~J;2
gein
level
3tion
Before running the models in production, a c siderable amount rI time is spent calibratipg model
parameters and validating model accurac . The purpose of Iibration is to devEll6p model
relationships that ca accurately reflect isting travel behavi r, so there is confidence that the
models can be use 0 forecast future tr el behavior. For ex pie, if the models correctly estimate
current trolley ri rship, then they sh uld be able to fore t future ridership on proposed trolley
I
extensions an on new bus rapid t nsit service. Most r ently, the models wElre re-calibrated to
:~ri~~t Ce ;~~~n~a':f~;:d ~se h'i~ ~:~b~Z~~~";~d T. 'lid::i:n s;~::.Of ~11;s i~epter (s~t;on j)
. ,
Prepar' g inputs to the
Seve I sections of this
w eh include:
dels is often the st time consuming part of a modeling ,pf~ject.
apter document th three major inpu~ .to the transporta7 models
. growth for . demographic
characterist" (section 6.3)
. highway etworks used to de ibe existing roadway fatilities and planned i provements to the
roadw system (section 6.4)
. tra It networks used to ribe existing and planr]ed public transit service
o e inputs are avalla me four mooellng steps' are executed seque .. iiy in two stages as shown
,
. Figure 12. Follow' g the description of mo<;H!1 inputs, there is a section for each of the modeling
steps listed in the rder that they are execu~d as follows:
.'
.
trip ge ation (section 6.5)
first ge trip distribution (section.t.6)
fi stage mode choice (section.6.7)
Irst stage highway aSSig~m . (section 6.8)
second stage trip distributi (section 6.9)
second stage mode choi (section 6.11)
second stage highway}lnd transit assignment (section 6.12)
/
(j)
.
.
.
.
6.2 SURvt.;; iNPUtS.
The transportation models need survey data to establish relationships between input variables and
model.estimated results. For example, trip generation rates are applied to dwelling units from the
growth forecasting process to determine the number of trips generated from residential areas. Data
r.oJIAdion i~ r.n~tJv ann timA r.onIOlJminn. Sf} ~tJrvP.~ ::irA r.onrhJetAn TAJativAJv infrP.OIJAntlv. This normallv
CI .... ~ ~ . ~ ~
does not create a problem since underlying model relationships are relatively stable over time.
(5~'i
L~/
6/
,he foiiowing six surveys provide most of the caiibration data for the transportation modeis.
. 1995 Travel Behavior Survey
. 1995 San Diego Regional Transit Survey
. External Trip Surveys
. Traffic Generation Studies
. i Wi San Diego Visitor Survey
. 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package
Additional data sources are used to verify model estimates against independent data. Major sources
of validation data are traffic counts from Caltrans and local jurisdictions, transit passenger counts
from SANDAG's Transit Passenger Counting Program, and SANDAG's Vehicle Occupancy and
Classification Study.
6.2.11995 Travel Behavior Survey
Every ten years SANDAG conducts an extensive travel behavior survey which serves as the primary
source for modei caiibration data. Whiie another survey is pianned for 2005, the most recent i995
Travel Behavior Survey is the basis for our existing models. In the 1995 survey, 2,050 San Diego
households were interviewed. Survey respondents provided a complete listing of trips made on a
survey data with information such as start and end location, start and end time, trip purpose, and trip
mode. Information was also collected about household, household member, and household vehicle
characteristics. Survey responses were expanded to regional totals and tabulated to develop the
following calibration data.
. Trip generation rates for the trip generation model
. Trip length frequency distributions for the trip distribution model
. Non-transit mode use percentages for the mode choice model
6.2.2 i9i5 Regionai Transit Survey
Every five years SANDAG, in cooperation with transit operators, conducts an on-board transit survey
to obtain transit trip and transit user characteristics. The most recent survey, conducted in fall of
1995, provides data used to calibrate the transit portion of the mode choice model. There were
~mA tAr.hnir.a1 r1;ffir.lJlti~ with thp. 2000 ~lJrvAV .Anti 2002 ~lJrvp.v rp..~ult~ arA now hP.inn 'nr.nrnnratArJ
~ ~ ~ .
into the modeling process.
In. the 1995 survey, surveyors stationecl on-board buses, trolleys, and the Coaster distributed
questionnaires to passengers over 12 years of age as they boarded the vehicle. Passengers filled out
forms while they completed their trip and dropped off forms as they got off vehicles. About 41,000
SUrvld~ were returned with useabie informCitiun. which were tabuiaied tu ubiain tilt:! ioiiowiny
calibration and validation data:
. Transit trip shares by income level, trip purpose, and trip length for mode choice calibration
. Park-and-ride locations for coding transit network park-and-ride nodes
. Walk access distance distribution to set maximum walk access distances
. Externai transit trip tabie for externai trip modeiing
06.'
:;
.....
3
. K~iationship of totai boardings to iinked trips for transit assignmerrt vaiitiation
. Access mode percentages for transit assignment validation
. Zone-to-route trips for transit network validation
. Zone-to-zone trip tables for transit network calibration
6.2.3 External Trip Surveys
Roadside interview surveys are conducted periodically to determine the travel characteristics of trips
coming into or passing through the San Diego region from outside the region. These surveys are
difficult to collect since motorists must be stopped as they are entering or leaving the region and
asked a series of questions about trip characteristics. Surveys conducted between 1986 and 1999 are
u~~u lu obtain.
.
trip purpose distributions for the trip generation model
extemal trip lengths for the trip distribution model
through trips which are added to internal and internal-external trips
.
.
Caitrans and the Southern Caiifornia Association of Governments are currentiy in the process of
collecting updated information where 1-5 crosses into Orange County and where 1-15 crosses into
Riverside County.
6.2.4 Traffic Generator Studies
mese studies are conducreO perloolcallY to coHect siteievei tfaTTlC data. me last major study.
competed in 1999, placed traffic counters and video cameras at all entrances and exits to 26 survey
sites, which included shopping centers, offices, schools, and housing developments. Traffic counts
were totaled and averaged over five days to obtain average weekday trip generation totals for the
sites. Trips rates were then calculated based on site characteristics such as number of employees, acres.
and dwelling units. Travel behavior survey trip rates for non-residential uses were adjusted to agree
with traffic generator trip rates to correct for under-reporting of trips in travel behavior surveys.
6.2.51991 Visitor Survey
San Diego is a major convention and vacation destination. A small-scale visitor survey was conducted
during the months of .iuiy, August and September i W i to obtain a more compiete picture of visitor
travel pattems. Surveyors stationed outside selected hotels and tourist attractions questioned passers-by
about their trips made on the previous day. Visitor trip generation rates and visitor trip lengths for
gravity model calibration were obtained from this survey.
6.2.6 Census Transportation Planning Package {CTPP)
Since 1960. the decennial census "long form" has included a series of transportation related
questions about work trips, including travel time, travel mode, and employment location. There is a
considerable lag between completion of the census and release of work trip data. Regional level
mode shares and travel times from Census 2000 came out in fall 2002 and were used to adjust
,
/;,i)
'L/
+
modei.estimated mode snares. More detaiied sub.regionai CTPP data is expected to be reieased in
2004, and will be used in a more extensive review of model outputs and for model calibration.
6.2.7 Traffic Counts
Tr;tffir. r.l)llntlO; IllOP(t in m(l(f~1 v,f'li('l;atinn. 8r~ o.,....f'ined fr(VTI 8 'l!€,riety Of different ~tlr(:~" Gf'ltrf'"lO
has about 80 permanent freeway traffic locations that provide average weekday traffic counts by
hour and direction. Caltrans recently implemented PeMS (Performance Monitoring System) which
will initially provide counts at 200 freeway locations where freeway ramp meters now exist. Counts
at additional locations will be available as the ramp metering system is expanded. PeMS outputs
more detailed counts by five minute intervals and also outputs speed estimates which can be
compared with madei.estimated speeds. Another Caitrans program counts freeway un and uff.
ramps on a three year cycle.
The City and County of San Diego and some of the other cities conduct 'comprehensive traffic count
prowams and maintain computerized count files. SANDAG converts traffic count stations into an
Arclnfo point coverage and subsequently matches counts to network links. SANDAG also collects
counts to produce an annual Traffic Flow Map. Counts from this program are used for cities without
computerized count files.
6.2.8 Transit Passenger Counts
5Ai~DAG has operated a Passenger Counting Frogram since j9iii, within which every bus rouie is
counted once a year. Trips are counted by stationing surveyors on-board transit vehicles. Surveyors
record the number of passengers boarding and alighting at each transit stop. The number of
passengers on-board vehicles between stops is computed from the boarding and alighting data.
Surveyors also record arrival and departure times at selected time points along a route. An up.to.
date transit route and stop inventory is maintained as part of the Passenger Counting Program.
Bus stop inventories from the Passenger Counting Program provide bus stop locations for transit
network coding. The Passenger Counting Program also produces the following validation data for
checking the accuracy of transit assignment estimates.
. ()nli: "rvt nffc At ctnnc
~- -- -- -- ---- -- ~--....-
. Screenline counts
. Boardings by route and mode
6.2.9 2000 Vehicle Classification and Occupancy Study
5ANuAG anti Caitrans station surveyors at i5 ireeway iocations and 9j surface street iotations to
monitor trends in vehicle occupancy and vehicle classification. These counts are taken every five
years. Vehicle occupancies from the most recent 2000 study were used to verify mode choice model
estimates and vehicle classifications were input to air pollution emission modeling.
56
Colleen Martin
855 Olive Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 234-5913
Ilmartinoc@aol.com
RECEIVED
March 21,2005
MAR 2 1 2005
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Arroyo Grande City Planning Commission,
In considering the status of the Planning Commission's review ofthe Cherry Creek project, it is obvious that
the Applicants, are faced with major issues that must have been considered and understood before their
purchase ofthe Stillwell property and the establishment of their plan. It is not the City's concern the price
they paid for this property and/or the costs already encumbered to develop this project. These major issues,
as a minimum, are as follows:
The development of a Neighborhood Plan for the area designated as 7E in deliberations of the City's General
Plan. -
The Ag buffer requirement if the 7E area was to be developed for residences. The possible impairing of
agricultural use of other existing adjacent properties.
The 7E area's makeup of Prime Ag Soils and Open Space and the City's General Plan on preserving such
resources.
The proprietary ownership of the East Cherry Street Road by the residents and others (but not this parcel).
The major water shed/drainage problem, that a 100-year storm solution was required.
The existing traffic issues affecting East Cherry Street and the Traffic Way intersection.
The incongruity of high-density housing including two-story dwellings in the rural area and the
aesthetically incompatibly with the Noguera I Coker Ellsworth neighborhoods, the Village and
changing the visual character of the area.
The lot-size zoning issue requirement was for a minimum 7200 sq foot lots.
The requIrements for appropriate EIRs addressing the Ag and drainage issues.
As a function oftheir due diligence before proceeding, the Applicant's certainly must have known and
understood these problems areas' and requirements prior to the development of their plan. A quick visual
inspection of the land, anyone would notice it is a never developed parcel, adjacent to a city farm, with a
drainage ditch running through it on a road not owned by the parcel owner, not to mention a historically
significant structure atop it. How could they expect this to be quick and easy? Please require a full
environmental impact report for this project to proceed further. Thank you for abiding by our
General Plan.
Sincerely,
Colleen Martin
March 24, 2005
PC 0 CL~
RECEIVED
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
MAR 2 4 Z005
From: Chuck Fellows
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Re: Proposed Cherry Creek project
The following are some comments that I was planning to make during the Planning
Commission special meeting of March 29 (which has been cancelled) as well as a couple
of diagrams to illustrate my points.
Both the staff and the applicants have said that they would like to see "dirt Cherry" be
a public street as opposed to being owned by over a dozen entities, some of whom no
longer live here, some who do, and some who have passed on. I agree that city ownership
would be best and I'm guessing that you do too. The applicant has stated that, of the
people he has been able to contact, some would willingly cooperate in giving up their
portion of the roadway in return for having a paved street for access to their property;
others want more than that, still others lire not reachable.
Damian Mavis has come to a point where he is unable to make any more progress in
solving this problem of multiple owners. I think that, no matter who develops the
property, it is important to do what is necessary for the City to have control of dirt Cherry,
even though the current applicants have proposed bypassing the old road bed.
The matter of drainage/groundwater recharge/water cleansing must be taken seriously,
as must a properly laid out and maintained agricultural buffer, in order to protect existing
residents, those who will someday occupy new homes and long-term farming of the
Dickson Trust agricultural land. I would, therefore, like to see the Council have staff
and/or the City Attorney or an expert in such matters begin work on resolving the
multiple private owners situation. It could easily take a year or more so it should begin as
soon as possible.
As I mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, all serious research and
professional testimony indicates that nothing less than a properly designed, vegetated,
150' agricultural buffer would be adequate for this specific site. As diagram "A" shows,
only if Cherry Street follows the original course could the buffer be designed as
recommended in the Queensland Report, the best and most complete study available.
Cherty Street would form the 25% non-vegetated southern firebreak, while the new
internal street would fill that role on the north side. This design will leave 75' in the
center for the recommenqed 50% vegetated portion. This area could also be used as a
biological filter, that is, a combination vegetated area and percolation basin in case of
run-off during storms. Water would be subjected to sunlight whlch would break down
chemicals and to filtering out of chemicals by the vegetation and soil. '
As you can see, there will be room in the center of the development for eight or ten or
more homes on larger lots or for a combination oflarger homes plus smaller, more
affordable homes. The matter of the breach in the buffer could be corrected by slanting
the southern entryway and having a wider, vegetated median there.
ct~.
'/AYE;t1mT
FoLtoYJS
Ex/slING-
RoA-lJ
I
I
!
,
I
:.
) .:~ "..
"... .
~.
!
.::;.....
.;'~:='$}"
-----
.. . -, ~.'.'
"> "-"/-:-
';:' ...-,,:;". .;~
- .... ...,< .~
''';' '!
r"
.;:
"
'-. ~
"
).,:
0<: '''' ~,'
:~:~:'" t.~
"cJ;!~i~fif' i~7{
~\. -~,.\~~
~ :~; ~ C;)f."
\.
~
"
!
;
!.
.
!-
",r.-
" ~'
~~~.
..-.
L-::,'
..J"-
I -~ ""
k~'
,-';'!
i:
.
I',
,....
1~~~~8
k - .. '
.:'" ~ ....:\.
~
!
l
I
;
f
1
j'
J
i
.
j
I
1
,
.
,
~
i
t
~
.
3
GRAPHIC SCALE
o 60 120
IIL-.j
N ei hborhood Plan
CHERRY CREEK
It
A
fJAf/E;!A Dt/-r
80ws /tBot/E
Ex/STING-
RD/J[)
I
!
{
.
I
,
,-----
," - .~-<
.~.:-,~;
.:~
~.:;.,
-{'::, ...,
~.:~1;r8:\-::. .' .. ~..;,.
~,',-;~ ,:-' '.' '- -"
',:"i;;ii <~~>.,;,.;;
.,,,", ,-.,.~ ~....;:':..
{iitiJrt~t:'
"'~~
--,
"
)
';.'
~'!'
.....
~ ..t-..... ...; ....;; . .-
:'::tf('.. ..-'
'''"'''
.i:..':
~-..
,.
,
,.
'.
"
,
.
..~
:t;:
.;;..;....
i
1 .. ,~ r "
h',
j' ,
I.'
I'
.;
::~V{;~~t~~;~1<.
"
. .-~(': :j;:'.:~.;-
".~-' -" -,~-"
.;"f
('t.
.:':7::.:."~<::. ~~. - ,-
;W![f~->:r~':~i~
l!'-'"
.;~
f.t'
~;tt
i .
f" ~J;t....~.
, ' ''''~=-'~
I .' ~~ .";
l~f1t e"~: V . ~
f~- , ~"'>. ~~~_
~~'.' "~:-
...,..~"'" '\. "-
. ..~' ~.). ...
.~.
~
!
1
I
j
j
}.
i
.
!
i
i
D
I
t
3
~,\
r.. : .__~...,
t:~{.:;,
,. .
r~'
"',.,.
GRAPHIC SCALE
o 60 120
I I I I I
._~;
,e;;:
=~...-
, ~
Nei hborhood Plan
CHERRY CREEK
\\
/I
78
TO: City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission
As Co-Trustees of the Gordon Dixson Trust, which includes the Dixson Ranch, we are
pleased with the concessions the developers of Creekside Development have made to
date.
However, citing Item 2 of the Right to Farm Provisions and Farmland Preservation
regarding the buffer requirement of 100 feet as the minimum amount of buffer and
referencing the recommendation of the County Agricultural Commissioner, we see that
their recommended buffer is from 200 to 500 feet between residential and agricultural
uses, we feel the developers and the City need to take another look at the buffer distance
required.
This is especially true in view of the fact that this is a precedent- setting decision against
which future interface between residential and agricultural uses will be measured.
A second concern is that the county does not feel the drainage solution is resolved in a
manner helpful to the farming operation. The questions raised by the County concerning
the drainage need a thorough response.
Therefore, we recommend postponement of action on approval pending the resolution of
these issues.
Sincerely,
d:v~,-/ p~~ ~ - --2 _~
'T77~ """"e~~:;: - ~
" ///' ~- --./..,,/
Sara L. Dickens and /
Marianna McClanahan, Co-Trustees
Gordon F. Dixson Trust
..
:~
I;' .".
i. /. .",....
'" " '~ "-,
......~ to 1",
..:~. '~
....;.<:.. .: ... ~
May 9, 2006 I:/I. "" .
c; """JY I .....,.. .....~-I.....~.
Subject: Creekside Estates Planning Commission Meeting May :t~~qOIr.- ~ ^ "?::'/:_:'.:
,;,;:r....,. ..,....... .....
'I v,.' .~.. " ,......, I"
. Vt ,.... ......~O
Dear . "iY!)~.;.. t2,'),
, v~:Zc~~':'::>~
,- '
"'i/l
We are very pleased that at long last there is a sensible and workable
drainage project proposed as a part of this plan. Since the
Noguera Tract easement was never more than a temporary drainage and
unutilized utility easement, it is time to remove the drainage
easement. The undersigned feel that the city needs to remove this easement
as a condition of approval of this project. The owners of this
property have been burdened and subjected to flooding for over 30 years! We
feel that the removal of the drainage easement on Tract 409 is
the only responsible thing for the city to do.
The division between the Noguera Tract and the Subject Project, as
proposed, is a two foot high concrete or block wall footing with a 6
foot high plastic fence on top of that. Perhaps someone thinks that the lots of
the Noguera Tract drain toward the East. This is not the case.
The 2 foot high block wall is to slope the drainage on the project lots next to the
Noguera Tract to the East. Instead of providing an eyesore to
those owners on both sides, we feel that it would be appropriate to install a wall
similar to what is planned for the 3 lots in this projects North
East Corner, especially since it is planned as 8 feet high on the Noguera Tract
side.
.
It is also our feeling, that the lots next to the Noguera Tract have a single
story restriction to be consistent with the neighborhood and
provide some sense of backyard privacy. The city originally required the
neighborhood plan to be consistent with the surrounding area with
regard to lot size, density, and appearance. We feel that this is the correct way
to address the original intent of the Neighboorhood Plan.
/!tlJ6SI&~J
315 Noguera Place I
u{u- .s'-.s-.1 ,,,./ ~T~
~(ki n\Jf~
4~9 Noguera PiaU
~~/
311 Noguera p'~ceL
ctt1L~
323 Noguera Place
~~~
615 East Cherry Avenue
?fJ~~
327 Noguera Place
~ CJ~~
r~~ :": ~~~~: ~"~~" :~ -: r~)
t \i. ...~ .~. _"0.. ;It ~ _11 ....;~"1
BILLY J TYLER
246 GARDEN ST
ARROYO GRANDE,.CA
805-473-3782
"'1'\1 ., (} ~"!r.:~
Wf-\I.... .....;J........
ellY OF I,;:.~CYO ~.~'\~~~E
0,." .'; '-. "-'.1 rr'" .... r - \ --,:"'"
9342U 1f"'Iy'i~!.\'i;.1 .)..:\t ::"0.~t.1":i'i~
May 10,2006
To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
My husband and I and our three small little girls live in the
residence at the intersection of Garden and Allen Streets.
That intersection of roads is a very busy and dangerous place.
We are very concerned about the increased traffic that will be
generated by the Creek Side development.
It is our understanding traffic will flow down Myrtle and
Cherry Streets, and that some of this traffic will flow down
Allen.
This additional flow will increase the risk of accident and the
. danger of harm to our young children.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission
recognize this problem and that every possible measure be
taken to limit the risk and danger from this increased traffic
flow.
Respectfully,
Colleen Martin
855 Olive Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 234-5913
colleentitusmartin@sbcglobal.net
Dear Planning Commission and Council:
I have presented some documents and quotes for you to ponder as I present a brief outline to consider
with your Cherry Creek Application deliberations.
From the October 9. 2001 City Council Minutes. Paf!e 8:
"Consultant Strong replied that the Integrated Program EIR, which is a part of the General Plan Update,
discusses in broad term the cumulative effect of development of the City over the 20-year planning
period. He stated that in almost all instances, any significant projects are specifically identified in the EIR
as requiring a Project EIR when the property is considered for development."
From htto.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchartllead agencv/EIR-ND.html
"How Does the Agency Decide?
. A Negative Declaration can be prepared only when there is no substantial evidence in light of the
whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. (PRC 21080), (14 C.C.R. 15070)
. An EIR must be prepared when there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair
argument that significant effects may occur. (pRC 21080 (d))"
From the June 2006 issue of the Staf!ecoach Exoress published bv the City of Arrovo Grande.
Development Code Update Focuses on Residential Land Use Issues
"The focus is now on amending design overlay districts, improving the viewshed review process,
and refining residential zoning changes needed to maintain and enhance the Arroyo Grande's 'small town
rural character'."
From email to former Mavor Ladv from former resident Michael Titus. October 4. 200 I
"Comments favoring the increased density for this property suggested it was part ofthe 'rural character
of Arroyo Grande. 'Visits to the 7E area confirm that the urban part of our City ends at the start of
Branch Mill Road and that the 7E area is part of that rural character. As brought to your attention earlier,
this area should be divided into two. One 'neighbor plan' for the three parcels fronting Myrtle Street and a
second plan for the remainder. Bllt, in neither case shollld they be zoned 4.5 units if'rllral character'
has any meaning.
Cherry Creek Ouestions
I. Is the proposed zoning recommended for the 7E area for Phase I and Phase II appropriate? Should
the Phase I zoning be denser than phase II? Could the zoning be different for the two sub areas? Is
this transitional zoning on the outskirts of our Village Core? Why did the City Council approve a
jump from City RR (I unit per acre) to SFMD (4.5 units per acre) and skip the next incremental
density increase (City RS Low Medium Density (2.5 units per acre)? Should this be revisited?
2. Should this vote be unbundled, each item taken separately including making a separate
determination whether an EIR or Negative Declaration is needed?
3. Have the requirements and guidelines been met for the Neighborhood Plan? If all the owners of the
current lots in Phase II sold to one owner, what would that developer be allowed to build? Did the
vote to upzone as part of the General Plan Update forget to envision that this could occur? (['here are
plans in the file in the eDD already for additional homes in Sub Area 2 waiting to be approved, so the
wording that no future development of Phase II is planned at this time seems erroneous.) Have all the
infrastructure improvement allowed for possibly 59 units in Phase II? Because Phase I will be the
domino to fall for Phase II, who and how will the traffic impacts on East Cherry be addressed?
4. Does the project, whether Phase I or Phase II necessitate an4 Environmental Impact Report? Greg
McGowen's comments along with Victor Devin's support this, as do the CEQA guidelines. The City
Engineer states on pg 3 of Attachment 8 " Impounding water that flowed to the creek would require
considerable environmental review as the historical flows of the creek are being altered"
5. Is Phase I an appropriate use of a POO? Is the POO recommended so the developer can further
increase the density already so accelerated from its current zoning? iF ,~. 0,- ,1 I' v-tf, / ,,,.... ,<~. r:-~ ~ .
6. Does the Map provide for transitional zoning toward the Ag lands so coveted by our City?
7. Should the City's Master Drainage Plan be adopted before any project that is trying to rectify the
Newsom Springs Drainage problem be approved?
8. The developer is willing to ''pay an in-lieu fee for the loss of prime soils. Should our prime soils
be for sale? If so, what is the price? Where will the fees be transferred?
9. Who will build this project? One builder? Many custom homes on lots sold separately? At the
"neighborhood meetings" the current developers did not know and said they intended to sell the map
and not build the homes... So it better be in writing. The developers stated that Allan Little was no
longer involved.
10. Do the Conditions of Approval include the acquisition and improvement of "dirt East Cherry"? If
so, will the developer pay the costs of acquisition?
II. Will the conditions of approval for Phase I prevent construction of secondary or granny units?
12. How could the traffic study results be so different withjust 8 less homes? There still will be 270
additional trips from Phase I a possible 500 additional trips and generated by Phase II.
,
236 Garden Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
May 14, 2006
F~!"-.;:a.'-"
e - /'.~ _'l"=.-: r~ i'P~ i' --.,
.","::-~- :'-l' \ 'L;;"~U~'
C._ - _ . \.- . "
"'-=011 ..... .
o...-.:Q... ~ ......."
"A" ~ [>~-,
1\'l"! '0 :r;(.("'>
J -- - ~Uuc
Planning Commission Members
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
CJTY O,r: j,\::~OYO <::;1"' ~ ~,'''V''
CO".'" r' "'k .~ ~,.t........c
- iVlIrlJ.\JiY D:-::\'.:'O-' ---. ""
.I., ....1.. l-hu.:h~
".. .Don't it always seem to go / that you don't know what you've got til it's gone /
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
(from song "Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am 'respectfully writing in response to the upcoming May 16th meeting regarding the
proposed "Cherry Creek DevelopmeI1t," located on the former Stilwell, Vandeveer and
Peters properties. I will address the heritage of this particular piece of land, point out
some of the misleading inaccuracies ~tated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
urge you to consider alternatives to dense development and the rezoning of this property.
I have very important information (se,e attached documents) for you to consider before
sending this potential development on to the City Council.
First of all, I will tell you that both the past and the future of the village are very
important to me, due to my own heritage. I have lived in Arroyo Grande for almost all
my life (over 35 years), and both my own ancestors and my husband's have been an
integral part of the Arroyo Grande Village since the 1920's. My great grandfather owned
a gas station/garage in the village (near today's Arroyo Grande Flower Shop) and my
great grandmother and her sister owned a dress shop where Cafe Andrieni's now operates
(they were also Harvest Festival grand marshals). My husband's great grandmother lived
in the village, and his great uncle operated a mortuary in the village for many years. We
both lived in the village when we were younger, and we have currently resided in the
same house on Garden Street for the past 12 years. Our children have never lived
anywhere else. Therefore, both the past and the future of the Village of Arroyo Grande
matter immensely to me (and to future generations).
Because I was friends with Grace Stilwell for several years before she passed away and
have remained in contact with her sister-in-law, I know a great deal about the former
Stilwell property. I have recently done a bit more research on it, and have a significant
piece of information to share with you -- namely that 734 Myrtle Street has (and has
legally had since 1913) mutual irrigation rights (see Exhibit "A"). According to Grace,
they used flood irrigation that was puinped from the creek through pipes; and they
allowed the Vandeveers to use their piped system to water their orchard trees as well.
That means that at least five (and possibly two more) of the nine acres designated as
Phase I of this development are in fac,t Class II Prime Soil Irrigated Farmland. The
property is not zoned Ag, however it has been in agricultural production (walnuts and
chickens) from at least 1913 (through 1987). According to both Grace Stilwell (now
deceased) and her sister-in-law, Laverne (both primary sources), Grace's mother-in-law,
Naomi, farmed walnuts on the property from the 1940's through the 1960's, selling her
crops to Diamond Walnut Growers among others. Grace and Albert came to live and
work on the farm in 1967 and contin\led the walnut production and sales until 1987, when
Albert became ill. I have included a copy of a Diamond Walnut Grower's payment stub
to prove that they were indeed an established and active farm that in 1977 produced
1,440lbs. of Class I walnuts (with no insect damage) for Diamond Walnut Growers alone
(see receipt of payment to mother, Naomi, who had since been moved to an elder care
home in Glendale). I'm not sure what other avenues they used to sell their walnuts, but
there is still a "Walnuts" sign hanging in the chicken house, as well as the original
processing equipment behind the chicken house -- of cultural and historical significance.
I believe they sold some of their walnuts directly to the community from their small farm.
According to a local farmer I know who sells at Farmer's Markets, there has recently
been an renewed demand and markei!for walnuts and walnut oil, due to their tremendous
health benefits. The trees on this property still produce abundantly.
There are a few reasons why this factual, historical information is so important. First of
all, the City's Associate Planner has stated inaccurately in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration that this land was dedicated in the 1800's primarily to residential housing and
that this land is non-irrigated and therefore not considered loss of prime soil farmland,
when it was actually a working farm Jor several decades. A simple title search at the
SLO County Recorder's office prove,s the presence of irrigation rights, and yet the
Planner fails to mention anything about this land being used for farming. This
. irresponsible omission of most important details (that could affect the approval of the
J development) is unacceptable and sh6uld be addressed by the Planning Commissioners to
City Staff. Secondly, it is clear that no development should be recommended for
approval at this time, nor should any change in zoning occur, due to the City's dedication
to preserve both small and large farms. Thirdly, a large number of other inaccuracies
occur in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but to conserve time and paper, I will refer
you to the letters/outlines written by Colleen Martin and Ed Harrison in your meeting
packet. I agree with most of what they pointed out in their comments on the Mit. Neg.
Declaration, as I too have many of the same concerns. Finally, what school will the
children of this "Neighborhood Plan" attend - Branch or Ocean View? How will the
increase logistically affect bussing, classrooms, etc. at that particular school site?
Perhaps the parents and staff of these schools may have some concerns. Please do not
accept the Negative Mitigated Declaration as being sufficient. There are far too many
mitigations needed to approve this development, and many of them are not even
addressed in the document.
The 22 acres currently zoned Rural Residential are the appropriate transition between
single family neighborhoods and agricultural land. That acreage should remain one home
per acre so that people can continue to enjoy the rural setting of the village and have the
best of both worlds - a little piece of land to call their own: with great soil to grow
vegetables, to have a small orchard, to own an animal, to stroll down a country lane, to
admire the Vandeveer home up close (rather than not at all) and yet to still be in the
village. One home per acre (R-R zoning) still allows the developers to build homes on
the nine acres they own (as I understand, Cliff Branch owns four acres, and the Mavis
Family Trust owns the five Stilwell a9res). It just means they may not make as large a
profit. Before the Stilwell property (734 Myrtle St.) was sold, City Staff outlined the
potential problems with that land in a memorandum that was available to the public so
that future developer/owners would know what difficulties they may face if they
purchased the property. The fact abo\tt business is that you win some, you lose some.
Therefore, it is not the responsibility of the City of Arroyo Grande to ensure that
development occur on that property. '
Here are some possible alternatives to developing Phase I. I) Require a complete EIR
before even considering development. 2) After careful planning by developers, only
allow one home per acre to be built, which would mitigate most of the significant
impacts. 3) One or more of the developers could sell their parcels "as is" or with lot-line
adjustments and move on. 4) If sold, part or all of the former Stilwell property could be
used for hands-on community outreach and/or "historic/sustainable agritourism" (using
no pesticide sprays) as an attraction and benefit to all (run by a private group of
individuals or by a non-profit organiiation). It is a historical small farm with its own
quaint farmhouse and outbuildings - not to mention the amazing stone farmhouse next
door, and is unique in that it is one of the last remaining walnut orchards in the Village of
Arroyo Grande. If someone didn't want to farm walnuts, R-R zoning would at least allow
many of the trees to remain while.accomplishing other purposes. 5) Because there are'
currently four parcels within that nine acres, each parcel could be sold to different parties
and used in different ways, under the, zoning ofR-R and consistent with the other
properties within the Neighborhood Plan overlay.
In conclusion, the General Plan is not a guarantee that the zoning will change, nor is it a
guarantee for development. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City Council need
to seriously consider what effect the present and future development of those 22 acres
may have on the community members who currently live in the village (including those
land owners within the "Neighborhood Plan" acreage who do not want the Phase I
development to occur). Not only will S-F/ M-D development destroy open, farmable
irrigated land and wildlife habitat for future generations, it will cover over past
generations of rural heritage. It will also negatively impact hundreds of other village
families in the areas of traffic, school crowding, aesthetics, sewer, etc. Please consider
the alternatives I have mentioned above, rather than allowing this development and/or
zoning change to move forward. Thank you for all of your hard work.
Sincerely,
~lL-5
Polly Tullis
:..:..::".."/.. "':'.' '..,
../~..;; .-..;,::,~'
~ ; .
. f"'"
.,. ...
., /. -'.
.-i~~~~~#ii?\~:,~'~::'\' -(-> - ~.
EXHIBIT' "A"
Parcell:
Lots:37 and 38 of the Subdivision of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pis~o
and Bolsa de Chemisal, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, as laid do.~ and designated upon a Map entitled
"Map of the Resubdivision of a part .of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra,
., Pismo .and Bolsa de Che",isal, San Luis Obispo County, California, . the
property of E. 1<. Steele, Esq., surveyed by R. R. Harris, November, 1885,"
according to Nap on filE in Book A, P.::.ge 63 of l-~a?s.
Parcel 2:
The portion of Lots 17 and 18 of the Subdivision or the Ranchos Corral de
Piedra, PiS30, and Bolsa ce Chenisal, in the City of Arroyo Grande, C0~~ty
or San Luis Obispo, S~ate of California, as laid co~~ end cesigr.atec c?on
a ~~c.? -e:;.ti~~:;c "~.fa? c: t:H: ResuDcivis:..on of a part of the Ranchos CGr:rc.~
de Piedra, PiSillO and Bolsa de Che~isal, San Luis Obispo County, C?lirornia,
the property or E ~ ~.,7. S:eele, :::ss., surveyed by R. R. harris, !\ovc::-.Je:-, lESS, JI
according to Hap on file in Book A, Page 63 of }~a?s, cescribed as fo11m.:s:
BEGINNING at Stake S.62 2~ ~~e ~cst Southerly co~ner of said Lot 18; t~e~ce
!'orth 57c .30' East 2!-0::g t~e ~or-c:,....'este=ly line 0: :-ryr:le Street, 655.6
:eet; thcnc~ Xorth ~: C1 ~eS: ~o ~ne ce~:er of ~~e c~~~~el 0: ~~~C:( ~:G~:=
C~~e~; :t~~=e ~es~~::y a::~~ :~e :e~:~: :~ :~e :~~~~~~ c: sa:: ::~e~
to .the East line of Sta~~ey ~v~~ue; ~~e~ce Soutt Seoul ~a5t along :~e ~GS:
line of Stanley Avenue ~2G fee~, ~ore or less, to t~e ?0I~7 C? ~~~:~:~:~~.
Also ell right, ~itle a::c i~:erest of t~e grantor herein in a~G to t~at c=::c:~
"2.greerr:e.n~ for HutcE.l I:-::.-igc:.ticn Syste:::" 'Det'..:ee~ C::ristine .~... ?i~::-ce, l2t c:.l.,
cated February 3, 1913 G~c recorced ~a::.-ch 5, 1913 i~ Book 96, Page 219 c: )eecs
ir. the office of t~e Cc~~ty Recorder 0: said Cour.ty. ~nich said i~terest ~as
aCQuired bv A. D. ?rE.~~ ~y cee~ fro~ ~e::o~a Sau:s~ur" a single ~C=G~, cc:ec
';' ,ip ?'. ,e/l -'"'c ....:..--.....::..: -.."!..,- ':',~':- 3co~: 3C'3", ?age 17::' 0:::::=1 ::'e2~:cs.
....u_..~ _..,., _..-,_ e.. ________ _'__: _...., _..-_ _n _ -,-:
-. - -- ..:.y,-_.'
. :':.:~._,?:<?7::::~~f~;.i<-' ...,
:- ::*~::~~~~[5i:~:.\??:~~:r-7t~;~~f~
,_Br
-r~4 ,,^q.A'l~ st. ')
y.e~ V'" +c
OWe (:. l""'\ y-e oCqVcl S
~I"\~ ~C~Y"c:\S
. 1)~+-eJA~~. (,;" lGl~'2. ......
. ,.;,~;-,--.:-;c~e}:i:t-~'?l~l:~,L~?,~:?@~~.'~~1~;~?<.
(o\€sc<\r.ho~ ~.f
~oV' V'f\.OY"'V \~~.
\)0(:.. ~'2-1.{ '\ '='
<S \.. 0
~ , .,:.
.."..,..
::',-,:-":-.-.:-:.< ~'
.;;:- ~ ~~:~ ~~~:...: :.:o:-~~
,,'~ .r~,.,.. r...;....
,-, ...
~~::.~:. ~;; ~";:.:...
0.. .- '. ., -'A,J' :'_".:':
DIAMOND WALNUTGROWE,RS, INC.
A GROWERAOWNED ,COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION
--- ;;.. .'.~"
"0 :'.~_
.,.,.
BOX 1727
STOCKTON, CAL.IFORNIA 95201
.~
,
. .
TELEPHON E
466A48SI/AREA CODE 209
TEL.EX 359A470
,
.-.,....,. "..-.
Dear Grower Member:'
The enclosed check is the first advance on your
1977 crop deliveries.
PAYEE'S NAME
ASSIGNEO %
OF r-:ET PROCEEDS
_ ( 100! 00)
91208
Plea... tef",lo III;, Nu",b", fe' 011
l..eu;';....Ce,ielpO"d""c" "'c.
\>1931::31 )
MRS NAO"lI.E STiLW~:LL'
520 MESA LII:A. ROAD
GL.ENDALE-'CA IF' . ..
- . --'- ~
10 '21 77
1977CROfl
!!11:~m~Th '}j}IJ."B!l.(lilQ').1>RS;" !~~"
P.O. BOX \727
STOCKTON, CAlifORNIA
( 1S! 611961101 ooe
I I
DELIVERY INSPECTION RESULTS
]
:::~l.DAY WEIGi'tT ';H .. , NET WEIGH, KE!'l"lEL "..,....'~ ~s.s ... 1:'\15::CT .~~ ACCU~l
Ri:CEIPT C::It. , POUNDS Eel.5'..:: ..,==,:;::;...0: DA~1~GE :.~ ellS
:.EllV. HU.'.lSEil U WE;Go-lT ~ RCO " <<..GO: (:~~EL (0_0;;' W=I M, ~ .,..p;:
1 1 5 2 3 7 C 3 0 7 1 , 4 4 0 3 O. /I S 3 . 6 L I GH T 6 . 0 S 1 8 . t-
.,
..
.. ,,'c. .. ..
, ..
-,,,..' ..
.. - : ,.
...:'.....-:.,.:::;:;..-';;- .o".~.
-
, .. '. , "'-,-
- .H, ., .. ,
- - Ii :"," .' .' , 1 ,~'-.-;.. .... '. .
;> 0 U N 0 A G E i T 0 T ALS , 1 , A 0 - FA 36 ::<:i~-.:-~_:;.. ,'.C.' ~:: ~ ~:' '~.;~:i:~"'..,~~:::fr)i- , j/'7.s:t,.~ ~"<~i.~?o",:>:.. ..,.' -
.- .-. .. .,
7 I, '0, "-'
I t7'~'O 6 _
/ /,g .ff. .15"0
~~:? :~: -/~~~~ .~ ;'~. /' ,~..!~ ~
3 ....u.;.r ~.~- " ----~j
MAY:. 620%
CITY 0;: J.':'.-:2C'YO C~.:.."'.: :2E
(..:O;/;:..1.J:,:irl Di:..VcLC;:;.';I:I~.j
Subject: Planning Commission meeting
cc: tjpask@charter.net, bcretzler@charter.net
Dear Commissioners and City Council,
My wife and I reside at 314 Noguera PI, Arroyo Grande.
We both feel that the Cherry Creek Development will drastically lower the quality of life of our
neighborhood. The many kids that play on our street will be greatly endangered by the large
increase in traffic on Myrtle.
It also feels like the people living in the new development will not have a very high quality of
life either. Can any of you imagine living in a house on a lot as small as 2,773 square feet.
We are sorry we have to go out of town and miss the meeting; we would certainly stand up
and voice our above opinions.
Thank you for your common sense in stopping this.
Thomas J Pask
Barbara Cretzler
http://us.f808.mail.yahoo.com/ymlShowLetter?box=lnbox&Msgld= 1 021_3988135... 5/1512006
.r: c.
o . ',-"
c~ ai-ti.l5j!fo:)
rc Vt{ic/Li1j/
.U;J. ;1 . _ . I
. :::~ /l 0?71~~'--L-/ .
l~~ ( J}/l/;}-)?>,
~ ~ ~1A?U7cf-
ZA-iv C::U~~7l-".d .4./UN~; /l z.--t -C'-0
~..~ .
. ~. ,IlA.c'~ .... cz,v
~ '~J--
~.
~ L6'-?~ L M;;~~ --()-71 4f.Vl.-'-
/V"<<.,.~ ~ -L.? /U..~ c'~~~' d.e.Lv.-
/1') tL-;cZ..-f .~ /J~~ /JU.~.k~~~,,"._ .rz 0--1
U,/~ u~LA..-./1 ~~~'-<~ ~ ~c<--I--
.zk a:t:~~ 7/- ;;l~ '~~ ~LrC~
...L'-0 ~.e.b~..v0J.-u?~' l;~ A<."-<:Lli2..d.. I
.
.
. "hu'-'U' ~) /2,.t-<.''4-( /7V~ -<.:~.k: "'7~ ,(!.J,l/L -
-r~~ k CL &-UV~"J-- 74-1L~~
b..,rt -
.~-~-' - '.
.
l.
/J1'L?0 ~ '
~
,
/} Jt4-~
~'u~z...v~
c1.
il/L<'~f~d ~ /U1A7U/~../V'~
"d'.#f/ _,7, f/'
~~~ ~L-<-"';
ckLL- C~-~
C{4- --<-<.~
\."
/~ ~L~Z-- ~"-'
"
CL-jI-fLi_JI/1. C1.A ~
C71.
l--<::-ViPty/
------r;--
.' 2.t-'LL~ .
-(- /J.rru'. _
~ ~ ..-J!:L-
,~/.zf~ p~~~, Ik
-L4~
;
..I.-L.
Il'U-n~ I ~~- 4y- ? .~ 7~
-I<;-c.r'<f;) ~ .J!-iz /~~ '{f- S"~~.
1~ ~~~ ~~ or<-::>~ r
C/ix ~~r <T ~ - ?< tt-"~-
~,'../'-'0l _..-n'-.c<-/L.c.;,">~ C( "-fc..-.II~cf--:
IIRS. JEANNETTE TIUPODl
52I East Cherry AYlInue
Azroyo Grande, .CA 93420
;:/,
--<1&Fu....<~, _ .
if?L~~
'~-d..i
~.
>
THE MIKE TITUS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
THE APPELLANT
404LIERLYLANE t"C~ '--"~:--. ..:~:~,
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 "_./ ,-" C '. ~ c.J'
kiP,; :
('''')(''!f''':'
~) .' ll. ,/"
~ '0"_"
May 16, 2006
-- '0,...... .... "'0"0 I""""~... ~ ',",,",-
\....In ,- r"o'.:": l' \:....r~".'-".t:
, -,. '." "1\' D"'--'O' .... ....
(,OI'VII'iI'J,'-il' ~\'~L. l~t"'i\':I'-::
To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
Subject: Appeal regarding staff's recommendations re: Cherry Creek
Reference: Hearing date May 16,2006; Development Code Amendment 04-007;
Neighborhood Plan 04-001; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002; Planned Unit
Development 04-002; Cherry Creek Estates
THE APPEAL
Respectfully, the following recites the authority for the appeal:
Development Code: 16.12.150 Appeals.
A. Appeal of Action.
2. Any affected person may appeal a decision of the COnutlllnity development director or
the architectural review committee to the Planning Commission. A decision of the
Planning Commission on such appeal11U1Jl be further appealed to the city council,
whose decision shall befinaL
The appellant maintains that anyone of the following major items I, H and HI provide a
basis for rejection of the Cherry Creek application.
The following are the recitations ofthe Appeal's major items:
I. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (EVNP)
The Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) is a cooperative effort by staff and the RRM Design Group after
cursory discussions with affected neighbors in Subarea 2. Ofthe 11- page explanation in the Plan
only slight mention is made of Subarea 2 in the first 10 pages that deals with Snbarea 1, and only
one page is dedicated to Subarea 2 on page 11. A consensus ofthe neighbors in Subarea 2 is
required for a neigh borhood plan regarding the PUD precedent; agreements to an Ag buffer in
Subarea 2, and the disposition and changes planned on the East Cherry Street dirt Road.
The EVNP does not fulfill the intent of the General Plan in requiring a Neighborhood Plan for
development of area 7E, so designated by the then sitting City Council on October 9, 2001.
.'
~
n. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
Development Codel6.16. 060 Planned unit development pennits.
B. Authority. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve planned unit
development permits, subject to the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150 of this title.
(See above)
The community development director, staff advisory conumttee, and architectural review
committee shall provide recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding
planned unit development permits.
A public hearing pursuant to Section 16.12.160 of this title shall be required.
Neighbors attending different presentations ofthe Cherry Creek development were never
. informed of the PUD plan. They were never informed that the PUD was a way to avoid the
General Plan zoning.
Neighbors and certain Planning Commissioners have objected to tbe density of the project.
Some insisted on adherence to the General Plan for minimum 7,200 sq foot lots.
Development Code 16.12.160 Public hearing and notification procetblres. (regarding
PUDs):
A public hearing shall be held prior to action by the Planning Commission or city
council when required by state law or local ordinance, guidelines or policies.
Application for a planned unit development shall not constitute an application for
subdivision. If a subdivision of land is proposed in conjunction with a planned unit.
development project, separate application, review, and findings shall be made in
aceordance with the provisions of the code.
The PUD hearing is being held concnrrent with the application of the Cherry Creek
application. The application is for a subdivision and should not be allowed.
The Development Code provides that an independent public hearing of the PUD in
Subarea 1 be held prior to the consideration of the project.
llI. USE OF AGRICULTURAL SOILS
The property uses land possessing agricultural soils. The City's policy to preserve
undeveloped Ag Soils is clearly stated and confirmed by a Planning Commissioner.
This is a subject of record before the Planning Commission and City Council clearly
depicted in the Council's TV tapes of the meetings when and where the new Agricultural-
Policy was established. '
?
'-J
..
The staff has insisted the policy does not pertain to the Cherry Creek area, as confirmed by
its presentation to the Planning Commission and the Council (on May 24, 2005 agenda
item lOa, Ag policy), even though the property is presently zoned Residential Rural and the
area is a fallow agricultural area with a walnnt orchard.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHERRY CREEK MATTERS
The three items above represent the major considerations of this Appeal besides the detail
of the Cherry Creek application requiring judgments that are not included as items of the
Appeal: Building heights: one story, if two stories, where? Responsibility for East Cherry
Road Size of East Cherry Road - 32' vs 36'? Use of existing road? The environmental
impact of the entire project? Creek side park area into the Vanderveer and Branch
properties? Why a gate and special treatment ofVenderveer residence? Adequacy of Open
Space considerations? Preservation of existing productive avocado and walnut trees?
Com mitment of intent on Noguera easement? Adequacy of parking areas? Size of buffer is
-130 feet too much, why not something less? Parking on Cherry? Esthetics ofPUDs in a
designated rural area? PUD garage size requirements? Critical traffic impacts? Traffic
calming (speed bumps) on Myrtle? Traffic light at Traffic Way?
ADMINISTRATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
It is with reluctance that the Appellant Committee submits this appeaL Committee
members have been very active in the past in the development ofthe City's General Plan
(GP), so it is with a deep belief that the GP is the abiding standard for development. The
reluctance is based on the questionable adherence to the provision and spirit of the GP "to
ensure public awareness and full and open public discussion and debate regarding proposed
actions" as provided in the Development Code Section 16.12.160.
In this context the reluctance expressed here also pertains to the loss of confidence because
of the Community Development Department's apparent managerial conflicts and advocacy
in advising and supporting the Cherry Creek applicants on "options available" and
"identified issues" as compared to defending the interest of the citizens in adhering to the
"provision and spirit" ofthe GP.
The Community Development Department's role should be to insist on conformance with
the City's General Plan and not to encourage and work with applicants to make exceptions
and amendments to that Plan.
THE APPEAL PROCESS
With respect to Development CodeJ6.12150 on Appeals, this appeal involves the
decision by the acting community development director, with the knowledge of the
City Manager, to make recommendations based on a representation of facts to the
Planning Commission on the Cherry Creek application.
~
_.
,
The appellant respectfully recognizes that the Planning Commission "may review and take
action on all determinations, inurpretations, decisions, judgments, or similar actions taken on
the application or project, and are lWt limited to the reason statedfor the appeal"
The appellant further understands the appeal "shalllWt be withdrawn except with the
consent of the appropriate hearing body", the Planning Commission.
This appeal is filed Mayl6, 2006 with the secretary of the Planning Commission, a filing
within ten (10) calendar days following the date of action of the Cherry Creek staff report
distributed May 12, 2006.
The appellant expects a Public notice of an appeal hearing shall be given in the same
manner as set forth for public hearings, Section 16.12.160 and that a hearing date shall be
set within thirty (30) days ofthe filing ofthe appeal with the secretary. The appellant
respectfully requests a dedicated hearing.
The appellant understands that in considering the appeal, the Planning Commission may
affirm, affirm in part, or reverse or otherwise modify the previous determinations in prior-
meetings and those of the present meeting of May 16,2006 that pertain to the issues of the
appeal with the proviso that appellant may also appeal the Planning Commission's findings--
to the City Council.
Fnrther, the appellant prays that while the appeal is pending, any decisions by the Planning
Commission regarding Cherry Creek will be suspended until such time the appeal is heard-
and exhausted, including any possible submission to the City Council, or at that time, by
accommodation, the appellant withdraws the appeal.
Respectfully, the Appellant Committee
co ~,
c::r~/~.
Lynn Titus., Chair
Mjj b)y;W;ff~
-701-- ~~/ A-6-
Address
J65 1lI~ fH/ Vi. Ii-6-
Address
<32.3 ~<.(,e~ d; pL. I lb.
-
Address
tv c ~$S-ti:i/;. If- Cr
Address
Otis Page
4
May 16,2006
Chairman Fellows and Members of the Planning Commission,
We will be addressing our comments to the following four areas:
I. DRAINAGE
The Newsom Springs drainage solution may be "preferred" by City Staff, but it was never adopted as
"preferred" as part of the 1999 Master Drainage Plan. Plan A was one of three possible options. This part
needs to be put on the agenda and discussed independently from this Project. It is too important a
consideration to be a footnote to a 9-acre sub-division.
Rational:
1. The figures given for a 100-year-storm assign 891 cfs(cubic feet per second) corning from the Newsom
Springs watershed. The 8' by 4' culvert at the mouth of Newsom Springs can only accommodate 28%
of that amount of water, leaving 640 cfs (or 72%) to wash over, and quite possible wash out, Branch
Mill Road. .
2. The historic flow of water has been to Los Berros Creek. To cut-offthis option entirely ignores this
historic, natural flow.
3. The discussion on the alternatives needs to fully consider a multi-faceted approach that can handle
major run-off, as opposed to buying into the single solution advocated by staff in this report.
4. While we appreciated the relief expressed by the Noguera Place residents that a solution has been
reached, they, too, would be best served by this recommendation to more fully debate the alternatives.
IT. DENSITY
The requirements of an agricultural buffer and drainage easement were known considerations from the
beginning. While the developers' interests are for a certain return on investment, the City is not respon-
sible for ensuring that return on investment through smaller lots and the loss of a central green.
The density for the project needs to be reduced from medium density to low density. That is better land use
planning and a more logical transition to the adjacent estate lots and ag land-as well as to Phase II.
PUD (planned unit developments), when used appropriately is a laudable concept. However, this particular
development gives the PUD an undesirable image and less than optimum application of what can be a
useful planning tool.
ITI. LESA MODEL
While we appreciate the effort that has gone into the LESA model by the State of California and City's
staff work to align Arroyo Grande's ag land with this model, it should not be used with out local
modification.
It should be noted that 77% of the undeveloped prime soil lands within the City of A. G. are on less than I D-
acre parcels. This prime soil is a non-renewable resource that cannot be replaced.
Therefore, we recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to develop a modified model
specifically tailored to Arroyo Grande's unique and particular circumstances. These new standards, upon
Council approval, can then be placed in the General Plan as recommended by CEQA.
.
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND CHERRY AVENUE
Since the 15' existing dirt Cherry Avenue is used for a portion of the applicant's 130' agricultural buffer
(See Exhibit B-2), and since it is the applicant's responsibility to provide the buffer, it should be acquired
by the developer and subsequently abandoned.
The resolution of the existing dirt road needs to be resolved as part of this proposal and the Neighborhood
Plan for the entire 22 acres.
It is unclear whether "dirt" Cherry is part of the bio-swale. Is it? If so, what are the plans by the applicants
and the City for this road?
V. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - EXHIBIT A
a. #6 - "No new uses or structures shall be allowed within the agricultural buffer area unless
approved through the Conditional Use Permit process."
Omit "unless approved through the CUP process"
. Add under Development Code # 17,e: "No new uses or structures shall be allowed within the
agricultural buffer area " period.
Rational: the agricultural land is there in perpetuity, therefore restrictions within the ag buffer
should also be in perpetuity.
b. #91 - Bullet 5: The south curb on the new Cherry Avenue is to be asphalted. Red paint will
not adhere to asphalt for any length of time. We recommend a "No Parking" sign instead.
c. # 1 08 - We need an explanation of the location of the drainage ditch to be concrete lined
along "the western property." Whose property?
d. #110 - The applicant shall extend a 48" storm drain line (along) within the Branch Mill Road
right of way. .. .to the existing. stone culvert at Huebner Lane. We want to ensure that this
storm drain is underground and access to Branch Mill Road by agricultural operations for 90
years is again restored.
In summary, we respectfully request continuance of this item to address these four issues:
a. A separate hearing on the Newsom Springs Drainage alternatives;
b. A clear direction on lowering the density and the use of a PUD
c. Direct staff to develop a modified LESA model that is tailored to Arroyo Grande's prime soil
lands.
d. A permanent resolution to the existing 15' dirt Cherry Lane as part ofthis application and the
Neighborhood Plan and the agricultural buffer.
0~ct~~~-~
,&.~ 7. ~+-' ~
~~h}'Cew,~.~ I
(1.~
.~. .:~ ",. _. 1 -'-'
,
,
j
,1,.
May 22, 2006
404 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
. .' ~.," "
. ;..'~,. ~I, .s _.,Ju1
CITY Co: /.~.,~.:'\":) C~:.~,:'~~C
CC:.::, ~ ~>~; I-I' [;;:\'~:":' ,- I. .~; ~T
City Manager Steve Adams
City of Arroyo Grande
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your letter of May 19, 2006 to the Mike Titus Memorial Committee.
Regarding our Letter to the Planning Commission:
Subject: Appeal regarding staff's recommendations for the Cherry Creek
Development:
I realize that we were doing something that a citizens group had never done before.
However, we have researched the issue and feel that our letter to the Planning
Commission was appropriate and our only course of action. The issue now is your
rejection of our formal appeal to the Planning Commission made under the provision of
Development Code: 16.12.150 Appea/-- the right by citizens to formally appeal the
decisions and recommendations of the director of community development to the
Planning Commission in a public hearing.
Regarding our letter to the City Council:
Subject: The rejection by the City Manager of a formal citizen appeal to the
Planning Commission:
We expect a decision by the Council on our request that this item be put on the agenda
for a public hearing at the City Council meeting on June 6, 2006, or a "date certain."
Sincerely, .
dfVVII/ ~
C;;~i~~~~
Chair, Appellant Committee
cc: The Committee
City Council
Planning Commission
~::-b ~ ~Oc,
'", .
~~I
~ (rld:: ~:'. ~
'""', r
/Yl ~. . .-:
~/~~...JJ
=::~/. t!1>~
~~.. ~~~~
~ ;u.,: ~).c.f, J::::=:
r Z: tr;J "-~ ;.
<L<L {t:.... ~ ~ ~
a.. ~ f>-,.Q / .
~-/b
~. ~~(~?Jt~
FULLERTON COLLEGE - MOVING FORWARD
SPRING CONVOCATION 2006
May 16,2006
; '.,.
."
C'::~'.'. .
'-,'.'
Chairman Fellows and Members of the Planning Commission,
-~ .....
-'-. ---
We will be addressing our comments to the following four areas:
t DRAINAGE
The Newsom Springs drainage solution may be "preferred" by City Staff, but it was never adopted as
"preferred" as part of the 1999 Master Drainage Plan" Plan A was one of three possible options" This part
needs to be put on the agenda and discussed independently from this Project. It is too important a
consideration to be a footnote to a 9-acre sub-division.
Rational:
1. The figures given for a 1000year-storm assign 891 cfs(cubic feet per second) corning from the Newsom
"Springs watershed. The 8' by 4' culvert at the mouth of Newsom Springs can only accommodate 28%
of that amount of water, leaving 640 cfs (or 72%) to wash over, and quite possible wash out, Branch
Mill Road.
,
2. The historic flow of water has been to Los Berros Creek. To cut-off this option entirely ignores this
historic, natural flow.
3. The discussion on the alternatives needs to fully consider a multi-faceted approach that can handle
\ major run-off, as opposed to buying into the single solution advocated by staff in this report. '
~hile we appreciated the relief expressed by the Noguera Place residents that a solution has been
reached, they, too, would be best served by this recommendation to more fully debate the alternatives.
II. DENSITY
The requirements of an agricultural buffer and drainage easement were known considerations from the
beginning. While the developers' interests are for a certain return on investment, the City is not respon-
sible for ensuring that return on investment through smaller lots and the loss of a central green.
The density for the project needs to be reduced from medium density to low density. That is better land use
planning and a more logical transition to the adjacent estate lots and ag land-as well as to Phase II.
PUD (planned unit developments), when used appropriately is a laudable concept. However, this particular
development gives the PUD an undesirable image and less than optimum application of what can be a
useful planning tool.
III. LESA MODEL
While we appreciate the effort that has gone into the LESA model by the State of California and City's
staff work to align Arroyo Grande's ag land with this model, it should not be used with out local
modification.
It should be noted that 77% of the undeveloped prime soil lands within' the City of A.G. are on less than 10-
acre parcels. This prime soil is a non-renewable resource that cannot be replaced.
Therefore, we recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to develop a modified model
specifically tailored to Arroyo Grande's unique and particular circumstances. These new standards, upon
Council approval, can then be placed in the General Plan as recommended by CEQA.
, .
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND CHERRY AVENUE
Since the 15' existing dirt Cherry Avenue is used for a portion of the applicant's 130' agricultural buffer
(See Exhibit B-2), and since it is the applicant's responsibility to provide the buffer, it should be acquired
by the developer and subsequently abandoned:
The resolution of the existing dirt road needs to be resolved as part of this proposal and the Neighborhood
Plan for the entire 22 acres.
It is unclear whether "dirt" Cherry is part of the bio-swale. Is it? If so, what are the plans by the applicants
and the City for this road? ~ ~W(..t.L. f,.e.L: )t.o~::i.... 'Xd::",'
V. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - EXlllBIT A
a. #6 - ''No new uses or structures shall be allowed within the agricultural buffer area unless
approved through the Conditional Use Permit process."
Omit "unless approved through the CUP process"
Add under Development Code #17,e: "No new uses or structures shall be allowed within the
agricultural buffer area " period.
Rational: the agricultural land is there in perpetuity, therefore restrictions within the ag buffer
should also be in perpetuity.
b. #91 - Bullet 5: The south curb on the new Cherry Avenue is to be asphalted. Red paint will
not adhere to asphalt for any length of time. We recommend a ''No Parking" sign instead.
c. #108 - We need an explanation of the location of the drainage ditch to be concrete lined
along "the western property." Whose property?
d. #110 - The applicant shall extend a 48" storm drain line (along) within the Branch Mill Road
right of way.... to the existing stone culvert at Huebner Lane. We want to ensure that this
storm drain is underground and access to Branch Mill Road by agricultural operations for 90
years is again restored.
In summary, we respectfully request continuance of this item to address these four issues:
a. A separate hearing on the Newsom Springs Drainage alternatives;
b. A clear direction on lowering the density and the use of a PUD
c. Direct staff to develop a modified LESA model that is tailored to Arroyo Grande's prime soil
lands.
d. A permanent resolution to the existing 15' dirt Cherry Lane as part of this application and the
Neighborhood Plan and the agricultural buffer.
d~ ;(J~ ~"'<V / Ct,- ~
~,47)? ;O~ ~
(16r~~~ -
~ A-u ~, ~A- 7'3 $Ld<>
~~0Ij~
~~
I lary Bas'sett - The Appeal matter
Page 3 I
I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this if you are so'inclined.
Otis Page
Request to Mary Bassett: Copies to the Planning Commission
Chuck Fellows, Chair
Tim Brown, Vice Chair
Doug Tait, Commissioner
Nanci Parker, Commissioner
Caren Hay, Commissioner
.
cc: <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>, <jdickens@c20n.net>, <jcostello@arroyogrande.org>,
<earnold@arroyogrande.org>, <mbassett@arroyogrande.org> , "LYNN TITUS" <Iynntag@sbcglobal.net>,
"Colleen Titus Martin" <colleentitusmartin@sbcglobal.net>, LarryTurner <lturner140@aol.com>
,\;,
lary Bassett - TheAppealmatter
Page 11'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com>
<tferrara@arroyogrande.org>
6/2/2006 9:01 :06 AM
The Appeal matter
*
June 2, 2006
It is my understanding that you, Ed Arnold and the City Manager met with
Lynn Titus and Colleen Martin on the Appeal matter. (May 31,2006)
I am told that you have directed the City Manager to revise the language in
the Development Code to eliminate the "right of appeal" by Citizens to the
Planning Commission. I understand this is to be heard at the next Council
meeting
Respectfully, there appears to be two issues:
The "right of appeal" given citizens compared to those rights given
developers.
The right of appeal given developers allows challenges to the determinations
of the Planning Commission.
Do citizens have that same right? I believe they do. But it is never
formally exercised.
'\;.
But who has the right to challenge the recommendations and decisions of the
staff? .
Developers have the right to appeal the Planning Commission decisions to the
Council no matter what the determinations are by staff.
Citizens shouid have that right of appeal of the staff's decisions,
determinations and recommendations at the Planning Commission especially
when the staff's position appears to be complicit with the developer.
lAary Bassett - The Appeal. matter .
npage 21
The objective should be to have the best record possible for the Planning
Commission and Council. An independent public hearing of a citizen appeal to
the Planning Commission serves that objective. A "complaint" procedure does
not serve this objective.
It is the law that only the Council, as the "legislative body" of the City,
has the only final determination consistent with the laws of the State ~
such as the General Plan law and the Brown Act. Neither staff, the Planning
Commission, or any other Commission - and even the citizens - have the final
say, only as the record is acted on by the Council.
The right of appeal - with commensurate fee - by a citizen group should be.
allowed and encouraged by the City - not discouraged and possibly construed
as a "stiff arm" tactic by "City Hall" to discourage citizen participation.
To deny citizens the right to pay an appeal fee and legitimately challenge
the findings, decisions and recommendations of staff to the Planning
Commission in a public hearing is inconsistent with the spirit of the Brown
Act.
If the City believes the citizens are afforded equal rights with developers
by the sole vehicle of public comment, such a belief is wrongly held. In one
example, that determination dilutes the ability of citizens to focus action
against what may be perceived as the complicity of developers and staff at
the Planning Commission stage.
If the language in the Development Code is to be changed, it should be
'\., . modified to clearly emphasize citizen's rights to appeal the deliberations,
decisions and recommendations of staff.
The right of appeal for citizens is not a frivolous act. It may seem to be a
novel approach to attain equity between developers, the staff and citizens
where special circumstances prevail. But such a "process" honors the spirit
of the Brown Act and encourages the participation of the citizens with their
elected governors.
I respectfully request that you reconsider your direction to the City
Manager to change the Development Code language to eliminate the citizen's
right of appeal.
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VITM
ATTACHMENT 4
Greg McGowan Comments
~ ~
June 5, 2006
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek Development
Chair Fellows and Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the City's consideration of the East
Village Neighborhood Plan and the proposed Cherry Creek residential development at the
: end of Cherry Lane in the City of Arroyo Grande. I expressed most of the comments
below in oral testimony at the Planning Commission hearing on May 16th, 2006 though the
discussion of the scope of the Neighborhood Plan review was not addressed at the hearing.
As requested by Chair Fellows at the hearing, these comments are being reiterated in
writing. I live at 432 Garden Street around the comer from the site. In preparing these
comments I have reviewed the Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist ("Initial
Study") prepared by the City, the public record file available at the City office in Arroyo
Grande, and applicable regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
In general I support residential use of the site. The comments below are offered for your
consideration to improve consistency in the environmental review document, avoid
potential project delays, increase public understanding of the project, and to facilitate the
highest quality project for the community and the applicant. The comments are generally
sequenced from general to more specific.
1. Work Hours - Work hours should be strictly limited to business hours Monday
through Friday between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. The current project would allow
work six days a week from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. The site is inunediately
adjacent to residential family neighborhoods and the local community that will
be most affected by project activities deserves respite after business hours and
on weekends. No noise or dust generating activities should be permitted outside
the days and hours listed above. No staging of trucks or materials should be
allowed outside the days and hours listed above. Project activities such as
painting couid be allowable during different hours under this scenario as long as
air compressors, loud radios or other noise generating equipment are not used.
2. Neighborhood Plan Environmental Review - In several places, the Initial
Study lacks consistency between the Project described on Pages I and 2 and the
study areas and potential impacts for which specific data was. collected and
analyzed for significance. The Project Title and Number listed at the top of the
Initial Study suggest that the environmental analysis is intended to cover the
Neighborhood Plan prepared by the applicant. As indicated on pages 2 and 3 of
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VITM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTIM
Greg McGowan Comments
the Initial Study, the Neighborhood Plan is required to cover the integration of
the build-out of 53 new residential lots in two phases on twenty~two acres.
Subarea 1 consists of nine acres and Subarea 2 consists of 13 acres. Phase I
includes the development of 38 new parcels in Subarea I and Phase II includes
the development of up to 15 parcels in Subarea 2. It should be noted that the
Initial Study does not explicitly state that the total maximum build-out of
Subarea 2 is 15 parcels. This number was calculated by subtracting the Phase I
build-out (38 parcels) from the total allowable under the Neighborhood Plan (53
parcels). It would be useful to explicitly define the maximum allowable build-
out as considerable variation has been offered through public testimony ranging
from 53 to more than 200 allowable units.
During the Planning Commission hearing of May 16, 2006, the applicant
indicated that due to the number of property owners in Subarea 2 and a
significant lack of consensus by the owners of that property regarding an
approach to future development, the Neighborhood Plan was not able to fully
address both Phase I and Phase II development. Consequently the Initial Study
was not able to comprehensively address many of the Potentially Affected
Environmental Factors listed on page 1 of the document. Further, the Initial
Study consistently evaluates only the potential impacts associated with Phase I
development (nine acres of Subarea 1). For example, the description of
biological impacts on Page 13 specifies that "Implementation of the proposed
project will result in the conversion of approximately nine (9) acres of
senescent walnut orchard and annual grassland habitats to residential houses,
streets and landscaping with non-native landscaping plants." Based on the
information on page 2 and page 3, "the project" actually includes 53 parcels on
22 acres. As with all discussions under CEQA, the analysis of potential impacts
is based specifically on the project description. The biological discussion
continues with a description of items specifically related to Phase I development
on Subarea 1. No biological study was included for Subarea 2 and based on
aerial imagery, the most significant riparian habitat within the Neighborhood
Plan area occurs at the east end of Subarea 2. Several of the other sections in
the Initial Study explicitly reflect the same inconsistency in defining the scope
of "the project" including Population/Housing, Public Services/Utilities, and
Transportation/Circulation. The Wastewater section does appear to reflect both
Phase I and Phase II. The scope of the remaining sections is not expressly
stated.
The Initial Study should be clarified to more specifically define the scope of the
project and specifically identify those components covered by the current
CEQA review. Particularly as it applies to Phase II or Subarea 2 for which no
subdivision is currently proposed, the document should also specifically identify
the types of actions that will require subsequent studies and what applications
would trigger the additional studies (e.g., application for grading permit, minor
use permit, development plan, etc.). This discussion should include an analysis
of potential future build-out parameters (e.g., maximum number of units, etc.)
and how consistency or inconsistency with the Neighborhood Plan would be
addressed or allowed.
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg McGowan Comments
"
3. Creek Setback - The current project design includes a 25-foot setback from
the top of the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. While this setback would buffer
the creek itself, it would provide essentially no buffer for the associated
riparian corridor as the vegetated corridor currently extends approximately 25
feet from the top of the bank. More commonly, riparian buffers are extended
from the outside edge of the riparian corridor or the top of bank, whichever is
farther. .This is consistent with the area under the jurisdiction of the State of
California under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Because
the project will require impacts to the area within State jurisdiction, it may be
useful to discuss the setback with representatives of the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) as they may require a setback as part of the
anticipated Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. If this setback is
inconsistent with the project design it could result in delays for the project.
Additionally, it should be noted that if using the top of bank as the basis for the
setback, CDFG will consider the top of bank to be the finished contour after
any grading activities, not the pre-existing top of bank as is further discussed
below.
4. Stormwater Infrastructure - It is my understanding that the proposed project
is being required to participate in the installation of regional storrnwater
improvements including three 72-inch diameter culverts directing flows into
Arroyo Grande Creek. For the most part, the riparian corridor of the creek and
the creek itself represent the most ecologically sigiuflcant habitat on the site
potentially subject to several state and federal regulations including the Federal
Clean Water Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California
Endangered Species Act, and the California Fish and Game Code as noted
above and as discussed in the Initial Study.
Based on the information in the Initial Study and in the City's public record
me, a grading plan has not been developed for the installation of the three
culverts that accurately delineates the anticipated limits of disturbance. Because
the existing banks are extremely steep along this stretch of the creek, I would
anticipate several potentially significant issues associated with the required
grading and subsequent restoration.
Without installing walls or relying on significant hardbank protection, it seems
unlikely that the bank could be restored to the existing slope (nearly vertical in
some areas). Consequently the soil placed on top of the installed pipes will
likely be graded on a 2: 1 or gentler slope from the toe of the disturbance. This
raises severai questions that should be evaluated. How would the newly created
slopes be integrated with the existing undisturbed banks upstream and
downstream of the disturbance area? Presumably some sort o("feathering" of
the slopes to transition back to the steep existing banks would be required. This
would likely expand the limits of disturbance (upstream and downstream)
beyond what is required to install the culverts. Because erosion and siltation of
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg McGowan Comments
\
the creek is a significant concern related to sensitive species issues (as is further
discussed below), short term construction and long term bank stabilization and
erosion control protection measures as well as slope stabilization mechanisms
should be fully developed and evaluated during the project planning process to
understand the potential direct and indirect impacts of the work and the
expected effectiveness of the proposed protection measures.
If in fact the installation of the culverts would result in a slope that is more
gentle (less steep) than the existing banks, the post-construction top of bank
would be shifted away from creek towards the development envelope. As such,
the 25-foot buffer from the top of bank would also need to be shifted
accordingly. CDFG typically requires that any creek setback be based on the
finished grade and contour, not on the top of bank prior to construction work.
'.
It is not clear if a change in the setback based on a new top of bank would
affect the proposed sheet flow of stormwater from lots 21, 22, and 23 as
described on page 3 I of the Initial Study.
One potential solution for consideration would be to utilize lateral drilling
technology to install the culverts. This approach if technically feasible and
reasonably cost effective for such large diameter pipes could significantly
reduce the disturbance and potential impacts associated with the installation.
Reducing the size and/or number of culverts would also reduce impacts but to a
lesser extent if trenching was still required.
As is also discussed in Comment 6 below, analysis of the physical and
mechanical impacts of discharge water from the installed culverts on the
existing creek geomorphology (bed and bank configuration) should be
conducted due to the assumed presence of sensitive species.
5. Creek Trail - The Initial Study suggests that the public will demand creek
access at the site and will create a trail if one is not provided. I personally
disagree with this assumption based on the topography and the dense vegetation
(including blackberries and poison oak) and would recommend that no creek
access be provided and further that measures be specifically required to prevent
creek access (e.g., fencing, interpretive signage, CC&R language). .
The existing gauging station currently provides a very steep staircase down to
the creek. If the City and/or the applicant insist on providing creek access, it
should be limited to this existing infrastructure to avoid additional impacts to
the creek bank. Note however, thatthe existing stairway in no way meets the
standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Installation of an
ADA compliant access trail on the steep banks would likely require switchbacks
and considerable associated grading.
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg McGowan Comments
~
Mitigation Measure MM 4.4 requires:
"...a footpath to the creek that would be' stable and non-erosive. The trail
should be covered with base rock and designed to be permeable and to
avoid the concentration of storm runoff. The developer shall also plant
shrubs, such as native thicket forming blackberry and/or California rose
adjacent to any trails and/or footpaths to discourage use of a shortcut paths,
and shall restore any existing volunteer paths with native riparian species as
a part of the approved restoration plan under MM 4.2 above."
This mitigation measure appears to be infeasible without substantial grading
considering the steep existing banks. Restoration planting of shrubs on the
existing steep banks outside the trail as described would be challenging and
costly assuming that quantitative performance requirements are established to
demonstrate success.
Due to the sensitivity of this area, a detailed analysis of the required grading for
all infrastructure installation, potential trail access, and the proposed park along
Arroyo Grande Creek should be conducted during the planning and review
process to facilitate adequate assessment of potential impacts as well as
potential impact avoidance and minimization measures. The engineered top of
bank mapped through this' process should be used as the basis for the proposed
25-foot setback buffer. Ifpotentially significant impacts are identified that
cannot be avoided, suitable lI)itigation measures should be developed to reduce
the impact(s) to a less than significant level such that a mitigated negative
declaration remains the appropriate review document in accordance with the
CEQA. If impacts cannot,be reduced to a less than significant level, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required.
6. Sensitive Species - The Initial Study specifies that two federally protected
wildlife species (California red-legged frog; federally listed as "threatened" and
Central California steelhead; also federally listed as "threatened") and one
California Species of SpeCial Concern (southwestern pond turtle), are assumed
to be present at some time in the creek along the project reach. The Initial
Study identifies several potential impacts including potentially significant
impacts associated with the installation of the stormwater culvert and outfall
structure. All potential ecological impacts including sensitive species issues are
summarized on page 14 of the Initial Study and addressed in ten subsequent
mitigation measures. Potentially occurring impacts from the project on '
California red-legged frogs and steelhead are further detailed on page 17 as
"direct mortality, harm (habitat modification), or harassment (alteration of
behavior affecting reproduction and survival)."
While assuming presence of sensitive species is a conservative approach, it
avoids the need to conduct species-specific and/or site-specific surveys. It also
does not provide the opportunity to consider potential impacts to unique habitat
features of the site during the CEQA process for a given species as this work
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg McGowan Comments
.
.
would not be conducted unless it is a r~quirement of the subsequent federal
permitting review.
The gauging station and associated creek impediment has created a deep pool
where Arroyo Grande Creek exits the site to the west. This particular pool is
reported to support steelhead. Considering the generally shallow conditions of
Arroyo Grande Creek, this deep water likely stays cooler and stays full longer
than other areas of the creek and as such would be especially important habitat
for the other sensitive species also assumed to be present at the site (California
red-legged frogs, southwestern pond turtles). Removal of the riparian canopy
associated with installation of the culverts could result in warmer water,
increased predation by raptors, and other potential impacts for several years
while the restoration plants grow large enough to start providing cover again.
Additionally, the impact of the stormwater discharge during flow events should
be considered on this feature. Based on the graphic in the Initial Study, it is
anticipated that stormwater will spill out onto the hardbank structure
immediately below the outfall of the culverts with relatively low pressure, but
no discussion of the stormwater flow impact on the creek flow is included.
Mitigation Measures MM 4.9 and MM 4.10 address the potential impacts for
red-legged frogs and for steelhead, respectively. In both cases, the mitigation
addresses potential impacts by requiring documentation from the appropriate
federal resource protection entity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andlor
National Marine Fisheries Service) concurring that the project will not result in
"take" (a broadly defmed term describing impacts) or will not adversely affect
the species. In practice, addressing "take" through the Endangered Species Act
will necessarily address the potential harm to the species in question; however,
it should be noted that these two Mitigation Measures as written in the Initial
Study do not directly provide quantifiable performance objectives (such as no
measurable increase in water turbidity, no siltation of the streambed, no
permanent loss of habitat, a maximum allowable number of take incidents, etc.)
or a mechanism to directly achieve performance objectives and consequently
could be construed as deferred mitigation (this discussion and the discussion
below may also apply to other sections of the Initial Study such as Geology and
Soils where mitigation measures such as MM 6.1 rely on the fmdings of studies
that have not yet been conducted).
The issue of deferred mitigation under CEQA has been routinely litigated in
California and the courts have generally supported this type of deferral when it
is part of a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, the courts
have been considerably less supportive when part of a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration. As you are likely aware, a certified EIR
strongly protects a project applicant and provides a mechanism to allow for
potentially significant impacts to occur (through a statement of over-riding
consideration). In contrast, use of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration places the burden of proof on the appiicant (and -the lead agency) to
demonstrate that no significant impacts will occur as a result of a project and
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cheny Creek VITM
Greg McGowan Comments
"
consequently requires a higher level of detail for any proposed mitigation
measure addressing a potentially significant impact.
The Initial Study indicates that a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared
for the project. As such, it would be to the advantage of the applicant and the
City as the lead agency to more thorougWy describe the actual mechanisms that
may be applied to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level. Suitable mitigation measures might include quantifiable
parameters for water quality through construction and through the life of the
project, maintenance of the integrity of the existing creek characteristics (e.g.,
flow rate/volume, depth, pool and riffle characteristics, bed, bank, and channel
substrate, etc.), erosion control measures, water quality protection measures
such as filters and oil/trash separators, maintenance of habitat quality and
quantity, etc.
The City of Arroyo Grande has implemented a moratorium on building on the
banks of local creeks and has formally solicited the involvement of other local
and state agencies to study watershed issues. As part of these efforts, the City
has identified residential development as an issue of concern and is currently
. developing additional creek protection measures for residential development. It
is assumed that these measures will include habitat protection requirements and
ideally the Cheny Creek development and the broader Neighborhood Plan will
exemplify the ambitions of the City and the community in protecting local
watersheds for both flood control and ecological habitat quality.
7. Native Restoration - Mitigation Measure MM 4.2 requires native restoration
for impacts to native habitat along Arroyo Grande Creek. Planting Sheet L-1.0
describes an ornamental park utilizing horticultural varietals of native plants for
aesthetic value. Based on the plan, a well designed creekside pocket park would
be created, however this should not be construed as native restoration. It is not
clear if Sheet L-l.O is intended to address any portion of Mitigation Measure
MM 4.2. Sheet L-1.0 proposes redwoods, oaks, manzanita, and numerous
other species that do not occur in the Central Coast arroyo willow habitat that
characterizes Arroyo Grand Creek. Theoretically, the park would itself require
mitigation as currently shown on the plan based on the discussion in MM 4.2.
A relatively simple solution would be to require locally collected native
propagules from the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed for all plantings along the
creek and within the buffer area as this would restrict the plant palette to
species that occur naturally in the area. At a minimum, no horticultural
varieties of rare botanical species (if any occur in the area) should be allowed
and no invasive or exotic species should be allowed.
Depending on the level of impact associated with the installation of the
stormwater infrastructure, a more appropriate mitigation measure would require
preparation of a formal native habitat restoration plan for all disturbances along
Arroyo Grande Creek prepared by a qualified restoration ecologist, botanist, or
biologist with experience restoring this local habitat. This appears to be the
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cheny Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cheny Creek VITM
Greg McGowan Comments
.
.. ,
intent of MM 4.2 and assuming that this is separate from the landscaped park
on Sheet L-1.0. this comment may not be necessary. For reference, the County
of San Luis Obispo maintains a list of qualified biological firms as does the
County of Santa Barbara. Additionally, the City of Arroyo Grande has worked
with a number of firms for projects on the creeks within the City limits. .
8. Traffic - I am not particularly well versed in traffic engineering and analysis
however several comments in the Initial Study and during the Planning
Commission hearing of May 16'" were of interest to me and appear to merit
further consideration. The Initial Study indicates that the project will have an
insignificant impact when addressing the question "Will the project reduce
existing Levels of Service on public roadways?" In the subsequent Setting
section the Initial Study refers to a 2004 study by Higgins and Associates
evaluating Phase I and Phase II of the development. This is consistent with the
testimony by the traffic engineer stating that the firm studied a total build-out of
approximately 90 units. However the Impact section of the Initial Study is
limited to Subarea 1 and concludes that build-out of Subarea 1 will not
significantly impact intersection or road section traffic operations, and all
studied intersections and road sections will operate at a Level of Service "C" or
better under project conditions. It is not clear if the change from Phase I and
Phase II to only Subarea 1 is intentional or not and it is not specified whether
the study concluded that Phase I and Phase II cumulatively would affect the
Level of Service.
According to the American Planning Association (APA; see:
http://www.planning.org/thecommissioner/19952003/spring02.htm). Level of
Service C is the zone of mostly stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are
more closely constricted by the higher volumes. Level of Service D is a zone
that approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds, however driving
speed is considerably affected by changes in operating conditions.
While somewhat cryptic to the lay person, these two Levels of Service appear
to be considerably different and especially so in the context of the small
residential streets in the Village. As such, this seems like a fairly extreme
threshold of significance as the change from Level C to Level D would be a
very substantial change for residents of the neighborhood. The Initial Study also
does not provide the current Levels of Service and this information would be
very helpful in establishing the baseline for discussion. If for example the
project would reduce the Level of Service from Level B to Level C, this would
be significant and would merit public discussion. I am sure that this information
is provided in the study by Higgins and Associates however that document is
somewhat challenging to read for people like myself who are not well versed in
traffic engineering.
It would be very helpful to provide a traffic analysis in lay terms identifying the
existing conditions and the actual anticipated changes to conditions on the
streets and intersections rather than relying on letter codes that have no intuitive
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cheny Creek)
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg McGowan Comments
"
meaning to the public. All other sections of the Initial Study discuss potential
changes in readily understandable terms and the Transportation/Circulation
section should be revised accordingly to facilitate open discussion of the actual
conditions and anticipated changes on surface streets and at studied
intersections. Based on the public testimony at the May 16'" hearing, traffic and
project density are the most significant issues of interest for the neighboring
community .
I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and as well as your continued
consideration of the issues that are addressed. The discussions above are provided to assist
all interested parties in fully understanding the proposed project, the implications of the
regulatory considerations, and the potential environmental impacts associated with
implementation of the project. At the request of the applicant's representative RRM
Design, I am providing a copy of this letter to them for their consideration.
. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I may be of further service.
Sincerely,
Greg McGowan
(805) 349-7180
cc. Erik P. Justesen, RRM Design Group
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
-"'
.~- -- .
THE MIKE TITUS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
THE APPELLANT
404 LIERL Y LANE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
June 6, 2006
To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
Subject: Appeal regarding staff's recommendations re: Cherry Creek
Reference: 1) Letter of Appeal May 16,2006 to the Planning Commission, same
subject; 2) Letter to the City Council May 18,2006; 3) Public Comment to the
Council on May 23, 2006 requesting action per letter of May 18,2006; 4) the
Mayor's request for meeting made in Council meeting on May 23, 2006.
After reviewing a) the presentation by the City Staff and the applicant at the
Planning Commission meeting on May 16, 2006, b) the rejection of the Committee's
formal application of appeal by the City Manager prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, c) the submission of a letter of objection to the City Council on May 18,
2006, d) the presentation to the City Council during Public Comment on May 23,
2006, e) the Committee's possible legal remedies of filing a complaint under the
Brown Act based on being denied a formal hearing to the Planning Commission by
the City Manager, the appellants now consider the Environmental Determination by
the Acting Community Development Director as a Major Item number IV ofthe
appeal.
This letter amends the letter of Appeal of May 16,2006 to the Planning Commission
of Arroyo Grande with the following addition of Item IV of the Appeal:
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION BY THE ACTING
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reference is made to CEQA FAQS httD:I/www.arrovoorande.oralcomm dev/ceaa faas.DhD
and the specific instructions quoted as follows:
What If I Disagree With The Environmental Determi1U1iion?
The Community Development Director's decision appealoble to the Planning
Commission within 10 dilysfrom the decision date. The Planning Commission's
decision can be appealed to the City CounciL
The original Appeal letter of May 16 refers to the "The environmental impact ofthe
entire project?" and thereby conforms to the "10 day" reqnirement.
The ahove specifically establishes - among the other Items I, II, and ill in the
Committee's letter of Appeal of May 16, 2006 - the justification for the formal
appeal to the Planning Commission ofthe City of Arroyo Grande.
The Committee earnestly requests that the appeal he honored.
Respectfully, the Appellant Committee
~~U~A0){ tin)
. Lynn Tiws, Chairman
fJJJP f fA JntAJ,-!Z:u
Colleen Martin, Co-Chair
cz~
('it !l t[M
Otis Page
cc: City Council
City Manager
~tvld.u1~) ~
Address
fob GiAf}..tJ M;6
Address
c~~Ii~ /l~
Address
_6p6 ~ .Il-~
Address
?
Q~v'd ~113106
'~LLbll( (VlilIZi..(.,_
Memo
.f!: CbD
.
Date: June 12,2006
To: Arroyo Grande City Council Members
From: Polly Tullis
Re: Proposed Creekside Estates Project located on the former Stilwell, Vandeveer,
and Peters' properties
Note: Attached you will find a co~y of the letter I presented to the Planning
Commission at the May 16 meeting. I was advised by a few wise people to
provide you with the letter as well. Therefore, I have made minor revisions to
include the City Council in the letter, and I respectfully ask you to read and
consider it in the days ahead. In your further research of the Stilwell property
please note: Naomi Stilwell lived on the farm and worked the walnut orchard for
several years before she inherited it. The same is true for Grace and Albert
Stilwell. They cared enough about the farm to live there and be good stewards for
many years before the property became theirs. When they inherited it, they had to
choose between the financial gain of stocks and bonds or sole ownership of the
farm.. ..They chose the land.
We, too, can do that as we consider preserving for future generations a Heritage
of Grace - the Stilwell Farm.
RECEIVED
JUN 1 L12006
CllY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT
236 Garden Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(revised) June 12, 2006
.'
City Council Members (and
Planning Commission Members)
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
"...Don't it always seem to go / that you don't know what you've got til it's gone /
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
(from song "Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell)
Dear City Council Members (and Planning Commissioners),
I 8m respectfully writing in response to the upcoming (May 16th and) July 18th
meeting(s) regarding the proposed "Cherry Creek Development," located on the former
Stilwell, Vandeveer and Peters properties. I will address the heritage of this particular
piece ofland, point out some of the misleading inaccuracies stated in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and urge you to consider alternatives to dense development and the
rezoning of this property. I have very important information (see attached documents) for
you to consider before sending this potential development on to the City Council (or
before the Coucil considers its approval or denial).
First of all, I will tell you that both the past and the future of the village are very
important to me, due to my own heritage. I have lived in Arroyo Grande for almost all
my life (over 35 years), and both my own ancestors and my husband's have been an
integral part of the Arroyo Grande Village since the 1920's. My great grandfather and
his brother operated a gas station/garage in the village (near today's Arroyo Grande
Flower Shop) and my great grandmother and her sister owned/operated a dress shop
where Cafe Andrieni's now is located (they were also Harvest Festival grand marshals).
My husband's great grandmother lived in the village, and his great uncle operated a
mortuary in the village for many years. We both lived in the village when we were
younger, and we have resided in the same house on Garden Street for the past 12 years.
Our children have never lived anywhere else. Therefore, both the past and the future of
the Village of Arroyo Grande matter immensely to me (and to future generations).
Because I was friends with Grace Stilwell for several years before she passed away and
have remained in contact with her sister-in-law, I know a great deal about the former
Stilwell property. I have recently done a bit more research on it, and have a significant
piece of information to share with you -- namely that 734 Myrtle Street has (and has
legally had since 1913) mutual irrigation rights (see Exhibit "A"). According to Grace,
they used flood irrigation that was pumped from the creek through pipes, and they
allowed the Vandeveers to use their piped system to water their orchard trees as well.
That means that at least five (and possibly two more) of the nine acres designated as
Phase I of this development are in fact Class II Prime Soil Irrigated Farmland. The
property is not zoned Ag, however it has been in agricultural production (walnuts and'.
chicken eggs) from at least 1913 (through 1987). According to both Grace Stilwell (now
deceased) and her sister-in-law, Laverne (both primary sources), Grace's mother-in-law,
Naomi, farmed walnuts on the property from the 1940's through the 1960's, selling her
crops to Diamond Walnut Growers among others. Grace and Albert came to live and
work on the farm in 1967 and continued the walnut production and sales until 1987, when
Albert became ill. I have includeda copy of a Diamond Walnut Grower's payment stub
to prove that they were indeed an established and active farm that in 1977 produced
1,440Ibs. of Class I walnuts (with no insect damage) for Diamond Walnut Growers alone
(see receipt of payment to mother, Naomi, who had since been moved to an elder care
home in Glendale). I'm not Sure what other avenues they used to sell their walnuts, but
there is still a "Walnuts" sign hanging in the chicken house, as well as the original
processing equipment behind the chicken house -- of cultural and historical significance.
I believe they sold some of their walnuts directly to the community from their small farm.
According to a local farmer I know who sells at Farmer's Markets, there has recently
been an renewed demand and market for walnuts and walnut oil, due to their tremendous
health benefits. The trees on this property still produce abundantly.
There are a few reasons why this factual, historical information is so important. First of
all, the City's Associate Planner has stated inaccurately in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration that this land was dedicated in the 1800's primarily to residential housing and
that this land is non-irrigated and therefore not considered loss of prime soil farmland,
when it was actually a working farm for several decades. A simple title search at the
SLO County Recorder's office proves the presence of irrigation rights, and yet the
Planner fails to mention anything about this land being used for farming. This
irresponsible omission of most important details (that could affect the approval of the
development) is unacceptable and should be addressed by both the City Council and the
Planning Commissioners to City Staff. Secondly, it is clear that no development should
be recommended for approval at this time, nor should any change in zoning Occur, due to
the City's dedication to preserve both small and large farms. Thirdly, a large number of
other inaccuracies OCCur in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but to conserve time and
paper, I will referyou to the letters/outlines written by Colleen Martin and Ed Harrison in
the May 16th Planning Commission meeting packet. I agree with most of what they
pointed out in their comments on the Mit. Neg. Declaration, as I too have many of the
same concerns. Finally, what school will the children of this "Neighborhood Plan" attend
-Branch or Ocean View? How will the increase logistically affect bussing, classrooms,
etc. at that particular school site? Perhaps the parents and staff of these schools may have
some concerns. Please do not accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration as being
sufficient. There are far too many mitigations needed to approve this development, and
many of them are not even addressed in the document.
The 22 acres currently zoned Residential-Rural are the appropriate transition between
single family neighborhoods and agricultural land. That acreage should remain one home
per acre so that people can continue to enjoy the rural setting of the village and have the
best of both worlds - a little piece ofland to call their Own: with great soil to grow
~ ~ ~- ~- ~ ~- ~ ~-- ---- --- ---
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---- - -- - - -- --
vegetables, to have a small orchard, to own an animal, to stroll down a country lane, to
admire the Vandeveer home up close (rather than not at all) and yet to still be in the ",
village. One home per acre (R-R zoning) still allows the developers to build homes on
the nine acres they own (as I understand, Cliff Branch owns four acres, and the Mavis
Family Trust owns the five Stilwell acres). It just means they may not make as large a
profit. Before the Stilwell property (734 Myrtle St.) was sold, City Staff outlined the
potential problems with that land in a memorandum that was available to the public so
that future developer/owners would know what difficulties they may face if they
purchased the property. The fact about business is that you win some, you lose some.
Therefore, it is not the responsibility of the City of Arroyo Grande to ensure that
development occur on that property.
Here are some possible alternatives to developing Phase I. 1) Require a complete EIR
before even considering development. 2) After careful planning by developers, only
allow one home per acre to be built, which would mitigate most of the significant
irifpacts. 3) One or more ofthe developers could sell their parcels "as is" or with lot-line
adjustments and move on. 4) If sold, part or all of the former Stilwell property could be
used for hands-on community outreach and/or "historic/sustainable agritourism" (using
no pesticide sprays) as an attraction and benefit to all (run by a private group of
individuals or by a non-profit organization). It is a historical small farm with its own
quaint farmhouse and outbuildings - not to mention the amazing stone farmhouse next
door, and is unique in that it is one of the last remaining walnut orchards in the Village of
Arroyo Grande (part of the original village walnut grove). If someone doesn't want to
farm walnuts, R-R zoning would at least allow many of the trees to remain while
accomplishing other purposes. 5) Because there are currently four parcels within that
nine acres, each parcel could be sold to different parties and used in different ways, under
the zoning ofR-R and consistent with the other properties within the Neighborhood Plan
overlay.
In conclusion, the General Plan is not a guarantee that the zoning will change, nor is it a
guarantee for development. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City Council need
to seriously consider what effect the present and future development of those 22 acres
may have on the community members who currently live in the village (including those
land owners within the "Neighborhood Plan" acreage who do not want the Phase I
development to occur). Not only will S-F/ M-D development destroy open, farmable
irrigated land and wildlife habitat for future generations, it \vill cover over past
generations of rural heritage. It will also negatively impact hundreds of other village
families in the areas of traffic, school crowding, aesthetics, sewer, etc. Please consider
the alternatives I have mentioned above, rather than allowing this development andlor
zoning change to move forward. Thank you for all of your hard work.
Sincerely,
~TL~LC;--
Polly Tullis
~,;::;,r;;j?~.%~ .:r.'~.,' :'~::';fi::.,~1,~,;i~",';f:...,<:~"id~~'.;;,.,;;;r.--,..:.....:" '
~I"-;"'J"~..... ~~~fO'~~...,~-::~....~:t.:-"~~~...............1.. ..
. . ..... ..",.... :~...' ... - .' ..- . . '.
'~;"_.iii~l1f~~{ii'~~~;~f~f;,EXliIB~T'~I!Ai}I;~~~~~;(~jl'~~L::+.~~3;'~?~1Z:Y~:f,;:'t.~i({r~:~~~~:(;:;'~f";'f~:\A(./':,
.:-:...~..:.;. .:. :..'
. .." . .
to.'
..........
':~~~ ;.::-~...:..:.:.:=-: ':",
..... ....
. . - .- . ~ :..".
"Parcel ,1:
~'Lots;37,and 380fcthe Subdivision of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pismo
,:;:;an'd :B~isa de Chemisal, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
,':', Obisp'O';-' Sta'te ,of California, as laid do\,'ll and designated upon a Map entitled
~,,~'Hap ~of "the Resubdivision of a part ,of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra,
""'~;"rb~l!:8,;:<;.:,d.~~0;t~~ ,de ,,~hemisal, San L~is Obispo County, California, the
':;"pro'iierty 'of E: H. Ste'ele, Esq:, surveyed by R. R. Harris, November, 1885,"
, ".,accor'ding to Hap on file in Book A, P"ge 63 of }:,,?s.
~ :'...~~;::~:;;.~~~:~:,;-.: ~:.~.~ '.. .
"'p~'r'cel 2:'h
"
,The portion of Lots 17 and 18 of the Subdivision of the Ranchos Carr,,1 de
Piedra, Pis~o) and Bolsa ce Che~isal, in the City of ~rroyo Grance, Coa~cy
of San Luis Obispo, St~te of C~lifornia, ~s la~d do~" and cesignatec cpon
c. !,;ap e:l~itled t1~.ra? of the: Resubdivision of.2. part of tbe "Ranchos Carrel
de Pieera, ?is30 and BoIs" de Chenisa1, S"n Luis Ob:spo County, C~lifornia,
the property or E: t.,t. Steele, =:sq., surveyed by R. ?.. F.arris, ~'OVe:J":le=, 18S5,1I
according' fo Nap"on file in Book A, P"ge 63 of ~:"?s, eescribed as follows:
BEGINN!~G at Stake S.62 at t~e ~cst Seetherly co~~~~ of saic Lot 16; thenCE
North 57c .30. E~st along the ~ortb~esterly line 0: ~:rtle Street, 655.6
feet; tne:lce ~orth S~ 0' ~c5c to the ce~ter of ~n: ~~a~n=l a: ~==O?O ~:~~~e
C-....-.. ------ -.--- -. - --- -.- ------... -,",-,.- ~.,-,.---,,-,.=."- ~--- .;~--'--" ,---"---~-',".
.. ~c;.., ...:.c.....: .\=~t..c_~,: c:.:._...:: _:.:: ...:..__,:...: _ _ ---
, . . l' - S ". "S' c' ,- I. ," ," - -
to tne ~ast 1ne 0= t~~ieY ~~~~ue; t~e~ce outn ~ v ~as~ a~cn~~~e ~~S~
line of Stanley .t...venue 110 feei:, l:'lO':'e c= iess, ~c ....: ?0:lS~ G: E-:::;:~:~,::,:;.
'Also all right, title 2.:lC 1n~:=est 0: t~e granto= :.~=c~n in end to t~a~ c~=~a~~
II-cree--n" rOo"" ~'{u."'" j'~-.j'C'-.-:0~ S~.c::-.::-:" be""e=-" r"-:.--:s.;-e ~ ?ic-Ce. e.~ ai
c::.o ...c:... ..... t......c:._ ____;:.c:.~_.1 :____ lo.... _u ""h__ ..._u .... - - , .. -.,
cated Fe.bruary 3, 1913 a~c recorcec Xa=ch 5, 1913 i~ 300k 96, Page 219 of Je:~5
in the office of t~e Cou~~y ?eccrde.r 0: saie County. l~iich said i~terest ~as
accuire.c bv A. D. ?ra~~ by cee~ frc~ ~=~c~a Sac~s:~:~, 2. si~g~e. ~~~a~, cate.c
. .. f .. .. 14 . 3'" ,-- f)-.~-_~'_:C"_7::'_ ~,--_-eo."r_<.
_!U_i",.?::' iC..;,l -..,~ .,.-,..-.-..:.;: ?_~, _'=.w_' ".:-, 0.0:: :'a~e _I:. \.. '-... - -
_ ~ _., _~ ,_ c:...~ _c:~__...__ _..._; _ _ .
(y\e.SC<\F.ho~ D-t
., ~ L.j
'\
.
,~[itrt~~~~g:{f~'L:~~;J~~~f~~" ,
~
DIAMOND WALNUT GROWERS, INC.
.
A GROWER. OWNED COOP~RATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATIO~
Dear Grower Member:
BOX 1727
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95201
TELEPHONE
466.4SS1/AREA CODE 209
TELEX 359.470
The ,enclosed check is the first advance on your
1977 crop deliveries.
.- ..-------- '..
PAYEE'S NAME
"193631 ) /!IRS 'NAO'~I ,E,8TIU1ELL
520 MESA LILA, ROAO
GLENDALE CALIF
.aSSIG\EO %.
0: :o,;ET PROCEEOS
_ ( 1 OO! 0 0)
9120~
i'l"..i1.""O'I!I'I"'~".Ja"c' :1
I~c:..;.i.,. CO'.";:lQ"c!,,,~,, .~.
( lS! 849640; 000
, .'
1021 77
1977 CROP
:QM,.lI.Q~Q. '};"U;.~!!I'!1G!lQ\mID:i... ~:\"f:.
P.O. BOX 1727
STOCKTON. CAlifORNIA
] I
. IVERY INSPSCTlO_~ RESUl.TS
';-O.\Y WEIGHT ~.'l.I"" R NET WEIGHT "'E;::t.'1/;;!.. oIL'O"..YS'S % I~SECT ..;CC~...
::...IV. Ri:CEIPr cooe p :::>':I.E OJ:j:Got....::lS ....,!
HU'ofSU U POUNDS ."=lGIoI':' . R' ,1.'1;"'='(0: 0\;"";;1.. '0'-0'1 ,",=. ., - D.\~f.\GE C.'L:
1 1 5 23703 07 1 I 44() 30 . II 53 ,6 LI GHT 8 , 0 S I e , b
" "
.:..~,: . ,'-.' , ,. "
,. ,.' .'
'.. "
" .. , "
~ ,.~.:. -; , .'
'. ~.{.~:~
., "~:.;!l ~~i.~~?::?\>~\: ~ ~;~ 1.;.:'St';.;:; .~:-;.-. ,., ,. > .. ..
;,~l. '.' .. .
.:-2.-"t;4
.~.. " .. ," '. '. .. '.
.- ., "
-'~:';'- .,- .. '. ., "'. .' " :
.:, , -. "..p .~.. .'.
- .. " , .... :...
.. . . .. ,.
, .. .' .. .'
JUNDAGE; 1: 0 TAp. , I lill 0 '438 , .. 1 1 5 ..
, , , .
" .. , .. ,
.-
., <
/(;~ 0 6~
/1 3.7..JD
June 22, 2006
RIl"" C!'" '''' if?""""
_ - g.,.. i'~ \~) ~'" ~ ~l
~~ ~.'Q j _~ .,;;J
JUri 2 32rir.;:;
CITY 0" ^RROVO G'J'~t\!"LJC
.., r.. ""...,1. ,',.i ~t" C
"0'" ",,"-' c..',.'-..- ._,~, ":
C IIVii\,~U;";li '( _':;:" t.:;_...,'\ i'li~t'l'
Arroyo Grande City Planning Department
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93440
Re: Cherry Creek Project
To the Director of Planning:
I am a native of San Luis Obispo County and have owned a business in Arroyo Grande
for the past 25 years, I recently read a story in the Tribune regarding the new Cherry
Creek Development, and have also taken the time to review the plans and visit the site, I
am encouraged to see that the CitY is actually proceeding with new homes for our area!
Even though this is a small development with only 37 homes, it is exactly the tYPe of
neighborhood that Arroyo Grande needs, It will be great to have some new homes where
people can actually walk to the Village,
I am taken aback by those who wish to stop this development because they claim that this
particular parcel is "ag land," This property has been used for residential purposes for the
past 50 years, The land is already zoned residential, and there are existing homes on the
property, There is also an existing residential neighborhood on both sides of this
property, making it a logical place for a new neighborhood,
Please do not allow a small group of obstructionists to prevail in stopping this project. I
believe the Planning Department is correct in suggesting approvaL
S~~LL
Richard Blake
Please distribute copies to:
Arroyo Grande City Council & Planning Commission
Steven. & Sh.eri Hau.ck
420 Hidden. Oak. Road '
Arroyo Gran.de, CA 93420,'
r:: ;:,.
1...,.,,'-
June 25, 2006
Mayor Tony Ferrara
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: CherrY Creek Subdivision
~, I
,
We are writing to you in support of the proposed Cheery Creek Subdivision, covered by
The Tribune on May 18,2006, We are residents of Arroyo Grande and familiar with the
arel! where the project is proposed.
After reviewing the plans for this development, we believe it will serve to enhance our
entire community and more specifically the adjoining neighborhoods in Arroyo Grande.
We like the fact that the development in neatly tucked between two existing residential
areas and that it is within walking distance of the Village. We join with the many other
residents and professionals that support the recommendation to approve this project
The newspaper article referenced that there is some opposition to allowing 35 homes. It
seems to us that allowing 35 homes to be constructed on nine acres is reasonable. This
density promotes more affordably priced homes, as opposed to larger homes on larger
lots.
Our vote would be to allow this important project to proceed.
Please distribute this letter to:
City Council Members
Planning Commissioners
City Planning Director
Telephone (805) 474-5940 Facsimile (805) 474-5941
Q \ 6--~r~Q..1
~(\'\.(L4~
CLS~p
1A.~t... !u..Ml.t..Y'
Elizabeth Scott-Graham
(805) 785-0248
Cell: 710-0712
E-mail: esgraham(a)s]onet.org
1:)e~.,.....
", 11"'" " "f'"
i1 '~.t. '} .I'~I " \. ~ ~
:>r:t ~.g>1. ~.~ -..,.J t
.."". . ; 1 "
-t>.,...,-P
June 23, 2006
11"1
'..d'; (" n"!"'r'~
, .....' J';' " "
..... ), ~.
CITY OF A Co '
'-'0' H~"O'/n r.: - .
'" rv'iiViU;\!iT'/ i'!;~:_;v~ANDE
-'~ \. '=LOPM"~I"
L'
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission and
Mayor Ferrara and Members of the City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
413 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: Cherry Creek Development
City Council Agenda for July 18, 2006
Dear Mayor Ferrara and Members of the Council:
I am writing to support the Cherry Creek development project scheduled for July 18, with one reservation, which I
will explain shortly.
1 have lived in San Luis Obispo County since 1969, over twenty of those years in Arroyo Grande.
I have worked conscientiously since that time to protect the environment of the area. As a volunteer, while
practicing law in Arroyo Grande during the 1980's, 1 spearheaded the successful effort to raise the $ISmillion that
was used to conserve the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes. Shortly after that effort I took a position with a national
nonprofit, The Arnerican Farmland Trust. As the Central Valley Field Director of AFT, I worked long and hard to
protect our farmland. '.
During my tenure at AFT, we commissioned a study by the University of Cali fomi a Institute of Urban and Regional
Development to determine the most effective way to curb sprawl unto our farmlands. This study proved that the
most effective way to protect farmland was to increase density and in-fill urban areas. The other result of this study
showed that low-density development exceeds the cost of revenues needed for community services. The study
concluded, "The tragic waste of agricultural resources and tax dollars can be avoided by encouraging more
compact, efficient growth..."
The low density of this development is a classic example ofa waste ofland and in-fill opportunity. It will eventually
result in a decrease in community services or an increase in taxes as the City struggles to pay for need~J services.
The residents who have encouraged the increased lot sizes are only accelerating the time when Arroyo Grande will
be swallowed by more sprawl.
I would encourage the City Council to increase the density ofthe proposed development in the name of the greater
good of the community as a whole.
Sincerely yours,
E~~~
UEE-_ERENI.B~, oJi)s'.", _', - ,,' - - ',',', ~,< - ':' ,
f' - '. t.
...- -
June 28, 2006
,
,
,
The Mayor of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: Cherry Creek Project
Dear Mr. Mayor:
After looking over newspaper article on the referenced project and the subsequent
proposed plans and drawings, I believe this will be an excellent addition to the City of
',Arroyo Grande. I am a resident of the Arroyo Grande area for the past several years and
love our "Little Village". I am so pleased to see this small neighborhood carefully
designed within our City limits within walking distance to the village. This "Cherry
Creek" neighborhood design will be more in character with our small town than the
large-scale urban sprawl developments that include hundreds of homes, which we see
covering the hillsides in Arroyo Grande.
In my opinion, the Arroyo Grande Planning Staff has done a good job of planning this
development, and I would encourage you to accept their recommendation for approval of
this project.
, '
Sincerely, . /
,U.t-/ U~
UlfEreniu~.D.S.
P. S. Please forward a copy to th,e Councilmen and Planning Staff.
1915 SCANDI LANE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
PHONE (805)489-8793
FAX (805)489-1941
t: CC~(kLI\-(.~L
PI Ov~rtctU) C~~
Cd:i rr~~~.pl,y
(~1l( At\nIWJ
7~/ D\J1.~~v
r~[c;~: \f~-:f)
Jl";:_ \~ E : ~:" '.
\
CITY c:: i.~~:'>)\rc'j ;:~~~-:,:',:"~JF.
June 28, 2006
C;O;..,.1~.~J >.:;-;-'; L: ~'\i"~....C: ," ;\':~~: .F"
Arroyo Grande City Council
& Planning Department
Zi4 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA
93420
Re: Proposed Cherry Creek Project
To the Members of Arroyo Grande City Council:
A~ a resident of the Arroyo Grande area for the past three plus decades, I travel East
Cherry daily. I have property in both the city and county, so I am concerned about this
new development. After looking over the current project drawings and overall plan, I
believe tltis will actually be an excellent addition to the City of Arroyo Grande. The new
neighborhood is thoughtfully designed with nice open space areas mixed in. I like the
idea that it is within walking distance to the village.
This new neighborhood will be in character with our small town. I understand that the
average lot size is around 8500 square feet. This should make for more affordable
housing, which we need, without very high density. We have a lot oflarge homes on
large lots in our city, but we need some more affordable housing.
I feel this is truly a smart development for our city. Our Arroyo Grande planning staff
has done an excellent job of planning this development, and I agree with their conclusion
that you should approve the project as proposed.
wflt~
,---
!D~?'~ to,"'''' ~~ -.., '.
~ ",~ k: t:-~~ .. ~~: ~ . ~_.:; ~..
." ,... ( '"':r.:-,""
II' "I' ,,; ~
...:....;\'l .' " --.,
~ "'~O"C Cr')^l'l,:~
CIW Or t..';;' i ..' ...'-
.-\ I'.! '""\.,...~, ~....~ 1-
('CV' -"J'.':IY D::.,c~U, i..~i'"
,-, ,~.. Ii ..1
City Hall
Arroyo Grande City Planning Department
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93440
* *Please distribute this letter to every City Council and Planning
Department Member**
To the City Council-
I wanted to share my thoughts on the Cherry Creek subdivision proposal
with the City Council and the Planning Department. I read about the
subdivision in the newspaper and as a resident of Arroyo Grande for the past
30 years, and knowing area well, I want to strongly suggest going forward
with the project.
To my knowledge there is a drainage problem affecting the surrounding
areas. In developing the subdivision they, being the developer, could take
care of the issue as a condition of approval of the development.
There are always people who are against the growth of our beautiful city and
want to see it remain the way it is, however I believe this project would help
our city. I would urge you to make the housing as affordable as possible. I
would encourage you to go forward with the project as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Lance. elt
834 Creekside Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
BOSCH
LANDSCAPE CO.
~.
2225 HUASNA ROAD
ARROYO GR.t;Ng~. Ct"~~~i~9'Ell
(805) 481-61175. ;;RiWYO C.,'.:::--"
CaNT. L1C.. 3667'0' r F'I I '. .. r
. U vU_ 0 'Pi I Ii: r, ')
'- .~...:
June 28, 2006
The Mayor and City Council
CIO City Hall
413 W. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I have lived in Arroyo Grande for about 20 years. I own and operate a landscaping
company from Arroyo Grande that operates countywide.
After reading the local newspaper about the proposed new subdivision known as "Cherry
Creek," I decided to look at the actual plan and reports and then decided to write before
the next hearing in July.
I will also try and show up at the July hearing, but if! am not there, I would like to go on
record with my support of this new subdivision.
I have heard it has become almostimpossible to get any development approved in Arroyo
Grande. After reading the property owners have been trying to get this approved for three
years, I guess it must be true. You would think the Planning Commission could make up
their mind in less than five hearings, especially after the Arroyo Grande Planning
Department has presented a thorough several page report and recommended approval!
The property is zoned residential. The project has low density. It is a relatively small
residential project nicely located in a residential area. The owners are local, and they are
known for quality projects. The newspaper says the City has already listed 138 conditions
and 53 mitigation measures, so what do you want from these people?
This is a project that deserves approval!
Sincerely,
~~~i&1rJ_
Stephen Bosch
Bosch Landscape Company
c:~
~~J
~ PfOA'vttUV
~f~/ob
June 30, 2006
Mayor Tony Ferrara
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE:Cherrv Creek Subdivision
We are writing to you in support of the proposed Cheery Creek Subdivision, covered by
The Tribune on May 18,2006. We are residents of Arroyo Grande and familiar with the
area where the project is proposed.
After reviewing the plans for this development, we believe it will serve to enhance our
entire community and more specifically the adjoining neighborhoods in Arroyo Grande.
We like the fact that the development in neatly tucked between two existing residential
areas and that it is within walking distance of the Village. We join with the many other
residents and professionals that support the recommendation to approve this project
The newspaper article referenced that there is some opposition to allowing 35 homes. It
seems to us that allowing 35 homes to be constructed on nine acres is reasqnable. This
density promotes more affordably priced homes, as opposed to larger homes on larger
lots.
r-
uld be to allow this important project to proceed.
d Danielle Epstein
Please distribute this letter to:
City Council Members
Planning Commissioners
City Planning Director
Telephone (805) 481-7016
..!~.ryBass;tt - Coast News letters regarding the Appeal matter to be heard 7/11/6
1-08<::;; ;
From: "Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmaiLcom>
To: <tferrara@arroyogrande.org>, <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>, <jdickens@c20n.net>,
<jcos tell o@arroyogrande.org>, <earnold@arroyogrande.org>
Date: 6/30/20068:15:57 AM
Subject: . Coast News letters regarding the Appeal matter to be heard 7/11/6
*To the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of **Arroyo**Grande:
*
tferrara@arroyogrande.org
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org
jdickens@c20n.net
jcostello@arroyogrande.org
earnold@arroyogrande.org
To mbassett@arroyogrande.org for distribution to the Planning Commission and
the City Manager:
Chuck Fellows, Chair
Tim Brown, Vice Chair
Doug Tait, Commissioner
Nanci Parker, Commissioner
Caren Ray, Commissioner
*For the Council and Planning Commission's information: *
*Subject: Letters below appearing in the Coast News this week regarding the
appeal matter. *
'The first letter as provided by BRAHAMA D. SHARMA, Ph.D.,C.Chem.,FRSC(life),
RP. *
*Sharma wrote regarding the article written by Bob Beheme concerning the
appeal matter. *
*The article featured Colleen Martin and her mother, Lynn Titus!
*The second letter was prepared by the Mike Titus Memorial Committee. *
*The letter answers Sharma. It was signed by Larry Turner and Otis Page. *
*It frames the argument why an "appeal process" should be considered. *
*SHARMA'S LETTER:'
*To the Editor:*'*
Mary I?.a.ssett - Coast News letters regarding the Appeal matter to be heard 7/11/0
r~~:.~
. --'
*Subject: The report of impending,"broad implications" by Bob Behme (Front
page,The Coast News, June 21-June 27), concerning an appeal by Lynn Titus
and her daughter, Colleen Martin is of interest in the exercise of "DUE
PROCESS" by public bodies. ***
*Having scrutinized the report number of times, no where one finds any
reference to the public hearing on the issue by the Planning Commission of
City of UArroyo Grande**. **'"
*Yes, the intentions of Lynn Titus and Colleen Martin are very commendable
but if each and every issue that required the city staff study was made the
subject of scrutiny by the applicant at each step, the DUE PROCESS will be
in shambles; u*
*It is surprising that only recently a situation in which City Council
members of Pismo Beach interjected, albeit claiming their First Amendment
Rights, in matters of Planning Commission, a subordinate body, nonetheless
violating an equally important step called the DUE PROCESS was in the
headlines, that Honorable Mayor Ferrara has in effect done the same in this
case. ~u
*Let the issue come before the Planning Commission. It is, during the public
hearing before the Planning Commission, the right of the applicants, Lynn
Titus and Colleen Martin to mount a vigorous public case against the
erroneous data generated by the city staff, and not appeal to the City prior
to the public hearing. ***
*Yours sincerely,***
*BRAHAMA D. SHARMA, Ph.D.,C.Chem.,FRSC(life), RP***
*Registered Parliamentarian***
*P 0 **BOX 1626**, **PISMO BEACH**, **CA** **93448-1626***
*805-773-0342***
**
*REPL Y *
**
*Subject:* * BRAHAMA D. SHARMA's letter re: The report of impending,"broad
implications" by Bob Behme; The Coast News, June 21-June 27 *
*The Cherry Creek appeal made by* *Lynn** Titus and Colleen Martin to the
Planning Commission (PC) of Arroyo Grande was presented at the PC meeting of
May 16, 2006. *
*Parliamentarian Brahama Sharma is against allowing the appeal and defends
existing Public Comment procedures. He states, "but if each and every issue
that required the city staff study was made the subject of scrutiny by the
applicant (by citizens) at each step, the DUE PROCESS will be in shambles."
*
Mary Bassett - Coast News letters regarding the Appeal matter to be heard 7/11/6
. - .... .--.
~.' " ''''" .~
r'd~r;:: .,)
..
*Titus and Martin insist this is not true. *
..
*Public Comment by citizens is often constrained by time and the random
format of comment, where staffs and developer's presentations typically
have no time constraints. *
* *
*Staff reports are issued late on Friday for the PC meeting on the following
Tuesday therefore not allowing timely review. *
* *
*Further, staffs presentations at the PC typically. provide new information.
*
* *
*This also does not allow sufficient time for citizen understanding of
staff's decisions and recommendations. *
..
*The existing procedures, therefore, has the effect of limiting informed
citizen Comment and is inconsistent with the spirit of the Brown Act.*
..
*Titus and Martin believe the staffs report on Cherry Creek is corrupted by
error and possesses all these limitations. It is for these reasons they are
seeking a hearing of their appeal. *
* *
*A focused Public Hearing on the subject of an appeal does not put "DUE
PROCESS - in shambles". *
*It accomplishes the opposite in establishing a thoughtful response by
citizens for a complete record for the PC. *
*The real question is will the City Council allow or deny the right of
citizens to make such an appeal. *
..
*Larry Turner and Otis Page for the Mike Titus Memorial Committee*
cc:
<mbassett@arroyogrande.org>
.
ATTACHMENT 5
David Waitt Environmental
P.O. 6552, Los 0505, CA 934H
(805) 235-5223
(805) 528-3504 FAX
July 6, 2006
Ms. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
SUBJECT: Response to Greg McGowan June 5, 2005 Comment Letter on the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist for the East Village Neighborhood Plan (Cherry Creek Project)
Dear Ms. Heffernon:
David-_W olff Environmental (OWE) is pleased to submit the following information, clarifications, and
recommended revisions to the Initial Study - Environmental Checklist prepared for the East Village
Neighborhood Plan. As you know, I assisted the City of Arroyo Grande with the review of available
background information and field studies to prepare the Biological Resources and Water Q!.tality sections of
the Initial Study. This letter is in response to the issues raised in the Greg McGowan June 5, 2006 comment
letter on the Initial Study as it relates to biological resources and water quality issues. I have provided the
following information and clarifications for the record and a track changes version of the latest Initial Study
with my recommended changes in the Biological Resources section for clarification of the analysis in
consideration of Mr. McGowan's comments.
Comment 2 - Neighborhood Plan Review
Mr. McGowan suggests there are inconsistencies between the project description and the environmental
analysis of potential project impacts. He further suggests that the biological resources analysis only included
the Subarea 1 development.
Mr. McGowan's assumption that no biological resources study was included for Subarea 2 is incorrect. For
clarification in response to Mr. McGowan's opinions, the biological resources field surveys and impact
analysis included evaluation of the entire 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area. The biological resources serting
- section in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph states, "Several residences are located within the
proposed project area that are surrounded by non-nadve landscape vegetadon. "This statement refers the
Subarea 2 project area. For clarification to the scope of project analysis to demonstrate the entire 22-acre
Neighborhood Plan area was adequately surveyed and evaluated, I have provided edits to the setting section
of the Initial Study Biological Resources section.
Mr. McGowan provides the opinion that the Initial Study impact analysis only included the Subarea 1
subdivision of nine acres and does not provide for the analysis of the remaining 13 acres within the
Neighborhood Plan Area. Mr. McGowan further generalizes that CEQA analysis of potential impacts be
based specifically on the project description. The Initial Study project description used as the basis for the
analysis clearly states the Subarea 1 subdivision proposal and that no development is currently proposed for
the 13-acre Subarea 2 area. Further, the project description states the purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is
ro coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, and open space considerations. The
Biological Resources setting and impact analysis clearly and adequately evaluates the project impacts of
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
David@DKWEnvironmental.com
www.dkwenvironmental.com
/
East Village Neigh60,hood Flan Initial5tud~ Response to Comments - F age 2 of +
D~vid Wolff Envi,onmental
Subarea 1 where the development is proposed. Given that the project description states no new
development is currently proposed for Subarea 2. then it follows that there are currently no impacts to be
evaluated as the existing conditions established for Subarea 2 in the Initial Study (rural residential with
non-native landscape vege.tation) would not change from implementation of the proposed project
subdivision of the nine-acre Subarea 1. It is my understanding that for the pwpose of the Initial Study. the
City would conduct additional environmental review with any proposed project or development in Subarea
2 that requires discretionary review.
C:omment 3 - Creek Setback
Mr. McGowan provided his opinions on the applicability and analysis of the 25-foot creek setback required
for the project and suggests interpretations that may be used by the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) regarding riparian habitat impacts and setback requirements.
The Initial Study adequately addresses the riparian habitat impacts and required 25-foot creek setback. The
25-foo.r setback from top of bank and ripari~n restoration plan required in Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2
are City of Arroyo Grande requirements and a:e independent from CDFG jurisdiction or regulation.
Additionally. Mr. McGowan is not necessarily correct in assuming CDFG setbacks are calculated from
finished contours as it would . apply to the proposed outfall structure impacts to riparian habitat.
Construction of the outfall structure on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek would be subject to a CDFG
agreement as provided for in Mitigation Measure 4.8.lt is important to note that the CDFG 1602 process is
an agreement between the CDFG and applicant and is not a permit with specific requirements mandated by
regulation. This affords both the applicant and CDFG to arrive at a mutually agreeable project design and
commensurate mitigation as needed. It is my opinion that the proposed riparian habitat setback and
restoration plan mitigation measures would suffice for satisfying the conditions of a CDFG 1602 agreement
that would be commensurate with the project impacts on riparian habitat for the outfall structure. For
clarification, the applicant has provided a more detailed landscape plan sheet specific to the creek setback
area with a list of native riparian species for inclusion in the record.
Comment 4 - Stormwater Infrastructure
Mr. McGowan correctly summarizes the ecological importance and regulatory issues that have been
adequately addressed in the Initial Study. He further provides numerous suggestions, opinions. and
scenarios for the design and. engineering solutions for the proposed regional drainage solution outfall
structure.
The Initial Study provides an adequate description and analysis of the proposed outfall structure in terms of
ecological significance and needed regulatory compliance. Final engineering design is not necessaty for the
evaluation of impacts and requirements to comply with all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to
potential creek and riparian habitat impacts. The impact discussion in the Initial Study states that riparian
impacts would be avoided and minimized to that necessary for installation of the stormwater outfalls for the
regioIJal drainage solution. Furthermore, compliance with state and federal regulations require that projects
arrive at a final design by justifying that impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable
and feasible in order to achieve the project goals. As such, the Initial Study adequ.ately addresses these issues
with the conceptual outfall design in relationship to the proposed project without the engineering design
detail suggested by Mr. McGowan.
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
David@DKWEnvironmental.com
WW'N.dkYIenvironmental.com
Cherry Creek Native Species DWE Recommended PI
Scientific Name ',',' I Common Name'li'.! 'Recommeifded:;
';;i,';;,-, ~. ';..1 ,,' , --";i" i "'"" ..:.;t>#X
Trees (1 to 5 gallon)
Acer macrophyllum Big leaf maple X
Acer neoundo Box elder X
Aesculus californica California buckeye X
Cornus sericea American dogwood X
Juglans californica S. Cal. black walnut X
Myrica californica California wax myrtle X
Platanus racemosa Sycamore X
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak X
Rhamnus californica California coffeeberrv X
Umbelularia californica California bay X
Shrubs (1 gallon)
Artemisia californica California saoe brush X
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush X
Heteromeles arbutifolia Tovon X
Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky monkey flower X
Rhamnus caHfornica California coffeeberrv X
Rosa californica California rose X
Rubus ursinus California blackberry X
Sambucus mexlcana Blue elderberrv X
Herbaceous (Plugs)
Artemesia douglasiana Mugwort X
Carex barbarae Sedoe X
Juncus effusus Soft rush X
Erosion Control Seed Mix (30 pounds/acre)
Artemesia douglaslana Mugwort X
Bromus carinatus California brome X
Carex barbarae Santa Barbara sedqe X
Elymus qlaucus Blue wildrve X
Eschscholzia californica California poppy X
Lotus scoparius Deerweed X
Luplnus nanus LUDlne X
Mulenberoia rlqens Deerorass X
Nassella Dulcra Purple needleqrass X
Trifolium sp. Clover X
anting Palette List
Draft - July 5, 2006
. ..
\
-...:
,",/
East Village Ndghbo"!'ood Flan InitialStud.'J R.esponse to Comments - F age' of +
David Wolff Environmental
Comment 5 - Creek Trail
Mr. McGowan suggests that impacts from volunteer trails to the creek and required creek trail Mitigation
Measure 4.4 are unlikely. infeasible. and unnecessary. I would suggest Mr. McGowan's analysis is accurate
in reflecting the likely small amount of potential creek access given the steep and thickly vegetated banks
and the availability of the existing footpath to th~ creek at the gauging station. I have provided edits to the
impact summary and suggest deleting Mitigation Measure 4.4 in response to Mr. McGowan's comments.
Comment 6 - Sensitive Species
Mr. McGowan provides a long summary and numerous opinions regarding the analysis of special-starus
species evaluated in the Initial Srudy. I have distilied the lengthy comments to A) the need for species-
specific surveys, B) riparian and stream habitat impacts analysis, and C) adequate CEQA mitigation and the
potential deferred mitigation.
A) Species-Specific Surveys - The Initial Srudy adequately addresses impacts on steelhead, California red-
legged-frog, and western pond rurtle without the need for species-specific surveys at the project location.
The impacts on Arroyo Grande Creek and riparian habitat that could result in actual mortality .to
individuals are limited to the construction phase of the proposed stormwater outfall structure. As currendy
conceived. impacts would be mosdy on .the creek banks with limited (if any) impact in the active creek
channel. The most extreme impact would be the likely need for erosion control rock at the toe of the slope
and potentially in the creek channel itself. Under the most extensive impact scenario, direct impacts on any
.individuals could be easily avoided though on-site monitoring at the time of construction. Assuming
presence within the stream and taking appropriate regulatory compliance steps along with typical
construction monitoring requirements would adequately address potential impacts and impact avoidance
and minimization measures. As such. there is no need for extensive and cosdy species-specific surveys that
would still only represent a snapshot in time as these mobile species could move up and down the creek
corridor in and out of the project area at any given time in response to regularly changing conditions in the
creek.
B) Riparian and Stream Habitat Impact Analysis - Mr. McGowan provided an opinion that removal of
riparian habitat would have many indirect impacts on the Arroyo Grande Creek stream ecosystem. The
Initial Study adequately addressed the potential impacts from the proposed outfall structure construction
given the creek flows are managed from Lopez Dam and do not represent a natural stream flow scenario.
The relatively small and localized opening in the riparian habitat for the outfall structure would not likely
have the many indirect effects suggested by Mr. McGowan such as warmer water temperatures and
increased predation by raptors. In addition, it is a typical requirement of final engineering designs of outfall
structures to provide appropriate energy dissipating strucrures based on high flow scenarios so as to not
cause substantial erosion to the creek bed or banks at the outfall structure.
C) Adequate CEQA Mitigation and Potential Deferred Mitigation - Mr. McGowan suggests that a range of
specific quantifiable parameters and performance objectives are required to adequately address impacts on
special-status species. Further. Mr. McGowan suggests that Mitigation Measures 4.9 and 4.10 defer
mitigation to the results of future studies. The Initial Srudy provides adequate mitigation in requiring
regulatory compliance for potential impacts on formally listed species commensurate with the relatively
small and localized impact from the proposed outfall structure. The purpose of the outfall is to handle
storm water runoff from the full range of storm events. Small events would be provided a water quality
benefit through the use of the bio swale approach in the project area before discharging to Arroyo Grande
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
David@DKWEnvironmental.com
WHW.dkwenvironmental.com
I
East Village Neighborhood Flan JnitialStud;t R.esponse to Comments ~ rage + of +
David Wolff E.nvironmental
Creek that would adequately mitigate potential effects from siltation and turbidity. During large storm
events Arroyo Grande Creek would typically have high flows that would dilute any siltation or turbidity
from the localized drainage to a level of insignificance. Given the seasonal nature of the Newsom Springs
Drainage, dry season flows are not expected to occur.
Mitigation Measures 4.7,4.8,4.9, and 4.10 are not deferred mitigation relying on future studies. These
measures are included for the purpose of full disclosure under CEQA to provide the public with the
understanding that the project applicants would comply with all applicable state and federal laws and
regulations. This is common CEQA practice to demonstrate the importance of other regulations that govern
natural resources so that duplicate efforts from local government agencies are not required. Inherent in the
regulatory compliance processes articulated in these Mitigation Measures is the requirement to demonstrate
that a project has been designed to avoid, minimize, and compensate for potential impacts so that the
resources are left in as good as or better conditions than the existing conditions. With this understanding,
the Initial Study has provided adequate mitigation demonstrating that potential project impacts are
mitig.ned to a less-than-significant level. In order to clarify this position, I have provided edits to the Initial
Study reflecting the outcome of required regulatory compliance with applicable state and federal laws and
regulations.
Comment 7 - Native Restoration
Mr. McGowan suggests some clarification in the native plant restoration plan would help with the
understanding of Mitigation Measure 4.2. Mr. McGowan is correct in suggesting the intent of Mitigation
Measure 4.2 is to provide a formal native habitat restoration plan for all disturbed areas along Arroyo
Grande Creek. To clarify the intent of Mitigation Measure 4.2 the applicant has provided a phin sheet
specific to the proposed native plant restoration efforts for the 25-foot creek setback area and the areas
disturbed by the stormwater outfall structure. The plan sheet evaluated for the Initial Study included both
landscape plans and native planting plans that needed close review to distinguish the two types of planting
schemes. The additional plan sheet clarifies the difference and clearly shows the proposed location and
species list for the native plant restoration effort. With this additional graphic representation, Mitigation
Measure 4.2 still adequately demonstrates that impacts on riparian habitat would be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level.
(((((
Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide environmental consulting services for the City of
Arroyo Grande. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Very truly yours,
()JlWd$
David K. Wolff
Principal Ecologist
Certified Professional Wetland Scientist
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
Oavid@OKWEnvironmental.com
WNW.dkwenvironmental.com
~
i .-".
'-.:i_~.. () ,
61-' -.,
.. {
i'
J
"''-
Steven PuSIi.1
ARCHITECTURE
."
0~~;:::::'."-.l""
- .
. "',;..:r . ,.- .
'- .~-.
-;.-.... ....
July 06, 2006
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
P. O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
.~
":~_'._ ."; ';" OJ"
- .1.
CIT/C;.: ,.,
. ,
". . ~.
CC:.::,:..":: .
SUBJECT: CHERRY CREEK
-.
Dear Commissioners and Council Members,
Having designed numerous projects throughout San Luis Obispo County including a
number of both commercial and residential developments for Clifford Branch, I have
watched the Cherry Creek Project from it's inception and would like to offer the
following comments.
1. The project conforms to both the Arroyo Grande General Plan and all applicable
zoning ordinance. Land Use, density, lot coverage, parking, building setbacks
etc. all meet city design standards. It is these codified standards that serve,
statewide: as the litmus test in the planning process protecting both the
community and the land owner from arbitrary decision making.
2. The current project design also addresses a number of more subjective
development issues as well. These include a much improved regional drainage
solution not just for this property but for the surrounding community. Also, sewer
and water infrastructure improvements are being provided which will benefit the
entire planning area as will the paving of East Cherry Avenue.
3. The current site design pays particular attention to the Vandeveer residence.
am pleased to see the new street design showcase this historic and beautiful
home.
- I thank you for considering these comments and hope you will support this application.
Respectfully, 0
~~
Steven Puglisi
Steven Puglisi ARCHITECTURE
Joseph Hall
2416 Lopez D~~ve
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
805-474-9332
~~)
.f>~C
J(j, .,f/Vt:-
Clly ~ I 4.~
COJ!1, 0,(" 0 <'Oa
~{;A;1~~o 5'
"Illy 1'0
DI:,. G",
.. v~l 'T'-1~
Optl1, z:>~
~l\Ir
July 6, 2006
Planning Commission
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
l'.rroyo Gra..'lde, C,/1, 93120
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I am writing to express my support of the Cherry Creek subdivision
project and the associated Development Code Amendment, Neighborhood
Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development.
I have read about this project in the newspapers over the past year or so,
and recently I have reviewed many of the documents and minutes from
the Planning Commission and from the City Council related to this
project, and I have seen the plans of the development.
I am in favor of this project in its most recent revision because the
density and scale of the proposed project is less than it could be legally;
because the developers have been responsive to the concems that have
been voiced by neighbors and city officials; because this project is
contiguous to existing neighborhoods and will complement them;
because the existing homes already there will be left in place and the
architecturally and historically significant Vandeveer house will be
rehabilitated; because the project is within a short half mile of the village
C~nt~r ::!rorl ma1'~s r,.....,.. '3"" .o"='s"" ~;'<:Ilt.... "='nrl bO...."='11C'ClIo 1..... ,""';11 boO "=' ~;<"+;1""\""""
...._ ___ __.......... ....... ........ 1............................c..l. 'J .. '^"..I,l", c.A.-L...... ....'-''''''......'-'''-' ~".. ~ .... fo,.4, ..........v.....................
improvement aesthetically over many of the other residential areas. Also,
the project allows for the continued unimpeded use of the neighboring
agricultural fields.
I think that this proiect will provide lasting benefits for its neighbors. and
for the whole co~m~mity in Arroyo Grand~. -'
Sincerely yours,
I
/t-'U71~~
,?U::-kSE' COf^( BA~
fL..dvv N );-14 Lv Ml'Vl L 'Yrl 0 r1
fWD CI'1 c::cu.JG>JL-
"''\'~M~.
I " ,,(",r-~..r.''''~n' h.:, -',-' ':,.-, ,.,.. --',_ ."'~-'~,..,=",rv'..!,"',-' ..---,-- '.'r~ -,.; 'h --:J '-'~"~" " -".... .'
: '. ,. ,. ,_, -.," .' '__' ) \:;.-- '....r ~ --,-. ( ", ,? .: '. ,...,.{#o"'. .~"<."'? . .rs:::~-""'" _.r.. '~'f~" ,... ''-.' .
, ". ""'f-:; ,,'''' . .... ."... - '.. . - y. . , """ ,.. r . .. ,~ ,.".
, ..... -f-i" ......,.". .... .. :;:. ','" ....::...J'.(.. :., '::(-_.... ~>-f" "rOt -. .....::...:.. - / ,- {-~ q '"'\'-""-"\.. j";"--,"
, ~.-:.:;'._-~. .#'.:':-"; !'~':.'-".l~:::r; :;X:"k:~'/~l',,-_;' .:.\..::..........:-- ,-~'. ,.'(,"JJ:.~ ..)...._<... ;,.........:o:? ~-.. ~.::.,;Y". (' .7~..... .
I ',..l._y_#~_._~...-:~-_'1_..... ........_~..; -'- ~-- ('" .......~. ',f"! .." "~"'~'.r.' ,/~. ':),.. -t-."'---"......a.... _J..JI" 'r::......,...:.4.~ :'>..
~ {:ti -- -. '.. - - . -' ., ._-~'- . --.. - - u.." -.- -".. - '_d .,~~:.!. -
"'i
I ~,"':\
, '
I .~
"'1,4
,..-''!,;:'
~ .
'/1
:"?\-
':ir.;
~
'.,.
~.": ."
\k:.
.,;.-q
~ Dear Flanning Commission,
'~':'i1 I am writing to support the new Cherr!j Creek subdivision
.,.
~~_ that has been proposed b!j local developers, including Clilt . ~\
j ;:- 5ranch. I don't have financial interest in this pr~ect,but I have <?
.J'~ 1 .
~{1: known Clilt for 30 !jears and am ver!j familiar with other things .>
}':' he has done, such as the beautiful Avila 5a!j Club, 5assi t~
. .i:~ Ranch, and the 5toneridge 5ubdivision, not to mention the ~i~,'
]..~~ private homes he has designed and built.~\.:":
\-...tl <."
:~':;:!~( I have looked over the plan for this pr~ect, and walked the~:.:"
&?; propert.l:) and I can visualize what is planned there. No one could ~,
r'..<i do a nicerjob of itthan Clilt... he is all about 9ualit!j, and /
J:ii something else. . . he loves trees and carefull!jlan'dscapes ever!j C. .
-," ~rs:: . -.
,,;:;'~ project beautifull!j. I was pleased to see how this project was "'",-,
:r~} nestled between two existing neighborhoods and that the ~.~.
~:; (
~ ~
~/= ; _' ".. _ _ ._' . _" _ '_.__ _' . _~ . _.._....,. ........ .........--..-. . ... ~7.-~~.
> ~-~i= r:', '" ,'--r--. ,-," ""'t-..,~ ,\--,.:J~,"""" :r--.....;;..('.g. ~..'........., ."}~;,,, '...... ,~-'-'
J'~~ -o~.' ~.~.:~.\~~:<~.~~~.~:-. ; ~~~~~:1~I:~~~~i~~(.~.:/.~.=~ .~~:...~-~W~~_ ;~;.~~~~ .:.,~ J1<.....~.__~~;...~~~:~~:_~;~~.~~~
,.
.,
-:.,:-<;
'i..J_~
. .....'
-'"j'"
. .,
','p
-R~
('/:
\
.(, ~
'i:z_ :'
..;.. i ~
.. ,
I \'l>1
r.....1
',rc.S
..~~:~ ,
~'f-~::...
.\.. .
If ,"
~ .
.: ..
f'.~' .:
"
Jul!j 7, 2006
~tf.?
\,iJ-----
"
\.,
~~~ . <.,
1.: '-. .
;".":,
r .~
. "
. "
.\,
...-...
rJ...- .
\r
~.:.I .
Flanning Commission
Cit!j of Arro!jo Grande
21 + Last 5ranch 5t.
Arro!jo Grande, CA .93+20
RECEIVED
('~.,
JU~ I o2ooS
[1...
~ ; \
f(
L{<..
cln' ()F A.P.RC;'{Q <..~~il\NDE
COMMUt~li'r' DtVE:"O?MENT
) ,
)'",
f'. .'..
1:>":-'
" ......r'
','
( ."
.:;...'.. --.'.'._ _ ....:, .';:~...".'.' '.'.' ._._ .._-......u~.,:..."'" "_. _.. ".-_. .',..... ~...-"'-"~ _......... "...~._.___..,~. ....,... ~,-,"_-..:____
......"'~-
~'"-~.
I
",
historical home on the propert.Y will be saved. Cliff has great
respect tor the traditions ot a place.
Ifthis propert!j is everto be developed, no one could do a
nicer job than ClitE
Thank !jOU so much tor 'your time.
5incerel'y,
I ,
S-~~
5usan 5ranch
,
I.
----....... oJ ...-.... . .~__r.-"'--'.... .
.'. ".. -- ".."
RECEIVE,;
:;IT'( SF ;:J~~O,({) c.:.'<:- :
, ,
05 jUL I G p}; [; 2::
City Hall
Arroyo Grande City Planning Department
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93440
To the City Council-
".
I have been a resident "Of Arroyo Grande since 1978. I have seen a lot of change
and growth in our community, while still having that small town feel.
I have been made aware of the Cherry Creek subdivision proposal and I'm
writing this in support of the subdivision. I've been made aware that there is a
drainage issue that affects the surrounding areas to the proposed Cherry Creek
subdivision. It should be the developer's responsibility to solve this drainage
issue to go forward with the project.
As I understand it, there is a lot of community support to go forward with this
project. I would urge you to consider this project.
Sincerely,
~#?4
Shannon Martin
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
l'-t~~ Ce..do.-v ~
**Please distribute this letter to all City Council and Planning Department
. Members**
~ : c'djF&1.t1~
6.,'fJ(\~~y
C"'-S~
~ P~Il-1W1J
C).;~CfuJSjI~G {DC
:fTY :~F~~f;~b\'~~~'!:.
- .... . .
O. " ,'f) ....., -~ '
OJU:.. Lr !.;;:_:.....
July 3, 2006
The Mayor and City COlIDCil
ClO City Hall
413 W. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Mayor and Cit). Council,
I live on Cherry Street in Arroyo Grande. I understand there is a project of new homes to
take place here. FoT. the record, [am in favor of these new homes.
I undersrend the owners of the Cherry Creek development lI!e local, and they areknov:n
for 'quality projects. I prefer quality new homes be buill here. We should have a choice
and a voice on this matter, and I am in favor of this development. This project deserves
approval!
1 will be at the next July hearing so I can voice my support 011 this new subdhisioll.
Sincerety,
D9v 6-
Doug Friedeck
r-
;- /Z-J:}::= !:J !2.-c;/c:;
Doug Friedeck
Cherry Street
Arroyo G'rande, CA 93420
(!; Cdj Cw..M~L
~j (Y\a.1~lj~---
~5~
~P{a.,MWL
CcU;C&J~h
V -1llor
RECEIVE:;
To The City Council, City Of Arroyo Grande,t~liff A1J~oYn C::.;""::':::
06 JUL 10 r\i.j I!: 02
Dear City Councilman-
\~ ,
This letter concerns a proposed new housing project I read about
in the Tribune called Cherry Creek. I am employed in the City of
Arroyo Grande. I am confused that people are protesting the
development over what they call "prime soils." Do these people
realize that several developed and undeveloped areas in Arroyo
Grande also have prime soils? Under this thinking, must we now
re-zone all existing residentially zoned areas that also happen to
have excellent soil?
My understanding is that this land is already zoned for residential
development on the City's .Approved General Plan that was
recently updated by the City Council, so why would this not be
allowed? How are we ever QoinQ to build any new homes in AG if
we don't even follow our own General Plan?
I looked over the plans for Cherry Creek that were submitted to
the City and I would think.that the City would be pleased to have
a carefully designed new subdivision, which is small in scale and
is located between two existing neighborhoods.
The newspaper stated that the AG Planning Department
recommended approval of the new homes, but as always, a few
neighbors do not want anyone near their own neighborhood, so
they are trying to stop the project. The newspaper also stated
~ that this project has been in the works for three years and
the planning commission is now on the fifth hearin~? What does
someone have to~o to build a new neighborhood in this
community? The City gives lip-service to caring about creating
affordable new homes in Arroyo Grande but then throws up road
block after road block. The result is lower density and higher
new home prices. I suggest that AG listen to their professional
planning st and let this new project proceed!
C'~D<\ ~,~ ~~/
Ron Janelli, Lop Drive, AG. (805) 458-5820
':l..q()lo
c:: Cvtc l:.&WluJ.-;
Cd2 f\'\ ()J.UL'fY
C~A-W~
Ad<;oc- Pl(I../\AIi.~o
C;--l-y (h.,vk--1 r
JL-11-2806 86:38 AM
P.01
~
',Sp'~!di1ig Laboiiitori~s
<" .. -...
~
~ .,
Spalding Laboratories, Inc,
760 Printz Rd. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
" ~~. ' : ~.1.~. J. . I ., J
7/10/2006
Kelly Heffernon
Planning Commissioners & City Council Members
City Hall
413 East Branch
Arroyo Grande, California 9344X
Fax 805-473-0386
Re: Cherry Creek Project
Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members,
My family has lived in Arroyo Grande for the past 30 years, at 760 Printz Road.
Our family also operates Spalding Labs, which operates nationally, from Arroyo
Grande.
The new neighborhood at Cherry Creek came to my attention via the local
newspaper. I am familiar with this area, and frankly, I was taken aback by the
"not in my back yard" mentality of those few people who try to block any new
development in our city. I recently took a look at the E. Cheery Neighborhood
Development Plan and I am one citizen who i~:favor of this new neighborhood,
and cannot understand why it has taken three years to allow new homes in an
area, which is properly zoned for more homes. The property is within the City,
which makes the site a logical place for an "in fill" development, rather than
tearing up land outside the City limits.
I also know that the area at E. Cherry floods historically, and I understand that
this development will pro\ide the funds to construct the City's existing drainage
plan for this area-which v.:ill protect the existing homes in that area. I would
hope the City will aIlow this project to move forward as soon as possible.
It always seems that those people "against" projects speak the loudest at the
city hearings, because those people "who don't object" do not feel so compelled
to voice their opinion. So I'm \\Titing to say that my family (as well as the
people I ha\'e known in AG for the past 30 years) would find thi.s new
neighborhood a welcome addition to our City!
~ly,
\~::?~~
July 11,2006
'-
RECEIVED
Planning Commission
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
JUL II 2006
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Planning Commissioners:
'. . My family owns the property at 835 East Cherry Lane. At this time we have no plans to
develop our property, but want to have that option in the future. The Arroyo Grande Planning
Department and Planning Commissioners, in conjunction with the Cherry Creek Developers,
appear to have produced a plan that addresses and solves all of the significant issues regarding
both their proposed development, and the future development of the neighborhood to the East
(which includes our property).
. Specifically Cherry Creek: complies with Arroyo Grande's General Plan, provides an
"AG Buffer" zone and open space near the creek, solves a major drainage problem in the area,
and extends sewer and water lines as well as an emergency access road to serve parcels located
East of the Cherry Creek Development.
With their new proposal, which reduces the number of lots from 38 to 29, Cherry Creek
Development appears to have satisfied every significant request made by the Planning
Commission over the last four meetings and eighteen months. I would urge the Commissioners
to approve the project without further delay.
Sincerely,
-pJ 1/(
Mike Miner
1"3?~
,~ ,
9-
,....vv<- .~
.~
#
I
~
4
~
(CV~f'~ )
;
~
G--'
/.
ch.Ut.
~ ?-u
'~ ~
County trafficplanillng means
staying ahead of the clilVe",
By CHARLES FELIX
One of the many things that
make the San Luis Obispo
area so special is the lack of ,
traffic congestion.
1bis is most evident and ap-
preciated after returning from
a trip to Los Arigeles, San
Jose or any other large metro-
politan area. While it may not
be possible to place a dollar
value on this, we know that in-
creased traffic congestion
would severely impact our 10-
callifestyle. 1bis raises the
question of whether we can
'retain today's conditions with
all of the development being
proposed in the county.
As a retired traffic engineer,
I thought it might be worth-
while to take a look at the role
that developers, local govern-
ments and citizens play in the
traffic planning and develop-
, ment process.
When a major project is pro-
. posed, the developer must pro-
vide a traffic impact report
that includes an analysis of any
effects the project may have
on local and regional traffic. If
there is a negative impac~
planning officials may require
that the developer provide ade-
quate mitigations, (roadway
v.idening, traffic signals, etc.),
The traffic impact report,
along with the proposed miti-
gations, are then submitted to
the local government
Local agency staff mem-
bers review the proposed
project and forward their
analysis and recominendation
to the planning commission
or elected officials,
In addition to the objective
analysis provided by staff, lo-
cal governments also look at
whether or not particular de-
'velopments are consistent
with goals and policies in the
local General Plan, which is a
community's statement of its
. priorities and its ,ision for fu.
ture gro\\th.
One of the primary ways 10-
c
TRI8UNE rllE PHOTO
cal governments try to manage
traffic grov.th is by controlling
the rate of development As an
example, the rate of residential
housing grov.th in San Luis
Obispo is technically limited to
1 percent per year.
?\Iaintaining limits is diffi-
cult. and exceptions are often
granted, partly because local
go,-ernments are continually
pressured to address ihe
"idening gap between the ex-
isting supply and the unmet
need for housing and servic-
es, There also is an incentive
for local governments to ap-
pro\'e developments to main-
tain a ,iable revenue stream
through increased property
ta.,es, development fees and
business ta.xes.
However, there is a fiscal
C atch.22 that local govern-
ments face when they imple-
ment the traffic-related infra-
structure expansions needed
to support development
(roads, traffic signals, sig-
nage, lighting. etc.)_
These projects are typically
implemented either by local
go\"ernments or, more often.
by developers as part of re-
quired project mitigations. An
ohen o\'erlooked aspect of this
added infrastructure is that,
once installed, local jurisdic-
tions are saddled with the fis-
cal responsibility for their on-
going repair and maintenance.
In tight budget times, infra-
structure maintenance is typi-
cally one of the first programs
cu~ resulting in more rapid de-
terioration of the infrastruc-
ture and, when this deferral
results in premature failure, an
even greater fiscal impact be-
cause of replacement costs '
and legal liability.
So, while the new infra-
structure paid for by develop-
ers may look like a gift. the
long-term consequences are
proof of that old adage -
there is no free lunch.
In my opinion, the most im-
portant participant in this
process is the citizen. While
local residents have the ulti-
mate control over the selec-
tion of their decision-makers,
many do not become involved
in the planning process until
they are affected by a particu-
lar project .
Change, like death and ~-
, es, is inevitable. However, to
ensure that an area retains
those characteristics that
make it unique, residents
must learn how decisions are
made and how they can influ-
ence the process. '
Citizens can either be ac-
tively involved in critical deci-
sions or leave them to devel-
opers and local officials.
Many jurisdictions have
their General Plan and other
planning documents available
for review, either by going to _
your local government center
or by vie\\ing them online. If
you want to protect your way
of life, you have to stay in-
formed and involved.
Charles Felix workedfllY the
~ity of San Jose for 30 years. As
a senior traffic engineer, he was
invoh'ed in development and re-
view of a $3 billio" airport
master plan. He and his wife,
Nancy, moved to San Luis Obis-
po County nearly two years ago.
~ary j:3assett ~ tfer:ara@arroyogrande.org, jguthrie@arroyogrande.org, jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyograrRlllgerg
From: "Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com>
To: <mbassett@arroyogrande.org>
Date: 7/14/200611:34:10AM
Subject: tferrara@arroyogrande.org, jguthrie@arroyogrande.org,
jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyogrande.org,earnold@arroyogrande.org
July 14, 2006
To: Steve, Adams, City Manager
Subject: An "Informal Administrative Review" procedure
Refer~nce: Directions on subject at City Council meeting of July 11, 2006
Last night I spoke to the Planning Commission (PC) regarding the City
Council's denial of the Mike Titus Committee's request to appeal the
decisions and recommendations of the staff on the Cherry Creek matter in its
letter to the Commission on May 16, 2006.
My intent in speaking was to inform the PC of the Council's decision in its
meeting of July 11, 2006 and the suggestion by Mayor Ferrara. The Mayor's
suggestion resulted in a direction to you to come back to the Council with a
recommendation for an "Informal Administrative Review" procedure.
That procedure, as suggested by the Mayor, facilitates the City Manager
interacting with the citizens whenever issues occurred such as those framed
by the Committee's appeal to the PC.
The Mayor's proposal is, and the Council appeared to agree, such a procedure
could conceptually address substantive issues posed by citizens such as
General Plan Amehdments and EIR requirements presented by the staff in
support of developer applications. In essence the procedure could address
the same issues posed by the Committee in its appeal but with the important
difference that the matter would be discussed with the City Manager.
My further intent was to advise the PC of a problem that I believe may exist
with the Mayor's suggestion.
DtsiYlhJfe- COples.~:
- Gh)Ccl-t-nLl (
- PJClht'l.'nt)COi'}\..f>'--'
- Cf ht Af'l.u:[V'4
- A~ PI(LIL.ltt~/
lary Bassett - tferrara@arroyogrande.org, jguthrie@arroyogrande.org, jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyograrRElger~
That problem, simply stated, is the fact when a staff report is issued for a
PC meeting, the "horse is out of the barn", and the staff report is, de
facto, in the public domain with no sensible way to return to "stable".
The matter may be discussed with the City Manager post facto, but the staff
report is before the PC and on its agenda as required by the Brown Act.
I further explained it was the Committee's desire and intent that the
appeal, as stated in the Committee's letter of May 16, 2006, would be
considered and decided by the PC. In fact, I personally believe that is
where the matter is best considered and decided before being submitted to
the Council.
It was my further statement of personal belief that on the specific Cherry
Creek matter the PC best represents the Citizens where the City Manager.
typicaliy defends the staff. This has been exemplified in the Cherry Creek
matter considering the effort by the City Manager to defend the staff's
decisions and recommendations in the report supporting the applicant.
Substantiating this point, there is an interesting if not remarkable
disparity between the May 16 staff report on the Cherry Creek matter and the
staff report for the July 18 PC meeting, It is not lost on the Committee
that the revised staff report may have been'influenced by the appeal. In any
event, that disparity deals with major specific items on the historic rural
agricultural background of the Stillwell property, the agricultural
character of the area being proposed for development, and the housing
density of surrounding neighbors. These changes bear directly on three of
the four appeal items posed in the May 16, 2006 appeal Jetter to the PC
regarding the PUD, Agricultural and EIR issues of the Cherry Creek
Application.
The Committee is continuing to be curious regarding the background
deliberations of the staff's interaction and promotion of the Cherry Creek
application. This curiosity and the Council's determination to reject the
Committee's appeal may result in a Brown Act complaint - but we are
encouraged by Mayor's and the Council's attempt recognizing and acting on
the matter.
Council members who have concluded "the system is not broken" on denying the
appeal have certainiy admitted the "system is bent" by constructively
addressing the staff report issues of timing and content and by agreeing to
the Mayor's suggestion for a proposal by the City Manager for a "Informal
Administrative Review" procedure.
J1arySass~tt ~ .~=rr:ara@arroyogrande.org, jguthrie@arroyogrande.org, jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyograrRElger(j .
Respectfully, it is my hope that the "problem" identified here may resuit in
a further creative suggestion by you that an "Informal Administrative
Review" procedure will either keep the "horse in the barn" before it is
released or placed in context before the PC where I believe it realistically
belongs.
For the Mike Tutus Memorial Committee
Copy to City Council and Planning Commission
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
July 15, 2006
. ~
Letter regarding the application for development known as Cherry Creek from
Tony and Rosemarie Janowicz, 447 Lierly Lane Arroyo Grande, CA
On Agenda for meeting of July 18, 2006
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
First of all, please excuse our absence from this very important meeting. We have family
matters to attend to which warrant our presence out of town.
As long time citizens and workers in the community of Arroyo Grande and residents of
the neighborhood since 1989 described as 7E in the general plan, we understand the
importance of good planning for its future development. We desire the best which only
concerned and logical minds can create especially in our own neighborhood.
We compliment you for your dedication, patience, and diligence in studying all
aSjlects of the many important projects, past and currently, being developed in our city.
Specifically we are addressing the present application known as the Cherry Creek project.
We have followed numerous meetings regarding the project and feel the following
issues should be addressed.
. It is our understanding the Planning Staff of the city and the Planning
Commission work cohesively as a team following the guid~lines and
city standards established by the city relating to zoning and development.
We agree the Planning Commission should not serve as a "stamp of
approval" for all projects' presented and supported by the Planning
Staff and Development department, but in turn, not delay a proposed project
for years. Sho';lldn't decisions be made in a timelier manner?
,
"
. We feel the Cherry Creek developers have exhibited due diligence in
response to the wishes ofthe Planning Commission's seemingly
unending requests for additional information for the past 3 years.
Every issue or concern, some not even related to this project, have
been studied and information provided. Is the reluctance in making a
decision due to a lack of communication between the Planning Commission,
the city staff, and the developers?
. The ''Neighborhood Plan" concept, included in the General Plan for future
development of the designated area known as 7E is a good idea for the
common interests of aU the property owners. It serves as a tool in
understanding and respecting the needs and rights of everyone.
Unfortunately it was never clearly defined and its interpretation varies as to
what impact it has on those owners who want to retain their right
to develop.
We understand those who have retired or moved to our beautiful area from
densely populated areas desire no growth whatsoever but we believe there is
always room for compromise especiaUy for those born and raised here.
The developers have acknowledged those reluctant for change by altering
their plans to honor their wishes regarding density and esthetics.
How much more should they do? The developers from the very beginning
offered meetings, have personaUy visited neighbors to understand their
concerns, continuaUy send letters keeping us informed, and have considered
. many suggestions offered to retain the character of our area.
We respect their patience and desire to please as many as they can, but we aU
know it is impossible to do so. This comment was also stated by one of the
city council members back in October of2002 when the General Plan was
voted on and approved.
In closing, we understand the importance of the decision making process and your desire
to advise the city council of a proper decision which will benefit the entire community.
We commend you in your effort, listening to the public for whom you represent, and time
spent understanding the issues presented.
We fully support the Cherry Creek project proposed.
The developers provide a sound infrastructure for the benefit and safety of all the
neighbors living in our area. We believe the project will be an attribute to the City of
Arroyo Grande and reflect sound judgment in behalf of all members of our city
goveming agencies and its citizens.
Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions regarding this letter or the
proj ect in general.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted,
Tony and Rosemarie Janowicz
Phone: 481-1792
. Cell: 471-2385 (Tony) 471-7504 (Rosemarie)
\' \
tl erU;OVffe' of G ycu;e- F tU'tttI P yo] e.<X
(PY~V~~ U1:~1:he- Forme-r S1:aweu- FIM"'*)
No-t:{W fy&m/ GIM"cLe-w rea4In{or~Um.a,l, ~~ O"YI/J~ 15, 2006
"... Dcm!1: U: aLwCI:Yy !eetW 1:0- ~tha:c ycnt- donf1: /<:.now wha.t: ycnt/vt!/ g.ot' 't;"tlL tt'y ~ pt:W~
pCU'~ewt.d.-p~ t..<.p Cl/pCU'~ l.ot:.." ~t'h..€/ ~"8~ Yellow Tet1<iJ' by JO'rW MU:~
I. fl~oryf'8~
A. My OWVIr- {t;vm.a~ C+1I vaza.ge, ~ 1920'y, 1:eacher, garden..e.Y, g.vea.t: y~pecr {or
~~ {or God" {or t'h..€/pa$
13. FY~ wt:tn- Gy<M:.<?/ Sti.l.weUt - ~ n.ow--y Ctt" Cl/ tim.e-- for' t'h..€/ W$ 7 yyYo ~ ~
'I.ife'> k.rtew her ~ for' her l.a.ni{, c:vn.d- her Wvt!/ {or gar~ ~ /M'td,
cvecLt"'Wt!/ ~.
c. St"'dweUt FCU">>v - wor~ waLvu.a- (r;;wWl/ fYowv at' lea$; 1913 thYough-
1987(opera.tlul" for' 40 ye<M1' by Sti.l.weUt ~), CM.t'"Y~ ~ 'R~uw.
'RurcW (one.- home- pey CI.oCYe'), ~ wy~ y~ cla# II Pyim.e-- AlUwial- Sof.V,
two-pCU'cev., 1:OCa.Unfr 5 acr~, m=Ut ce+'\twy oid" {r;;w~ ~ ~ CU'1.d"
or~w~p~e.qutp~ c<<ltl..wcW~{or v~ (Yu.yc;W
~~)
'0. f'y~ 'DeNel.opm.et'lt - 30 ~ on- 7.e.>>- tM..w 9 ~ (~2 cu:y~
pa,rce4o), n.o-Cl<ZlNt!/pubUo opel'll space.- (n.o-pa.rk- CLr'OO/), Pyop~ MV-SF ~
wt:tn-v~on- minitnumt lot' ~1:0-~ f/.f/. (t: w[de.,~ewt.d.-
property tha:c g.cxw int'o- creek- bed"
E ALtern.a.t""w~ - cUwel.op l.a.ni{, at' one.- home- per cu;rt!/ (~ W cuyr~ ~n.o-
~ ~), wJ.L ~ "aJ' W' c:vn.d- moYt!/ 01'4 lot' u..u" cu:y~ to- cre.at'e.-
better pa.rce.l.t- (t..<.p to- (i:;ur wt:tn- oid" lot' ~) ~!e./.4 wJ.L (1:0- p~t!/) one.- or
more- CI.oCYe' ~ SttlweUt fr:.t,nw to- be- ~ for' ~ on- comnu.U1.ity oub'~ CU'1.d"
~~(pYOmOt"~~~YlI Er~~)
II. GCU'den,flOtMe-C~ Oub-ea.ch,. Y\.OYtrPyofU: ffYOtAP st;a.rted" by me- (~wt:tn-
othen-) C+1IOct: 200f/. (cuyr~ C+1It'h..€/proc.ewof~C<t"~)
A. IvwpwC<t"um- - 10 ye<M1' of reM=YcJv c:vn.d- coU.e.ct"'~ Otrt'tcl.etr (e:=mple1.- ~
t'h..€/ n.a.t""um,) Fe<..Wv{.e.w GCU'de.vw C+1I Gol-et'Cl/ (ettten.ded.- 3 -da:;y Ur'/n;t,w Ag.vl.a<.l.ture-
Can(e.r~ C+1I Sept. 2002), CcwnbYia- P~ Lodge- GCU"a.e..u, 'E~~
import<M1.O.!/ on- pubUo ~a.e..u, pre.{JeYVCtt"i<mt CU'1.d" ~U:~ OW" g.vOt..<.p ~ ~
Cl/ ~ int'ere.st' ~~ gan.e, ~ ca1led.-"Ge.tt'~ Cl.ow.Y 1:0- GoW C+1I t'h..€/
Ge<.rCl.eW' ~~ on-1:~ OW" "L+-\.ne.y garCl.eW' ~ weUt ~ OW" ou,t"er ~Mn"
~a"cUwot;"~ boo1v{or st:~~ ~gar~Otd"wU;',,*,
'8. M~ StCtt"eme.rt.t - "... 1:0- ~ peopw wt:tn- t'h..€/ ~ wt:tn- God" a.Mfor
w(th, tM(,.y he.rU:CUJ€' ~ c;u;t'WU;'!4 re.U<:t~1:0- ~ ~ CU'1.d" t'h.e-
~LLO a.rtl: Our ~ W tha:c thY~ ~ yu.-cW Otd"wU:"~ ~
~~ CU'1.d" ~ wLU" beVle{U: ~, p'h;y~, J~ M\.d(or
spi.r(4~ ~ weUt ~ ~ more- ColMICU"t!/ ~ ~ OWI'V~ ~p~
iA1.t~"
C. 'R~ for' ~ Cl/ fa.t;th,-ba.6ed- or~um- - Froe.d.<mu..{re.edonv to- give-
God" credft when, cred.irw ~ {Ye.ed.om; 1:0- p~ C+1I "-' gCbUccW ~ wh<,clv
Grcu:.e- aLw~ et'W~ on- her llLt1.d" not" Cl/ chwrchs not" w c<<U: ... X-mpo/ for
y~ offYeedowv (ed<<.ca.Lt.O'Y\tW Y\.OYtrprofU: doe-.\ontt pro-vuwtho>>opt;"~)
V. More- ~ Gcwden, flOtMe- - Wt!/ cUm; 1:0- p....o-vuw e.duca.:tionOtV opportfM'li;L~ (eIV-
~01'V er\#'"~ ~ for a.U- ~ "trip}' to- t'h..€/~" Lect-.......e/'"K, et'o.),
.IW"\ILce- opp~1AW (~ mel'\.1:or/doce.n.n; gar~ ~ for t'hc:,e- (w
n.eed,. {~ W01nel'll 0111 bed,..~t"}, fr;tr~ tM'ld" ~ cmrs{,t"", ~~
~y.wpport~ ~e; e(:o.), tM'ld" eventY (~c'/.en, ceow, harv~
~s--, cour~ e(:o.). W", a..ye- c;dy~ ~ m~ of the!,e, ClCt"'wct'WJ.r 0111 '" ~
~cal.e; In.tt" We- W(}l.u.a.. UJ<.e, cO- ~tM'ld" i;!; cO- ~ '" wget" pOYtiof'v of the,
~ tht-ow,t1v~pr'~,;tt""iof'vof~forme+'" StiLwelhfi;u'111<
III. Some.-PeopLe"Mcw 5"0'...
A. ~ wcO& ~~e,-.~tM'ld"t"r'~ CU'"e-W01~ -t"ea..r~
dowl1.<.. deNcl.open- ~hOUU be-cW/.e.t"o- m.aJ<.e,,,, w~pr'o{i;!;, e(:c."
S. I ~ "lflNde,velopet- whdS--~~~C<i' l'lW'or y~ ~peop(e,t"o-~
that" lcLni4 fhe.n., WCCLl1/ we- (or W CCLW God-). .. /he,- n.cw..e, ~ orch<u-d- are-{i;u-'
fyom.-worthlem they CU'"",~~tM'ld"CCLI1/be-r'~ored< N~~wl'lOt"tM
~thinfrtW wO"t"thle.w... Ther", W IN ~ betwee.t'VgrowthIpYO{it" tM'ld,,~
etJt.t.ca1, r'~y co-pn~~e-our ru;<;tu.r-et/; reJ"OtW~ ( ripCU'"l.c<M.> corrLdor,
pr(,m,e.~) ~CM.ltlM-cWheri;!;~ (!1N.\t"~ p~t(.c{.de,fyee-~{i;u-'~)
for f<.tt"~~Cl.t"'~t"o-"Ppr~ et.ttd, ben.efit;fyom<"
c. c~ . "'-'"""'1'lOt" ~~ C~Ctf"0'~~that"CCLI1/b&
overcome; one- ~e:p ,;tt"" ",t"'lhl1.e<
V. T aJ<.e, Cl/ W~t"o-GClMvPenpect"'"We- - W~ down.- Myl'tte- St. or F. Cheny A ve.utes
pCL5t"tM former' St"'J.MJelhfiu'WlI (731f Myl'tte- St.) t"o-tM V~eer pr'opeYty. Not"c<:R/
~St"'J.MJelhfr;trmJS-- loca..t"'LOWt"o-tMcreek.s it}- {eat"uYlW, et.ttd, it}- pr'~y t"&Afr
~ It"wCYt.<o/ lNr~~t"o-be.hold< VO-l'lOt"trnpG<4i', lna"tly t"o-c:c<tclv~
v~ without"~~Weo/ ~by~eM'erihYof~~ It"
CCfAo'l.- be- ~or~ beaM.t'~. Try cO- jee-tM pot"eI1t"'uW t.w~ l.c:ut.d- - varLct.w t)IpeY
offWwer ~heYb-~d.e.vw, .muU(.,veg-et:cWl.€/crops-- t.wthe,cl.ear~, proil.<<d;'we-
orcJw.yd-tl"e.e9> fr;trWlIheri;!;~ ~t.w~~ ~ t.wthe,~ IN
~fr;trWll~t:a.t1.d-,;tt""~ccrl'\eY" ofF. CherrylSr'M0vMaM
IV. tleru~ofGrtu:€/ FCU'"m;Pn:if~ (pr'~~MId- ut"t.Ua-~~ St"'J.MJelh{i;u-'m;)
A. Aoq~WY\I . pCU'"t" or cUl" prW,;tt""", owners-- or n.o-vv-pro{tr owned" or combo-
(~epCU'",;tt""e1cr ba9~ upo-w parce4-), .c.r~ Cuy cou.nca., t"o- I'lOt" r'e-~ MId- cO-
~~w<W, ~i-r\t"o-~~tM'ld,,~Cl.t"'LOW~
S. 'Re.ItlWCl.t"'LOW . ~ ~ ~e; orch<u-d" rerp"/.cU'u: g-ard.e+w, ~ I'l.eW
~de!w tM'ld".muU(., veg-et:ahle.-~
C. Ut"'~LOW - ~ pr'~ct.->>1V (~above- pCU'"t" II. V.) t"o- ~,;tt"" j<;tm0'
t"'Ul1.0' C<i' r'ejtoya.t"'t.C>lI~ cO-cont"'~ for f<.tt".we- ~,;tt""io-YW
V. IwC~ It"LitemlWT~Cl/V~(ofC~YSupport)
A. T~ TaLe.,;c; ~Tnla4-.we-
S. What' AYe- Your T~(Sk.~7 Every i-r\t"er~t"e.d, per~ 4' n.eeded" S~.c.p 0111
con:tl;wt" l4t; q br~orWllYour ~ or ~t& l4t; cw weU:
c. T a,ke, AcUow /Be- Pr'oa.ct"'Wl?/' (Atteru:t. me.et"'1A'1.fW I mpOYtCUIX: cay cOtANl.CilI meet"'~
0111 Sept: 12"'. c'hedo co- ~ da1;-<1/. Wr'Ul?/ letten- cO- COtU'I.CiL befayl?/ meet"'~
speaJ<., up ,;tt"" m.eet"'~. Sha.re- v~ w(:th, fy~ tM'ld,,~. Show yaw CCLY"e;
et.ttd, beUe.ve- that" peopLe" ca.w m.aJ<.e, the, world" ""M theU- COWLlmU'Uty Cl/ better
p~ on&fJCLrde-ttlp~wf(u-rl1I,;tt"" Cl/t"'wne<)
V. Q~t.O"tW? Cw me- (805) 1f81.31f28 If yOtl/ MNl?/ t.d..ecw {or any ~ep ~ tJw.
w"0' or If YOtl/ k.tww ~ who- wo-tu.a.. UJ<.e, cO- be- ~ cO- the- conta.ct" Uft;
LeCl-Ve- Cl/ ~ w(:th, d.et"~ if I ci:LnJt: tu1.6-Wer ,;tt"" the,t"'thI'Le< Tha..+1.k> yaw for your
i-r\t"er'~t" ~ pof:eI1t"'uW ~uppOYt! - polly T uJ14.
AT&T Yahoo! Mail- clfellows@sbcglobal.net
Page 1 of5
AT&T YahoQ! Mai!
S'!:~rch
the Web
Search
~. at&t
"hHoOY.
MAIL
Welcome,
clfellows@sbcglob...
[~iflO_9ut, MY ACc9JJnt]
MailJ:jome I Tutorials r "i Hl'lp
Mail
, I Add;e~~~;- ~.. Calendar Y
Notepad Y
What~ New - M."jLE9.rJ'!IL~b.ilE1 - !)pgr.a_c1es -
QptlOIlS
. . Ch~~.k Mail..' Compose
Search Mail
Search the Web
Check Other Mail
[Edit]
preYloJ.!$ I !'i~t laa.c1LtQ..Messages
"D~I~te'l -.. R~-pl~- ._._~ I -- F~~~'~d -. ~ I -'sp~'';' 'I Move... ...~-I
mail.trueswitch...
My Folders
Netzero_Mail
[Empty]
[Empty] .
[Hide]
This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread]
__.. u.._
Date: Mon, 17 Jul2006 09:52:10 -0700
"Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com> f'll Add to Address Book 9 Add
Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by
gmail.com. Learn more
Printable View
Folders
[Add - Edit]
Inbox (5)u
Draft
Sent
Bulk
Trash
From:
TO:
carenray@sbcglobal.net, tbrown@dir.ca.gov, c1fellows@sbcglobal.net,
parkernr@pacbell.net
Subject: Appeal regarding staff's recommendations re: Cherry Creek
CC:
tferrara@arroyogrande.org, jguth rie@arroyogrande.org, jdickens@c2on.net,
jcostello@arroyogrande.org, earnold@arroyogrande,org,
mbassett@arroyogrande.org
Search Shortcuts
My Photos
My Attachments
THE MIKE TITUS MEMORIAL
COMMITTEE
404 LIERL Y LANE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
93420
July 17, 2006
To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
Subject: Appeal regarding staff's recommendations re: Cherry
Creek
Reference: 1) Council decision of July 11,2006 denying right of
appeal. 2) Letter to the City Manager of July 14,2006, subject: An
"Informal Administrative Review" procedure
Despite the clear language ofthe existing Development Code:
16.12.150, that
'~ny affected person may appeal a decision of the community
development director or the architectural review committee to the
Planning Commission", the City Council has rejected the
Committee's request made to the Council on May 18,2006.
httn.//". fRl 0 rn~i1 v~h.oo.com/vrn/ShowLetter?Msgld=9540_14657213_56177 _2320_775... 7117/2006
. AT&T Yahoo! Mail - clfellows@sbcglobal.net
Page 2 of5
We are grateful, however, for the Council's sincere deliberation and
discussion ofthe substantial issues regarding the reliability, timing,
volatility and burden identified with reading, consideration and
understanding the mass of data reflected in multi-page staff reports
married with public comment.
The Council's decision was made with the acknowledgement that the
Development Code literally supports the Citizen's appeal claim
(letter to PC May 16,2006) and that the Development Code requires
changing to reflect the actual practice where appeals are allowed by
developers. The change must be approved by the Planning
Commission (PC)!
We are also grateful that the Mayor has directed the City Manager
to pursue an "Informal Administrative Review" procedure
described in the comments to the Planning Commission on July 13,
2006 and in the referenced letter of July 14,2006 to the City
Manager.
The net of all this for the Committee is its appeal to the Planning
Commission has no formal standing. We admit our disappointment
but bow to the thoughtfulness ofthe Council in its conclusion and
suggestion by the Mayor.
The effect of the denial, however, has negated the Committee's
efforts for a "host ofwituesses" to argue the major appeal items. It
takes effort to establish a responsible appeal on the items addressed
by the Committee with the objective of establsihing a complete
record on the matter.
Respectfully, the Committee's resolve remains, nevertheless, that the
staff report on the Cherry Creek matter submitted May 16,2006 to
the PC and that submitted for the PC's meeting of July 18 violate the
General Plan (GP) on the Committee's identified "appeal items" in
several important ways:
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (EVNP)
As stated on May 16,2006, the Committee respectfully concludes the
Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) is a cooperative effort by staff and the R
Design Group after cursory discussions with affected neighbors in Su
2. It appears to the Committee the staff has arbitrarily defined the
"infrastructure criteria" for the Neighborhood Plan. It further appel
there is no definition except by someone in staff on what constitutes a
EVNP.
Importantly for the PC's consideration, the Committee maintains thi
violates the intent ofthe General Plan since no consensus of the neigb
exist regarding 1) the POO precedent, 2) the Ag buffer in Subarea 2, ;
the absence of an agreed to plan for the East Cherry Street dirt Road
http://us.f810.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Msgld=9540_14657213 _56177 _2320_775... 7/17/2006
. . AT &T Yahoo! Mail - clfellows@sbcglobal.net
Page 3 of5
The Committee believes the EVNP definitely does not fulfill the inten
the GP in requiring a true Neighborhood Plan with a consensus ofth,
neighbors for development of area 7E, as determined by the then sit
City Council on October 9, 2001.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
Here, the Committee suggests, there is a dilemma posed by the staff
using the PUD alternative to avoid the zoning of 7,200 sq ft lots
required for area 7E in the City Council's designation of the
Neighborhood Plan.
We beseech the PC to understand that Development
Codel6.16.060 clearly states PUDs are subject to the appeal
provisions of Section 16.12.150. PUDs require a Public
Hearing! The Committee respectfully reminds the PC that it
is denied the right to appeal this item. It appears the applicant
only enjoys that right.
The Committee reminds the PC that neighbors and certain Planning
Commissioners have objected to the density of the project. Some
insisted on adherence to the GP for minimum 7,200 sq foot lots.
Others pray that the zoning should be no greater than 2.5 per acre.
The applicants recent revision going to 7,200 sq foot lots while
leaving lesser size lots in the center along the swale - rationalizing
. the unfortunate Berry Gardens zoning precedent - remains a
violation of the intent and spirit of the GP for the area - as
evidenced by the immediate neighbor hood zonings contignous to
area 7E.
USE OF AGRICULTURAL SOILS
The Committee, again with due respect, reminds the PC that the
Agriculural policy is a subject of record before the Planning
Commission and City Council as it pertains to Cherry Creek.
The staff has insisted the policy does not pertain to the Cherry
Creek area, as confirmed by its presentation to the Planning
Commission and the Council on May 24, 2005 even though the
property is presently zoned Residential Rural. The area is a fallow
agricultural area with a walnut orchard as proven by the
information provided by Polly Tullis, a respected intimate of Grace
Stilwell.
The Committee believes 1) the applicants attempt to rationalize "an
in-lieu" fee as an attempt to avoid the reality that the area is a fallow
farm, and 2) its development violates the spirit and letter of the
City's GP agricultural policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION BY THE ACTING
httJl:/Ius.:flll Q,mail.yahoo.comlymlShowLetter?Msgld=9540_14657213 _56177 _2320_775... 7/1 7/2006
AT&T Yahoo! Mail- clfellows@sbcglobal.net
Page 4 of 5
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reference is made to CEQA F AQS
h~p:IIVJW\o't._aJr9Y9g~allqE!..org/~.oJ)1m_<tevLc~q'Lf;,-q",pJ)P- and the specific
instructions in the Development Code: "What If I Disagree With The
Environmental Determination? The Community Development
Director's decision (is) appealable to the Planning Commission."
Again, the Committee reminds the PC that citizens cannot appeal
the determination by staff except by Public Comment where that
alternative is available to developers.
The Committee believes the Cherry Creek Plan not only uses prime
Ag soils of a fallow walnut farm, it is located next to the delicate
Lopez Creek,. The Committee notes the applicants propose a
massive swale, pipes and/or a concrete sluice of some kind to dump
water into the creek. It appears that if there ever was a project that
required an EIR it is Cherry Creek.
The Committee respectfully suggests that the City should have a
LESA model for a determination "ofits own making" to properly
assess and make judgments on the EIR requirement for the Cherry
Creek application. To not do so avoids the intent and spirit of the
GP and leaves to staff the subjective opportunity to control the
determination.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
It would have been the Committee's intent to examine the staff on
their decisions, recommendations and directions given the applicant.
Reluctantly, the Committee reminds the PC that the adherence to
the provision and spirit of the GP "to ensure public awareness and
full and open public discusswn and debate regarding proposed
actions" is provided in the Development Code Section 16.12.160.
At the risk of being considered overly critical, the Committee
believes The Community Development Department's support ofthe
Cherry Creek applicants on "options available" and "identified
issues" are set in opposition to the interest ofthe citizens in adhering
to the provision and spirit of the General Plan.
Respectfully, for the Committee
Otis Page
Copy: The Committee
The City Council
The City Manager
httn'//lId'R 1 O,maiLvahoo.com/vrn/ShowLetter?Msgld=9540 _14657213_56177_2320_775... 7/17/2006
AT&T Yahoo! Mail- clfellows@sbcglobal.net
Page 1 of 1
YAE[OO'@MAIL
Print - Close Window
Date:
Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:02:51 -0700
From:
"Kathy Mendoza" <kmendoza@arroyogrande.org>
To:
"Kelly Heffernan" <KHeffernon.CityHall.CAGGW5@arroyogrande.org>, tbrown@dir.ca.gov,
ParkerNR@Pacbell.net, carenray@sbcglobal.net, c1fellows@sbcglobal.net, ktait@slocoe.org
Subject: Fwd: CherrY Creek
Forwarded Message
. ~. - -.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul2006 15:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Lynn Titus" <Iynntag@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Cherry Creek
To:
"Tim Brown" <tbrown@dir.ca.gov>, "Chuck Fellows" <c1fellows@sbcglobaJ.net>, "Nanci Parker"
<parkernr@pacbell.net>, "Caren Ray" <carenray@sbcglobal.net>, KMendoza@Arroyogrande.org
(Ms. Mendoza: please forward to Doug Tait)
Lynn Titus
404 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA93420
July 17, 2006
To: Planning Commissioners
Re: Cherry Creek Development
I am not opposed to some development on the Stilwell, Peters and Vanderveer properties that are adjacent to
mine. I am realistic. I am concemed that the development be done right I think the current plan is an
improvement on the original, but there are still many problems.
One issue is the improvement of Dirt Cherry. I don't understand why the city is shirking its duty to acquire this
private road and make the needed improvements. Perhaps they are waiting for the Planning commission to give
them direction on this. If this is so, why hasn't the question been framed by the staff for the P.C? In addition,the
city can hardly say this is a Neighborhood Plan when it is obvious that people in Phase 2 would not agree to a
plan without an improvement of Dirt Cherry as a city road.
This staff report mentions that the applicant shall dedicate the "extension of East Cherry." This does not mean
that they create another East Cherry. Dirt Cherry Is East Cherry. This needs to be resolved before any
development takes place.
I notice that Mr. Mavis and Mr. Branch have enlisted the aid of their Arroyo Grande friends to write letters to
you. That is their right. However, I bring to your attention that Mr. Mavis and Mr. Branch neither one live in
Arroyo Grande, and I am sure that neither one of them plan to live in the Cherry Creek development. The fact is
that they have only one goal in this development and that is to make as many millions of dollars as they can in
the shortest porrible time. They do not have the interests of Arroyo Grande in their hearts.
I do.
Lynn Titus
htto://us.f81 0.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&Msgld=4624 _16049146 _5734... 7/18/2006
CHARLES & NORA LOONEY
444 LIERL Y LANE
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420
. July 17, 2006 (hand delivered)
RECE\\lEO
JUL 1 '1 LG~O
. 0,<0 GRANDE
erN 01' {>.RR curl Q?M'2Ni
"'INII'< D..' c.
coMw'V
City of Arroyo Grande
To All Planning Commission Members
We would like to show our support for the Cherry Creek Project which will be on
the agenda on July 18,2006.
Our property is adjacent to the project and we too have development potential on
our 1.3 acre piece ofland.
From the beginning, we have always been in favor of the development. The
developers have always met with us and other neighbors to keep us informed of
the project. They have listened to our. wants and needs and really tried to put
together a project that we could all be proud of. We have also worked closely to
assure that the secondary access will be in place for future development.
The Cherry Creek project will bring sewer to our neighborhood which is very
appealing. We have 2 septic tanks on our property. We need Cherry Creek to
develop to bring us water, sewer, better storm drainage and circulation if we ever
plan to develop our property or any other property in Sub area 2. Also, East
Cherry will be paved and improved which is long overdue.
There has been a lot of negative information about this project. The interesting
item to note is most of the negative comments are coming from people who live
on 6000 sflots and some don't even live near the project.
We want to thank each and every one of you for all the time you have spent on
this project.
We recommend that the Planning Commission approve this project:
Sincerely, ^ I-/',
(A~c;- IVtJtcvrlVl~
Charles & Nora LooneY'
Colleen Martin
Oral Comments during Public Hearing
Plannin~ Commission meeting
July 18t , 2006 around 9:45PM
No.3
Good Evening esteemed commissioners.
Thank you for your endless service to the City today and ensuring a well planned
future for our City. I am expecting to be brief tonight, as I trust in your good judgment
and the process for a full, honest evaluation based on a thorough investigation and
review of any project before you. I want to convey with my sincerest appreciation for
the time spent by the Commission to review the many documents that might be
related to this project. However, in no wav do I think that the amount of project
applications, revisions and meetings have any bearing on the outcome of your
deliberations.
The applicant could have sailed through the planning process if they had proposed a
project consistent with the General Plan including all regulations such as set backs,
percentage of lot coverage, prime soils mitigations and brought with their application
a completed ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT. Earlier Mr. Tait asked about
the project goals. The project goals include making money.
Since the General Plan Core Group was established in 1998, my family has urged
the Council to reduce the density of the 7E area. Along with that, from day one we
have asked that the project include an EIR.
EIR FLYER
There should be a checklist or grid or rubric to decide if an EIR is warranted, but from
just a quick inspection of the property it is easy to see how many of us wonder when
the EIR is going to commence. Greg McGowen's comments along with Victor
Devin's support this, as do the CEQA guidelines. Over 10% of this project is in the
creekbed, certainly this would warrant an EIR alone! The City Engineer states on pg
3 of Attachment 8 " Impounding water that flowed to the creek would require
considerable environmental review as the historical flows of the creek are being
altered. "
So, do please request an EIR tonight and do not adopt the Negative Declaration. It
seems from all the previous meetings that there has never been an agendized
discussion regarding the environmental report and it's time.
ZONING FLYER
I ask that you also revisit the proper zoning for this transitional area. . Is the
proposed zoning recommended for the 7E area for Phase I and Phase II
ppropriate? Should the Phase 1 zonir;1g be denser than phase II? Could the zoning
e different for the two sub areas? Is this transitional zoning on the outskirts of our
'illage Core? Why did the City Council approve a jump from City RR (1 unit.per
ere) to SFMD (4.5 units per acre) and skip the next incremental density increase
::;ity RS Low Medium Density (2.5 units per acre)? Should this be revisited?
aking land use decisions based solely on current ownership is not prudent.
lwnership changes, just like Grace Stilwells property, so decisions must be based
n best land use practices.
Let's look together at this ladder of zoning. How could we accidentally skip a rung
and accelerate the density. It is not too late to change this. The City Manager said
that the Planning Commission may recommend zoning changes as part of their
recommendation to Council when they send this project to them.
Please UNBUNDLE THE VOTE. Take each of these items separately. The
zoning, the Neighborhood Plan, the PUD and then the MAP. In fact the need for
the PUD is no long present as the eveloper is offering no public immenities.
And once again I must object, as I have repeatedly to the City Manager not of
your work, but that the staff report and the amendment to the Negative
Declaration continue to be full of inconsistencies and ummeasurable opinions that.
are decisions of the staff. The staff did not know that Allan Little homes was no
longer involved and that the developers were only trying to get the map approved
and sell the map to one or many builders. The lots could be sold separately they
said. Why does this matter? Because it extends the construction phase and all
the negative impacts of that construction phase. Aditionally, Condition #109 still
includes the 3 72" pipes ad #102 needs to be eliminated as we are no longer
planning on preparing for the 100 year flood. Funny though, there seems to be no
paper trail on the decision against requiring an EIR.
Please deny the project tonight and recommend that the applicant follow the
General Plan, provide for less density and obtain a certified Environmental Impact
Report.
The General Plan's mission statement states:
. Promotes a rural small town atmosphere and retains Arroyo Grande's
traditional ties to agriculture., .
. Recognizes limitation upon the natural resources necessary to support urban
and rural development, and live within those limits.
. Accommodates a balance and variety of urban and rural lifestyles, providing
the best possible quality bf life for all residents."
My deceased father once wrote to Mayor Lady the following on Oct 4, 2001:
"Comments favoring the increased density for this property suggested it was part of
the 'rural character of Arroyo Grande.' Visits to the 7E area confirm that the urban
part of our City ends at the start of Branch Mill Road and that the 7E area is part of
that rural character. As brought to your attention earlier, this area should be divided
into two. One 'neighbor plan' for the three parcels fronting Myrtle Street and a
second plan for the remainder. But, in neither case should they be zoned 4.5
units if 'rural character' has any meaning.
Please let's keep the rural in Arroyo Grande by following the General plan and
requiring the proper documents like an EIR to develop. This project, as proposed, is
not RURAL, it could be in San Bernardino, San Jose or Sacramento.
Thank you for doing your job.
Page 1 I
,thy Mendoza -Colleen asked me to send this toyou
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com>
<kmendoza@arroyogrande.org>
7/19/062:32:53 PM
Colleen asked me to send this to you
'Colleen Martin'
'Oral Comments during Public Hearing'
'Planning Commission meeting'
'July 18th, 2006 around 9:45PM'
Good Evening esteemed commissioners.
Thank.you for your endless service to the City today and ensuring a well
planned future for our City. I am expecting to be brief tonight, as I trust
in your good judgment and the process for a full, honest evaluation based on
a thorough investigation and review of any project before you. I want to
convey with my sincerest appreciation for the time spent by the Commission
to review the many documents that might be related to this project. However,
'in no way do I think that the amount of project applications, revisions and
meetings have any bearing on the outcome of your deliberations.'
The applicant could have sailed through the planning process if they had
proposed a project consistent with the General Plan including all
regulations such as set backs, percentage of lot coverage, prime soils
mitigations and brought with their application a completed ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT. Earlier Mr. Tait asked about the project goals. The project
goals include making money.
Since the General Plan Core Group was established in 1998, my family has
. urged the Council to reduce the density of the 7E area. Along with that,
from day one we have asked that the project include an EIR.
EIR FLYER
There should be a checklist or grid or rubric to decide if an EIR is
warranted, but from just a quick inspection of the property it is easy to
see how many of us wonder when the EIR is going to commence. Greg McGowen's
comments along with Victor Devin's support this, as do the CEQA guidelines.
Over 10% of this project is in the creekbed, certainly this would warrant an
EIR alone! The City Engineer states on pg 3 of Attachment 8 ." Impounding
water that fiowed to the creek would require considerable environmental
review as the historical flows of the creek are being altered." .
..
Page 2 I
lthy Mendoza - Colleen asked me to send this t()you
So, do please request an EIR tonight and do not adopt the Negative
Declaration. It seems from all the previous meetings that there has never
been an agendized discussion regarding the environmental report and it's
time.
ZONING FLYER
I ask that you also revisit the proper zoning for this transitional area. .
Is the proposed zoning recommended for the 7E area for Phase I and Phase \I
appropriate? Should the Phase 1 zoning be denser than phase \I? Could the
zoning be different for the two sub areas? Is this transitional zoning on
the outskirts of our Village Core? Why did the'City Council approve a jump
from City RR (1 unit per acre) to SFMD (4.5 units per acre) and skip the
next incremental density increase (City RS Low Medium Density (2.5 units per
acre)? Should this be revisited?
Making land use decisions based solely on current ownership is not prudent.
Ownership changes, just like Grace Stilwells property, so decisions must be
based on best land use practices.
Let's look together at this ladder of zoning. How could we accidentally skip
a rung and accelerate the density. It is riot too late to change this. The
City Manager said that the Planning Commission may recommend zoning changes
as part of their recommendation to Council when they send this project to
them.
Please UNBUNDLE THE VOTE. Take each of these items separately. The zoning,
the Neighborhood Plan, the PUD and then the MAP. In fact the need for the
PUD is no long present as the eveloper is offering no public immenities.
And once again I must object, as I have repeatedly to the City Manager not
of your work, but that the staff report and the amendment to the Negative
Declaration continue to be full of inconsistencies and ummeasurable opinions
that are decisions of the staff. The staff did not know that Allan Little
homes was no longer involved and that the developers were only trying to get
the map approved and sell the map to one or many builders. The lots could be
sold separately they said. Why does this matter? Because it extends the
construction phase and all the negative impacts of that construction phase.
Aditionally, Condition #109 still includes the 3 72" pipes ad #102 needs to
be eliminated as we are no longer planning on preparing for the 100 year
flood. Funny though, there seems to be no paper trail on the decision
against requiring an EIR.
Page 3 I
,thy Mendoza - Colleen asked me to send this to you
Please deny the project tonight and recommend that the applicant follow the
General Plan, provide for less density and obtain a certified Environmental
Impact Report.
The General Plan's mission statement states:
- *Promotes a rural small town atmosphere and retains Arroyo Grande's
traditional ties to agriculture. *
- *Recognizes limitation upon the natural resources necessary to
support urban and rural development, and live within those limits. *
- *Accommodates a balance and variety of urban and rural lifestyles,
providing the best possible quality of life for all residents."*
My deceased father once wrote to Mayor Lady the following on Oct 4, 2001 :
"Comments favoring the increased density for this property suggested it was
part of. the *'rural character of Arroyo Grande.' *Visits to the 7E area
confirm that the urban part of our City ends at the start of Branch Mill
Road and that the 7E area is part of that rural character. As brought to
your attention earlier, this area should be divided into two. One 'neighbor
plan' for the three parcels fronting Myrtle Street and a second plan for the
remainder. *But, in neither case should they be zoned 4.5 units if 'rural
character' has any meaning. *
..
Please let's keep the rural in Arroyo Grande by following the General plan
and requiring the proper documents like an E,IR to develop. This project, as
proposed, is not RURAL, it could be in San Bernardino, San Jose or
Sacramento.
Thank you for doing your job.
cc:
"Colleen Titus Martin" <colleentitusmartin@sbcglobal.net>
AT&T Yahoo! Mail- clfellows@sbcglobal.net
Page 1 of3
YAaoa'.,MAIL
Print - Close Window
Date:
Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:38:28 -0700
From:
"Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com>
ca ren ray@sbcglobal.net, tbrown@dir.ca.gov, c1fellows@sbcglobal.net, parkernr@pacbell.net, kta it@slocoe.org
To:
Subject: Is it Ag or a profitable commercial development?
cc:
tferrara@arroyogrande.org, jguthrie@arroyogrande.org, jdickens@c2on.net, jcostello@arroyogrande.org,
ea rnold@arroyogrande.org, mbassett@arroyogrande.org
OTIS S.PAGEJR.
606 MYRTLE STREET
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420
July 18,2006
To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
Subject: Cherry Creek - For the record. Is it Ag or a profitable commercial development?
BACKGROUND
The City of Arroyo Grande's General Plan was approved on a 3/2 vote at the Council meeting of October
9,2001. Present mayor Tony Ferrara and Council member Jim Dickens did not concur with the Ag part
ofthe new General Plan. They disagreed with the Ag policy and certain zoning decisions.
In 2002, Ferrara and Dickens ran for Council on the Ag issue. They criticized retiring mayor Mike Lady,
mayoral candidate Sandy Lubin and Council member Tom Runels for being against Ag because of their
decisions to support the zoning ofthe Vanderveen, Japanese, and Dorfman properties.
Immediately upon attaining office, Ferrara and Dickens proceeded to change the Ag policy and reverse
the conversions in meetings on December 10,2002 and January 14, 2003.
THE PRE-APPLICATION HEARING OF CHERRY CREEK
The Mavis Trust acquired the Stillwell property on 9/18/2003 and transferred it to Creekside Estates on
10i14/2003 .
Parcel 007-565-004 Stilwell 9/18/2003 $1,905,000 to Paul A. Mavis Trust then 10/14/2003
$1,841,100 to Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande
Pre-application hearings were conducted in the Planning Commission meeting of March 16,2004.
One week later, in the same meeting that f"malized the Ag plan on March 23, 2004, the Council considered
the Cherry Creek Estates pre-application using the old Stillwell farm, a fallow walnut orchard.
It was designated as Rural Residential - before being possibly reclassified as a part of a large Cherry
Creek 23 acre "Neighborhood Plan" that was mandated as a part ofthe General Plan update of October
9,2001. .
At the March 23, 2004 Council meeting then Councilmember Sandy Lubin stated the Ag question "must
be addressed". Observers concurred and asked how could the City pretend to preserve Ag while
appearing to concur in the development of property that clearly has Prime Ag Soils and is Open
Space? One week after the City Council meeting of March 23, 2004 where the new Ag policy was
httn'/hlS. fR J ll.mail. vahQQ.com/vm/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=5226 _30754332_6041... 7/18/2006
AT&T Yahoo! Mail- clfellows@sbcglobal.net
Page 2 of3
lblished and the Cberry-Creek pre-application was heard Cliff Branch purchased the Peters and
Vanderveer properties on March 30, 2004. Branch's portion is the remaining area to be developed in the
Cherry Creek plan.
Copy of title parcel 007-565-005 Vandeveer 3/30/2004 $1,224,000. Parcel 007-571-001 Peters
3/3012004 918,000 to Cliff Branch
IMPLICATION OF THE AG POLICY
A brilliant analysis of the City's Ag policy was made by Commissioner Nancy Parker when Cherry Creek
was first reviewed by the Planning Commission. But the City staff disagreed in its mysterious enthnsiasm
to support the Cherry Creek development.
Director of Community Development Rob Strong had an option to huy property that is a major part of
the proposed development. Strong rued Sch.edule B California Form 700 2003 on February 3, 2004
regarding his offer ofpnrchase made on December 16,2003.
.On December 16, 2003 I obtained a 60-day offer to purchase 756 Myrtle and subsequently a 30-day
offer to purchase 776 Myrtle subject to assignment and option to acquire one lot in future
subdivision.
In the City Council meeting of May 24, 2005 Strong's staff recommended that the City's Ag policy only
pertain to existing farms that are dedicated to agricultural production and not other areas that have
prime farm soils.
Even though Strong had removed himself from involvement in the project - there are indications that he
continued to influence certain decisions. Strong was a consultant on the October 9, 2001 General Plan
update. He attained his present position while advising the City on the establishment ofthe Ag policy. He
is highly regarded for his expertise as Commtinity Development Director. .
After a compelling "prime soils" argument by Jim Dickens, he and Mayor Ferrara swayed the Council
not to follow staff's recommendation to, in effect, change the AG policy until the Cherry Creek matter is
heard by the Council.
The reconsideration of the Ag policy will be crucial to the Cherry Creek approval. At issue will be the
City's quest to preserve prime farmland soils independent ofzoning considerations - while tbe engine of
residential development is running to exploit one of the remaining jewels in the City's arena of
undeveloped rural farm areas, the area between the vulnerable Lopez stream and the Dixon Ranch
bifurcated by the bomely dirt road that is East Cherry.
A CONSERVATIVE PROFIT ESTIMATE OF THE CHERRY CREEK PROJECT
A pro-forma financial analysis indicates the total investment, costs and probable profit for Mavis and
Branch as consequence of Planning Commission's and Council's decision supporting the Cberry Creek
application:
Pre Planning Commission approval costs:
Stilwell
Vandeveer
Peters
Total land costs
$1,905,000
1,224,000
918,000
$4,047,000
Assumed application costs $750,000 (R&M Design, ect)
Total Costs prior to PC approval: $4,797,000
Post Planning Commission and Council approval value determination:
httn://us.f81 0.mail.yahoo.comlymlShowLetter?box=lnbox&Msgld=5226 30754332 6041... 7/18/2006
- - - - - ' ' --
AT&T Yahoo! Mail- clfellows@sbcgloba1.net
Page 3 oD
Site infrastructure cost
$1,500,000
Total Costs after approval:
$6,297,000
Sale of 30 lots @ avg; of $300,000
$9,000,000
Gross profit before sales expense
Estimated sale and other expense
Probable profit Branch & Mavis
$2,703,000
703,000
$2,000,000
Branch retains the Vanderveer and Peters properties valued conservatively at $2,000,000. Mavis retains
the Stillwell house probably valued at $500,000 because ofits condition. Value of project doubles with
Planning Commission approval!
Question: What does a 20 lot plan profit analysis show? At $500,000 per lot the revenue increases to
$10,000,000!
Risk assessment: VERY LOW RISK - SURE TIllNG WITH CITY APPROVAL!
THE INTENT OF THE AG POLICY TO PRESERVE PRIME SOILS
It appears the solemn principle in preserving properties with prime Ag soils and open space, implied if not
specified in the City's General Plan, may be thrown on the alter of commercial residential development
and profit.
Respectfully, let the facts guide your decision -
Otis Page
Copy: The Committee
The City Conncil
The City Manager
http://us.f810.mai1.yahoo.comlymlShowLetter?box=Inbox&Msgld=5226 _30754332_604 I... 7/18/2006
"ryj~,assett - City Council meeting of August 8, 2006
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com>
<tferrara@arroyogrande.org>
8/9/200610:51:34 AM
City Council meeting of August 8, 2006
*Subject: Decision to pull Cherry Creek for the Council's deliberation and
decision.*
..
*It is my sincere belief the City Council's decision to pull Cherry Creek
and decide it is a miscarriage of process and'a disgraceful disparagement of
the responsible handling of the Cherry Creek matter by the Planning
Commission. *
..
*The record established in the Planning Commission meetings of **March 15,
2005**! May 16 and ** July 18, 2006** clearly'state the story.*
* *
*The Planning Commission decided an EIR was required in the meeting of **March
15, 2005** and that the matter must come back with the other issues - such
as the neighborhood Plan - for a future public hearing.*
..
*The matter came back on **May 16, 2006*~ with substantial changes and a
revisit of the EIR Issue. *
..
*There is no record as to why the applicant and the staff took so long in
bringing the matter back to the Planning Commission - except there was a
concern about the EIR matter and that the applicant was making changes in
the plan. *
..
- *The Mike Titus Committee appealed the Staff report because of its
violations of the General Plan. The appeal was denied on the grounds "the
process works" with the Planning Commission reviews!*
..
*Because of the massive changes in the applicant's plan, and the substantial
public comment in the May 16 meeting, the matter was scheduled for July 18,
2006. *
..
*The July 18 meeting became a review, again, of the Negative Dee with
another decision by the Planning Commission for an EIR despite the fact the
EIR issue was decided on March 15, 20051 *
No.6
'-t ~~'I \~"""'Jyr
~
Vlary~~ssett - City Council meeting of August 8, 2006 .
Page 2
..
'The Planning Commission was never given the opportunity by Staff to judge
the other issues of the Cherry Creek Plan. The EIR decision was sent to
Council with the understanding it would be returned to the Council when it
decided to back or deny the EIR decision. '
"
'The record is clear that the staff and the applicant wished to override the
Planning Commission's decision on an EIR. Ag.ain, the record clearly
establishes this facl!*
..
'Something stinks here - and it is not the fertilizer emanating from the
fertile fields of "Dixon" Ranch"
"
'I believe the staff has misled the Council on the reasons why the matter
should be pulled from the Planning Commission to be decided by the City
Council. Why? The applicant and staff are responsible for the delays - not
the Planning Commission!'
, ,
'I believe the Council has acted in error in not allowing the Planning
Commission to do its "due diligence" on an evolving record of change by the
applicant in what it proposes to implement in the Cherry Creek application.
,
, ,
'This is wrong and suggests a deeper complicity of certain Council members
with the applicant. .. Arnold"'s statement to the effect that the applicant
may go away is not a proper rationale for violating the "due process" of
hearings by the Planning Commission. '
"
'Respectfully, Mayor ferrara, the Council should rectify this miscarriage or
be exposed to a rightful and resounding criticism of the citizens. '
"
'Otis Page'
,.
'Copies to the Counci, Planning Commission and the City Manager'
CC: <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>, <jdickens@arroyogrande.org>,
<jcostello@arroyogrande.org>. <earnold@arroyogrande.org>. <mbassett@arroyogrande.org>,
<carenray@sbcglobal.net>. <tbrown@dir.ca.gov>, <c1fellows@sbcglobal.net>. <parkernr@pacbell.net>
3:l'.:,?asse\t - Letter re City Council Mtg August 8th
From:
. To:
Date:
Subject:
Mary,
Colleen Martin <colleenlilusmartin@sbcgloba1.net>
Mary Bassett <mbassett@arroyogrande.org>
8/9/200612:26:02 PM
Letter re City Council Mtg August 8th
No.5
Please disperse to the City Council, Planning Commission and any pertinent Staff.
Thank you.
Colleen
Colleen Martin
(}: ~rI\~vf. .
~~~
Colleen Titus Martin
855 Olive Street
Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420
(805) 489-2764
colleentitusmartin{@,sbcglobal.net
August 9, 2006
Dear City Council, Planning Comrnission and City Staff,
I am writing to reiterate my comments made August 8, 2006 at the end of the City
Council meeting. regarding agenda item 12a: future agenda items. When I attended and read the
minutes from the March 15,2005 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission at
that meeting approved a full ElR. Last night, I dispersed to all the Council members a one-page
copy or"the PC Minutes from March 15,2005. Sixteen months passed and the applicant was
again placed on the Planning Commission agenda for July 18, 2006 to rehash the environmental
review, when in fact, the only reason they should have been on the PC agenda would be to finally
discuss the other details of the project as the Commission already rendered the decision on the
ElR. It's a mystery to me as why the March 2005 EIR recommendation was not forwarded to
the Council at that time.
Now it appears that the applicant is using the time length the proposed project is in the
development pipeline as an excuse to now expedite the project. Again, it is not the Planning
Commission's fault this application has taken so long. It is the applicant's - as they changed
partners and plans even changing whether the lots will be sold individually compared to the
original application that included one builder, building at one time. (By the way, all the reports
and environmental studies are based on this one builder proposal)
The Planning Commission has yet to be able to discuss any details of the project and
both.times they have voted to recommend an EIR they have also voted to have the project
return to them for the details such as the Neighborhood Plan, the geology and soils, and any
development standards including road widths, setbacks, sidewalks, mitigation measures, etc. The
last meeting all they even discussed, per Staff recommendation, was the environmental issues
.' and they specifically disallowed any discussion regarding other issues. I think the Council's
move to possibly take over the entire project would surprise and should insult your Planning
Commission. The applicants are business people, this project won't die and they are not going
away. They have ail investment to protect and ensure it success. The City must require that
minimum requirements be met on this project such as following our General Plan and adhering
to our own development code.
So I understand your question to be the choice between supporting your Planning
Commission's recommendation to require a full EIR or deny their recommendation and send the
Negative Declaration back to the PC to discuss further and continue their study of the
application.
All summer, I have been told by this Council to "Believe in the Process" I have tried to "believe
in the process". So after you as a Council decide the fate of the environmental tool either an EIR
or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, continue the process "you so believe in" and send the
project back to the Planning Commission to do their job working through the details. Let the
Planning Commission who has the time, expertise, and CEQA education, not to mention many
hours of investment in study and listening to public comment see this project through. Support
your Planning Commission and follow the process to have them resolve these issues. They have
not been given correct information froni'the staff and the applicant continues to change plans,
partners, and drawings that have accounted for the months of delays - not the Commission! If the
City Council is going t() read and study the Cherry Creek application, are there going to be any
attempts to correct the errors and misunderstandings in the Staff report prior to the Council
reading these reports? ..
Although the Council is granted the authority to pull this project from the Planning
Commission, this is not the way ArroydGrande, or this Council does business. We, as a City are
known for our open government, brag about our citizen participation and should relish in our
honest dealings.
Sincerely,
Coffeen Martin
Colleen Martin
f)~. J;(tZr .f~ I 06 AUG 28 Pi/ I: 4l~
<J~ ~~ ~ ~ --;J--ck.
~r~~~~~-Zk~u0:
~~~z?-<L,~~~~ o/-~
7/~c;o~71(w-J d-ndaM--tk- ~ euuy~~
..~,
...fl ~ ~~-4- ~ ~;z../-~ ~ c<-?-""..d ~_.2L
rh,u~.kvcuJ~4~.~
A'"?;j~.
k~J ~~~)~9b. ~~$"""d-a.e0'
~ ~~ ~ ~ "',<Z~,.,/ a-.w~~~
;Z>k.d ~-t.<.k ~.~ -4 ~
aU.AJ 4A<<n'71- ~~ h4- ~ ~:
J Chn ~...,~ ~'~>>~ ;y~_~
"1"<<.~ ~.AW~~~. >>~~~
.4a zIU, <0r ~ ~ -u..r~ ~ ~ ~-<'j
~~~~-4- ~4f~~ ~~''K-
.~a,~~~-4-~~~
~~~?~O~~~~/'YY~
~~ ~r=Vk.-~~/~.?
~-rr--~~~~~~~
o(e<-<1-~~ ~~~/..J~_~
a..~~7>1..~~4..~~
~ L:..--.. .J= .u: -j' 4.b." ~ -n.d~ -a-n, " ~
~,~~ =~~~~=4..
~ ~.--v -.~ 4.e.- ~ ~ ~--??7-d~ -U..L<--.L-
~~~~..R~ ~ ~ ~~;q:,
../...-C/-z'~ ~--e..- ---?r.:) ;:q...-G- ~ ~.-a:~ ~~./..L ~
. ,t/7 V~Ce><...
-------- ------ <,,/ ~~ ' c:.
r.ECEI'/C ~ oz.(,1 06
"-" -
, I' . c. """-n''') -,..... ...,.
- . I .' . t", I ,. ~. I 1_ " .'.
~ 7 ~,IfJ~ ~ fi;/u.- ~.::t;-t J0~ ~d-
/J-n<.- ~....P /~ .IUV/M M--: ~ /}-7~4~~ 4-C'vrzd~.v
f ~ AU0~} ~~ ~ /j'tA.-C jV~
ftAL;Uu- ~M ~4- ~ /~ .b-l- ~~ ..I0J.V"1 ~.
.J t'wl~!.U/ /Ptv ~./ ~~ ..zjU;.v ~--r~...~~
l~1 /~ .#r/ ~ d~ .dv-'~~ /U-
U fl~ Au:q-~..J. y,d1J" ~~.-d /Jr-J y~ /Y~~
a--nd J k ~--e"n4/:LLu.~ 4/~ ~ ~ ~Ud-04'
-r'P. .:> .' a
.~~ ~n. )y..t. tlA-e .z;b... ~?V<".-/,
(l:t: ~AJ d-u.- ~'-<'.( c.:-r~ ~"CfA!/ ..a.0-c~
tvrid {~~ htl!~ ~1- --1urvn-u~1 ~~1~ /Y~
;;tji-t v.-eJlfiv<1-'. ~L.. ;U-..d~.z ..tv:. ~t...1 tv-C ~~
. . .z.- ....tuu .4~' jLl!. cJux~ ..?tv ..1u01. ~-
Mv A/YJ'V-4/'..A- tJ.' J . ":j I .' .'.
F ~~<<k ~ "^'" ~ # .z/iL~bn,.
. ." , / --- ~
, . ..' . . . . //.flv-<.L(.., ~rr'-""-- - -
. (l&~.../~",,~ut/~.n-.4:zZ;'7-/ .;u~..~-r(.M~ ; ./. : ""
;/J'7"'1"-..J;:/'f -r-v ..u't.i.. ~~.~..vvV zft.k ?1~~ ~/~
~ ~/~ l1"--'~-""'" .z::;-t........,..,.. ~ P...<.. 1 vA'.. ;ct~V<: O~A-
.<J4W'--U4d ~0~. /-:~~ ~ J^"'-' V..-<.., e--v~~
~ f ~t:)~ a..d.--Md.. ....u-<-'..v"....vv ~ ;d,.v ~.
p. ._"'j'~h
~-r"
/lr(),:'~ ~~:c-
-I ~ ~ ;c-A.v./
,
~. CL~L)L~';lUl,~L~'
. 0.lj ':'lI-IL~S'-~r
C ~ 1C\t-k;;P)LI<-H
tj ,,'
~~Uic' '-I\.jI!.V
. 6.-tLoCG:!t.~
236 Garden Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
August 26, 2006
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch St. '
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
Dear Mayor and Counc;i1 Members,
;_ii:
00 ,c,'.'~: ?:
C l 6-"}9 GW'l; I
CctlA Mc'A.W if
(11 ft1tt~
1\ -<<<../CL~/)U,~
I thought you might be interested in the information I have enclosed as it pertains to 734
Myrtle Street and the proposed Cherry Creek development. I have an interest in seeing
the former Stilwell farm preserved and utilized as do many others. On July 1$,2006 a
garden tea/informational meeting was held to begin notifying neighbors of alternatives to
dense development of 734 Myrtle Street (please read the enclosed notes from that
meeting). More than twenty people attended and others who couldn't make it called to
put their names on the contact list. We now have almost forty names on our contact list
of interested community members. Fourteen members of our contact list attended the
July 18th Planning Commission meeting to show their support for alternatives to the re-
zoning and dense development of 734 Myrtle Street. I was going to speak on their behalf
at that meeting to share our vision but was unable to do so, as the Commission Chair
chose to cut the public comment period short. I am, therefore, sending this information
on to you to preview and consider since you will be making important decisions re: the
former Stilwell farm in the near future. Best possible land use is a serious matter to
consider in our rural community.
Because of the history of farming on this property and the fact that it is prime soil with
irrigation rights, I urge you not to allow this property to be re-zoned at all. There are far
better uses for this land. I am not promoting preservation of the land for the land's sake; I
am promoting 'rreservation of this farm for the sake of our community - so it can become
a unique mode of rural living in an excellent location, conducive to community outreach.
Again, please read the enclosed Heritage of Grace Farm Project meeting notes for the
vision we are proposing. Because the land is zoned R-R and no pesticide sprays will be
used, no buffer zone is required and the land can be fully utilized. I urge you to consider
the ~greening" of America and whatisignificant role our community will play in conserving
our limited natural resources and promoting sustainable, rural living - our heritage.
At the very least, please do not allow this proposed development to go forward without a
full Environmental Impact Review. It is necessary to require in-depth study, given the
numerous number of mitigations needed to develop this particular piece of land. Many of
the mitigations needed are not even addressed In the Mitigated Negative Declaration or
impacts are down played in a very subjective way. A memorandum put out in Oct. 2002 by
Rob Strong warned prospective bUy,ers of the issues involved with this particular piece of
land. Why did the developers buy this land in the first place if they are so opposed to an
EIR? Is it because they fear the results of an EIR? If so, this development should not be
approved. The developers themselves are the ones who have delayed this process. When
the Planning Commission recommended a full EIR in March of 200$, the developers
stopped the City's public process for 1$ months, ignoring the recommendation. They put
themselves in the situation of running out of time and money. Had, they gone forward
with the EIR in March/April 200$, they would have had their answer by now. Instead,
they constantly <hanged the layout of their homes rather than effectively dealing with
the environmental concerns. Please hold them accountable and require an EIR.
Sincerely, Polly Tullis "P=\-LlL-~
Ifl~ f/I , ~
,. 1adU-
'.
-
a~~' c:A
~ .;t....~1 bb
;' -
.J~~.~.~~f~
~.tJ-'~~~~~~dJ..
~~.~.:d.-v ~
71~ ;JJ.J711";'.l..d ~~ ~~~
~, '
.J.~~~.~;t4v~~~~
r~~k&~~~~.~
AJ-?2~' .
~ J ~~ ~~9~. ~~'7.f,'d:dzLd <./
~~~r.~~'...I"""~
pfu::C ~-tif .zIU- ~ ~ ~
rd-t-.4YJ ;;ek....M-01~ ~~ ~ ~. ~......,.
.)tvm ~~~~~r~
'1:'" ~ ~.fl.t./ M-~. j)"..-r:v~
.;ift.a;d,.. &t:.q -'"" .;.,...Z ~~ r..dw ~Afr. .j
~~~~.4f~~~
.~CL~.4f~~~F#'~~
~~~~rv~~fr~
~~ ~ritJu.,~~~:?
tv..u~~;:dud~ ~~ ~ ~~k..(
() W~"I~ .
;;(~~~ ~.~~j(.J~'~
~~~/n'i.~~~~~
r M-.-nU.-. .j.<P ;de jdw ~ ~~ ~ .J ~
~/~~::aa.fk,~~~~
~~~.~~~.~~~
~~..J~~~~~
./~~~;t;f,+~ ~D~ ~.~A:.e~
~: )11-t,~~ ~~ ~X:ij J?r~ ~
./YYU- ~,J ~ /~ ~ -ru ~~ ~.~#
f.:tJ!uA;~~1 ~.~ ~ ~ ~
y;kd.x:lu-. ~~ ~ ~.~ .be- ~ ~~.
J ad"f~k~<~~~ ~
.~~../W~~~~~
Ja-~.~~' Y(j1~~..d-~P~~
tvnd-J k .Ae4f~.~ ~~~ ~(f
~~ ~? W-i- "tl^R- .d.v ~~
~'~A1} ~~~~~.-/.a0~
a.-nd(~~~~~~
ffi- ~. 4 ;t;IuL; ~ --t-<. -e0f~hA-e_k<7' tvC. ~
an-4/mf~F~k~~~ r~
F~~M-<~~.. '.
.(;U,~~4v&~' ~~/Mv~~
'~/
.P~'->>'1 r .de.- .' ~ ::d.-e- ?f,.v.Af ~
.~ ~l ~ ~ ~ p~ t tUZ ~ tP~.-..-
.(YJW-uAd- ~ ~ ~ J7: x;JLv ~~
..~f _v-a-v.~ ~.'...:-J ;d.e..-~.
.~r
lI(ag~~~
.,
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
/~fJ
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL /
MARY BASSETT, EXECUTIVE ASSIST A~I~t?
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 9.d. -
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-
002, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002; APPLICANT -
CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION - 22
" ACRES LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA COURT AND NORTH OF.EAST
CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (CHERRY CREEK)
SEPTEMBER 11, 2006
Colleen Martin requested that the attached supplemental materials be provided to the
City Council regarding Cherry Creek, which was received subsequent to the
distribution of the Council agenda on September 6th,
Ji-~ti~UO ~U:~OM L~~Y OT ~LU-CU Dept~
l':)U~ ~~..I. ~..I.~......
, ,
Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
545 Main Street Suite B-1 Morro Bay, CA 93442
,
805-772-4391
Mr. Chuek Fellows, Chair
Planning Commission, City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Gnmde, CA. 93420
RE: Cherry Creek Development, Tract 2653 (proposed)
RECEIVED
Jill -' ;)r;Uro,n
....J_/.;):' b
- -
Dear Chainnan Fellows and Commissioners:
CITY 0;:: t\h'I;),.....~ - I ~.\ ,. !r-..r-
. '". ,. \... r' ,." Ie
COr,,~i\l.iU~iiY L,..:~'CLC~.i~I;NT
The Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District ("RCD" or "District") is a special
government agency created by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors pursuant to
State law to undertake programs and activities designed to protect and enhunce agriculturdllands
and natural habitat within the area served by the District. This area includes the City of Arroyo
Grande'and surrounding unincorporated areas, The District has a long and proud record of
working fOT the benefit of the natural and human environment of the Arroyo Grande Valley.
The District has twu interests associated with Tract 2653. First, the RCD holds an agricultural
easement (valued at over $1.5 milliun) on the Dixson property, located immediately to the south
of the proposed development. ill addition, the RCD has maintained a long and acti ve interest in
the quality and quantity of wuter Oowing in Arroyo Grande Creek.
The Cherry Creek project designers,RRM, have met twice with the RCD to describe their
proposed project and resolve identified concerns. They have for instunce exlended the
agricultural huffer zone beyond the specified standard and have incorporated a benn and wall to
screen agricultural operations and reduce impact of drift to the future residents of Tract 2653.
The ReD does not have a position regarding the development of Tract 2653. However, the RCD
seeks assur.ance that the prnposed project does not negatively affect the agricultural easement
that the R~D holds on the Dixon propclty, or degrade the waters of An'oyo Gwnde Creek,
Many of the concerns rllised the RCD have been addressed. However, there are II few items of
concern that cannot be resolved without conducting detailed studies. The ReO recognizes thai
these studies arc not typically performed until later in the development processes. Therefore. the
RCD would like to provide the City with a list of potential issues that will need to be addressed
and resol ved prior to issuing final map approval:
Proposed modification to stone culvert under Branch Mill Road
The plan to limit the water conveyed 10 Traet139 through the Slone culvert under I:3ranch Mill
Road will likely reduce lhe flooding risk to that neighborhood as well as to the Vagahond Mobile
Home Park and Pacific Coast Christian School. We understand and support the rationale for the
proposed reduction in culvert capacity in thutlocution, however, inlet capacity and function
J~-l8706 lO:28A C;ty of SLO-CD Dept.
805 78l 7173
f. _'-'''-
"
(clogging) may be II critical design element of this facility and should be carel"ully rcviewed as
project design moves forward.
Proposerl Culvert parallel to Branch MlII Road
The capacity of a proposed pipe and the required dimensions of the channel parallello Branch
Mill Road necessary to carry overland e~cape flows is unclear. There also may be an inadequate
number of inlets pre~ent along Branch Mill Road to handle locally-generatcd sheet flow that will
undoubterlly continue ucmss the Dixson Rl!.Ilch.
Intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry A venue
Therc may be inadequate topography at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry A venue
to keep the flood waters from crossing over Brunch Mill Road and continuing into Tract 409.
Ellst Cherry Avenue as Weir
Verify that the post-development waiersurface elevation and velocities along the Southside of
East Cherry Avenue are consistent with pre-development depths and velocities. Consider grade
control structures to ensure that there is no head cutting ()nll) the Dixson Ranch.
Inlet though Tract 2653
The efficiency of the inlet to Tract 2653 is limited due to its angle. Verify Ihat the po~t-
development water surface elevation and velocities along the Southside of East Chen'y Avenue
and on Dixson Ranch are consistent with pre-developed depths and velocities.
Grass-lined channel through Tract 2653
Verification is necessary to assure Ihat the channel can withstand the anticipated velocities.
Project CC&R's need to address the continued maintenance needs of this channel. It is possible
that scour _will occur due to the width and cJ\tended length of the channel. Check dams may
therefore1le approptiate to limit the length of continued run. Sediment will likely need to be
removed on a regular basis.
Outlet to Arroyo Grande Creek
Velocities at the outlet need to be evaluRted to determine that the discharge will not cause
emsion on either the adjacent or opposing banks of Arroyo Grande Creek.
Addressing Area-Wide Flood Protection
Many of the issues associated with t100ding at the Dixson Ranch, Tract 139 and Tract 409 arc
area-wide in naturc and cannot be resolved by. nor should they be the sole responsibility of.
Tract 2653. However, the basic problem of properly handling flood flows emanating from
Newsom Springs Canyon remains unaddressed, and the Di~tricI [eels that some fonn of
-:r
- - - - - - -. - -........r
~. -:loL.U-L..LJ uepL~
~~-... .--
, ,
stonnflow detention at or near the mouth of that canyon would benefit all downstream
landowners (including those in Zone 1/1 A who are already heavily impacted by siltation and
flooding on lower Arroyo Grande Creek). The Cherry Crcekproject provides ample reason for
starting anew the investigations undertaken in the late 1990'sa~ well as more recently regarding
the Newsom Springs watershed but never acted upon.
Thank you for the oppOltunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
~!I~
Neil Havlik, PhD
President, Board of Directors
Coastal San Luis Rcsource Conservation District
~ ,
(t' .',#'
eROM':CDD&EDD
FAX t--D. : 805 473 5489
Jun. 25 2006 10:4?At1 PI
East Village Neighborhood PlanlCheny Cr~ck VTTM
Greg McGowan Comments
City of AlToyo Grande
Planning Commi..sion
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande. CA 93420
RE: East Village NeighbOrhood PlanfCherry Creek Development
POIl.alr FRX Note 7~~~YJf,iQ~_ f!~,pJ!: ...3---J.
To Cbll~~ ~IJ ,F,om ~ J
~,- ..~' 4'E/"_~--=D
::~. ~Kl1'-~DS3'- ;;:'~'''~=~=j
June 5, 2006
Chair .Fellows and Commissioners:
Thank you for the opporlUnityto provide eommenl.' for the City's c.onsideration of the EaSt
Village Neighborhood Plan ,md the proposed Cherry Creek residential development at the
end of Cherry Lane i.n the City of Arroyo Grande. I expressed most of the eommen"
below in oralte.~dmony at the Planning Commission hearing on May 16'" 2006 though the
disr;ussion of the scope of Ihe Neighborhood Plan review was nOI addressed at the hearing.
As requested by Chair Fellows at the hearing. these comments are being reiterated ill
writing. I live at 432 Garden Street around the comer from the site. In prcparing these
comments 1 have reviewed the Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checkli,t ("Initial
. Stutly") prepllred by the City. Ihe public record file available an.he'City off,,;e in Arroyo
Grande, Rnd applicable regulations under Ihe California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
In general I support re,idential use of the sile. The comments below are offered for your
consideration to improve consistency in lhe environmental review document, avoid
potential project delays, increase public understanding of the project. and to facilitate the
highest quality projecI for the community and the applicant. The comments arc generally
sequenced from general to more specific.
1. Work Hours - Work hours should be strictly limited to business hour.. Mondoy
through Friday between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. The current proJcct would allow
work six days a week from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. 'The si'e is immediately
adjacent to residential family neighborhoods and the local community that will
be most affecred by project activities deserves respire after husiness hours "nd
011 weekends. No noise or dust generaling activities should be permille(j outs"l"
the days and hours listed above. No staging of trucks Or IlIaterials should he
allowed our~ide rhe days and hours listed above. Pr~ieet aCliviries such as
painting could be allowable during different hours under this ~cenario as long as
air compressors. loud radios or orher noise generating equipment arc not used.
Z, NeighborhOOd Plan Environmental Review - In several places. the Initial
Study lacks consistency between the Project described on Pages I and 2 and Ihe
study areas and potential impacts for which specific daUI was collected :lnd
analyzed for significance. The Project Title and Number lIS1ed at the top of the
Initial Study .uggest that the environmental analysis is intended to cover (he
Neighborhood Plan prepared by the applicant. As indicated on pages 2 and 3 of
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTIM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
vI . ol
ESOS68vSOB
St~Ugl~l::.I
ol12:21 90 60 olas
~: ?
FROM :CDD&EDD
FA.\( NJ. : 805 473 5489
Jun. 26 2006 10:42AM 22
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Crcck VTTM
Greg McGowan Commcm~
the lnitial Study. the Neighborhood Plan is required to cover the integration of
the build-out of S3,'new residenliallots in two phases on twenty-two acres.
Subarea 1 consists 'of nine acres and Subarea 2 consists of 13 acres. Pha,e I
includes the development of 38 new parcels in Subarea I and Phase II includes
the development o~ up to 15 parcels in Subarea 2. It should be noted that the
Initial Study does riot explicitly state that the total maximum build-out of
Subarea 2 is 15 paicels. This number was calculalCd by subtracting the 'Phase I
build-out (38 parcels) from the total allowable under the Neighborhood Plan (53
parcels), Tt would be useful to explicitly define the maximum allowable build-
. out 85 considerabl~ variation has been offered through public testimony ranging
from 53 to more than 200 allowable units.
During the Plannhlg Conunission hearing of May 16.2006. the applicant
indicated that due to the number of properlY owners in Subarea 2 and a
~ignificant lUCK of !=onsensus by the owners of that property regarding an
approach to future:,development. the Neighborhood Plan wa, not able to fully
address both Phase I and Phase II development. Consequently the Initial Study
was not able to cofuprehensively address many of Ihe Potentially A freCled
Environmental Fac.tors listed on page I of the document. Further. the Initial .
Study con~istently'evaluates only the potential impacts associated with Phase I
development (nine"acres of Subarea I). For example. the description of
biological impacts,on Page 13 specifie.~ that "Implementation of the proposed
project will result in the conversion of approximately nine (9) acres of
senescent walnut orchard and annual grassland habitats to residential houscs.
streets and landscaping With non-native landscaping plants." Based on the
information on page 2 and page 3, "the project" actually includes 53 parcels on
22 acres. As with all discussions under CEQA, the analysis of potential impacts
is based specifically on the project description. The biological discussion
continues with a d6scription of items specifically related 10 Phase I deve.lopment
on Subarea I. No biological study was included fOT Subarea 2 and based 01\
aerial imllgery. the most significant riparian habitat within the Neighborhuod
Plan area occurs a1 the east end of Subarea 2. Several of the other sections in
the Initial Study explicitly reflee! the same inconsistency in dC'lining the scope
of "the prqject" in~luding PopulationfHou.,ing. Public Services/Utilities. and
Transportation/Circulation. The Wastewater seclion docs appear 10 reflect both
Phase I and Phase:l!. The scope of the remaining sections is not expressly
stated. '
The Initial Study should be clarified 10 more specifically define the scope of the
project and specifi~ally identify tbu,e componenls covered hy the current
CEQA review. Particularly as it applies to Phase II or Subarea 2 for which 110
subdivision is currently proposed, the document should also specifically identify
the types of action,~ that will require subsequent studies and what applications
would trigger the additional studies (e.g.. application for grading permit. minor
use permit. development plan, etc.). This discussion should include an analysis
of potential future ,build-out parameters (e.g.. maximum number of unit._. etc.)
and how consistency or inconsistency with the Neighborhood Plan would be
addressed or allowed.
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007;VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
51' d
I;
E505681>508
S~~U~l";l.H
d~~:~l SO 60 da~
.
FROM :CDD&EDD
FAX NO. : 8135 473 5489
Jun. 25 2005 IO:42AM P3
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg McGowan Commcn~~
3. Creek Setback - The current project design includes a Z5-foot sethack from
the top of the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. While this sethack would bufter
the creek jtgelf. it would provide essentially no buffer for the associated
riparian corr.idor as the vegetated corridor currently extends approximately 25
fel:t from the top of the bank. More conunonly, riparian buffers are ext~ndcd
from'lhc outside edge of The riparian corridor or the lOp of hank. whichever is
farther. This is consistent with the area under the jurisdiction 01' the State of
Califomia under Section 1602 of the California Fish ami Game Code. Because
.theprojett will require impacts to the area within Stote jurisdiction, it may he
useful to discuss the setback with represelllatives of Thc Callfornia Depanment
of Fish and Game (CDFG) as they may require a sethack as part or thc
anticipated Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. If this setback is
inconsistent with the project design i[ could result in delays for the project.
Additionally, it should be noted that if using thc top of hank as the basis for the
setback, CDFG will consider the top of bank to be the finished contour after
any grading activities. Dottlle pre~llisting top of bank i1~ is further discussed
below.
4. St:onnwater Inr..astrudure - II is my understanding that the proposed project
is being rcquired to participate in the inslallalion of regional stormwater
improvements including three 72-;nch diameter culverts directing flows into
Arroyo Grande Creek. For the most part, the riparian corridor of the crcck and
the creel< itself represent the most ecologically significant habitat on the site
potentially subject to several state and federal regulations including the Feden,l
Clean Water Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act. Ihe California
Endangered Species Act, and The California Fish and Game Code as noted
above lIDd a~ discussed in the Jnitial Study.
Based on the information in The Jnilial Study and in the Cily'S puhlie record
file. a grading plan has not been developed for the installation of the Three
culverts that accurately delineates the anticipated limits of dismrbance. Because
the existing banks are extremely steep along this stretch of rhe creck. I would
anticipate several potentially significant issues associated with thc required
grading lInd subsequent restoration.
WiThout installing walls or relying on significant hardhllnk protcction. it ~eem~
unlikely thaI the bank could be restored to the ellisting slope (nearly vertical in
smne areas). Consequently the soil placed on top of the installed pipes will
likely be graded on a 2: I or gentler slope from the toe of the diSTUrbance. Thi~
raises several questions that should be evaluated. How would the newty created
slopes be integrared with the existing undiSTUrbed bank" upstream and
downstream of the disturbance area? Presumably some sort of "feathering" of
the slopes to transition back to the steep existing banks would be required. This
would likely expand the limits of disrurbance (upstream and downstream)
beyond what jg required to install the culverts. Because erosion ami si1!<llion of
:'liP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VrfM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Chcrry Creek)
9t . d
ESOSGB17S0B
S~':lUE!'I'~b1
dE2: :2:t 90 GO da~
FROM : CDD&EDD
l.1 . d
FAX NO. :805 473 5489
Jun. 26 2006 10:43AM P'l
Ea~t Vill~ge Neighborhood Plan/Cherty Creek VTTM
Grer; McGowan Comment.~.
the creck is a significant concern relat.ed t.o sensitivc species issues (a.' is further
discussed below), short term consrruction and long term bank stabilization ~od
erosion control protection measures as well as slope stabiiization mechanisms
should be fully developed and evaluated during the project planning prQCess to
understand the potential direct and indirect impact' of the work and the
expected effectiveness of the proposed protection measures.
.If in fact the installation of the culverts would result in a slope that is more
gentle (less steep) than me existing banks, the post-construction top of bank
would be shifted away from creek towards the development envelope. As such,
the 25-foot buffer from the top of bank would also need to be shifted
accordingly. CDFG typically requires t.hat. any creek selback be based on t.he
finished grade and comour, not on Ihe top of bank prior to construction work.
It is not. clear if a change in the setback based on a new top of bank would
affect me proposed sheet fluw of stormwaler from 1015 21, 22, "od 23 as
described on page 31 of the Initial Study.
One potential solution for consideration would be to utilize lateral drilling
technology to install the culverts. 111is approach if technically feasible and
reasonably cost effective for such large diameter pipes could significantly
reduce Ihe disturbance and potential impacts a~sociated with the installation.
Reducing the size andlor number of culverts would also reduce impacts but to a
lesser extent if t.renching was st.ill required.
As is also discussed in Comment 6 below, analysis of the physical and
mechanical impacts of discharge water from tbe inswlled culverts un the
existing crcek geomotphology (bed and bank configuration) Should be
. . conducted due t.o the assumed presence of sensitive species.
5. Creek Trail - The Initial Study suggests that t.he public will tlemalld creek
access al the site and will create a trail if one is not provided. I per,ol1:llIy
disagree with this assumption based on the topography and the dense vegetation
(including blackberries and poison oak) and would recommend that no crcek
acce~~ be provided and further that measures be specifically required to prevent
creek access (e.g., fencing. intetpretive signage, CC&R language).
The existing gauging station currently provides a very Sleep staircase dowlJ 10
the creek. If the City and/or the applicant insist on providing cre~k Jccess, it
sbould be limited to mis existing infrastructure to avoid additional impacts to
the creek hank. Note however, that the existing stairway in no way meets the
standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Inst"llarion of an
ADA compliant access trail on the ...teep banks would likely require switchbad:.s
and considerable associated grading.
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
E505681>508
dl>~ :;n 90 60 da~
s~~ue{~\:J
FROM : CDD&EDD
81' d
FAX NO. :805 473 ~489
]"n. 252006 10:43FiM PO
,ga.~t Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg Mcgowan Commcn~~
Mitigation Measure MM 4.4 require5:
"...a footpath to the creek that would be stable and non-erosive, The trail
5hould be covered with base rock and designed to be permeable and to
avoid the concentration of storm runoff. The developer shall also plallt
shrubs, such as, native thicket forming blackberry andlor Califomia rose
adjacent to any trails andlor footpaths to discourage use of II shortcut paths.
and shall resto~e any Clli51ing volunteer paths with native riparian species as
a part of the approved restoration plan under MM 4.2 above."
This mitigation measure appears to be mfeasible without substantial grading
considering the ste~p existing banks. Restoration planting of shrubs on thc
existing steep bank,S outside the trail as described would be challenging and
costly assuming that quantitative performance requirements are established to
demonstrate success.
Due to the sensitivity of this area, a detailed analysis of the required grading f('r
all infrastructure installation, polentiallrail access, and the proposed park along
Arroyo Grande Creek should be conducted during the planning and review
process to facilitate adequate assessment of potential impacts as well as
potential impact avoidance and minimization measures. The engineered top 01
bank mapped through this process should be used as the hasis for the proposed
25-1'oot setback buffer. If potentially significant impacts are identified tItat
calmot be avoided. suitable mitigation measures should be developed fO reduce
the impact(s) to a less than significant level such that a mitigated m:giltive
declaration remains the appropriate review document in accordance wilb the
CEQA. If impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, all
Environmental Impact Report ('fIR) would be required,
6. Sensltl\1e Species - The Initial Study specifies that two federally prOtected
wildlife species (California red-legged frog; federally listed as "threatened" and
Central California steelhead; also federally listed as "thremened") and one
California Species, of Special Concern (southwestem pond rurtle), are assumed
to be present at some time in the creek along the project reach. 'The Initial
Study identifies several porentinl impacts including potentially significant
impacts associated with the installation of the stormwatcr culvert and outfall
structure. All potential ecological impacts including sensitive species issues are
summarized ou page 14 of the Initial Study and addressed in ten subsequent
mitigation measures. Potentially occurring impacts from the project on
California red-legged frogs and steelhead are further detailed on page 17 n<
"direct mortality, harm (habitat moditication), or haras.~ment {alteration of
'bt:havior affecting reproduction and survival)."
While assuming presence of sensitive species is a conservative approach, it
avoids the need'to conduct species-specific and/or site-specific surveys. It also
docs not provide the opportunity to consider potential impacts to unique habirat
feature!! of the sire :during the CEQA process for a given species as this work
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
ESOS68i>SOB
ds" :,,1 90 60 da.
S~':l.uel~l::J
.'
FROM :CDD&EDD
FAX H:J. :805 47.3 5489
J'.Jn. 25 2eJeG 10:.1.1A"'1 Pb
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg !\.1cGowun C:?.E'}!1len!~
would not be conducted unless it is a .-equirernent of The subsequent federal
permitting review.
The gauging station and a...~sociated creek impediment ha~ created a deep pool
where Arroyo Grande Creek exitS the l'lre to the wesL. This particufi\r pool is
reported TO f\Upport steelhead. Considering the generally $hnHow condilions of
Arroyo Grande Creek, this deep wate..- likely slays cooler and. stays full long.er
than other areas of dIe: creek and as such would he especially irnpoctant habiral
for the other sensitive species n130 as~umed CQ be present at the site (California
red-legged frog.s. s~uthwestem pond turtles). Relnovat of the riparian canopy
associated with in!\lallation of the culverts could result \11 warmer wHter ~
increased predation by raptor~. and other potential impl:lcts for several years
while the restoration plants grow large enough to staT! providing cover again.
Additional1y~ the impact of the stonnwater di!ichargc during now events ~houl{t
he consideTed on this feab.Jrc:. Based on the graphic in Lfte Initial Study. it is
anticipated that stormwater will spill out ontO the hardbank structure
inlmediately below the outfall of the culverts with relatively low prer-aslIl'"e. but
no discu.9sion of the stormwater flow impact on the L:.reek flow '$ included.
Mitigation Measures MM 4.9 and MM 4.10 address the potential impact' for
red-legged frogs and for steethead. respeclively. In bOlh cases. the mitigation
addresses potential impacts; by requiring documentation from the appropriate
federal resource protection entity (U.S. FiMl and Wildlife Service and/ur
National Marine ~,isheries Service) concurring that the project will not rcsul( in
"takc" (a broadly defined term describing impacts) or will nOl adversely affect
the species. In practict:. addressing "'take" through the Endangered Spec.e~ Act
will neccs3arily address the potential harm to the specie~ 10 (]uestion; however.
i.t should he noted that these two Mitigation Measures as wr-iuen in the rnitial
Study do not direclly provide quantifiable performance objectives (such as 00
measurable increase in water turbidity~ no silulion of the s.neamb.ed. no
permanent los9 ofhabilat. a maximum allowable numb"r of take incidents. e,<:.)
01' R mechanism to direclly achieve pcrfonnance objectives and. con!'cqlJently
could he construed as deferred mitigation (this discussion and the disl,;.u$.sjnn
below may also apply 10 other sections of Ihe Initial Study such as GeoloBY and
Soils where lnitigation measures such as MM 6. l rely or. the findings of studies
that have nol yet been conducted)_
The issue of deferred mitigation under CEQA has been routioely litigated ill
C~lifornia and the courts have generally supported this type of deferral when it
is pari of a certified Envirorunem.allmpaet Report (E1R). Howevcr. 111C court,
have bcen considerably less snpportive when part of a Negative Declaration 01'
Mitigated Neg8ti~e Declaration. As you are likely aware~ a certifi.ed EIR
strongly protects a project applicant and provides ;3 mcchanisrn 10 allow for
potentially significant impacts to occur (through a ~tarclnellt of over-riding
consideration). In contrast. use of a Negative Declaration Dr Mitigated Negative
Declaration places the burden of proof on the applican< (and the lead agellcy) to
demonsu'atc that DC} significant impacts will occur as a re:'>ult of a project and
NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002: PUD 04-002 (Cherry C:Teek)
---~_._-_._- ----.- .....---- - -..-.- ---. ---------. ------.---. ,-.-' ---.
61 . d
ESOS6Bi>SOB
s~~uel~1:J
dS2:2I SD 60 dd
FROM :CDD&EDD
O~'d
FAX NO. :805 473 5489
Jun. 26 2006 10;44AM P"7
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Greg McGowan Comments
consequently requires a higher level of detail for any proposed mitigation
measure addressing a potentially significant impact.
The Initial Study indicates that a mitigated negative declaration wil1 bc prepared
for the project. As stich, it would be 10 the advantage of the applicant "nd the
City as the lead agency to more thoroughly describe the aClUal mechanisms IImt
may be applied to reduce potentially significant impacts to a Jess than
sign'ificant level. Suitable mitigation measures might include quantifiable
parameters for water quality through construction and through tile life of thc
project, maintenance of the integrity of the e.isting creek characteristics (e.g.,
flow rate/volume, depth, pool and riffle characteristics, bed. bank, and channel
substrate. etc.), erosion control measure.'. water quality protection measures
such as filters and oil/trash separators, maintenance of habitat quality and
quantity, etc.
Thc City of Arroyo Grande has implemented a moratorium on building on the
banles uf local creeks and has formally solicited the involvemetn of olher loeal
and stale agencies to study watershed issues. As part of these efforts. the City
has identified residential development as an issue of concern and is currently
developing additional creek prOlc:ction measures for residential develupment. It
is assumed thai these measures will include habitat protection rcquircment~ and
ideally the Cherry Creek development ami the broader Neighborhood Plan will
exemplify the ambitions of the City and the community in prntecting local
watersheds for both flood control and ecological habital quality.
7. Native Restoration - Mitigation Measure MM 4.2 requires native resloration
for impacts 10 native habitat along Arroyo Grande Creek. Planting Sheet L-I.O
describes an ornamental park utilizing horticultural varietals of nativc plants for
aesthetic value. Ba.o;ed on the plan, a well designed creekside pocket palk would
bl: created, however this should not be construed as native rcstoration. lt is not
clear if Sheet L-I.O is intended to address any ponion of Mitigation Measure
MM 4.2. Sheet L-1.0 proposes redwoods, oaks, manzanita, and numerOIlS
other species that do not occur in the Central Coast arroyo willow habitat Ihat
characterizes Arroyo Grand Creek. Theoretically, the park would itselfrcquirc
mitigation as currently shown on the plan based on the discussion in MM 4.2.
A relatively simple solution would be to require locally collected nalive
pmpagules from the Arroyo Grande Creek waterslled fur all plantings along the
creek and within the buffer area as this would restrict the plant palette to
species that occur naturally in the area. At a minimum, no horticultural
varieties of rare botanical species (if any occur in the area) should be allowed
and no invasive or exotic species should be allowed.
Depending on the level of impact a.~sociated with tht: installation of the
stormwater infrastructure. a more appropriate mitig;uion measure would n:quire
preparation of a formal narive habitat restoration plan for all disturbances along
Arroyo Grande Creek prepared by a qualified restoration ecologist. botanist, or
biologist with experience restoring this local habitat. This appears to be th~
NP 04-001; DC^ 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
ESOS6BvSOB
d,-~ :~l 90 60 d..~
s ~~ue [~l-J
FROM :CDD&EDD
FAX 1-0. ; 005 473 5489
Jun. 26 2005 lEl:45Af1 PS
East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM
Grt::g McGuwan Conlm_~!2.t~
intent of MM 4.2 ,md as.uming that this is separate from the landscaped park
on Sheet L-I.O, this comment may not be necessary. For reference. the County
of San Luis Obj~po maintains a list of qualified biolog;cal firnls as doee; the
County of Santa .Barbara. Additionally. the City of Arroyo Grande ha..... worked
with a llumbe,- of finns for projects on the creeks within th~ City linlits.
8. Trame - 'I an) not particularly wen versed i.n tr<lftic engint.""Cring ;mu analysts
however several comments in [he Initial Study and du,-ing the Planning
Cornmission hearing of May 16'h were of interest to m~ and appear- to Jnerit
furmcr consideration. The Initial Study indicates lhat the project will have an
in!olignificant ilnpact when addres5ing the question "Win the project Teduce
existing Levels of Service on public roadways?" In lhe subgeqtu:nt Setting
scction the Inili.l 5ludy refers to a 2004 study by Higgins aod Associatcs
evaluating Phase T~.and Phase II of the development. This is cnnsiSlCnt with the
tc~timony by the traffic engineer stating that the firm ~tudied a tot~l build-out of
approximately 90 unit.__. However the Jmpacl section of the luiliaJ Study is
li1nited to Subaren 1 and concludes that build-out of Subl'trea 1 will nUL
significantly impact inten.ectjon or road section traffic operations. and all
studied intersections and road sections will operate at a Level of Service "C" OJ"
better under project conditions. It is not cleaT if me change fn>m Phase I and
Phase II 10 only Subarea I is intenTional or not and il is nol specified whether
the sludy concluded thaT Phase' and Phase 11 cumulatively would affect The
Level of Service. .
According to the American Planning Association (APA; see;
hllp:1 /www .planning.orJ!:/mecommissioner/ 19952003/sprin~02 .h!!!!) , Level of
Service C i~ the zone of mostly stable flow. hut speeds and rnaneuverability are
more closely constricted by the higher ,",olumes. Level of Service D is a zone
Utat approaches unstable flow. with tolerable operating "peeds, however driving
speed is eomiderably affected by changes in operating conditions,
While somewhat cryptic to the lay person. these two Levels of Service appear
to be considerat,ly different and especially .0 in the context of the .mall
residential streets ,in the Village. As such. this seems like a ratTly extre.nc
threshold of significance .s Ihe changc from Level C (0 Level D would he a
very substantial change for residents of the neighborllOad. The Initial Study al.o
does not provide the current Levels of Service and this Jnformarion would be
very helpful in establishing the baseline for discussion. 1 f for example the
project would reduce Ihe Level of Service from Level B to Level C. tillS would
be significant and"would merit public discussion. I aln sure that rhi~ informatiun
is provided in The, study by Higgins and Associates how..ver that documem is
somewhat Challenging to read for people like myself who arc nOI well versed in
tr~lffic engineering.
It would be very helpful to provide a traffic analysis in lay lenns identifying the
existing conditions and the actual anticipated changes to condi[ion~ on the
slreen and inteJ:"sections rather (han relying on letter codes th.at h~ve no intuitive
NP 04-001; DCII. 04-007: VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek)
'z .d
e:SOSGBvSOB
st~uet".ll:J
dL;:-~ :~I 90 GO d.a~
FROM :CDD&EDD
FAX HJ. :805 473 5489
JU11. 2& 2006 10:45AM PS
EaRt Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creck VTTM
Greg_McGowan Com!.llenL~
meaning to the public. All other sections of the Initial Study di~cuss pot"nti~l
changes in readily understandable terms and the TraoRportation/Circullltion
section should be revised accordingly to facilitate open discuss;,)n of the ~etual
conditions and anticipated changes on surface streets and at studied
intersections. Based on the public testimony at the May 16'h hearing, traffic ~nd
project density are the most significant issues of interest for the neighboring
corrunwlity.
I appreciate Ihe opportunity to provide these comments and as well as your continued
consideration of the issues that are addressed. The discussions al>ove are provided w ass;sl
all interested parties in fully understanding the proposed project, thtl implIcations of the
regulutory considerations. and the potential environmental impacts associated with
implementation of the project. At the request of the applicant's representative RRM
Dcsign, I am providing a copy of this letter to them fm their consideration.
Plesge don't hesitatc to contact me if I may he of further service.
Sincerely,
Greg McGowan
(805) 349-7180
ce. Erik P. Justesen. RRM Design Group
NP 04-001: DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002: PUD 04-002 (Cherry Cr;;k)
cc"d
eSOS68vS08
S~':l.ue{,:+l-:,l
d8c :ct 90 60 d",:
Sep 10 06 12:3Sa
Atlantis
8054885053
p.l
Megan Bochum
823 Turquoise Drive
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
805.474.6038
mcganbochum@yahoo.com
August 22. 2006
Dear Mayor Ferrara and City Council Members,
I am writing to you as a resident homeowner in Zone iliA. It has come to my attention that you
will be discussing and deciding issues involving the Newsom Springs Drainage and the
continued suspension of acceptance of projects adjacent to local creeks.
As you know. residents, homeowners, business owners and operators and agriculturalists in Zone
IliA have recently voted on and accepted the levying of assessments to supply funding for the
maintenance of the Los Berros Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek within the zone. It is clear that
many of the issues in this area of the creek system begin upstream: siltation, nmoff, and erosion.
I believe it is incumbent upon our community leaders to consider the impact to those
downstream of inadequate drainage from Newsom Springs and continued development along the
creek. I have concerns that a bioswale will be inadequate to accommodate the runoff from
Newsom Springs. In addition, we must consider the added nmotT created by the proposed
Cherry Creek development. . The amount of permeable land 'will decrease while the amount of
nmoffwill increase. I question whether a bioswale \\ill allow enough time and physical space
for sediment to drop out during storm events. I am concerned about the consequences to those
do\\nstream who continue to confront problems originating upstream.
I urge you to remember those in Zone 1/1 A who have come forth with community effort to work
toward a community goal. I request that any decisions you make concerning OUT creeks and
adjacent development always consider, the impact of the citizens downstream. I thank you in
advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Megan BO'chum
Sep 09 06--Cl:52a
.
Atlantis
8054895053
p.l
.=. i "" NOCCCD
.......:= ':'(;VUULI=r~
D_
PHONE 1-:0.
714 526 6559
Ma~. 01 2006 09:05AM P2
f'~
-,-,
-~
PLANNING CO~MI3SION, CITY OF k~ROYO GRANDE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. CITY OF ~~ROYO GRAND~'_.
,.
" -
"... .
F~OH: GORDON F. DIXSON TRUST CO-TRUSTEES
SARA L, DICKENS AND l1ARI.....'fNA I~CCLA!'AfiAN
S~~JECT: EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBO~~OOD PLAN; ~~ 04-001; DCA 04-007;
VITI1 04-:i02; pun 04-002 (CHEP.RY CREEK)
DATE: APRIL 28, 2006
T~~ 1011ow1cg is an 1ten1zad response to the DRAFT INITI~L STUDY
~~~utRY - E~-VIRONMBNTAL CHECKLIST fo~ the above ?roject:
1. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
:"he sectiOn on "Settinglf states that: all Class I and II soils are
co"Os1dered prime soLIs, but not :!ecess2.rily prime "fa~tF\l~nd"
s~il$. ~1bat are the definitions of these ter~s? What c[i~eria
ace ~s~d to make that decision?
:.'" fact, under "Impa.ct" ,(page 6) the quote frOll: City Policy
Object~ve AG1-l of'the ~enaral Plan appears to co~iirm tha~
current egr1c~ltural productivity ie not a criteria for determin-
~~g Frime soil 5tatus ~nd h9nce, its viability as pr~e farm
l.!:.D.d.
~~e first sentence in ~he subse~"ent paragraph is not a correct
s~3t'?-I3ent. The property has .!!.e.! Il.heen cCIUmitted 'to residential
usa oince the late 1800's. The City ,~s incorporated in 1911 and
':~iB area was primarily a walnut orchard ~ith a res1dential
Q~el11ng on the farmed parcel.
Reference to the LESA Model is no~ a useful criteria for the City
of Arroyo Grande because the majority of its pri~e s011s are ln
,";':.oe::: 1 O-",c=e"' parcels. Has the cl ty forma.lly adopted tr.is model
os its mca~uro of i~pact O~ pri~e soils? If so, that negates
adopted Ci ty policy reflected 11". the GQT'.Qral PIa:", to preserve
pzi~e fa;m land within the City.
:lease nota that Attac~ent A was not jnc1udad 1r. ~he packet for
~he draft ~1tigated Negative Declaration.
011 ,;:~ge 7. paragraph 3 it "each juriSdiction must: examine its own
d.st,~~tive set of circumstances and site conditions' arr,d the AG
a~e~ is considered uni~~e in that it does have smaller prime soil
~~~c~ls. wouldn't that argu~ tor a ~1!ferQn~ w~igtting 0: the
:.:3SA moz1el r\~aSl.1re2?
~~at weights did City Sta~~ give to the varlous cr1terla under
tESA? Are t~cce ~~igbts the same fa.. the State cr County?
Shouldn~t weights given the various criteria b~ a discussion item
~o see how cl~s~ly they reflect the policy to pre$erVe prime ag
l~~~ ~n th~ City of Arroyo G=a~de?
7~e Mitiga~icn/Conclusion secticn states that the project
~corpor3tes a l~O' Nide buffQr (30' WldQ land6cape s~rip, a 32'
"'1.:.de road anc drainat;e iacil:it:i~e.. The finitLs.l" report datec
Sep 09 p6 11:52a
AtlantIs
8054895053
p.2
_.-~ NOCCCD
D_
PHONE NO.
714 526 6559
~la;J. 01 2006.09: 06Arl P3
~ . ~'.-
January 200~ uses these same oina~slons to ~orne up w1th a 100'
wide buffer. What has been changed o~ ~dded~
Uo,,;:,. that County Ag states that "experience has sho,,--n physical
dis':an,,~ (emphasis ours) to be the IllOSt effective mitigation
:":'.~sure .
t~ the sarno paragraph reference is made to the County Department
of ~griculture letter (Attac~.ect B) which raises the question,
~Wil: th~ standard set in this 1r~tanca repr~sent the maximum
=--';.::fer pc-;e..cti6.1 fo= future pr-oje.cts7" How and where has the
C,i i:.y a~dressed and/or anS~1f:~red this question'?
"If not. the Ag Dept. would reco=e::l(~ that specific findinqs 1:>e.
m~de for why this particular buffer dista.ce is sufficient to
address the potQntia1 impacts.' Will the racomrnend~d ap~cific
findings be forthcoming~
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
,
Poge 13 references three (3) 72" culverts (prior report referre~
to two (2) 72' culverts).
1.. What 19tha rationale fer the additional pipe?
2. Do the pipes tie in with the proposed underground pipe
to be laid alon~ Branch Mill RQ~d w1th1n ~ha City rigbt-
of-way?
3. Under whose maintenance jurisdiction doee this fall~
1n ao~.ese1ng the "bio-swale detention basin";
1. What is its location?
2. ~~~t is its si2e?
3. What ~ount of water will it be able to handle and at
what velocity?
4. \~o will maintain it?
5. Who holds the liability tor it?
Since the bio-swale appears to be wlthln the unpaved sQction of
Cher"y Avenue. should not this porticn of Cherry be purchased
Z~om tha title holders' and subsequently abandoned? Otherwise,
~~w does tha City 'propose to a~drass long-term maintenance and
liabil i ty?
:;:-:: ,,"ollld a130 8ee:n that if this is a .SelghborhooCl Plan". Charry
Avenue up to ar.d includi~g Lierly Lane should also be a6dressed
at this time. EOh does the Cir1 propose to deal with this:
lh~se questions pos~ som~ sArious draw~acks to tne propcsed
::cgbt:ive ac.cl.ore:tion_ Our belief i:hat the Newsom.!:~ $prings
~~alnage deserves separate deliberation and action is also a
~::.imQ concern~
Sincerely fl. -
"'::"--1p. ~~ ,t;-~;z.. t,.
Sara t. nicken~, Co-Trustee
Gordon F. D~xson Trust
:::"':<8 Blair We-X'
~orrance, CA 90~05
~f'l\~/~,~
Marianna McClana~~n. Co-Trustee
Gor~on F. D1xs0:1 Tn,s't
617 W. Halvern
Fullerton, CA 92832
Ser 09 06 11;53a
Atlantis
8054895053
p.4
r- .. - .~.~..
ATTACHMENT 13
~r'). ., ~rl""
. .". ..: /t I
Lynn Titus CiTY C" :'.-"-:-",'~) C:,,-:-,,,,
404 Lierly Lane r:o:.:..~' "....':.,;:;:;,
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
489.5295
March 31, 2006
To: Planning Commission
City of Arroyo Grande
Since I will be out of town the night of your April 10 meeting, I am sharing my ideas with
you in this letter. I start by thanking you for your service to the community.
Re: Cherry Creek Development
The City needs to produce a Neighborhood Plan which includes road infrastructure for
Cherry Avenue, Myrtle and Lierly Lane. A Specific Plan for the 9 acre Cherry Creek
alone (phase 1) is putting the cart before the horse. There is no plan for Phase 2
indicating infrastructure requirements.
Many of our citizens worked long and hard on the General Plan update, and I see the
Planning Commission and City Council making exceptions to this plan on almost every
project The Neighborhood Plan concept was designed to protect this entire 22 acre
area and should be in place before,you proceed with the details of Cherry Creek.
Please do not shirk your duty. Plan this whole area first.
The issue of the dirt road portion of East Cherry Avenue within this development is still
not resolved which ilIustrales the point. The developer should not have to take care of
this problem. The City should step'forward, use eminent domain if necessary, and .
acquire this road as part of the infrastructure of the Neighborhood Plan. The last map I
saw showed that the dirt road East Cherry would be in the developer's ag buffer. How
can it be in the developer's ag buffer if he does not own it or control its use? What is to
prevent the present owners of dirt East Cherry from leasing that land out to the Ikedas
to farm?
The developers have proposed a new East Cherry Avenue extension that dead-ends at
the tin buildings on the Reed property now owned by Tony Janowicz. This is not good
planning. How does that fit in with the Neighborhood Plan for the entire 22 acres?
Cherry Avenue is the major road in: this area. and eventually it will be used by
future residents in the proposed Sub-area 2 when it is developed to build-out, with
possibly up to 88 homes. Sub-area 2 will be developed earlier than you may think.
Tony Janowicz is already importing soil and grading in order to develop his property on
Lierly Lane.
This is but one of the many issues involved with this project. It will take a lot of study.
Sincerely,
~~.~- ~
LY'rWTi'lu?"
~ep OS ~6 11:53a
Atlantis
80548S5053'
p.5
ATTACHMENT 15
ALLEGRA LOVE PAGE
606 MYRTLE STREET
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420
'-"J~'0"
n.... /?"'" " \'; .~ 1
.. ~~1 ~;:-:o4., r ~ '
'j " !b. '_ """ ~ c=. .
May 6,2006
To: The Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
MAY f) 5 ZfJGO
CItY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNitY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Cherry Creek Estates
Respectfully, I have questions that should be answered before approving
this projecL
Tke project's applicant is using a rural area of prime ag soils for a /zigh
density developmenL It present{v has many well established walnut trees.
J beliel'e the city's General Plan prolides for protecting this type of area.
Besides this, I don't understand how the city plans to protect us from the
obvious severe traffic impact the project generates. Does the traffic flow
down Cherry, Myrtle and ifso how much?How much traffic goes to
Traffic Way and down Gardell Street to the village?
JVill the water drainage accommodate a 100 year flood.... tlzat has in the
past been a major problem for the area?
I amfrankly upset over some past plamzing decisions by the city, such as
the large building being constructed at the corner of Traffic Way and
Branch Street; the large houses built on Whitely next to the creek. Are we
going to see a repeat of these qliesnonable decisions-
Please, approve a tasteful excellent low density project that conforms to
the area and will be a credit to the love{v village oj Arroyo Grande. There
are not many areas left in the City that are like the historic agricultural
area that is 1/0W beiflg proposedfor development.
Please make a wise decision we call be pleased and proud of!
Sillcerelv,
LU..l((1'Lv.... "L ~c:L~
:
ATTACHMENT 16
OTiS S. PAt;E JR.
606 MYRnE STREET
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420
805-489-5811
D I~ .l- r: p"J-:{~ 'j""'''
," ij. .... .=. 1
C1.......::>R '-;:;:.,7:':'''-11.- ~..:..J
April 3, 2006
l"\Y r r ~rf'r.
l1!r J:l/~";'-l
CJ .....v'''''"...J
To: The Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
CITY OF ARRO'(O GRA~:OE
COMMUNITY DEVElOPi'Y1a~T
Subject: The Cherry Creek plan scheduled for review on April 16, 2006
The principle of preserving properties with prime Ag soils and open
space, whether they or farmed or not, is specified in the City's General
Plan.
I believe it clearly states that property with Prime Ag soils are to be
. preserved.
I respectfully suggest that this be tbe first itew of review b)' the
Planning Commission.
If it is detcnnined that the Cherry Creek resides on prime soils then the
other issues are mute and should not be considered.
Then let the issue go to Council for a final determination before
consideration of the other outstanding issues that pertain to the Cheery
Creek application.
The Council has the right, by law, to either make an exception or to
change the policy. The Planning Commission does not.
Respectfully,
/"
l
Or
~
6'd
85056S..50S
S~':lUl2'T':j.H
dSI :21 90 60 d...
Sep Og p6 12:15p
ntlantls
8054895053
p.l
rl.~ ~'': .!:'-~'" ~ - ".~"' ".~ '\-:-:~~;
~ ..... -~ . ~ -"", '- .' . -. -,-~...
BILLY .J TYLER
246 GARDEN ST CIT" 0- ,~-,-.."., rc-n.'''y
II :- r....:......'..... \.::.,,:,..r.. ._'=
. r-o'.~" .';. ....'" r.":'. -:: r- -:. -'":' ~.~
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 ,."....", ..'.' ."~' ,,,-,,
805-473-3782
\"If" . () ~r,(".~
\i1.r~'H _ l" .........~.;".
May 10, 2006
To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande
My husband and I and our three small little girls live in the
residence at the intersection of Garden and Allen Streets.
That intersection of roads is a very busy and dangerous place.
'\Ve are very concerned about the increased traffic that will be
generated by the Creek Side development.
It is our understanding traffic will flow down Myrtle and
Cherry Streets, and that some of this traffic will flow down
Allen.
This additional flow will increase the risk of accident and the
danger -of harm to our young children.
\Ve respectfully I'equest that the Planning Commission
recognize this problem and that every possible measure be
taken to limit the risk and danger from this increased traffic
flow.
9{'
Respectfully, ,,/,;/",
/d
Ul
t:/L)
-
;e,p 09 ;06 12: 15p
Atlantis
805489505<1
c}\t:Y' v1"
.
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE FOCUSES ON
RESIDENTIAl lAt~D USE ISSUES
During the last tl1r<:c y,-ats. the Cit~ has been involved in an extensive
proc6' of updating the Development Code to achieve consistency with the
2001 (,cneral Plan. The focuS is now on amending design overlay districts.
improving the vie\v,hed review process and refining residcntial zoning
changes needed to maintain and enhance the Arroyo Grande's "smalllllWn.
rLlr"i" character. Among the issues eing revll:we are lot sizes. huilding
height allowances. coverage and tloor area limits, setbacks, parking
re<[lIirements and other design standards. New water conservation and
drought tokrant i:lnLlscap" and irrigation standards are also heing comiLler
for future develupment projects within the City. For more information. call
the Cot11t11unil) Developnlcnt Departl1Knt at ~73-S~j:20.
coMMITfEE STUDIES
JOINT FIRE
PROTECTION EFFORTS
~:. 'I11C Ci\~ h panidpaliug
, on a cn[lllnitl("l" \.vith
\.:._ rcpn,:sclllJtin:::; Irom tht.:
....'-: City 1,A: (iron:'c Beal-"ll. City
nf Pi~n.t) Beach and tlte
;'. OcC:'ano Cnl11n1tltlity
~ St.:r\'tCCS DhLrict to
<..h.:Ychlp
n.:olm01cTh:lations 1.)11
p01<'OIial joi nt fir<:
pn"Jlection dforts to improq~ s(;"f\,l("
levd~ and efficiency. 'nH.: COlnmi.tH.'.e
\\:a~ dC\T\OP(~d ~lftcr a joint Oleding
of the c:lected hodit's froll1 all the
ho;:c Ciltl:S jurisdi.ction:'>, The
Committee b re\'iewing ()ptiOI1S for
(1i~pJ.tch. training, ptlrch~se Jod
maintenance.: df c:quipmt:nt. and
;IlJministratit m The Cities of ArroyO
Grande and Gron~r Beach ~lre alrc;ldy
~haring -adlninistrative and training
~t;lff. which ha" incn-"a~ed SCITicc
le\'d:;, while mana~it1g resources-
1111)1"e ef1i,,-'icntly. Rt:t:tHHI11Cnd;ltinllS
ill' the CllIJll\lillt"t" an: <:xp('ded rn h('
COll1pktc.:d hy the t.'nd of the.:
1...;Ih.:ndar year.
CITY PROJECTS PROVIDE
NEEDED L'\1PROVEMENTS
A number of lluport;.Hll sewer.
wat.er and ~tn.:t't impron.:11l<:lHS an:
under way. Upg.rade of Se\ver Lift
Sti.lthHl ~o, 1. 'which i~ hlcaled :ll
Oak Park BO\lkyard mHJ \,,\-'est
Branch ~trt:"et, wiH improve capacity
of the City'S :'I.e\\"cr ~ystcnl,
\le;ln\\'l1ile. constructiOn of;1 1li.,'\\'
\\';tter \"<:\1 on Dct.:rTr3il Clrclt: h
1ll'~lrjl1g C01l1ph.:tioJ) and will
proyick an important incre;.bc [0
tilt' City'S 'water ~upply. Projects
L(Inling LIP thb ~lIt1llner include the
re.;urLlcing of rarroll HO:ld. Oak P;uk
R()tlk\"~lr<..l, and JatnL's \Va;.', The Cit)
thanks alt re::.iJl.:nts im[uctc.:;d by the
c(lnslf\lcthHl acti\'ilic!' flll' your
pJriellCe and cooperation. F(n more
infornwtion 011 tl1<'-' City's C4Ipital
Improvelllcnt Progr;IIH. pkasL'
contad ll1<: P1JbHc \Vorks
Lkp:lrtmnH al -'17,~-,;-',i 10.
LOPEZ WATER SYSTEM
UNDERGOES IMPROVEMENTS
Lopez Lake is an exremely
valuable water Sllpply to all of the
Five Cities, :lod provides 2/3 of
ArroyO Gr.indc',S drinking waler. A
number of signiticant investments
have been under way to protect.
preserve antI improve this valuable
rC:'oollrce.
TIle Lopez 1):\111 re.t fOftt pro gran,
\\'41::' completed in 200:.., at ;l total
cost of. $28.9 million fin;,Ulced by a
2(l.year bond. The project used
stone columns hullt to support the
dam anLl withstand a ~.O
cart11quakc, The n..:tfofit project was
rCl[uirt"d in order to rnect current
State SCiSl1lic st~uH.lard~.
UpgrJde to the 'water treatment
plant is no\\" under \Y:lY and
projected to he complete by Fail
2007, ltnplcrnentation of the ne'\v
microfiltration ~Y"'tem is necessary to
meet State standards for water
treatlllent. Total cost for the project
is 526 million, funded bya 2()-year
State loan that will be repaid by
Flood Control and'Vater
Conservation District Z()IK 3, 'nle
DistriCt primarily i.ncludes ArroyO
Grande. Pismo Beach, Grover Beach
and Oceano.
L1SttY1 a Habit3t Conseivarian
Plan has been prepared for Arroyo
Gr:ulde Creek. The purp",e of the
Plan is to allow for mon.: efficient
'\\'att'.f rdeases frotH Lopez D:llTl to
thc creek. This will help better
mana!!e W<Lter supply. while at the
same ti.me protect wildlife habitat
and meet Federal regulations. The
Plan is now under revic"" by State
and Federal rt:gulatory agencies,
For Inore information, contact the
Public \);'orks Department at 473-5,>40.
LET TRERE BE LIGRTS IN THE VILLAGE
This Inay be your la~t chanct.: to be P;;\rt of thc"Lc..:tThefc lk
, Liglns"prngr.lm. Recent additions to the-Village incluue 12.
l herita)?,e character streetlighrs on the Traffic Way Bridge. 12
streetlights J.long the Creekside Path, and no,\\-' \6 new strectlighls in
the he;lI~ of the historic \"1l1age along Branch Street from Tr.ufie Way
\'. . tu Short Street. '111ese :\0 neW. but "old sty\<::''' stred lights will soon be
.,__'f!!1f? . iuincd hY 2~ more. replacing the existing lanternS on "ast 1I1'.\I1Ch Street
1ron1 ~hort fO Cr()~vn Hill ;lIld around Heritage Square and the Village
<"Ire~n. Tht:St: tight.s that enhance the historic Village area are being donated by
\oLal husincssl"::', f;tmili~s and organizations that have contributed from S 1500 h)
5.'dXl{) per light as part of this very Sllecessti.tl vollUltary prog1'.ml. Contril;urnrs
are recugniznl with a p"'Cjlle instaUeLl on the Ii!(ht pole. If you m't' interested in
hdping to c01l1pldt. this cotnnnmity improvenlt:nt by making a donation or
pledge to the "lxt There He Lights" prog.r<Ul1, pka~e call ,,*73-'i420
--------
-----------------------------------
Qo/ ktn fJlwvh fL
Notes used for Comments in the Public Hearing on the Development Code,
Tentative Tract Map, PUD and NP for "Cherry Creek" Arroyo Grande
May 16, 2006
Good Evening Planning Commission and City of Arroyo Grande Residents
Thank you again for your service to our City.
Tonight I am here to urge you to deny
. the application for the development code amendment
. Neighborhood Plan
. Vesting tentative tract MljIp 04-002
. And the Planned Unit Development called Cherry Creek
I previously sent letters and notes to you regarding the DRAFT Initial Study
Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration. I also reviewed arid
agreewith the comments and n.ote~ regarding the Traffic Study made by Ed . .
Harrison found in the Staff Report.
. This project requires a FULL EIR. Very little has changed since the first
Mitigated Dec was filed and yet the applicant comes back here tonight
mistaken that all the environmental concerns will be sufficiently mitigated
and are not significant. They are significant on all 15 items on the checklist.
. The Traffic Study is outdated, insufficient and cannot be used for any
responsible community planning. The traffic study nowhere took into
consideration the high school release times, nor the fact that Traffic Way is
an on or off ramp. The traffic study does not address the fact that the plan
includes 2 East Cherry extensions parallel each other. What are they
named? My son recommends Vintage East Cherry and New East Cherry.
· The East Village Neighborhood Plan Document drafted April 10, 2006 does
not adequately address the 'development of a cohesive strategy for future
development" The Miner I Vel/um property at 4.29 acres could certainly
support a PUD planning designation, just as the applicant is trying to
propose for his 4.59 acres of useable building space. The Neighborhood
Plan document is primarily used to discuss Phase 1. Issues such as
Agricultural buffer, Traffic impacts, and green space are not adequately
addressed for the phase 2 portion of the project. East Cherry Avenue is a
pertect example of the absence of cohesion on the Neighborhood Plan. The
"strong entry feature" for the access points to the project does not fit in with
the neighborhood. Nowhere in the Village have I seen such monuments
including the most recent large development. the Cocker Ellsworth project.
What I mean in a sign that would read, "Welcome to Cherry Creek"
l' d
ESOS6Bl>SOB
Sl':luel~~
dLE:Zl 90 60 da~
. The East Village Plan and the Staff Report go into some detail regarding the
proposed Bio Swale. This 44-foot wide ditch and pathway is not intended to
serve more than 10 acres of land for flood control measures. Did you read
the recommended use ofthe Bio swale includes grass mowed regularly at 6
inches high and water to not be more then 4 inches in that culvert? Show
Bio swale ST A TS and PHOTOS of canal
. This project the NP and the Phase 1 Cherry Creek project are not
consistent with. the General Plan. The General Plan was reluctantly
approved by the City Council to upzone the 7E area, as you read in your
October 9, 2001 minutes, and even then Council member Lubin and Ferrara
expressed that they 'wish more residents were in attendance because they
were uncomfortable with the density proposed for" Councilman Ferrara said,
"He said he would support a lower density".
. The PUD application should be denied. Not only should their be a separate
hearing to decide if the parcels should be subject to a PUD, but the PUD
creates opportunities for the developer to skirt the regular zoning for the
area and cluster homes so that the Ag Buffer, the bio swale and the creek
setback can be incorporated in the project. At first inspection of the project,
the buyer should have noticed a.) a canal running across a substantial
amount of the acreage, b.)A creek bordering one side c.) An active
commercial farming bordering another side, and D.) A dirt road for access
that they have no ownership rights to. It is neither the City's nor the residents
obligation to perform due diligence on behave of the buyer or developer. It
is not the residents of Arroyo Grande obligation to give away "Arroyo
Grande"because the buyer bought parcels of land with so many developing
constraints .upon it.
. By placing PUD on land you have in essence upzoned the property 4 times.
. The PUD application bem:lfits the developer, not the residents of AG. MATH
CALCULATIONS WORKSHEET
· The leadership on the ownership of the dirt East Cherry must be taken by
the City, not the developer. The City seemed very capable of contacting the
present owners when they wanted to establish a drainage ditch across the
dirt East Cherry and even paid owners for that priVilege. The Air Pollution
Co~trol Board in their letter response contained in the staff report states:
"Please address the action items contained in this letter that are hiqhliqhted
by bold and underlined text. All access roads to this development should be
paved to reduce the qeneration of fuqitive dust.
· The developers do not own, nor control the use of East Cherry so they
cannot be guaranteed that the area can be used as part of their 130 foot Ag
Buffer since there is nothing to prevent the current owners of the dirt road to
modify its use and start farming that road. Drivers will chose the route with
the least amount of obstacles, which means they will travel the paved new
1 'd
ESOSSBvSOB St'>U"I,>tj dSE :21 90 SO d..,
· General Plan night of adoption, my Dad and sentiments from Council.
. When I attended the Neighborhood Overlay Meetings, Rob Strong stated,
.'. "zoning should fit the majority of the neighborhood and that it doesn't make
sense to zone what it is not".
. In a democracy, government should be responsive to the wishes of the
people. When changes in public opinion are clear, policy usually becomes
consistent with this opinion. THIS Isn't THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GO IN.
. We shouldn't have to complain to Citizen Board policy makers, they are
elected to represent the City's resident's best interests and us. The General
Plan should have never been changed just because people from the
neighborhood didn't attend that meeting on October 9, 2001.
. I object to the deviance from the General Plan especially the density. The
General Plan and the Neighborhood Plan should be an expression of what
the property owners want and the future desires of the property.
. Not just because I promised my Dad, but because It is right for the City to
properly plan the last rural residential level land in the City.
. I hal[e learned that everything is negotiable.
. I reject the Staff Report, the initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
Neighborhood Plan and the density.
. I would rather see East Cherry straight and paved
. I would rather see less density - 4 estate lots and no more than 20
additional units 24 total for Phase 1 's 4.59 useable acres.
. I would rather we follow the General Plan.
2'd
ESOS6817S08
s~4ue14l::::1
d6E:21 90 60 d,,~
Sep 09 p6 12:00p
Atlantis
8054895053
p.2
crI''-~ OF AI~I<(Y\"'() GRANDE
I~ESII)E::,,;rrIAL I)ENSITY LADDER
-
-
Sep 09 96 12: 171" .
Atlantis
The Bio-Swale
8054895053
'PICI ,H',: ,-/; " .
....... ~
.-<(. r.
1".6
.~
. Thick vegetative cover
. Swale should be designed so that the water level does not exceed 2/3 rds the height
of the grass or 4 inches; whichever is less, at the design treatment rate.
. Grass height of 6 inches is recommended.
. Do not use side slopes constructed of fill, which are prone to structural damage by
gophers and other burrowing animals.
. One factor that strongly affected performance was the presence of large numbers of
gophers at most sites. The gophers created earthen mounds, destroyed vegetation,
and generally reduced the effectiveness of the controls for TSS reduction.
Performance:
. Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted soils, short run off
contact time, large storm events, frozen ground. short grass heights, steep slopes,
and high runoff velocities and discharge rates.
Check dams installed every 50 feet
. It is not clear why swales export bacteria
. In general, swales can be used to serve areas of less than 10 acres with slopes no
greater than 5%.
Summary
. The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of
at least 10 minutes.
. The max bottom width should not exceed 10 feet.
. Channel slope should not exceed 2.5%
. The side slopes should be no steeper than 3:1 (H: V)
. Accumulated sediment should be removed when it builds up to 3 in. at any spot.
. Maintenance is a function of mowing frequently
Process
"Implementation of the approved master plan would divert fiows from Newsom
Springs Drainage at the stone culvert through the proposed 48 inch culvert along the
adjacent agricultural field to the 'bio swale' and the three 72-inch culverts discharging
to AG Creek on the project site. >>
The Cherry Creek Bio-Swale
· Runs from New East Cherry perpendicular to Old Myrtle, adjacent the Vanderveer
property.
· The Bio swale will be fenced with 6 ft high steel picket fence for resident's backing up
to it, and a 4'hog wire fence separating the pedestrian walkway and the ditch and at
the entrance of the bio swale adjacent to the new East Cherry extension to prevent
access into the swale
· At its widest widths approximately 44 feet wide including pedestrian trail. The ditch
and slope area will be 30 feet. The slope will not exceed 2:1.
· There is no mention in any of the papers of how wide the max bottom width, how
deep and what kind of vegetation.
· The Bio Swale will also make a turn at East Cherry and run parallel East Cherry and
go under the new East Cherry before coming outside in the project.
Bio Swale Description Summery
from California Stormwater New Development and Redevelopment
Best Management Practices Handbook, January 2003
Overall Description
. Thick vegetative cover of native grasses only
. Swale should be designed so that the water level does not exceed 2/3 rds the height of the
grass or 4 inches; whichever is less, at the design treatment rate.
. Grass height of 6 inches is recommended.
. Do not use side slopes constructed of fill, which are prone to structural damage by gophers
and other burrowing animals.
. One factor that strongly affected performance was the presence of large numbers of
gophers at most sites. The gophers' created earthen mounds. destroyed vegetation, and
generally reduced the effectiveness of the controls for TSS reduction.
Performance:
. Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted soils, short run off
contact time, large storm events, frozen ground, short grass heights, steep slopes, and
hIgh runoff velocities and discharge rates.
Check dams installed every 50 feet
. It is not clear why swales export bacteria
. In general, SWALES CAN BE lJSED TO SERVE AREAS OF LESS THAN 10 (TEN)
ACRES with slopes no greater than 5%.
SUmmary
. The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of at
least 10 minutes.
. The max bottom width should not exceed 10 feet.
. Channel slope should not exceed 2.5%
. The side slopes should be no steeper than 3:1 (H: V)
. Accumulated sediment should be removed when it builds up to 3 in. at any spot.
. Maintenance is a function of mowing frequently
Process
"Implementation of the approved master plan would divert flows from Newsom Springs
Drainage at the stone culvert through the proposed 48 inch culvert along the adjacent
agricultural field to the 'bio swale' discharging to AG Creek on the project site."
The Cherry Greek Bio-Swale
. Runs from New East Cherry perpendicular to Old Myrtle, adjacent the Vanderveer property.
. The Bio swale will be fenced with 6 ft high steel picket fence for resident's backing up to it.
and a 4'hog wire fence separating the pedestrian walkway and the ditch and at the entrance
of the bio swale adjacent to the new East Cherry extension to prevent access into the swale
. At its widest widths approximately 44 feet wide. The ditch and slope area will be 30 feet.
The slope will not exceed 2: 1.
. There is no mention of how wide the max bottom width is proposed.
. The Bio Swale will also make a turn at East Cherry and run parallel East Cherry and go
under the new East Cherry before coming outside in the project.
L_
ATTACHMENT 4
David Wolff environmental
P.O. 6552, Los Osos, CA 93412
(80S) 235-5223
(80S) 528-3504 FAX
. P. .. -., _.
. ...... ..
... ~ -.-
March 9. 2006
Ms. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Arroyo Grande .
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande. CA 93420
~~''-'.[~
:.; 6 ~:..;';.~;'
'1 - . ..
.. .-.........,..
. . - .~
"
., ..,1
SUBJECf:
Cherry Creek Project Stormwater Best [;1anagement Practices
Dear Kelly:
David.\Volff Environmental (DWE) is pleased to submit this information regarding methods and
approaches for stormwater quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Cherry Creek project.
It is my understanding that the project is designed to treat on site stormwater in accordance with City
standards and to pass regional stormwater drainage through an on-site basin and three 72-inch
culverts that outfall to Arroyo Grande Creek.. I am providing the following information to support the
Negative Declaration findings that impactS from the Cherry Creek project on biological resources in
Arroyo Grande Creek would be at a less than significant level
On-Site Stormwa!er Runoff-The onsite runoff would be conveyed in the project's streets to drainage
inlets (catch basins) that will have city approved filtration prior to the storm water entering Arroyo
Grande Creek..
Regional Stormwater Runoff - There are twO aspects to consider for the proj ect to accommodate the
regional stormwater drainage issue from a .water quality perspective. First, to identify any current
water quality issues for biological rcsources in Arroyo Grande Creek. in particular for the federally
listed steelhead and California red-legged frog (CRLF). Second. if the design of the Cherry Creek
project regional stormwater basin and outfall system contributes a water quality benefit to the
regional drainage. .
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) biology section for the Cherry Creek project cited and
discussed the findings of the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the County of San Luis Obispo
Lopez Dam project (HCP). As discussed in the MND, the empirical <4ta collected on water quality
parameters for the HCP concluded that there is currently not any identified water quality issues in
Arroyo Grande Creek that adversely affects the steeThead. CRLF. or other aquatic resources. For your
convenience, the following included in the MND is excerpted from Section 3.4.5 of the February
2004 Final Draft HCP for the County of San Lnis Obispo Lopez Dam project.
~ variety of water quality constituents affect habitat conditions r>-ithin An-oyo Grande
Creek. Some of these constiruents are assodated with naroraJJy occurring LDineral deposits,
and some are associated w.ith agn"cultural spmying and fertilization, storm water nmofftrom
roadways, urbanization. recreao'onal actiyjties, fllJd ocher larid-use practices. To provide
reconnaissance-JevpJ baseline information on waterqualiry constituents within Anvyo
~
Biological Resources Analysls, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Spedalist
David@DKWEnyironmental.com
www.dkwenvironmental.com
ChC::rT~ Crcek Frojcd St.orm....3tcrQualit;t Information LcHcr- F:Jgc lof}
. ~
David \Volff Env;ronmcntol
Grande Cr~ek. grab samples were colleered for chemical analysis bya certified analytical
chemisay laboratory (Chromalab, Inc.). During che first survey on July 29, 1999, water.
samples were collected from foUr locations along Arroyo Gr2Dde Creek: the concrete raceway
immediately downstream of Lopez Dam (AGC-l), Cecchecti Road Bridge (A GC-2), Arroyo
Grande (A GC-3), and Arroyo Grande Creek Lagoon (A GC-4; Figure 3-19). The four sampling
locations were selected (0 provide information on changes in v,<lter qualicy constimenrs
wichin different "reaches of Arroyo Grande Creek chat may he affected by local land-use
practices.
E<lch grab sample was analyzed following EPA protocols, for specific conductance, pH.
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead nickel, silver, zinc, mercury, total hardness, (Otal
dissolved solids, totalplwsphorous, total nitrogen, ammonia, screening for pesticides and
herbicides, and oil and grease. Afrer the July 1999 survey, the sampling design was modified
for subsequent surveys wich collections at nvo 1ocatioJL<, Arroyo Grande (A GC-3) and the
Arroyo Grande Creek lagoon (AGC-4), on October 20, 1999, Apri129, 2000, and August 9,
".. 2000. Resulrs of water quah'cy surveys are summarized in Appendi.... A (Tables A-2 through A-
5).
Water qualicy analyses indicated most constituents were below a.nalytical detecoon limits. No
consistent pattern was observed in Wdterqualicy constituents between up- and downstream
locaoons. These reconnaissance-level baseline surveys indicate chat water quah'cy conditions
within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitable habitat for steelhead, red-legged frogs, and
ocher aquatic resources."
It is my understanding that the on-site basin and three 72-inch outfall pipes are required by the City
[0 pass regional drainage through the site to reduce/eliminate localized flooding. Given the sizing and
design needed to pass a substantial amount of water during large storm events. the basin/pipe system
is Dot designed to meet typical water quality enhancement BMPs. However. the basin will be
designed to provide a stormwater quality benefit by incorporating elements from accepted BMPs
detailed in the September 2004 CaJifonlla StonDwater Q.ralicy Association New Development and
Redevelopment Handbook (CSQA Handbook). This halldbook provides general guidance for
selecting and implementing BMPs to reduce pollutants in runoff in newly developed areas and
redeveloped areas to waters of the State. This handbook also provides guidance on developing
project-specific stormwater management plans including selection and implementation ofBMPs for a
particular development or redevelopment project.
In gener<J. the basin would provide some of the water quality benefits identified in the CSQA
Handbook "vegetated swale" and "extended detention basin" BMPs listed as BMP Fact Sheet TC-30
and TC-22 respectively in the handbook. Since these are 13 and 10 pages long I have provided them
to you via e-mail pdf for your review and use. TheCSQA manual is available for further review as
needed at W\vv.-.cabmllhandbooks.orglDeve1opment.<\ID. The basin would provide some of the water
quality benefits if it is seeded \vith herbaceous plant species (vegetated) and designed \vilb a small
berm above the outlet to detain small stonn events and caprore sediment and constituents from the
"first flush" storm (presuming it is a small event). Ie is important to note that the primary purpose of
the basin and outfall pipe design is to eliminate localized flooding by allowing unobstrUcted regional
storm water runoff from large storm events to pass through the site providing a regional flood concrol
-
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Spe<ialist
Oavid@OK\VEnvironmental.com
www.dkwenvironmental.c:om
-_.:....-.~-
------- .-. ---- - ---..-.---
Cl,o=rr'y C,.cck r rojcct 5t.onnw3k,.Qvalit.;f Inronnation Letta- rase, o~,
David WolFf En....ironmental
solution. As such, the water quality benefits are an added value nom the on-<;ite basin to the
maximum extent practicable for the project.
rrrrr
Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide environmental consulting services for the City
of .Arroyo Grande. Please contact meifyou have any questions or need any additional information.
VO'7=1no=M
David K. Wolff
Principal Ecologist
Certified Professional Wetland Scientist
Attachments via e-mail:
. CSQA Handbook BMP Fact Sheets TC-22 & TC-30
Biological Resources Analysis, Planning & Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
DaVid@DKWEnvtronmental.com
www.dkwenvironmenta1.com
Vegetated Swale
TC-30
;-:f ;:i~.:~:~'~~~';" ..1,
'r..'~~:-~' "./'
.s.:i:,,'l>--
:.,.
. ....-/ , . .
./~ . -~ ~ .-
~ . . - .
{~:;7~~~
.
!
Description .
Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels veith vegetation
coveting the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly
convey lunoff flow to dO""TIstream discharge points.. They are
designed to treat nIDoff through filtering by the vegetation in the
channel, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and/or infiltration
into the underlying soils. Swales can be natural or manmade.
They trap particulate pollutants (suspended solids and trace
metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of
stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a
stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters and
storm sewer systems.
(
(
'--
California Experience .
Caltrans constructed and monitored six vegetated swales in
southern California. TIlese swales were generally effective in
reducing the volume and mass of pollutants in nmoff. Even in
the areas where the annual rainfall was only about 10 inches/yr,
the vegetation did not require a~ditional irrigation. One factor "'"
that strongly affected performance was the presence of large \
numbers of gophers at most of the sites. The gophers created )'
eart1i.en mounds, destroyed vegetation, and generally reduced the
effectiveness of LlJ.e controls for TSS reduction.
Advantages
.. If properly designed, vegetated, and operated, swales can
serve as an aesthetic, potentially ine>'1'ensive urban
development or roadway drainage conveyance measure ....ith
significant collateral water quality benefits.
Design Considerations
.. T ribut"y Area
.. Area Required
.. Slope
~ Water Availab"ity
Targeted Constituents
0" Sediment A
0" Nutrients .
0" Trash ..
0" "'.etals A
0" Bacteria .
0" m and Grease A
0" Organics A
Legend (Remov,' EffedivfYIess)
0 Low . Hgh
A Medium
lit, '~-..~,~'
....
. e.
..\1.......-1.......-:
January 2003
1 of 13
Ca1.forr,i3 Sto,~m.....z~er 8~"P He;;cbCro~
N~...I De'Jelopment and Re::levelcpment
W'\I','.., ce:bmphandbo:.oks.com
.--
i ..
"-----
".-.
.-
~
TC-30
Vegetated Swale
~ Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites and
should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible.
Limitations
.. Can be difficult to avoid channelization.
..
May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur
Grassed swales cannot treat a very large drainage area. Large areas may be divided and
treated using multiple swales: \
A thick vegetative cover is needed for these practices to function properly. )
~
~
They are impractical in areas with steep topography.
They are not effective and may even erode when flow velocities are high, if the grass cover is
not properly maintained
In some places, their USe is restricted by law: many local municipalities require curb and
gutter systems in residential areas.
Swales are mores susceptible to failure if not properly maintained than other treatmen~
~h. . -
~
~
Ii.
\
\.
".
(
\.
Design and Sizing Guidelines
~ Flow rate based design determined by local requirements or sized so that 85% of the annual
runoff volume is discharged at less than the 'design rainfall intensity.
'\
,..---swale sho~d be desi?Ded so ~t the water le~el does not exceed 2/3rds the height of the \
\ grass or 4 mches, which ever IS less, at the desIgn treatment rate. ....___,)
\
~ \,)Angitudinal slopes should not exceed 2.~~
.. Trapezoidal channels are normally. recommended but other configurations, such as
parabolic, can also provide substantial water quality improvement and may be easier to mow
than designs with sharp breaks in slope.
Swales constructed in cut are preferred, or in fill areas that are far enough from an adjacent '-"
slope 1'0 minimize the potential for gopher damage. Do not use side slopes constructed of )'
fill, which are prone to structural damage by gophers and other burro'\\ing animals.
~
~ A diverse selection of low growing, plants that thrive under the specific site, climatic, and
watering conditions should be specified. Vegetation whose grov.ing season corresponds to
the wet season are preferred. Drought tolerant vegetation should be considered especially
for swales that are not part of a regularly irrigated landscaped area.
.. The width of the swale should be determined using !>.lanning's Equation using a value of
0.25 for Manning's n.
2 of 13
Califuoia Stormwater B~P HC!ncoool<
New Developrr.ent a1d Rece'letoprr.ffit
v.w....l.cabmphzndbooks c:om
January 2003
veget"ated Swale
TC-30
Construction/Inspection Considerations
.. lnclude directions in the specifications for use of appropriate fertilizer and soil amendment>;
based on soil properties determi1:ied through testing and compared to the needs of the
vegetation requirements.
.. Install swales at the time of the year when there is a reasonable chance of successful
establishment "';"ithout irrigation; however, it is recognized that rainfall in a given year may
not be sufficient and temporary irrigation may be used.
.. If sod tiles must be used, they should be placed so that there are no gaps between the tiles;
stagger the ends of the tiles to prevent the formation of channels along the swale or strip.
.. Use a roller on the sod to ensure that no air pocket>; form between the sod and the soil.
.. Where seeds are used, erosion controls will be necessary to protect seeds for at least 75 days
after the first rainfall of the season.
(
r
\
Performance
The literature suggests that vegetated swales represent a practical and potentially effective
technique for controlling urban runoff quality. While limited quantitative performance data
exists for vegetated swales, it is known that check dams, slight slopes, permeable soils, dense
grass. cover, increased contact time, and small storm event>; all contribute to successful pollutant
removal by the swale system. Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted
soils, short runoff contact time, large storm event>;, frozen ground, short grass heights, steep
slopes, and high runoff velocities and discharge rates.
Conventional vegetated swale designs have achieved mixed results in removing particulate
pollutants. A study performed by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) monitored
three grass swales in the Washington, D.C., area and found no significant improvement in urban
runoff quality for the pollutant>; analyzed. However, the weak performance of these swales was
attributed to the high flow velocities in the swales, soil compaction, steep slopes, and short grass
height.
Another projectin Durham, NC, monitored the performance of a carefully designed artificial
swale that received runoff from a commercial parking lot. The project tracked II storms and
concluded that particulate concentrations of heavy metals(Cu, Ph, Zn, and Cd) were reduced by
approximately 50 percent. However, the swale proved largely ineffective for removing soluble
nutrients.
\
\
I
J
,
i
\.
The effectiveness of vegetated swales can be enhanced by adding check dams at approximately
17 meter (50 foot) increment>; along their length (See Figure 1). These dams maximize the
retention time within the swale, decrease flow velocities, and promote particulate settling.
Finally, the incorporation of vegetated filter strips parallel to the top of the channel hanks can
help to treat sheet flows entering the swale.
Only 9 studies have been conducted on all grassed channels designed for water quality (Table 1).
The data suggest relatively high removal rates for some pollutant>;, but negative removals for
sorqe bacteria, and fair performance for phosphorus.
January 2003
Califomla Sto(mwa~er BMP Hanabook
New De>lelopment and Redevelcpment
......... ,~VT>........:......-fhr.nl,..e ","'rro
3 of13
TC-30
Vegetated Swale
jrable 1 Grassed swale pollutant removal efficiency data
ReruO"Cl1 Efficiencies (% Rrmoval)
Study TSS TP TN N03 Metals Bacteria Type
....a ltn ns :2002 71 8 67 66 83-<.10 -33 ry S\'\Cltcs
:k>ldberg 1993 67.8 4-S - 31.4 42-62 -100 ",--assed chann.l
Seattle Metro and \Vashtngton 60 4S - -::;5 ::>-16 -25 gassed channel
DepartmentofEcology 1992
Seattle Metro and vVashington 83 2<) - -::;5 46-73 -::;s ;;ras sed chann e 1
Departrn~ntofEcolog:,.', 199~
Nangetal.,1981 80 - - - 70-80 - dry swal e
Dorman etal,1989 98 18 - 4S 37-81 - dry ........1.
HarPer, ]988. 87 83 84 80 88-90 - qry swale
iKen:her et al, 1983 99 99 99 99 99 - ~ry swale
{arp.r,I938. 81 17 40 5" 37-69 - ...et swal.
{ooo,1995 67 39 - 9 -35 to 6 - H.t swale
While it is difficult to distinguish between different designs based on the small amount of
available data, grassed channels generally have poorer removal rates than wet and dry swales,
although some swales appear to export soluble phosphorus (Harper, 1988; Koon, 1995). It is not
clear wby swales export bacteria. One explanation is that bacteria thrive in the warm swale
soils.
/"'"Siting Criteria
/ ~e suitability of a swale at a site "ill depend on land use, size of the area serviced, soil t;ype, ~.
slope, imperviousness of the contributing watershed, and dimensions and slope of the swale
system (Schueler et al., 1992). In general, swales can be used to serve areas of less than 10 acres, ./
v.ith slopes no greater than 5 %. Use of natural topographic lows is encouraged and natural
drainage courses should be regarded as significant loeal resources to be kept in use (Young et al.,
1996). .
, '
"-
.......
/
.-
-'
Selection_Criteria (NCICOG, :1.993)
. Comparable performance to wet basins
. Limited to treating a few acres
. Availability of ,,'ater during dry periods to maintain vegetation
,
. Sufficient available land area
Research in the Austin area indicates that vegetated controls are effective at removing pollutants
". even when dormant Therefore, irrigation is not required to maintain growth during dry
periods, but may be necessary only to prevent the vegetation from dying.
"of 13
Califc.rnla Stcrmwater 8f'.1P Handbook
New Development cnd Redevelo;>rnE1'lt
W'NW cebmphandbooks,com
January 2003
Vegetated Swale
TC-30
The topography of the site should permit the design of a channel with appropriate slope and
cross-sectional area. Site topography may also dictate a need for additional structural controls.
Recommendations for longitudinal slopes range between 2 and 6 percent. Flatter slopes can be
used, if sufficient to provide adequate conveyance. Steep slopes increase flow velocity, decrease
detention time, and may require energy dissipating and grade check. Steep slopes also can be
managed using a series of check dams to terrace the swale and reduce the slope to v,ithin
acceptable limits. The use of check dams with swales also promotes infiltration.
, '.
Additional Design Guidelines
Most of the design guidelines adopted for swale design specify a minimum hydraulic residence
time of 9 minutes. This criterion is based on the results of a single study conducted in Seattle,
Washington (Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, 1992), and is not well
. supported. Analysis of the data collected in that study indicates that pollutant removal at a
residence time of 5 minutes was not significantly different, although there is more variability in
.that data. Therefore, additional research in the design criteria for swales is needed. Substantial
'pollutant removal has also been observed for vegetated controls designed solely for conveyance
(Barrett et al, ].998); consequently, some flexibility in the design is warranted.
Many design guidelines recommend that grass be frequently mowed to maintain dense coverage
near the ground surface. Recentresearch (Colwell et al, 2000) has shown mowing frequency or
grass height has little or no effect on pollutant removal.
Swnmary of Design Recommendations
" 1) The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of
at least 10 minutes. The maximum bottom width shoi.l1d not exceed 10 feet unless a
dividing berm is provided. The depth of flow should not exceed 2/srds the height of
the grass at fue peak of fue water quality design storm intensity. The channel slope
should not exceed 2.5%.
2) A design grass height of 6 inches is recommended.
3) Regardless of the recommended detention time, the swale should be not less than
100 feet in length.
,
4) The width of the swale should be determined using Manning's Equation, at fue peak
of the design storm, using a'Manning's n of 0.25.
5) The swale = be sized as both a treatment facility for the design storm and as a
conveyance system to pass the peak hydraulic flows of the loo-year storm if it is
located "on-line." The side slopes should be DO steeper than 3:1 (H:V).
6) Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swaleJbuffer strip sites
and should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible. If flow is to be introduced
through curb cuts, place pavement slightly above fue e1 evation of the vegetated areas.
Curb cuts should be at least 12 inches wide to prevent clogging.
. 7) Swales must be vegetated in order to provide adequate treatment of runoff. Itis
important to maximize water contact with vegetation and the soil surface. For
general purposes, select fine, close-growing, water-resistant grasses. If possible,
divert runoff (other fuan necessary irrigation) during the period of vegetation
January 2003
California Stormwater 8MP Handbook
New Development end R.ede-.oelq:>ment
www.c.d:>mph~ndbooks.com
5 of13
TC-30
Vegetated Swale
establishment. Where runoff diversion is not possible, cover graded and seeded
areas ....ith suitable erosion control materials.
Maintenance
The useful life of a vegetated swale system is directly proportional to its maintenance frequency.
If properly designed and regularly maintained, vegetated swales can last indefinitely. The
maintenance obj ectives for vegetated s"..ale systems include keeping up the hydraulic and
removal efficiency of the channel and maintaining a dense, healthy grass cover. --_._-
Maintenance acti,ities should include periodic mo....ing (with grass never cut shorter than the
design flow depth), weed control, watering during drought conditions, reseeding of bare areas,
and clearing of debris and blockages. Cuttings should be removed from the channel and
\ disposed in a local composting facility. Accumulated sediment should also be removed
\ manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. The application of fertilizers and pesticides
I should be minimal.
'----- '
Another aspect of a good maintenance plan is repairing damaged areas within a channel. For
example, if the channel develops ruts or holes, it should be repaired utilizing a suitable soil that
is properly tamped and seeded.. The grass cover should be thick; if it is not, reseed as necessary.
Any standing water removed. during the maintenance operation must be disposed to a sanitary
sewer at an approved discharge location. Residuals (e.g., silt, grass cuttings) must be disposed
in accordance with local or State requirements. Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves
maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. Typical maintenance activities are
summarized below:
( .
j
,
I
I
\
\
\
\
.
Inspect swales at least twice annually for erosion, damage to vegetation, and sediment and
debris accumulation preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule summer
maintenance and before major faU runoff to be sure the swale is ready for winter. However,
additional inspection after periods of heavy runoff is desirable. The swale should be checked
for debris and litter, and areas of sediment accumulation.
Grass height and mowing frequency may not have a large impact on pollutant removal.
Consequently, mo....ing may only be necessary once or tv.ice a year for safety or aesthetics or
to suppress weeds and woody vegetation.
.
Trash tends to accumulate in swale areas, particularly along highways. The need for litter
removal is determined through periodic inspection, but litter should always be removed
prior tQlnowing.
.
"-
. ~
Sediment accumulating near culverts and in channels should be removed when it builds up .'
to 75 mm (3 in.) at any spot, or covers vegetation. /
Regularly inspect swales for pools of standing water. Swales can become a nuisance due to/
mosquito breeding in standing water if obstructions develop (e.g. debris accumulation, '.'
invasive vegetation) and/or if proper drainage slopes are not implemented and maintained..
.
6 of 13
CelifO""nia Stormwater m.p Handbook
N~w Development U\d P.ed~velcpmt;nt
www.cabmphandbccl.:s.com
Jenuory 2003
Vegetated Swale
-
TC-30
Cost
Construction Cost
Little data is available to estimate the difference in cost betv.'een various swale designs. One
study (SWRPC, ~991) estimated the construction cost of grassed channels at approximately
$ 0.25 per ft2. This price does not include design costs or contingencies. Brown and Schueler
(1997) estimate.these costs at approximately 32 percent of construc.tion costs for most
stormwater management prac.tic.es. For swales, however, these costs would probably be
signific.antly higher since the construction costs are so low compared with other practices. A
more realistic estimate would be a total cost of approximately $o.SO per ft2, wbich compares
favorably with other stormwater management practices.
January 2003
CallFomla Stormwater BMP Handbook
New Development and Rede'Jelcpment
www.ccbmphandbooks.cem
7 of 13
OJ
-
co
~
{J)
"0
ill
>l-I
ro
+-'
(!)
01
(!)
>
o
M
I
U
.....
,
.....
....
C'l
C'l
....
u~
"-
IX
~
w
III
....,
'"
.....
'"
E
t
w
~-
-0
U
'"
'"
::
Vl
N
'"
.c
'"
r-
"
o
o
;:;
'0
>-
-
OJ>
o
<>
"
::>
.c
'"
:r
<>
::
'"
"0
o
:::;
'"
o
-'
""
CO
:r
<>
r;
~
'"
"0
o
:::;
~
<>
-'
c
'"
't<
w
'"
::>
c
<>
c:
o
0-
E
o
<>
::J:
~
~~~~
N . .LC
1Io'l~_toIl
~
~
N
~
o O~
001"-"<1'"
01. ~ l'"l. ~
;;::;z;;."44
<-
<>
~
~g:;;~
.,....at:;~
....
v
~
'"
o CI CJ 0,
~gf1"l
l>ig~a
"
<-
'"
880\1'1
co~t--:d
~~~....
....
o
;;
g2~~
cia&ia
V"l~~~
d Or) ~
o
1i
~
.)
(:I 0.. ..
!l~~~
=
D
::;
C
o
.~~
i\i::
:..t:i -g
15E
00
::!o
,~
E: ~i=
~ :'6. ~'\:)
o.:'C" C - :.::: C
eC.'~EQCJ
c.."=:.o 0 '>_
33"2Ceg
cnuoc3~.5
~-;,
>->-
~=~
K~~ :
OO~
~~"O
o"C c
og,... ":
~~-g~
=1\100
UlV,<.nV)
~ ~
M~
0.. 0-).
_ V
"''''
~g ~
.....:<-i c::."
-- '"
N
~~
;:1;--
-
08
'" '
-~
...-
00
o ~
;i&l
00
VN
lil:;;
~~
('\j-~-
o
<;
<;
,,'
-
'"
~
-
.,;
..
:i
o
~
,;;
~
-
~
L:i
~
;S;
N
'"
'"
<-
'"
-
'"
~
~
,.
~
'"
..
'"
N
o
Q
~
'"
"
o
'C;
c
o
co
~
c
o
U
'"
....
"'-
....
'"
~
'"'
....
:::
..
'"
o
M
.;
..
'"
;!
:5
5-
?;
UJ
\!?
'ii 0
"0 ~
l- 0
'"
-=
~g
l;S!
0-
> c
- 0
n'7
08
b'o
>- .
..~
"
1;-0
~~
:c vj
a .,
SQ-
oS; '"
~ '"
0;2
>- '"
!l~
oS; _
"'-'=
.~ ~
~e;
c.",
,,-
a~
Eo"::
~U~
;; 1t ~
~~~g
:5o~:.?
.2ci.:.:S!
~~~~
E 0 Vi
5 0 + ><
:s,c.,e.l::
~"O'5'"
~i~i
o > ~
EEo.o
eOO_
3?:Z::::::::'-
8 ~ II ~
=0"0(1..1
~ ~.o
=~a..o
:O..c::~2
~S!:;~
o~2~
~ ~::..
M
o
o
N
C
'"
::>
Iti
~
c
.Q
U
'"
'f
'"
'"
o
tic
.t! <>
otj
.0 '"
" '"
l- '
'" ~
80
-'= tl
c;~
$:g
'" "
~g
,,-'=
_0.
~.si
'" '"
"C -
!B j,1
" OJ>
il:~ '
~a:-""V)ui
g. ro go 0
- "'=>< ><
x [tiM"1:) n
,... t:::ll Co> f:!
~.+ n ~
8f: -UCJ
1I:g 0 ("'J
"0 ~ <:.l ~
Q) 0. C (';J
~ IJ II II
n II -g a:;
: ~-"', ~:g
E ~ 61
'::t ('J Q ~
o OJ (,! ~
>< <<(
.
-a~
2E
"'S E
e:_ 0
"''''u
r> '
"'~
0.-0-"
lE"'O
"''''.8
~-o"
~f.llti
~.....L
~ C 0.
E"'E
aE-g
V; 8- 1I
lQ (:j ~
- > ~
be: '" >
0-
==::
\Q CJ
Uz
'"
'0
ro
o
M
!
U
I-
(l)
-
rn
;:
tf}
"'0
OJ
*-'
CO
o!>J
(l)
ClJ
>
.
M
~
o
'"
,..
...
Ol
Ol
...
U
c..
a.
;::
w
(/l
~
~~ 0- ,oa
0
c ~
-'" . -~
. l'l
1/5 1:1;;; "'~
~o ,..
C ~o ~ '" Z.
oe_ 00 b'e
'" 8~ e) 8""
E eX ~ e~ I ,,; ~ I
E m:;::...... 0- 0:>
0 !~ 8. .2~ ]i'E
U 0._ ~
.!'io ~ .50 om
11:,g E1: ~~ u
C,&;_ If'" 0;0_ S.
il'" ~ e.~ B
..5'$~ .':1:;1 ",,0 >- 11
-8
8,,- :l! "ll ~ "5 ] ]
'T.,:.
'"'",.c: .e .e
- -~ II :. :. ~ '" :.
i3.c:- ~ ~ '" ~ 1l 0
a.~=== .::i ~
"':Eo. - - - - - -
:c- O 0 ~ '" C> ~ on '"
:s oEt- '" ~ ~ <> - ...
fl ci a ci ci d
,,:E 00 .. .. .. -
"-t:
. 0
.1:10. '"'m
",0
.....
--0
~:a iJ .J:.
"':6 <:.c::s 0
0. Oti:E ~ ~ ] ~ ]
B .C':E .e
ii r.i 8 ii i'i l;
15.eo. '"
~oo ~ ~ ~ S .5 ~
Ot:>- - - - ::: ::: -
....00: " ~ ~ - ~ ~
gOJ 0 ~ <> ~
,,--"- g g si a si 2
",g.o
,..:u.-
0 ~ ~
'" ~ .. Cl~
., 0 !1.
~ !<. - E:'"lJ
-;;; 1; ~ 0:;, 15'"
'" i; ,.. 2'"
<> - :.t
U <> <> ~ :
0 C>
- <> ~ m '" li:!:
- c ~ .~ g
::> - --
- - 0
- "' 0 ~ "'~
'" .. --"
<> .. ci dO.
'" .. ..
-g
0
j! ~ ~ .
c e ::> "'~ -;;
" 11 ~~ ~5 .
c 0
0 U .~~ I
"- " "0 -'ll !
E ~ If 0 :~ ~~
1 ~ I
0 :1 ~ &~
U m_ EE .
0 0'" "'..
~ oiS 1::1j r!o -;;
0 a .H ~l
'" 0 e"3 0
0
.5 '" ",,,, u'" c.. en I--
,...
o
o
N
>-
~
::>
~
.Y.c
0",
ilE
-g]-E
llJcug
I> .
"'~
a. 'l:J_~
""'8
"''''.0
~1?-g
iOC'JIC
>_.s:::
>e'"
E"'E
.9~-g
enou
10 4i :i
->;t
E Ql ::
JeO
="
00",
U.z
~
'"
o
U
OJ
U
C
'"
C
OJ
.....
C
';0
::s
"0
OJ
.....
'"
E
'{;;
w
r1
OJ
:;:;
'"
...
Vegetated Swale
,
TC-30
through grassed swale treatment. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Urban
Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Contro~ Lexington, KY. pp. J.73-J.82.
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory. 1983. Final Report Metropolitan Washington
Urban Runoff Proj ea. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, DC, by the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas, VA
Pitt, R., and J. McLean. J.986. TorontoArea 'Watershed Management Strategy Study; Humber
River Pilot ,Vatershed Project. Ontario Ministry of Env:ironment, Toronto, ON.
Schueler, T. 3.997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: A reanalysis.
Walershed Protection Te<:hniques 2(2):379-383.
Seattle 1>-!etro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofil.tration Swale Performance:
Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Water Pollution Control
'Department, Seattle, WA
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). J.99J.. Costs of Urban
Nonpoint Source 'Water Pollution Control Measures. Technical report no. 31. Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, "VI.
U.S. EPA, 1999, StormwaterFactSheet Vegetated Swales, Report # 832-F-99-oo6
http://www.eoa. \':ov lowrn 1m tb Ivegswale:Ddf, Office of Water, Washington DC.
Wang, T., D. Spj1iclakis, B. Mar, and R. Homer. J.981. Transport, Deposition and Control of
Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff. FHWA-WA.RD-39-10. University of Washington,
Departroent of Civil Engineering, Seattle, W A
Washington State Departroent of Transportation, 1995. Highway Runoff Manual, Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington.
Welborn, C., and J. Veenhuis. 1987. Effeds of Runoff Controls on the Quantity and Quality of
Urban Runoffin Two Locations in Austin, TX. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report
No. 87-4004. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Yousef, Y., M. Wanielista, H. Harper, D. Pearce, and R. Tolbert. 1985. Best Management
Pradices: Removal of Highway Contaminants By Roadside Swales. University of Central
Florida and Florida Department of Transportation, Orlando, FL.
YU, S., S. Bames, and V. Gerde. 1993. Testing of Best Management Practicesfor Controlling
Highway Runoff. FHWAfVA-93-R16. Virginia Transportation Research Colmcil,
Charlottesville, VA.
Information Resources
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Storm water Design
]v!anual. www mde.state. md us lenvironment/wrna/stormwatermanna1. Accessed !;lay 22,
2001.
Reeves, E. 1994. Performance and Condition of Biofilters in the Pacific Northwest Watershed
Protedion Techniques 1(3):1.17-119.
January 2003
Califomla Stcrmwa~er BMP Hancbook
New Development end Redeve!coment
www.c~mphanpbooks.com
11 of 13
TC-30
Vegetated Swale
Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofiltration Swale Performance.
Reco=endations a"d Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Seattle Metro and
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, \VA
USEP A 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measuresfor Sources ofNonpoint PoUution in
Coastal Waters. EP A-840-B-92-CXJ2. U.S. Emironmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Washington, DC.
Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of
Stormwater 1I1anagement Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington, DC, by the Watershed Management Institute, Ingleside, MD.
12 of 13
Califc.rnia Stormwater 8M;:> Hanccod:
Ne..... Development md Redeve:lccme"lt
www caomphandbooks.com
January 2003
PROJECT 1 CHERRY CREEK ESTATES FOR THE NP OF 7E
LOT SIZE IS 9 ACRES +1-
Laroe existinq homes or parcels:(Taken from map, buildable lot only)
Lot 21 Vanderveer 25,000
Lot 22 18,667
Lot 23 10,029
Lot 31 Peters 11.826 TOTAL 65.522 sq feet
Open Space
Ag Buffer (not including Dirt East Cherry), 25 Creek Setback, and Bio-Swale
Lot 39 Ag Buffer 8,887
Lot 40 Ag Buffer 25,549
Lot 41 Bio Swale 9,830
Lot 42 Creek Set Back & Open Space 63,707
TOTAL 107,973 sq feet.
PORTION OF THE LOTS THAT ARE IN THE CREEK ITSELF
Grace Stillwell loved to brag that her lot went down into the creek. It does!
Tract Boundary line located at center of Arroyo Grande Creek
Creek Bed Acreaqe
TOTAL
18.750 +/-
TOTAL Acreage used by 4 ESTATE LOTS or open space and CREEK bed etc
TOTAL 192.245 +/-
ACRE = 43,560 square feet 192,245 divided by 43,560 = 4.41 9.0-4.41=4.59
4.59 x 4.5 units per acre is 20.65
There can be 4 estate homes and 21 additional homes at the most to
- accommodate the zoning restrictions.
The Creek Setback, the Ag buffer and the Bio- Swale are apparent obstacles to
building and should not be used in any calculations. The estate properties get the
luxury of being the size of a Low Medium Density LMD( 2.5 units per acre), which
would have been the appropriate up zoning from the current Rural Residential RR
(1 unit per acre)
The current plan of 5,000 square foot lots makes the sites 8 units per acre!
This is excessive and not what the General Plan specifies'
l."d
ESOS6Bl>SOB
Sl~U"I'HJ
dl.1 :21 90 60 d..~.
Subj: October 3rt! Council Meeting
Date: 1014/2001
To: SODAMAN@THEGRID.NET
CC: (slubin@cbslo.com). (tony-ferrara@oes.ca.gov)
CC: OdickenS@c2on.net), (Ol1SPAGEJR)
CC~ 4, 2L;Jo 1
M lILt: 1I~5 emu i I
While not in attendance, thanks to the councirs decision to televise, I was able to "participate" in the
agenda. My observatioins aqnd comments: '
1. The compromise proposed for the Dorfman property does not deal with reality. It is equivalent to a
tie game or kissing your sister. First, it does not solve the desperate need to widen this portion of Cherry
Ave. Secondly, a PUD with 5500 sq.fl. lots is inconsistent with the residential development on three sides
Lets face the reality ofthis property: . . . . . . similiar to the Farrollland, it is most assuredly an iniill and
should have been single family zoned yearss ago.
2. The so called 7E area seems to have been lost in the late hours of the meetings and the more vocal
comments on Tract 1998 and the ;Iand use designation on the Branch Mill Road property. Comments
favoring the increased density for this property suggested it was part of the "rural character of Arroyo
Grande. Visits to the 7E area confin11 theat the urban part of our city ends at the start of Branch Mill/Coker
Elwood development and that the 7E area;is part of that riural character. No, one unit per acre is not
appropriate for 7E, but neither is 4.5 units!
.( As broight to your attention earlier, this area should be divided into two. ...... one "neighbor plan" for -C-"
5 the three parcels fronting on Myrtle and a second plan for the remainder, but in neither case' .
~hOUld they be zoned for 4.5 units if "rural character" has any meaning. _~
,,-
As one who has been intimately involved in the update process, I commend you and the council for your
unbelievable patence and the time you have given to this important document. But please, revisit and
rethink these two issues.
ike TItus
=vOL; (Y\V\.n
\"5
Iv\ i k-C LAc:L--a---
7) ea S-e- ~cct d
F~y, Ol;tober06, 2D01 AlT2rlQl. Oolln~ l.)'I1nTAG Pagl:: 1
Z I' d
ESOS68l>S08
S!~UeI~8
d02 : Z I 90 60 da~
~~~
N......OCOGtl-JQ)(JIA(.o)I'..:J-o.
<OGlAl:r::p<-;l:<-Gl....Gl
S=rQ Q O::::l C _.0 -~--.
~ c:l iil $;. 3. 5= ~ g. 5" ~ -, ~
3 C:mBg;oilloSi'O~co
cn<S'\=> "'-2wocn
OCQ.lro"L(!)~('tll'tl(l)=
'"3-'" ","-- -<'"
0: ~ "'=> CW=> ell
I'" 3 ~ 3 0 fI) "U ~ =
iO '" ='!:. '" n
_=:l. 0 ......tfi
-1i :::tN ~<
a.. c: VJ C'O
$a i';
888888888888
~~....s-..s-.l""'-..l-..J"""-.l"""'-..l
~~!!J~~~~~~@~~
<?'?'?'?'?'?'?'?'?C'V'V'
000000000000
<:nmo;:::4~~~~::S!@~
.j.,O,J:l.......O.....OO................(.,.}
u, '.b. Nlm !v <..n N tv :..... 0:1 (0 tn
J:).O:;CO......ID(x)cn-P-U10N.,p.
"'''''''ICUQ)O)Q)WQ,lQlQl
o non 0 0 0 n 0 000
,BrHIB~~iHH
- ' ..
~
~
~
,~.
\'" .
-3'- ,
"-~7 '\"
"'-J../ '\
.';"" ':;~ ., \\
V.\\\
~: \'
'c\S'
, \;
, \'
V/,- \.
\\
CLr\;<~Nl.[
,""
:h
r-
r-
:g
:tJ
o
rn
r-
en
:h
::0
rn.
o
~
~
;::!
--<
N
o
ifi
t:J
:tJ
:tJ
-.-'"
/v
;:; 12?
..<
~_ _.=:/U I
--~ I
,; _J
LAND USE STUDY
AREA 7E
~
~~
"" ~
$> f5?
~
E: t -d
E:SOSGBvSOB
sJ~ue14l::1
dt2:2t 90 GO d~S
Sep 09 06 12:19p
Atlantis
8054895053
p. 10
Ed Harrison
441 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
ATTACHMENT 17
May 2006
05HA'(-(3 WIl: 14
Dear Commissioners and Council Members:
Attached are line-by-line notes and comments to assist in deciphering the Traffic Study prepared by
Higgins and Associates in July 2004. Since then, the proposed Neighborhood Plan and the
alignment of roads have changed. Because of this, the Traffic Study prepared for the Cherry Creek
Estates and the East Village Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study is not only inadequate, but also
incorrect and should not be used for competent and responsible community planning.
This outdated report never took into consideration the congestion on Traffic Way and Fair Oaks
Avenue due to the release of Arroyo Grande High School and other schools occurring in a one-hour
window. Many fanm workers who travel down Branch Mill Road are released from their jobs at that
same 3 o'clock peak hour. The traffic study conducted by an out of town traffic engineer studied a one
hour period in the afternoon and one hour in the morning, not that same peak hour. .
The traffic impact to the proposed 7E General Plan Update, October 2001, part of the City of Arroyo
Grande is significant. The project will generate 880 average daily trips in and out of the project with
as many as 600 of those trips ending up at the East Cherry I Traffic Way intersection. During peak
evening hours a car will be at that intersection every 12 seconds, some race toward the freeway,
others fighting to turn left or right. This development must be responsible for the permanent widening
and curbing of East Cherry between Railroad Place and Traffic Way to mitigate the increased
congestion.
The descriptions of the major streets are poorly prepared. No where does the study describe Traffic
Way as an on and off ramp, nor does the report share that East Cherry at Traffic Way is a two lane
road with on allowable parking. The emphasis on Allen Street as a preferred route is questionable
and so further diminishes the significant impacts at alternative intersections. The cumulative impacts
of the future building of the entire 7E area - all 22 acres has a devastating effect on little streets such
as Garden, Ide, Whitely and Myrtle, increasing usage on Garden as much as 55%. Clearly, the TIRE
guidelines suggest they will be impacted substantially.
I believe you wilLagree that an outdated report on an alternate project will be insufficient to address
the traffic concerns and future problems this project will create.
Thank you for your time and service to this City,
.G>
Ed Harrison
Comments on the Traffic Studv prepared for Cherry Creek Estates
East Village Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study - July 16,2004
Higgins and Associates from Gilroy -Dan Takacs
takacs.:'U-'k bh i g~i nS.C01l1
Phone: 408-848-3122 FAX 408-848-2202
Pg, I. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sets forth: 99 residential lots, 88 newly constructed in 22 acres
Project I 38 lots on 8,5 acres
Project 2 entire 99 lots on 22 acres
4.5 units per acre
Therefore:
Pg II. 3.5
880 new vehicle trips
70 new trips in peak AM hour and 88 trips in PM peak hour
Because the entire project must be approved the traffic study for the entire project must be considered.
Looking at Project 1 impacts are inconsequential
Pg.5. 2.1 Existing Street Network
2.1 No mention of character of East Cherry with no on site parking or the narrow width on segment from
Traffic Way to Railroad Place. East Cherry is designated 35 miles per hour how wide? Parking?
2.1 No mention that Traffic Way serves as em oll/'amp and offramp/or US 101. Because there are no
more stop signs after Fair Oaks Ave. can; entering the 101 South Fll.Y here are speeding up tv
enter the fast lane of the freeway just as those exiting are 01 often lit a high rate afspeed.
lv'o mention that Fair Oaks and Traffic Way intersection serves as one o{main/eeders/or high
school traffic.
Pg 6. 2.2 The study has too much emphasis on the increase to Allen Street. ({yol/lived in the ,mh area.
chances are lInlikely you would use Allen for main ingress and egre:>s, Why bother with Allen Street? If
the traffic study professionals lived here. they would know that this is no/the preferred roule in or oul of
the project.
Traffic counts were taken ONLY during one hour (60 minutes) between 7-9 AlVI and 4-6 PM
WED 1/28/04- TIlURS 2/4/04 and MONDAY 3/15/04- WED 3/24/04
Peak hours in aliI' community could be somelime between 2: 30 and 3:30 when the schools release.
No traffic counts were taken 01 Branch Mill Road and Eas/ Cherry
Pg 7. 2.3.
Says LOS C ok at Fair Oaks and Traffic Way. but what happens at 3'1
. .
Pg 8. Allen Street and Traffic Way current LOS C. Study recommends partially barricading portion of
Allen Street to calm street so does not deteriorate to LOS D from proposed projects.
Pg 9. This is where the traffic engineer gets himself confused. Projecll evaluates Phase 1 or the 38-lot
projecL "Project 2 evaluates the impact associated with the build out of the 22-acre neighborhood
I.d
ESOS68vS08
sJ~uet".tl::l
E'6S : II 90 I [ d..~
area." BUT... Exhibit 12a, 12h, alld 13 are actually hased on the Phase 2 project ONL Y... they include
just the remoilling 51101s.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
To / from the North via US WI
To / from the North via W. Branch Ave
To / from the South via US 101
To / from the East via E. Branch Ave
To / from the West via Grand Ave
To / from the West via Fair Oaks Ave
35%
5(VQ
20%
20%
10%
10%
Pg. 10. 3.3. Existing plus proiect 1 intersection operations:
Pg. 10. "The project (Phase 1) adds less than 10 total trips to these intersections (E Brandl/Traffic Way
and E Branch / Mason St)" Of the 380 trips out of Phase 1 per day. less than 10 will end up at Mason and
Branch? How could that be?
pg 10. 3.4 Existing plus proiect 1
"Based on the TIRE index concept, ((Appendix E Pg. 4.) TIRE represents the effect of the traffic
on the safety and comfort of human activities such as walking, cycling, and playing on or near a
street and on.the freedom to.maneuver'personal autos in and out of residential driveways.) "TratTlc'
increases to Garden Street north of Myrtle Street due to the project will be noticeable to the
residents of Garden Street north of Myrtle Street...The incrl'ase in traffic on M).rtle Street will also
be noticeable to residents."
Pg.l L 3.6. "Remainder will be provided via the extension of East Cherry Avenue" No place does it
mention keeping the existing dirt East Cherry extension and some other to be named road frlal reed into
the Phase 1 Project only.
pg 11, 3.6 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Here again the writer of the report conflicts with his original premise that Projecll would be Phase 1
(Cherry Creek) and Project 2 would be the entire 22-acre NP.
The study does not include those residents from Phase 2 that would drive down East Cherry extension,
lum right onto the new A1yrtle extension, through the project on 10 (jarden, then through the Village
instead of driving on their dirt road, or driving all the way down Easl Cherry to Garden. The same route
could easily be usedfor residents return routes,
The NP provided does add extra trips ajJecling A1yrtle, Garden, Ide Slreet, Whitely. Nelson and }Jason
Street becauSe new residents from sub area 2 will be ahle to access the Village without using East Cheny.
Therefore, phase 1 WILL contribute to trips 011 A-fyrtle, Gardell, Ide Street, Whitely, Nelson and "1ason
StreeL If a resident of the Miner jiJture developmenlwants 10 go to the Village, they will drive to the 20-
foot access road Ihrough Phase 1 oulto Myrtle and around to Mamn Srreet, The traffic report does not
consider this new access road either.
At this point the traffic study seems too old, based on a pia;, that has beell challged too much, alld not
illcorporating the concept of keepillg the dirt portion of East Cherry alld the developers of Phase I to
build their OWII exclusive road (whose name needs to he determined) on their OWl, property.
Pg 11, 3.5 Paragraph 3 - big misunderstanding of Project 2 since Project 2 was previously described as
the entire 22 acre 99- unit project. .
l' d
ESOS6Bi>SOB
st~uel~t:I
dOO:2t 90 11 das
i"""""'(....'""'r.' !~D
,~.J.l ~-= : ~ '., : (~ .: r =-' ~,
~_ ~L.,~ " L,'
Colleen Martin
855 Olive Street
Arroyo Grande, California
(805) 489-2764
MAY 0 g 20DG
May 6, 2006
CI1Y OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNI1Y DEVElO?ME:NT
Dear City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, City Council and Mayol~
I am a twenty year resident of Arroyo Grande and I have always been active in our
City's activities. My parents also came here to take part in the mrallifestyle of Arroyo
Grande. My father especially grew to love the.::'lTlall town politics and quickly became
entrenched in the General Plan Core Group trying to encourage vast pprticipation of our
community in the planning of our future vision. I too have been involved since 1998, drafting
the citizen's Survey that the City still uses as a tool to guide important decisions. Through every
step of the General Plan, he and I petitioned the City Council to leave the 7E area of the East
Village to rural residential zoning. I continue to plead that the Planning Commission and the
City CounCil deny the amendment of the development code to upzone the 7E area to single
family medium density. 2.5 units per acre would be sufficient zoning and still more dense than
any other existing parcel in the 7E area. The three estate properties included with Phase 1
must be removedfrom any density calculations.
I have carefully reviewed the Initial study Summary Environmental Checklistfor the
proposed Neighborhood Plan and Phase 1 Project of the 7E area of the East Village. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration is incomplete and has descriptions that are outright invalid,
such as referencing the area to be adjacent to f"high density residential development".
The project runs in to so many difficulties environmentally that it should have a
complete environmental impact reportfiledfor the project: Ifit was just storm water it would
be one thing, but it is the riparian corridor, the drainage, the noise and light pollution, the
drastic traffic increases, the loss of prime soilS to more asphalted and paved surfaces, and the
loss of habitat. The agricultural buffer zone of just 130 feet continues to be an issue for the
County ofSLO and the neighbors. The agricultural buffer is not agreed upon or even
delineated in the Phase 2 portion of the Neighborhood Plan. There also seems to be an
inordinate number of monitoring programs to keep Phase 1 of the Neighborhood Plan project
in compliance. Who will provide this monitoring? 'When? How? At what cost?
The traffic report, which is outdated arid incorrect in many ways, is referenced in this
negative declaration and used to persuade the planners that the severe traffic impacts can be
mitigated. There is no mention of the true character of East Cherry (no parking, portions being
dirt) and Traffic Way (used as an on and off ramp for the freeway), nor were the traffic counts
performed during the crucial hours when schools andfarms close for the day.
One of the most glaring issues under-addressed in this evaluation is the existing dirt
portion of East Cherry. The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control district forcefully stated that
this road must be paved. The proposed separate "New East Cherry" on the subject property is
not consistent with the Neighborhood Plan, which calls to "coordinate infrastructure bet>..veen
the entire 7E areas", but instead a lame excuse to build what they want without tackling some
hurdles.
I welcome any calls or questions regarding my detailed comments and trust you will
use them to your and the City's benefit. Please do so. Thank youfor your commitment to
Arroyo Grande; it's citizens, heritage andfuture.
::tll r C ( 0-<.) ~lU.,X,'--0
Coll~tln .
II . d
ESOSS8t-S08
s ~ ';lUE:!' I '-l-tl
dSl :21 90 SO d,,'
Sep 11 06 12:01p
Atlantis
805489b053
p.4
CHERRY CREEK NOTES ON THE NEGATIVE DE~LAMTION
-. Prepared by Colleen Martin
Negativc Declaration prepared hy Kelly Heffernon, 3/20/06
Pg.2. PROJECT DESCRTPTI0N: .
lfthe "purpose ofthc NP i.s to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agrIcultural buffers and
opp.n space consideration", then what is theplanf;),. all of these things for Phase 2? Where is the
.'19 buffer for Phase 2?
Sets lots sizes in a range from 2,773 to 25,000 square feet.
Thefew estate lots of large size need to be removedfrom the density calculations
of 4..5 units per acre.
Sets forth private 15' wide dirt TOad (existing East Cherry) for access to Phase 2
Pg. 3. Neighborhood Plan overlay? 1\IIore desCJ'iption please
SFR -MD -\-\'est medium density sllrrol1ndin~ land use categories
Pg .1. States, "No significant visual impaets are. expected to occur".1f the subject properties end
up being 2 stories then there will he significant visual impact.
d,)Create glare or night-light. it is black out the/'f! right now... that will not be the case after
build Ollt.
5. Prime Soils Definition - must the lund be irrigated and be zonedAG to be classified
prim.e soils?
Pg. 6. Residential uses - walnut grove. "The subject property has been committed to
residential uses since the late 1800'S and has been consistently zoned residential since the City
established zoning."
Page n. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES states, .. The majority of the Cherry Creek project site is
composed of" senescent walnut orchard..."'
Which one isjt? The pmperty is a truly a residential rural area usedfor things like a walnut
orchard; raising chickens, g/'Owing grapevines, fruit orchards etc.
However, for the purpose of this analysis, the site is still considered as an old orchard. For any
review by the neighhors or people driving hy it is considered an old orchard also.
Pg. 7. MM 2.3 Vegetative Screening shall be installed 6-foot fence atop a 2-foot burm. And this
w()n't look elitist and out of place in the counlry?
Pg 8. Additional Average Daily Trips - 880 for NP and 600 of these on East Cherry and Traffic
Way. The air quality emissions stated ARE SIGNLHCANT." May cause significant air quality
impacts"
Pg 8. Assumptions on Phase 2 developments
"Phase 2 will likely be developed randomly over time" Whom are they kidding?
Tony and Nora are already staking their properties. Planfor Phase 2 right now!
Sep 09 US l2:50p
Atlantis
8054895053
p.4
Pg. 10. Operational Phase Emis..<;ions
The mitigation measures do not include, and the plan shown the Air Pollution Control District
(APeD) Attachment C,for that matter, also does not include the amended plan, which does not
improve the dirt road or provide for a paved access 10 Phase 2.
The letter from the SLO APeD Attachment C states, " All access roads to this development
should be naved to reduce the 2eneration offu2itive dust." (top ofpage).The letter
states, "Please address the actionitems:contained in this letter that are highlimted
bv bold and underlined text. "(Middle page 1) This is not optional in the letter from the
APCD.
None of the mitigation measures inlhe Negative Declaration setforth paving existing dirt
roads in any part of the NP. The developers of Phase 1 need to pave the existing East Cherry.
Pg.11. Setting.
"The project area is surrounded by rural and high density residential development".
Where is thi..<; high-density development? On Branch Street? Across the creek at the Balsa Chica
Mobile Home Park? This stat(!menUs F~E and gives a very false representation of
the subject property.
Pg. 13. Bio-Swale
Who will monitor and care for this bio-swale and how will that be enforced? The City
maintained culvert has becnjull of litter and weeds and requires residents to call Public Works
to get things repaired, so obviously this is notenough ofa monitoring method. Will thefeesfor
this monitoring be paid up front and a regular schedule be planned and adhered to?
Pg. 14 Impact Summary
" The proposed project would substantially degrade the riparian corridor
associated with Arroyo Grande Creek..."
MM 4.2 Calls for "five year monitoring program and contingency measures to ensure meeting
the Sllccess criteria." What is this monitoring plan and what is considered successjul? Very
vague language, need specifics.
Pg. 18. Impact:
"Monitoring-will be required for this development". Who will perform and pay for the
monitoring?
Pg 19. Registered house? H1hy does it matter if the entire property will befenced offwith an
"new electric gate" People will not even be able to walk on the street inf,.ont of this historical
pmperty. MM 5.2
Pg. 21. MM 6.3.
What are adequate sediment and erosion control measures? How do you qualify and quantify?
Pg 22 "Schedule for their maintenance and upkeep" Who monitors this and who would require
this schedule? .
Sep II pS 12:02p
At.lant.is
8054895053
p.5
MM6-4 What is the Phase 2 plan for flood control?
What are the other off-site drainage improvements along Branch Mill Road? Be
specific
Pg. 23. 8. b.) NOISE
"Will the project generate increases in the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas?" YES how
do you mitigate the noise of 880 more vehicle trips in and out of the project?
Pg. 24. MM 8_1
Hours of operation are restricted to Monday - Saturday 8 A1\.1. to 6PM. Give me a break! No
Saturdays and quit hy 5. The existing neighborhood deserves to have the last vestiges of their
peace and quiet. The times oftlw construction noise must be limited. The
neighborhood should not have to endure saws and tractors on the weekend, not to mention, the
poorer air quality /'esultingfrom the work.
Pg. 24. POPULATION / HOUSING
THE MOST IMPORTANr ENFRACTION IN THIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION!
"Willlhe project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?" "
The impact is 'potentially significant', ,not' impact can and will be mitigated' like
the report says. If this 22 acres is developed at the density proposed, it would not
bc con.~idered transitional zoning betu.ieen the Village and rural residential as
seen in the Greenwood / lanner/Flora area. Because the proposed zoning i... more
dense than the Garden Street / Myrtle Street / Cocker EIL~worth development, or
any other development in the Village aSide from a condominium complex, -it
would actually be a continuation of the Village with high densities at the
outskirts of the Village Core. This not only does notfit in the planfor our City, but
it ulso ',egsfOl"future high densities to be proposedforadjacent-properties to the
subject property such U$ at the end of East Cherry toward Plora.
Pg. 25 POPULATION/HOUSING
"The 2001 General Plan and program ErR adequately addressed the increase in density,
and the project is v.ithin allowable density." "The project will also induce growth in the
Neighborhood Plan area by extending the City's sewer and water system."
Just because you can do something, doesn't- mean you ought to.
From the minutes of October 9, 2001: the night the General Plan Update was approved.
Page 10_ Council Member Lubin $aid... . He then referred to the Land Use Area 7E and stated thai it was a tough
decision because there were property owners in that area on both sides of the question. He said in discussions with
several of the property owners. it appeared that the majority of the land would not be redeveloped and it would stay
as it is today. " .
Page 12. Mayor Pro T em Ferrara referred to Land Use "jrea 7E and recalled one of lhe property owners who
reque$ted the Council reconsider a lower density He said he was hoping there was a high turnout of people form
I
1_
5e,p 11 ,oS 12: 03p
Atlantis
8054895053
p.S
.---------------
other concerned parties who would like to see the density remain as is. He stated that it was not too late to reduce
the density. He st'3ted that he was not comfortable leaving it Medium Density at the last meeting and he was stili not
comfortable with that designation. He said he would like;to see a lower density In thai particular area and that II be
consistent. He believed there was a lot of validity to the ('lOtion that it is transitional area, it abuts an ag conservancy,
and flOm who he had previously and through testimony tonight, lIe was led to believe that the majority of land owners
out there do not want Medium Density, they would rather maintain a lower density. He said he would support a lower
density. "
Pg 25. ]0. PUBLIC SERVICES I UTILITITES
Is the 20-foot alley good enoughfor fire protection?
Pg 26. "East Cherry Avenue will be extended the length of the development and constructed per
City standards: GREAT!
What is the width being proposed and is an asphalt transition to the existing dirt portion of
East Clwny a City standard?
VVllat will be the name of the new road [J,'opqsed by the developer of Phase 1 to feed into his
project? Can't be East Cheny. The dirt "oad already has that. name.
Pg. 27 TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION.
a.) 880 increased vehicle trips to local or area wi.de circulation system,
b.) The level of saviee at East Cherry and Traffic Way will be impacted and there will be a
loss of service llnd increase in dangerous 'turns. Because the traffic study included an
inordinate amount of trqlfic./lowing down Allen Street, the numbersJor Garden and East
cherry would actually rise without this misinterpretation,
c.) There alr'eady are unsafe conditions on East Cherry because there is no allowable
parking between nailroad Place and Traffic Way. People are constantly crossing the
street right before the intersection, many with young children. People areforced to
make decisions about turning when tlie speeds of cars exiting the freeway are often
higher than the posted speed limit.
e.) 111er<: is no visitor parking places provided for in the Phase 1 portion for the duet homes,
- Inadequate parking capacity. .
f) Phase 2 "ill result in inadequate internal traffic circulation
The only proposed traffic mitigation safar that is outside the boundaries of the suf:1ject area
are installing a 8-way stop at Branch Mill Road and East Cherry. 88 additional homes must
make improvements to ECL'it Cherry all the way to Traffic Way and reconfigure that
intersection, Phase 1 is the impetus for the onslaught of more development down that street, so
it isfair to have them carry the burden to preparefor future development.
Pg. 28. "In reviewing the revised intersection design for East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill
Road, the traffic consultant determined that an all-way stop is necessary." There will be two
roads parallel each other East Cherry and the proposed Cherry Creek Estates Road, Why
lUould the Cillj even recommend a plan so foolish CL~ to not require the developer of Phase 1 to
take over the ownership o.fthe existing road and develop it to "City standards"?
MM ]2.2 Obviously the City knows this is incpmplete as it states,
Sep II DB 12:04p
Atlantis
8054895053
p.7
"Depending on the approval option fot' the East Cherry alignment, the developer shall desi~n
and install a controlled 3-way stop at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Branch MIll
Road as approved hy the Director of Public Works".
The proposed alignment is absurd! East ChelTlj must be paved and drawn straight to bring
future consolidation of storm, water, and transportation systems online.
Pg. 30. 14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Yes, the projectfull build out at 99101s on 22acres will adversely affect the water supply. It
will, "contribute to an increase in localized flood haz.ard during large storm events." The
mitigation for this is inadequate. '
Pg. 34. 15 1.."-..1\1'0 USE
d.)"Will the project be potentially incompatible with surrounding land uses?"
If this 22 acres is developed at the density proposed, it would not be considered transitional
zoning between the Village and rural residential as seen in the Greenwood I Tanner IFlom
area. Because the proposed zoning is more dense than the Garden Street I Myrtle Street I
Cocker Ellsworth development, it would actually be a continuation of the Village with high
densities at the outskirts of the Village Core. This not only does notfit in the plan for our City,
but it also begsfol'fllture high densities to be proposed for adjacent pl'Operties to the subject
property.
The ACPD required all access road for the pl:ojects be paved. The previous surrounding aI'ea
was described as "high density" which is false and gives an improper description andJeel of the
area.
fg;. ::t5. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Two of the three questions regarding the cumulative considerable impacts were reported as
"Impact can and will be mitigated." '''Cumulatively considerable' means that the increment
effects of a project arc considerable when \;cwed in connection \\;th the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects".
There will be impacts to all of the environme!1tal factors. Unfortunately the checklist was not
complete on the Page 1 possible because some of the descriptions, and studies that are
referenced were either incorrect or false.
1. Aesthetics: the visual characler and the/igM pollution will affect the surrounding area
and be a significant impact to those who already enjoy the dw'k, quiet nights.
2. Agricultural Resources: it will involve the change of an old walnut orchard to
residential uses.
3. Air Quality: It will exceedfederal ambient air quality emission thresholds.
4. Biological Resources: It will impact w,etland and riparian habitat. 10 mitigation
measures were recommended because there were so many impacts to biological resources.
l_u__
5. Cultural Resources: The project will disturb historic resources and hide them from the
public. .
6. Geology and Soil..: There will be soil eropion, unstable earth conditions, change in rates
of soil abs01ption, and change the natural drainage pattern that involve activities in the 100
year plain zone.
7. Hazards & Hazardous Materials: The r:;onstruction phase will certainly pose a risk or
health hazard to existing tesidentsforthe NP area, not to mention the risks to the riparian
corridor.
8. NOISE: The noise will exceed the City's noise element thresholds, generate increases in the
ambient noise levels for adjoining properties, and e>..pose people and pets to severe noise or
vibration. The hours and days of construction are completely unacceptable.
9. POPULATION / HOUSING: The project will induce substantial growth not only
in the 7E area, but also toward the Greenwood fFloraf Tanner development. The
General Plan Adoption included the possibility for a development amendment to
up zone to Medium Density, not the guarantee of this zoning.
10. Public Services / Utilities: 11refire protection plan is insufficient in the Phase 2 area~
11. RECREATION: Thefencing offofa historical house that is enjoyed by many to stroll past
on leisure walks will be removed as will large portions of creek access.
12. Transportation / Circulation: It will increase the vehicle trips to the local and area
wide circulation system and over 800 trips in the Village core.
13. WASTEWATER: The project will violate waste discharge requirements.
14. Hydrology and Water Quality: Not only will the project adversely affect the water
supply that is already at critical levels, it will disturb swiace water conditions.
15. lAND USE: This project is inconsistent with surrounding land uses. The surrounding
land uses are rural residential such as raisin'g chickens, harvesting grapes, plums, peaches,
walnuts and raising goats, boarding and riding horses and othe1' crops and animals. This
project is denser than any other single-family residential project in the Village so
it is inco7Bistent with the surrounding land uses.4.5 units per acre would be a
7200 square foot lot! '
B'd
~ ------------
fo:SOS6B1>-SOB
S1~Ue:I-:iH
dES:21 90 60
da~
MEMORANDUM
TO: PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF STILLWELL ESTATE:
734 MYRTLE STREET
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DiRECTOR
SUBJECT: APN's 007-565-004 AND 007-522-008
DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2002
Because the City has had numerous inquIries since the Stillwell estate properties. have-. -
been noticed as available, I am writing a brief outline of some answers to typical
questions regarding planning and zoning:
O. What is the existing zoning?
A. Both parcels are classified Rural Residential (RR), which requires one (1) acre lots
for single-family use.
O. What does the 2007 General Plan provide for the area?
A. The Myrtle Avenue area south of Arroyo Grande Creek and north of East Cherry
Avenue alignment is designated Single Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR-
MD), which would enable a max,imum density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre
(typically 7,200 sq. ft. minimum lots) . Possible subdivision may also propose
25% "density bonus" for ,affordable (low or moderate income) housing. This
implies potential for 20 or more homesites.
O. V';pat is the creek serback and intent of Public Facility or Conservation/Open
Space corridor along the creek?
A. The City has a minimum creek setback of 25 feet from top of bank or riparian
vegetation and a long range interest in preservation of the creek corridor for
habitat and open space, including possible path/trail.
O. What does the "NP" special overfay on the 2007 General Plan mean?
A. Policy LU2-7 requires a "Neighborhood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water,
sewer, agricultural buffer, creekside trail and conservation/open space
considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map" in the 21 + 1-
acre area.
E1 -d
E505681>508
St~U"l~8
dOI;ZI 90 11 da~'
Q. What is intended by "agricultural buffer',?
A. The area south of East Cherry Avenue alignment is a permanent Agricultural
Preserve and active farming operation: General Plan policies require a minimum
setback of 100 feet between the nearest house and agricultural operations, at
least 25 feet landscaped to "buffer from normal noise, dust, or other possible
land use conflicts. The City also has "Right to Farm" provisions that prevent
residents from claiming normal agricultural practices as "nuisances"'.
Q. What does the Circu/ation/Transponation Element of the 2001 General Plan
"study area" designation imply nanhwest of Branch NTill Road and East Cherry
Avenue?
A. Policy CT5-5 provides for circulation "study area"' corridors to define and
preserve "alternatives for future freeway, arterial and collector street
connections, extensions, completions, reconstruction, widening, frontage road
alternatives or extensions andlor other improvements to Circulation and
Transportation networks until cooperative resolution of Element revisions andlor
Capital improvement Programs". Although no specific solutions are currently
defined, either or both a northerly extension of Branch Mill Road or an easterly
extension of East Cherry Avenue, potentially across Arroyo Grande Creek as a
residential collector is the purpose of this "study area".
Q What might happen with the drainage ditch that crosses the middle of the
propeny?
A. The City constructed a temporary drainage ditch across the center of the
rectangular parcel and the west edge of the triangle parcel adjoining Arroyo
Grande Creek to convey Newsom Springs and other area storm drainage to the
creek channel. The City will cooperate with future developer to pipe this drainage
in a permanent easement across the center or west edge of the properties,
including local drop inlets from the area.
Q. Who should I contact for more information?
A. The estate's realtor is Byron Grant (805) 481-4297 or the City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department at (805) 473-5420.
2
vI -d
ESOS68vS08
S:~":l.uel~tI
d21 :21 90 I I d."
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING. COMMISSION
FROM: Rob Strong, AICP General Pian Update Consultant
DATE: JULY 19,2001
SUBJECT: Land Use Study Area 7E - E. Myrtle & Cherry Area
(Stillwell, Estes, Janowicz, at al.)
Attached is a composite map of the property ownership in the land use study
area 7E, south of Arroyo Grande Creek, north of E. Cherry AvenuE: extended. As
discussed in the Draft EIR, pages 52 and 53, there are approximately 22 acres east of
the Noguera Place, Single Family Residential (SFR) - Medium Density (4.5 dulacl
subdivision, currently classified and zoned Rural Residential (1 du/ac), equivalent to the
proposed SFR - Low Density classification'of the 2001 General Plan Update.
Several owners in the area have ,requested, "R-1" or single family residential describing
either Medium or Medium Low Density (2.5 du/ac) instead of the Low Density (1 du/ac).
The DEIR discusses the cumulative development potential that reclassification
alternatives enable, summarized as follows:
a) If the entire 22 acres were classified SFR-MD, it IIvould enable a maximum of
approximately 99 homes;
b) If the entire 22 acres were classified SFR-Uv1D, it would enable a maximum of 55
homes;
c) If the entire 22 acres remains classified SFR-L.D (The new name for ,City Rural
Residential), it would enable approximately 26 homes (at least four non-
conforming smaller parcels already exist); and,
d) A combination of LM and MD with the western 8 + 1- acres fV1D and the eastern 14
acres LM.
Based on the parcel configuration, location of existing houses, rudimentary private road
easements, drainage and utilities and other design constraints, staff recommends 'd)'
a combination oJ Low Medium and Medium Density Single Family Residential. As a
prerequisite to rezoning,. staff also recolllinends a requirement for a neiahborhood
51 -d
E505S8v508
S"J:~ue-l~8
d2I:2I SO II da
assessment district to provide for area water, sewer, drainage, park and street
improvements needed to enable individual property subdivisions. /\ conceptual
neighborhood development plan would coordinate street, drainage and utility design,
consider preliminary subdivision patterns and estimate costs to enable the owners to
pursue future tract or parcel maps individually, after area infrastructure is committed or
constructed.
Planning considerations would include an "agriculture buffer" to minimize compatibility
problems with the Ag Preserve to the south of E. Cherry, a creek-side park trail
extension along the north side of E. Myrtle adjoining Arroyo Grande Creek, and
circulation impacts on the adjacent residential areas.
Staff will be prepared to discuss these alternatives for General Plan Update
recommendation to the City Council at tonight's continued public hearing.
91 . d
E505681>508
s ~ ~ue I ""U::1
dE! :" I 90 IT dC"
L-
Sep 09,06 12:16p
Atlanti5
8054895053
p.4
DOES THIS PROJECT require an EIR?
ff11;
'--" M ·
'.. ,
.A....;
A
The California Environmental Quality Act
, L"ead A'gene}! D<icislon,to Prepare E'.R or Negative Declaration ,
,
WHAT Is THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN Em AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (NEG. DEC.)?
e, A Negative Declaration is,a document that states upon completion of an initial
study, that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the env,ironment.
. An ElR is an infom1ational 'document which will inform the public agency
decision-makers arid the public generally of:
o the significant environmental effects of a project
o possible wayS to minimize significant effects
o reasonable alternatives to the project
How DOES THE AGENCY DECIDE?
. A Negative Declaration can,he prepared only when there is no substantial
evidence in light of the whole reeord before the lead agency that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment. (PRC ~21080(c)), (14
C.CR. S15070)
e An EIR must he prepared when there is substantial evidence in the record that
supports a fair argument that significant effects may occur. (pRC !i21080(d))
e The existence of controversy over the effects of a project does not require
preparation of an Ern. if there is no substantial evidence in the record that the
project may have a significant environmental effect. (~RC *21082.2)
There i", no reference ~t all i~ both Staff Advisory Minutes
from February 18, 2004 and July 1, 2004 for which environmental study
tool should be used. "When and where was this decided?
How can this be?
JUL. 14.2B0G
5:01PM
"
ARROYO GRANDE .,C I T'(
NO. 961
P.3B/"37
development stondQrds for fradjtionol Single Family zoning {lot size and setbacks). Given the
freedom to adjust these standards for site-specific conditions 0110"""5 development to respond to
the comrnurlity's vision, This "",ill create q higher quali1y neighborhood ........jth a strong sense of
plQce. The sife conditions qnq amenities inClude lot sRe variotion. conservation of existing ond
historical homes, preservQf!on of the Arroyol GranC1e Creek corridor. provision of a vegetated
channel. provision of inclusionary housing, and implementotion of on agricultural butter.
Environmental Review: Environmental revre....., in accordance ........ifh the Cohfornia Environmental
Quality Act {CEQ^l wiJI be reqvired for each deveJ.opmen1 proposal. Certifl"Cotion of an
environmental document for SUbcuec l is in..PIOcert fvt\...ro-de..eIQPme.nt ~sal.s in Subarea 2
'l-bc:; ~""l;ojvlo,.ot 10 5c~arat9 g"'P~rim~re' ie.'. ~cn indi.....idual propo~s Of"e~
---~
Proposed Phasing 01 DeveloPlTlenl In the Neighborhood Plan Area ------.."'"
Development will commence In Subarea I OS soon as the Neighbolhood Pion is adopted. I
IndiV'iduol names are onticjpoted to be built primarily by 0 single home builder/developer. I
Development ot Subarea I is estimoted 10 be largely completed within 2.5 years. Once the
NeighbOrhood PIon is adopted.. development in Subarea 2 could begin oJ the lQndo...vner's I
discretion, pending approval by the Community Development Departmenl.
Spec!e" Conditional Uses ~'
The Nei e zonIng specified by fne""2OOrGcnerol t'lan. Certain ---
nditianal uses such as daycqre, churches. ond private schools mQY be granted subject to 0
conditional use permit_ )t is the cify's responsibility to approve. conditionally approve. or deny
~vc.h requests in accordance 'With the zoning of RSF-MD.
Administration-and Implementation "or the N"e{ghbofhoOd Plan
Subarea l wil! require a Homeowners Association (HOAI to odminister maintenance of open
space, parks. and common areas, as well o~ the Covenants. Condifions. and Restrictions
(CC&Rs).
The developer of Subarea 1 will submit prop~sed by-lows and orticles of incorporation for the
HO,A and CC&R5 for the Slate of Cqlifomia Deportment ot Real Estate and Ihe City of Arroyo
Gronde Communify Development OepartJl1ent revie"" and approval.
t2'a5f Vj (Ia ~ ~\ f7
.11.
200S05o-CrgekS'de~Esl;)tes:-New-C herrY\Plan"Ir\Q\Pradt.Je!\Word\Ne':lt\l;?ortlood.Plf'ln\Ne:Ql'lOO~"COCl ~IQ" %.-J.-OEi doc
Sod
ESOSS8~S08
s~";\ue-I";\C1
dto-tr:Z[ 90 SO da
FROM :CDD&EDD
FA.'< t--Q. :805 473 5489
Jul. 182005 03:08PM P4
NOTES
STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC)
JULY 1, 2004
1:00 P.M.
STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRE:SENT: Viclor Devens, Public Works, Larry
Schmiclt. Building; SIeve Andrews, Police; Dan Hernandez. Parks, Recreation & Facilities; Dave
Crockett. Code Enforcement Officer; Kelly Heffernan, Associate Planner; Jim Bergman, ASSistant
Planner; Andrea Koch, Planning Intern.
STAFF MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Fibich, Fire; Rob Strong, Community Development Director.
APPROVAL OF NOTES: Minutes of June 3, 2004 and June 17, 2004 approved with minor
corrections,
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
PROJECTS:
A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-002; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
04-002; NEIGHBORHOOD,PLAN; ,'APPLlCANT.,.. CHERRY c;REEK. LLC; LOCATION -
CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREET. Project Planner - Kelly Heffernon
Descriolion: Review of new c1eve/opment and Neighborhood Plan bordering Cherry and Myrtle
streets.
Issues:
Representative and Applicants
.
~
Cherry Creek is the new name of the project formerly known as Creekside Estates of
Arroyo Grande.
All exterior lots except for one are a minimum of 6,000 square feet. Tho inlerlor lo(s are
smaller and can provide more affordable housing.
Proposing a 100' agricultural ,buffer with redwoocl trees and possibly oaks as
components. Buffer is 65' from curb to first habitable structure.
. .Will submit a landscape plan.
Requests permiSsion for streets n~or (32') ~han th~'!I.~tandard_""o:}. _
The General PTan discu,sses establishing a regional recreational trail along Arroyo
Grande Creek from Strother Park to the ocean. The preferred creek trail alignment is
along the south side of creek. Existing property ownership patterns within the projact
area and further west make establishing trail difficult.
Not pracUeal to provide creek lrail'crossing to park because of long riparian corridor.
Parks, Recreation & Facilities: This would also be expensive because the trail would
need to meet ADA standards.
Future possibility of bUilding path across the creek to connee! to PaUlding School, but
this is not politically feasible right now and therefore not included 10 the projecl plans.
Spoke with most of the owners Of properties surrounding the project site to obtain their
opinions aboul nearby Dixson Ranch. Most Iikecl the Ranch and only noted minor
negative impacts from it. '
Consulted with County Agricullural Commissioner ancl discovered a 300' setback is
needed from one of the pesticides sometimes applied at Dixson Ranch
.
.
.
.
.
.
/
/
~---------------_..----"-'----_._. - -
S'd
ESOS6Sl7S0S
s."J: ~UI2' I '..\.tI
dSO:21 90 II cla
Sep 11 '06 12:07p
Atlantis
8054885053
p.8
-..- -- -~-.
------- --
FROM : CDD~EDD
NOT ES
SAC MEETING
July 1. 2004
FA:-< t.lJ_ : 8135 473 5489
Jul. 182006 03:08PM P3
PAGE 2
--'=;
h I Dixson Ranch representatives
If fOrC~lltfo;:a~:v:~~~u~~~r~~~e~~~~~i:~~Oje~;~~d ~~her potential pro~ects witl,in the
~:~hbOrhOOd Plan area. The project would have to be completely redesigned.
E- st Cherry neads to be dedicated to the City. InfeasIble to oblain necessary signalures
0; alt involved property owners so City may need to exercise eminent domain. .'f the City
does nol acquire East Cherry. it will not be part of the project and reSidents Wilt havo.to
drive clown an unimproved gravel road. A future City Council would have to deal With
this issue in such event '
Community Development . . .'
. Both the Planning Commission and City Coun have discussed ~hls project as a p;e-
Application. The most significant .Issues were lot size nd the agrIcultural buffer, which
was especial1y an issue with the CIty Council. .,. ._
. The appiicants have redesigned the project to Increase lot sIze while mamtall1lng a
variety of lot sizes for diversity.
. The proposed development is almost at the maximum density allowed for the property.
Neighbor dissent limited \ne proposed density from being higher.
Will the City maintai" the project's streets?
Representative: Yes
What areas will be commonly owned and maintained?
Representative: Open spaca, agricultural buffer
Parks, Recreation & tacilities
. Concarned thal if Clly is responsible for a maintenance district. could be liable for any
accidents on the narrow:streets.' Aiso. the redwoods and oaks proposed as part of the
agricultural buffer are high maintenance.
. Whal faCilities will be part of the open space?
Representative: Picnic benches and s DG or concrete peth. DG might be prafersble
because it is porvious and wouldlprsvent run~offto the creek.
Parks Dept prefers use of concrete path In open space because lower maintenance.
. The applicant would have more flexibility if a Homeowner's Association were established
to maintain common facilities. If a maintenance district is established instead, requests
2 controlled pedestrIan' crossings at intersections for pedestrians allractod to open
space.
Representativ(;J and applicants: I' Willing to provide pedestrian walkway. Low rraffic
volumes and narrow streets slowing traffic will also promote pedestrian safety.
Which party would have responsibility for sireet tree maintenance?
Representative: Property owners would be responsible for trees in front of the;, hon1es.
Building and Fire
. Ensure public facilities are ADA-compliant.
? Fire access can be made; acceptable even though the turning radius appears too ligl,t.
. Eliminate the planting strip in the contor of the intemal road for acceptable fire access.
. Sprinkfering buildings would provide appltcanf the flexibility to compromise the fire
access, allowing one access instead of two and an access of less than 20'.
. Provide a minimum fire flow of 1000 gallonslminute/2 hours if the buildings are
sprinklered.
. Obtain demOlition permit to demo,"sh existing garage.
Do not place combustiblos on property until the fire conditions are satisfied.
For any water welts. show or obtain abandonmenls.
Se.p 11 .06 12: 08p
Atlantis
8054885053
p,10
FRo-r : CDD&EDD
FAX i'D." :805 473 5489
Jul. 182006 03:07PM P2
NOTES
SAC MEETING
July 1, 2004
PAGE 3
Public Works
. Pave over water and sewer easements, which should both be a minimum of 15',
. Connect prOject to City sewer. If.insist on providing sewers as shown on plans. need to
prove that. sewer system can 1: accommodate project as wall as potential future
development of Phase 2, The sewer study must show location of sewer mains and
amount of fill needed for gravity-flkding prior to deeming application complete.
o Increase water main from Garden to Allen from 6- to B" if cannot prove that 6" main has
sufficient flow when main at Branch Mill and East Cherry is off-fine.
. Extend water line with blowout across the property frontage.
. Underground new and some existing utilities. Arrange meeting with Charter, PG&E, and
SBe regarding this. ShCMI which poles will be removed and which poles will remain prior
to Planning Commission review. :
~ Develop parking plan for review at July 19'" Traffic COmmission meeting.
o State law requires 40' curb-to-curb width, so may need wider streets. Make case for
- desired narrower streets at Traffic Commission meeting.
. Applicant should submit all requested materials by July 10"'-12'" because Traffic
Commission packets will be distributed on July 14'".
. Continuing sidewalk on other side, of Myrtle in interior of project is probably negotiable to
preserve old oak trees near historic home,
. Why is there no sidewalk on the nOrth side of East Cherry?
Representative and Applicant: Rroposed meandering DG path instead to maximize
landsc8pingand to discourage paoestrian activity along the Dixson Ranch, as desired by
the Dixson Ranch and the City Cquncil.
o Locate driveways in pairs \0 maximize space for on-street parking. Identify on parking
plan.
o Provide surveyed benchmark to east of East Cherry.
. Provide soils report.
~. . For any water wells. show or obtain abandonments.
~ Drainage study seems inadequate. Proposed 48" drainage pipe with bends probably
V does not have as much carrying capacity as a straight one, Why is the proposed
drainage pipe 48" in diameter instead of the 77:' discussed during the Pre-Application?
Representative: Installing two 72~' drainage pipes is Infeasible. Would be unnecf>ssary,
difficult to install, require a drainage structure on the Dixson Ranch property, end would
{...~ have to daylight in the creek, Which would be an environmental issue.
7\ ~ Avoid. using open ditches becau~ breeding ground for mosquitoes that could carry West
Nile VIruS. '.
. - Une drainage ditch along Noguera Place with concrete for easy maintenance if the City
will own it.
Appllcan'; The CIty will not own this ditch; it is JUS1 for a few property owners,
o Show overlay and escape TOtlte' in drainage study and obtain stamp of person who
prepared It.
o Install fossil fuel filters on drop inlets.
o Show private access easements for flag lot properties.
. Pay all the usual fees, including inspection, grading, map check, and plan check fees.
.,
.. Provide all the necessary agreements, 'ncluding inspection, draft open space, and
maintenance agreements.
~provide tho usual bonds.
. Revise the trafflc study lo'include.recommended traffic control at E. Cherry and Branch
Mill Road. and revise leve,ls or serVice per the City'S traffIc study policy,
. . Add to the Tentative Map the name and registration of the person preparing it.
Se.p 11 .06 12: 09p
'FROM :CDD&EDD
Atlantis
8054A95053 p.ll
FAX 1'-0.' :805 4735489 Jul. 18 2O<lf, 03:07PM Pi
NOTES
SAC MEETING
July 1, 2004
PAGE 4
. On map. show land contours, acreage, name of the internal road, and the locations of
buildings, setbacks, septic tanks. and water wells.
Representative suggested showing setbacks on an attachment because the map is
already visually cluttered.
Police
. Streets should have parking on both sides and should be a minimum of 32' to ~6' in
width,
. Will need to make argument 10 Traffic COmmission jUslifying proposed parking on only
one side of the street.
Action: Review by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
B. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-018; APPLICANT - AGVIA; LOCATION -
VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Project Planner - Jim Bergman.
Descriotion: Request for use of Nelson Green between Mason and Short Streets for the annual
Summer Book Festival.
Issues:
None
Conditions:
Same conditions as applied in previous years to this project.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
Ffjl{ "
Adjourned at 2:55.
POlit-lt' Fa. Note
to D\ 'een
Cr>./D()f)T.
PhOl'efl
5"1" lI.oS 12:10p
FROI'l : CDD&EDD
Atlantis
8054895053
FAX HJ. : 805 473 54B9
p.12
Jul. 18 2006 03:08PM P5
AGENDA
STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC)
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
215 E. BRANCH STREET
THURSDAY, JULY 1,2004
1:00 P.M.....-- NOTE TIME
"
STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS;
Community Development Director. Chief Building Inspector. Fire Chief. Parks.
Recreation. and Facilities Director. Police Commander. Public Works Director
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF NOTES: Jun~ 17. 2004.
I. ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS: - Public may discuss business not scheduled on this
agenda.
II. PROJECTS: '7 II /2-004 VI 0 ~tvrrnt'
A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. D4-002: PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT 04-002;" NeIGHBORHOOD PLAN; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE
ESTATES OF ARRYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION - CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE
STREET. Projecl Planner - Kelly,iHeffernon
Review of new development and, Neighborhood Plan bordering Cherry and Myrtle
streets.
B. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT eASE NO. D4-018; APPLICANT - AGVIA;
LOCATION - VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Project Planner - Jim Bergman.
Request for use of all of Nelson 'Green between Mason and Short Streets for the
annual Summer Book Festival.
III. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/STAFF COMMENTS:
V. CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE SAC RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PREPARATION;
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
In addition to a SAC agenda, this IS elso a notice to inferested public agenei"s requesting tholr review and
commenls.
The SAC may act upon eny ltam Is) nol appearing on the posted agenda if it is delermined tly a two. thirds
vole of the full committee Ihallhere is a need to lake immediate action and that the need for aclion C<'rne 10'
the aU"nJlon of the commiUee after the agenda was posted.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTAN'~E TO
PARTICIPATE IN A CITY MEETING. PLEASE CONTACT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATive SERVICES 1473.
5414) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING TO ENSURE THAT REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS CAN.
~~~~~~. ~
F"RU\ : CDD&EDD
!
F"AX~. :80~ 473 5489
.3
o ""
'Cr.:J.
-~ LtZ.O
Jul. 18200& 04:10PM PI
Phone II
FlU" II
5D
. FII. II
IOTES
RY COMMITTEE (SAC)
t-t:15KuARY 18, 2004
1U:00 A.M.
STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schmidt, Building; Victor Devens,
Public Works; Randy Steffan (Acting Chief), Fire; Dan Hemandez, Parks & Recreation; Rob Strong,
Community Development Director; Dave Crockett, Gode Enforcement Officer; Kelly Heffernon, Assoc;<lte
Planner; Jim Bergman, Assistant Planner; Andrea Koch, Planning Inlem.
STAFF MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Andrews, Police; Terry Fibich. Fire (substituted by R'mdy
Steffan).
APPROVAL OF NOTES:
modifications.
Minutes of 1/21/2004 SAC meeting approved with minor
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
PROJECTS:
A. CUP 04-001; Applicant - Sprint; Representative - TriCia Knight; Location - 200 Hillcrest Drive.
Project Planner - Kelly Heffemon.
DescriDtion: Installation of six 46' high panel antennas on existing 62.loot monopine; associated
equipment cabinets to be located at the northwest corn9r of the property
Issues: ,
. Applicant told Public Works that 00 grading or access roads are proposed.
. Kelly Heffernan suggested that applicant discusS the landscaping and irrigation plans with
Shane Taylor in Public Works .
Conditions:
Public Worl<s
. Show any relevant grading on plans.
. Show plans to cross the 9xisting:a- waler main with utilities and show separation. (Submit
these plans before the Planning Commission hearing.)
. Regrade access road from HilIcresllo the waler lank and apply Class 2 base.
Building and Fire
. Obtain building permits before construction,
Action: Project to be reviewed by ARCon March 1" and by the Planning Commission on March
16th
B. PRE 04-004; Applicant - Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC: Represenlative -
Damien Mavis; Location - Off Myrtle Street. Project Ptanner- Kelly Heffemon.
DescriDtion: Proposed new 37-/01 subdivision and Neighborhood Plan off Myrtle Slreet,
;
l.c'd
ESOS6Bl>>SOB
St':l.ueT'4t1
dlP-:cl 90 60 dQ~
FRC..., : CDWEDD
FAX t-I). : 805 473 5489
Jul. 182006 04:10PM P?
NOTES
SAC MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2004
.DRAFT
PAGE 2
Rob Strong designated Kelly Heffem0l1 as the Acting Community Development Director for this
project and left the room before discussion ensued due to a potential conflict of interest on his
part.
Issues:
. Project subject to a full Neighborhood Plan for the General Plan.
------ Issues concerning drainage. open space and circulation.
. Development subject to a 100' ago buffer.
. Applicant obtaining traffic anatysis study.
~ Applicant stated that project design is intended to eliminale thru-traffic. a concern of
neighbors. .
. Applicant looking for a method to underground drainage and route it to the creek. Needs
to determine how to direct drainage over land If the drains clog. Looking fOr direction
from the City regarding this.
. Applicants and RRM have held .3 workshops with property owners in Neighborhood Plan
area and adjacent areas. Cominon issues were: 1) Concerns regarding traffic impact to
Cherry Sf. and Branch Mill Rd. Intersection, desire to make intersection safer; 2) Desire
for pedestrian bridge linking proposed park to school; and 3) Drainage-Some want to
prevent flooding experi~nced iri::the past. want back parts of their property given to City
in easements. .
. Public Works and Parks. Facilities & Recreation agree that costs for long-term
maintenance of the proposed pedestrian bridge make it infeasible.
o Guidelines for Neighborhood Plan probably similar to those for Specific Plan. Plan will .
designate density and address infrastructure needs and results or Traffic Analysis.
---.. Neighborhood Plan will be a Planned Development Overlay,
o Probable future connecti.on of area with Lopez Drive as discussed in General Plan.
. No current plans to realign Highway 227.
. Applicant considering installing sidewalks on external drive and not on internal drive to
widen internal drive access.
. Kelly Heffernon requested change of name for Creekside Project to prevent confusion
with another currently proposed ~rojecl.
Public Works
. Don Spagnolo to comment further on circulation issues.
o Install 8" water main from property frontage at E. Cherry to Lierly Lane. (Currently this
main is only 4".)
. Connect 6" main under Myrtle Street to the 6" main at Lierly Lane and all the neCessOlry
mains on site.!
o Two sewer mains closes! to project site not deep enough to gravity-feed Install parallel
sewer main from manhole at Intersection of Pacific Coast Railway and E. Cherry all the
way down E. Cherry. Size needs. to be sufficient for any future developmenl on Caldwell
Trust property-alleast 8".
o Install two 72" pipes to replace current earthen ditch (called for in Drainage Master Plan).
Project can probably tap into on-site drainage system.
. Provide AC berm along property adjacent to agricultural uses. Agricultural conservation
easement on property may stipulate appropriate actions.
. Extend Myrtle Street to match the Village.
. Conduct new flood study because FEMA Maps are old.
8~.d
ESOS681-S08
St".l.UeT".l.l::::I
d~E :~t 90 60 d..,
FP..JM :CDD&EDD
FAX I"'[)~ : 805 473 5489
Jul_ 182005 04:10PM P3
NOTES
SAC MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2004
DRAFT
PAGE 3
Building and Fire
. Provide compliant tire access through entire project or install sprinklers throughout all
units. Prafer use of sprinklers.
. Lot #2 needs sprinklers regardless of access width.
. Provide 20' wide access, 36' wide il parking on both sides of street.
. Provide fire hydrants per City standards at 300' intervals on each side so that each
hydrant is 150' from another one~ Required fire flow of 1000 gal.fmin.l2 hours.
. If garage of Vanderveer house is 'demolished. obtain permit to build a new garage per
the Map Act.
. Add any special setbacks (I.e. for agriculture, creek) to Final Map.
. Obtain flood certificates for each building permit. (FEMA Flood Maps show 100-year
flood 20ne extends well into the development.)
Parks, Recreation & Facilities
. Remove proposed park area and increase lot size. City, especially Police. not interested
in green space in middle of city due to maintenance issues, lack of access for poliCH.
Provide deep root barriers for slreet trees. Property owners responsible for maintaining
trees in front of their hornes. .
. Assessment district probably necessary to maintain open space around riparian corridor.
" Provide low-maintenance open space, such as a picnic area, that is unobtrusive to the
riparian corridor.
. Plant trees on City's street tree list. (Will provide list to applicant.)
Action: ARC on March 1'" PC and CC review in March.
C. ARCH 03-005; Applicant - Phil Zeidman; Representative - Irvin Klein; Location - 528 E.
Branch Street. Project Planner - RyilO Foster.
Description: Pmposel to relocare ami,remodel existing building end construct one (1) new
mixed-use building.
Applicant not present at SAC meeting.
Issues:
. This project was reviewed before as a proposed segment of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) at East Village Plaza. During this time, ARC determined thiilt the
existing house, due to historic cliaracter, should be retained rather than demolished as
originally suggested by the applicant. ARC additionally recommended an alternative site
plan.
. The original PUD was approved by the Planning Commission and appealed to the City
Council. (The reason foNhe appeal was not this parceL)
. Applicant has now submitted new site plan. II includes more residential mixed-use as
desired by the Cily Council.
. New plan looks as if it will comply with Village Mixed-Use parking standards requlmd by
the Developmenl Code.
. Before formal review of project. need to determine whether this project is a substantial
alteration to the previousPUD. Probably is a substantial alteration because it includes 2
structures, 2 levels, and 3 residential units not depicted in the pians originally submitted,
. Staff has not deemed plan complete yet; need to first delermirle appropriate concerns to
address.
6Z.d
ESOS6Bt.SOB
sJ~uel~tJ
d ("! f; : ~ I 90 6 () d Il3 ~
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 2
7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND,SUGGESTIONS
Jeff Harstasis, 285 Mercedes Lane, spoke on behalf of the Royal Oaks community and
read a letter into the record regarding the Reservoir #1 project expressing concerns with
regard to removal and replacements of trees and the resulting aesthetic impact; the
visual blight of the proposed design for a permanent chain link fence; the potential
visual blight of the proposed sixty-five foot communication tower; and a potential
reduction in property values.
Gene Blanchard, 419 Greenwood Drive, protesting decision of Council for future
development of the parcel adjacent to the Greenwood tract and the opening up of the
dead-end street.
Jenny Motine invited the Council to a showing of the movie Rachel's Daughters on
October 24th at 5:30 p.m. at Cal Poly in the Performing Arts Center in Philips Hall.
Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, spoke on behalf of Mike and Lynn Titus at 404 Lierly Lane,
. reading: a.letter. into the record opposing the recommended zoning of the property on
Lierly Lane, E. Cherry and Myrtle. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Titus, she recommended
the density be reduced to 2.5 units per acre which would be consistent with the other
lots.
George Smith spoke in opposition regarding the decision to rezone the parcel next to
the Greenwood tract and spoke of a past initiative to overturn a zone change decision at
this location. He stated the voters overwhelmingly overturned the decision then and the
issue may have to be turned over to the people again through an initiative process.
Ella Honeycutt stated the buffer concept was agreed upon after months of discussion
and the issue was needed to stop the plan to build houses all the way to Lopez Lake.
She stated that prime farmland that was designated as an agricultural buffer zone by
putting a "D" overlay on the land use maps are now subject to change. She spoke of
the domino effect of development and referred to Mr. Vanderveen's request for one
zone change. She asked that if one change was granted, everything should be
consistent and compatible and all the others have to be changed. She said you could
not arbitrarily change one parcel and leave the others. She encouraged the Council to
protect the farmland.
Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, read letter into the record highlighting her involvement as a
concerned citizen with a history of concern for planning in the City. She spoke
regarding Map Area 7E located at Myrtle Avenue and Lierly Lane. She spoke in
opposition to zoning this area being any denser than the smallest lot that currently is
grandfathered into this area. She said that this property should not be zoned any
smaller than the smallest lot currently in the neighborhood, which are 2.5 units per acre.
Ed Harrison, 441 LierlyLane, spoke in opposition to zoning recommendations for Lierly
Lane. He also spoke on behalf of Roberta Oriental, 444 Lierly Lane, who also opposed
higher density zoning in this area.
CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 5
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Lubin moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion b
approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.d., with the recommended courses of
action. '
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Approved the listing of cash disbursements for the period September 16,
2001 through September 30, 2001'.
8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the'report of current investment deposits as of
September 30, 2001.
8.c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Water Facility
Fund.
Action: Received and filed August 2001 Cash Report and approved the interfund
advance from the Water Facility 'Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds at
8/30/01 .
8.d. Rejection of Claims Against City.
Action: Rejected claims submitted by K. Kraft and Gospel Lighthouse Church.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady
None
None
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
9.a. Consideration of the 2001 Ge,neral Plan Update Policy Documents and
Elements and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
Consultant Rob Strong presented the staff report. Staff recommended the adoption of
three Resolutions which are the culmination of public hearings held on July 31, August
16, August 23, August 28, September 4, September 6, and October 3, 2001. He said
COUllcil discussions have provided direCtion for policy clarification of all the Elements of
the 2001 General Plan Update and provided for decisions on land use areas that were
considered by and recommended by the Planning Commission. He referred to five
maps which are an integral part of the 2001 General Plan Update Policy Documents
and displayed the Urban Land Use Element Map which reflects the changes directed by
Council at the October 3rd hearing.
Council Member Runels referred to Land Use Area 7E - E. Cherry and Myrtle, and
asked for clarification about previous comments that if the City left the zoning as
recommended by the Planning Commission, that other surrounding properties would
have to also be rezoned. He said he did not think that was correct. Consultant Strong
replied that the current General Plan and land use zoning on the property includes one-
acre lots and many of the existing lots are in excess of one acre. He said the proposed
land use designation in the General Plim would be Single Family Residential Medium
CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 6
Density with a required Neighborhood Plan. He said the Neighborhood Plan would be
a prerequisite to any subdivision or parce'l map. Under the General Plan, he said there
would be future consideration of Development Code/Zoning Amendments that would
enable Single Family Medium Density development
Mayor Pro Tem Fe"rrara asked for clarification on procedure. He asked if the Council
would be coming back to .the Land Use Map after subsequent discussion on the
individual Elements.
Mayor Lady said the intent was to allow the Council to ask questions of staff, accept
public hearing testimony, and then bring i! back to Council for final consideration.
Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the
audience who wished to be heard on the matter.
Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, also spoke on behalf of Mike Titus, 404 Lierly Lane,
regarding Land Area 7E, opposing thell recommended land use classification. which
could result in a maximum density of 60-80 units. She said there are currently less than
12 units at this location. She stated shei~did not support rezoning this area at a higher
density. She indicated that they and many of the residents on Lierly Lane support Mr.
Dorfman's plan to bLild on E. Cherry primarily because the road is so unsafe and his
project would be the conduit to getting the road developed. She concluded by
requesting the Council convert the property located in Area 7E back to one per acre.
Wayne King thanked the Council for its consideration regarding the Vanderveen
property.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Dickens stated he had ,several concerns; however, he stated that the
General Plan Update as a whole has resulted in quite a bit of public process and input,
and the City has a document, for the most part, to be proud of. He said the City has
done a gallant job in its participation and it's been a long, tedious process. He stated
that, _ for the most part, he was in favor of moving forward with adoption of the
Resolutions; however, he had two minor issues that he thought needed to be addressed
and taken seriously. He said he was cqncerned that the decision by a majority of the
Council regarding the Vanderveen property upzone lacked the same public notification
and review given the twelve sub-areas ,'identified throughout these proceedings. He
said unlike the twelve sub -areas specifically called out for clarification by the Council,
the Planning Commission did not review the Vanderveen request nor did they make a
recommendation to the Council. In addition, he stated the public was not notified that
this rezoning request would receive specific consideration. He requested staff to
address his concerns regarding the inconsistencies between the twelve sub-areas and
the Vanderveen parcel and explain why! the Planning Commission was advised not to
consider nor make recommendations to the Council on the Vanderveen request
CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 7
Consultant Strong replied that the Planning Commission did receive a presentation from
Mr. King at the time the Land Use Map that had been distributed on May 21, 2001 for
public review and comment showed the property as Agriculture and Mr. King had
requested Single Family Residential Medium Density. He explained that the Planning
Commission maintained the Agriculture designation on the Map. He said it was not
proposed as a Land Use Study Area, with the previously identified twelve areas;
however, it did receive all legal notice required by law for the purpose of General Plan
Amendment.
Council Member Dickens asked Consultant Strong if it was his understanding that the
Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation was to keep that particular parcel
in Agriculture. Consultant Strong replied yes.
Council Member Dickens referred to.. Exhibit A in the Statement of Significant
Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures where the twelve sub-areas have been
identified as areas of potential significance with project mitigation measures. He asked
. if the majority CouncilJeels they want to move forward with the recommendation. on the
Vanderveen property, would that need to be added to this particular document in
relation to Ag Element Policy Ag1-4 which states that significant criteria will be
established and applied for CEOA analysis as provided by CEOA Guidelines, Section
15064.7 that considers loss of prime soils as a significant adverse environmental
impact.
Consultant Strong stated he had addressed that at a previous meeting and explained
that because the current General Plan does not contain that policy, that is a proposed
policy that would be adopted concurrent' with the new Land Use Element and it would
not be a mandatory interpretation. .
Council Member Dickens asked if it was the desire for this Council majority to upzone
the Vanderveen property from Agricultural, with a Design Overlay to restrict further
subdivision, to Low Density Single Family Residential, what was to become of the City
Ordinance currently restricting those seven parcels. He asked if it was recommended
that the existing Ordinance be modified to exclude the Vanderveen property or to
elimiDate the Ordinance altogether on these 35 acres of agriculture.
Consultant Strong replied that State law requires within a reasonable amount of time
after adoption of a General Plan that the'City must zone consistently. He explained the
zoning/public hearing process for a subsequent Development Code Amendment that
would determine the specifics and would require its own individual environmental
determination.
Council Member Dickens asked if Consultant Strong was suggesting that the actual
proposal that comes forth would then be subject to environmental review or would it
actually be a future Council decision regarding the Ordinance that would be subject to
environmental review.
CITY COUNCIL'MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 8
Consultant Strong replied that each change, whether it is a Development Code change
initiated by the City or a subdivision and zoning change initiated by a property owner,
would be subject to CEQA so there' would be repeated opportunities to revisit
specifically any significant effects of any proposed project.
Council Member Dickens stated it was :his understanding that the EIR that is being
considered tonight is the document that would cover any decisions that reflect the Land
Use Map being adopted. He asked if the issue of the Ordinance and the upzone of the
Vanderveen property would or would not be dealt with in a separate environmental
review process.
Consultant Strong replied that the Integrated Program EIR, which is a part of the
General Plan Update, discusses in broaq terms the cumulative effect of development of
the City over the 20-year planning period. He stated that in almost all instances, any
significant projects are specifically identified in the EIR as requiring a Project EIR when
the property is considered for development. He said the Vanderveen property was not
. specifically addressed; however, it would:still. be subject to CEQA, an Initial. Study would
have to be presented, and if there were any potential effects, those issues could require
further analysis.
Council Member Dickens addressed the Council stating it was his understanding that
the purpose of the General Plan Update was to provide a basis for rational civic
decision-making. He asked on what grounds does the Vanderveen rezone constitute a
benefit to the public. He asked would the decision not articulate the intentions and
expectations of the City to look favorably upon additional requests, which seek to
rezone small agricultural parcels to single family residential. He asked the Council to
keep in mind that there are only 39 agric,ultural parcels within the City of Arroyo Grande,
30 parcels of which are 10 acres or less' and 25 parcels are five acres or less. He said
the majority of those 25 parcels are within the Greenwood area. He said that the
decision to look at this individual property owner's request is magnified by the land use
surrounding this particular decision and complicated with the design overlay and
ordinance the City currently has in effect. He said he found it ironic that four of the
Council Members ran on a ticket in regard to protection of prime ag land and yet a
majority of the Council is willing to undo an ag mitigation 25-years old that has stood the
test of time. He requested the Council to address what the benefit to the public would
be for this particular decision in regards 'to future agricultural use and the intentions and
expectations that this message is sending to the other 25 property owners in this
general area.
Mayor Lady responded that he could not speak for his other colleagues on the Council;
however, he respectfully stated that he was elected to represent a constituency in
Arroyo Grande. He said he had been, elected three times and he was proud of the
support the community had shown him. He gave assurance that he takes this
responsibility very seriously, and that while he respected Council Member Dickens, he
did not feel an obligation to answer his q~estion because he does not answer to another
Council Member, he answers to the citiz!,!ns of Arroyo Grande. He concluded by stating
he stood by his decision.
CITY COUNCIL'MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 9
Council Member Dickens asked City Attorney Carmel if the decision to rezone the
Vanderveen property is approved by Council majority, does the public have any
recourse to amend this decision.
City Attorney Carmel responded yes, and explained that one way was through the
traditional legislative process, explaining that General Plan Amendments can legally
occur at least four times per year. He explained that the other two ways are the powers
reserved to the people under the California and Federal Constitutions, the referendum
and initiative processes.
Council Member Dickens asked if the public chose to do a Referendum, would they
need to look at the specific issue or would they have to look at the General Plan in its
totality.
City Attorney Carmel responded he was hesitant to give advice on this particular issue,
since the City would essentially be the defendant; however, he thought with respect to
this issue because it sits withiri a General Plan that is going. to. be adopted as an.
integrated whole with the Policies, Elements, and Maps, he would speculate that they
would be required to refer the' entire 'document He commented that through the
Initiative process, that may be different
Council Member Dickens referred to the Ag Element, Objective Ag1 where it says
"Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate loss of prime soils..,", He saidJhat he would have a
difficult time looking at this document b~sed on the fact that in reality what we're doing
is minimizing the impacts out at Greenwood with this decision on the Vanderveen parcel
and he did not think that was appropriate. He stated he believed that the individuals
and his constituents have made it clea~ that they do not want to piecemeal the City's
agriculture, that poor planning has taken place in the past and we don't want to
duplicate poor planning, but we want tol honor and be creative with the land uses that
we currently have. He asked the Council to look again at the wording and eliminate the
word "minimize" to avoid any loss of 'prime ag land. He said that if avoidance is
inevitable, then he thought it would bel appropriate to mitigate it, not minimize it He
concluded by saying those were the areas that he had concerns with in the document
and 11e could not move forward and properly represent the people who elected him
without those two changes.
Council Member Lubin thanked the citizens of Arroyo Grande for their input, ideas, and
thoughts, He said it was extremely important to the Council to be able to represent the
City as a whole and that can't be done without hearing all sides of an issue. He also
thanked staff who had done an outstanding job in trying to present a document that we
can feel comfortable about and move forwa rd with, including all the changes that were
made during deliberations, He referred i to the Vanderveen property and stated he had
given a lot of thought to the entire process and to this property. He said he had a lot of
different reasons to do a lot of different things, such as leave it as it is, change it to High
Density, and he had problems with both sides. He addressed the comment regarding
four of the Council Members who were voted in based on a "preserve Ag" basis. He
explained that there was something to look at in terms of preserving ag and what we, as
CITY COUNCIL-MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 10
individuals, deem as prime farmable agricultural land. He said that was one of his
concerns and he stood by his original thoughts and would continue to support a very
rural environment of one unit per acre. He supported the General Plan Update as
written; supported the projects that have been proposed in zone changes; and he
believed that he was protecting prime agriculture; however, he was also looking at
areas that have not been farmed, that have not been changed. and there is a position
that can be taken to move gradually into" a rural environment maintaining the character
of Arroyo Grande. He then referred to Land Use Area 7E and stated that it was a tough
decision because there were property owners in that area on both sides of the question.
He said in his discussions with several,' of the property owners, it appeared that the
majority of the land would not be redeveloped and it would stay as it is today. He stated
he was comfortable with the designation as it stands. He referred to E. Cherry and
stated he believed that it is infill and tha(it should be residential. He said he believed it
was surrounded, the road condition was a significant issue, and it should be changed to
residential. He said if there was not a majority to do that, then he would support the
Mixed Use concept; however. he would not support a clear definition at this time without
seeing any project information to assign a percentage to one use or the other. He
concluded by supporting the General Plan Update.
Council Member Runels stated that being in the agriculture business, he had a different
view and opinion of what farmland and prime farmland is and what is economically
viable to farm. He said a lot of these small parcels have been mixed into areas where
they are farmed together by one individual who can make it work because they have the
water supply that is required. He referred to the Vanderveen property and stated he did
not have any problem with changing the land LSe designation. He said he believed
once a piece of land is converted it should be to the highest possible density so the land
is not wasted; however, he acknowledged this as a transition area in a rural area and he
could support one unit per acre on the parcel. He then referred to Land Use Area 7E
and stated he had held discussions with individuals in the area about how to get hooked
up to City services and receive street improvements. He supported the existing
designation. With regard to E. Cherry, he had no problem with the land use conversion;
however. he was not sure about the' Mixed Use designation. He concluded by
supporting the General Plan as written and moving forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara proposed some text changes in Exhibit A, Statement of
Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures. and Exhibit 8, Statement of
Overriding Considerations. He requested that the Council agree to additions in Exhibit
A. under General Plan Policy Mitigation, to include references to the following principal
documents: Circulation Element, Land Use Element, Agricultural and Open
Space/Conservation Element. Ciean Air Plan (CAP), Drainage Master Plan, and Water
Master Plan. Following discussion, the .Council unanimously concurred with Mayor Pro
Tem Ferrara's suggestion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Exhibit 8 and said in looking at the context of each
of the findings for the Statement of Overriding Consideration, he found one that he
believed was out of context and perhaps unnecessary for this particular document. He
requested that Finding #6 be omitted.
CITY COUNCIL-MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 11
Council Member Lubin asked if the content of #6 came out of the City's Economic
Development Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara responded he was referring to a reference
in this particular document of inequitability, unreasonable restriction, and legal action
against the City and stated he did not believe that language was suitable for this
document.
Consultant Strong stated he did not feel: it was essential that Finding #6 be made; he
said it could remain either within the Resolution or within the text of the Introduction,
page 13, entitled Constitutional Compliance.
Mayor Lady asked for an opinion from legal counsel. City Attorney Carmel stated he
thought they dealt with different issues. He said the Constitutional Compliance section,
which is geared for one particular scenario, and then Finding #6 was a finding that was
written for the Statement of Overriding Considerations. He explained that it could be
eliminated without effecting the overall defensibility or integrity of the document;
however, it states something that wa~ not stated in any other of the Overriding
Consideration Findings. He also commented that it was the only finding that deals with
economic issues.
Following further Council and staff discussion, the Council unanimously concurred to
amending Finding #6 as follows: "The 2001 General Plan Update provides for planned
development of useable but vacant, undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels within the
established subdivision pattern. If thm;g' p:m:gls 'IIgm precludgd from dgvelopmgnt, it
would pgrpgtuate ingfficignt utilization of :gxiE:tin!'l infraE:tructum. If fllanngd dgvelopFRent
was not enablod, tho affected. priv3to: propgrty awnors cauld claim inoquitable or
unroaE:onablo rostriction of uso of proporty '....hich 'Nould Iikgly result in protracted and
oxponsive logol action against tho City. Planned development will provide opportunities
for construction and new business employment and contribute to increased revenue
from additional property and sales taxes,'a positive economic impact on the fiscal health
of the City compared to negative impacts of significant expense for denial of reasonable
use.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated that this had been a long, arduous process that the City
could not have come close to completing with any degree of success had it not been for
the overwhelming involvement and support of the community. He acknowledged and
thanked the community and staff. He stated he would address the other issues that
were discussed tonight. With regard to the E. Cherry property and an overview of past
discussions with Mr. Dorfman regardin'g the property, he stated he believed that a
compromise was reached with the Mixed Use classification of the property. He said that
the Council has not paid attention to look at other alternatives to be more creative in the
use of smaller parcels. He emphasized a statement made earlier during public
comment that "our rural character and our agriculture are the heart and soul of this
community" and stated that it has been this way for a long time. He said when this
project was discussed at the previous meeting, percentages were not assigned for land
use and that was done intentionally so that there could be a unique project that still has
an agricultural feel but yet satisfies all of the parties involved. He said he would actually
like to see it remain in agriculture, but that was the reality of compromise.
CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 12
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Land,Use Area 7E and recalled one of the property
owners who requested the Council reconsider a lower density. He said he was hoping
that there was a higher turnout of people from other concerned parties who would like to
see the density remain as is. He stated that it was not too late to reduce the density.
He stated that his position on 7E was that he was not comfortable leaving it Medium
Density at the last 'meeting and he was "still not comfortable with that designation. He
said he would like to see a lower,density in that particular area and that it be consistent.
He believed there was a lot of validity to,the notion that it is a transitional area, it abuts
an ag conservancy, and from what he, had heard previously and through testimony
tonight, he was led to believe that the majority of land owners out there do not want
Medium Density, they would rather maintain the lower density. He said he would
support a lower density.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the Vanderveen property and referred to the Land
Use Map depicting the field of green with a patch of yellow. He said there has been a
lot of discussion about the precedent setting effect of this particular decision and he
...concurred with that. He .said he recalled this issue coming up along with several
proposals for the development of small ag parcels. He said one of the first significant
votes this Council took when he first joined the Council was to review what had come
forth from the original Long Range Planning Committee, when Council Member Steve
Tolley was on the Council and chaired that effort. He said throughout that process, a
number of things occurred; the surveys,' the workshops, and community-based activity.
He recalled back then that when it came time to give direction as a Council, former
Council Member Tolley said something' to the effect that ctter reviewing the surveys,
chairing the Long Range Planning Committee and being as involved, there is no way
that he was voting to convert prime ago ,He said that the Council, with the exception of
Council Member Runels, said essentially the same thing. He said he believed that was
key because he believed that the direction Council gave at that time was one of the
reasons why this particular piece of property was not one of the planning areas that
became part of the review process. '
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara also wanted to raise the issue of clarifying for the record the
difference between consensus versus a numerical majority. He said the Council has
moved through the more controversial :pieces and there have been many statements
that there has been consensus of the Council. He said consensus to him means a
collective opinion, general agreement or accord. He said on some of the issues, we do
not have consensus, what we have is a simple 3-2 majority and that is what it comes
down to on this issue. He stated that he did not concur nor does he give his consensus
to the rezoning of the Vanderveen prop~rty.
Mayor Pro Tem said the last issue he wanted to raise is similar to the wording
suggested by Council Member Dickens of Ag1. He said he was not pleased with this
wording at the last meeting and his vie~s have not changed. He said he believed if you
look at the way Ag1 now reads, it has been changed from "No net loss of prime
farmland soils..." to "Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils..." He
stated that in his view, minimize can be'interpreted a number of different ways. He said
it could be interpreted easily to apply toiminimal parcels, perhaps five-acre parcels, and
CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 13
he did not support that He said he could accept "Avoid and mitigate loss of prime
farmlands...", but not minimize. He stated as long as that wording stays in place, he
could not stand in favor of Ag1. To sUrT:1marize, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said with the
changes made tonight, he could support the EIR and all other General Plan Elements
with the exception of the wording in Ag1, which if it remains, he could not support the
Agricultural Element in its entirety. He did not support the Land Use Element as long as
it contains a map that has this particular parcel in yellow. He said if it was "all or
nothing", he could not support the General Plan nor the EIR at this time.
Mayor Lady commented that this had been a long process. He said through the
process we have learned a lot about our community and there have been some
tremendous benefits that have come as a result of this process. He said it should never
be expected that as a community of 16,000 residents, there will be agreement on each
and every item in a General Plan Update because it is a very extensive document He
stated this was a document that the community should be very proud of; there have
been a tremendous amount of public hearings, public comments, and public
participation. He stated that he. was proud of being. part of a team that had the
opportunity to participate in creating this document He said he was hopeful for a five
member Council approval of the document He thanked staff and members of the
community and stated he felt' comfortable with the decisions he had made. In
conclusion, Mayor Lady stated that after four years of hard work and dedication by the
community, staff, and the Council, he was hoping for complete Council approval of the
document He noted that the City had spent a tremendous amount of financial
resources on this Update.
Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution certifying the completion of and
making findings as to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2001
General Plan Update. Council Member Runels seconded the motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked City Atto~ney Carmel that if he were to move ahead with
approval of this Resolution as it relates to the EIR only, is there a connection between
that and the General Plan Elements. City Attorney Carmel responded there would not
be a direct connection.
On the followi ng roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady
None .
None
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution making certain findings regarding
the Environmental Impacts of the 2001 General Plan Update, and adopting a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, as amended. City Attorney specified the amendments
which were included in Exhibit A, page 1 , to the General Plan Policy Mitigation, where
Circulation Element, Land Use Elemer;Jt, Agricultural and Open Space/Conservation
CITY COUNCll.MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 14
Element, Clean Air Plan, Drainage Master Plan, and Water Master Plan were added;
and the modification to the Statement of Overriding Consideration findings presented by
Council Member Lubin. Council Memb'er Runels seconded the motion, and on the
following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lubin; Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady
None
None
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council I'vl3mber Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution adopting the 2001 General Plan
Update including Land Use; Agriculture and Open Space/Conservation; Circulation;
Housing; Noise; Safety; Economic Development; and Parks and Recreation Elements;
future consideration of Zoning/Development Code Revisions; LAFCO; Sphere of
Influence and Annexations; Development and Capital Projects; Public Facility and
Service Improvements and Technical Studies. Council Member Runels seconded the
motion, and on the following roll-call vote: to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lubin, Runels, Lady
Dickens, Ferrara
None
There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Mayor Lady called for a break at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
10.a. Broadcasting City Council Meetings on Cable Television.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report. He explained that the pilot telecasts of
City Council meetings on cable television have now been completed and staff was
seekjJ1g direction from the Council on whether to proceed to obtain proposals for
ongoing broadcasting of City Council meetings on cable television. If directed to
proceed, staff recommended the Council direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals
and designate one member of the City Council to participate on a selection panel.
Council Member Lubin asked if staff had an estimate of the PEG funds that would be
established during the first year. City Manager Adams responded it was estimated to
be in the range of $25,000.
Council Member Lubin asked if the PEG fund would be ongoing whether or not the
Council decided to proceed. City Manager Adams replied it would.
Council Member Runels asked for clarification that it this was not considered a utility
tax. City Manager Adams responded it was not; it is a special fee that is established in
Se1' 99 .OG 12: 39p
'"
S
)>
~
g
0'
i<
v'
~
.
~
:::
..,
~
'"
....
Atlantis
'"
....,
...,
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
,0
Q'
....,
o
,0
0-
~
0>
....
,0
p'
~:
i
~i
*:
~I
_I
31
",j
oi
II
~I
,~
rl A'
, ,I
i?' ;;:1
" -\
~i ~.
-, -
~I ~I
OJ' "1
-I -
0;1 ~,
0>'
"1 0
0..1 n:
::II ""I
-I -,
91 ~,
7( _
-{' ~
_I 0
0> <
:::: ~
,I 3
I [
I v-
I
"'I
~,
i
d
I
g
C;,
0.'
",!
::;-j
ffi!
--,
31
"QI
II
~I
....1 gl
l~
, 0
!~
1
I'"
l:""'"
lee
I...,
I:;:
Ice
,
,
I
....,
i
IN
,-
l"en
1#
-I
CD,
I
-I
....,
I
,~
,....,
:0-.
i~
,0
I'"
1-
:'*
,
e,..,;
I I
",I' IVI
"'I
:...,-1_ I
I~ lw
I~ 1# '~
~ 0 ! c
it.,)
i cO
I~
10
",I
I
d
I
I~
'0
I
I
~1
i
10
'0
!~
o
IE
, ,.
;0....
I~
10
I I
......1 .......1
I I
Ii I
'-
I~
1
~'
"1J
~
'"
~
"
0;-
::>
~
Ig:
I'
,IV
l~
I
-I
...,1
I
I~
;e;e
01
,
,
I II
ClI '
c' CJ11
c ""0,
~ '"
'" ::>
0.
n>
0.
o
0,
~I
=0,
.:;:
,,,
'"
'~:
0;1
EI
~I
-I
--.0,
,
c
'"
""
"'I
,
!
i
."i
"'i
I_
I:::
!~
,..,I
"'j
IW
I~
!
-;
c...>i
,
,
''''
,0
;...,
I~
i~
;~
,'"
I,
1<"
;~
,0
CD
I'
,....,
i~
I
""
"'!
I~
'0
i
-I
CD,
!
i-
I~
:~
I
,-
l~
'0
I '
~I ~I
....
I~
i~
I
wi
0;
iJ'1
~I
~l
5'
co
o
'"
<
6-1
""01
::JI
~I
I
I
1
,
~
<.h
IV
"'I
,
~I
,
8054895053
)
'"
'"
l~
,
I~
,
Irn
10
I'~
0'
,
I
1-
I~
"I
::i
<b
::>
'"
::;
"
~
g.
o
I
o
c:
"',
:;'1
to
'"
-
N
tv
'"
o
-
N
I~
-
-
0>
'-.,
#
<.n
...,
'"
'"
0.;
I""
r
~I
~I
g'l
0'
1.1
:51
-
-
....
....
(.,
>f:
o
'"
....
W
...,
'"
'"
o
'"
...,
....
>f:
o
'"
o
N
'"
a,
'"
o
0'
;;::
o
~
(b
-l
o
r;:
::J.
!!:.
fl
~I
"'I
I
I
I
I
",I
"'!
t:1
I
"'!
'"
o
I~
CD
!"
'"
'"
.
'"
I~
'0'
i"
I~
O'
CD
;?
0:.
o
o
~
m
=>
n
o
r;:
Ol
co
<1>
Cl
o
3
'0
C;
3
II
c
'"
CD
'"
c
'"
'"
'"
;jl
I~
--.0
--.0
rn
....
0>
'"
'"
o
-
C>
o
'"
~
.
01
C>
o
'"
""
v;
:g{i\:r:
';~f;t:i~~;
, -'~;'.::',;:.
'"
p
o
.e.
.
t;lii~
....
....
....
...
'"
.e.
.
U>
0>
I~
C>
C>
'"
'"
o
p.3
S!?
a
=>
co
-<
;p
co
~
'"
'"
);
~
;;:
Co
-<
o
"
:;
z
o
rr:
Cl
""
Z
..
:::
F
"
r
);
Z
'"
o
3
'"
:;
""
~I
I
,
C'
Z
r.r.
:E
e-
x
;>:
C/.
(J)
o
3
n>
:;
""
'"
o
"
.."
C
Cl
r-
"
Z
.."
C
-I
S!?
Q
c5
-<
z
o
o
'0
5'
o'
=>
-i)
~
\XJ
"
m
"
)>
~
~
o
n
;;'
ro
~
~
~
n
"
~
,A
<D
'.0
~
(') CDI
' c.
<:::>z
::!1 >=> to I
~~9l
:::0 .. -p
<tl __;) I
'" ,', c.1
g...:;. =:
-' '. 0
=>
'"
m
=>
~.'':.~ Z
o '"
:::) ,to"
3 - &
~, 0
0:;- ~..:~ 3-
- ' 0
~ ~ ~I
g :.~.~ )
n '''.
'"
'"
....~,
,,'\.
,
,
~ ~\
!
'"
'"
:...
""
o
'"
-""
:...
""
o
'"
~I
~
'"
""
o
I~
'0
!'-'
~
<11
1
"'I
I;;
l~
10
o
0 '" :0)
-"" ,....
0 '" 10
"" "" i#
0 0
I
~I
,
,
1*
v'd
)> . (I)'.
~!g\~
n''''''~
;...1..;,.;..-:,<"
:c1tD':"tl
o ,""":<\>,
<=iO''''o
~r.(;l::;:;~
.5'~'~~'C,;:J
__...tt1
Q:':-,'.!!!.
lilt
:j1~~ilH~'
iJ.:r;rr.g:
R
....
....
J>- W I'" I'" w
J>- c:> ,0 I:; '"
<D en I~ '"
"e "" ' c >'1
,0 0 ,0 !~ 0
j , I ,
~I , ,
"" -, '"
",' 01 0: en;
! , !
~
r
o
:E m
"'
~ "
-0
" c
" ~
o "
3<0
'" ~
:c::r,
o '"
~ 0 I
3' ~I
l.O ([Itl
-v OJ
'31
"'''
"I
-I
0,
~,
II
0,
c;
"',
S'l
<0,
g\
,
!
j
,
,
'""
:...
"e
o
1==
!~
~,
....i
:
I
'w
:0
~~
~Ii~;;il~l;
NI -.....1
--.r.c:
,Ci "r----
! '0.,)
'"
N
'"
"e
.
,';:--J
I....
,.0
0'
,
~,
""
""''''''
(.:.::::~,~,;:
",liX:":!)
(J\ ~,t\f,B/
~ . :;~;:", .:., .
N'
-0.\
;:c
I
..0'
::r
o
"'
"
~,
.:z
;0
'"
'"
a:
'"
;a
!!!.
01
~I
;01
in'
'"
o
:E
"
'"
VI
::r
~'
(')
o
"
c.
o
3
:;'
fi
-,
"'I
1
1
-n
r
o
:E
;0
~I
;0'
g:
~
)>
-0
'"
::J.
3
g:
in
~
~
0>
<D
<11
N
'"
;;: I~ '" IN
N
l~ N ,'"
"" j~
0
I i ,."I ,
1 ~l ~I
~I "" ""
,
I
'" .. ;'"
.... .... I",
<D !~
c~ !
N
N
W
>'1
.
'",
I:...
1<11
....1
"'!
,
,
i
~I
1
1
en
ESOS6Bli'SOB
I
I'"
l~
I~
!;fl
~I
I~
I'
I~
~~
ml
~I
il
<5f
31
",I
r.n!
I
,
I
01
, I
~I
~'l
"',
II
~l
-',
'"
~I
i
j
,
\ '
1\
I
t~1
1",,)
l~
'<0
I""
,0
I
wi
"'I
0: !"'I
I ,
CIl' -il
31 '< ,
-,I '2.\
:=i '"
1-' "',J
a!
:-, S"I
GO'
='1 -,
!OJ !B.I
--, ~I
""
il!
'-', ;;;,1
:::i
=!
'"'<:! g,1
0'
2.: ~I
~I ~l
('";!
~I n.
::rl
"'I
0.,
, I
i I
i
I
,
,
"'! .--'
"" <D
,
, '"
"...
'-.l 0
;0 0
'';: ~
,0 0
Wi wi
r-.J! "'I
! i
I"" I~
1::-
,-
!~
"" enl
!
I~ li"i
'0
"" I~
0 '0
"'r
o ...'.N
~'
i I",
....
w I:..
,[! '>'1
i"
1
1
""
:
!
~~
Ii
,0
,
WI'
en,
,
,
i~
"
,,,,
, ,0
, ..
w
'"
.0
t Q"
I
"'I
,
I
I~
1
-I
I
I
1
,
s~-:+uel~1:::I
~\ I
!i'i~
o (j)._.m
i~~1
~ ~0:r;{5i
!!!'[?'fl'"
CD :..'.'......-.
)::~i:"Q)
UlI'T\:::
"~/',,'!_!' 0,,'
o ,,\;c:
",'::'::-
-,:,;:;-:!:"c.:
I;i;;j~
....,:..;/.
1':,',<<;
,,;; '/~, 'c_
.',, '::~:".~<
[~litr,
~;iSH( '2
.... "'. ,.. 3
CJ) j1:j1~;~~!: ~
UI
:;-
o
"
<0
-<
)>
<0
~
<1l
"'
~I g>l
g- > 31
..., LQ (t)
~~
~ :ii
o _
,
::>
~
;1J
o
-<
o
Gl
;1J
>
Z
o
m
Gl
m'
Z
m
;ll
>
r
"0
r;;:
7-
>'1
o
CIlI
II
~
c,
5
z
'"
~
o
~
^
IJ)
:r:
o
"0
"0
C
o:l
c:
o
Z
"0
C
-i
~Io en
0-1_ _
.. '" ~
~ '" 0
.tCI ::
; -. (C
:ro -
*j<tl"<i
-S
-S
CJ
z
c
o
~.
0'
::l
I
dOv'21 so 60 da
S"'p 'D9'06 12: lSp
Atlantis
8054895053
URBAN LAND USE ELEMENT
RESIDENTIAl. DENSITY. ZONING AJIID POPtIlA"OIII DENISTY
!
1'.3
Residential land uses, ranging from large-lot single-family homes to rnultiple-famly apartment buildings are the
predominant uses within the City of Arroyo Grande. Most of the land within the Oty designated for residential
use has been developed. The demand for additional residential development is evidenced by requests for
conversion of non-residential dassifiartions; to residential designations as well as requesls to increase the
density allowed within residential and non-residential classifkations.
Residential density, zoning categories and population density shown on the Urban Land Use Bement, Map 3
are summarized on Table; L1J-1.
Oasstflcation
Residential Density, Table LU-1
Q::lr\ocidl:>.nt'Zontl'll1lMnlDtSi:z:e ~~
Agriculture (Ag)
Conservationl
Open Space(C/OS}
County Residential
Rural (RR)
County Residential
Suburban (RS)
DU[)oo.~
1 du!10ac.
1 du!2Oac.
1 dullOac.
1 du!Sac.
(;en or Exdusive Ag1Culture! 2.4p!du
20 ac. (currently 10 ac. In Oty)
OS&PF
2.4"
Sac, lOac, & 20 ac.
1 du!5ac County RR/5 - lOac
2.4 "
VeN law Density MD ldlJ 2 Thac.
LDw Density (ill) 1 r:llj11k:lot"'.
f 1 du lac. 1
Low Medium Density(LM) 2.5 du/lac.
1 du/21/:>ac. * County RS (Proposed)
4.5 du/ac
Multi-Family Residential (MFR)
Medium High Density (M~ID)
Townhouse/Condo 9.0 du/ac
Mobile Home Palk (MHP) 12.0 du/ac
14 du!ac
Very High Density(VliO} 25 do/ac
Mixed Use (MU)
Village Core (Ve)
Office (0)
PO, SP and CF
25 du/ac
2.4 "
(County WO oJrlently allows 1 -3 ac. lots)
-' --Single Family Residential (5FR)
~
PoNIl::dinn DensIty
Personslacre
0.24 p/ac
0.12 plac
0.24 plac
0.5 plac
0.5 p!ac
1.0 p/ac
.----.-------- .
R 2'h ac.
RH!l'.~c. (duster)
Oty RRll ac.
OtyRS
Oty SF
2.4"
2.4
2.4 "
2.4'"
1.0 1ac
1. pac
2.4 p/ac
6.0 p/ac
cu I2.i2EN -r
6ia:q:>TA blc..
10.8p/ac ~..t3gesr-c:d
\9~Lu:d~!~
2.4"
Oty MF
2.0 p/du
1.5 p!du
2.0 p/du
_ _ Medium DensIty (MO)
High Density (HD)
Apartments
MHP-MHD
Qty MFA
Senior Residential
2.0 p/du
See
Devt.
Coile
2.0 p!du
LUE-5
18.0 p!ac
18.0 plac
28.0 plac
50.0 p/ac
50.0 p/ac
Se"p '09 'Db, 2: 4lp
FROM :CDD&EDD
Atlantis
8054895053
FAX H:), :805 473 548:1 Jun.
p.5
I2l2 2006 02:45PM
fll..t;
Pll
~~o/
~ !ff~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P;O.)Jal< 550
214 East Br.n~b 51reet
Arroyo Grande, CA '3421
Phon.: (80S) 473.5420
FAX: (80S) 473-0JM
E.Mall: all~lIy@.rroYoar.nde,
January 24, 2005
Mr. Tony Janowicz
447 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 03~002; CODverslon of structure to a second
dwelling unit; 447 Lierly Lane.
Mr. Janowicz,
. This letter is to clarify our correspo,\dence dated Janua!)' 12, 2005 and our subsequcnt
meeting on January 20, 2005. The Community Development Depanment again
appreciates your current progress including improvements to the heater, gas lines, paint,
carpet and electrical systems. As we discussed, the Community Development Department
would like to see issuance of a demolition permit and residential sprinkler permit as soon
as possible and substantial conformance of the conditions of approval within six months.
We apologize for and retract our statement that you cannot allow occupancy of the
structme prior to completion of the c~nditions of approval ofCoilditional Use Penn it 03.
002.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Community
Development Department nt (805) 473-5420,
""
Sep (!)9 ~Ob
:41p
Atlantis
-9.
>iuy 0/
.~;t;(k~<J- ~-awlde
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
June 1. 2006
Tony Janowicz
447 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande. CA 93420
8054895053
p.6
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM NO.5
P.O. Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (80S) 473-5420
FAX: (80S) 473-0386
E.""fai1: agclty@arroyogrande.org
Subject: Approval of Plot Plan Review 06-009; Location - 795 East Cherry Ave.
Dear Mr. Janowicz,
The Acting Community Development Director has approved your application for a Plot
Plan Review to remove the existing house and accessory structures on the subject
property and construct a new home and garage further back on the lot. This approval is
based on the finding that relocating the. residence further away from adjacent
Agricultural property would better the situation, by providing an opportunity to widen both
East Cherry Ave. and Lierly Lane, currently not possible with the existing situation. The
residence would also be approximately thirty-five feet (35') further away from the active
Agricultural land than the current configuration. The pertinent Development Code
Section is 16.48.11 0.C.3 (nonconforming use's, structures and lots). The City Attorney
concurs with this finding.
rl..l(~'
The Acting Community Development Director's approval of this project will be reported
to the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 6. 2006. If the Planning Commission
concurs and no appeal is received. the approval will become effective on June 16.
2006. Please note that this approval is subject to.the attached conditions of approval.
Please review these conditions carefully; ~s the applicant. you are responsible to
,ensure that these conditions are satisfied.
':'\ ~ '.,
':'"'r,
If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development Department at
(805) 473-5420.
-~V~/'?~
/7~7 ~
Kelly ljefferno.r: Ai CP
Acting Community Development Director
c:
Tim Carmel, City Attorney
Jonathan Hurst. Building Official
<u.
t' , <6
~ I\IJ S2
.~ " '\5
~ (d-~ \11'
.~.\~
~.
t. ") .
Lu+rw-
fJ\ ; d!J tf e,[ b. --r ~5
February 13, 2004
Planning Commission
City of Arroyo Grande
Re: Conditional Use Permit #03 - 002. Applicant: Janowitz
As you are aware, there are two elements for your consideration. . . . . the approval of
a substandard nonconforming dwelling and the access via Lierly Lane, an eight foot
wide easement.
The preexisting dwelling falls fall short of the secondary dwelling ordinance on the
following requirements: .
1. Size. The existing dwelling, while having a footprint of 1504 sq.ft, has an
additional 216 sq.ft. upstairs and a 180 sq.ft. paved basement. . . . . a total of 1900
sq.ft. Even if the basement was filled in and the second floor permanently closed off
including the 3' X 8' stair well; the remaining 1504 feet would still be 40% greater than
the 1078 (50% of primary dwelling) permitted by the ordinance.
2. Meters. The secondary dwelling ordinance requires common utility meters.
The proposed secondary dwelling has separate meters.
3.1nterior side yard setback. The ordinance requires a 21' setback. The
existing dwelling has a 5' setback.
The widening of lierly Lane to the minimum health and safety requirement width
presents a considerable obstacle in addition to the costs associated with the acquiring
the additional property. As little as 2' widening to the West would require the relocation
of three telephone poles, a fire hydrant, and a community post office mail delivery box.
Any western widening to a greater distance could require the removal of two 50'
specimen pine trees.
At the earlier Planning Commission meeting on this permit, there were comments that
eventually the area would be zoned multi-family as called for in the General Plan
update subiect to the develooment of a neiqhborhood olan. The possability of this
happening in the near term is not likely since the majority of the parcel owners on Lierly
Lane and east are not in an agreement a:s to the area's future.
l.od
ESOS6BI>SOB
St.UI?!'HJ
d?1> :21 90 60 d""
---~- ~-.
Sep ':'<19"-0, '43p
At.lantis
:\Iichacl G. Titus
404 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
8054895053
p.8
As presently proposed I am opposed to granting a permanent use permit to the
applicant unless the existing dwelling is altered to meet the ordinance and the health
and safety requirements are met.
Respectfully,
Mike Titus
CC: Rob Strong, Community Development Director
Steve Adams, City Manager
ATTACHMENT 14
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title & No. East VillaQe NeiQhborhood Plan; NP 04-001; DCA 04-007;
VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002. (Cherrv Creek)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The proposed project could have a
"Potentially Significant Impact" for at least one of the environmental factors checked below. Please
refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to either reduce
these impacts to less-than-significant levels or require further study.
[8] Aesthetics [8] Geology and Soils [8] Recreation
[8] Agricultural Resources o Hazards/Hazardous Materials [8]Transportation/Circulation.
[8] Air Quality [8] Noise [8] Wastewater
[8] Biological Resources o Population/Housing [8] Water
[8] Cultural Resources [8] Public Services/Utilities [8] Land Use
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation. the Environmental Coordinator finds that:
o The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[8] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacf' or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described. on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Kell Heffernon, Associate Planner 1/27/05; Amended: 3/20/06, 6/27/06, 9/01/06, 9/25/06
Prepared by (Print) Date
Date
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 1
Prolect Environmental Analvsis
The City's environmental review, pr()cess incorporates all of the requirements for completing the
Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality 'Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines. The Initial Study includes 'staff's on-site inspection of the project site and surroundings
and a detailed review of the information in the file for the project. In addition, available background
information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and
characteristics, geologic information,' significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water
availability, wastewater disposal services, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories
and other information relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project.
Exhibit A includes the references used; as well' as the agencies or groups that were contacted as a
part of the Initial Study. The Community Development Department uses the checklist to summarize
the results of the research accomplished during the initial environmental review of the project.
Persons, agencies or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the
environmental review process for a project should contact the City of Arroyo Grande Community
Development Department at 214 EaseBranch:'Slreet Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 or call (805) 473-
5420.
A.
"
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: Proposal by Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC for a Neighborhood
Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to allow for ultimate
development of seventy-five (75) new residential lots on twenty-two (22) acres in two phases
(27 in Phase I and 48 in Phase II). A total of fourteen (14) single-family residences exist within
the Neighborhood Plan area (3 in Phase I and 11 in Phase II). The City is concurrently
processing a Development Code Amendment to update the superseded Residential Rural
(RR) zoning consistent with the Single-Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR-MD)
designation of the 2001 General Plan.:: The project is located east of the Noguera Place
subdivision, north of East Cherry Avenue extension, and is bounded to the north and east by
Arroyo Grande Creek. The purpose "of the Neighborhood Plan is to coordinate street,
drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, and open space considerations.
Phase I of the Neighborhood Plan is a proposed thirty (30) lot residential subdivision in a
Planned Unit Development configuration for nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) acres. Proposed
residential lot sizes range from,approxil)1ately 3,905 to 12,980 square feet. Four (4) lots are
also proposed for the purpose of passiv~ open space and a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide
agricultural buffer is proposed to'separate conflicting land uses. Phase II of the Neighborhood
Plan encompasses the remaining thirteen (13) of the twenty-two (22) acres where no
development is proposed at thisltime. Currently, all of the residential properties are served by
individual septic systems and the majonty of the lots are accessed by a private fifteen-foot
(15') wide dirt road.
The project site is located within the Newsom Springs watershed area, which is identified in
the City's 1999 approved Drainage Master Plan as having drainage deficiencies and
recommends implementation of the "Newsom Springs Drainage Project" as a high priority to
mitigate future drainage problems. The regional drainage solution outlined in the Drainage
Master Plan and Newsom Springs Drainage Project includes diverting all of the Newsom
Springs runoff at the stone culvert under Branch Mill Road directly to Arroyo Grande Creek by
means of a 48" drainage pipe along the agricultural field adjacent to Branch Mill Road and
three (3) 72-inch pipes through Phase I of the project. As proposed, the project uses a
combination vegetated channel with a box culvert at the outfall instead of the three (3) pipes.
This drainage solution also includes eliminating the diversion of runoff through the existing
stone culvert that is intended to 'reduce localized flooding of the residential development of the
, area.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 2
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S): 007-565-004, 005; 007-522-008; 007-571-001, 006, 011, 012,
013,015,016,017,018,019
1_- -'---. ..---.------..----.-..-----.-.------ -----.
v:....l"'--\-.~..-~-.\-....,,..--.-j ~"(~';,'t,.-----Jr..~--r:-~.-r');;r;vr-r~~..,~Q.....-r-......~~~h----'- ---I E
:' t ".,h" '. ~ ')1 '-... to, 11. 'V: ;'I"'~~j J,,{ /'jI \~ ~~~;~-:.":! ';l;f''l.ii .E
I' "" 'I'.'" .1:- '),' "':J"'l)l'~~'''~~'lM3 _,,':>),i<r:::''''r:t"',,-,,~,,';\ I ~
t,,, ' "," , ''J,:'"'' --, "~"'''' ."" "',., ..~"" J. "" ~
\ . ,l", ~\ ~~{', \. ~rd"."'~"""<;\ ~.t " . .I.~~'" '"l'!'~\: ......
" '. . <" , , ., ". \' 4 ~j , "/"<' .. ",};.;, ~"
J"_ oj ,;.,..;j~,.... '1.1,,, 'r,' ;\" i.... ..., Jt r'- ~ "':it. .~"'(: <,~ :):i" .~. .i:
, .' ~, r ,'~ ~~f~' ;':Jijt :;:
~ "", .' 'It\,~',' '.....~ if;s~ ~i ~~<}~~,,~~1.,~.~-..t. ;~ ~i"4,~ ."f~~(J~,,~'~(tf.-H"i~';:~';.~ ~
" l _ ~ .. .",,,,....:;-.1< ,::-:J~.f-':1" ;~';) ,''>..'/ _'~>' ,','10 Fi , ..,~,.;,': c
I t~'::,~.... :' .\;'1,,.. ;)1,.}.fr,~;ld~'~'~ ,,::,,~, "",.;.. 4:~/;.i'!"'~"l't.,~;t?',~ ~.
I t,1ti. ~...~~ ,J.' :1 ~r:.r.)" ..4~;#~~,""~'\ ., .oJ. ) '~,- -, ~,#~~~~~.:! '~~l -
, P>~:--'";L':~ ~i.~;..I # . ,,!';,~:J,;t.-!: it;~ '" ~~,iit$:;' , ".t' !if!~"": . ';-~J}t", :P~}i.l $
.",'K''/; ":', ~'<,",1/",*~ i.)> ''';~,!;- '\''It ..,.,.,.>'1_ !;1i'\'llll'1 ..;
! \>.~f.(;}:~~r~~;~r~~11};A;t:~.' \\~'~~~l;~~',;~~ ~.>\. ~<. .:~/~:~"r",:~~':~)'<1 ~
ri~~,,;f~.\.~&r0"~~:~"-"'''~''1 ,/"" j;,~w"~'? jJi ~.<.,,\., ,.~,.~~ " "-"." .,
"),, "";"~.t~~,.$;"~-~))' J?......;.::v;<l~'.,~'j~ ,~,.- ;'~,":;,'1~'~'~;". ,~~A~,_\~~f1'" .~~.~ I ~
;\} '- ,'f6'" n~ / "lj,,,:v,,"'''';'' '~"~'P , , ~\'\ ".~' ," '"'" I
.." ....~'~ ;\ "1{,~ 1~7<;~1:N:,2''i!,?' .,;'~q r'l;~., }.;" -'. ": (\ 'r ::;,~ '~"');f. ,,,, ",i~J
, ,I) \ '\ ',j -..- I:;. ~,,,, \~U; .,\" , ~...... ""~ y '~r." "...~'" . .};, (- )'.<J""- . "]
":zr'~,<:1 .;.':"~ -, '., ""',')":" .', -u ", . I I
-i<....' ~ ~ ^ 1 rt~;. ,- 1. .~ \f(, ..;""\, "," . tt" ".. ... /", r(, '~ ' ~
, .-~.". f. \. ,"'"" ~.j7 _...... _ " 1Ii" .'.i) ""-'
'I ~~ (. <"",ct' .J~,,;,.;~,,"\.. -'J0t' 2..:\~" 1>\f>'~:'~. /.' , ^;V:"i<'~~
~:.'f.~~ d ",;.J.:rr~,'tJ:~. ~ "';7 -.....Jl' \, .;7i'''.... /. cl'l\:~
,"~~) ....' \ .;/..\?"it~~~ ~~~ I""'" \ ,tr y; .- -~...". ~ ~..,.-~",~.,._f- J
I' h"'" \ "'~ L ' ~ "'~,:' .", ,....":/ "-'l>,\F' I
I !': ~~\)~r:Y'. _...)~f\ ~J~tj' ~? i\ I, - \"," . ,
"~l >.i-:~' ....*~\. '''',1,. .,,- ~~ I~ ~ "
I. 'T~;'W"'I, "s.;""'\'jii .~. 'i:i.<"~, ~\/..'" ... .
I ~ ,:"", >,'" "" '1r', .,. "',., " "// ' I
~" '\ '" . t> ,. '" ..:..... .~." 'P \ .,"'." ~ ""%.'
.,. ''lv'''''- ,0, ,'.,'~-:~~?\J)' ","', /,' , - 1
' ,,'.\, \";, ,\.' ;':'\'\i::: j'/' ,
I t..'~' ,."",~;.~"~,,,,:~,:-;>',;;,,,[.' , " " 1
,'" ~" J1\:' ...., '''''?' J",,:,..' "",,' '[ ,
I 1, \ .. < ,.~. :-;: '"'. ..V'~" - ~
':.V\~"q\;.:tJ;.",-.", II ,:! I
I ' -1&1)' ',~'V"-, <. I[ , I m I
l~i.2~: .~~'~b_~~~~!.~"JL_,~ P'". --- ----.--, "~',' ~ ,d
_ _ _._~l.:_lt.:hl,,'rh~~.4-r!f!!L______________ ____.:..."lrmf,.<. A~ lC~14 &l1_-1~J
CHERRY CREEK ... "...., "...".
"---......
B, EXISTING SETTING
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Single-Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR-MD) with a
Neighborhood Plan overlay.
ZONING:
Residential Rural (RR)
EXISTING USES:
Low density residential development (13 homes on 22 acres)
TOPOGRAPHY:
VEGETATION:
Nearly level
Residential landscaping; walnut orchard; riparian forest
PARCEL SIZE:
Phase I:
Nine (9) acres (4 existing parcels; 30 proposed parcels)
Phase II:
Thirteen (13) acres (9 existing parcels; no subdivision
proposed)
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 3
SURROUNDING LAND USE CATEGORIES AND USES:
North: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS); East: Agriculture (Ag); undeveloped
undeveloped (Arroyo Grande Creek)
South: Agriculture (Ag); undeveloped West: Single-Family Residential- Medium
Density (SFR-MD); single family residences
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
During the Initial Study process, several issues were identified as having potentially significant
environmental effects (see following Initial Study). Those potentially significant items associated with
the proposed project can be minimized to less-than-significant levels by incorporating the mitigation
measures listed below. All mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study shall be included in the
Conditions of Approval for the project.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS - Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Create an aesthetically incompatible 0 [gJ 0 0
site open to public view?
b) Introduce a use within a scenic view 0 0 [gJ .0
open to public view?
c) Change the visual character of an 0 [gJ 0 0
area?
d) Create glare or night lighting that 0 [gJ 0 0
may affect surrounding areas?
e) Impact unique geological or 0 0 [gJ 0
physical features?
f) Other 0 0 0 0
Setting. The project will not be visible from any major public roadway. However, the visual character
of the neighborhood will change from very low density residential to medium density residential,
allowing up to seventy-five new residential units. The increase in night lighting and glare in this area
could affect surrounding residents.
Impact. Although the Phase 1 project incorporates landscaping, open space, pedestrian paths and
agricultural buffer that will soften the visual impact of residential development, additional mitigation is
necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant. Future development of Phase 2 will also be
subject to landscaping, agricultural buffer and lighting requirements.
Mitigation/Conclusion. There are potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics that can be
mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures listed below.
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 4
MM 1.1: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for development of Phase 1 verifying
that all exterior lighting for the development is directed downward and does not create spill or
glare on to adjacent properties and riparian habitat.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD; Police Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 1.2: The applicant shall submit final design, exterior colors and materials for the
homes in Phase 1 for ARC review and approval.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - COD
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
2. AGRICULTURAL Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
RESOURCES In determining Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant
environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment (LESA) Model
(1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland
(CEQA Guidelines).
- Will the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 ~ 0
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program ofthe
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricuUuraluse?
b) Involve other changes in the existing 0 ~ 0 0
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
c) Conflict with existing zoning or 0 0 ~ 0
Williamson Act program?
d) Other 0 0 0 0
Setting. As described in the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, the soil
type of the subject property is identified .as Class II "non-irrigated", and the "irrigated" soil class is "not
applicable", The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan specifies
City of AtTOyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 5
that all Class I and II soils are considered prime soils, but not necessarily prime "farmland" soils. The
adjacent property to the south (the "Dixson Ranch") has been in agricultural production since the early
1900's (row crops) and is in a permanent agricultural preserve. The Dixson Ranch is approximately
37.8 acres in size.
Map 4
Class i, II, and III Soils
Within th.e City of.~rroyo Grande
I
,"
I
!
I
,
Project Site
r-....m ..---.,.
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
,
I
There are an estimated 500 acres
of Cl.ass I Cino II soils'within the
eit)' of Arroyu Gn,mde
I
i
! I
i I
I,
. ,
; \
I I
, I
~
,
,.
'.-'
(O:t./' LJ;l'tU
RC'U'U
W''''UUlIh
'''',
r-I'
~ '.~ Ii
L~_'Ul
I
~-~'"'-='.. ""''''''''''''"''''''~'~''''''''_TC:::=.'''''~'_U''':''''~ :;"1":' 0.... ,j:" ,
1) 0.5 1 tJil~~ I
-.:====.
-.- -----------
Impact. City Policy Objective Ag1-1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General
Plan states the following regarding conservation of prime farmland soils: "Designate prime farmland
soils that are not predominately committed to non-Agricultural development as Agriculture (Ag) and/or
Agriculture Preserve (AgP), whether or not in current agricultural productive use."
The subject property has been committed to residential uses since the late 1800's and has been
consistently zoned residential since the City established zoning. Given that the property has
historically been committed to non-Agricultural development and that no impacts to prime soils will
occur from the project beyond what was already considered and addressed in the 2001 General Plan
EIR, the loss of prime soils is not subject to mitigation under CEQA.
City of Arroyo Grande. Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 6
Included as Attachment A is a copy of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (LESA), which is an objective point-based approach for rating the relative
importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features. (This Model is
referenced in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). The LESA Model was developed to provide lead
agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the
environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the
environmental review process. The Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given
project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected
resource lands. For a given project, the factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a
single numeric score. The project score becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's
potential significance. In applying this Model to the proposed project, the result is an insignificant
impact to agricultural resources.
The divergent land uses of the project site (residential development) and adjacent Dixson Ranch
(agriculture) create conflicting impacts. From the residential perspective, the source of agricultural-
related conflict can be from noise, light, dust, pollen, smoke, pesticides, odors, traffic, insects or
rodents. From the farmer's perspective, the source of conflict from the adjacent residential use can
be theft, vandalism, litter, pest infestation, water drainage, or increased liability. Adequate separation
of these land uses is therefore necessary.
The project incorporates a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide buffer that complies with City Ordinance
No. 550 (creation of Agricultural Preservation Overlay District), and serves as adequate mitigation.
The proposed buffer includes a minimum of thirty-foot (30') wide landscape strip, 32-foot wide road,
and drainage facilities.
The San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture has reviewed and provided comments on the
proposed project (see Attachment B for the County's letter dated November 18, 2004). The County
has a considerably larger buffer requirement between development and agricultural property than the
City (distances of between 200 to 500 feet for row crops, depending on various site-specific factors).
In determining an adequate buffer, each jurisdiction must examine its own distinctive set of
circumstances and site conditions. The larger buffer requirement can be more readily obtained in the
County's rural setting where larger parcel sizes prevail than in the more urbanized City.
Mitigation/Conclusion. The Phase I project adequately provides separation of uses that mitigates
potential conflict by means of a 130-foot wide buffer that includes a 30-foot wide vegetative screen, a
solid wall on the residential land use area and an exclusionary fence on the agricultural land use area.
The City also has adopted a Right-To-Farm Ordinance with provisions for farmland preservation and
protection, and serves to notify residents of farmers' rights and clarify agricultural activities. As an
added measure, the following mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level:
MM 2.1: All new property owners within the Neighborhood Plan area must sign a Real Estate
Transfer Disclosure indicating that they acknowledge and agree to the provisions contained in
the City's Right-To-Farm Ordinance. The disclosure shall have a bolded statement cautioning
the purchaser that they are living close to farmland.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer; Real Estate Agent
City of Arroyo Grande - COD
Prior to close of escrow
MM 2.2: The final landscape plan for the agricultural buffer shall be prepared by a
landscape professional having experience with designing agricultural buffers. The plant
selection shall provide effective and appropriate screening with fast growing evergreen trees
City of AlTOyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 7
and shrubs. The vegetative screening shall be installed prior to issuance of building permit to
allow time for the plants to become established. The CC&Rs shall also include assurances
that the screening is sufficiently maintained.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD. PR&F (Parks, Recreation
and Facilities Dept.) .
Prior to issuance of building permit.
Timing:
3. AIR QUALITY - Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Violate any state or federal ambient D l:8J D D
air quality standard, or exceed air
quality emission thresholds as
established by County Air Pollution
Control District (APCD)?
b) Expose any sensitive receptor to D D l:8J D
substantial air pollutant
concentrations?
c) Create or subject individuals to D D l:8J D
objectionable odors?
d) Be inconsistent with the District's D D l:8J D
Clean Air Plan?
e) Other D D D D
Setting. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed the CEQA
Air Qualitv Handbook to evaluate project specific impacts and help determine if air quality mitigation
measures are needed. or if potentially significant impacts could result. The City refers to this
Handbook for all discretionary projects subject to CEQA. The APCD has reviewed and provided
comments on the proposed project (see Attachment C for letter from the APCD dated November 12,
2004).
The project incorporates several site design strategies that are effective in mitigating potential air
quality impacts. These include orientating homes toward the street with parking located towards the
rear of lots; providing pedestrian-friendly streetscape to make walking more comfortable and safe;
providing good access for pedestrians and bicyclists with pathways located throughout the
development that ultimately connect to sidewalks leading to the Village area; providing traffic calming
devices. such as a narrow interior street design in a circular pattern and textured concrete at
pedestrian crossings.
Impact. The project is expected to generate roughly 880 average daily trips (ADT) at buildout (350
ADT for Phase I of the project). Based on Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook ("Screening
Criteria for Project Air Quality Impacts"), these cumulative trips would produce approximately twenty-
five (25) Ibs.lday of emissions (emissions are defined as ROG. NO.. PMlO, SO. and CO). Projects
having the potential to generate more than ten (10) Ibs.lday of emissions may cause significant air
quality impacts and are subject to on-site mitigation.
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 8
As proposed, Phase I of the project will result in the disturbance of approximately nine (9) acres (the
remaining 13 acres of Phase II will likely be developed randomly over time). This will result in the
creation of construction dust, as well as short- and long-term vehicle emissions. in San Luis Obispo
County, ozone and PM,0 are the pollutants of primary concern, since State health-based standards for
these pollutants are exceeded in portions of the County in most years. For this reason, San Luis
Obispo County is considered to be iri non-attainment of the state standards for both ozone and PMlO.
The major sources of PM,0 include mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust
and vehicle exhaust.
Grading and construction of the project would occur over a period of many months. Short-term
impacts related to dust generation from site preparation and grading would result in dust generation
that could affect adjacent properties. Mitigation measures placed on the project would reduce short-
term dust generation during construction of the project to less-than-significant levels. Dust generated
by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. The
dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be
shown on grading and building plans.
Mitigation/Conclusion. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce air quality
impacts to a less-than-significant level. Air pollution impact assessment is divided into the
construction and operational phases of the project.
Construction Phase Emissions
The project shall comply with all applicable Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations
pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PMlO) as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Quality
Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans shall list the following regulations:
MM 3.1: All dust control measures listed below (MM 3.2 - 3.6) shall be followed during
construction of the project and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor or
builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order
increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. The name and telephone
number of such person(s) shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map
recordation and finished grading of the area.
MM 3.2: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent airbome dust from leaving the site. At a
minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later moming and after work is
completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable)
water should be used whenever possible.
MM 3.3: Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
MM 3.4: All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
MM 3.5: Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to streets,
or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles
shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
MM 3.6: Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
City of Anoyo Grande. Inlt/al Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 9
MM 3.7: To mitigate the diesel PM generated during the construction phase, all
construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's
specifications. The measures below (MM 3.8 - 3.10) shall be clearly identified in the project bid
specifications so the contractors bidding on the project can include the purchase and installation
costs in their bids.
MM 3.8: All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to
bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary
power units, shall be fueled exclusively with California Air Resources Board (ARB) motor vehicle
diesel fuel.
MM 3.9: To the maximum extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment shall
meet the ARB's 1996 certification'standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
MM 3.10: If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation, or building(s) are
removed or renovated, this project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including
the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to:
1) notification requirements to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Inspector, and 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of asbestos containing material.
MM 3.11: Prior to any grading activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a
geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is present
within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed
with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements
ouUined in the Asbestos Air Toxins Control Measure (ATCM) regulated under by the California
Air Resources Board (ARB). '
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer
City. of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept., Building and
Fire Department
Prior to Grading Permit and during construction
Ooerational Phase Emissions
MM 3.12: Provide continuous sidewalks separated from the roadway by landscaping with
adequate lighting and crosswalks at intersections.
MM 3.13: Provide shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce
summer cooling needs.
MM 3.14:
MM 3.15:
Provide sodium streetlights.
Orient homes to maximize natural heating and cooling.
MM 3.16: Provide outdoor electrical outlets on homes to encourage the use of electric
appliances and tools.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD, Public Works Dept., and
Building & Fire Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Timeframe:
City of AITOYo Grande. Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 10
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -
Will the project:
a) Result in a loss of unique or special
status species or their habitats?
b) Reduce the extent, diversity or
quality of native or other important
vegetation?
c) Impact wetland or riparian habitat?
d) Introduce barriers to movement of
resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species, or factors that could hinder
the normal activities of wildlife?
e) Other
Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
0 [g] 0 0
0 [g] 0 0
0 [g] 0 0
0 0 [g] 0
o
o
o
[g]
Setting. The existing conditions and evaluation of potential project impacts on biological resources is
based on a June 3, 2004 Due Diligence Report (Report) prepared by the Morro Group, inc., for the
applicant (contained in the Technical Appendix on file in the Community Development Department),
and the review of available background information and field reconnaissance of the project site
conducted on April 6 and September 14, 2005 by David Wolff Environmental. The April 6, 2005 field
reconnaissance included staff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide a
jurisdictional determination of the drainage ditch that crosses the westem portion of the site before
discharging to Arroyo Grande Creek and to identify the likely limits of Corps jurisdiction along Arroyo
Grande Creek (see Attachment D for letter from ACOE dated November 9,2004).
The Phase 1 project area of the Cherry Creek project site is composed of a senescent walnut orchard
with a non-native annual grassland understory typical of the region. Since commercial walnut trees
were commonly English walnut grafted to the native walnut root stock, lack of orchard maintenance
appears to have resulted in some of the trees reverting back to expressing California walnut leaves
and nuts. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the site is still considered as an old orchard. The
Phase 2 project area is composed of large lot rural residences that are surrounded by non-native
landscape vegetation. Orchard trees; annual grassland habitat, and non-native landscape vegetation
in rural settings can support common reptile and mammal species as well as providing habitat for
resident and migratory bird species. Some bird nesting likely occurs in the walnuts, landscape trees,
and riparian vegetation within the project area. The project area is surrounded by rural and medium
density residential development, and active agricultural operations producing annual row crops. The
surrounding hillsides support native coast live oak woodland, coastal scrub, and annual grassland
habitats.
The Arroyo Grande Creek riparian Corridor that borders the northem portion of the entire project is
composed of an overstory of willow, cottonwood, and sycamore trees with an understory composed
mostly of a blackberry and poison oak thicket. The banks of Arroyo Grande Creek are steep and
almost 30-feet high above the active low flow channel of the creek. During the April 6, 2005 field
meeting, the Corps reviewed the limits of their Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction (the Ordinary
High Water Mark; OHWM) in Arroyo Grande Creek. The OHWM is typically equated to the 50 percent
frequency storm (the two-year storm event water surface elevation) and in this case is well below the
top of the creek bank on a "bench" approximately four vertical feet above the summer low flows in
Arroyo Grande Creek. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction under Fish
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 11
and Game Code Section 1600 et.seq. (Streambed Alteration Agreements) is typically the top of creek
banks or the outside limits of riparian vegetation whichever is greater. Riparian vegetation extends
beyond the top of bank within the project reach along Arroyo Grande Creek suggesting the limits of
CDFG jurisdiction extend beyond top of bank.
Localized and some regional drainage from the Newsom Springs watershed to the south are
conveyed in a man-made ditch and drainage easement that cross the site. During the April 6, 2005
field review, the Corps reviewed the man-made ditch and determined that it does not represent a
waters of the U.S. or wetland as no evidence of an OHWM or wetland plants were observable at the
time. The Corps determined their jurisdiction over the Newsom Springs drainage was limited to the
realigned drainage ditch through the adjacent agricultural lands and remaining channel behind the
existing residential development downstream of the "stone culvert" under Branch Mill Road at the turn
in the road approximately Yo mile south of the project site. The Newsom Springs drainage
downstream of the stone culvert runs behind the subdivision and through a series of culverts and
open ditches through agricultural and developed lands before joining Los Berros Creek near the City
limits. Localized runoff gathers in this drainage as it runs its course through the City. The open
channel of this drainage is mostly absent any riparian habitat and supports minimal seasonal aquatic
resource values.
Arroyo Grande Creek has known occurrences of the federally listed threatened steel head South-
Central California Ecologically Significant Unit (steelhead) and California red-legged frog (CRLF). The
county stream gauge represents a partial barrier to steel head movement but this fish has been
observed upstream of the project site. The CRLF is a highly aquatic frog that would be mostly
restricted to the creek and immediately adjacent riparian habitat. The southwestern pond turtle likely
occurs within Arroyo Grande Creek. Similar to the CRLF, this is a high aquatic species that would be
mostly restricted to the active creek channel and riparian habitat below top of the creek banks.
Specific surveys to determine presence or absence of these species within the project area have not
been conducted. This analysis assumes these special-status species could be present at some time
in Arroyo Grande Creek along the project reach. No other special-status species are expected to
occur in the project area.
Detailed water quality sampling and analysis studies were conducted for the County of San Luis
ObiSpo .Lopez Dam project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to identify any potential detrimental
water quality issues for the CRLF and steelhead that may occur as an existing condition in Arroyo
Grande Creek. The following is excerpted from Section 3.4.5 of the February 2004 Final Draft HCP
(the Final Draft HCP can be found on the following website: www.slocountywater.org under "Lopez
Water System")
"A variety of water quality constituents affect habitat conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek.
Some of these constituents are associated with naturally occurring mineral deposits, and some
are associated with agricultural spraying and fertilization, stormwater runoff from roadways,
urbanization, recreational activities, and other land-use practices. To provide reconnaissance-
level baseline information on water quality constituents within Arroyo Grande Creek, grab
samples were collected for chemical analysis by a certified analytical chemistry laboratory
(Chromalab, Inc.). During the first survey on July 29, 1999, water samples were collected from
four locations along Arroyo Grande Creek: the concrete raceway immediately downstream of
Lopez Dam (AGC-1), Cecchetti Road Bridge (AGC-2), Arroyo Grande (AGC-3), and Arroyo
Grande Creek Lagoon (AGC-4; Figure 3-19). The four sampling locations were selected to
provide information on changes in water quality constituents within different reaches of Arroyo
Grande Creek that may be affected by local land-use practices.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 12
Each grab sample was analyzed, following EPA protocols, for specific conductance, pH,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, mercury, total hardness, total
dissolved solids, total phosphorous, total nitrogen, ammonia, screening for pesticides and
herbicides, and oil and grease. After the July 1999 survey, the sampling design was modified
for subsequent surveys with collections at two locations, Arroyo Grande (AGC-3) and the
Arroyo Grande Creek lagoon (AGC-4), on October 20, 1999, April 29, 2000, and August 9,
2000. Results of water quality surveys are summarized in Appendix A (Tables A-2 through A-
5).
Water quality analyses indicated most constituents were below analytical detection limits. No
consistent pattern was observed in water quality constituents between up- and downstream
locations. These reconnaissance-level baseline surveys indicate that water quality conditions
within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitable habitat for steelhead, red-legged frogs, and other
aquatic resources."
Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the conversion of approximately nine (9)
acres of senescent walnut orchard and annual grassland habitats to residential development including
houses, streets and landscaping with non-native landscaping plants. In order to facilitate project and
regional stormwater drainage issues, a "bio-swale" detention basin and box culverts would be
installed through the project site to discharge stormwater to Arroyo Grande Creek (see sectional
diagram below of creek outfall). Installation of the stormwater culverts and associated outfall structure
would require impacts on the riparian habitat and banks of Arroyo Grande Creek that may encroach
on the jurisdiction of the Corps and CDFG.
M TOP OF CREEl( !lANK
2':1 SLOpe
./ (E) TOP OF CREEK !lANK
2\.
\
/L:::RTTOP
1'--'18 CULVERT INVERT
J-I '12,8 HIGHEST RECORDED flOW
-av STREAM QALlGE. 1l1ll&
104. 0RDINAR't HIGH WAlER
~.-. 1~1I01TOIII
8l>>lCULYaU. j;ND
PROTECTED TO
PREVENT ENTRANCE
SECTION c..c
:N.T.8.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 13
Impacts on riparian habitat would be avoided and minimized by the establishment of a 25-foot non-
development setback from top of bank along Arroyo Grande Creek. In addition, disturbance to the
riparian habitat would be limited to that necessary to install the culverts and associated bank
protection measures (rip-rap andlor gabions).
Implementation of the approved drainage master plan would divert flows from the Newsom Springs
drainage at the stone culvert through the proposed 48-inch culvert along adjacent agricultural field to
the "bio swale" and the two box culverts discharging to Arroyo Grande Creek on the project site.
Under existing conditions stormwater flows through both the stone culvert and the man-made ditch
along Branch Mill Road and the proposed project site. Diversion of flows from the stone culvert
through the project site to remedy local flooding issues is not expected to substantially affect the
downstream reaches of the Newsom Springs drainage as it will still receive localized runoff from the
hillsides and surrounding developed and agricultural lands. Given the low values of the aquatic and
riparian habitat resources downstream of the stone culvert would be maintained by localized runoff,
this is considered to be a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of orchardlgrassland habitat for
common wildlife species (raccoons, skunks, opossum, coyote, rodents, reptiles) and nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitat for resident and migratory bird species. Installation of the box culverts and
associated outfall structure in the banks and riparian habitat of Arroyo Grande Creek would result in
the loss of riparian habitat that provides habitat and streamside shading for steelhead, CRLF, and the
southwestern pond turtle that likely occur along the project reach of the creek during at least some
portion of the year. While impacts on an old walnut orchard and grassland habitats are not
considered a significant impact, impacts on nesting bird species are considered to be a potentially
significant impact.
The impact on riparian habitat and potential impacts on associated special-status species from
installation of the stormwater culvert and outfall structure is considered to be a potentially significant
impact. The results of a regional water quality study of Arroyo Grande Creek determined that under
existing conditions there are not any detectable limits of constituents that could adversely affect
aquatic resources in Arroyo Grande Creek. As such accommodating existing regional Newsom
Springs flood stage storm drainage through the project site would not be considered a significant
impact on aquatic resources.
Impact Summary: The proposed project could substantially degrade the riparian corridor associated
with Arroyo Grande Creek indirectly through introduction of exoticlinvasive non-native plant species,
introduction of foreign materials (petroleum products, refuse, etc.), erosion, slope slippage, and
directly through removal of riparian vegetation and other native trees on the project site. Access to the
creek by local residents would likely continue by use of the existing footpath at the stream gauging
station. Given the steep topography and thick vegetation along the project area, additional access
points would likely not be established. Therefore, creek access at the existing footpath is not
considered to be an impact on riparian habitat.
Mitigation/Conclusion: Potentially significant impacts on biological resources can be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.1: The Final Tract Map shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City the
creek channel, the twenty-five foot (25') creek setback area measured from top of bank, and
any environmentally sensitive areas, as determined by a qualified biologist, along the Phase I
property boundary. An open space easement shall also be recorded stipulating that no
development shall occur within 25' creek setback area.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 14
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
CitY of Arroyo Grande - COD, Public Works Dept.
Prior to Grading Permit
MM 4.2: A Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan) shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and/or
restoration biologist experienced in native habitat restoration for the dedicated open space 25-
foot creek setback area measured from top of bank and any environmentally sensitive areas,
as determined by a qualified biologist. The Restoration Plan shall include at a minimum a
detailed planting plan for the 25-foot setback area and for all disturbed areas from
culvert/outfall construction and. Myrtle Street extension. The Restoration Plan shall also
include at a minimum the number and location of other native trees impacted and location of
replacement plantings, specific. plant species palette, a non-native species removal plan,
success criteria, a five-year monitoring program, and contingency measures to ensure meeting
the success criteria. The Restoration Plan shall also include an erosion control plan and Best
Manageme':1t Practices (BMPs) for all disturbed areas within the 25-foot creek setback and
exposed banks. The erosion control seed mix for the riparian setback area shall be composed
exclusively of native species. .
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer shall submit the plan to the City
City of Arroyo Grande - COD and PR&F; CDFG
Restoration Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of Grading Permit; duration of monitoring shall
be no less than five (5) years.
MM 4.3: Landscaping within the bioswale shall be limited to native plant species. The CC&Rs
shall include a provision for continued maintenance of the bioswale with regard to vegetation,
sedimentation, reseeding and water quality monitoring.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer shall submit the landscape plan to the City.
The CC&Rs shall include a maintenance provision.
City of Arroyo Grande - COD and PR&F
Final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved
prior to issuance of Grading Permit. CC&Rs shall be
submitted prior to issuance of Building Permit.
MM 4.4: Any native trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that are greater
than or equal to two (2) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and less than twelve (12)
inches DBH shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Trees removed that are greater than or equal to
twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a 5:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be limited to
in-kind replacement of appropriate native tree species as approved by a qualified landscape
architect and/or restoration. biologist, and the City Parks, Facilities and Recreation
Department's arborist. All trees to be removed shall be clearly marked on construction plans
and marked in the field with flagging or paint. All trees to be retained shall be clearly identified
on construction plans and marked in the field for preservation with highly visible construction
fencing at a minimum around the drip line.
Native riparian trees impacted shall be replaced within the 25-foot riparian setback area.
Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone shall be replaced within the riparian setback
area or incorporated into the development landscaping plan.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
City of Arroyo Grande - COD, PR&F
City of Arroyo Grande - COD, PR&F
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 15
Timeframe:
During construction
Impact: The proposed project may result in direct impacts on the southwestern pond turtle in the
riparian corridor including injury or mortality fro'TI construction equipment, and from temporary loss of
habitat from construction of the stormwater culverts and outfall structure. This is considered to be a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Potentially significant impacts on the southwestern pond turtle would be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.5: A qualified biologist shall perform one pre-construction survey for southwestern pond
turtles immediately prior to initiation of site grading and culver/outfall structure construction. If
southwestern pond turtles are observed within an area to be disturbed they shall be relocated
out of harms way to an appropriate area immediately upstream or downstream of the project
area within Arroyo Grande Creek.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD
Prior to and during start of construction.
Impact: The proposed project would potentially result in a significant adverse impact on nesting
resident and/or migratory birds including raptors as a result of tree removal and ground disturbing
activities that may cause loss of nest sites, reduced nest site success, and/or potential nest
abandonment. The CDFG Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) of 1918 prohibit the possession and destruction of birds, nests, and/or their eggs. This is
considered to be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation. Potentially significant impacts on nesting resident and/or migratory bird species would be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.6: All tree removal shall be limited to the time period of September 1st to March 1st,
which is considered to be outside the typical breeding season for birds. If it is not feasible to
avoid the bird-nesting season and trees will be removed between March 151 and September
1SI, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If
active birds nests are located during pre-construction surveys within the project area subject to
tree removal or ground disturbance, the nest site shall be avoided until the adults and young
are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. If
determined necessary by a qualified biologist, a non-disturbance buffer zone shall be
established around each nest for the duration of the breeding season until such time as the
adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by the
qualified biologist.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Impact: Diversion of stormwater flows from the Newsom Springs drainage stone culvert and.
construction of the stormwater drainage culverts and outfall structure on the banks of Arroyo Grande
Creek within the riparian habitat may result in the fill of waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act
jurisdiction of the Corps and/or result in the substantial alteration of the bed, bank or channel of the
creek under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. Placement of a diversion structure at the stone culvert and
removal of riparian vegetation and work on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek would fall under CDFG
jurisdiction. Final design of the stone culvert diversion structure and Arroyo Grand Creek outfall
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 16
structure would determine if Corps jurisdiction would be impacted (fill below the OHWM) requiring a
permit or authorization from the Corps pursuant;to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This would be
considered a potentially significant impaCt.
Mitigation: Potentially significant impacts on the Newsom Springs drainage and Arroyo Grande
Creek from fill or alteration within Corps and/or CDFG jurisdiction would be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). In addition,
implementation of MM 4.2 requiring a Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for impacts on Arroyo Grande Creek riparian habitat would further
reduce this impact below a level of significance. A separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will
be prepared for the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project.
MM 4.7: The applicant shall provide proof of Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the
form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would
be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage at the stone culvert and placement
of the culverts and outfall structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. Should a permit be
required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the
satisfaction of the City and the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to
demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a
manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps
requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss
of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential
impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD; Corps
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.8: The applicant shall provide proof of compliance with Section 1600 et.seq. of
the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a
completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFG that no
agreement would be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage at the stone
culvert and placement of the culverts and outfall structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande
Creek. Should an agreement be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and
conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the City and the CDFG. The CDFG
Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the
proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and
minimizes impacts on riparian habitat and the stream zone. In addition, CDFG requires
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of habitat
restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would
reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than-significant level.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD; CDFG
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Impact: Construction of the stormwater drainage culverts and outfall structure on the banks of
Arroyo Grande Creek within the riparian habitat may result in the take of the federally listed
threatened CRLF and/or steelhead from direct mortality, harm (habitat modification), or harassment
(alteration of behavior affecting reproduction and survival). Take of a federally listed species would
require a permit or authorization under the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. This
would be considered a potentially significant impact.
City of AITOYo Grande. IniUal Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 17
Mitigation: Potentially significant impacts on CRLF and/or steelhead would be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.9: The applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species
Act for potential impacts on the CRLFin the form of a take permit/authorization or written
documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project
would not result in take of the CRLF or would otherwise not adversely affect the species.
Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to
ensure that no take would result from the project, the applicant shall implement all the terms
and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of
the City and the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that
demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before
the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that
would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance
would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to a less-than-significant level.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD; USFWS
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.10: The applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered
Species Act for potential impacts on the steelhead in the form of a take permit/authorization or
written documentation from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that the proposed
project would not result in take of the steelhead or would otherwise not adversely affect the
species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by NMFS to
ensure that no take would result from the project, the applicant shall implement all the terms
and conditions of the NMFS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the
City and NMFS. The NMFS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate
the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was
implemented. Additionally, the NMFS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential
impacts on the steel head to a less-than-significant level.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD; NOAA Fisheries
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Disturb pre-historic resources? D D r8J D
b) Disturb historic resources? D r8J D D
c) Disturb paleontological resources? D D r8J D
d) Other D D D D
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 18
Setting. The project is located in an area historically occupied by the Obispeno Chumash. The
Obispeno territory covered an area from Arroyo Grande Creek to San Simeon along the coast with
inland settlements across the Coastal Range and into the Salinas River drainage north of Paso
Robles. One (1) historic structure is present on the project site that is proposed to Jemain and no
paleontological resources are known to exist in the area.
A Phase I (surface) survey was conducted by Thor Conway of Heritage Discoveries, Inc. dated May
14,2004 (on file in the Community Development Department). The survey produced positive results
for the presence of a combined historic and prehistoric archaeological site. A prehistoric
archaeological site is located on the lots on the terrace above Arroyo Grande Creek, where marine
shellfish, mainly Pismo Clams, were found across the area from the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek
and extending south to southeast across several lots. A historic home, the Vandeveer House, occurs
on the project site, and archaeological materials associated with this structure also exist on several
lots.
A Phase II (subsurface) study was conducted by Thor Conway of Heritage Discoveries, Inc. dated
September 6, 2004 that produced positive results for the presence of historic era cultural resources.
Impact. Based on results of the Phase II survey, monitoring shall be required for this development.
Mitigation/Conclusion. Development of the project could have a potentially significant impact to
cultural and historic resources that can ~e mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed below.
MM 5.1: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all grading activities. The
monitor shall work closely with construction crews in close proximity to earth moving
equipment in order to investigate and evaluate exposed materials immediately upon exposure
and prior to disturbance. A daily log shall be maintained 'by the monitor to record when and
where earth-moving activities take place within the project area, as well as the
presence/absence of archaeological materials in the monitored matrix.
In the event that prehistoric cultural materials, or historic cultural materials are encountered,
work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and the archaeologist shall be
allowed to quickly record, collect, and analyze any significant resources encountered. The
client and the City shall be notified should resources meeting CECA significance standards
are discovered. The archaeologist shall work as quickly as possible to permit resumption of
construction activities. It is preferred that location data of finds be recorded using a hand-held
global positioning system (GPS) receiver.
In the event that human remains (burials) are found, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be
contacted immediately. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her
authority and if the coroner recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American, or has
reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she will contact by telephone
within 24 hours the Native American Heritage Commission.
Following the field analysis work, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare final
monitoring/mitigation report that includes a description of the methods used, materials
recovered, and the results of historic or prehistoric analysis of those materials. The final
archaeological monitoring/mitigation report prepared by the qualified archaeologist shall be
accepted by the Community Developrnent Director prior to submittal to the repository and
issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A high-quality, laser or equivalent copy, shall
be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file.
City of Arroyo Grande. Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 19
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept.
During grading and construction activities; prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 5.2: The owner of the property containing the Vandeveer house shall register the
residence in the California Register of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP).
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Building & Fire Dept.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 5.3: Any alteration to the Vandeveer house shall comply with the Secretary's
Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68).
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit for alterations to the
residence
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Result in exposure to or production D [8] D D
of unstable earth conditions, such
as landslides, earthquakes,
liquefaction, ground failure, land
subsidence or other similar
hazards?
b) Be within a CA Dept. of Mines & D D [8] D
Geology Earthquake Fault Zone?
c) Result in soil erosion, topographic D [8] D D
changes, and loss oftopsoil or
unstable soil conditions from
project-related improvements, such
as vegetation removal, grading,
excavation, or fill?
d) Change rates of soil absorption, or D [8] D D
amount or direction of surface
runoff?
e) Include structures located on D D [8] D
expansive soils?
f) Change the drainage patterns where D [8] D D
substantial on- or off-site
sedimentation! erosion or flooding
may occur?
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek" Page 20
6.
GEOLOGY AND SOilS -
Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
g)
Involve activities within the 100-year
flood zone?
Be inconsistent with the goals and
policies of the County's Safety
Element relating to Geologic and
Seismic Hazards?
Preclude the future extraction of
valuable mineral resources?
D
D
D
D
[g]
[g]
D
D
h)
i)
j)
Other
D
D
D
D
D
D
[g]
D
Setting. The topography of the project site is nearly level. The property is located approximately 130
feet above sea level, and lies adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek just outside of the 1 DO-year floodplain.
The landslide risk potential is considered negligible. The liquefaction potential during a ground-
shaking event is considered low. No active faulting is known to exist on or close to the subject
property. The project is not within a known area containing serpentine or ultramafic rock or soils (i.e.
low risk for naturally occurring asbestos).
Impact. The major source of potential earthquake damage to Arroyo Grande is from activity along the
regional San Andreas Fault located less than forty (40) miles east along the eastern border of San
Luis Obispo County. The most widespread intensity of ground shaking depends on several factors
including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake epicenter, and
underlying soil conditions. Other regional faults of significance that could affect the project area in
terms of ground shaking are the Rincondada and Nacimiento faults, located approximately twenty-five
(25) miles east of the City. These faults are considered "potentially active", and could cause
moderate (Magnitude 6.0+) earthquakes in the area. The West Huasna fault is located roughly three
(3) miles east of the City of Arroyo Grande. The project site would be subject to severe ground
shaking in a strong seismic event, which could cause damage to structures and endanger public
safety.
Mitigation/Conclusion. Seismic hazard, soil stability, soil erosion and downstream sedimentation are
considered potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the mitigation measures listed below.
MM 6.1: A project-specific soils report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical or soils
engineer as required by the City's Grading Ordinance, and the recommendations of that report
shall be incorporated in the design and construction of the proposed project. Final
improvement plans submitted to the City shall be accompanied by a letter of certification from
the civil engineer that the plans are in conformance with the soils report, and the certification
shall confirm that the plans include the following:
. The project shall be designed to withstand ground shaking associated with a
large magnitude earthquake on nearby active faults.
. All proposed structures shall be designed to conform to the most recent
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 4 guidelines.
. The project shall comply with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance.
. Site-specific specifications regarding clearing, site grading and preparation,
footings, foundations, slabs-on-grade, site drainage, and pavements or turf
block shall be delineated.
City of AI1'OYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 21
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
impact: The project would potentially result in soil instability impacts (including landslides)
that could damage structures and endanger public safety.
MM 6.2: The soils report shall include the following considerations, at a minimum, to ensure
that the impacts related to soil instability and landslides are reduced to a less-than-significant
level:
. Utilities should be designed with as much flexibility as practical to tolerate
potential differential movement without becoming disconnected or broken.
. Subgrade or base material shall be replaced or covered with suitable base
material.
. Retaining wall design shall be prepared by a qualified structural engineer based
on the recommendations of a qualified civil engineer and shall comply with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
,Impact: The project site will be subject to soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during
construction and after project completion. Because the project involves more than one acre of
disturbance, it will be subject to preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), which focuses on controlling stormwater runoff. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) is the local extension that monitors this program.
MM 6.3: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a grading and erosion control plan in compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance for
review and approval by the Public Works Department, a qualified biologist and hydrogeologist.
The plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer to address both temporary and long-term
sedimentation and erosion impacts. The erosion control plan shall be subject to review,
approval and monitoring during construction by an on-site biologist, soils or geotechnical
engineer and City staff and shall include the following, at a minimum:
. Install and maintain silt basins and fences or straw bales along drainage paths
during construction to contain on-site soils until bare slopes are vegetated.
Carefully stockpile graded soils away from drainages;
. Restrict grading and earthwork during the rainy season (October 15 through
April 15) and stabilize all exposed soils and graded areas prior to onset of the
rainy season through mulching and reseeding. Permit grading within this period
only with installation of adequate sediment and erosion control measures;
. Delineate and describe the practices to retain sediment on the site, including
sediment basins and traps, and a schedule for their maintenance and upkeep;
. Delineate and describe the vegetative practices to be used, including types of
seeds and fertilizer and their application rates, the type, location and extent of
pre-existing and undisturbed vegetation types, and a schedule for maintenance
and upkeep;
. Comply with all applicable City of Arroyo Grande ordinances including
landscaping compatibility for erosion control;
City of Arroyo Grande, InlUal Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 22
. Only clear land that will be actively under construction within 6 to 12 months;
. Stabilize disturbed areas except where active construction is taking place.
Examples of stabilization techniques include jute netting, hydro-seeding (using
native plant composition in consultation with a qualified biologist or re-
vegetation specialist), etc. and provide permanent stabilization during finish
grade and landscape the site;
. Dispose of all construction waste in designated areas, and keep storm water
from flowing on or off these areas; and
. Place perimeter controls where runoff enters or leaves the site prior to clearing,
grubbing, and rough grading. Perimeter controls may include dikes, swales,
temporary storm drains, sand bags or hay bales.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept.;
Consulting biologist and hydrogeologist
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Timeframe:
MM 6.4: All project stormwater not passed through the bioswale shall be passed through in
line storm water filters prior to discharging to the creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Impact. Repetitive flooding problems have occurred within the watershed area encompassing the
subject property. Currently, an earth ditch carries runoff parallel to Branch Mill Road on the north
side, to an existing 3ft X 5ft culvert, and an earthen drainage channel currently exists along the
western edge of Phase 1 that drains to Arroyo Grande Creek. To alleviate regional drainage
problems, both on- and off-site improvements will be made that benefit the larger Neighborhood Plan
area. The project description includes installation of two box culverts at either end of the bioswale
that conveys drainage to Arroyo Grande Creek. This drainage solution offers many times the capacity
of the existing ditch network located on the western edge of Phase 1.
The County Public Works Department will need to review project plans for the outfall structure to
determine potential impacts to the County's active gauging station operated to monitor stream flows
and water quality of Arroyo Grande Creek.
Mitigation/Conclusion. The project helps to solve a regional drainage problem with installation of a
vegetated channel, two box culverts and other off-site drainage improvements along Branch Mill
Road. The following mitigation measure is necessary to ensure that impacts are not made to the
County's gauging station.
MM 6.5: The San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department shall review the project
improvement plans to determine potential impacts to the County's gauging station for Arroyo
Grande Creek. The project shall comply with all County ordinances and mitigation set forth by
this agency.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer; City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to approval of improvement plans
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 23 .
7.
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
Insignificant Not
Impact Applicable
a)
Result in a risk of explosion or
release of hazardous substances
(e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation) or exposure of people to
hazardous substances?
Interfere with an emergency
response or evacuation plan?
Expose people to safety risk
associated with airport flight
pattern?
Increase fire hazard risk or expose
people or structures to high fire
hazard conditions?
Create any other health hazard or
potential hazard?
Other
o
o
~ 0
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
o
o
o
o
~ 0
o ~
o
o
~ 0
o
o
o
o
~ 0
o 0
Setting. The project is not located in an area of known hazardous material contamination. The
project is not within a high severity risk area for fire. The project is not within an Airport Review area.
Impact. The project does not propose the use of hazardous materials. The project does not present
a significant fire safety risk. The project is not expected to conflict with any regional evacuation plan.
Mitigation/Conclusion. No impacts as a result of hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated,
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
8.
NOISE - Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a)
Expose people to noise levels that
exceed the City's Noise Element
thresholds?
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
o
o
o
b)
Generate increases in the ambient
noise levels for adjoining areas?
Expose people to severe noise or
vibration?
Other
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
c)
d)
~
~
o
Setting. Existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by vehicular
traffic and adjacent agricultural operations.
City of AITOYo Grande. Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 24
Impact. The project is expected to generate loud noise during construction that will impact adjacent
residences. This is considered a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of the below mitigation measures.
Mitigation/Conclusion. The project will generate short-term noise impacts with construction
activities. Long-term increases in traffic and other operational noise levels are considered less-than-
significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary.
MM 8.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00AM to 5:00 PM Monday
through Friday. There shall be no construction activities on Sundays. Interior finish work is
allowed on Saturdays that does not include hammering, the use of power tools or any other
noise generating activities. On-site equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to
the same hours.
MM 8.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be required to
have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be located at least
300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine housing enclosures or
noise screens are provided by the contractor.
MM 8.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be
placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City, of Arroyo Grande - COD, Public Works Dept.
During construction
9. POPULATION/HOUSING - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 ~ 0 0
either directly or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
b) Displace existing housing or people, 0 0 ~ 0
requiring construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Create the need for substantial new 0 0 ~ 0
housing in the area?
d) Use substantial amount of fuel or energy? 0 0 ~ 0
e) Other 0 0 0 0
Setting. The project site is bounded by residential development to the east and west, Arroyo Grande
Creek to the north, and agricultural land to the south. The subject property has been zoned for
residential development since 1972. The 2001 General Plan and Program EIR adequately
addressed the increase in density, and the project is within the allowable density.
The City adopted its Housing Element in 2003, which includes goals, policies and implementing
programs for the preservation, improvement and development of affordable housing. Per the Housing
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 25
Element, residential subdivisions and mixed-use projects are required to restrict 10% of the units as
affordable to either very low-, low- or moderate-income households. Any fraction of a unit is required
to pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee. Phase I of the project will provide 27 additional units, and
therefore 2.7 units are subject to the affordable housing provisions of the Housing Element. The
Phase I project includes two (2) deed restricted, affordable housing units. Future proposed
subdivisions in Phase II will be subject to the City's affordable housing standards in effect at the time
when the tentative map is deemed complete.
Impact. The project will not result in a need for a significant amount of new housing, and will not
displace existing housing. The project will also induce growth in the Neighborhood Plan area by
extending the City's sewer and water system. This anticipated growth was previously evaluated in the
2001 General Plan Program EIR and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Mitigation/Conclusion. To mitigate the deficiency of affordable housing in the City, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
MM 9.1: Ten percent (10%) of the new units constructed shall be sold to qualified families
earning a moderate-income (based on the County's Affordable Housing Standards). The
developer shall pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee for any fraction of a unit. An affordable
housing agreement between the City and developer shall be recorded that stipulates the
details of the terms and conditions for producing and selling affordable ownership housing
within the project. Said agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final
tract map.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD, City Attorney
Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map
10. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project have an effect upon, Significant & will be Impact Applicable
or result in the need for new or mitigated
altered public services in any of the
fol/owing areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 ~ 0
b) Police protection? 0 0 ~ 0
c) Schools? 0 ~ 0 0
d) Roads? 0 0 ~ 0
e) Solid Wastes? 0 0 ~ 0
g) Other 0 0 0 0
Setting. Development of the site with twenty-seven (27) additional residences would increase
demand for fire and police protection services, but not beyond levels anticipated by the 2001 General
Plan for City buildout. East Cherry Avenue will be extended the length of the development and
constructed per City standards. Solid waste will be collected.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 26
Impact. The project direct and cumulative impacts are within the general assumptions of allowed use
for the subject property that was used to estimate the fees in place. The project is expected to add
approximately nineteen (19) school-aged children to the Lucia Mar Unified School District based on a
student yield factor of 0.7, which will impact the capacity of local schools. As allowed by State Law,
the Lucia Mar Unified School District has a development fee established by the school district for new
residential and commercial construction to finance any new classrooms. The designated fee is
currently $2.24 per square foot for residential development.
Mitigation/Conclusion. Public facility and school fee programs have been adopted to address the
project's direct and cumulative impacts, and will reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels.
MM 10.1: The applicant shall pay the mandated Lucia Mar Unified School District impact fee.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Dept.; Lucia Mar
Unified School District
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Timeframe:
Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
11. RECREATION - Will the project: mitigated
a) Increase the use or demand for parks D ~ D D
or other recreation opportunities?
b) Affect the access to trails, parks or D D ~ D
other recreation opportunities?
c) Other D D D D
Setting. The project is not proposed in a location that will affect any trail, park or other recreational
resource, and provides limited recreational opportunities within the proposed open space parcels.
Open space areas will include pedestrian paths and appropriate landscaping.
Impact. Although the project includes some recreational features, the added residences would
increase demand for City park and recreation facilities. In this case, the Parks and Recreation
Director has indicated that the impact would be mitigated by the City's standard condition requiring
payment of the park development (Quimby) and impact fees for the improvement or development of
neighborhood or community parks.
Mitigation/Conclusion. The City's park development and impact fees will adequately mitigate the
project's impact on recreational facilities, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.
MM 11.1: The developer shall pay all applicable City park development and impact fees.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Dept.; PR&F
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 27
12. TRANSPORT ATIONI Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
CIRCULATION - Will the project: . Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Increase vehicle trips to local or D ~ D D
areawide circulation system?
b) Reduce existing "Levels of Service" D D ~ D
on public roadway(s)?
c) Create unsafe conditions on public D D ~ D
roadways (e.g., limited access,
design features, sight distance)?
d) Provide for adequate emergency D D ~ D
access?
e) Result in inadequate parking D D ~ D
capacity?
f) Result in inadequate internal traffic D D ~ D
circulation?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, D D ~ D
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian
access, bus turnouts, bicycle racks,
etc.)?
h) Result in a change in air traffic D D D ~
patterns that may result in
substantial safety risks?
i) Other D D D D
Setting. A Traffic Impact Study was conducted by Higgins and Associates, dated July 16, 2004, to
study traffic-related impacts resulting from development of Phase I and Phase II (traffic study
contained in the Technical Appendix on file in the Community Development Department). The study
analyzed traffic conditions (intersections and. roadway segments) for the following development
scenarios:
. Existing traffic conditions
. Existing plus Phase I traffic conditions
. Existing plus Phase I and Phase II (project buildout) traffic conditions
. Cumulative conditions without project
. Cumulative conditions with project
Impact. The trip generation for Phase 1 is estimated to be 340 new daily trips, of which twenty-six
(26) will be generated during the AM peak hour, and thirty-four (34) during the PM peak hour.
Conclusions for Phase 1 state that the project will not significantly impact intersection or road section
traffic operations, and all studied intersections and road sections will operate at a level of service
(LOS) .C' or better under project conditions. In reviewing the revised intersection design for East
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 28
Cherry Ave. and Branch Mill Road, the traffic consultant determined that an all-way stop is necessary.
It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Study was based on a more intensive project than what is
currently proposed.
Mitigation/Conclusion. Although no significant traffic-related concerns were identified in the traffic
study, the project traffic would contribute to the cumulative impact on the backbone circulation system.
These long-range traffic impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the City's
standard condition requiring payment of the City's Traffic Impact and Signalization Fees as adopted
by the City Council.
MM 12.1: The developer shall pay the City's Traffic Signalization and Transportation Facilities
Impact fees.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Dept.; Public
Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 12.2: The developer shall design and install a controlled 3-way stop at the intersection of
East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road as approved by the Director of Public Works.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map
13. WASTEWATER - Will the Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a} Violate waste discharge requirements 0 0 ~ 0
for wastewater systems?
b} Change the quality of surface or 0 0 ~ 0
ground water (e.g., nitrogen-loading,
daylighting)?
c} Adversely affect community 0 ~ 0 0
wastewater service provider?
d} Other 0 0 0 0
Setting. Wastewater disposal for the project area is currently managed by means of on-site septic
systems for individual parcels. The project is required to hook up to the City's wastewater collection
system.
Impact: The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) provides wastewater
collection and treatment services for the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and the
unincorporated community of Oceano, and owns and maintains all of the main sewer trunk lines. The
SSLOCSD provided comments on the proposed project, dated October 13, 2004, which is included as
Attachment E.
Per the Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (AGWWMP), the additional flows from the project
were not accounted for and will add peak flow of approximately 14 gallons per minute (gpm) for Phase
I, and 16 gpm for Phase II. The area of concern is the Fair Oaks Avenue trunk line near Hwy 101,
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 29
which is owned and maintained by the City. This stretch of trunk line is currently at 100% capacity
and is slated as a Capital Improvement Project. Once implemented, this reach will have sufficient
capacity for all anticipated buildout flows.
Mitigation/Conclusion. Through sewer hookup and SSLOCSD fees, the developer will pay the
project's proportional share of impact fees to mitigate the additional demand. The mitigation listed
below is necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
MM 13.1: Existing and new residences located in Phase I shall hook up to the City's sanitary
sewer system and shall be provided with 'individual sewer laterals.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 13.2: The developer shall pay the City's sewer hookup and SSLOCSD impact fees.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Dept.; Public
Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 13.3: The Final Tract Map shall show private sewer easements in the fire road to benefit
the existing residences along Lierly Lane for future sewer connection.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map
14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
QUALITY - Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Violate any water quality standards? D D r8J D
b) Discharge into surface waters or D r8J D D
otherwise alter surface water quality
(e.g., turbidity, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, etc.)?
c) Change the quality of groundwater D D r8J D
(e.g., saltwater intrusion; nitrogen-
loading, etc.)?
d) Change the quantity or movement of D D r8J D
available surface or ground water?
e) Adversely affect water supply? D r8J D D
f) Other D D D D
City of Arroyo Grande. In/Ual Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 30
Setting. The project site supports a senescent walnut orchard with annual grassland ground cover
with a woody tree and shrub riparian fringe along the banks of the adjacent Arroyo Grande Creek
corridor. Localized stormwater surface run~ff crosses the western edge of the site through a
drainage easement along the adjacent'residenees and through a created ditch on the site. Both of
these drainage features carry surface runoff to Arroyo Grande Creek. Regional drainage from three
undeveloped watersheds upstream of the site converges at the "stone culvert" under Branch Mill
Road approximately Y. mile south ofthe project site. Excess flows during large storm events that are
not diverted through the stone culvert travel in a roadside ditch that runs parallel to Branch Mill Road
through an active agricultural field until it reaches the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Branch
Mill Road. While some large storm event runoff is carried through the site in the above mentioned
drainage easement and ditch that run: through the site, some storm events have caused flooding
problems for residents in the area.
The Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report, prepared by Wallace Group in July 2005,
evaluated the feasibility of attenuating 1 OO-~ear storm runoff in upstream detention basins to
ameliorate the localized flooding problems at tpe intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry
Avenue (see Attachment F). The study'essentially concluded that upstream detention basins are not
feasible given the availability of land to accommodate the necessary size and depth of detention
basins to achieve a local flood control bElnefit. '
The City is currently in the process of:updating its Storm Water Drainage Master Plan and will be
preparing separate preliminary engineering and environmental review on a comprehensive drainage
plan for Newsom Springs watershed area that will include, but not be limited to, the proposed
drainage solution proposed by the appli~lmt. Fillal construction documents for drainage will be based
upon the results of the environmental review for the regional drainage project.
. ,
The City currently receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater sources. Ground
water extractions are derived from seven (7) wells and two (2) separate basin formulations. Surface
water is obtained from the Lopez Reservoir project, which was constructed in the late 1960's.
Reclaimed storm water collected by the Soto Sports Complex Storm Water Reclamation Project is
also used as an irrigation supply sou~ce. "
The City adopted a Water System Master Plan,in 1999, which identified water resources as being a
significant issue, and identified methods to increase and diversify water supply to increase long-term
reliability of the City's water service to its residents. The report assessed potential methods to
address the water supply issue and prioiitized alternatives.
Impact Summary: Construction and grading activities removing existing vegetation and exposing
soil to potential erosion could result during project development. Post-construction uses on the project
would increase impermeab"le surfaces and subsequent increase in urban runoff generated from the
residential development. As a result of construction and build out of the site, the proposed project
could result in degradation of water quality in!:nearby surface and ground water bodies, and may
contribute to an increase in localized flood hazard during large storm events.
As a result of the Newsom Springs drainage: study, the project has been designed to allow the
regional large storm event drainage to bypass ,~he stone culvert and enter the site through a culvert
under a raised East Cherry Avenue that crosses the site initially though a vegetated "bio swale" then
discharging to Arroyo Grande Creek through a box culvert under the Myrtle Street extension. The
project drainage is designed to handle the existing regional stormwater from a 100-year storm event
to reduce the potential for flood haiard of existing residences. As discussed in the Biological
Resources Section 4 above, localized 'runoff from the hillsides and developed lands would continue
providing flow to the existing Newsom Springs drainage pattern downstream of the stone culvert. As
such, the diversion of flows at the slone culvert through the project site would not result in a
City of Anvyo Grande. InlUal Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 31
substantial change in the quantity or movementof available surface water given the low values of the
aquatic resources along this lower reach of drainage. The project is designed for stormwater runoff
from all but three lots to drain into the bio swale before discharging through the Arroyo Grande Creek
outfall. Runoff from the three lots (21, 22, & 23) would surface sheet flow to the creek through the
vegetated 25-foot setback. As discussed in the Biology Section 4.0, under existing conditions there
does not appear to be an existing water quality problem in Arroyo Grande Creek as no consistent
pattern was observed in water quality constituents detrimental to aquatic life at the sample locations.
The reconnaissance-level baseline water quality surveys conducted for the Lopez Dam Habitat
Conservation Plan indicated that water quality conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitable
habitat for steel head, red-legged frogs, and other aquatic resources.
Given that the project is designed to resolve localized flood hazard from project and regional
drainage, use a bio swale approach which is a widely accepted measure for water quality benefits,
and that the project would not contribute substantially to the existing conditions where there is not an
identified water quality problem for aquatic resources in Arroyo Grande Creek, water quality impacts
from proposed project build out would be considered a less-than-significant impact. (See also MM 6.4,
which requires all project stormwater not passed through the bioswales to pass through an in line
storm water system prior to discharging into the creek).
Mitigation/Conclusion.
Potentially significant impacts from soil erosion and an increase in sediment and turbidity to Arroyo
Grande Creek could result from project grading and construction. Potentially significant impacts on
hydrology and water quality from construction related activities can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measures:
MM 14.1: The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board General Construction
Storm Water Permit. This shall include preparation and submittal to the RWQCB of a City-
approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion Control Plan that
specifies the implementation of Best Management Practices to avoid and minimize water
quality impacts as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). At a
minimum, the SWPP and Erosion Control Plan shall include:
. Designation of equipment and supply staging and storage areas at least 200
feet from the outside edge of the Arroyo Grande Creek 25-foot setback area. All
vehicle parking, routine equipment maintenance, fueling, minor repair, etc., and
soil and material stockpile, shall be done only in the designated staging area.
. Major vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and equipment washing shall be
performed off site.
. A wet and dry spill clean up plan that specifies reporting requirements and
immediate clean up to ensure no residual soil, surface water or groundwater
contamination would remain after clean up.
. Erosion control and bank stabilization measures for installation of the
stormwater outfall culverts on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek.
. Designating concrete mixer washout areas at least 200 feet from outside edge
of Arroyo Grande Creek 25-foot setback with the use of appropriate
containment or reuse practices.
. A temporary and excess fill stockpile and disposal plan that ensures that no
detrimental affects to receiving waters would result.
. Requiring all grading and" application of concrete, asphalt, etc. to occur during
the dry season from April 15 to October 15.
City of AITOYo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 32
. Required site preparation and erosion control BMPs for any work that may need
to be completed after October 15.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Impact. The City used approximately 94% of its available/allocated water supply between December
2004 and November 2005. Per Chapter 13.05.010 of the City's Municipal Code (Water Supply
Conditions), this level of water use is considered a "severely restricted" water supply condition that
has not yet reached a "critical" level. To manage its water supply deficiency, the City adopted a two-
phased strategy in November 2004 that included alternatives to be pursued to meet the City's water
demand over the next 10- year period (phase 1), and identified alternatives that will provide
permanent water supply increases to meet the long-term demand that are most desirable, feasible
and cost effective (phase 2). As part of phase 1, the City adopted a Water Conservation Program in
May 2003 that included:
. Plumbing Retrofit Program;
. Water Shortage Contingency Analysis;
. Public Information and Education;
. Information System Assessment for Top Water Users;
. Enforcement of City's Water Conservation Codes; and
. Optional components, including washing machine rebates, irrigation system or landscaping
rebates, and retrofit of cemetery with non-potable water.
Other components of phase 1 include construction of Well No. 10 (located on Deer Trail Circle),
pursuing oil field water on Price Canyon, implementing a tiered water and sewer rate structure as
financial incentives for water conservation, and a utility retrofit upon-sale program.
Phase 2 provides various permanent water supply options that include:
. Conducting a groundwater study (in process);
. Pursuing water from the Nacimiento Project;
. Implementing a reclaimed water system;
. Pursuing feasibility of a desalination plant; and
. Pursuing water from the State Water Project.
Mitigation/Conclusion. The City is currently in a moderately restricted water supply condition (as
defined in Municipal Code Section 13.05.010). The project's contribution, however, is considered di
minimis, meaning that the environmental conditions would be the same whether or not the project is
implemented. The City adopted overriding considerations for cumulative water supply impacts
identified in the Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update. The Neighborhood Plan area was
included in the Update for the increase in density and therefore cumulative water supply impacts were
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 33
addressed at that time. However, the project shall implement the following restrictions and measures
to reduce water supply impacts to a less-than-significant level.
MM 14.12: The project shall comply with the City's required water conservation measures
including any applicable measures identified in any applicable City Water Conservation Plans.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 14.13: The project shall install best available technology for low-flow toilets,
showerheads and hot water recirculation systems.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande -Building Dept.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 14.14: The final landscape plan shall show low-water use/drought resistant species
and drip irrigation systems rather than spray irrigation systems.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Parks, Recreation and Facilities
Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 14.15: The project plans shall include methods for collecting surface run-off from the
site for use on landscaped areas to reduce water use and minimize run-off to the extent
feasible.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 14.16: The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in
water demand created by the project by either:
. Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing off-site high-
flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water
program shall be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation;
OR,
. The applicant may pay an in lieu fee of $2,200 for each new residential unit.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
'Developer
City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 34
15. LAND USE - Will the project:
a) Be potentially inconsistent with land
use, policy/regulation (e.g., General
Plan, Development Code), adopted
to avoid or mitigate for
environmental effects?
b) Be potentially inconsistent with any
habitat or community conservation
plan?
c) Be potentially inconsistent with
adopted agency environmental
plans or policies with jurisdiction
over the project?
d) Be potentially incompatible with
surrounding land uses?
e) Other
Inconsistent Potentially Consistent Not
Inconsistent Applicable
D
D
~
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
Setting/Impact. Surrounding uses are identified on Page 3 of the Initial Study. The proposed project
was reviewed for consistency with policy and/or regulatory documents relating to the environment and
appropriate land use (e.g., City's Land Use Element, Development Code, Zoning Map, etc.).
Referrals were sent to outside agencies to review for policy consistencies and code compliance (e.g.
APCD for Clean Air Plan, City Fire Dept. for emergency response, CDFG and RWQCB for water
quality, USFWS for Endangered Species Act, etc.). The project was found to be consistent with these
documents and codes with implementation of the above mitigation measures.
The project is not within or adjacent to a conservation plan area, although is subject to the City's
requirement of a 25-foot creek setback (see MM 4.1). The project is compatible with surrounding land
uses SUbject to implementation of the agricultural buffer, included in the project description, and MM
2.1, which requires adherence to the provisions contained in the City's Right-To-Farm Ordinance.
Mitigation/conclusion. No inconsistencies were identified and therefore no additional measures
above what will already be required was determined necessary.
City of AtTOyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 35
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE - Will the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact can Insignificant Not
& will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? 0 IS! 0 0
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable- means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects) 0 IS!
o
o
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? 0
o
IS!
o
City of AITOYo Grande, Init/al Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 36
Exhibit A . Initial Study References and Aaency Contacts
The City of Arroyo Grande has contacted various agencies for their comments on the proposed
project. With respect to the subject application, the following have been contacted (marked with an
~) and when a response was made, it is either attached or in the application file:
Contacted Aaency ResDonse
~ County Public Works Department Verbal Response
D County Environmental Health Division
~ County Planning & Building & Fire Dept.
~ County Agricultural Commissioner's Office
~ Air Pollution Control District
~ Regional Water Quality Control Board
~ CA Department of Fish and Game
D CA Department of Forestry
D CA Department of Transportation
~ US Army Corps of Engineers
~ So. County Sanitation District
..
See Attachment B
See Attachment C
No Response
No Response
See Attachment D
See Attachment E
.. "No comment" or "No concems"-type responses are usually not attached
The following reference materials have been used in the environmental review for the proposed
project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The following information is
available at the City Community Development Department.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 37
SOURCE LIST:
1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan (October 2001)
2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land ,Use Map (October 2001)
3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Program EIR (October 2001)
7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Ordinance No. 521 (Amending Title 10, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code regarding the
Community Tree Program)
10. Ordinance No. 550 (Amending Title 16 of the Municipal Code to incorporate regulations and
amending the Zoning Map to create an Agricultural Preservation Overlay District)
11. San Diego Council of Governments - Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates
In addition, the following project specific information and/or reference materials have been considered
as. a part of the Initial Study:
1. East Village Neighborhood Plan, dated August 31, 2006
2. East Village Neighborhood Plan Technical Appendix, dated August 30, 2006
3. City of Arroyo Grande Drainage Master Plan, November 9, 1999 (Draft Update - August 2006)
Attachments:
A: California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model developed by the
California Resources Agency in 1997
B: Response from the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office
C: Response from the Air Pollution Control District
D: Response from the US Army Corps of Engineers
E: Response from the So. County Sanitation District
F: Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report, prepared by the Wallace Group, dated
July 2005
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 38
ATTACHMENT A
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL
- LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL
Instruction Manual
, ,
~~r3eJ'r=- ---_
,.... ~ .' .,.,r::
. "
..../. ,
~. ~ ,
"' -~- ..
.f
I. '.",.-
.../
... - --
- .--
l.~ .
-
.i ~\l\l ~ 'th \
~ II I , I
" t h
\ , \ '.,! I. ,
\ \ <. ,
.
" 0'
,
"
,
For further infor.mation, please contact:
California Department of Conservation
Office of Land Conservation
801 K Street, MS 13-71
Sacramento, CA 95814-3528
(916) 324-0850
FAX (916)-327-3430
~ California Department of Conservation, 1997
The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the
suitability of this product for any particular purpose.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary................................ .... ................................ .......................... 1
Introduction ........................................ ....................................... ............................. 2
Defining the land Evaluation and Site Assessment System ........................... 2
Background on land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Nationwide.......................... .................................................. ........ 2
Development of the California Agricultural land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model............................................................................. 3
The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model....................................................................................... 6
Section I. Required Resources and Information.....,........................................... 6
Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Agricultural
land Evaluation and Site Assessment Factors................................. 7
A. Scoring of land Evaluation Factors ....................................... 7
1. The land Capability Classification Rating ....................... 10
2. The Storie Index Rating ...................................................... 12
B. Scoring of Site Assessment Factors ............................,........ 13
1. The Project Size Rating ...................................................... 13
2. The Water Resources Availability Rating ......................... 16
3. The Surrounding Agricultural land Rating........................ 23
4. The Surrounding Protected Resource
land Rating...................................................................,..... 28
Section Ill. Weighting of Factors and Final Scoring........................................... 29
Section IV. Scoring Thresholds for Making Determinations of
Significance under CEQA................................................................... 31
Bibliography .................................................................... .... ... .......................... ...... 32
Appendix A. Abridged set of California lESA step-by-step
scoring instructions ...... ............................... ....... .................::............ A~ 1
Appendix B. Application of the California lESA Model to
a hypothetical proposed project ...................................................... B-1
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an
approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific
measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is
the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993), which charges the Resources
Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research,
with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricuturallands. Such an
amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology
to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land
conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental
review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095).
The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different
factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource
quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size,
water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding
protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately
rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another
and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a
maximum attainable score of 100 points. .Itis this project score that beco"mes the
basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon
a range of established scoring thresholds. This Manual provides detailed
instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes
worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects.
INTRODUCTION
Defining the lESA System
The land Evaluation and Site Assessment (lESA) system is a point-based
approach that is generally used for rating the relative value of agricultural land resources. In
basic terms, a given LESA model is created by defining and measuring two separate sets
of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent soil-
based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site
Assessment, includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and
geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. While this
dual rating approach is common to all LESA models, the individual land evaluation and site
assessment factors that are ultimately utilized and measured can vary considerably, and
can be selected to meet the local or regional needs and conditions for which a LESA .
model is being designed to address. In short, the LESA methodology lends itself well to
adaptation and customization in individual states and localities. Considerable additional
information on LESA may be found in A Decade with LESA - the Evolution of Land
Evaluation and Site
Assessment (8).
Background on lESA Nationwide
In 1981, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then
as the Soil Conservation Service, released a new system that was designe.d to provide
objective ratings of the agricultural suitability of land compared to demands for
nonagricultural uses of lands. The system became known as Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment, or LESA. Soon after it was designed, LESA was adopted as a procedural
tool at the federal level for identifying and addressing the potential adverse effects of
federal programs (e.g., funding of highway construction) on farmland protection. The
. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (5) spells out requirements to ensure that federal
programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs
and policies to protect farmland, and calls for the use of LESA to aid in this analysis.
Typically, staff of the NRCS is involved in performing LESA scoring analyses of individual
projects that involve other agencies of the federal government.
Since its inception, the LESA approach has received substantial attention from
state and local governments as well. Nationwide, over two hundred jurisdictions have
developed local LESA methodologies (7). One of the attractive features of the LESA
approach is that it is well suited to being modified to reflect regional and local conditions.
Typical local applications of LESA include assisting in decision making concerning the
sitting of projects, changes in zoning, and spheres of influence determinations. lESA is
2
also increasingly being utilized for farmland protection programs, such as the identification
of priority areas to concentrate conserVation easement acquisition efforts.
Because of the inherent flexibility in LESA model design, there is a broad array of
factors that a given LESA model can utilize. Some LESA models require the
measurement of as many as twenty different factors. Over the past 15 years, the body of
knowledge concerning LESA model development and application has begun to indicate
that LESA models utilizing only several basic factors can capture much of the variability
associated with the determination of the relative value of agricultural lands. In fact, LESA
models with many factors are increasingly viewed as having redundancies, with different
factors essentially measuring the same features, or being highly correlated with one
another. Additional information on the evolution and development of the LESA approach
is provided in, A Decade with LESA -The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site
Asse$sment (8).
Development of the California Agricultural LESA Model
In 1990 the Department of Conservation commissioned a study to investigate land
use decisions that affect the conversion of agricultural lands in California. The study,
conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., was prepared in response to' concerns
. about agricultural land conversion identified in the California Soil Conservation Plan (1)
(developed by the ad hoc Soil Conservation Advisory Committee serving the Department
of Conservation in 1987). Among these concerns was the belief that there was inadequate
information available concerning the socioeconomic and environmental implications of
farmland conversions, and that the adequacy of current farmland conversion impact
analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not fully known. The
findings of this study are included in the publication, The Impacts of Farmland Conversion
in California (2).
Currently, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines contains procedures or
specific guidance concerning how agencies should address farmland conversion impacts
of projects. The only specific mention of agricultural issues is contained in Appendix G of
the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project will normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it will "convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or
impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land".
Among the conclusions contained in The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in
California study was that the lack of guidance in how lead agencies should address the
significance of farmland conversion impacts resulted in many instances of no impact
analysis at all. A survey of environmental documents sent to the Governor's Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) between 1986 and 1988 was performed. The survey
3
showed that among projects that affected at least 100 acres of land and for which
agriculture was a project issue, nearly 30 percent received Negative Declarations, and
therefore did not did not receive the environmental impact analysis that would be provided
by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Of those projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands and being the subject
of an EIR, the study found a broad range of approaches and levels of detail in describing
the environmental setting, performing an impact analysis, and providing alternative
mitigation measures. The only agricultural impacts found to be significant in the EIRs were
those involving the direct removal of prime agricultural lands from production by the project
itself. The focus on prime farmland conversion in the projects surveyed was deemed to be
related to the narrow direction provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter
812/1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix G of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended
"to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on
the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently
considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095).
This legislation authorizes the Department of Conservation to develop a California LESA
Model, which can in turn be adopted as the required amendment to Appendix G ofthe
CEQA Guidelines.
Presentation of the California LESA Model
The California LESA Model is presented in this Manual in the following sections:
Section I. provides a listing of the information and tools that will typically be needed to
. develop LESA scores for individual projects..
Section II. provides step-by-step instructions for scoring each of the six Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the Model, with an explanation of the
rationale for the use of each factor.
Section III. defines the assignment of weights to each of the factors relative to one another,
and the creation of a final LESA score for a given project.
Section IV. assigns scoring thresholds to final LESA scores for the pLirpose of determining
the significance of a given project under CEQA where the conversion of agricultural lands
is a project issue.
4
Additionallv:
Appendix A. provides an abridged set of step-by-step LESA scoring instructions that can
be used and reproduced for scoring individual projects.
Appendix B. demonstrates the application of the California LESA Model to the scoring of a
hypothetical project.
5
The California Agricultural LESA Model
Section I. ~uired Resources and Information
The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model requires the use and
interpretation of basic land resource information concerning a given project. A series of
measurements and calculations is also necessary to obtain 8. LESA score. Listed below
are the materials and tools that will generally be needed to make these determinations.
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment calculations will reauire:
1. A calculator or other means of tabulating numbers
2. An accurately scaled map of the project area, such as a parcel map
3. A means for making acreage determinations of irregularly shaped map units. Options
include, from least to most technical:
. A transparent grid-square or dot-planimeter method of aerial measurement
. A hand operated electronic planimeter
. The automatic planimetry capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS)
4. A modern soil survey, generally produced by the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, which delineates the soil-mapping units for a given project.
[Note: If modern soil survey information is not available for a given area of study, it may
be necessary to draw upon the services of a professional soil scientist to perform a
specific project survey].
5. Maps that depict land uses for parcels including and surrounding the project site, such
as the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map series, the Department
of Water Resources Land Use map series, or other appropriate information.
6. Maps or information that indicate the location of parcels including and surrounding the
project site that are within agricultural preserves, are under public ownership, have
conservation easements, or have other forms of long term commitments that are
considered compatible with the agricultural use of a given project site.
.6
Section II. Defininq and Scorinq the California Land
Evaluation and Site ASsessment Model Factors
This section provides detailed step-by-step instructions for the measurement and scoring
of each of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the
California Agricultural LESA Model, and is intended to serve as an introduction to the
process of utilizing the Model. Once users are familiar with the Model, a more streamlined
set of instructions and scoring sheets is available in Appendix A. In addition, the scoring of
a hypothetical project is presented using these scoring sheets in Appendix B.
Scorinq of land Evaluation Factors
The California LESA Model includes two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated:
1. The Land Capability Classification Rating
2. The Storie Index Rating
The information needed to make these ratings is typically available from soil surveys that
have been conducted by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly
known as the Soil Conservation Service). Consultation should be made with NRCS staff
(field offices exist in most counties) to assure that valid and current soil resource
information is available for the project site. Copies of soil surveys are available at local
field offices of the NRCS, and may also be available through libraries, city and county
planning departments, the Cooperative Extension, and other sources. In addition, a
Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) may also be consulted to obtain appropriate
soil resource information for the project site. A directory of CPSS registered soil
consultants is available through the Professional Soil Scientists Association of California,
. P.O. Box 3213, Yuba City, CA 95992-3213; phone: (916) 671-4276.
1) The USDA Land Capabilitv Classification (LCC) - The LCC indicates the
suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are m.ade according to
the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage
to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to
Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating
(Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils.
An expanded explanation of the LCC is included in most soil surveys.
2) The Storie Index- The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a
100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for
intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four
factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are
7
considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics,
texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity).
In some situations, only the USDA Land Capability Classification information may
be currently available from a given published soil survey. However, Storie Index ratings can
readily be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists.
Users are encouraged to seek assistance from NRCS staff or Certified Professional Soil
Scientists to derive Storie Index information for the soils as well. If, however, limitations of
time or resources restrict the derivation of Storie Index ratings for the soils within a region,
it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating.
Under this scenario the LCC rating would account for 50 percent of the overall LESA factor
weighting.
Identifyinq a Project's Soils
In order to rate the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index factors, the evaluator
must identify the soils that exist on a given project site and determine their relative
proportions. A Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.) is used to tabulate these
figures, based upon the following:
Step 1.
Locate the project on the appropriate map sheet in the Soil Survey.
Step 2.
Photocopy the map sheet and clearly delineate the project boundaries on the map,
paying close attention to the map scale.
Step 3.
Identify all of the soil mapping units existing in the project site (each mapping unit
will have a different map unit symbol) and enter the each mapping unit symbol in
Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A).
Step 4.
Calculate the acreage of each soil mapping unit present within the project site using
any of the means identified in Section 1, Required Resources and Information,
and enter this information in Column B.
Step 5.
8
Divide the acres of each soil mapping unit by the total project acreage to determine
the proportion of each unit that comprises the project, and enter this information in
Column C.
9
1. Land Evaluation - The Land Capability Classification Rating
Step 1.
In the Guide to Mapping Units typiCally found within soil sUNeys, identify the Land
Capability Classification (LCC) designation (e.g., IV -e) for each mapping unit that
has been identified in the project and enter these designations in Column D of the
Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.).
Step 2.
From Table 2., The Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification
Units, obtain a numeric score for each mapping unit, and enter these scores in
Column E.
Step 3.
Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit (Column C) by the LCC points for
each mapping unit (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F.
Step 4.
Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project.
Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8)
Table 2. Num'eric Conversion of Land
Capability Classification Units
Land
Capability
Classification
LCC
Point
Ratin~
I
lie
IIs,w
lIIe
IIIs,w
IVe
IVs,w
V
VI
VII
VIII
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
10
I-'
I-'
Cf)
01 0
c=
ill' ~. s:
iil ~a>
"
~ <;:, ...... ---
~ , )>-0
,
, ~ t ~ o ..,
~ ...., 09.
~ CD CD
~- li"- en 0
~
~ <:::> ~ -0-0
~s: C) .., ..,
o c , , 2.0
~ ."
en ~ ~ CD 0
.....~ $l.;::l.
.9~ 41 ~ ....... )> o'
3 CD ::J
a> Q.
- <:::. r
- - 0
V\ -
- 0
01.... ....... ~ i\?r
.... ~
.....0 <::0- !:!:O
III 0 ~O
VJ ~ ~ Cf)r
~ 00
, 00
~ ~ CD
(I)
8' '-- ~
.... -Cf)
~ <::> "\ ::J ~
CD' 0.0
OIa CD ::1.
X CD
ill'e
~ <:::> (j)
~
~ , Cf)Q
, ~ o -.
o CD
~ -<::;- "', .., ::J
'\.J "1 CD a.
CD
x
)>
CD
o
III r
::J III
o.:::l
CIlo.
-0
Q III
-. "C
CD III
- C"
:::l _.
0.=
lD.:t
>< 0
CIl_
n III
o en
., III
lD -.
en ::!!
n
III
-
o'
:::l
r-l
III III
:::l C"
o.iD
m....
~ '!>
l:
III
-
o'
:::l
:E
o
.,
~
III
:r
lD
lD
-
::t
cQ'
(I)::r
~.co
lD!!l.
(I)~
o oS!
o CD'
~
~
oS!.
(I) CD
o a
0(1)
Cti i'i"
CIl CD
01
ill'
-
):.
o
iil
CIl
~ I ~ ~ f)
~ ';"l - 0
v, ~ ~ , ()
~ - or
'\:) .... !Jl
f)
()
- ()
or
!Jl
...... r
. ....... <
~ . ()
~ ~ , ()
()
:;;; or
_v.; - v-: !Jl
,
o
m
"T1
--
r
o
o
-
G)
:r:
'-
^
"'0
.,
o
_.
CD
n
-
Cf)
j;j'
lD
CIl
o
o
iil
CIl-l
-. III
S'C"
)>iD
III ....
8l !1'
III
III
3
CD
:::l
-
~
.,
~
III
:T
lD
CD
-
....
2. land Evaluation - The Storie Index Rating Score
Step 1.
From the appropriate soil surveyor other sources of information identified in
Appendix C, determine the Storie Index Rating (the Storie Index Rating is already
based upon a 100 point scale) for each mapping unit and enter these values in
Column G of the land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.).
Step 2.
Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit found within the project (Column
C) by the Storie Index Rating (Column G), and enter these scores in Column H.
. Step 3.
Sum the Storie Index Rating scores in Column H to obtain a single Storie Index
Rating score for the project. Enter this Storie Index Rating Score in Line 2 of the
Final lESA Worksheet (Table 8)
12
Scoring of Site Assessment Factors
The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately
rated:
1. The Project Size Rating
2. The Water Resources Availability Rating
3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating
4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating
1. Site Assessment - The Project Size Rating
The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land
Capability Classification Rating in Table 1A. The Project Size rating is based upon
identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project
site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score.
Step 1.
Using information tabulated in Columns Band D of the Land Evaluation
Worksheet (Table 1A), enter acreage figures in Site Assessment Worksheet 1. .
Project Size (Table 1 B) using either Column I, J, or K for each of the soil mapping
units in a given project.
Step 2.
Sum the entries in Column I to determine the total acreage of Class I and II soils on
the project site.
Sum the entries in Column J to determine the total acreage of Class 11\ soils on the
project site.
Sum the entries in Column K to determine the total acreage of Class IV and lower
rated soils on the project site.
Step 3.
For each of the three columns, apply the appropriate scoring plan provided in Table
3, Project Size Scoring, and enter the Project Size Score for each grouping in
the Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B). Determine which
column generates the highest score. The highest score becomes the overall
Project Size Score. Enter this number in Line 3 of the Final-LESA Scoresheet
(Table 8 ).
13
Table 3. Project Size Scoring
LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower
Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score
80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100
60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80
40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60
20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40
10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20
fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 fewer than 40 0
10-19 10
fewer than 10 0
Explanation of the Project Size Factor
The Project Size factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in
cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of
Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by
Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies
Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3).
The inclusion of the measure of a project's size in the California Agricultural LESA
Models is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial
agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility
in farm management and marketing decisions. Certain economies of scale for equipment
. and infrastructure can also be more favorable for larger operations. In addition, larger
operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct
employment, as well as impacts upon support industries (e.g., fertilizers, farm equipment,
and shipping) and food processing industries. .
While the size of a given farming operation may in many cases serve as a direct
indicator of the overall economic viability of the operation, The California Agricultural LESA
Model does not specifically consider the issue of economic viability. The variables of
economic viability for a specific farm include such factors as the financial management and
farming skills of the operator, as well as the debt load and interest rates being paid by an
individual operator, which are issues that cannot readily be included in a statewide LESA
model.
14
In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of a farming operation can be
considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different quality lands that
comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater
management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide a greater economic
return per unit acre. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in
the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the
Land Capability Classification ratings that were previously determined in the Land
Evaluation analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality
soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum
score on lesser quality soils could also be derived, provided there is a sufficiently large
acreage present. Acreage figures utilized in scoring are the synthesis of interviews that
were conducted statewide for growers of a broad range of crops. In the interviews growers
were queried as to what acreage they felt would be necessary in order for a given parcel to
be considered attractive for them to farm.
The USDA LCC continues to be the most widely available source of information on
land quality. Project Size under this definition is readily measurable, and utilizes much of
the same information needed to score a given project under the Land Evaluation
component ofthe methodology. This approach also complements the LE determination,
which, while addressing soil quality, does not account for the total acreage of soils of given
qualities within a project.
This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high quality agricultural
land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be
considered significant agricultural resources. In this way, no single acreage figure for a
specific class of soils (e.g., soils defined as "prime") is necessary.
15
2. Site Assessment. The Water Resources Availability Rating
The Water Resources Availability Rating is based upon identifying the various water
sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different
restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being
periods of drought and non-drought. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. . Water
Resources Availability Worksheet (Table 4) is used to tabulate the score.
Step 1.
Identify the different water resource types that are used to supply the proposed
project site (for example, irrigation district water, ground water, and riparian water
are considered to be three different types of water resources). Where there is only
. one water source identified for the proposed project, skip to Step 4.
Step 2.
Divide the proposed project site into portions, with the boundaries of each portion
being defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it. A site that is fully served
by a single source of water will have a single portion, encompassing the entire site.
A site that is fully served by two or more sources that are consistently merged
together to serve a crop's needs would also have a single portion. (e.g., a portion of
the proposed project may receive both irrigation district and groundwater). Ifthe
project site includes land that has no irrigation supply, consider this acreage as a
separate portion as well. Enter the water resource portions of the project in
Column B of Table 4, Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources
Availability.
[As an example, a hypothetical project site is determined to have four separate
water supply portions:
Portion 1 is served by irrigation district water only;
Portion 2 is served by ground water only;
Portion 3 is served by both irrigation district water and ground water;
Portion A is not irrigated at aiL]
Step 3.
Calculate the proportion of the total project area that is represented by each water
resource portion, and enter these figures in Column C of Site Assessment
Worksheet 2. . Water Resources Availability, verifying that the sum of the
proportions equals 1.0.
16
I-'
-J
"'U"'U
en CJ1 o ..
.j:>. w I\.) .... ~ .2.
-. CO
o C")
:J _
~
'\'-
--
C\ ~:;:E
c: OJ
.. -
C") CO.
CO ..
~ "'U"'U
- :s: -- "'" a
0 c: , ..Q."'O
en ~ CO 0
.... - S4.;:!.
0 C/)
~ c: ~ c)"
3 .. :J
CO 0
OJ _
::0
m ~
(J)<:;:E
0 0' ~ C") El.
I::
~ o OJ OJ
lit "'C"CD
III CD ::.: ..,
- ~
~~
o _
::il ~
~ ~ b ~:;:E
()C/)OJco
C") -.-.
X 0 WCO
..c-::T
oco:::1D
...=:; ~ Co
~
-I
III
0-
lD
~
en
;:;:
III
>
III
en
III
en
en
3
III
:l
..
:E
o
..
::0;-
en
:r
III
III
..
!'l
.
:E
III
..
III
..
;0
III
III
o
C
Cl
CD
III
~
!!!.
Ci
!r.
~
OJ
()
o
m
Step 4.
For each water resource supply portion of the project site, determine whether
irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible, and if any physical or economic
restrictions exist, during both drought and non-drought years. These italicized
terms are defined below:
. A physical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a
water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural
practices -- such as planting a crop that uses less water, or leaving land fallow.
(This could be from cutbacks in supply by irrigation and water districts, or by ground
or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. Poor water quality can also result
in a physical restriction -- for example by requiring the planting of salt-tolerant plants,
or by effectively reducing the amount of available water.)
. An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a
reduction in consumption. (This could be from surcharge increases from water
suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of
pumping more ground water to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the
extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of ground water from deeper within
an aquifer.)
. Irrigated agricultural production is feasible when:
1) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the
portion of the project identified in Step 2;
2) Physical and/or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt
production; and
3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic retum on crops though irrigated
production.
(A major question that should be considered is, if there is an irrigated crop that can be
grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site? Depending upon the
jurisdiction, some typical crops that have a large water demand may not be feasible to
grow on the project site, while others that require less water are feasible. Information to
aid in making this determination can be obtained from county agricultural commissioners,
the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other sources.) .
. Dryland production is feasible when rainfall is adequate to allow an economically
viable return on a nonirrigated crop.
. A drought year is a year that lies within a defined drought period, as defined by the
Department of Water Resources or by a local water agency. Many regions of the
state are by their arid nature dependent upon imports of water to support irrigated
agriculture. These regions shall not be considered under periods of drought
unless a condition of drought is declared for the regions that typically would be
providing water exports.
18
Step 5.
Each of the project's water resource supply portions identified in Step 2 is scored
separately. Water Resources Availability scoring is performed by identifying the
appropriate condition that applies to each portion of the project, as identified in
Table 5., Water Resource Availability Scoring. Using Table 5, identify the option
that best describes the water resource availability for that portion and its
corresponding water resource score. Option 1 defines the condition of no
restrictions on water resource availability and is followed progressively with
increasing restrictions to Option 14, the most severe condition, where neither
irrigated nor dryland production is considered feasible. Enter each score into
Column D ofTable 4.
- Step 6.
For each portion of the project site, determine the section's weighted score by
multiplying the portion's score (Column D), by its proportion of the project area
(Column C), and enter these scores in Column E, the weighted Water Availability
Score. Sum the Column E scores to obtain the total Water Resource Availability
Score, and enter this figure in Line 4 of the Final LESA Score Sheet (Table 8).
19
Cl
l:
"j:;
o
o
(J)
~
:c
.!!!
"Cij
~
ell
o
...
:s
o
III
ell
c::
...
ell
-
C'll
3:
l!!
ell
O.l
>-.
~
.s::.
Cl
:s
e
o
l!!
ell
~
~
.s::.
Cl
:s
e
o
C
a
Z
tri
ell
:0
ell
I-
cr:
W
~
3:
(J)
Z
o
t;
c::
~
W
cr:
(J)
Z
o
t;
c::
~
W
0::
W
()
0::
:J
o
(J)
W
cr:
W
0::
o
()
(J)
o ~
.E a
ots
C"i:: ('-.
a~
o III
W O.l
cr:
III
r3 .~
.- t5
g!, .t::
.s::.~
a. III
&
-0 B C'.
Q) +:0 Q)
.......0]5
ell :s o(jj
.2> -0 ell
t: e O.l
-a.LL
o ~
.E 0
o :g ('.
c 'C
aU)
o O.l
Wo::
III
r3 o~
.- t5
~"C ('.
.s::.~
a. gj
0::
-0 B C'o
Q) +:0 Q)
-0:0
ell :s o(jj
.2> -0 ell
t: e O.l
a.LL
C
a
""
0.
o
Ol{)O
Oc>c>
..-
(\
l{) 0 l{)
co co r--
v
l{)Ol{)l{)Ol{)
COl{)'<!"C'?C'?N
o(J)(J)o(J)o(J) I
Z ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~. I
ooo(J)(J)(J)(J)
C'.ZZZWWWW
>->->->-
(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)oooo
WWWWWWW
>->->->->->->-ZZZZ
oo(J)ooo(J)o(J)o(J)
ZZ~ZZZ~Z~Z~
ooooo(J)(J)oo(f)(J)
ZZZZZ~~ZZ~~
(f)(f)(f)(J)(J)(J)(f)(J)(J)(J)(J)
WWWWWWWWWWW
>->->->->->->->->->->-
'T"""C'\I('I")...r
---
~~CO
r--coc>O
..-
o
N
o
-0 -0
C C
ell ell
~ ~
-0 -0
'- L.."ti)
.E .Effi
~ O.l O.l
- ~ >-
ell ell~
:SUl:S.s::.
CT<.:CTCl
O.l III O.l :s .!!!
-0 O.l-o a.o
ell >- ell ... .-
_="C~
J'Q -a, ~ .5 ~
c:J.S.......c
.~e~go
......"C..............:;:;
:s C :s :J 0
.00.0:8--5
4ic4il!!e
.0-0.0 ell 0.
.in 15 .in ~-o
co_co c
~..c~:c~
~Cl~Cl~
ac a:J a :J -0
... C a
C"C c:-o 0
a .s::. .2 c c
t5C5t5o"O
:J.o:JCO.l
"0 c:"'O c:ro
e.- e.- 0>
0. C 0. C .-
a a t:
~t5~UL..
ro-6ro~~
.2> 0 .2> a O.l
1:: 5..t:: a z
o
N
..-N
..- ..-
'<!"
..-
C'?
..-
Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating
The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was
developed in cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the
Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is
presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA
Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the
development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would
need to be represented in this system.
First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural
production (such as being forced to change to lower-value crops, putting in groundwater pumps,
or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation
on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused
on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California
to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are
referred to as restrictions.
Second, the faCtor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and
unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual
systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost - a more reliable
water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were
classified into two major categories - physical and economic. These are separated because,
generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be
reflected in the LESA system.
Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the
drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The
impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to
avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures.
. Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or
simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options
included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or
leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be
scored as high as a similar project site that does not.
The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential
restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance,
was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last
drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to
levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water?
21
If the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed
an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project
site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could
have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe
restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very
secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project
site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment
during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries.
The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the
adequacies of water supply in the past - it should be a prediction of how the water system will
perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to
stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmental reasons, which will
decrease the future available surface water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not
an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance.
22
3. Site Assessment - The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating
Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a
project's "Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly
adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the
agricultural land use of the subject project site. The determination of the ZOI is described below,
and is illustrated with an example in Figure 1.
Defining a Project's "Zone of Influence"
Step 1.
Locate the proposed project on an appropriate map and outline the area and dimensions
of the proposed project site.
Step 2.
Determine the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site
(Rectangle A).
Step 3.
Create a second rectangle (Rectangle B) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet)
beyond Rectangle A on all sides.
Step 4.
Identify all parcels that are within or are intersected by Rectangle B.
Step 5.
Define the project site's "zone of influence" as the entire area of all parcels identified
in Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1.
[In the illustration provided in Figure 1, Parcels W, X, and Yextend beyond
Rectangle B and are therefore included in their entirety in defining the project site's Zone
of Influence.]
23
Figure 1: Defining a Project's Zone of Influence
Step 1. Detenntne th~
area and illmm:sions
of Ihe Vroj.,(l
Rl!<:lallgJ. A
"0+
Rectllngle B
110+
Ste'p 2. Determl"" the.
~ll1allest redangle 111o.1l:\\:m
c<>mllletel)' contain the pro)e"
site (lndlrotcd .. Rtctangte AI.
Step 4. l~enllry all parcel< thaT are withm Ot
are m'......t.d by RectangJel!. II'"
;+0"
Step 3. Cre-at'e n UC'ond rect.1cc;le
lRKIallfl/e bl lhal extends 0.25 mile
UlZO reell heyond Re<tmgle A on all 51':..,
Step s. DciUlt' the proJr.i.'t's '"zone of tnOu('n<e.
Q' lbe <nUn: are. of alll'am!ls ldeol.lfk?d In Step 4,
1= the or.. of the propo..d project from Step 1.
In this e.u:nple porccl. \Ii X. and Y extend beyond
Rectangle B and ore thererore Included In Ihe their
mitreI}' lD ~.!ining the pro)<<!'. zone 0( Jnfluence.
Measuring Surrounding Agricultural land .
Step 1.
Calculate the percentage of the project's Zone of Influence that is currently producing
agricultural crops. [This figure can be determined using information from the Department
of Conservation's Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources'
Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, or direct site inspection. For agricultural land
that is currently fallowed, a determination must be made concerning whether the land has
been fallowed as part of a rotational sequence during normal agricultural operations, or
because the land has become formally "committed" to a nonagricultural use. Land that has
become formally committed, whether fallow or no~ should not generally be included in
determining the proportion of the Zone of Influence that is agricultural land. For further
information on the definition of Committed Land, refer to the following Explanation of the
. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating.]
Step 2.
Based on the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI determined in Step 1, assign a
Surrounding Agricultural Land score to the project according to Table 6, and enter this
score in Line 5 of the Final lESA Scoresheet (Table 8) .
Table 6. Surrounding Agricultural land Rating
Percent of Project's Surrounding
Zone of Influence Agricultural Land
in AQricultural Use Score
90 -100% 100 Points
80 - 89 90
75 - 79 80
70 - 74 70
65 - 69 60
60 - 64 50
55 - 59 40
50 - 54 30
45 - 49 20
~ &
40<
1,111 / ~/5'J/ -::- 32-'(.
25
Explanation ofthe Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating
The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the
level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California
Agricultural LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel
that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that
has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a
"Zone of Influence" that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from
the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an
area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. In a simple example,
a single one quarter mile square project (160 acres) would have a Zone of Influence that is a
minimum of eight times greater (1280 acres) that the parcel itself.
_ Land within a Zone of Influence that is observed to be fallow will require a case by case
determination of whether this land should be considered agricultural land. The Department of
Conservation's Important Farmland Maps may be of assistance in making this determination. In
addition, land currently in agricultural production may be designated as being "committed" to
future nonagricultural development. The Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program has a land use designation of Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, and is
defined as "land that is permanently committed by local elected officials to nonagricultural
development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply by a majority vote of a city
councilor county board of supervisors. The "committed" land must be so designated in an
adopted local general plan, and must also meet the requirements of either (a) or (b) below:
(a). It must have received one of the following final discretionary approvals:
1. Tentative subdivision map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act);
2. Tentative or final parcel map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act);
3. Recorded development agreement (per Government Code 965864);
4. Other decisions by a local government which are analogous to items #1-3
above and which exhibit an element of permanence. Zoning by itself does
not qualify as a permanent commitment.
Or
26
(b) It must be the subject of one of the final fiscal commitments to finance the capital
improvements specifically required for future development of the land in question as
shown below:
1. Recorded Resolution of Intent to form a district and levy an assessment;
2. Payment of assessment;
3. Sale of bonds;
4. Binding contract, secured by bonds, guaranteeing installation of
infrastructure;
5. Other fiscal commitments which are analogous to items #1-4 above and
exhibit an element of permanence."
Lead agencies are encouraged to identify Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use within a
projec;t's 201 and make the determination whether this land, while still in agricultural production, be
considered nonagricultural land for the purposes of the calculation performed here.
27
4. Site Assessment - The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating
The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding
Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those
lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of
land. Included among them are the following: .
. Williamson Act contracted lands
. Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources
. Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that
restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses.
Instructions for the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating
Step 1.
Utilizing the same "Zone of Influence" (ZOI) area calculated for a project under the
Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, calculate the percentage of the ZOI that is Protected
Resource Land, as defined above.
Step 2.
Assign a Surrounding Protected Resource Land score to the project according to
Table 7, and enter this score on Line 6 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ).
Table 7. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating
Percent of Project's Surrounding
Zone of Influence Protected Resource
Defined as Protected Land Score
90 -100% 100 Points
80 - 89 90
75 - 79 80
70 -74 70
65 - 69 60
60 - 64 50
55 - 59 40
50-54 30
45 - 49 20
40 - 44 10
40< 0
28
Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring
The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given
project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment
factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to
equal 1 00 percent.
land Evaluation Factors
Land Capability Classification
Storie Index Rating
25%
25%
land Evaluation Subtotal
50%
Site Assessment Factors
Project Size 15%
Water Resource Availability 15%
Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15%
Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5%
Site Assessment Subtotal 50%
Total lESA Factor Weighting 100%
Each factor is measured separately (each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate line
. in Column B of the Final lESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor's score is then multiplied by
its respective factor weight, resulting in a weighted factor score in Column D as indicated in
Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed, yielding a Total LESA Score (100 points
maximum) for a given project, which is entered in Line 7 of Column D.
29
co
",I ~I~ 1
tI. ,. I ~
'" ~ 1
1
-0 ~ ~I I I
Q) .... 0)
~ 0 .....
~o c: ..... ^
"" t-
o- CO CO Q)
CllLLO::
~ c:
::J
V
II II II II II II II
8 Cll
0)0 .....
..... c: 0 0
0 ~ T- LO LO LOLO LO LO o~
0 ..c: II C'! C'! ..- ..- ..- 0 en~
CO 0) 0 <( o!:
O(j) ro 0 0 00 0
LL ~o en~
w ~
!::. ...l ....
0
.!lIo
X o~
XX XXXX 1--0
Cll
~
..c:
0)
O(j)
Cil \"" :::
~~ ~~~~ -
~ 0
.... c:
o O)Og E
~ c:
C,)~ ~~ ::J
CO coo CIl
LLO::O ~
..- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
,
e. ..- N M'<I"LO<O
Q) Q) Cll Cll Cll Cll
c: c: c: c: c: c:
::J::J ::J::J::J::J
v V V V V V
;
c: CIl
-0
0 z;-c:
""
ro 0_ CO CIl
0 = ...l -0
.Q-c:
Q) l;::: ro ~ ro
E O(ij =::J...l
CO CIl ro~Cll
ro
Z 0 0) .7("50
.... c: o .....
0- ::J
0 z;-'g Q)c,o
0 =0:: ~<(CIl
CO :c >< ::J Cll
LL ~ Cll o 0) 0::
c: ro Cll c: N CIl c:
0.-0 en Q) 0- "
0 Cll o::"Cll
"" ro c: E ~ c: ~
CO 0- 0,-::10
::J " 092 CIl Q) Q) 0 Cll
CIl
ro c: .... Cll "-'- t:......
> roB CIl e ~ ::s e
w ...len CIl 0... eno...
" N <( ~Ncvi...t
c: ..- Cll
CO ~
...l en
\"
r-,..
N\
-------....
0<>
--
~
o
o
o
C"l
-
Cl.l
Cl.l
..c:
CIl
~
0
u
en <(
<(
en
w
..J
i1i
c:
u:
cO
Cl.l
:c
III
I-
Section IV. California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds -
Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA
A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections
2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural
LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being
capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from
the Site Assessment factors. .
The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the
poten.tial significance of a project's conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase
of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESAscore as
well as the component LE and SA subscores.. In this manner the scoring thresholds are
dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single
threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (Le., a site with a very high LE score, but a
very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring
thresholds.
Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds
Total LESA Score
Scoring Decision
o to 39 Points
Not Considered Significant
60 to 79 Points
Considered Significant 2!JlY..if LE and SA
subscores are.each Qreaterthan or equal to 20 points
Considered Significant unless either LE or SA
subscore is less than 20 points
. 40 to 59 Points
80 to 100 Points
Considered Significant
31
Bibliography
1. Conserving the Wealth of the Land-A Plan for Soil Conservation, Department of
Conservation. 1987.
2. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones and Stokes,
Associates, Inc., for the California Department of Conservation. 1991.
3. Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability
Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995.
4. LESA Guidelines for Local Jurisdictions - Project Size and Water Resource Availability
Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995.
5. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. The Farmland
Protection and Policy Act, part 658. Code of Federal Regulations - Agriculture, Parts 400 to
699. 1990.
6. Pease, J and R. Coughlin. land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating
Agricultural Lands, Second Edition; prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service; Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1996.
7. Pease, J., et al. State and Local LESA Systems: Status and Evaluation; In: Steiner, F., J.
Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994.
8. Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994.
32
tJl
-
Q)
Q)
.r.
tJl
~
...
o
~
<(
en
w
-!
~
::J
:!:
::J
()
.;::
Cl
<(
(lJ
'C
...
g
Iii
o
<(
><
:a
C
ell
Co
Co
<(
I: .<:
o ~ '0
:;: Q) en
~ a .r:.
n; c: d g
.!i ~ c~
" 0 ES
c g...2 u
C':S L. 0 ()
..J c.. O-.J
Q) Q) c: Q)
=: :6;;=
'5 ai~ ....0
<c c'i= 2-;
E t: I: I:
C Q) CD._
E :S"" -0 "'0
- Q) c: c:
:s 0-0 co&.
"0 00 >.(1)
o I: -., ..,.,
.- 010 2: t:
.5 $ ca c :J 8
E 5~ECI)C)
Q) oo:s=c
.r:. Em-o:;:
.. ~ cactio(J)~
~ Q) ..... 0 <IJ
o 13 ~.s.E:g:E
CJ Q) CD 0 0
en "'C C:5:6a.=a.
o ~ ffi "E >-~8:~
(.)0 co m"C=a:I.....
VJo e -gmg~.~
W..J.~ "'1:'<:0-1:
~oo "E",E5i
-I t:: m.st ~:s Q) e-.,
0'-0...- -
___250 _o'Om"O
0_....,0. '000.-
Ill.," II)~I:~~
.. u.r:.:6 .r:.Q).Q 0
CUl;::':::c .o~t:::g"ij)
:::s 0 .- <C '" ...- 00. II) .c
'jjj =",,"= n _.,
co CI) Q).-..", _ 0 i:. - - .
> ca t>>~G.lO(l)o.~.cw
WO~~~~..c:CDQ)~C
-c oo.a.I-~:51- E
c ~ca~c: ~ Q) a:;J2.2.a
Ill=Cii=0---080
..J'--o"O",Ol:o 0
.C:.9 (I) 4>0 cnW-ICI)
ell III ., "'C ... Q) C
Q) .- t,;.. Q) U'-
..c Q.:5=~~~'E:5U~
::ocuQ)Q)a. m$a>-'Q)
o c:c_,$.r:.Q)C<D'E
-c'~'~ t.!2; o.'~:5 Q)
cocQ)cu.r:.O"cQ)Q>E"O
ca -- cn-'>- 0.- 0 I:
;;..J Q) Q)~ ctl.-.2:-Q).... co
III 00...00 ou..,
:; -r- --~ --~ -- a.
o ~~;>e2.:!.U)ee~
iii'5
oc..
CI)
~
o
:c::
:;: 0
~
Ii 0
~ ....
:;:
~
Ii 0
.; N
:;:
> 0
M
~
Ii 0
2: -.t
Gl 0
2: III
~ 0
~ '"
~ 0
...
~ 0
~ co
Q) ..!! 0
en
III
g- o
;:: - 0
0 ....
()
II)
II) -
0 '" I:
O..!!! '0
..JO lL
.0
I-
en
o
o
....J
Q)
=
~
Q)
c
Q)
"0
I:
'"
iiJ
I:
E
::J
o
!d.
...
.$
I:
Q)
"0
I:
'"
8"
E ~
::J ~
o .,
!d. Ol
<C,' '"
a ,0) 0.
T""" C) .S c
Q) c ~ .2
OJ Ex ecP
co ::J Q) 0 Q)
a. --0 o.c
c 0 c: (I) CI)
o 0-
~ ~.~ ~ ~
.s:::. .... Ci5 -., en
en Q)
G) 1: Q) 'C <(
"- Q) :5 .s (I)
o -0>' cnUJ
U c..o Q) -I
U) ctl_ .s;:.-
6 <C Q)U -co
I: I:
E :fJ ~E '.. u::
:J ..J :a.:! ~ Q)
'0 co f/JO -:5
g, c .c~ :r:'O
Q) u: gQ) c^
a. Q) Q)a. EN
~ .<: ...~ ::J v
"0 ~ 15 .E0l:a (5 ~
f/J C ^ c: f/J U..o
.c E..... :;::.c "5.5
g .=V ~g f/JQ)
Q)~8~ ~~ ~8
oc ..oe:!"Oo o",en
c:E"5.50..5c:. x
"Q=f/JQ)CJQ)~Q:r:~Q)
1::=0 e "'8fJ)"h15 c"O"g
008 ><-o.EE-
e I: II) II) Ql en 0 ::J ., ,"
a."~U8~~a.o"g.s
Q)Q)U...J"'-CDU-en
.c......J -Q).c en
-8 Q)CI)C_C Q)
~ (I) ~:5 -t:"s:: ~"~ 1?:5
a. -...ot::a.Q)-...
:eg'E,S..,S:E5E,S
::J:;:: ::J c: UJ Q) ::J 0 ::J c::
:;-senw o:;lI)enw
;:::"mCOo>N~N~M~
-... --~ -----
III
c..
.,
8
II)
-
I:
'5
a.
.,
.<:
-
,.,
.c
-
-<:
~
0
. 0
..... fJ)
- <ll
<ll "~
<ll
.c fJ)
III -
.lO: 0
... <ll
0 '0'
3: ...
- D-
C
<ll
E
III
III
<ll
III
~
<ll
-
en
-
<ll
<ll
.c
III
.lO:
...
o
3:
c
o
:;::;
ra
::J
"ia
>
W
"tl
C
ra
..J
c
o
:;::;
ra
o
It: III
'Uj ~
III 0
ra 0
(3 fJ)
~ ~
"tl
:c c
ra <ll
c. .-
ra ...
0_.8
"tl0fJ)
CO"tl
ra ..J C
..J~ra
() 1Il-
III 5
() ro ,
..J():?:
() III
lIl_
() ro=
..J-
()
III
III
.!!!
() -
,
() -
()
..J
~
-,
o
l/) ~ l/) oe
~ 0- e .CIl 0
0 Cl)o 0'0
q: - 0 &:~
- OCl)
.s .CIl
~ e' 1;) .~
a.: CIlCl)
.c:
.~
:t:
Q) 1ij ~
.;::
I o"c 0
-co
fJ)-fJ)
~ ~
Q) x 'tIo
(9 .;:: Q) .s:~
0 "C
- C CIl-
fJ) .~ ClI
10;;_
~~
CI)
() ~
() 0
..J 0
fJ)
() g OjUlIl
() :;:l 0-"-
..J &. ..,J~8
CI)
()
()
..J
'0 ro
C ~ E
0 <(
'E ::J~
- fJ)C!
0 0
.~ -.....
c. gj 0
0 e
... :2-
c... c... ~
t5 III
Q) Q)
"e- ...
0
c... <(
c.
ro - .!!l
:2 , 'c .s
"0 :J ~
fJ)
LL
w
o
()
In
<(
N.
-(
~
o
o
UJ
<(
UJ
EOca
e .92.. rn CO
_e-o c
~ a. '0 .~
",Ole: Ol
~.= 0 <Ii'-
75~'<ii ~~
Cf):.c~ ..."'0
-53:><Ol _cD ~ffi
ctI '0' :>
CD .. C '0 ....;>
_.sco .a..Q
00 (/) u CO CO Q)
<1> z.- Q):t::.s:::.a
0)-"" "-:"'0 en +-' CO
co . CD :!::: c.. ts c::c
~=a~Q) cooct!
O(/)(/):EQ)'O'U)t-
co.....Q)U):Eo.~,...O-
co ctl .... CD
.c:SO.aCQ)UlC
_.....0 O.cL.'C
....oU)"o(/).....mo
Q)-mCO=c3:CJ)
ct)=~~O.Q
Q>() ~o.._U)"O~
c{...J ~.~:;:g ffiU5
IQ)O"Cc:U)
N.c:.;:::;m(tJ->u
Q).....m.... :=-(1)
en.s "'5 .E -;;; (/) (/)'0
~(IJ.Q~gJgJ~D:
c-gB~o(joQ)
.Oo.....-_-O.s:::
"0 a. c: en 0 0 .....
CO (/) Q)'- .......... C
"COlE"'OC:cc,-
.- l= C:::l::l:J 0-
i;8::ltllOOOE:J
c: Ol _ E E e
Q......tJ'JQ)COcoctJcn
_mcnQ) _-
_:5<(..c:m.!.s~
CD <Den....oo....,
CD I.....-c 0.....-....
.::~Ciio;Q)Q).c
en... :> .r;,.s:::u
~oQ):>:5-;m
0..,:5 c: CD e:Ol e: Ol
~ _OC:._'-'-
f~-;2~'~E~.E
OCCc:.2Q)Q).s~
O"E~g!a;a;Ol8
UJE:JOW"C"C"C"
en_a. 00_
G>:Oe"O.s-:::.s
NcnUoffi ""-0
(i)~Q)O...JCCC;
_ :6tllQ)EEE.c:
~ ~.=.!a~-5-s-se
......cnm ~.-OOU co
OC>CO-o C-
a.....S Eeno.$ E E E E
U) 0 ::J :J :J 0
::>E!Q)Q)eneneno
.... ,....:... 0 N =8 ----
"I"""" .- NM-vl,()
~ _u en ____
ell
a.
-
c
Q)
E
11l
11l
Q)
11l
11l
<(
Q)
-
en
Q)
.c
-
-
o
c
o
..
.!!!
:::l
o
"'iij
o
~
1::
o
~
;;
Q)
-<:
.,
"l::
~
;Ji
lJ.J
-.J
CI)
~
o
:c:
~
8
.,
'Iii
Q)
~~
Ol III
:61-
~ g -E
> 'C '0
'~Ol 8 = a.
'- (j) 0
o.Q)
~ N en
~ Ci5 l{l
"fiou
:E.~
;= e
a.
.,
1:00000
.....o~CX)(oVC\lO
..a.
;=
o
..J
~
o
;::
cnQ) mcncn
cnC'lO'l'""MI.{)(j)
C'aCONMC';Jr-O')V
u~Mooo6~
;e^~~~-.;t
II)
'EOoooooo
'i5~O>CO"""'(oM'I'""O
a.
.,
.,
..
(j
Q) Ol
0)0 l() 0>
CO(Oor-or-
~or-o"7
uANO
<( ~'"
Ol
I";-
o
<0
0l0l0l
LQ,?"7~
OOOOr-
....N~
0000'0
~O>CX)l()MO
Ol
0)00>0>0>0>
COCO"""U;>Mor-V
~AOOOO~
~ (O-.:tN'r"
Ol
:6
-
o
^
'"
v
x
o
.c
.5
g;-
Ol
'C
o
OJ
.$
~
o
o
...J
Ol
~
.c:
-
ID
.c:
-
E
,g
~
o
o
.,
-
.,
ID
.c:
OJ.
:2<(
.
IDa
.c:~
"""Ol
f~
00.
U e:
Ul 0
~Gj
- ..
Ul.c:
_en
U ..
.. ~
00
~ U
ll.Ul
Q)<(
:6Ul
~w
2..J
e:_
W tll
~e:
<0 .-
~...
<'l
<:
'"
~
'"
.<:::
-
~
'"
.<:::
05
.<:::
;:
'0
c
.Q
10
c
.~
'"
05
"0
'"
OJ
c
'5
::J
'0
.S
.$
'w
"
'"
'e-
o.
'"
.<:::
e~
00
U1:
en",
:::..Ul
..- ~
.- 0.
=C"":
.cOO;
..!!!~;:
-- e>>tJ)
Cll 'E <0
..;::::~
0>
C1)_;:;
U Ul 0
...~'"
::s 2i 16
O~S
Cl)Q)::::
Gl.<:::::J
~ -,2
... .~ ~
~E"O
.w '" c
>-'"
>~~
.~"O
N~.~
1::
Cll
a.
~
'"
-
..
s:
.!!l
roN
.<:::-
- '"
OJ",
.S J:
o.Ul
0....
eo
os:
"0-
C c
.!!! '"
~E
"0 Ul
~ Ul
0'"
c Ul
o Ul
:.;::<C
~.!
'E in
:::'0
o
Ulal
'" c
o.E
~"
6'0
"'u
o.c
~.-
'" c
=~
0'"
-;'E
cS
~.E
IH
<0 ~
Ul.$
c c
.Qw
't::
o . ~
0.6:=:
O'e=
'Eo..c
.- a. RI
.!B.c==
.- 0 >
Ul"'.....
0>"''''
:S .5 =
~~~
'S: .c "
o:m~
~"'",
~~o::
Ul
:c
-
~
'"
-
c
'"
"0
C
'"
"0
'"
""
""
c
'"
:2
c
o
'e
o
0.
.<:::
o
'"
'"
~
S
"0
'"
1:
'"
Ul
~
0.
~
.$
'w
$
.9
'"
=0
-
o
c
o
'eti
8.c
e E
0."
"''0
=ou
'" c
c .-
.- c
E .Q
.sea
~ E
~S
~.=
.<:::
o
'"
'" ~
~ 0
.Ern
0.9
Q).- c
:o~ ~'Q;
.<:::~
._ a. 0
0.'-0
0."'00
CtJ = Z.
... 0>.-
cn.!:=
0;:.0
E"O~
Ul C '"
.- ro >
1ti ~<(
=~Q)
<00
6 ~:;
;:;-~
0.'<::: '"
o OJ~
",::J~
.eeL...
"'''O.s
~c:CtJ
""oS:
c C
~"O~
._ c: .c
afctJ~
-... .-
~-5o.
,,0.
o '"
-o~
c-
.~ Q)
.2 'E
._ caW
:B 'E"Ui
~ :;:'x
<00'"
~ ~.9
VJ == >.
a>:9"ij)
OUl..><
5ct1=
o oS:! Q)
Ul CIl ~
Cl:=O~
c c
0.2
m Q.t)
~ ::J.c::
aJ"lii
~ C/) eo'
-"'0
C).c._ c
,SeEE
~.2 g :J
_1::0"0
:!.. &. ~ 0
'"
~
<0
13
'"
'0
~
0.
'"
=0
-
o
c
o
'e
o
0.
e
0..
"'w
=OC
>-E
.c "
c-
o 0
'eU
o C
0. .-
.<::: 5
0.-
",'t::
'" 0
~ 0.
S.<:::
o
~ '"
0'"
o ~
ooS
~~
=8
:c
'" Ul
="0
'" '"
J(:c
OJ
2l 'a;
5 ;:
o CIl
Ul.<:::
"'-
Cl:CIl
....,5
.$ E
~'"
>05
"'"0
:S.s
.2:-Ul
0.-
._ C
::",
::J Ul
:2~
~ 0.
It) '"
~~
~
o
o
00
~
:c
.!!!
'(ij
~
Ul
'"
~
::J
o
Ul
'"
Cl:
~
'"
-
'"
3:
m
:g
Ul
1;
'"
'e-
o.
CIl
=0
CD
c
.~
*
"0.
.9
Ul
c
o
'e
o
0.
m
'"
OJ
'"
0.
C
o
-
'"
'"
.r.
U)
'"
~
o
o
U)
c(
U)
W
..J
..
c
u:
CD
.<:::
-
-
o
^
..,.
v
x
o
.0
.S
~
o
.0
00
~
:c
.!!!
'(ij
~
~
"
o
Ul
'"
Cl:
"""
,
<:
~
S
Ul
~
o
o
Ul
'"
.r.
-
~
.$
'"
3:
'"
.<:::
-
~
.$
c .
w<(
r::-o
~~
E
::J
00
~
CD
~
~
""'
c
o
~ II)
3l ~
~ 0
~ :c:
~
~
....
~ D
:a
.!l!
';0
~
III
..
~ U
:>
0
III
..
n:
....
..
-
'"
::
N
-
..
..
.c CO
III
'"
....
0
::
-
c
..
E
Ol
III
..
Ol
III
<I: -<
..
-
(ij
w
"0 ~ ~
.!!l :s ~ D
.c
Cl .!l! 8 x
.;;; ';0 en u
:: ~ ~
al e
- 0
~ ~ ...
.... ~ C/)
" :s - (I)
- .!l! 0 a l:!
'" ...
:: ~ en {2 "
0
l{l
a::
- <Il
0 ~ E
c ::> ~
0 -< en ~
'E - u; ~
0 ...
a. .. ::> 0
e "e- ~ -
a. a.
.... "
" ...
OJ ....
::>
:: 0
en
'0 c
" 0
'0' 'E ~ ,N ('") v LO <<>
.... 0
a. a.
<(
V"l
~
'"
-
'"
~
W
0:: U W
W 0:: 0:: 0
I- ::> 0 0 "., 0 "., 0 "., "., 0 "., "., 0 "., 0 0
~ 0 ~ '" '" <Xl <Xl .... <0 "., ... ""' ""' N N
en U
W en
0::
0 .,
c:
'E 0 en I I I I
0 U 0 en en 0 en 0
c: 'C: ", Z W W z. w z W I 1 I I
0 u; >- >- >- >-
0
w '"
0::
f! en
z .,
'" 0
~ OJ c:
t3 0 I I I I
0 t1 0 0 0 en en en en
1:: ~ '(jj E C'- z z z w w w W I I I I
0> >- >- >- >- >-
:J .c: .,
e a- '"
w 0::
0 0::
c: ",
" 0 '"
'" t1 :0 en en en en en en en 0
m 0 0 0
0> :J 'iii. W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z " "
E " '" >- >- >- >- >- >- >- c: c: -
e '" '" '"
a- u. ~ ~
" " ~
~ ~
.E .E '"
'"
., '* '" >-
0 m -
c: .c:
'E 0 :J f! :J Ol
t5 en en en en 0' 0'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" '" :J '"
c: 'C: ", Z Z W Z Z Z W Z W Z W " ~ " e :0
0 - >- >- >- >- OJ OJ " 'iij
0 ., 1::
w '" ~ ~ ,5 OJ
0:: Ol .l!!
c: :J c: 15
'~ e '~ c: c:
0
f! - " :; :; f5
'" :J c: e
~ en .c 0 .c :J
Z ., c: "
OJ c: cD cD f! e
1:: 0 ,2 "
t3 0 en en en en :0 c: :0 OJ a.
0> '(jj '0 ", 0 0 0 0 0 W W 0 0 W W 'iij OJ 'w '" "
:J >- 'C: Z Z Z Z Z z. Z >-
>- >- >- >- OJ - OJ c:
e 1i: .c: u; .l!! .c: .l!! - OJ
..c:
0 ~ a- '" Ol 0> ~
0 0:: 15 :J 15 :J
c: W c: e c: e "
0 ~
Z 0:: c: " c: " 0
0 '5 0 c: c:
t1 tl 0 "
c: :J .c :J c: .$
" ,2 ", " ,5 " ,5 OJ
'" e e Ol
" '0 :0 en en en en en en en en en en en
m a. c: a. c: 'C:
:J '(jj W W W W W W W W W W W 0 0 ,!=
0> " OJ >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- " tl " U ~
E e " '" '"
" m :J 1ii :J
a- u. " " ,s
Ol e Ol e '0;
'E a. :E a. z
c:
,2 ~ N ""' ... "., <0 .... <Xl '" 0 ~ N ""' ...
c. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
'"
:E
'"
I-
0>
c:
';::
o
o
en
>-
~
:c
.!!!
'to
~
'"
o
~
:J
o
.,
'"
0::
'D
-<
Q)
=
Q)
:c
'"
I-
>.
a; Q)
Q3 a> c:
c.~g> .~
~ t;: ~ ~
o Q.) Q) "'0
~ :5 ~ .9
o "'C c: ..-..
15 g 8 ~
:sa>-Q) a.
.c (J) .s
U) Q.) (I) (I)
~ m:5 (fie
- "'C >. 0 .-
E "U).c Co -g
(I) "0 a. ::l
Q) (ij ~ m.e c
:5 g Q) ~5 ~
.~ ~ ~ ::: N ::l
Q) 'E Q) -' 0 Q) g
Ch :s OtJ)-C ::l
c: lis Q) Nm:: en
ctl t:::: .... Q) l:! 0 Q)
o ro ~ :5mm .c
~ ::l ~ o~~ ~
Q)Ui:5 ~ ~ CDeC6'~
... ~_ 0 .- ~:I0 ==
ooaJ (fJ ::: CDC/)- -=:
(.)=:5 "C "'C O"'CQ.) -
woE.c ffi Q) cue:5 l:!
Q)~g xQ) .~ ]jo~~ 8
en_(/) C _0_ en
::Jots 'fi 8 m,,:~ "Cc
N Q). -
"tl ~-e .2 Q.) ;:: e a. co
t:Ba. 3:: Co Q)::lSaj-.J
III c'" c: _ .53 (fJ (I)"iij
...J Q) 3:: m s:: n C ::J '-
.c. .c t:.c'--.3
_::1_ e -"":Q>C)-oe!:;
l!. ~ -g "C ~ as 1U m 5 .a 0
::::J_::l c: ~J!!"'C.5~q"5.t:0l
...ooni~ t::.-o -0
- ....l:!- mo-lDQ)'c<
..._::::J~caca(f.l a.Q)(I)(ij~C>>tn
..... 0 c: - '-(5 ..... ctI c:
I..N3::0Q) "'ffi2o..21"5c::a
CJUJe.~cn (l)a.m~.g'-c:
<Cti"Coc: Q)Q)a.....O).sa:J
_Q)(I)c..~ -g==~mcag
u..e.....-Q)Q) __to: c:.c:J
s::::: Q)~.... oo_.c.-_Cf)
.- a.Ch+:l-o .5 ctI 0.S::! ca-
"CQ)C(I)c: _Q)co.cCDQQ)
C:5!9 ~ 8 Q).ON (ij l:!::: (aN:6
::lQ)"'a.Q)- aJG>cuQ.)Q)
O Q)E C)Q}Q) C.c.cc:
...-m.... o c:.c.ca>.-__._
'-:;"'8"''''I--;;;=EQ)oE
::Jo-c:-o_rJJEQ)"O_CD
(f) 16~Q)e~.2.~ :::lm:~ a5Q):>
() enoo",oi)
M - --- C3 --",
or N('I')"I:t l()
1:: ~ --- 0._..0
Ill.
D..
C
'C
o
'"
en
'tJ
c
'"
--'
"
c:
o
.2-
Qi
Q)
.c:
.,
~
~
~
....
CI)
~
o
:i!:
..
:c
III
I-
Ol
c
.;:
o
U
en
'tJ
c
III
..J
E
::J
-
:;
.2
~
Ol
<C
Ol
c
=ti
c
::I
e
~
::I
en
0'1";" Q)
.5 e 0
'C ::I u
c:!::U) 0 . It) 0 It) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
::I ::I 0 O'l O'l 00 00 ..... es:> It) .... '" N ~ 0
oU'" ~
... 'i: c
~ Ol III
cil<C..J
0 f!
N
... ::I 0 O'l O'l O'l
0 - 0 ~ O'l ;jI; O'l .... O'l ~ O'l
_c:; ~ 00 :;!; ~ ~ ;;l; 2; '" d: O'l
C'- U , 0 , J, , ~
0 0 0 v
Q) .;: 0),: 00 ..... es:> es:> It) It) .... .... '" '" N
U Ol
~ <C
Q)
a..
<f
0
~
Q)
Ol
'"
a.
c
0
-
..
..
.<:
en
Q)
~
0
u
en
<C
en
w
..J
iO
c
ii:
Q)
.<:
-
-
0
^
It)
v
x
0
.c
.!:
f!
8
en
'tJ
c
'"
--'
~
:; r-
0
'C
Ol <
<I:
Cl
c
'0
c
::J
g
::J
en
'"
=
~
Q)
"E
w
€
"tl
I:
'"
...I
..
u
..
:>
o
..
..
Il::
"tl
..
ti
..
-
e
11..
'"
I:
i5
I:
:>
o
..
..
..; :>
_Ul
3l "tl
~ I:
.. '"
~"tl
o I:
~j
em
.. ..
E .;l
.. :;
:g u
en ".:
.. '"
oe(oe(
~ g'
Uli5
I:
:>
e
..
:>
Ul
Cl Ql ~ OJ
c:"O
.- <1l u 0 :c
-0......'-0 ro
<.9 c:u:J(/) t-
:JQlO
go~"O E
:J .... 0:: c: e
(/)c.. j '=
Cl - Ql OJ
ce'--
.- O.c
"'C2oca
LL 5"5(/)t-
g.g-g E
:JClroe
(/)<(....I~
"0
c:
....."Oro
c:2....1<":,
W ~U~()
....Ql....~
Qlo:J::::'
c......0
c..Ul
~
c: Ql
.- ....
Ql ..... :J iii
0 c:==
U <1l :J
C U U ~
CIl .... .-
Ql ....
:J c..Jf
I;:
.E
....
0 .... "0 Ql
CIl o Ql U
() C .(/),"0 ~-c
~ QlQlOC:
'-+-I <n co
.:iOQl....l
0:0::
.~ ~
:J
Ul==
Ql :J
.... U
O"t:
<(Cl
<(
Ul
~
<(
ro
.....
0 ,
t-
CD
<(
00
Q)
'" =
-g-o 'E ~
~ {$ ~ OS::
(") Q) (ij t:
1::- .() .s
co e ~ Q) Q)
0.. a. 00 .c_ "
.!:"g we.9
,,'" Q)'- 5
~ (ij (I)~ N
Q)L.... =>c
.c.=' "Oq:: Q)
ro'S cm :=
0>0 ctJ"O -0 '"
'C ....J U) :a
c CJ) ca co Q) c:
~~ :;ui" ~ :J
s::c .:!:"O ~ g
t:=o affi 0 Ul::J
.Ec 'C- co
C:J C> Q)
'-0 <(~ S Q)
B~ C):J .9 :5
fficn :5~ ~ ..~
:J Q) c:.... ..... c: '''''~_
~= ::J"C >-0
-(I) em ~ts:;
"0 ~ :; ts N~ Q) Q)
.... Q) _-L....
(1)15 CIJ+-> c.eg
"'0 E Q) e _Q). a. Ul
Ng .co.
- Ulfl"
Q).c.E~ .E:sffi
~~ rim "O~...J
(J) ~ t::5' ~ ~ B
e~M &5 ~Q)~
o c:"" eN L.... "C U)
(.)Om '-0) c.cQ)
(f)a..c "O.c Q):Jc:::
:J en Q)..... .c.~ "C
0U)~ 10.5 0-0)
-c.~o "'3:5 .....m.....
c~3: .2'5 "C=~
Ill",_ co=> ~mo
..J",5i Olll ';::~a:
QI''''E 50; t:-v
u8cn N~u.i.sC)g>>
~(I)CI) CD Q.Q) Q) C._
::::JU)Q) :5Q)~"O:.c-g
o "C ~ _ U) Q) .~ g ::s ~
~~~ ~~~~~~~
c::: Q) i'il ~... C!l III Ul Q)
-c~_ ctJ~<mQ)Q)j5
Cl):J.: m~cn~=:5I-'"
....0"0 .""'o_w ...
CJcnQ)f/)_~"...JQ)oQ)
~$ = r::: Q) <1>-= <I).E.5
- 1.1.. .....2.c..c CO CJ) s:: ....
O"Oi::::-"",-:SQ) t:8
"'Q)Q).!9Q)E:!:~~.sCl)
a. " Q) ::J III ::J ::J._ Q) Q)
2 tii.2::>CJ).go oo-g
~ o..e. UJ ri;:- N <(0) M mOo ~...J'"
t:: Q)CIJ-- - -
CO.cDS"g
c.t=~.!2
~
::J
o
III
Q)
0::
"
Q)
"
Q)
e
0..
..
:;;
~
Cl
'"
";:
o
u
III
"
c
..
..J
..
o
..
::J
o
1Il
..
0::
"
..
-
o
..
-
e
l1.
Cl
C
:c
'"
::J
e
..
::J
III
..
l:!
::J
0 e
1Il
.. 0
0:: 0 0
III 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" 0 en en co co .... '" 10 .... 0') N ~ 0
.. " ~
- '"
0 '"
.. ..J
-
0
..
l1.
6
N "
- .. 0 ~<bl'!l;jl;en~~;s;
- en en '"
0 u 0 '9 ";- N 0
- .. ~ IOO.nO:ZO.no , N
C - , 0 0 0 v
.. 0 0 co .... (0 (OU')It).q-..q-OOC"') N
l:! .. en
.. l1.
l1.
1
o
~
Q)
'"
'"
a.
'"
o
-
..
Q)
.c
III
e
o
o
III
<(
III
W
..J
7<i
c
ii:
Q)
.c
-
'l5
^
'"
v
x
o
.c
.5
~
o
o
III
"
'"
'"
...J
Q)
~
::J
o
III
Q)
0::
"
{j
~
0..
C!)
.c
-
..
2
'"
w
~
~
...;
c:
0
-2.
Q;
III CI)
.t::
OJ ~
"l:
~ 0
~ :c:
'"
-J
~
.9
o
'"
U.
"0
'"
:E
Cl
'0;
~
"ti~
""-
'0 e
.f: 0. Co
~ '" '"
~ ..c:=
c _ ~
Q) o.E.
-g -;~g
CO 0 8 '0'
~ ~(I)a
o U1<('"
en ....JCJ)=
2 roSe
..c: "'0-
....Ql en .9-Q)
'm Q) Q) I...
Ql ". .c.cO
".. :;> .......... u
__ Q) Q) OJ (J)
tJ) ;; .5'~;;j
Ql ~ E",U1
~ .- Q).........J
e E Gi~ OJ
(,) S "C c:
UJ Q) -,g.s u:
..., "0 f!? f!? CD
....... .s 0 o..c:
tJ) - t>t>-
W -6, of!.e.~
....I '0; U1<(C/)E
:= ...J '"
ca!O ~s~
co1;l ~~o
.- u..-,;. .e.e-
u..(/)", ",,,,'"
......:5 Q)Q)~
..... ~.~ 8
(/)E; 88",
W so rn (I)
...J - 1........ <(
8 .9{S'"
_en u_"t:J
"'::,- .e~c
Co "C"CC'a
ii:t5 ssw
CI)-s .s::.c....J
.c..r:: .2' .2' (ij
::m~~~B
o >-:J Q) Q) Q)
cc..o:5:5:5
OEoEEE
;:; :J (I) :J :J :J
.!!!~~C/)C/)C/)
::S~ONM::d='
u-CI)---
co
o
~
t
o
~
Q;
'"
-<:
'"
~
~
(;!j
IJ.J
....
CI)
~
o
~
"'C
Cl) ...
:t:.B
C1U
"- III
~u.
...
o
-
U
III
U.
... en
o Cl)
- ...
U 0
III U
u.(/)
-
..c
CI
"Qj
3:
Lt) Lt)
N N
o 0
~"~.~ ~
..__'-""" 0"'C
~-lijrsCi5.E
t~~ a. <;::
..J! ro '(ii
.,0 en
~ ro
\'11;, -g 0
'Ij
~'"
~o
~o
reo
.i.L:
'w
~
,;;~
^
'"
v
<;)
It)
c::i
Lt)
.....
o
IJ.J-
....S
o
:Ci 'O'r.n
::J c~g;. L...
Cl)1a.
i~
II
III
",J.,,;,.
,...
iu
~~
'w.,;
.!c1(
'en
Lt) Lt)
..... 0
o 0
<;)
. It)
c::i
^ ^
10 <0
V V
OJ"C "C "C
C C 0) C
.- co...... ct:J
-g..J~..J
-0)
L... e ~
2a..:J
"5 0
o en
'C 0)
0::
<(-
Cl)s
.E
.Q
:::.
CI)
<(
ct
tJ)
W
....I
iij
C
u..
Ql
l-
e
o
tJ)
ro
:J
C
ro
:::2
C
0
n
:J
...
-
en
C
0)
.r::
-
-
0
'<t
C
0
t5
0)
(J)
""
:J
en
C
0
0
Qi
"C
0
:::2
<(
(J)
W
..J
l!!
::J
-
"5
U
.;::
}f
ell
'2
...
g
ro
0
0)
.r::
-
...
0)
"C
C
:J
en
"C
(5
.c
en
~
.c
-
OJ
C
";::
0
0
en
0)
.c
-
C
0
C
0
""
ro
E
...
.8
.!;;
...
0)
.c
~
.2
...
0 0
u. -
Q)
a.
E
ro
x
W
Ol
c:
'C
o
o
00
t)
Q)
'e-
o...
<(
00
W
...J
ro
'1:
~
g
Iii
o
m
.~
"C
c:
Gl
a.
a.
<(
Cl
C
';:
e
CJ
en
I-
.E
....
Q)
Q)
.s:::
III
.:.::
l-
e
:;:
.!:
E
Ol
.<:::
-
k
Gl Ol
~ -
o c
I.> Ol
fU) -g
-0_ <tl
1.>0 '"
000 ~
W d.c:j ~
...l r:: .!!!..!!!.
r:::8. [[
OraOlOl
= U.r:..J:.
cu I;::: ..."" .r::.
::s -- '5.!: a:i g
_ en .r:., Q)
cacnQ):t:N......
> ra liP;;: CIl 0
W(3 ~ ~ liP ~
"C u o.o..\-
r::l;-"'~c~
ra == iii = .0 _
...l .- 15 O"C .l!!
.Q....0Q)O
C1)COQ)Q):Q-
.l: 0..<:::.<::: >e!!l
.... co........ -
....o~~a.-;;
o .-.-a;-
r::-gEE~"~
o Q) Q).c 0
.-co'Q)Ci)cn(ij
'lii~ClClt:()
_ _ __ 0_
-, ~ ",:> '"
.!:! ~ -->-
ra ra
00...
-
Q)
"C
e
:!:
<(
en
w
..J
ltl
.-
C
I-
g
-
ltl
o
e
o
;:
'"
::l
iii
>
w
"
e
'"
..J
Ol
.<:::
-
'0 a:i
< e
e E
E ::l
::l '0
'0 u
o .!:
.l!l
e
::l
o
E
'"
Ol
=
k
.Sl
c
Ol
"C
C
'"
Ol
a.
~
.<:::
o
'"
Q)
-
o
c
o
'E
o
a.
e
a.
Ol
=
..
c
'E
k
'*
"C
.9
Olcj
Ol
'" e
~ E
~.2
_ 0
.l!!u
.9 c
Q) ';
=a.
>-~
.0 _
iiJ'g
e.<:::
E ~
::l Ol
0'0
~c
Q) .Q
a. 1::
~g,
:g~
",a.
.<::: Ol
0.<:::
"'-
Ol k
- Ol
0'E
"'W
~
0-'
'" :ii
Ol '"
=~
Ol a.
"C Ol
'S; a.
i5~
~:g
~'"
'0
'"
.<:::
.0
Cllil
e k
E.g
.::!()
Uo ()
..J
C CIl
.- .<:::
=::-
k 0
"'-
'E~
CIl ._
"C"C
C C
'" g,
>-'"
gq~
.. 0
ciJo
_ Ol
.- C
~:o::;
CIl ~
:Be
l'l '0
._ a.
Q.",
a..<:::
"'-
CIl '"
.r. .5
- E
E Ol
.gQi
CIl"C
a. -
~~
=Q5
lil.o
.<:::.Sl
o.cw
'" '"
Ol I- e
k E
.e t: ::I
'c-
() 00
()ou
..Jene
CIl () .-
:5(J~
Ol..J CIl
.S Q) C
E:; Q)
G5E"'O
Q) e fij
ClLLOl
~~ a.
!:e,!e.~
c .5; a)
CI) '- Q) 't- :;:... '"O::::s.
:t:::CI):Sc.Q c::-.
m-E;_" ,--..(\I '"0 :3 CI)~
~-"-JQ)~ <l>.9 -EC/)-
1ll""c:c3'C:lC::f~" (h~C/)
c'aOECW) ~~ ~~~
co..,,"2 Q) O..c:: CI) r~ <3
C\lco~([J.Q .~<tJOQ)'-'1
~E'C;;Q...s Q,)c~~Cti::i
O:-Q)O Q.o'4---.Q"tl
:;::;o..c:'c:-g~CC\lo:::::: c::
t5 ~~ e :::s~~ q;'t: g.s co
It:::::s ot).E:;::; CI) t7>.Q....:::....~
Ill.\' 'tJ Ql co O.c: 1Il ~ is !l:::::
"'.......Q)Q5<<:1<D(.)lo;:o..-::;l;..CI)
'-.~ :;::~caoo..oQ);:'co
U) - :;::; c: Q) en l;;;...c: Cf) C'tS
Q)gc:co"fie......oO"......::::::U
co.~Q)o>(O ..0 0Q).... 0 I
U) e~.5 en C/) <D'O'.c::.eCl)C/i
LUO"t:Cf,l.......etn~...... >..
'1:J Q) ::::i 0 (,) co Q. Q) ,.tI{ 1: -...
Cl)Q)Q) Q)coQ)-t:",::sCl)
-g CI) ..Q ....: 0,0 0 .s 's:: 0 0 CI)
o Q)..... co'""t co 0 t::.....U-S
.S! g..::>'1:J e;?'1:J Q)~,S 0 Q)O
.Q.~COc::(,)c::t=...Q)rt::........!.,
-J Q...c:: co (t) co .-- :;:: '"0 .-- :;:: -.I
lJ.J
~
~
lJ.J
CI)
~
;::
CI)
lJ.J
CI)
~
:s
Q
::::.
'0
'"
:> 0
~
iii 0
~ .....
:>
~
iii 0
oj '"
:>
> 0
'"
;;:
iii 0
~ oqo
.. 0
~ It>
~ 0
~ ...
~ 0
...
~ 0
~ co
Q) ~ 0
m
ro
g 0
;:: - 0
0 .....
0
III
'" -
U '" e
u.!!! '0
..JU a..
:c
I-
00
o
o
...J
Ol
.<:::
-
k
Ol
'E
Ol
"C
C
'"
W
e
E
::l
'0
~
Ol
8
'"
-
c
'0
a.
Q)
.<:::
-
!D
6
~
Ol
Ol
'"
a.
e
o
-
..
..
.<:::
en
..
k
o
o
en
<
en
w
..J
iii
e
ii:
Ol
.<:::
.-
'0 u. '0
'" e ^
.<::: E ~
o ::l V
m ."0 x
_~Uo
Oe .0
e E .!: .!:
~=~~
.... 0 I... 0
g,u 8 0
e c en,.~
a.'-()~
<u~UU
:51.....J..J
>-8Ol~
-en.s=......
a. - ~
Eg>E~
::I:O::lC
:2:;enw
,.;-..en__
r-....<ucocn
_1..._-
>-
.0
6
e
E
::l
'0
~
Ol
a.
~
...... ,......... t: ::>.._ t5 'c:(
c: ~ 0 .Q y '- '^
'o"'''-'tJ Ql.c:lJj
Q. 15",E::l:..,J
Q) Q."" E: --
() ..Q e .9- ::s J2. co
,,0 Q.:t::: CI).S.E;
"'...... ::s 0 u.:
..... '1:J Q) E .!:2 Q.
Q)t:,c:; '1:Jlt)~
:S ::s j..:: .~ c:: .......
..Q ,"o(Or-........
.S2 >-. Q) ... co 0
..Q~-......u........^
~ ctJ.~ a5 c:: 0 ~
CI).....(I)E~v
Ol=a~e::JO.><
'~CI)Q.Q.o~o
0"- CI) Q) 0" ..Q
(,) ::s e. ~ (.) c:
C/J..Q ...~.S(J:O
(.) 0 ~!ll"'"
,., ~ 0) ...... ~ _ ~ ....:
","",:......'"0:::; O.!9 CD CD
-....c::O(,)O-CD
CD OCOCl)CI)-a3..t:
::S \6; o..c:: 1: co CI)
CI) r-.. (,).- _ c: CD
E ~ co 0 CD CD t,,;;.
e 0 c'" CD Q. b>:S 8
u.: ~~'O~.9.!:2(f,)
k
Ql
C
Ol
"C
C
'"
6'
e
E
::l
'0
~
o:i
.
a
~
Ol
Cl
'"
a.
c
o
.-
~ ..
o ..
0'<:::
enUl
~ ~
"Co
co
Q;Ul
.t:::<
.9Ul
enw
Ol..J
J:; -
- '"
c e
'm u::
Cl.,
OJ:;
--
:I:-
o
e ^
E'"
::l V
- X
00
0.0
.~ .~
o Cl
C> .!:
-
e ~
Ex
::l .,
"O"g
u-
.~ .~
:=0
kOO
Ol
c:~
Ol-
"C>-
coO
"'~
OlO
a.e
~E
~.=
'" 0
.<:::~
o
'" Ol
Ol a.
k~
.9::
010
C '"
=.c
f:! ~ en Q)
..~~ ~8k
~ "C. 0 0 en
O.E c: . en
(J "Q) .Q:C ~ ~
(J).t:t::c"C"C
><.9&.E.E.E
Cl)(I)o=cvCD
""C cv '--'c'C::
.ca.ooo
.E ..... Q) 0..... Ci5
Q).cc(l)
CD c: ..... ._ Q) CD
.i:'~.2:-tn.c=
o i= a. Q) ..... I...
+JSECiES
(J)Q)~o:JC:
O..:::tn(l)W
N~N~M~
~ -----
ra
0...
a:1
.
-
- c:
~.b ~ ~e
~... 5 .0 ..... 0
C") 0 e :'::::'_ .CI)~
cv'" (.) ctJ ~ .!9 .c
9.. CD ~'..t: .9"~ ~
c:S~gm~l1J
:aEeQ)q) ...::
Cl)e>.;50l~ctJ
..t: -.:: CD 0,;:; o.S.S
(J1:J"tJc:-olL.
co ~ c: o1:J Q. Q)
Q)._-:e<btO..c::
... ~.:g 0 E:.....-
..eQ.:loo..E......'O
CI)--e::sO
o,-S2C1lQ.CI)m^
c::.... CD CI) Io;.N
:i;: CD,.c: Q)._ 0 v
~Q5I-":SJ:tlx
>.;5:::::....sc:>.;.8
Q) ~ Q) E CD r::::
'tJ 10..... ,. 'tJ ;:, 'tJ o_
r:::: ~Q)~c:_
-'1:J=:s:=:::o-;u
.@c:CIl.9-{.).@ 1o..;.Q5
o m:::::::t:::1:J o's CD
_<oo~c:_c:..c:
CIl<oCll<:IllCllQlCll
~ 0l!l5 0
Om.
""'0> C") 0 0
C")
~ ol:l ~
0 ..., om= 0
. u ""'0 ...... 0 0
...... rn ...... ......
.... Cll
Cll N
Cll en '"
.s::. '"
'" .... m
..IG u 0 - 0
... Cll . N 0 0 0
0 .~ 0 - '<t (D 0
s: 0 ......
... 0 ...... ......
.... a. .....
c
Cll C/) Cll
E C/) t; e
'" e .~ E .~ 0
'" u Cl)o
Cll <:( - u e~
'" - UCl) Q" Cll
U) .l!! Cll
<I: ."" u; .~
~ e
Cll Q" CllCl)
.... .c::
en .~
::t:
Cll
ii.
E
III
><
W
U)
Cll
....
III
....
'"
w
'"
"tJ
C
III
ii.
:::l
I
....
Cll
Cll
.s::.
'"
..IG
...
o
s:
c
o
;;
III
::l
III
>
W
"tJ
C
III
...J
c
o
;;
III
U
I;::
'iij
'"
III
U
~
:c
III
Co
III ...
U 0
~....
"tJurn
cu"tJ
1Il...J C
...J_1Il
U)
~
o
u
rn
><
Cll
"tJ
C
.S!
Cll ~ ~
';:: (D
I o"tJo ...... C")
....cou Ll"i ...... M Il'l Il'l
rn-en Il'l ...... r--
~ e
Cll ~ 1::10
<.9 ';:: '<t (D .s:~
0 "'C (D Il'l
- .E C") <Xl (D r-- .Ill'iii
rn i::
0-
-~
CI)
0 Q)
....
0 0 (D 0 Il'l <Xl Il'l
..... U (D M ...... r--:
en <Xl
0 g 0 0 Ollie
0 ;l 0 0 0 0-0
..... tIl '<t ...... r-- en -J~U
a::: CI)
0 ~
0 - Cll Q)
.....
0 tIl
co ~ E
0 <(
Of: Il'l Il'l ::>~
- (D N en~
0 u ...... 0 0
Co .g 0 0 0 1i5......
e e ::>.9
a. a. ::2:
-
t5 '" 0
Q) Q) 0 0 0
'0' .... N 0 0 N
U C')
.... <( ...... ...... '<t
c...
Co
m ..!!!
::2: ~
co u :J - .l!!
'0 ::J 0 en ..... ~
en
0::1.
,
N
LL
w
Cl
o
(Xl
<(
-
E~.l!l
e.~ co Q)
_e-c l::
~ a... '0 'E
~Ol C Ol
....,s 0 ..:::
- -Ol Ol
'0 _4> '00
en.- c: 'w"'C
..c:-'=cu u-g
,,;::;;: . Ol'"
co co $! .O'~
CD CD c: 'en a..Q
150m O.lYmQ)
<DZ'~ Q).-.c."c
cn-..... ,'0'(1)-(1)
ro-=G>c....-c::c
~.oQ).-a.~Octl
ocn~~Q).o(t)1-
co _ .-..J::....:=
Q)ctI~~-a.oc
..c::50"CCQ)0.-
-.....0 O..c:....o
""0(1)"'00-<1>0
Q)~ Q) <1>:= c: 3:(/)
C:U.c~~o..QQ)
Q)()-~a.-.!!1."ON
ai'--1 ~.~:;;'o:6OO
c{ja>o"Oc:cn .....
..c:._ Q) ClJ - > u
Q) ..... co.... = - .m
g.9 "3.E UJ en rn.e
o.cn.2~cn~~c..
c:-g~~~OOQ)
OO+J-_--r
"'Oo.c"'ooo+>
Ol '" Ol'- _ - c:
"C 4)- "C 'E c c: .-
.-t:EC:J:J::::Jo.
eocncaoOO::J
o.,,:g -EE~2
......m~lca~_C>
..... _=<C.cmSSU
C CD I Q)UJ(50oU
G,) C>>~_~__-...J
E ~~(j'jgOl~~-fi
en ofom>=--ca
en o..,=c:a>Q)~Q)
ell,.. OCC._~
III !Ii > ..: '0 ~ .- '~E s
~ oli~"E.2~.s.se
elluEE~~a;~~8
....,Cf'Jcn::SOW"C of/)
en (1) =0 e"OB.s""'Jg (j)
(1)NcnOoffi ..,:.::o~
~ en <('" 9! "...J C C C -;;; '2j
... ~coQ)EEE..c:e
....... "'.C_ C/).c::S::S::J-
OU- .-----Q)
C1) en III Q) c.O 0 0 ~
c"- L..'-UUOw
o e'~CE8alEEE~
;:a..UJ_cn't)::::J::J::JO
ltl ::J.::: Ol Ol (I) (/)(/)O
- 0 N =8 ----
"S -r- ~o Ci) ~e~!:!1
~t::
ltl ltl
00.
ell
..
o
u
I./)
<C
I./)
~
8
'"
-
'"
'"
.r:
Ol
:c
Ol
,s
a.
::l
2
Ol
.r:
"
:c
~
~
...
c:
o
~
c:: ~:a_
~ . '- :: c: 0
'o~~CJ).Q'o't-
C/).S; 0 -c: "- Q.,...
"tJ ::::0(/)._00-
c: ....!. Cl.:::: ~::::...... c:
(tJ CI) C - ......- 0 E
~ CI)"' &i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~
~eeu'O~'O~82
co (.) ~ "- .. CI) "-
co ";1 0 Q) "- !u --
CCcCI)r.;:;.or.;:;.oca.s2
<0....... O'RO",O'.
-,.- "r- ~-I ~ (,) "" (.) Q) _.:::::
o.s.9o""e"'(3C1)Q)
..... fl)caca~<tIca"05
"''''<-00 0 c:
~S~<o.....c_cog
10;: -.. -.. CI) "r- CI) C"') ct_
~ CI) CI) ~"l::J 1"tJ CI) CI)
-,~_t::-,C:~~Q)
c: t:: c: c: 0 c: 0 ..c:
EEEElil-Elil-~g~.;
~~~~e~~~~Q):C
o 0 0 0 "- 0 "- 0 .- -
oooogogo~~8.
UJ
~
~
UJ
'"
l:!
~
13
'"
~
~
'"
"Eccaco
....OOCOCO"'d'"C'\Io
",a.
;=
o
..J
~
o
:::
cnQ) mcnm
cnQ)O......MLOcn
camC\lMC\l......mV
U~MOOOO~
~^~~~"'d'"
'"
"Eooooooc
'6~mco,....co('l')"""o
a.
III
III
'"
U
Ol '"
Q)cLO~o>mmmv
m~~"7""'iU;>'?"7o
b^,Ncg~~~......
<( ~'"
Q)
.0
1\J
~
c:
'c
0=
u ~
1./)0
Q)
N '"
i:i5~
uU
.!l1.
e
0..
'"
"Eccccc
.6~mcoLOMc
a.
Ol
Ola
"''''
l!! ^
:i.
"'''''''
~~g
CO"<tN
~ v
., a
a~
~
Ol
,s
'0
^
<'>
v
l'l
.0
.!:
U)
Ol
."
o
Ol
.$
'"
"
o
o
--'
Ol
l!!
,s
Ol
.s::
-
E
,g
l!!
o
"
'"
-
'"
Ol
.s::
Ol.
:Eeo
,
Ola
.s::~
-
~Ol
t!:!~
00.
U C
UI 0
",-
.~ :
UI.r:
tjUl
'" Ol
'0' 0
~ u
ll.(/)
Ol<(
,sUI
~w
.$..J
c_
w'"
~c
CO'-
~u.
III
,
<"l
Ol
:S
....
o
^
'"
v
~
.Q...
.S ~
"'ti
~
~ e
c: g
CD",
.'"
i~
.5; UJ
0.....
<1._
0'"
C .s
....1.1..
.!!!
~
'"
=
~
'"
.<::
(5
.<::
;:
-
o
c
.9
1U
c
'~
'"
(5
-0
'"
Ol
c
'0
:J
13
.!:
.$
'0;
o
'"
"e-
o.
'"
=
f c
00
~55
~'"
..' ~
::0..
:Sa
.!!~Ci5
'jij .~;:
>.- ~
<(o~
G) _.-
CJ ~.~
"''''0
::s 0. '"
o ~-
11l <D l!1
Gl.<:::J
,,-;=s
.... .5 .g
~Eg>
>2-0
> '" c
0'"
N~~
:::'-0
1::
ell
0..
'" '"
:c '"
!2 e
'(5 :J
> 0
'" '"
.~ ~
rn ~
.<::-
- co
g>::
'0. .
g-N
00;
-0 '"
C.<::
'" '"
~t:
~~
0_
c "
.2 Q)
1U E
Ol'"
:!; ~
_Ill
0'"
",<
'" ..
0.::=
~rn
50
CD III
c."
~E
~-=
o
.su
OlC
C'-
.- c
"E 0
8~
~ E
",,E
8 .5
'E .!!!
0'<::
0.-
~
0'"
- -
" c
.- w
2
'00 c:
,,0 .
-'E>-
;io:!::
CD 0.=
:g..c:~
5m~
~ >
~.5 <(
c
.9
1U
E
,E
.!:
'"
~
~
2
c
'"
-0
C
'"
-0
'"
""
'"
c
'"
;Q
"
o
'E
o
0.
.<::
o
'"
'"
~
,E
-0
'"
"E
'"
'"
~
0.
~
2
'0;
~
CD
.<::
-
-
o
c
.0
'E
o
0.
e
0.
'"
.<::
-
~u
.~ "
'" E
_ :J
<D-
00
~u
Mc
~.-
.<::
o
'"
'" ~
~ 0
,Erio
Q).- c
:a (IJ .-
",i'~
.!:2 0. 0
c..'-O
c."'OO
CtI=~
(IJ~=
0;:.0
E-oJ11
00 c co
.- CtI >
Cti .<C
:5~ctl
'" 0
g ~!5
:;:.-~
0.'<:: '"
o Olo::
CD :J
.eel...
""'v.s
~c'"
"'0::
c c
~"'C~
.- coO
a.r ctI ~
::c~=
I-CtI g> 2:
e '"
c -0 '"
't: c:;
8'~ 2
000"
f6w
:c 'E'tii
~::: 'x
'" 0 '"
~ ~.s
(IJ == >.
Q):9Ci5
0"'-'"
sctl=
o oS:! CD
'" '" ~
"'.<:: '"
0::-00
~ c c
.s 0.2
'" 0.0
:: :J.c
Q)aJ1n
.c U) e .
.....moO
OlD._ c
.!: c E E
'" 0 0
=>'El5-=
-000
::!. a. Q) U
'"
~
'"
o
'"
'[
0.
'"
=
-
o
c
o
'E
o
0.
e
c..
",W
= "
>-E
.0"
co
.9U
1:: c
0._
o.c
'<::0
~:e
'" 8-
~
0.<::
- 0
'" '"
8 ~
OO,E
~~
'" 8
~ en
="0
'" '"
~E
Cl
2l '(jj
5 ;:
0'"
"'.<::
"'-
0:: '"
~ c
2'~
'" '"
::(5
",-0
=',9
~.l!l
.- "
s ~
::;: ~
~ 0.
It)'"
~~
~
o
o
rn
~
:a
.!!!
'iij
>
-0:
00
'"
:e
:J
o
'"
'"
0::
'"
Ol
'"
0.
C
o
-
Q)
Q)
.<::
rn
e
o
u
rn
<
rn
W
oJ
OJ
"
iJ:
CD
.<::
-
-
o
^
..,.
v
x
o
.0
.!:
~
8
00
~
:a
.!!!
'iij
~
~
"
o
'"
CD
0::
III
,
"'"
'"
'S.....m "t)
51;~ ~
c:.~:5 O'.€
o"b 0 c: 'I:; Jt> 0
':.0:::::,-_0 ......-
~ ~.s,S1d .~.(;) (,)
Q:~ ~a3,g> ~~tj
~ ....._"tJ.~ 0"""-
~ 0""'-- .-......"'cj
v <:.>00;0<:
"'" '" <tI"6"'" t7l
Uj Q.l '- 0> 'E~.Q
CI) ~.s'~.s '- ~ 12._
U,j-"'''''E.t:: -,-
f-'O~""o -I'E<:
~ =>"0"'0 o\",.__CtJ
f-.,: .e c: CD (,) '. ..Q CD I
CI) Ill:::! L'= co ~ I 10 - .sf:::
UJ ~ er- CIJ:a;~;'ii.i c::
CI) <I:l 0> ~ 5 ttI 0 c: .S! Q) .0
Q ~ <D".s ~ =r5 :e =:3 't:: :5 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 8. ~ & ~& '0 & '0;
-J
Q
:::l
:;-
<:
o
~
,
~
It)
'"
'"
:::
....
o
~
It)
'"
.
~ '"
~ (ij C))
- 0 c:.c:
co .~ '_ i5
'~.21:: ~
c: Q. <D ~
:f5"tJ~ro-
co c: Q) c:
'" '" 0
'E 0"''''' .
'-'E I: !'l.~
.9l08Q..5::
~8J5f?8.
o CI) COo
1Q)c:Q?CO
- .. 0-\4...
c:~~:c:o
.Q Q.g t,T) Q)
'tCl)......::s5
o co CI) e 0
Q~e"O'"
'"
~
'"
'E'
.~
~ '0
~ m
_ft).....J::::
ca c:..c: 8
.~.Q ~ CI)
c::oeca
.$2 oS "b b:l
en ~ 0).5::
.g>" .~ :!;1
.5.2::S .~
"'1:'"
:::::oc~
~5~<:
I o'S ~
-Q)Q)Q.'
- Q)" <DO !'l
C:-e'-.S
.2,f! 0 ~ 0
l:CI)ocoQ.
octlQ)Q)1.O
Cl .!! ..Q :::;... 0)
~
'"
~
l'l
,..9
'"
'0
,Q)
'e-
0.
CD
=
CD
C
.~
'"
,-
CD
-0
.s
'00
"
o
'E
o
c.
0;
~
,E
'"
~
o
o
'"
'"
=
E
:J
00
~
2
~
'"
=
~
S
c .
Will
~o
t::.~
~
'" '.
~~ c:f?
:0:0 .-ct1
Ci)~~ E~
~ Q)..... ....!2.....
"-;C:.!1-o"&
o~.Q c: c:::s
C:6Q.'0~e
.~ .~!2.~ 8"ljl
<: '" ~ '" 15
.Q c: co..... . c:
-= '- Q) O!'l '"
5 ~ :::;... Q).t:.S....:
.~ ..... '" 0 c:
.5 ~ "& 8 o..:!12 '0
I "tJ ::s ft) 1.l).:9 Q.
::::~ectll'-..~lC)
c:~)i 0>13~13
.Q"O~~eojg
l: -0 c: ~ .:Q. c: .Q
& ~.s'~~.~ ~
~....
!'l .s cO \4...
.s 0(00
o Q. ^
0..1'-.. 0 II ~
oM lri:::v
c:) C\I II c: )(0
.... " 0
~._..Q q;
11 lO' -~ 1:::: c:
~C\1 "! 0.- ~
-~ e.Cl-Ci5
de. y
~w -w+em
~..... c:::::.s!5
c:.S '0 c: C:,9,
.- 0 ..... 0 Q) "'/
~ 0.. .....
- c-e.~",
~~ ~&i3t3
- I '+:t:-J
~- :::_~Cti
c: c: c: c: .. c::
I.Q 0 ~ .Q .$2 !'l it
't: 't: ,S 'l: 'l:.S '"
&&8.&&8.:::
~
:c
!!.
iii
~
Ul
'"
"
..
::l
o
'"
'"
0::
..
'"
-
CO
;:
N
-
'"
'"
.<::
Ul
-"
..
o
;:
-
l:
'"
E
Ul
Ul
'"
Ul
Ul
<
'"
-
in
w
"0 ~ 0
.s l'!
.r:: :0 ....
'" .!l! 0 )( 0 ..; 0 ....
oijj ~ " '<t to cO
;: rJ) () '" CD
~
~ .l!! e
.. l'! ~ ~
'" :0
- .!l! 0 0 I() 0 -
CO '"
;: ~ " <0 Ol '" .s ~
rJ) {:.
0
:g
a::
'0 CO
l: l'! E
0 ..:: ::l ~
'E t5 0 I() I() rJ)
0 '" ~ <'! <'! - ~
0- "e- Ul
e ::l B
n. n. ~
"0 >.
l: C
CO 0
t5 .. t5 "0
.s
.. '" '" ~ '" '"
'" " en en 1ii
~ .. '0 '"
::l '0
0 l: :~
rJ) l: ::l l:
0 e 0 0
'" '"
CO '" CO l:
'" '"
'C 'C
.!: .!:
t5 c
'" ,2
'e 1:: ~ '" '" '<t I() CD
0
n. n. 0
CQ
,
V)
Cl
()
10
<
~
CIl
-
..
=:
UJ
0:: 0 UJ
UJ 0:: 0:: 0
~ ::l 0 0 L() 0 L() 0 L() L() 0 L() L() 0 L() 0 0
0 0 ~ (j) (j) CO CO .... co L() .... '" '" N N
(f)
UJ (f)
0::
0 '"
c:
'E 0 I I I I
0 :u 0 (f) (f) 0 (f) 0 (f)
c: 'C ", Z UJ UJ Z UJ Z UJ I I I I
0 a; >- >- >- >-
0
UJ '"
0::
~ (f)
Z '"
.. 0
~ iij c:
B 0 ,Q (f) (f) (f), (f) I I I I
1:: '0; "0 C"- O 0 0 UJ UJ UJ' UJ
~ >- 'C Z Z Z I I I I
0> a; >- >- >-' >-
" .L:;
e (f) 0- '"
0 UJ 0:: ,
0::
c: C"-
'0 0 '"
fil ts :0 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) 0 0 0 0
" '0; UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
0> '0 .. >- >- >- >- >- >- >- z z z Z '0 '0
J; e '" c: c:
'" '"
0- lJ.. ~ ~
'0 '0 (j)
~ ~ ~
.E .E '"
'"
'" '" $ >-
0 c: a; '" -
'E 0 " " .L:;
~ Ol
0 ts 0 0 (f) 0 0 0 (f) 0 (f) 0 (f) CT CT "
c: ", UJ UJ UJ UJ '" '" '" e CD
0 :s z z >- z z z >- z >- z >- '0 ~ '0 :0
0 '" '" '" '0 '0;
UJ '" ~ 1:: ~ ,5 '"
0:: Ol $l
c: " c: '0
.~ e .~ c: c:
0
~ - 'i' - '5 ts
'" (f) " c: " e
~ .0 0 .0 "
Z '" '0
0 iij c: .,; c: .,; ~ e
1:: 0 "C
B 0 ts (f) (f) (f) (f) :0 :0 '" 0-
0> '0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c: CD,
" >- :s C"- z Z Z Z Z UJ UJ Z Z UJ UJ '0; '" '0; >- "C
e ~ .L:; >- >- >- >- '" - '" c:
'" $l .L:; $l 1:: '"
0 0- '" Ol ~
. 0:: '0 " '0 Ol
c: UJ e " "C
0 c: c: e
z 0:: "C ~
c: c: 'i' 0
0 .<: 0 c: c:
ts '0 :0 0 "C
c: " .0 " c: CD
'0 ,Q ", "C ,5 "C ,5 a;
'"
'" "0 :0 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) e 0 Ol
10 c: ~ c: 'C:
" '0; UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 0- 0 0- 0 ,=
0>
~ '0 '" >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- '0 - '0 13 ~
e CD '" <> '" CD
lJ.. 10 " a; " =>
0- "C "C
Ol e Ol e '0;
'E 0- 'E 0- z
c:
,Q ~ N '" .... L() co .... co (j) 0 ~ N '" ....
c. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
IX!
,
\0
'"
:a
..
....
0>
c:
';:
o
o
III
~
:c
.!!!
'OJ
~
CIl
o
~
"
o
'"
'"
0::
:>.
0:;
a;
0.
E
o
u
C
ro
u
ro
=
-
'"
2
lii
E
'"
Ol
=
~
""
Ol
=
ai
0,
C
ro
U
Ol
~
"0
C
o
U
Ol
'"
Ol
=
:>.
.0
"0
~
Ol
~
Q) -='0
:s Ow
N ro
~ Q) ~
~ ;; co
o - Ol
Ol Ol C 0=
~ en;; c: ;S ~E
O~~ ~ '?; ~~
~.e~ ~ ~ co"g
Q)~g x i roea
CI):::::-(/) Q) c: ~ m
:::lOu -5 8 Ol:J
,,~.e.:E :5 ~
f::m2c. ~ e Q):J
COO co c::=
.JSiOl ~ ro '<:iJ
_::is f!! .r::. t:.c
caq:::-o "'C ....~Q)cn
....Ec ~Ci5a:;m
::J :J.5,5 CDJ9"CC
....ooca..c. e.-o.-
::IQ)m~.-- (!Ju.....~
c: co th a. CD .,!g co
(Joe'- ='~o9/"
.i:N~oQ) co'-~.:!.!.
C)(/)f!!.~C, (/)o.m~
<u"Ces ~~~~
tn.~.~c.o ..::::_co
ce~~~ go'O-u
:So'O)--o .-co .-
f:~ffi~c i5~m~
::s-oC08aiNCOffiQ)
OQ)Q)Q.Q:lcnQ)<D c:
15 ... E en c..c.r::. CD.-
t:-sm8cacol--;=e
::Jo-c-u"-"(I)EQ)
(fJ70~Q)e~.2.~:J1i5
U CIlCl
"0
C
o
:>.
Ol
.0
'"
Ol
"0
'c;;
lii
C
o
..!!1
'E
,!!l
Ol
0,
C
ro
u
~
~
ro
:J
...:~
'"';s
t::
CO
c..
NM
~~
'"
0:;
l:!
ro
c.
Ol
en
Ol
.<=
-
Ol
Ol :c
= ~
Ol
C
.~
Ol
a;
"0
.9 C
ro
fl -'
c. ~
Ol .3
Cil '5
,5 u
'C
"0 ..:
C
:J
S C
2 '5
C
:J
Ol g
= :J
- CIl
0 Ol
ro .<=
~ -
ro Cl
1!l C
~
.9 ""
Ol :J
= ~
~ 0
u
CIl
~ "0 Ol
C :c
c. ro
.Sl . -' ..
Ol- .....
en en ..
C :J ~ tlI
,- - :J C
"Of!"" 'C
C ::J G 0
:J::: 't: U
,E:Jcn CIl
Q) .g <c "0
~ClCl
.3 CI:I c: C
..
"5c:O ..J
.g ';;) c: iii
0>'- :J
aJ15g ~
:J
C.<= :J -
.- - en :;
ro- U
OlO Ol 'C
<<iN;: tlI
Ol Ol Ol ..:
:5;; .E tlI
Ol- ~ C
:22_ '6
> c: CD . C
,- Ol ;: ::s
CluClo 0
~~G)1l3 ~
~
_ Q...........Q ::s
1Il
E
c:i'~ ~
;. ~ C !P Q)
1::: ~C\l.:::.c::
o .QN~u-;;
~"O"t:J~:':: v.i
LU{gc:"'O~
~ c:" ~N u
:::!; ">-.cO '" '"
:<( g><-e.sg
-"';::J (,)..... <0
G:l "':5:- ro 0 '-
C/).~ 8 ~ 0
UJ CI) ~ ~ en.!:2
t-: JB~"Oe~
~ ~ (0 ~ ~ (6
CI) UJ Q.c - Q.
LU"Oc..;LO~~
CI) c:: Q3 't'"- ..E CD
a~~c:fQ):5
<: .Q...co""....
'o:{-.JQ.~r-O
~
:::.
. CI') CI)~ ~
m._ '_ ~ ....,
5 e e co 'C;
:t::::, :::s~
:::J:t:: :t:: 0 e
.g ~ a (/)".5; 8
bl'c: 'c: e - '"
COO) O)ooca
t:;CO COcuN
.;;; .S: .S: 0 0) .9
~_ _C"")~CI)
"0 o<O....'t:l
>-"1 N""'OC:
'tJ 0) 0) oCI 1: 8-
~:5 :5~~~
co..... ....."'O~~
x':: 0'5:0)10.::8
::,:E; ,,'6 ~
::. " .; '" '" " e
Cl)E~e-~.s2.2
Qj co ~ ~~.b"5 CI)
o .t::O.....
..-. 0)0 <b0,0)"C::.S:
~~~'::~ijj~8.
tlI- Ol
C .. ~
.- ... 0
"t:I.su
S:i(J) 0 It) 0 It) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Cl> '" '" '" ..... eo It) ... C') '" ~ 0
OU"O ~
... i: C
~tlI"
cil":..J
2 e
... ::s 0 '" '" '" <b '" ~ '" ... ;;l; '"
0 - 0 '" '"
- C :; ~ err ..... err It) "i "i C') C)I
, , ,;, ,;, , ~
Co,,:,," u 6 0 0 It) 0 0 It) 0 0 0 V
Ol 'C '" '" ..... eo eo It) It) ... ... C') C') '"
e tlI
Ol <(
D..
co
6
~
Ol
Cl
ro
Cl.
C
o
-
Ql
Ol
.<=
1Il
Ql
~
o
u
1Il
..:
1Il
w
-'
ro
C
...
Ol
:;
-
o
^
It)
v
x
o
.0
,5
e
8
CIl
"0
c:
ro
-'
~
.3
'5
u
'C
~
Cl
C
'5
C
:J
e
~
:J
CIl
Ql
=
~
Ol
-
C
W
~
e
'"
,s
....
o
^
<0
V
x
..8...;
c: '"
'- '"
'tltj
~
'" e
c: 8
"'CJ:>
,!!l <l:
.l2CJ:>
.~ ~
C>.(ij
It) c:
Q')iI:
"0
C
co
-'
.,
l:!
::l
o
Ul
~
"0
tl
.,
-
e
D.
'"
C'
:;;
C
::l
o
...
...
::l
'"
"0
C
CO
M"g
- CO
., -'
~(ij
Ul ...
'" ::l
... -
o :;
::: u
_ 'i:
~.T
E '"
~ .5
., "0
Ul C
Ul ::l
<C 0
., t:
~ ::J
"''''
(9
u.
w
o
()
lD
<(
Cl Ql CD
c""Ccut....-
.- Q) e 0 .0
"O-=soco
5:6oenl-
~e&-g~
eno.. al.....
..J!:!=
Cl - Ql CD
.!;; l!! B:C
"'C.auco
5"5 en I-
g .g -g E
=some
en<(..J!:!=
"0
c:
_"Oal
c:Ql..J~
~t5Ql()
t....~e~
QlO::::J<I..
0.......0-
o..<Il
Ql
0:::
CIl
U
C
CIl
::l
;;::
C
...
o
CIl
c
o
N
c: Ql
.- .....
_::::J -
c::: M
Ql::::J ~ -
00 ..." ~
lii .;:: ~ <Xl
o..~
_"OQl
o Ql 0
<Il -0 ....."0
::::J c:
~$Octl
oo"'..J
<(0:&
Ql
c: .....
.- ::::J
en::
Ql ::::J
..... 0
U"C
<(~
en
l!:!
~
ro
-
~
o
<Xl
It)
en
lD
,
00
o
<0
o
<Xl
C"l
o
C"l
It)
o
.C"l
<0
0>
:5
0>
<::
.~
0>
-
0>
"0
.8
Ol
-g "0 "E
(tJ~~ g
MQ) ro
1::- "
co e ai.......
a.. 0. 0 ~
c"'C 0......
._ c: f/) C
"'0 Ctl Q.)'- 0
~~ :3~ ~
Q) ~ C CD
.c....... "Ol;:
10"5 em -=
[))O (tJ"'C '5 C
'C ..J (I) :c
B ~ (ij ctI CD c:
.- '" '- ~ Cl :J
10 Ol :J (I) co 0
~c ~"'O ~ t::
l:'- :J <:: 0
.E ~ .g .!Q ro ~
.= 5 ~ e ro Q)
O>t: 0>:J _0 :5
g::J c:: 0 Q) en
Q)~ :o~ .c ,.=
~.c c,- ;.c:.t:!
c...... :J"'O .oO~
=81 g~ ........n:J
Oc :JO) N.S:!m
Q)'- (j)..... -a.e8~
coO Q) e
oE .co. .sQ.(/)
NO... (J)~"O
CD 0 ..... ~ c '- c
E'5.Eea .-:Jra
co .- . ..... "0 Ou>...J
tJ)J:: MCO Q)
"O>~ 1:::5 "GlGl
f:5ri ~5 .s~~
Oc..... eN K-g~
(Jom '-Q) :Ja>
cng...cu> "2:5 Q) 0::
...... .c .~ "'0
cnUl.c; 'to.= 0.....0)
"C.~o 'S.c_ _Ol....,
Cli5: .2'5 "O:5~
ca- co;;. ~m"""o
..Jc>>- CJ(I) .-a>....
<::<:: - ElaD-
:n~~ 2~ui.$g>g>
.... CIJ en CD Co ~ ~:.c:.c .
::JcnQ> :5Q)=inCC:~
O"O~(f) _UJQ)'-:J:JiS
t/)c 00-0_00-
QlctI .c'-ctlt:t:Gl
..JQ) ca-..~.c:J:J.c
D::8~ ~ov;UJcn
"C'-c ctIca<Q)Q)Q)-
.!S'- ]!~f3(ij:5:5~
(.) SR"C . 0 C'Di..J Q) - Q)
....Q)tJ>_ .cOe:
.Be:: ~ 5 (1)~m~ Q)'i::'E
0"0......-:5-.... CD CJ~
....Q)55comE2:gj9m
Q.U<D"5U>:J"'5>cQ5(f.)
0> ~'!'!::loo.g151'1Cl"O
_ 0 <tI co __ 0>- .... ........ c:
~. ; en 0'11"""" C\I <( (') O>a." "l
~......Q)UJ-- - --
-. Q).::;"C
". :c. CD c
a.1-"".!ll
c::~
o Q) (b "-
CI') ~ '-- 0)", '" oS!
-=-ECOCbQ)ooCc:
g~o..-g~-;;;:J
.::.s~::'m~m
lU~"'''',"'o,e
....~~cs m
^ ~..... ('Q ...... Cii" 0>
~ c: 0 Q) en ~.s;
-< ::s E.c: ~ (,) ""Cj
~ '" "I-":>, '" ~
Uj(6(1)...QOp~
......Q)~"'O~t:~
CI)"rt=~Q)_:J:C
UJ"'Or-tJ:t)OCl)<o
t-.: c: co 'S; co Q) I....
~ co"":: 0'- ('r) oJ:: 0
~ tJ co "'Ci-"":-'
CI) ~ ~ ('r) c: 0 '0 ~~
UJ CI) c: (1).$2"1-'-
CI) Q5 o'~ ''0 Q) ~ ti
a e~co.s.c:e~
:2: co (.) e e:::: Q) e
:s Q <l; '" 0.. 0 0.. 0..
~
'"
~
o
'"
&!
."
.l!!
o
'" .
- '"
e1:
Q '0
",0..
00
-co
"".....
<:: 0
'5'"
<:: '"
o 8
5}C!)
19"9
o '"
0--'
.,
:0
Ol
I-
Cl
c
;:;
o
o
Ul
"C
C
co
..J
.,
u
..
:>
o
u>
Gl
0::
"C
.,
-
o
0>
-
o
..
ll.
0>
C
'C
c
:>
o
..
..
:>
00
.,
0
~
:>
0 e
u>
., 0
0:: 0 0 It) 0 It) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"COO 0 m 0> co co .... co It) " (') N ~ 0
.,"C ~
- c
o co
.!l..J
0
..
Cl.
6
N "C
... ., 0
0 - 0 m 0> ffiSffi;gm~~;;r; m 0
0 ~ ";- N
- ., ~ ';'0';'61,0';'0 , N
<:: - . 0 0 v
., 0 0 co .... <0 co It') It')'''d'''''d'' (1")(1") N
e ~ m
., ll.
ll.
cri
0
~
0>
0>
'"
a.
<::
0
-
Q)
0>
.<:
00
0>
..
0
0
00
<(
00
W
...J
iO
<::
;:;:
0>
.<:
-
...
0
^
co
v
)(
0
.c
.!:
e
8
u>
"0
<::
j
~ I!l
:J ,
0 a-
U>
&
"0
0>
"
~
~
D-
Gl
:5
~
.$
<::
w
e
'"
:S
.....
o
^
<0
V
><
.8~
.s:~
"tiC!)
e '"
'" ~
_ 0
<:: 0
",C!)
.'" '"
-00
.l!llU
.S: ....J
0_
0..'"
C .5
coLl.:
~
o
o
'"
U.
-0
'"
-
.c
OJ
"0;
~
....
Cll
Cll
.c
en
Cll
L-
o
CJ
en
<t
en
w
..J
<:511
"'"-
'0' e
ao.
'" '"
.c:5
- ~
o.e .
- -
Q) ~ ~
o 8 '0'
~tnc.
w<'"
-ICf.l=
m I9 ""0
150-'
--",
CD CD ~
:5=8
CD CD(/)
c: .5 <
"- E
E~ff3
S S+-1
CD"'-
-0-0'"
o 0 .5
_-u.
~ e CD
oo.c
00-
'" '" CD
__c:
w:;;E
--'w",
o ~~16
'0 ........"0
ctI ~ "- 0
'+-'- .e.e...
(1) tJ) fI) f/J
:5 e!~~
>- 888
.a (J)Cf)U)
~ ........<(
o .a.9(/)
() uO"C
~~ J2-Sc:
__ 0 "'C "0 co
II- 0 CD '" W
C1)oS :EE...J
OJ OJ-
.r:..c .- "- .l!l
::~~~~B
o "",,--:JQ)Q)Q)
~-L;.c.r=.
C 0.8---
0;;;; EEE
:.;= :J 8l :J =' ::J
~::;;o(/)(/)cn
:::J.-:::0 NM:;;t'
0_00_--
iii
(.)
.!:
~
'"
-
c:
CD
-0
c:
'"
(I!
o
o
lI)
-0
'"
:E
OJ
"0;
;:
'"
:5
CD
c:
.~
.$
CD
-0
.9
-
.c
OJ
.~
mG;
c: ~
.- U
LLen
<(
en
w
..J
~
~
o
~
UJ
~
~
LU
CI)
~
~
f2
CI)
Cl
<:
<(
~
"C
(I) .. CIl
l:.sE
ClUO
.- III U
::II-en
..-
o.r:.
_ Cl
U .-
III (I)
11-3:
.. CIl
.s f
U 0
III U
II-en
~ ~
'" 8
-<::CI)
~
.E~
<>UJ
,f!....
<(-
CI) .~
'Ou:
c: '"
"'-<::
UJ-
....0
1:~
Q)'O
a e
~~
0(1).....
<> c: Q)
Q) Q) Q)
~~t5
Q)
:S'O
::....l!l
.0-<::
'O"~
~~
.9- CD
:S:.s
E Q)
m .S:
~ E
"'.l!l
~ Q)
0'"
<> 0
"'- .
5~i:3
--<::'"
~..~ it)
~Q),-
UJ~.Q
-Jaa.>
CD '05
f=.~o
~~'"
Ol
..--
N
LO
N
ci
LO
r-:
co
^
...
v
~c
._ 0
= :p
.etll
tIl t)
0.<;::
tIl.-
(.)~
'O!!!
ffiU
..J
r-..
<Xi
..--
(Q
ci
'<t
LO
N
ci
o
It)
<::i
o
Lri
r-..
^
'"
v
.~ ~
'.. '0
Bc
en-
'0
Q) Q)
E_ :5"'0
E '" ~~
::J .l:: -.. _
"'u: 'O"~
eO) ~~
co ~ .s.
CI) ..... ~ Q)
e 0 ::s-:5
o c: E Q)
<> 0 c:
"'"- ~"-
'- ~ '" c:
o 0 t::
'0 Q. CI) Q)
caLU eas
~ -J 0 "t)
lU Q) (,) 0
..J..s::: Cf.l.......
b..... a ~"fi
CD0e-.c:ca
:c:.s 0 ~.~ Q)
tn E (,) ot;.:; Q) ....
"Qi~"'<(~.Q
~a;<(CI)'-!l>
Q)"t) C/J CD ~ 6
F, 0 UJ F '" <>
r-_-Jr-o.,;.:::(I)
C')
ci
..--
LO
..--
ci
r-..
<Xi
(0
N
-<i
..--
o
<<i
It)
M
'<t
LO
..--
ci
o
It)
<::i
It)
o
ci
o
Lri
CD
o
ci
co
^ ^
It) <0
V V
0)"0 "0 "'C -_'"
CC(I)C
0- Cts -, co 0
"O--Iu-l:Q
C CD '"
:> - - (I) CI)
(l)tIloE:l!!eo_
^' > :> 0. ..,
.....<(:>"" :>CI)
2 enGg>lil
tIl 'C .- (I)
::> -go::
::> <(:>
g
:>
en
'0
Q)
E_
E '"
:::J.E:
"'u.:
~ '"
"':S
"'.....
~ 0
o c:
<> 0
"'"-
'-5
.8Q.
<>
.e~
~'"
:S
'0",
,st:e
..c: '- 0
.~ E <>
'" '" '"
~-<(
Q)~CI)
FoUJ
~-....
.....
~
co
Cll
L-
o
CJ
en
<t
en
w
..J
III
c:
.-
LL
.8
'0
'"
E
~
lI) ~
e 8
'" '"
~~
.l!!UJ
.8....
-g(ij
CI) .S
<(lL
CIl '"
'O:S
c: Q)
'" c:
UJ '-
.... E
",.l!l
~~
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF S.<\:\I LUIS OBISPO
Department of AgriculturelMeasurement Standards
2156 SIERR-\ WAY, SUITE A' SAi'! LUIS OBISPO. CALIFOR~IA 93401-4556
ROBERT F. LILLEY (80S) 781-5910 .
AGRICULTl!RAL CO:-l:-IISSIO;\ERlSEALER FAX (805) 781-1035
AgCommSLO@co.slo.ca.us
DATE:
November 18,2004
FROM:
Kelly Heffernon, Community Development Department
Michael J. Iserisee, County Department of AgricuIture1'V19 J
SUBJECT: East Village Neighborhood Plan (04-001)/Cherry Creek PUD (04-002)
.,; " . J ,
TO:
',,; ,-'.( r,,: _,
The County Department of Agriculture appreciates the opportunity to review and provide
comment on the proposed East Village Neighborhood Plan and specifically the subdivision of
Subarea 1. '
Specifically, the Department's comments focus on issues related to the agricultural-residential
interface and the mitigation of potentially significant impacts to both agricultural resources and
operations and to residential uses adjacent to agricultural operations.
Compatibility issues may be created with residential development adjacent to production
agriculture. Noise, dust, nighttime operation, and h,gal pesticide use may be considered a
nuisance by residential neighbors. Increased trespass, theft, damage to crops and machinery,
runoff, and liability are concerns for growers adjacent to development. The East Village
Neighborhood Plan needs to address each of these issues adequately in order to protect both
future residents and existing and future agricultural operations on the adjacent property.
The County of San Luis Obispo has an adopted buffer policy and right to farm ordinance that
provides the basis for the following comments. These COITI.lnents are also based on the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and on current departmental policy to conserve agricultural
resources and to provide for public health, safety and welfare while mitigating negative impacts
of development to agriculture. . .
If! can be of further assistance, please call 781-5753.
AGRICULTURAL SETTING
The proposed development project, the Cherry Creek Planned Unit Development, is an
approximately 22-acre site adjacent to the Dixson Ranch property within the City of Arroyo
Grande and occupies approximately one-half of the East Village Neighborhood Plan area.
Ch0rry Creek Pl.'D East Village :"0ighhorhood Plan
:'-:LlvClllh0r I 8. ~(H14
Pag~2or4
The project is adjacent to the north boundary of the 40-acre Dixson Ranch site, a farm
established nearly one century ago. The combination of excellent alluvial soils, a mild climate,
adequate water resources, level ground and the existence of agriculturally associated business al
lowed the establishment of a substantial agricultural industry in the Arroyo Grande and Cienega
Valleys. Continued encroachment of urban development in these valleys threatens the continued
viability of agriculture in the area, and development value-and thus development pressure-
continues to grow faster than the agricultural value of the land.
In recent years the adjacent Dixson Ranch site has been utilized to grow an assortment of row
crops, including cabbage, head lettuce, bok choy, broccoli, romaine lettuce, napa cabbage, celery
and flower seed. The Dixson site soils consist of prime soils (camarillo loam and mocho silty
clay loam) and other soils types (marimel sandy clay loam and zaca clay near the hillside to the
south), while the project site soils are almost entirely prime soils (mocho silty clay loam) with a
small area of riverwash (NRCS Soil survey of San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part,
1984).
Unique to this property, it is protected by a permanent agricultural conservation easement, which
recognizes the commitment of the property owner to long-term agricultural production and the
public recognition of the high value placed on the productivity of the land. As such, protecting
the agricultural value of the property is important in order to increase the probability that
agric~lture will remain a viable activity on the property.
The proposed project creates the potential for significant conflict between the existing
agricultural use and new residences. Several methods are proposed to mitigate these impacts to
reduce their impact to either occupants of new residences or to the agricultural land owner and
operator. These include a physical distance, or buffer, separating the uses, as well as vegetated
screening, a solid wall, a exclusion fence, and right to farm notification.
BUFFERS
Buffers and screening techniques are recognized as valuable methods to increase the likelihood
. . of compatibility between development and agricultural property. Experience has shown physical
distance buffers to be the most effective mitigation measure. For irrigated row crops, the county
buffer policy is a buffer distance of 200 to 500 feet. This range reflects the variety of site-
specific factors to consider in the development ofa buffer, including:
1. The intensity ofthe agricultural use
2. The level of proposed development including proposed parcel sizes, configuration and
location of structures between the habitable structures and agricultural use
3. Predominate wind patterns
4. Existing vegetation which provides screening between the proposed development and
agricultural use
5. Topography
6. Extent of existing development
7. Natural buffers such as riparian corridors and roadways
Each ofthese is addressed below.
L.~likt: Land U~.: bit:') CU' Chl'rr~. Cr.;:.;k CI..il'.Fi1~1 Vil1a~~ ;'I',,~i~l,l;:')JbJ\JJ 1'1;!ll.Ciry of ;\(;.(i')(,(..,1....-..:
Cherry CITck PUD! Easl Villa;;e :\eio;hhoriH-''''' PJall
j\;l)\'cl11ocr IS, 2004
Page.3 of 4
1. Intensity of Use: The proposed development project is located adjacent to row-cropped land
(the Dixson Ranch) that is used to produce multiple crops each season. The property is protected
from development with an agricultural conservation easement, increasingly the likelihood that
intensive agricultural production will continue at the site far into the future. The property owner
has suggested that with ever-changing agricultural economics, the site's agricultural use may in
the future become a different intensive use such as greenhouses or orchards.
2. Level of Proposed Development: The proposed development would continue to expansion of
relatively intense residential development adjacent to the agricultural parceL Attempts have been
made to reduce the potential number ofresidences that interface with the adjacent agricultural
use, but the proposal is substantially more intense than the current use on the project site and the
applicant also s.uggests that a community trail be located near to the adjacent agricultural parceL
3. Predominant Wind Patterns: The project site is located upwind of the agricultural property.
4. Existing Vegetation: It appears that none of the existing vegetation near the agricultural parcel
will be retained. It can be expected that the proposed vegetated screening will not be fully
established for a number of years.
5. Topography: There is no topographic separation between the two parcels.
6. Existing Development: Existing development in the area includes eight older homes within
300 feet to the north-northeast of the Dixson Ranch site and an additional seven homes are
located to the northwest. In recent years, development to the west of Branch Mill Road has
placed an additional 15 residences within 300 feet of the agricultural fields. Under current
pesticide use regulations, certain pesticides cannot be utilized within 300 feet of an occupied
residence, and growers must limit the application to portions of the field more than 300 feet from
adjacent residences. The proposed development, while only marginally increasing the portions of
the Dixson Ranch off limits to certain pesticide applications, further increases the time, money
and energy needed to notify neighbors regarding pesticide applications and increases the
likelihood that neighbors will have complaints about adjacent agricultural practices. New
residents are often the most likely to complain, as they are frequently unfamiliar with typical
agricultural practices and the industrial nature of farming at certain times.
8. Natural Buffers: The existing and proposed access road provides a small amount of separation
between the uses but is inadequate as a buffer.
The proposed development places the development footprint of habitable structures within 115
feet ofthe adjacent agricultural property and less than 130 feet of the crops on the adjacent
property, which is well under the established county buffer distances. Serious attempts to
mitigate for a buffer distance of only 115 feet between the agricultural operation and the
proposed adjacent habitable structures have be'en incorporated into the projects' proposed buffer
area design. These include a six-foot block wall atop a two-foot high berm, a vegetated screen of
30 to 60 feet in depth, and a,fence (three board with a no climb wire) near the shared property
1..:'.,\like I...:intl U'5~ Fik"i'.('UI".chl."rry ('rl,."l,."k CUl'-Eu<:or Vilia:;~ ;\;.:!,;;hbvrhuuJ Pk!!1.Cil} llf :,\Ci.{)tJ(,I).dlX'
Ch<:rry Creek PUD j [ust Villa);<: :-';"i);hhorh()od Pbl1
Novcmber 18,2004
Pi.\ge4of4
line should reduce the potential for significant impacts from noise, odor, light, dust, trespass, or
legal application of fertilizer or pesticide. However, none of these either alone or in combination
replaces the benefits that adequate distance provides to mitigate potential conflict.
Finally, it appears that the City of Arroyo Grande, in implementing its recent agricultural buffer
ordinance, will be establishing a precedent for its future use. Will the standard set in this instance
represent the maximum buffer potential for future projects? If not, the Agriculture Department
would recommend that specific findings be made for why this particular buffer distance in
combined with the proposed additional measures are sufficient to address the potential impacts
of this additional development.
TIMlNG OF BUFFER AREA DESIGN
The Department would also recommend that conditions of approval address the timing of the
buffer improvements so that the vegetative screening is adequate at the time of occupancy of
proposed residences. The installation of young vegetation that will provide little or no screening
until maturity is ineffective. At a minimum, trees of an adequate size to rapidly provide adequate
vegetated screening should be recommended so that the screen is effective at or near the time of
occupancy. In order to accomplish this, screening should be installed prior to issuance of
building permits in order to become established. Conditions should also ensure that the screening
is maintained and does not become a nuisance to the adjacent agricultural operation.
STORMWATER
The Agriculture Department would also recon;unend that the City carefully consider potential
impacts to the agricultural property due to the potential for increased stormwater runoff and for
the potential adverse impacts to the agricultural operation from the proposed collection swale
located immediately adjacent to the property line. The proposed development should not
adversely impact the production capacity of the agricultural operation by exacerbating drainage
problems on adjacent properties and increasing the potential for either erosion or sedimentation
on the agricultural land. It appears that the proposed collection swale serves no detention or
retention purpose and could adversely impact the adjacent agricultural property during major
storm events.
L:\~.lik~ Land US~ Fiks-,ClW.,Cherry Cn:t:k Cr;p-Fu!'1 Vil\I':;~ ;\dghhorhouJ Pkm.('lty (,1" A(j.~l')(,{q~;,,.,;
..~...
v;;t~\\ Am POUUT10N
l~ C<?l;:~~~~}~~ ~:~:(~~~fT
ATTACHMENT C
November 9, 2004
Kelly Heffernon, Associated Planner
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
",;1"''<'-:'''':'-0
'_0' '0
;: .~_.,,' ..,,- ~::, .
'. .1':--,
.: :_.. ~~l
;\: i~ ';.: ~t ~~. ~ t: ~]:;o
,X;"( G,= i~.:~~;t:-rr(1 GC'\';:.i::
,.~;:: ;.'( [' ..-..... .:..:~C'L- '. 0 .:,~T [' =~;
SUBJECT:
Cheny Creek -Tract 2653
Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed our review
of the proposed project located between Myrtle St. and East Cheny Ave., in Arroyo Grande. TIle project
as proposed includes a Neighborhood Plan for a twenty-two acre site, a thirty-nine lot residential
subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration for nine of the twenty two acres. We have the
follo\ving comments regarding this proposal.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
APCD staff supports the proposal to allow for subdivision of lands within the Arroyo Grande Urban
Reserve Line. Allowing for infill within the existing URL is consistent \vith the goals and policies of the
Clean Air Plan. District staff would encourage increasing the density of any future development to the
extent allowed by the zoning requirements. Increasing density can reduce trips and travel distances and
encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation.
As a commenting agency in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for a
project, the APCD assesses air pollution impacts from both the construction and operational phases of a
project, \vith separate significant thresholds for each. Please address the action items contained in this
letter that are highlighted bv bold and underlined text.
I. Construction Phase Emissions
The air quality impacts from the construction phase of the project will most likely exceed the District's
CEQA significance threshold for grading. The nroiect shall he conditioned to comolv with all
applicable Air Pollution Control District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust
(PMIO) as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site gradin!! and demolition
lans noted shall list the followin re ulations:
.. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
. Water trucks or sprinkler systems should be used in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
. {' from leaving the site. Watering frequency should be increased whenever wind speeds exceed 15
,,\l-\ ,;,: L.-
I mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible;
. . .1 '-I J .~v. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
r ,'. ~) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans ~hould be implemented as soon as possible following completion 'of any soil disturbing
activities;
-.!. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
. All disturbed soil area~ not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical
G . "3 soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
3433 Roberto Court. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . 805-781-5912 . FAX: 805-781-1002
info@slocleanair.org .:. www.slocleanair.org
Cherry Creek Development
November 9, 2004
Page 2 of5
Y All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used;
? . '2.-- Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site;
- AU trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at
"7. '1 least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with CVC Section 23114;
5 Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks
,:>. and equipment leaving the site; and
-;. "" - Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adj acent paved roads.
Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
All PMIO mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor
or build~r should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased
watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APeD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished !!radin!!
of the area.
This project is located in close proximity to both Paulding (Ruth) Middle School and Arroyo Grande
Community School, and will involve the use of numerous pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment. As you
may be aware, in July of 1999. the California Air Resources Board (ARB) listed diesel exhaust particulate
matter, as a toxic air contaminant (T AC) with no identified threshold level below which there are no
significant effects. To miti!!ate the diesel PM !!enerated durin!! the construction phase. District staff
recommends the followin!! equipment emission miti!!ation measures be implemented:
'5. r - All ~onsn:uction equipment be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's
specifications;
_ All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers,
, .1 graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units,
shall be fueled exclusively with ARB motor vehicle diesel fuel;
Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting the ARB's 1996
certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; and
Install catalytic diesel particulate filters or Diesel oxidation catalyst on two (2) pieces of
construction equipment involved in primary earth moving and construction activities and projected
to generate the greatest emissions. District staff shall be included in the selection of candidate
equipment along with a representative of the contractor. These measures should be included
and clearlv identified in the project bid specifications so the contractors bidin!! on the
proiect can include the purchase and installation costs in their bids.
'5,1-
(j
It)" ]
, ;1 ft.
\ \. J
Demolition Activities
Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper
handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials
could be encountered during demolition, relocation, or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also
be found in utilitypipeslpipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are
scheduled for removal or relocation; or buildin!!(s) are removed or renovated this proiect mav be
subject to various re!!ulatorv iurisdictions. includin!! the reQuirements stipulated in the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61. Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP).
These requirements include but are not limited to: I) notification requirements to the District, 2) asbestos
Cherry Creek Development
November 9, 2004
Page 3 of5
survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements
of identified ACM. Please contact Tim Fuhs of the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 for further
information.
Naturallv Occurring Asbestos
The project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), which has been
identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Air
Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations,
prior to anv !!rading activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a !!eolo!!ic
evaluation is conducted to determine ifNOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If
NOA is not present. an exemption request must be filed with the District (see Attachment 1). If
NOA is found at the site the applicant must complv with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
A TCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and
Safety Program for approval by the District. Please refer to the District web page at
hltp://www.slocleanair.orglbusiness/asbeslos.asp for more information or contact Karen Brooks of our
Enforcement Division at 781-5912.
Developmental Burning
Effective February 25, 2000, the District prohibited developmental burning of ve!!etative material
within San Luis Obispo County. Under certain circumstances where no technically feasible alternatives
are available, limited developmental burning under restrictions may be allowed. This requires prior
application, payment of fee based on the size of the project, District approval, and issuance of a bum
permit by the District and the local fire department authority. The applicant is required to furnish the
District with the study of technical feasibility (which includes costs and other constraints) at the time of
application. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, contact Karen Brooks of our
Enforcement Division at 781-5912.
Portable Equipment Permit or Registration Requirements
Portable equipment used during construction activities may require California statewide portable
equipment re!!istration (issued bv the California Air Resources Board) or a District permit. The
following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements,
but should not be viewed as exclusive.
. .Portable generators
. IC Engines
. Concrete batch plants
. Rock and pavement crushing
. Tub grinders
. Trommel screens
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact David Dixon of the District's
Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
II. Operational Phase Emissions
District staff conducted a screening level air quality impact assessment for the operational emissions from
this project based on the information provided in the project referral. The screening data indicated the
project will likely exceed the District's CEQA Tier I significance threshold (10 Ib/day). This proiect
needs to implement all applicable Standard Mitigation Measure and at least three (3) Discretionarv
1\1easures outlined below. "
Cherry Creek Development
November 9, 2004
Page 5 of5
ii'
I
"
"
. All EPA-Certified Phase'I1 wood burning de~ces;
. Catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to4.l grams per hour of particulate'
matter which are not EP A-Certified but haveibeen verified by a nationally-recognized testing lab;
, 'I
. Non-catalytic wood burning devi~es which emit less than or equal to 7.5 grams per hour of particulate
matter which are not EP A-Certified'but have!been verified by a nationally-recognized testing lab;
. Pellet-fueled woodheaters; and . i " .
. Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. ,
If you have any questions about approved wood burning devices, please contact Tim Fuhs of our
Enforcement Division at 781-5912.
jl'
. I
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on ithis proposal. If you have any questions or
comments, or if you would like to receive ail electroriic version of this letter, feel free to contact me at
781-4667. j! .
Sincerely,
rY\~cA.COvv
'-.
Melissa Guise
Air Quality Specialist
MAG/sll
cc: Tim Fuhs; SLOAPCD Enforcement Division
Karen Brooks, SLOAPCD Enforcement Di~sion
David Dixon, SLO APCD Engineering Di.Jision
" ?
j~
. il
Attachment: Attachment I, NOA Construction & Grading Project - Exemption Request Form
. . ", d .
h:'lois\plan\response\2953.doc
"
o ~ ;
if
,.
!i
"
H'
~;
11
ii
-.-.---.- - ,--'-- ------.~------:--_._-_._- -'r"
Atta~hment 1
Naturally Occurring Asbestos - Construction & Grading
Project -:-Exemption Request Form, .
i ': .
:;
:' Send To:
:r
. i'
San Luis Obispo Cou,nty Air
Pollution Coiltrol District
3433 Roberto .court ~:
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
. Ii
Fax: (805) 7~1-1002 !
I~
'j
Applicant Informationl Property Owner , Project Name, :
,! "
,-
Address , Project Address and lor Assessors Parcel Number
City, State, Zip , II City, State, Zip
"
Phone NUmber I Date Submitted , . Agent I Phone Number
,:
,:i ' -
, ,I
" .'
The District may provide an exemptiOn fromiSeclioni'93105 of the California Code of Regulations - Asbestos ,:
Airborne Toxic Control Measure For Construction, Gradino. Quarrvina. And Surface Minino Ooerations for any
property that has any portion of the area to be disturbed located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit; if a ,
registered geologist has conducted a geologic evaluaiion of the property and determined that no serpentine or
ultramafic rock is likely to be found in the ,area to be!i:iisturbed. Before an exemption can be granted, the ::
owner/operator must provide a copy of a 'report detailing the geologic evaluation to the District for
consideration. The District will approve or deilytheexemption within 90 days. An outline of the required
geological evaluation is provided in the Distlict han~9ut "ASBESTOS AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL
MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, QUARRYING, AND SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS-,
." 'I t'
Geological Evaluation Requlrements'~. : Ii ,". .!
"
~ ~. , .. .. ';""'~ .C' :':'. ,PJ:1tG~lilTJ'lTs;'J-'rff:BEi!O" _ ..
. " x.... _.. . ... ..~M... .211.. . (i,.... JL.. '"
I request the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control lDistrict grant this project exemption from the requirements,
of the A TCM based on the attached eolo lcal evaluation. '
Legal Declaration/Authorized Signature:,
Pate:
~~;""'~~i
APCD Staff:
()EE.IOWSEO.N~~ . QQ'8.ll'llJ~q~iefijelJt1i!tG~Jo )!;aIE~J!l:atlql1',. " -
:: Intake Date: OIS Tracking Number:
!,
Approved .
Not Approved
APCD Staff:
Date Reviewed:
Comments:
:i
'I .
h~(~\katen\wcrd\kbdlr\asbeslos\alcm\construd;r:ade\c;exetr.ptfcmn.dClc:
- ,
::r
jl
.!
ATTACHMENT D
. .~.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
; r iI '
LOS ANGELES OISTRICT;.CORPS OF ENGINEERS
, "VENTURA FI~LO OFFICE ,
.' ,.
2151'ALESSANDRO;ORIVE, SUiTE 110
. <.:, /
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93001
'I
.~mra:~
I.i~~ \1
11.\ . ,I
"~~}J
,\~~
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF;
,
, ! November 9, 20Q4
i - .,~
-:..,.:........
. ~ ~,
~ .'L ~;_: ._'.~; ~."., . .. :....: ~..:.:i
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
!';:.J:: i: !1 .
... ..~. '. . :.,,:
\. ;,( f>: .~\:-i..;I)~ln :-:.....' ~ '-'.:.:
',.:; . i;'.. .
, "... " . : .. .:... ~ -:.. '. ::- , ::':'''; '-
Kelly Heffernon
City of Arroyo Grande ,
Community Development Department
P.O. Bo?, 550 .
Arroyo Grande, California 93421
Dear Mrs. Heffernon:
, '
We are I receipt of the "Project Referral fO,f Neighborhood Plan 04-001;'Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 04-002; Planned Unit Development q4-002 (Cherry Creek)" dated October 29, 2004. It'
has ,come to our attention that you plan ,to develop 39 residential units near the Arroyo Grande
Creek at in the City of Arroyo Grande, ~an Luis'Obispo County, California. This activity may
require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit!1 Unfortunate due to our heavy permit
workload we are unable to provide details comments on the document at this time.
, 11
!!
However, please be advised the proposed. project may require a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit, especially in regards to any ~ctivity in Arroyo Grande Creek and other
waters of the United States that may beteni.poritrily of permanently impacted by way of fill
material of construction equipment.' "
.,
A Corps of Engineers permit is required ~or the discharge of dredged or fill material into,
including any redeposit of dredged material w~thin, "waters of the United States" and adjacent
. wetlands pursuant to Section 404 oIthe Clean ':Vater Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not
limited to, , . "
. ~ I
" .1. creating fills for residential or commercial development, placingbank protection,
temporary or permanent stockpiling of. excava~ed material, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and construc~g outfa,!l structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other
structures; . ' I,
, " i
2. mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling low areas Or land leveling, .
ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have ~e effect of destroying
or degrading waters of the United States;, 1" . '.
.. ' .
. ' : i' .
3. allowing runoff or overflow from a c~ntained land or water disposal area to re-enter a
water of the United States; ',i' '
~~
il
~!
Ii
"
J
"
;,
H
I;
jl
(
,t
:;
i,
-'2-
I \(
,
~',
4. placing pilings when such 'placement ~as or would have the effect of a discharge of fill
material. 'i!
. ."
-You will find a permit application form and information that describes our regulatory.
program on the Corps Los Angeles Dii,trict weppage at www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory. If
you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 585-2140. Please refer to this letter and
.\ .
200500165-HW in your reply. " ' .
rlihitJUfr
. Heather Wylie
Project Manager
Enclosures'
l,
i j
1i~
:,1
i<
1~ .
;f
~t
"
1.\
i(
.!)
;\
----------------------
--------------------
RECEIVED,
, AUG~ 02006
C1TYOl:A-, .
C 'I<RO\o1
OiV/MUNH y ~ GR.'~/DE
LI....MENT
DEPARTMENT OF,iTHE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CO~PS OF ENGINEERS
. VENTURA FIELD OFFICE
2151 ALESS~DRO DRfyE, SUITE 110
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93001
,
~ I
00
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
, ,.
August 28, f006
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
,
Damien Mavis
P.O. Box 12190
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 .
"0 ii
Dear Mr. Mavis:
i
"
, Ii '
We are in receipt of the Initial Study $ummaif for EastVillage Neighborhood in Cherry
Creek, dated April 4,2006. Unfortunately;idue to qur current permit workload we are unable
to provide detailed comments on thedoeument at qus time. ."
However,please be advised the proposed pr9ject may require a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit, especially in regards to ahy activ'~ty in Cherry Creek and other waters of the
United States that may be temporarily or pimnane~tly impacted by way of fill material or
construction equipment. ,I,
A Corps of Engineers permit is required for t!:le discharge of dredged or fill material into,
including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent
wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the. CI~an Wate.r Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not
limited to, . '!
II
1. creating fills for residential or commerciali'dev.elopment, placing bank protection,
temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated rhaterial, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and constructing outfall s~.:u<.."1:ures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or
" .
other structures; !i
. ' 2. mechani2ed landc1earing. grading:which jj:tvolves filling low areas or land leveling.
ditching.channeIizing and other excavaiim:l activit;ies.that would have the effect of destroying
or degrading waters of the United States; i
3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contail1ed land or water disposal area to re-enter a .
water of the United States; .': I:. . . .
4. placing pilings when such placexp.enfllas:orwould have the eff~ct of a discharge of
fill material. I: .
. .. Ii
You will find a permit application'fo!m and 1 pamphlet that describes our regulatory
program on the Corps Los Angeles Disctri<;t webp~ge at www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory.
, ". Ii
I'
I;,
-2--
"
:;'
:r
. ~.
If you have any questions, please contact>me at (805) 585~2140.Please refer to this letter and
,I. l'
200601313-HW in your reply. .. .' ::. . -
"
Sincerely,
~Wf~
"
Heather Wylie
Project Manager
.'f
-:1 -
,\ "
ATTACHMENT E
SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
: : ~ . J~
~
Operations Address:
1600 Aloha
Oceano, California 93445
(805) 489-6666
. i:
Business Address:
Post Office Box 339
Oceano, California 93445
. :i
"-" .
. :",
. .::.,)
. ; ::;. ~,,-'"
TO:
Kelly Heffernon
City of Arroyo GrandEl
.
. .
, ';':._'. ..... ,_o,...J';
FROM:
DATE:
Tom Zehnder
..... '''' ~\: .;~'T~'h'~n \;~-. "~.:~'.~..
.,'1i '.
SUBJ:
November 1 O. 2004
Neighborhood Plan 04-001; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002; Planned
Unit Development 04~002 (C~erry Creek)
. Attached you will firid the completed Project. Referral and documents supporting our
answer to Part II - Are there signifi~aritconberns, problems or impacts in your area of .
; 'i "
review?
":1
i~
!i
11
I
i!
"
1!
I
"
M:I026-SSLOCSDlO;6-001 District Adminl13 - :"dminIDeJelopment ReviewlTMTL re project referral.doc
. I
,I
ii
"
~~
MEMGRANII>UM
" .r
Date:
October 13, 2004
To:
Tom Zehnder .
. Raymond Dienzci~teve Tanaka
From:
Subject: Cherry Creek - Tract 2653 :.
Tom,
Additional flows from Tract 2653 were compared to the future flow allocations projected
in the, Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan ('AGWWMP) to determine impacts.to '
the SSLOCSD Trunk Sewer System. Wastewater flows from Tract 2653 are tabulated
below: . . ,,' I: '.
. Housing Development
. No.of,i
Units!i
Flow Allocation
Peak Flows (gpm)
Single Family (SF)
Cluster Home lots (MF)
Pocket Parks
7,5
3.9
0.9
1.7
14
23
12 'I
i
2
Estate Lots (SF)
Total Additional Peak FI9W
,
.,
2 :!
"
"
,.
'i
SF and MF are estimated at 2:4 person/du (per AG Ge,neral Plan land
Use Element) . i:
Wastewater flows estimated at 6S:gpcd (AAF), per AGWWMP.
Estate lots estimated at 400.gpd (AAF)
Peak flows are 3.0 x AAF
" ,
. ,j
These flows will enter the"SSLOCSD Trunk SY$tem at the Cherry Ave Trunk line and
will be conveyed to theWWTP by the SouthsideTrunk lines. These flows were not
accounted in the future flow allocation in the AGWWMP, but will add peak flow of 14
gpm. The SSLOCSD trunk system in this area has capacity for these extra flows. The
only area of concern is the Fair Oaks Ave trunk' line near Hwy 101 which is owned and.
maintained by the City of Arroyo Grande. This stretch of 12" trunk line is presently at
100% capacity, as identified in the AGWWMP and is slated as a Capital Improvement
Project. Once impl.emented, this reach will have sufficient capacity for al(anticipated
build out flows.
I,
RCD:SGT:rcd ]1
"
ii
I '
M:\026-SSl0CS0\026-002 District Engineering\02Ei-002 Major ProjeelS\SSLOCSO Trunk ~r lrf1)ad memo\Ctlerry Cleek Tr 2653 memo.doc:
. ~I
. "I
"
"
'I
I,
WALlACE GROUP
CIVil ENGINEERI,NG
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
PUBLIC WORKS'
ADMINISTRATION ::
SURVEYING I
GIS S01.UTlONS
WATER RESOURCES'
'.
WAllACE SWANSON
INTERNATIONAL "
WALLACE GROUP
A Calilornil Corporation
4115 BROAD ST.,
SUITE B-S
SAN LUIS OBISP9
CALIFORNIA 93401
T 80S 544-4011 ,
,
F 805 544.4294 ~~
www.wallac.egrou~.us
. . I.'.
,.
SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COVNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Operations Address:
1600 Aloha
Dceano, California 93445
(805) 489-6666
Business Address:
Post Office Box 339
Dceano, California 93445
(805) 481-6903
,',
I
June 30, 2004
Mr. Don Spagnolo P.E. : .
City of Arroyo Grande, Public Works DePMlment
P.O. Box 550 . .: I .
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93421
1;
Subject:
Cherry Creek Tract 2653 - Development'Review
. ~
Dear Mr. Spagnolo,
We have reviewed Vesting Tentative Tract ~ap No. 2653 for.the Cherry Creek Development in the i
City of Arroyo Grande and find that it will not have insignificant impacts on the District's trunk :,
collection lines. The Developer of this Tt-act will need to pay all applicable fees related to the .
District's current ordinances. .
There is an existing IS-inch ~nd Ii-inch city sewer collection line interconnected to the District's
trunk collection system in the area' of Fait,: Oaks Avenue between Highway 101 and Valley Road':
,I 'I
that is identified as at capacity al}dshould~e replaced and enlarged to 18 inches. This development;
will add approximately 8750 gallons of floy.. to this line.
,
., II .
If you have any questions please call Craigirraylor or me at 544-4011.
'.11
Tom Zehnder, P.E.
District Engineer"
cc: Kelly Heffernon, City Planning
i~
,
,i j~
.. II. '
M:\026-SSLOCSD\026.QOl District Admin\13'~ Admin\Oevelopment Review\CherryDevelopment.doc
. ,!~
j:
"
:l
;~
1.1
"
.,
"
j)
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
NEWSOM SPRINGS DETENTION BASIN FEASIBILITY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION ...........................................................................................................................................1
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS .............................. .......................................... ..... .................. ................. .........1
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ....................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY ...................................................................:................................................................................2
PURPOSE .....................................................................................................................................................2
AREA WATERSHEDS..................................................................................................................................2
POTENTIAL BASIN LOCA TIONS...............................~................................................................................4
EXISTING HyDROLOGy.............................................;................................................................................4
HYDROGRAPH ......................................................................,..................................................................5
ACRES ..............................:............................ ...........................................................................................5
STORMWATER RUNOFF (CFS).................................,.................................................................................5
COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMILAR WATERSHEDS..........................6
BASIN MODELING .......:............................................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Watershed Areas .......................................................................................................3
Figure 2 - Potential Basin Locations...........................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Comparison of Prior Analysis to Current Analysis ..........,....:.......................................5
Table 2 - Comparison of Runoff Rates Calculated For Similar Watersheds In The Area ............6
Table 3 -190 x 510 feet basin performance (2.2 acre site).........................................................?
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Simplified Existing Conditions Model With Hydroflow Hydrograph Input
Parameters
Appendix B - Existing Conditions and Hydroflow Hydrograph Input Parameters
Appendix C - Alternatives Considered
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 1
CERTIFICATION
Preparation of this report included efforts 'by the following persons:
Craig A Campbell, Principal Engineer
Cheryl A Lenhardt, Civil Engineer
Professional Engineers
This report was prepared by, or under the direction of the following Professional Engineer's in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6700 of the Business and Professions Code of the
State of California. '
Civil Engineer:
(j,' L'
~ : ~, ..../',' ,
\..1-, / c< . ~~'2.__c-.etl
Cheryl A~tenhardt, Civil Engineer
PE 65306
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
r'
7-1..7-0:5"
Cr A ampbell, Principal Engineer
P 34405
?:, :
\\>.\., .: .~"J~~oS': '
...." -.' ,".
~. . .
. ,
. . ;.' ..."
....... ...:-.:~~:.._~:.:~-:::~::. ~.;.."
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 1
SUMMARY
The intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road in the City of Arroyo Grande is subject
to flooding in large storm events. Prior studies have identified alternative drainage projects to
convey flood flows safely to Arroyo Grande Creek. This report evaluates the feasibility of using
an upstream detention basin as a component of the Newsom Springs Drainage Project.
Locations at Branch Mill Road and upstream were evaluated in the field and by computer
modeling. Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary constrained, our
analysis indicates that the effectiveness of the basin depends on the available basin depth.
With basin depths of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outflow is marginal. However, with the
basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of berm), a reduction in flow of 327 cfs (34
percent) can be achieved.
Whether or not this depth can be achieved on the site must be determined by field survey.
Based on a field observation, it appears questionable. Therefore if the project is to proceed
further we recommend a topographic map be pre'pared.
If the basin were installed as part of the Newsome Springs Drainage project, it can be expeCted
to have the following effects:
. Downstream facilities can be smaller.
. The properties between Branch Mill Road and Cherry Lane Extension would receive some
flood control benefit.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a detention
basin upstream of a reoccurring flooding problem at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and
Branch Mill Road in the City of Arroyo Grande.
AREA WATERSHEDS
Three undeveloped watersheds converge at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill
Road as shown in figure 2.
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 2
.~
! ~
j~
.
.
-:.
: ~
.' .'C
...
;.. tIl
~ ..'
~!
;~ ,
ii
I
!
~
~
~o
w.
~~
~~
~~
~u
>-
~~
!u
a:~
,.
2:;
..
0"
u.
.
S
.
The largest of the three watersheds is 1,116 acres and collects runoff from Newsom and Guaya
Canyons. In a 100-year storm, this watershed will generate about 854 cubic feet per second
(cfs) of runoff. The runoff crosses Branch Mill road and into the City limits through an 8ft x 4ft
culvert and travels north through a roadside channel. Adjacent to, and just down stream of, the
first watershed is a smaller steep mountainous watershed of 51 acres. The runoff from these
two watersheds converges at the "stone culvert: This combined flow contributes to flooding
problems within Tract 139 (Luana Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, at the Pacific
Coast Christian School, and further downstream at Valley Road.
Excess flows are not diverted through the stone culvert. The excess flow travels in a roadside
ditch that runs parallel to Branch Mill Road (See:Figure 3, yellow) until is reaches the
intersection of Cherry Avenue' and Branch Mill R9ad. At the ditches terminus, the runoff
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 3
generated from flat, irrigated cropland of approximately 73 acres, combines with the two
previous watersheds, resulting in a 1 DO-year runoff of approximately 1080 cfs. As a result, the
homes within Tract 409 have experienced serious flooding.
POTENTIAL BASIN LOCATIONS
Installing detention basins upstream of flooding problem has the potential to store the peak flow.
and meter out a flow at a lower rate. Based on a:;site review, two areas were identified as
possible locations for basins. These areas were chosen for evaluation because they were
currently undeveloped, were relatively flat, and were at the base of the largest contributing
watershed. They are shown with red boundaries in Figure 3 and are both along the flow path of
Newsom Canyon. The rectangular area analyzed south of Branch Mill Road is the larger site at
2.27 acres while the area north of Branch Mill Road is 1.72 acres. In addition to being larger,
the southerly site has more usable vertical room. Therefore, the southerly site is considered for
additional analysis in this report.
Field review was also determined that areas further upstream of Branch Mill Road are too
constrained by the canyon walls and existing home sites to be considered for a basin.
EXISTING HYDROLOGY
A previous analysis of existing conditions was presented in April of 1998. The analysis
performed at that time was generated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method
program (SBUH). The current analysis was performed with the 'Hydroflow Hydrographs'
application with the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method selected for the hydrograph
routing option. The 'Hydroflow Hydrograph' application is an improved mqdeling software
package that allows the routing of the hydrograph information generated by the SBUH
application.
The existing conditions of both programs were ,compared using the same rainfall parameters to
verify the consistency of the models with each other. The results of each program run are
consistent with each other and are shown in th'e columns labeled 'previous' and 'in-kind
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 4
evaluation' of Table 1. The third column of table 1, 'updated model,' was the results generated
by the new 'Hydroflow Hydrographs' program which now can reflect the travel time realized in
the system.
The SBUH models previously developed required that the three hydrographs converge together
at the same location. However in reality, hydrograph 1 discharges into a 2,760-foot long ditch
located along the north side of Branch Mill Road,south of the agricultural fields [hydrograph 4].
Flow travels northward and is combined with the runoff associated with Hydrograph 2 at the
stone culvert located at the intersection of Huebner lane [hydrograph 5]. The combined flow of
hydrograph 1 and 2 travel northward in a 611-foot long roadside located along the eastern
shoulder of Branch Mill road [hydrograph 6]. This roadside ditch currently discharges the
combined flows at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry
Avenue. The runoff associated with the agricultural fields, or hydrograph 3, also discharges to
the southwestern corner of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue [hydrograph
7]. A second model was developed using the upgraded software to more accurately reflect the
existing oconditions. As a result, the peak discharge for a 1 DO-year event was reduced to 968
cfs, or 500 cfs per square mile. The decrease of peak flow by 112 cfs is attributable partly due
to the travel time realized in the roadside ditches: and partly due to a more defined rainfall
distribution in the new model.
Table 1 ;.. Comparison of Prior Analysis to Current Analysis
""-;... .
.,; .,.
o~.STO'RMWATERRUNOFF'{CFS)' 0
'"
HYDROGRAPH
ACRES,
:-.,,:."~o; (J)
d.h '"".";,
. " .'. - . . .
.0 ..CuiT~ritc.:l100 ..0
(Hydroflow Hydrogiaph F'rograrn)
. '"'.
#'
. o. Description 0.'0. 0
-. -.-. ,",c.
; 'Updated
. Model. .00
854
In Kind
Evaluation 0
1
Newsom Springs Creek to
Branch Mill Road
Hillside area Tributary to
Branch Mill Road
Agriculture area between
Branch Mill Road - Cherry
Ave
Open Channel from Branch
Mill Road to Stone Culvert
Stone Culvert (Hydrographs 2
and 4 combine)
Open Channel from Stone
Culvert to Cherry Avenue
Combined flows from
agriculture and channel flows
(Hydrographs 3 and 6)
Flow to Arroyo Grande Creek
1240
1024
1178
968
1116
891
854
2
62
62
51
60
164
164
3
73
73
4
811
5
863
6
859
7
968
July 11, 2005
Page 5
WG 023205754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
The overall system time of concentration was inc~~ased by 9 minutes. The parameters entered
are provided in Appendix A. While a graphical representation of the model, tables of the input
parameters and subsequent results are provided in Appendix B.
The restrictions of the box culverts at the outlets of hydrograph one and two were not
considered but it is anticipated that they would serve to further decrease the peak flow observed
at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue.
COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMILAR WATERSHEDS
As shown in table 2, the Hydroflow Hydrograph program results for hydrographs one and two
are fairly consistent with other studies performed in the area.
However, the new hydrograph for the agricultural area, hydrograph 3 reflects a doubling of the
peak flows realized in a 1 DO-year storm event. The primary reason for this increase in peak flow
is a result of a decrease in the time of concentration. In the previous study, the time of
concentration was set at 32.4 minutes. The new study, based upon sheet flow principles,
assessed the time of concentration to be only 13.9 minutes. The time of concentration
calculations are provided in appendix A.
>:.!(,:;/:.;
"."0'.".
Table 2 - Comparison of Runoff Rates Calculated For Similar Watersheds In The Area
, STUDYSPONSOR~
p'YEAROFSTUDYC.
.' .'" -', .'" ... ,-,.:",-.....,':
"..,. ',";.';,.- ..,
City of AG - Wallace Group 2005
FEMA study for SLO CO
Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991
FEMA study for SLO CO
Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991
FEMA study for SLO CO ,
Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991
FEMA study for SLO CO
Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991
FEMA study for SLO CO
Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991
Corps of Engineers study of San
Luis County streams, 1987
FEMA study of Arroyo Grande
fiood insurance rate maps, 1984 .
'AREA;" CALCULAIED
:,SQlJARE, PEAK FLOVV'
MILES ,PER SQUARE '
,MILE, ,
: DESCRIPTION OF'AREA
" "
Newsom Springs, to Branch Mill &
Cherry Rd Intersection
Meadow Creek at US 101
500
1.94
4.4
591
Carpenter Canyon Creek at
confluence with Corbit Canyon
Creek
1.0
600
Corbit Canyon Creek upstream
confluence with Poorman Canyon
Creek
3.9
590
Deleissigues Creek at confiuence
with Corbit Canyon Creek
Los Berros Creek at confluence with
Arroyo Grande Creek
Corbit Canyon Creek
2.5
600
26.9
409
4.7
510 to 660
North Fork of Leis Berros Creek
461
2.6
July 11, 2005
Page 6
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
BASIN MODELING
A model was created to analyze the effect, if any, on the construction of a detention basin
upstream of the area prone to flooding. The basin analyzed was situated at the north end of the
tributary associated with hydrograph 1 on the south side of Branch Mill Road.
The available depth at the sites appears to be about 15 feet. This would be obtained by a
combination bf excavation below grade and berms above grade. This available depth is limited
by the need for freeboard, and an overflow weir. In order to convey the 1 OO-year peak runoff of
854 cfs, a 50 feet wide overflow weir would flow approximately 3.1 feet deep. Adding one foot of
freeboard, and the top 4.1 feet of the basin must be reserved for overflow capacity and
freeboard.
Basin depths ranging from 10 feet to 15 feet were considered for a basin with 1:3 side slopes
and top dimensions of 190 feet by 510 feet. For each case, the basin outflow was restricted (by
using smaller outflow pipe), and by trials, the pipe size was determined that would maintain the
100 year water surface elevation below the spillway. The results of this evaluation are shown
below in Table 3.
Table 3 -190 x 510 feet basin performance (2.2 acre site)
DEPTH'
.OF c.....
POND"
.(H).~'"
;" .
PIPE SIZE .
,,';"(IN)'
... .
. ; 100-YEARFLOW (eFs)
.- . -- ~ ".
<i.'
15 It
10.9
2-60
854
:TOTALAT .. .
"-""'-"', REDUCTION
OUTFLOW CHERRY'
.. .~. 'AVENUE'
..
745 828 26
703 779 75
546 527 327
INFLOW
,-- ,'.'
'-.'
'.
',...-
10 It
6.3
5-60
854
12 It
7.8
3-66
854
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
Juiy 11. 2005
Page 7
APPENDIX
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Spring~ Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 8
ApPENDIX A
SIMPLIFIED EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL WITH HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS
All watersheds shared a hydrologic soil group of '0" and a Type 1 Storm with rainfall rates that
are consistent with NOA Maps of the area. The SCS Curve Numbers (CN) for each of the
watersheds were assigned as follows:
Hydrograph SCS Curve Number
1. A composite curve number of 74 was generated for the area associated
with hydrograph 1. It was generated by assigning a SCS Curve Number
of 77 to the estimated 279 acres associated with the western slopes of
the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are densely forested, a SCS
Curve Number of 73 to the estimated 826 acres associated with the west
facing slopes of the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are non-
developed brush lands in good condition and a SCS Curve number of 98
to the estimated 11 acres of impervious area (roads, buildings, etc).
2. An SCS curve number of 77 was assigned to hydrograph two because a
dense canopy of oak trees characterized the area.
3. An SCS curve number of 88 were assigned to hydrograph three because
row crops characterize the area. '
The time of concentration for each watershed was determined by the SCS TR-55 method for
hydrographs 1 and 2. Hydrograph 3 used the SCS average velocity method.
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 1
TR55 Tc Worksheet 3
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing
Description A 8 C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.130 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 300.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 20.00 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 10.10 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.10
Shallow'C'oncentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 600.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 33.00 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved
Average velocity (ftIs) = 9.27 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 1.08 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.08
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.01 1.00 7.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.03 4.00 9.00
Channel slope (%) = 18.20 '4.03 1.00
Manning's n-value = 0.040 . 0.025 0.018
Velocity (ftIs) = 7.61 '4.73 6.99
Flowlength (ft) = 1100.0 14900.0 600.0
Travel Time (min) = 2.41 + . 52.54 + 1.43 = 56.38
Total Travel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 67.60 min
TR55 Tc Worksheet 3
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inteli~olve
Hyd. No. 2
Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.400 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 200.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 15.00 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 20.14 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 20.14
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 1300.00 .0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 18.50 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ftIs) = 6.94 0.00 o.bo
Travel Time (min) = 3.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 3.12
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 7.00 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 9.00 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%) = 1.00 ,;0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.018 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ftIs) = 6.99 0.00 0.00
Flow length (ft) = 600.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 1.43 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.43
Total Travel Time, Tc .........................................................;.................... 24.70 min
Project:
" '""
IV(.t)J'::o,-n :::'(Jr..r'lo.~
Calculated By: C A L
Checked By:
Date:
Date:
Project No: ~ .3 2. -
Scale:
Sheet
of
II 1 ,
ho..1d r'\,.,q r::t t-~ :~; :..:
. - .
AJ-l"
I
<:r-
--
p, I".:,~ ~t ;,:.:'
"
;
~._:f'
........1 !:" J.
(h~" ("1
C~ ::?
i-; ~'JI'': J I
- "
. to" 1; :. ,..... .. ("~:
sloto?, Ve/oc,"f'i
A') o'tid 5
AI.f- ),
- "A.sS'Jn'\tcl ".fiao J
tG
:: .L
(Pi)
t.<.
-::;--L
~o
(~)
.~
.}[O\I)
l ~: ~O) ::
.J'\)
\ ~'~ :::i;'(,\
-:.-.... ~l
. (0<.; i.1.P /
vdo~"h
,
o.f
\3. ~
'/"r""..r-.
= /..u
(I: I
"-1/_~
~~
......... I'" '
-cl'~.-i
,;{ (l; ,I
i- ~ t~~r;
:i..
;-,.-"'.
-;:.:';;:' .J
M'I"
_ ",' -. "
;.... ~ .~"
- '., ,.."
~
", ,', -
. ; <::>:. . .
. . - ~ .'
. . . .
WALlACE GROUP
CIVIL ENGiNEERING
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
PUBLIC WORKS
ADMII'HSTRATJON
SURVEYING I
GIS SOLUTIONS
WATER RESOURCES
WALLA.CE SWANSON
INTERNATIONAL
~11S BROAD ST
SUITE 8-5
SAN LUIS GS1SPQ
CALIFORNIA 93401
T 805544-40:1
F 805 S44.~294
1330 A~:'IOLO DR
SUITE 2':9
,'."~.RT::'J:Z
C)'lIFQR~;IA ~4553
T 925 i13-53')1
F -;25 2~a-5o~4
W'IiW.wa Ilaceg roup.'J S
ApPENDIX B
EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL AND HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 2
,
N
::t
<:SIVl ~
<; c..;. ::I
-+
I[l U '- 4
' - \.b" c q
~ rt ~ <..l
u) s:::
- 0 \J -
-0 -jJ 0 f
'" I' <"( <;)0
q: rr 0
y --1l I, 0
<i '" ..3
Q..- II VI .x
.. ,j
~ E e- II /I
~,:, G 0.- " '"
CJl .+l ... 0- C>-
~ (3) -V
-<t: CO
m'..
~ ..:t.'.~. '
.-:~:j.i .
N .,'
I.,
....'
:C."'.
.- .
~"
,
tl.
v
c
~o
~-E
~-
" ~
.r: "
u.r:
..U
,,'"
~~~~
U~~'fi
i .c ..s::: c::
.... u 0 rv
CD c c: ...
_ ~ f! CD
~ m co Q..
o,gaig.
:g,,g 1 ~
,r:::. _ Q) 0
C~I"U i~j~
: ~ ~ E 11
~x~8
en
c
X
"
0::
"'''''''
000
c c C
::J :::l ::J CI)
a::a::o::c
~ :r: J: :c: :a:
::> ::> ::> E
J; co co co 0
c 0 en en en U
; ~ _<<0>.,
::;;
.q:
'"
~
o
~
l!i
o
o
N
Cl
C
::l
....,
~
ro
't)
(/J
~
::l
~
Cl
ai
Cl
ro
c
.~
Cl
.,
Cl
C
''''
c.
en
E
o
.,
~
Z
Cl
C
-
'0;
'x
Q)
't)
Q)
s:
a.
E
i:ii
.;.J
o
Q)
'e-
0.
OJ
-0
o
:2
'"
.c
0-
Cll
.....
m
o
.....
-0
>-
J:
3
o
<;:::
Cll
.....
'0
>-
J:
Iydrograph Summary Report
1
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
~o. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) (cis) (min) (min) (aeft) (ft) (aeft)
1 SBUH Runoff 854.31 1 601 257.533 - - - Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R
2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 - , - - Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd
3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - - - Farm Area between Branch Mill Rd &
4 Combine 1178.06 1 720 240.583 1.2,3 - - Combined Flows appr Branch Mill &
i
,
Simplified exisitng Newsom Springs )~d: 100 Year Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 2:04 PM 1\
II
U"..-/,..."f'I,..,UI l...hlrlrt'\nr::H'lh~ bv Intellsolve
Hydrograph Summary Report
1
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow, Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
~o. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (mln) (aeft) (ft) (aeft)
1 SBUH Runoff 594.68 1 610 257.532 - - - Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R
2 SBUH Runoff 59.85 1 599 12.947 - - - Hillside Area Irib 10 Branch Mill Rd
3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - - .- Farm Area between Branch Mill Rd &
4 Combine 801.12 1 600 295.700 1,2,3 - .- Combined Flows appr Branch Mill &
,
existing Newsom Springs Drainage i <RretOQ'rl-A~al:h~8fegpw Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 2:10 PM J2
'./
\-l"..-ir""I1I"lW I-Ivrlrnnr::lnhs bv IntelJsotve
(]\
MQ:j
m
NUJ
~
~({j
vel
. ~
ml/ ~
~.
-0
o
~
U)
c
"-f
\f)
>"
l-U
u
~
.....::.
~
&
-T
""'
o
<.
c)
<-)
'*
<l
'>0
..S>
0-
'I
c
t
Cf'
o
-.s
1/
0-
-fJ
------
D
/~
o
o
..Y
"
'"
f.>-
0-
it
'" ;:;1
-I ::E
~~I
:c
c
~
'" <:-
c G;
x t5i
~ 0/53
:E~~~ ,,~
~=5g ~~
g:E:;;:-;; ~~
..",.co ~.
C3ou- 4)0
cc- .r=."'O
co e ~ ~ () 'C::
....CJCDC o~
<">2~~ _"'0
en G.l u t: c:::
~~>"C ~I
.= .:; ~ \U "3 co
o..c:J.8e~u-
cne _Q) 0
E<~E.2:~g
o Itl':;' 0='.9 =
1J)"C.......c:: cnU
~~Eg~E~
z:;: I:Q ~ 0 0 Q;
_u..coCi5Lt:5
'::1::::::-
o 0-
g 5 g
0:: c::: ~ Q)
:c-.... .5 ~
~5......-5'O.c::.-
com~tUE~~
u)(/)Cf.l~8~8
T""Nt")Vl.(}~r--.
~
n.
CO
lO
~
.n
o
o
N
Ol
c
=>
-,
,.:;
i
~
c
III
.c
U
Cl
C
"w
=>
'"
Cl
III
c
.~
Cl
UJ
Cl
C
""
0-
en
E
o
UJ
~
Z
Cl
C
""
UJ
'X
w
"0
'"
"e-
n.
I--
Q3
-0
o
~
r/J
.r::
0-
ell
~
OJ
o
~
""0
>-
:r:
~
<;:::
ell
~
""0
>-
:r:
Hydrograph Summary Report
1
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
.0. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (aclt) (It) (acft)
1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 - - - Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R
2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 - - - Hillside Area irib to Branch Mill Rd
3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - - - Fann Area between Branch Mill Rd &
4 Reach 811.46 1 610 257.533 1 -- .--- Branch mill road channel to stone cuI
5 Combine 863.05 1 610 270.480 2,4 - - Stone Culvert
6 Reach 858.89 1 613 270.480 5 - - From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave
7 Combine 967.99 1 609 295.700 3,6 - - Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av
I
i
I
I
I
I
,I
I
Existing Newsom Springs Drainage SRtgl.O'fmai'lssbgpll.OO Year Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 1 :56 PM ('
'-'
'1'0"
Hvdra~ow Hvdrographs by Intelisolve
ApPENDIX C
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
WG 0232.5754
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study
July 11, 2005
Page 3
MtJ
&).....
. .
N ..
~fJ
:;
'1
,",-
o
,
'r--)
:f-
0-
'"
-0
C)o
t
rt-
-
.:,.e
,~
'oJ
Q..
(3
o
-------
/~
vi
~l
"~I
\..,:
u
'J
<:: ::;<
0..
,~ C? N
~ ..,.
" '- .;,:
,:>.:) <D
d- o
0
-:f r, " N
I"-
<:>.. \,,1 i N
<V :J
" (.~ -,
<:>
.~~. ~.I1 >;
ro
'- ~ -S!. '0
" <J)
QJ
I.f' () C
0- C:.. '0
- --;.J ~
W
f.
t
N
t\/'
.3
,.
Q..
-.:J
/~
~l
~~ ~
QJ ,;1
...J fI
I
"
~
~
"
ti
..
="C"C
::;;~~
J::. -'-
g:E:!
e.c.c
co g g
- '" '"
~Q5mO::-e
() 0 c: == Q)
en -- ~:!:.2:
g-:@!-,=a
'C: _ Q) 0
c.%m.cfij~t:
... ca .... 0 Q)
E<e~-;;2~g
g-8<og6.9:O
3; 'u) E :; c:: ClJ CI) C1J
~=lUgUic:El!!
:J:u.CI)~.ge~
Cl)u...5
0>
"
x
~
::::::::~
g g g
:> :>:>
a::: 0::: c::: '5 Q)
:I:J:J: c=.c's ~
~::J::>gu.cE"fi:C
(f.l ffi ffi Q) ~ 0 m E
0::0::00::8
....NC"')'O;flO
(0"'0:>
:s:
a.
Cl
oj
Cl
ro
C
'f!!
Cl
<J)
Cl
C
'C
a.
C/)
E
o
~
Z
c
'iij
ro
.0
U
QJ
.~
0..
"
>
,,<
< ~
~~
,,0
.c'C
() "
.s~
",0:
~:I:
,,'"
()-
o
Q)
'0
o
~
tfJ
.c
0-
m
...
01
e
'0
>-
I
~
o
<;::
m
...
"0
>-
I
~ydrograph Summary Report
1
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) (cts) (min) (min) (acft) (ft) (acft)
1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 - - - Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R
2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 - - - Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd
3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - -- - Farm Area between Branch Mill Rd &
4 Reservoir 703.06 1 627 257.464 1 197.25 18.774 South of Branch MiiI R
5 Reach 695.50 1 634 257.464 4 - - Basin to stone culvert
6 Combine 728.92 1 632 270.411 2.5 - - Stone Culvert
7 Reach 727.51 1 635 270.410 6 - - From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave
8 Combine TI9.18 1 632 295.631 3, 7 - - Intersection of BH Rd and Cheny Av
I~015/D ,
X/2
,
,
basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gp "Return Period: 100 Year Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:17 PM
i
I 1....1._11_... u.,..,...~.......h.. h" Into:>lro::;nlve /
Hydrograph Plot
2
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday. Jul27 2005. 4:17 PM
Hyd. No. 4
South of Branch Mill R
Hydrograph type =
Storm frequency =
Inflow hyd. No.
Reservoir name
Reservoir
100 yrs
= 1
= 12 foot depth
Peak discharge
Time interval
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
= 703.06 cfs
= 1 min
= 197.25ft
= 18.774 acft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 257.464 aeft
Q(cfs)
861.00
South of Branch Mill R
Hyd. NO.4 -100 Yr
Q (cfs)
861.00
123.00
I I
..-- .. ..-..-.. .. .. __,_____m__ ,..... .. _._.___n ..,. I .. -....
I
-.--..-.-. --.------.- .. ------- -. __.__m_ -- .--. ...----....-...-.-- -------.. ----.-- "..... ..... --.-,-_.. - ...-- .-.-----
I
1---'-'-- - ,-----_. -- ....-----.....- n___....._ -- - - --- -- .. ... ..-.--.--. .,.---. ----- --.- .. -- --- n.... --...-. - ......--..
1------- .--..... ----... - .- ---- .___n__ .--- - .. ._.._--,---.--.,.-.'-_. .___m_..__ I.. .... ... .--..... ..-----,..'
\\ I
.-.-. ..--... ... .---..--....--. n"....__. .-- -- l't. ... ............- - .... - .. --.
'\ I
'-
I
i
I ,
) I , I -
,
... .. f-- I I ~~
......--:: I
738.00
738.00
615.00
615.00
492.00
492.00
369.do
369.00
246.00
246.00
123.00
o
3
5
8
11
13
16
19
21
24
0.00
27
Time (hrs)
0.00
- HydNo.4
- Hyd No.1
Pond Report
3
Wednesday. Jul27 2005. 4:17 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Pond No. 1 - 12 foot depth
Pond Data
Bottom LxW = 190.0 x 510.0 ft Side slope = 3.0:1 Bottom elev. = 190.00 ft Depth = 12.00 ft
Stage I Storage Table
Stage (It) Elevation (It) .Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (aclt) Total storage (aclt)
0.00 190.00 96. gOO 0.000 0.000
0.60 190.60 99.433 1.352 1.352
1.20 191.20 101.992 1.387 2.739
1.80 191.80 104.577 1.423 4.162
2.40 192.40 107.187 1.458 5.620
3.00 193.00 109.824 1.495 7.115
3.60 193.60 112.487 1.531 8.646
4.20 194.20 115.175 1.568 10.214
4.60 194.80 117,889 1.605 11.819
5.40 195.40 120,630 1.643 13.462
6.00 196.00 123,396 1.681 15.142
6.60 196.60 126,188 1.719 16.861
7.20 197.20 129,006 1.758 18.619
7.80 197.80 131,850 .1.797 20.415
8.40 198.40 134,720 1.836 22.251
9.00 199.00 137,616 1.876 24.126
9.60 199.60 140,538 1.916 26.042
10.20 200.20 143.485 1.956 27.998
10.80 200.80 . 146,459 1.997 29.995
11.40 201.40 149,469 2.038 32.033
12.00 202.00 152.484 2.079 34.112
Culvert f Orifice Structures
[A] [B] [C] [0]
Rise (in) = 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (In) = 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 3 0 0 0
InvertEI.llt) = 1 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length (It) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N.yalue = .013 .013 .013 .013
Oril. Coelf. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multl-Stage = nla No No No
Weir Structures
[A] [8] [C] [0]
Crest Len (It) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C;estEI. (It) = 197.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coaff. = 2.60 3.33 0.00 3.33
Weir Type = Broad
Multi-Stage = No No No No
Exfillration = 0.000 inlhr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 It
--~.-... .--. _"_n_____ ~ .,"- .' :.----" ---I" .wl _ _ .no_, __ .. ..
...... / I
I I I
/'
/ i I I
/ I
/' I I
I "
,
Stage (It)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
Note: Culvert/OriflC8 outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control.
Stage I Discharge
Stage lit)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.CO 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00 2000.00 2200.00
Discharge (cfs)
- Total Q
iydrograph Summary Report
1
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
,
No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) . elevation storage description
(origin) (cis) (min) (min) (aeft) (ft) (aeft)
1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1. 601 257.533 - - - Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R
2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 -- - - Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd
3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - - - Fann Area bel:Yleen Branch Mill Rd &
4 Reservoir 546.24 1 650 257.411 1 200.85 30.164 South of Branch Mill R
5 Reach 544.82 1 657 257.411 4 - - Basin to stone culvert
6 Combine 497.16 1 665 270.279 2,5 - - Stone Culvert
7 Reach 497.00 1 668 270.279 6 - - From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave
8 Combine 527.03 1 659 295.499 3, 7 - - Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av
/'7 (> ;< <::! D v ' ,- ,
-, ",;;
,
basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gpwReturn Period: 100 Year Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 2:39 PM
I .
E:
Hydraftow Hydr09raphs by Intellsolve
Hydrograph Plot
2
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 4
South of Branch Mill R
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Inflow hyd. No.
Reservoir name
Wednesday. Jul 27 2005. 2:39 PM
= Reservoir
= 100 yrs
= 1
= 15 foot depth
Peak discharge
Time interval
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
= 546.24 cfs
= 1 min
= 200.85 ft
= 30.164 acft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (efs)
861.00
738.00
615.00
492.00
369.00
246.00
123.00
0.00
Hydrograph Volume = 257.411 aeft
South of Branch Mill R
Hyd. No.4 -100 Yr
Q (efs)
861.00
.. - .._n. - -- --- .....- - o. o. I
.
.-.-- . .- _a._. 0- --- - -..". -- - -- --- -- . .--.- .-.. --- -- un. .- - -- --- 0 - - - -.,-.-..-.,--- -- ---- --- --- -..-.--... -- .---. _..__n
__on - ..-.... "'..-- -- -- ..-. -- - _..,....u.__ n__ .....- -.-.- - ---.-- ...,... .u...._. -l-- ---...-... ...-.-.".....- ---., - - .....- - --...- ---
~
- ___n_ ..... -- n.. -- ,'...- o. - -- ..........- -\-- - _.____n... -- -- - ...- -,-,
--- - - - -- ,--, --- -- -- -- _m --- - - --- ...-... -- - --
\
\ ~
--
~--_. ..= ~l
-- . -- --
./
738.00
615.00
492.00
369.00
246.00
123.00
o
24
0.00
27 29
Time (hrs)
3
19
21
5
8
13
16
11
- Hyd No.4
----:-'" Hyd No. 1
Pond Report
3
Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 2:39 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Pond No, 1 - 15 foot depth
Pond Data
Bottom LxW = 190,0 x 510.0 It Side slope = 3.0:1
Bottom elev. = 190.00 It . Depth = 15.00 ft
Stage I Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (acft) Total storage (acft)
0.00 190.00 96,900 0.000 0.000
0.75 190.75 100,070 1.696 1.696
1.50 191.50 103,281 1.751 3.446
2.25 192.25 106,532 1.806 5.252
3.00 193.00 109,824 1.863 7.115
3.75 193.75 113,156 1.920 9.034
4.50 194.50 116,529 .1.977 11.012
5.25 195.25 119,942 2.036 13.047
6.00 196.00 123,396 2.095 15.142
6.75 196.75 126,890 2.155 17.297
7.50 197.50 130,425 2.215 19.512
8.25 198.25 134,000 2.276 21.788
9.00 199.00 137,616 2.338 24.126
9.75 199.75 141,272 2.401 26.527
10.50 200.50 144,969 2.464 28.991
11.25 201.25 148,706 2.528 31.520
12.00 202.00 152,484 '2.593 34.112
12.75 202.75 156,302 2.658 36.771
13.50 203.50 .160,161 .2.724 39.495
14.25 204.25 164,060 .2.791 42.286
15.00 205.00 168,000 ,2.859 45.145
Culvert I Orifice Structures
[A] [B] [C] [0]
Rise (i") = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in) = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 2 0 0 0
InvertEI,(ft) = 190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length (ft) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope ('Yo) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .013
Orff.Coelf. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Mulli-5tage = nla No No No
Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [0]
Crest Len (ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
~rest EI. (ft) = 200.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coelf. = 2.60 3.33 0.00 3.33
Weir Type = Broad
Mulli-5tage = No No No No
Exfiltratlon = 0.000 inlhr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
/ I--'
/
/'
I,{' ......
/
/ .
Stage (ft)
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
- Total a
Note: Culvert/Orifice ovtflOW$ have been analyzed under inlet and OlJtIet ccnltcl.
Stage I Discharge
Stage(ft)
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1600.00
0.00
1800.00
Discharge (crs)
1400.00
9.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a
public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET,
ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item:
1. Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001 and Tentative Parcel Map
Case No. 06-004 - Location: APNs 006-095-001 & 002, Including and
Adjoining Arroyo Grande High School at Valley Road/Fair Oaks Avenue.
Adoption of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the subject
properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and Public Facility (PF), initiated by the
City of Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to Arroyo Grande
High School; and Adoption of a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 06-
004 located south of and including part of Arroyo Grande High School campus at
Valley Road and Fair Oaks Avenue, initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande,
including improvement and extension of Castillo Del Mar Drive from Orchard
Street to Valley Road.
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item
listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the
public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds
for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was
given.
Information relating to this item is available by contacting the City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department at 473-5420. The Council meeting will' be
televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
.Jma~
City Clerk
Publish n, The Tribune, Friday, September 29,2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE
NO. 06-001 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-004;
LOCATION - APN'S 006-095-001 & 002, INCLUDING AND ADJOINING
ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL AT VALLEY ROAD/FAIR OAKS
AVENUES
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council:
1. adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the subject
properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and Public Facility (PF), initiated by the
City of Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to Arroyo Grande
High School;
2. adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 located south of and
including part of Arroyo Grande High School campus at Valley Road and Fair
Oaks Avenue, initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande, including improvement and
extension of Castillo Del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to Valley Road;
3. authorize the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with JH
Land Partnership in a form approved by the City Attorney; and
4. authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) reflecting proposed changes in the payment provided by
JH Land Partnership and any other minor modifications necessary to carry out
the direction provided by City Council.
FUNDING:
In order to address drainage issues on the project, the estimated cost of the road
improvements is now approximately $700,000, an increase of $300,000 over the
original estimate. It is now proposed to be funded $650,000 from J.H. Land Partnership
and $50,000 from the City. An additional $100,000 will be provided by J.H. Land
Partnership for mitigation of the projected loss of prime agricultural soils. J.H. Land
partnership has agreed to increase their mitigation payment by up to $150,000 over the
amount originally established in the MOU contingent upon execution of a
reimbursement agreement with the City, which would establish that the City will charge
this amount to future development of properties directly benefiting from the extension of
Castillo Del Mar and related improvements and repay J.H. Land Partnership up to
$150,000 at that time. The City will need to appropriate the additional $50,000 to
construct the roadway, which staff believes is a justified expenditure since the project
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-004; LOCATION - APN'S 006-095-001
AND 002, INCLUDING AND ADJOINING ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL AT
VALLEY ROAD/FAIR OAKS AVENUE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 2
will now help improve drainage problems on Valley Road. It is anticipated that these
funds will also be recovered from future development benefiting from the road extension
and related required drainage improvements.
DISCUSSION:
Backoround
On August 22, the City Council by a 3-2 vote approved a Mitigated negative Declaration
and a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001 regarding the
reclassification of 11.1 acres of Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) undeveloped
hillside property from Community Facility to Single Family Residential, Low Density and
1.2 acres of John Taylor's agricultural property from Agriculture to Community Facility,
including improvement and extension of Castillo del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to
Valley Road, south of Arroyo Grande High School. By the same vote, the City Council
introduced the attached ordinance to approve consistent rezoning as initiated by the City
per the Memorandum of Understanding with LMUSD, J.H. Land and Taylor. The
ordinance will rezone 11.1 acres from Agriculture (Ag) to Residential Hillside (RH) and 1.2
acres and 8.9 acres of adjoining Arroyo Grande High School campus from Agriculture
(Ag) to Public Facility (PF), as recommended by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001. The staff report from August 22 for
these considerations is Attachment 1.
Environmental Determination
The consideration of the ordinance and tentative parcel map is the purpose of the public
hearing. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the City Council at the
August 22, 2006 meeting.
Tentative Parcel Map
Assuming adoption of the rezoning ordinance, the MOU also provides for approval of a
tentative parcel map, which will divide the southern portion of LMUSD property into two
parcel - the 8.9 acre sports fields and parking lots north of the Castillo del Mar Drive offer
of dedication for public street right of way and the 11.1 acre undeveloped hillside
including and south of the road alignment. It will also divide the John Taylor property into
two parcels - the 1.2 acres including and north of the road right of way offered for
dedication and the 5.0 acres of remaining Agriculture property to the south of the road
alignment. The Tentative Parcel Map was prepared by Wallace Group under contract by
the City.
Drainaoe Desion Issues
Detailed property survey, drainage studies and road improvement engineering were
required to assure that the road design would conform to City standards and that existing
drainage problems in the area would not be made worse. The tentative map depicts
S:\Community Development\CITY _ COUNCIL\2006\1O-1 0-06\10-1 0-06 Castillo Del Mar CC report. doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-004; LOCATION - APN'S 006-095-001
AND 002, INCLUDING AND ADJOINING ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL AT
VALLEY ROAD/FAIR OAKS AVENUE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 3
extension of an existing drainage pipe under the private road to maintain the same
capacity under the new public street right of way and provide a low section, which will
enable larger flood flows to overtop the existing road and new street without diverting
flood waters to the west of Valley Road. By slight realignment and extension of this
drainage, the local ponding problem that occurs on Valley Road adjoining the High
School curve will be reduced or eliminated except during flood flows overtopping Castillo
del Mar Drive.
It must be understood that the Tentative Parcel Map and proposed street improvement
and extension plans do not provide the ultimate 100-year flood design that would
normally be required for a new street and eventually be required for this area. To achieve
that design standard would require a future 60-foot wide drainage easement and ditch or
culvert across the High School sports field and parking lot and four 4'x10' box culverts
under Castillo del Mar Drive.
Finally, it should also be noted that the 1.2-acre parcel is restricted to prohibit residential
development as required by one of the Mitigated Negative Declaration measures for
agricultural buffer. Further, the Planning Commission recommendation to LMUSD
suggests that this residual triangle and removal of some of the adjoining private road
pavement be retained in agricultural use at least until permanent agricultural conservation
. easement mitigation is accomplished.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the Ordinance amending the Zoning Map as recommended by the
Planning Commission pursuant to Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-
001; adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004, as
recommended by the Planning Commission to implement the MOU including
improvement and extension of Castillo del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to
Valley Road; authorize the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement
Agreement with JH Land Partnership in a form approved by the City Attorney;
and authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the MOU reflecting
proposed changes in the payment provided by JH Land Partnership and any
other minor modifications necessary to carry out direction provided by City
Council.
2. If the City Council finds that the rezoning, parcel map and/or Mitigated Negative
Declaration cannot be approved as submitted, it should deny all or part. This
would jeopardize the MOU and project.
3. If there are specific issues which the City Council needs addressed before
approval, it should continue the decision to a date certain and provide such
direction to staff.
S:ICommunity DevelopmentlCITY _ COUNCIL\200611 0-1 0-0611 0-1 0-06 Castillo Del Mar CC report. doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-004; LOCATION - APN'S 006-095-001
AND 002, INCLUDING AND ADJOINING ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL AT
VALLEY ROAD/FAIR OAKS AVENUE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
PAGE 4
Attachments:
1. City Council staff report dated August 22, 2006.
2. City Council Ordinance presented August 22, 2006.
S:ICommunity DevelopmentICITY_COUNCIL\200611O-10-06110-10-06 Castillo Del Mar CC report.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE THE
SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH) AND
PUBLIC FACILITY (PF), DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004,
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON AND ADJACENT TO THE ARROYO GRANDE HIGH
SCHOOL CAMPUS
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates
the subject properties as reclassified by General Plan Amendment 06-001; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map currently designates the subject
property as Agriculture and Public Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande initiated Development Code Amendment 06-001
to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Public Facilities and
Residential Hillside; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande reviewed
Development Code Amendment 06-001 at a duly noticed public hearing on July 3, 2006
in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time
all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and
documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
A. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying
materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the
Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of
the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions
of the General Plan.
B. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will
not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an
illogical land use pattern.
C. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code
Amendment amending the Zoning Map are less than significant or can be
mitigated to a less than significant level as specified in the initial study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with General Plan Amendment Case
No. 06-001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
SFCTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
SFCTION ? Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended
as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
the Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
SFCTION 4. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of
Determination.
SFCTION 5. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full
text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the
Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and
against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
SFCTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage.
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member
, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 10th day of October 2006.
~.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
j;\
"'':\
\(\
'''');\
\ 1l(j
1+CIII~QiH_lfllUI'>#IUIQIffil'Hl@lll~
.
~
.
H
,
.
i
.
.
!
i r
...-.................................,
\
",
\
\
,
Rezone
~\~:j:I@{~ Agriculture (AG) to Residential Hillside (RH)
~ Agriculture (AG) to Public Facility (PF)
/
/
J
/~
/ ~
"
/ ~
/
/
'. /'
-'.'J
,
',c." ",
'~~ i
, "'~< v
'Y, , 0 , /" "
", --/"()'~ "
"/ '-'/:'-'
" "--'"
, / '" ~ ,~A,/
-~/ / / "'-...:
'-"
"
,/'
/
/'--'-
/
~
I
:~"'\
i-,
, ~
'r"
!
i
I /
,11'-
Y
/,
,
,,'
"~.-.
....;\ ",'
/ '\'
.... ';,
/
/"
EXHIBIT A
"
/
"~_I
I,
!
/,-
/
I r-."
"
/
"/ /
/ ~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 06-004 LOCATED SOUTH OF AND INCLUDING PART
OF ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AT
VALLEY ROAD AND FAIR OAKS AVENUE INITIATED BY
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has prepared Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 to
subdivide a parcel located south of and including part of Arroyo Grande High School
campus at Valley Road and Fair Oaks Avenue into four parcels ranging in size from 1.2
acres to 11.1 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of. Arroyo Grande has considered
Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 at a public hearing on July 13, 2006 in accordance with the
Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and Development Code, including General Plan Amendment and
Development Code Amendment Nos. 06-001; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the
proposed project is described and included in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and initial
study dated June 13, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval and the City Council finds,
after due study, deliberation afld public hearing, the following circumstances exist:
Tent8tive P8rcel M8p Finding!>
1. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the goals, objectives,
policies, plans, programs, intent, and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General
Plan and the requirements of the Development Code.
2. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury to fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
3. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is not likely to cause
public health problems.
4. The discharge of waste from the project into an existing community sewer system
will not result in violation of existing requirements as prescribed in Division 7
(commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code.
5. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as a result of the
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
proposed Tentative Parcel Map to support project development, which includes
improvement and extension of Castillo del Mar Drive.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that may be allowed in
the Public Facility (PF) and Agriculture (AG) zoning districts, but further
construction will require subsequent City approvals including environmental
determinations.
7. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map and the street improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use
of, property within the proposed Tentative Parcel Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 as shown in Exhibit "S" with the
above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member
, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 Oth day of October 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 06-004
SOUTH OF AND INCLUDING PART OF ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS
AT VALLEY ROAD AND FAIR OAKS AVENUE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IlFPARTMFNT
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map
06-004.
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to
the City Council at their meeting of October 10, 2006 and marked Exhibit "8".
4. This tentative map approval shall automatically expire on October 10, 2008
unless the final map is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to Section
16.12.140 of the Development Code.
5. Development shall conform to the Public Facility (PF) and Residential Hillside
(RH) zoning requirements except as otherwise approved. No additional
development shall be permitted on any of the parcels created without additional
City approval and permits.
PUBLIC WORKS
GENFRAI IMPROVFMFNT RFOIJlRFMFNTS
6. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. The following
Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Public Works Department:
a. Grading and drainage.
b. Street improvements.
7. Upon approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall provide a
reproducible Mylar set and 3 sets of prints of the improvements for inspection
purposes.
DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS
8. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a
document separate from a map, .shall be prepared by the applicant on 8%x11 City
standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure
calculations, and, a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be
responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
9. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated a minimum 6 feet wide
adjacent to all street right of ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary
for the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar
facilities.
10. All grading shall be done in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance.
11. The applicant shall submit an engineering study regarding flooding related to the
project site. The Director of Public Works shall review the prepared study for
approval. Any portions of the site subject to flooding from a 100-year storm shall
be shown on the recorded map or other recorded document, and shall be noted as
a building restriction.
12. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and
supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be
performed in accordance with the approved soils report.
13. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public
utilities shall be operational.
14. The Parcel Map shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and
comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for
approval.
15. Any residential or commercial development of the parcels created by this approval
shall be required to pay a fair share, as determined by the City Council, of the cost
of the Castillo Del Mar extension and related drainage and other improvements.
Any further subdivision of the parcels hereby created shall include a requirement
to pay a portion of the cost of the Castillo Del Mar extension and related
improvements.
~
~
~ ! I
! .i1i)
a:lnh
EXHIBIT B
!Ii
!U
h.
I'j
Iii
-,.
~t!
'II
1111
lit
/l.
~ Hi
wllf
uu~
~ If'li
~! l!
~"ihl
","1
I II
~%
2~
.1
'"
o.
i~
.,
I
I
t
I
I Ii
. !Ill
~Il U
I
,
.
I
.
,I
II
~ li.iI
~..,1 J
!s dll'
ill' .
~ I~!!
, I
I f
.
I !
I .
I I
~j !
d11 I
!!ihil ill
~hl hI
"
'.
'"
2
~
a
~
".
~
~ :-,
~
u
~
i
l
,
,
'. il~
'II.
! ~ "
.;<
\ \
\ \
\
~
e
~
~
u
~
'"
~
"
I oj I
"'. I 0
1~ I
1m. \
\3\
l~
',~
,
;
!
!
.
\..,
';.,
il
~~
~&:~ /;:/
~...:,
. '.
,
J ......,.......
LOt L07! L01 \05
allo~ ).,311\1' ^
I
I I
hi
!I ~!
if ~i
I e',
I III
\ l!k
, IHh
, .s!I!!!
; iilill!::il
"I"!'
t!..n I!
.0
co
a
~
a
~
I>l
Q
Z
..:
P::
"
o
>-
o
P::
P::
..:
""
o
>-
<-<
~
u
'11.\
~uJ
Z~
. ~ i:
.-
. -~
III II Iii!.
!llllllllll!!
III
....
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO: 06"
001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO~ 06-001,
INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL
MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD
DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
ThePlaflning COmmission recommends that the City 'Council: 1) Adopt a 'ResolutiOn.
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment
Case No. 06-001, reclassifying 11.1 acres from Community Facilities to Single Family
Residential Low Density and reclassifying 1.2 acres from Agriculture to Community
Facilities, including the extension of Castillo del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to Valley
Road and 2) Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the subject
properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and Public Facility (PF), Development Code
Amendment 06-004, Initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande for property located on and
adjacent to the Arroyo Grande High School campus. If the Resolution and Ordinance
are approved and introduced, respectively, a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel
Map 06-004 will be brought forward when the Ordinance is considered for adoption at
the September 12, 2006 meeting.
FUNDING:
There is no direct cost to the City from this action. The cost of the proposed road
extension is estimated to be approximately $400,000. In addition, it is proposed the City
allocate $200,000 towards purchasing or subsidizing future agricultural easements as
mitigation for the projected loss of agricultural land. Under the existing Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the parties involved, J.H. Land Partnership has agreed to
provide the City funding for these costs as mitigation for access to the proposed Busick
Tract No. 1789 project.
DISCUSSION: .
Backqround
The subject 11.1 acre undeveloped hiilside property is located southeast of the 37 acre
Arroyo Grande High School campus, both of which are owned by LuGia Mar Unified
School District (LMUSD). An emergency access roadway, water and sewer lines
traverse the foot of the hillside, separating the undeveloped part of the LMUSD
ownership being considered for alternative use. The 11.1 acre undeveloped hillside is
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY
ROAD
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 2
surrounded on the east, south and west by private properties designated Single Family
Residential Low Density on the adopted 2001 General Plan Land Use Map, currently
zoned Residential Hillside (RH), allowing a density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.5 acres. The
RH zone encourages cluster subdivision into smaller home sites and natural open
space. Adjoining the Lucia Mar Unified School District property to the east is the "Vista
del Mar" residential subdivision (Tract No. 2207), which created 38 hillside home sites
on half-acre or larger lots for custom single family residential development and two large
common open space parcels, which include a storm drainage detention basin, flood
plain, grassland and wooded hillside adjoining and visible from Highway 101. Orchard
Street and Castillo del Mar Drive provide the primary access to the residential
neighborhood east of Arroyo Grande High School, including Vista del Mar.
Because secondary access is severely restricted, the City has discouraged additional
development in the area until this access constraint is corrected. This access constraint' ,
caused the City Council to reject a previous request to allow controlled local access
extension to the southeast end of Castillo del Mar for a proposed 16-lot County tentative
subdivision proposal called the Busick Tract No. 1789, unless the developer, J.H. Land,
could obtain secondary access. The only access opportunity identified is on the south
side of the Arroyo Grande High School campus, including a westerly public street.
extension of Castillo del Mar from near Orchard Street to a new intersection with Valley
Road. This City access alternative was "the environmentally superior alternative"
identified in the County's EIR for the Busick Tract, which otherwise would depend on
access from EI Campo Road through the Falcon Crest Residential Suburban private
road network. To connect to Valley Road, the street extension must cross the northern
tip of adjoining Agriculture land owned by John Taylor.
Consistent ZoninQ "Clean-up"
The rear 8.9-acre portion of the 37 -acre campus containing parking lots and sports
fields of the LMUSD properties are designated on the General Plan as Comrnunity
Facilities, but zoned Agriculture, rather than appropriate Public Facilities (PF) zone. It is
recommended that this 8.9 acres of parking lots and sports fields be rezoned from
Agriculture to Public Facility consistent with the General Plan.
Parcel Map and Road Dedication
The proposed road dedication and extension would effectively create two separate
parcels owned by LMUSD, the 37 acre high school campus, parking and sport fields on
the flat portion of the property to the north and the 11.1 acre undeveloped hillside on the
south. As an alternative to Public Facility use, the LMUSD has requested that the City
consider reclassification of the 11.1 acres from Community Facility to Low Density
Single Family Residential and consistent rezoning from Agriculture (Ag) to Residential
Hillside (RH).
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001,INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY
ROAD
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 3
General Plan Amendments and Policv Issues:
It is apparent that the improvement and extension of Castillo del Mar Drive south of the
Arroyo Grande High School campus to connect to Valley Road is an important
secondary access to the Orchard Street and Vista del Mar neighborhood east and
southeast of the campus, including circulation to the campus, administrative offices, and
a large church and school. This secondary access and circulation is a prerequisite to
local street extension to serve additional hillside homes, such as the Busick Tract 1789
and the 11.1 acre undeveloped portion of LMUSD ownership southeast of the proposed
street and the adjoining Haddox hillside property to the south and west. This westerly
street extension behind the High School is the only possible means of secondary
access to the area because Highway 101 right of way precludes connections to the east
and Falcon Crest and Sunrise Terrace private roads preclude connections to the south.
In particular; the General PlariCirculationrrransportation Element, policy CT3-4.2
provides:
"Emergency access design standards should limit cul-de-sac lengths,
provide a logical grid or connected system of local streets providina at
least two directions of neiahborhood access, and minimize through traffic
on local streets, particularly traversing single-family residential
neighborhoods" (emphasis added)."
Assuming that the Castillo del Mar Drive extension is accomplished as proposed, the
street alignment requires consideration of several adjoining land use alternatives. The
existing private street and utilities at the foot of the hillside coincide with the proposed
public street right of way and separate an 11.1 acre undeveloped portion of the fifty-
acres owned by LMUSD. The 37 acre campus and grounds located on the north side of
this road are fully committed to classrooms and related facilities, sport fields, and
parking. (As noted above, designated Community Facilities on the General Plan, the
southernmost 8.9 acres of the campus is inappropriately and inconsistently zoned
Agriculture.) Additionally, the 11.1 acres of undeveloped hillside land owned by the
school district is also designated Community Facilities, reflecting its pUblic agency
ownership, but zoned Agriculture.
Once separated from the high school campus by the proposed Castillo del Mar Drive
extension it could either remain classified for future Community Facilities, or logically
considered for re-classification (due to slope constraints) for Single Family Residential
Low Density and RH zoning. As noted above, the private lands within the City to the
east, south and west of the subject 11.1 acres are designated Single Family Residential
Low Density and zoned RH.
The Vista del Mar subdivision (Tract 2207) was developed on the hillside to the east.
With adequate access, the 18.0-acre Haddox property to the south and west may
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY
ROAD
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 4
similarly develop. Subsequent Residential Hillside subdivision of either LMUSD
property and/or Haddox property would probably involve "cluster design" similar to Vista
del Mar with half or more of the acreage retained as natural or landscaped open space
and the residential development contained on half-acre sized detached single family
residential lots and local streets.
Because any subsequent subdivision requires discretionary City approval, as well as
environmental impact determination when development design and density are
proposed, the current consideration of land use alternatives is an initial step. If the 11.1
acre hillside property remained designated as Community Facilities on the General Plan
and was re-zoned Public Facility, the LMUSD or any successor public agency could
propose any type of pubic or quasi-public use subject to City and CEQA review.
Examples of possible PF use include: community college or high school classrooms,
church or private school,' related ,administrative offices or corporation yard, park,
playground or athletic facilities. While not yet resolved, the LMUSD board has
requested that the 11.1-acre hillside be redesignated for possible alternative use to
Single Family Residential Low Density and zoned Residential Hillside, to enable
development similar to the properties to the east, south and west.
In staff's opinion, this lower intensity alternative use potential is more consistent with the
sloping terrain, natural drainage, existing trees and access constraints evident on this
hillside property. It also could provide a significant sale or lease income to the school
district, faced with declining enrollment in this part of the district, and continuing budget
pressures. As part of the MOU, the District initiated this request for General Plan and
Development Code Amendments to enable possible disposition and alternative private
use.
The reclassification from Community Facilities to Single Family Residential Low Density
and rezone from Agriculture to Residential Hillside (RH) appears consistent with
General Plan Land Use Element policies LU2-2, 2.1 and 2.4, which provide:
"Accommodate the development of Residenfial Hillside cluster
development and allow a maximum density of 1 du/1.5 acre in appropriate
Single Family Residential Low Density areas zoned Residential Hillside.
Encourage clustered subdivision or Planned Development to retain
steeper slopes, drainage, natural vegetation and other site features as
Conservation Open Space."
"Ensure that all residential hillside development, regardless of density,
does not excessively intrude on the natural slope and terrain of the hillside
including density that is commensurate with the steepness of slope and
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY
ROAD
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 5
discouraging excessive use of retaining walls, intrusive grading and
removal of native oak trees."
On the south side of the Arroyo Grande High School campus, the proposed connection
of Castillo del Mar Drive to Valley Road requires that an additional 1.2 acre portion of
John Taylor's adjoining agricultural fields be utilized to provide a safe road intersection
(and separating a triangular tip which could not be efficiently farmed). It is therefore
proposed that this severed triangle piece be reclassified and rezoned from Agriculture to
Public Facility and that the remnant north of the road right-of-way be re-designated
Community Facilities and zoned Public Facility. The MOU provides that this acre be
donated to LMUSD and combined with the 37 acre Arroyo Grande High School property
for campus related uses. While no specific uses are proposed at this time, it is probable
that landscaping, drainage basin, parking and perhaps accessory office or classroom
buildings would be considered by the District in the future. In concept, this 1.2-acre loss
of Agriculture land is an allowed exception to Agriculture, Conservation and Open
Space Element policy Ag1, which provides:
"Avoid and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-
prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands."
Specifically, Ag1-1.2 states:
"Public facilities are permitted on agricultural and natural resources lands
when required by health, safety and welfare of the public."
That is clearly the case regarding the proposed extension of Castillo del Mar Drive to
provide adequate and safe circulation and secondary access around the high school.
Additionally, General Plan policies Ag1-4, Ag1-4.1, Ag1-4.2 and Ag1-4.3 provide that
loss of prime farmland soils is a significant adverse environmental impact unless
mitigated. Loss includes unavailability for agricultural use due to pavement or buildings
or conversion to other uses including landscaping. Possible mitigation for loss may
include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of 1:1 with regard to the
acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use or other potential
mitigation measures acceptable to the City Council: Payment of in-lieu fees is one
example of mitigation mentioned in Ag1-4.2. However, Ag 1-4.3 provides in part:
"Only after the imposition of available mitigation and consideration of
alternatives to avoid the proposed action (loss of prime farmland soils)
may the City Council approve development on prime farmland soils
subject to overriding considerations as permitted by California
Government Code Section 15093."
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY
ROAD
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 6
In this case, it is specifically proposed that $200,000 be allocated for off-site in-lieu fee
mitigation to enable from 1 to 4 acres of Agricultural Conservation Easement.
If interpreted literally, Ag1-4.3 policy would require preparation of an EIR, despite
mitigation to less than significant (if the in lieu fee offered is accepted by the City
Council). Legally and procedurally, this is not consistent with the intent of CEQA'nor
Ag1 to avoid or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils. Furthermore, policy Ag1-4 states
that the City should first:
"Establish and apply a significance criterion (threshold of significance) for
CEQA analysis, as provided by CEQA Section 15064.7, that considers
loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental
impact."
!.-.
The City has not yet revised its CEQA guidelines to include such criteria nor addressed
possible exceptions or mitigation as provided by Ag1-1.2 and Ag1-4.2
The City Council will need to interpret these apparent conflicts and intent of the policies,
based in part on recommendations from the Planning Commission. To a lesser extent, the
reclassification and rezoning of the existing LMUSD property, which is undeveloped,
hillside non-prime land, currently zoned Agriculture, could be viewed as "agricultural
conversion to urban uses." However, Ag3-1.5 states: "Vacant or undeveloped agricultural
land shall refer to fallow cropland, grazing land or land supporting other agricultural uses
as identified in Ag 3-1.1, that is not in productive use at the time of any designation action
or redesignation request." Further, policy Ag 3-3.2 defines:
"Non-prime areas shall comprise what are commonly referred to as
'grasslands' on hillsides and sloped areas generally southeast, east and
north of the urban area. These are typically non-irrigated and support
grazing or dry-land crops."
Conservation of non-prime Agricultural lands and allowing use of vacant or undeveloped
agricultural land (other than prime farmland soils) does not require mitigation nor is it
considered a significant environmental impact, except as addressed in the General Plan
Program EIR. Other Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space policies and programs of
the General Plan are also intended to promote coexistence of agricultural and urban land
uses including "right-to-farm", "buffers", ag-support and ag-conservation measures. In
particular, Ag3-14 states:
"Consider reclassification of an Ag parcel, only if and when the parcel is less
than minimum size (e.g. legally nonconforming as to area) and is isolated
from other agricultural uses."
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY
ROAD
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 7
Ag3-14.1 defines when a parcel is "isolated" from other nearby Agriculture areas and Ag3-
14.2 further provides:
"In cases considered for conversion, the parcel shall be adequately served
by appropriate infrastructure and any development application shall be
subject to environmental analysis as referenced in AOSCE Policy Ag1-4."
Environmental Assessment:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for
Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this Project
will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a negative
declaration with mitigation measures for the Planning Commission's recommendation and
City Council's consideration (see Attachrnent3).
AL TERNA TIVES:
1) Adopt the Resolution approving GPA 06-001 as recommended by the Planning
Commission, including the mitigated negative declaration; then introduce the
Ordinance amending the Zoning Map;
2) If the City Council finds the project andlor Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot
be approved, it can deny all or part.
3) Finally, if the City Council needs specific issues further addressed or has
questions which should be answered prior to recommended actions, it could
continue the public hearing to September 26 or October 10 or 24.
Attachments:
1. General Plan amendments map
2. Development Code Amendments map
3. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
4. Tentative Parcel Map
5. Planning Commission Minutes from July 13, 2006
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-2004
7. Project Referral response dated 06/29/06, from SLO County Agricultural
Department
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001,
RECLASSIFYING 11.1 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND RECLASSIFYING
1.2 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES,
INCLUDING THE EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM
ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande on May 9, 2006 considered and approved
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD),
J.H. Land, and John Taylor regarding the above proposals for circulation and access
improvements, land use and zoning changes and related mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan adopted October 9,
2001, evaluated environmental impacts associated with numerous circulation, land use
and zoning alternatives, but did not address potential changes involving public agency ,
owned properties; and
WHEREAS, area and site specific DEIR was prepared in December 1990 for GPA 89-
3, PO Rezoning 89-215 and proposed development project known as Vista del Mar,
including the same circulation and more substantial land use and zoning proposals, and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted current initial
studies and concluded that environmental impacts associated with the MOU and
proposed circulation and land use changes will be mitigated to less than significant as
outlined in a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 23, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the
Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate and adequate pursuant to State and local
CEQA laws and guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff
report, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the proposed Castillo del Mar Drive
improvement and extensions necessary for the public health, safety and welfare and
consistent with adopted Circulation Transportation Element policies, particularly CT3-
4.2; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff report
regarding Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space and Urban Area Land Use
Elements, all testimony and evidence presented finds the proposed land use and
zoning map changes as shown on Attachments 1 and 2 to be appropriate and
consistent with the intent of 2001 General Plan Update adopted policies, including LU2-
2, LU2-2.1 and LU2-2.4, and Ag1, Ag1-1.2, Ag1-4, Ag1-4.1 and Ag1-4.2; and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Tentative Parcel Map Case No.
06-004, General Plan Amendments and Development Code Amendments Case Nos.
06-001 will not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare and that the City
Council will determine the adequacy of proposed in-lieu mitigation contribution
regarding loss of prime farmland soils which' cannot be avoided by any feasible
alternatives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves General Plan
Amendment Case No. 06-001, including the improvement and extension of Castillo Del
Mar Drive between Orchard Street and Valley Road.
On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member
, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this
day of
2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONY M. FERRARA. MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE THE
SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH) AND
PUBLIC FACILlTIY (PF), DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004,
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON AND ADJACENT TO THE ARROYO GRANDE HIGH
SCHOOL CAMPUS
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates
the subject properties as reclassified by General Plan Amendment 06-001; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map currently designates the subject
property as Agriculture and Public Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande initiated Development Code Amendment 06-001
to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Public Facilities and. ..
Residential Hillside; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed
Development Code Amendment 06-001 at a duly noticed public hearing on July _,
2006 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which
time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and
documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
A. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying
materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the
Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of
the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions
of the General Plan.
B. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will
not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an
illogical land use pattern.
C. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code
Amendment amending the Zoning Map are less than significant or can be
mitigated to a less than significant level as specified in the initial study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with General Plan Amendment 06-
001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
SFCTION ? Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended
as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SFCTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
the Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
SFCTION 4. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of
Determination.
SFCTION 5. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full
text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the
Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and
against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
SFCTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage.
On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member
, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this
day of
2006.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT A
r'
oIf'.
-
.'
,!>,...~ .;,
;.( /r Jj
Q)('\'i"
I, . ' /" P,
. n_' ~ I "",'
-- '-,~ ~~.)
W s,;;;;,"!1,'
- (t'S~.,
\\1".,:..-' ~
.....,i~ I ""_,
en . n:: ./
!f~"'ft,,/ . ~ ~
,lJ""""- .~i't". 2 ..~
'r~ 'f..:f;r-~r " Qj ~1
.-:~~-:-- .-'. , ~ f: -;' -"/ . -;,';;1 rr: .
4.P:____ ~""~~ ~." . ,I,;,;. . \' )"....~\' ~..f.~. .)f1J
""~~"',~;;^,;::-:<i~ .:,/;{.';i~.,;'d.. l' "'~'f':.' ,'If;'
. ........':ir. "4:i~W/ftf;~{~'lJlf~'ij;r:~
,;.- \~'.u,~ "'''''\'~'~'''L' .......
~' - _':.,\J.;~b' ", - ~~~j-f. .;~"t ';, . ,:
._ ~\ - :f-. .~.~ ..','- ~ __..~ ..'
~\~'i';:'li;';:';';;ti-;:.i'c;~;' ,.;;;
~..,:' v"~~~~~~~::':~~~7i~~" ~:j}h
'. .' ''''f.'i:'-...''-'-
'. '~0~~t~;~:':~:~?4P'- ..;. ',.,::J'
~.
r
~. .~-
'., "{~)>.
.-
;:-'
.--:"~""
... I
,,---
'-\
"-,
!~i!
. .-
. '/'-,
~:',
"
/
?
~". .
.,.J
,\
Q)
s:::
o
N
Q)
0:::
~
;/oP..-"
,
en
J:
.- :.
..I.n _ . ~ .;:i;;':--. --.-:.
.... 1J... "#'~' - - - ~ ~: ;;.;.:,.~;,;
-,'':..,' \ ~ \~', '.
.!if'" "y '" .~. "~:--s.}.,~... -
j.., ~.,., . \ "~"-
.;~:< ;.;~~;~;-;\'-:1~::'~.
~:. \ ;i...~.;..Jo y"'" c
\~ ~::/:.:',~.~>\ ~
..... l ~~. -.. a::
',.....-..._":...~ .... ~:~~~;.~: :'':1~
J -- r-", ,-;:-r.- ~,
".1,.. ,\' _ ,,;.... .I'J-~ "".
E -::'::!'~~~"""
:f ..,.. ,"f-t-.] ,
',~""f:r-i
. 1,/,- f' :.:,,~~
~ '1~: 'dV~:"~ 0 ~I
,. -~-\.1..fi.0~'--. .1'
':i~~~;:?'::l~~~~ I
~~~~~~:~;;;~~
~~"''>F~'''''''' '".'''.''\'
~-~.. ., ~ .'-'~]#ij!Jt"'- . , '. ". '\ \ ' ';=.
r
.....,
s:::
Q)
E
s:::
0)
-..
../'
-- --~-
. ol
a. '.h
~'l
~l:,':,
~ \ \/::::'-/
. " .,-.,
'7\ .'\ '.
"'~"~':'~, ~::.~;' ".~ .
,,,,,,." /...~. ~._'..;\ ... ,.
;'':;( (Y'-":';,':.;~ \'..-
\\\~, :.., J t~~~~..
,:.~..,..-- '.
\.,..~\~~;:>:;;:.;\ :~.
_' l~\:~;-:;:'
'. <. (~~~:~L,
.~
, ---~-;
.4
~.
"
.:~
':. \,
" ~
.r .'>
.-
-
<(
"0
CO
o
0:::
"0
Q)
en
o
a.
o
S-
a..
ATTACHMENT 1
~
C)
~
+"
c:
C1>
E
c:
0;
.-
<(
"0
CO
o
~
"'C
cu
(f.
c
c
c
S-
a.
N
I-
Z
Ul
;2;
:r:
()
<(
l-
I-
<(
ATTACHMENT 2
(1)
C
o
N
(1)
0::
~
....
C
(1)
E
c
C')
.-
<
"C
CO
o
0::
"C
(1)
U>
o
C-
O
....
a..
ATTACHMENT 3
."
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title & No. GPA 06-001; DCA 06-001; and TPM 06-004 AGHSNallev Road
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIAllY AFFECTED: the environmental factors checked
below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED",
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[gj Aesthe.t}cs [gl Geology and Soils D Recreation
[gj Agricultural Resources D Hazards/Ha.zardous Materials [glT ransportation/Circulation.
[gj Air Quality [g] Noise D Wastewater
[gj Biologicai Resources [gl Population/Housing D Water
[gj Cultural Resources [g] Public Services/Utilities [gl Land Use
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation. the Environmental Coordinator finds that:
D
[gj
D
D
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that.
remain to be addressed.
D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. nothing further is required.
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner -~.' Junl i3.200(o
Prepared by (Print) S Date
Rob Stron ,Communit I .. ::, '2-00<:::
Reviewed by (Print) Date
___._ ~it\f of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 1
. en\S ~or corn?,e\ing \he
. ta""" ", . ''" ,II" In' 'CqU"c," ,) lId In' C"oJ'
,,0 ;~; ~~~~.;~~~'"""" "'~,.,., c":~;:"-::r,:,~,",""" ouai';j.,:'~~I;~~~\O ,~, ,"",~'d\~~~
, ., ,,"u,,c, b" . ,,~'\O ,""""." M' ",,,,b" bOO g'"
",,"~ (~~,' 1bC ",,,,,,, 5\0" ,,,oIU'C; .~~" ~~ "Ic '01 IbC ,,,,I'" '~ ',I ~:';d\,g eo" 1<"'" ';'
GU'o "",;"C' ",~cw .\\1" ''',.''"~' n",l'" "clc"'" ,01'''"' ~'oI wlld"'c "eo"'''''' ""."
" ' . ,,"w,, '01 cOO" 'f' "gc"'''''' " ., lId "'c """",,"
,,'01,",11'.' ." "",. ',c ,,,,.,,"'"'''' ,'g'" .'"'' ,"" ",," ,,Id ,""""""g' ,.",en ,,,,ICe\.
"""c'~"''':;''~''''''~ ,W"" "N'"'' c":~, "",,.,., "oC''' ,,, c",~~;C~, ","'" cl In'
""",b"'", II'" ",c"'" \0 \bC ",,,'" "" cne""'" \0 ,U~'"'"
;0:. .~~~~;: o"cI'g:.~~':'~~~:'~:;~'::''''''' ,,~;~.::.~~;~t~oI,"'''''' ,~~U~~
"",,,," ,ceo:,~~~:: 01 .19"",11'", \"r::~~ ::,,,,,cI "c CI'I "t,:~~z~'~:" "",,,,5) 41>-
,,,';0"'\ , ",,,w ,,,,,,,,, '01 . ,,,,,eo I' Soee' ,,"',. G""'"
en'i\ronrnen a (\rnen\ a\ 2~4 Eas\ sranc
Oe'ie\Oprnen\ oepa
5420.
1 '11 0" "" \0 ,,",,e"
.. ,!,OJ"C ." C,w "",we; ""oW" .' C'\S\~~rn"Us ano aojoining
.", \0 <<,c", In' c~'""" ., G"''''c ~"b sc"'" -.. \0"'''''-'
O"SC~: ''''' ,"""",," """'" 01. """. c, ,,,,," \IS ,,,,,,,, ",,"'"'" "" J.~' ~'"
~'" ,,~ood ". OIl "","", 0.1 "" w'" \>C _"~, "^"''" "" 0.' """", "'" IU" Ob','"
".,,,,,,,' ~,,~::.: ",;" 0.' "" ,,,,;'X":.::i:;::c uo,"~",.,,~ .~::;' .~ O,"\IIcI \.....0)
~,~~~: ,'0""" o'~::;~<;'''':.;~: will ""~~ l;i~:::';:) sOd , ,OIl'''' 01' ,,,,,Ie
coU"" '(l\O ,roo;:'"g ",",0 G"''''. ~"b SC"'d:~".'''' ~o. \)06'09"""Z)-
,,,,pe<"! "" ". . , """", "" Jo\IO 1""" \",","' . nno southeast o~
~gd"'"U"'''''ce · . ,",,,g <,"
. Iba 'ollowl"g _,00"'0' . ,. SO"oI' ,,,,,,&! ,"c ",od. ~lQb scIIO'"
11" ,,~,cI ",cl~:::' ,.<0'" "'" '01 ," a"".~~ ,,01' ,,<0'" "~",,,,g. ",,'0 ; f"~' ,od ,.""'"
,) 1" ' '. .enoOl ,'u""" \0 01"'" W.,.. ,0,1\0" ,,,,,",,,,,,po. "" \bC "",,'od"
",",0 G"'''~' ,~~~.."a ",ce' ,od \0 "f~0~1I0 f"'""'" ~,,"1Ic',,0 ~~~;:;;'" ""' ",,,,,,,,"0
",,",00) '" ,"" ,,,,,, M,,,,IW'" 0 lId "" ZOO' G''''''' .. 5\""" f'''''''
\O~) 0' lb. ".,.. ~: ~,gb .""" """,00)' "" r~o'," f"'""" \0 \.0"\ ~"~:"Id'""" ",",Id'
0' ". ",,"0 G"'~ ,,,01' ,rooo;ad ,,,,,,I ,,,,," , ~""" ,,,,," ""dcUIIU", 1M 0
re_o~Sign.a\\' ';;: \0 "W'" ". ".,01' ,,,,ceo ~ 01 ,,,,"0 O",od' ~"b
"'""'"" . ". " . ,,,g ",d "U"' """ ,od
\R") \.ea ,:~~;:;:~'... ,,,,,,~,,,,\O ,.5 t';, ::,':'.~ :~Z.'oI. ,,,,,, ,~,~~i;;'::dcU'W'" '"
Z) U '" ",,,Id' 0' "II" 00 ,"'9"''' II" ,.Z-ac", , I c fee"'" "f)'
"0"," "''1~~';;'"'''' "" ~od ""' ",.~;;:, .0'" ",,<<coIlU" \M) ,o,'~ ~.., a","'''' Stree'
~~~~~~\'i fa~\i\1~g':~:::':::' ~;.~~;. '''''''''~;::~:~~~ ~;,';;,~~,:~~~~;~':;'o~~~;~
3) 10 eo' . ,. d""'~\\O" """, "",. '" 6oo'c' 1,ee' ~o.
\0 ",,,, "ce' \0 "'''':.' co"" ,"b'''.'oO ."""" ' ",,,,, ,,,,""~
,,,,1',,,, \0 ' ,,,,,, .' \\0" \01 ,ce, 0' o~' ,.. · ,\0 tuI"'" ,ob'\
"""'''. < ce'" '" ,,,.II'U """""" ;,:~:~., ",,,,,\0'''' 0' ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,
4) ,0 · , ce' .Id'''"''''' '" , '
,,;od"'" w,Ib ,,,,ce' ' . << 0' Ib' ,,,,I'cI "" ""c '
f,dll" ",.. ' ""Id"''''' "b'"'''''' '" "" ,:,,,",,,,,''' "".w. '"" ''';
0"'" "" ":;~~ ~.~~\,'~~~::~'~ ",,,,,, :~~~II~:~,:~,:; ''''''''";.': ~,:,~~"
ell' {Ulu" ,e:", ~",,\I" """,,"''';'' rt", ,,,,",Id' ",,,,,,,,,,,,, b'~~:' \0 lb' ,,,,,,,'' ,
':~'~;~'" 200",g "'~t "~; ;;;;:: 2~,,'''9 ''''''''''';"'' :,;;;:;~t C,,\lII' ", "", "W
200"9 O",,",,,ce. "C ';: ,,;od'''' wllb Ib' ,,,,,,"' '"
",' ,od "od "'';, ,;,;:~,\oO ,od ,"'""'''''.",,. '
,no ,,,po",' ,ce ,. DC"'OO1; TP" "",04
._ Initial studY for GPp.06-00 .
.'
""
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S): 006-391-044; 006-095-002
B. EXISTING SETIING
LAND USE CATEGORY:. Agriculture (A); Open Space (OS) as a combining designation on a
portion of the project site; Community Facility (CF)
ZONING: Agriculture (AG)
EXISTING USES: High School athletic fields and parking lots; farming operations; vacant
TOPOGRAPHY: The site has varying topographical gradients with an approximate 2 -
9% slope southeast to athletic fields and farmland.
-
VEGETATION: Native and exotic grasses, oak trees and willow trees; one-acre
cultivated irrigated farmland
PROJECT SIZE: Approximately 57 acres total for two existing p~rCels,including 1) APN .
006-095-002 -an approximate 50-acre LMSD property consisting of the
Arroyo Grande High School campus (approximately 27 acres), AGHS
sports fields and parking (approximately 10-acres), and a vacant hillside
parcel (approximately 11.6-acres); and 2) APN 006-095-001- an
approximate 7.5-acre parcel owned by John Taylor and used for
agriculture.
SURROUNDING LAND USE CATEGORIES AND USES:
South: Agriculture (A); County Agriculture; Low
Density Residential- single house; Agriculture
(AG); Re:;idential Hillside (RH) vacant
East: Agriculture (A); County Agriculture; Low
Density Residential; Agriculture (AG);
Residential Hillside (RH) Vista Del Mar
residential Subdivision
West: Low Density Residential; Residential
Hillside (RH) vacant; County Agriculture;
Farmland.
North: Community Facilities;(CF); Public
Facilities (PF); Arroyo Grande High School;
Agriculture (AG) north of Fair Oaks Avenue.
c. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
During the Initial Study process, several issues were identified as having potentially significant
environmental effects (see following Initial Study). Those potentially significant items associated with
the proposed project can be minimized to less-than-significant levels by incorporating the mitigation
measures listed below. All mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study shall be included in the
Conditions of Approval for the project.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 3
..~ '
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS - Will the project: Significant Impact can Insignificant Not
& will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Create an aesthetically incompatible D D [g] D
site open to public view?
b) Introduce a use within a scenic view D [g] D D
open to public view?
c) Change the visual character of an D [g] D D
area?
d) Create glare ornight lighting that D D [g] D
may affect surrounding areas?
e) Impact unique geological or D D [g] D
physical features?
f) Other D D D D
Setting. The project includes approximately 11.6-acres bf undeveloped hillside behind the Arroyo
Grande High School sports fields and student parking area which is proposed for disposition and
rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Residential Hillside (RH). An existing roadway, Castillo del Mar Drive,
and a connecting segment currently used for emergency access, would be improved as a public street
right-of way and offered for dedication. Additionally, the roadway improvement includes a 44 ft. wide
roadway extension, that is 987 lineal ft. for Castillo Del Mar from its current terminus, along the
southern edge of the Arroyo Grande High School campus, and extended in an oS' curve to intersect
Valley Road (Attachment A). Additionally, approximately one-acre of prime farmland including the
proposed road extension, immediately adjacent the Arroyo Grande High School is proposed to be re-
designated and rezoned from Agriculture to Community Facility/Public facility. Both the 11.6 acres of
vacant hillside and the area east of Valley Road through which the Castillo del Mar Drive is proposed
to be extended, are open to public view.
.Impact. Policy C/OS1-1 of the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General
Plan encourages protection of visually accessible scenic resources. A 'scenic resource' is further
defined as "agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees,
woodlands, wetlands, streambeds and banks, and well as aspects of the built environment that are of
a historic nature, unique to the City, or contribute to the rural, small town character of the City." The
City has not officially recognized this property as being a sensitive scenic resource, and the road
extension will only traverse vacant and farmed agricultural land for approximately 100 feet. Since the
road extension crosses property at the bottom of a moderately sloped parcel and along the periphery
of existing parking lots for Arroyo Grande High School, it is not expected that the road extension will
cause a significant aesthetic impact.
The 11.6 acres proposed to be re-designated and rezoned to Residential Hillside (RH) are surrounded
on three sides by RH zoning, which includes the Vista del Mar subdivision to the east. This proposal
would enable future subdivision application, subject to project-specific environmental review, for a
maximum of eight residences, exclusive of possible density bonuses for affordable housing.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 4
Mitigation/Conclusion.
.",;'
MM 1.1The Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) or subsequent owner of the 11.6-acre hillside
parcel, shall apply for a tentative map or improvement plan prior to any grading, alteration of
topography, drainage modification or tree removal.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - COD, Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to Grading Permit
MM 1.2 The City shall install a protective fence or silt barrier on both sides of the proposed public
street extension of Castillo del Mar Drive prior to road construction activity which shall remain in place
until road improvements are completed according to approved plans and specifications.
Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - COD, Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to Grading
MM 1.3 Consistent with the Program EIR for the General Plan 2001 update; any future tentative map
or development propgsal for the 11,6-acre parcel shall include the following measures to ensure
consistency with the Single Family Residential - Low Density (LD)General Plan designation as well
as the RH zoning classification: cluster any proposed development if necessary to retain steeper
slopes, drainage, natural vegetation and other site features as conservation open space (LU2-2.1);
ensure that all residential hillside development, regardless of density, does not excessively intrude on
the natural slope and terrain of the hillside including density that is commensurate with the steepness
of the slope and prohibiting the excessive use of retaining walls, intrusive grading and removal of
native oak trees (LU2-2.4); and allow development at a maximum of 1.5 dwelling units per acre, with
potential for lower densities if required in order to address site-specific environmental impacts.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD
Prior to certification of project -specific CEQA document
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Significant
- Will the project:
a)
Convert prime agricufturalland to
non-agricultural use? .
Impair agricultural use of other
property or result in conversion to
other uses?
Conflict with existing zoning or
Williamson Act program?
Other
b)
c)
d)
o
o
o
o
Impact can Insignificant Not
& will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
[g] 0 0
[g] 0 0
[g] 0 0
0 0 0
Setting. Both the 11.6-acre hillside portion of the project and the Arroyo Grande High School sports
fieids (approximately 10 acres) have conflicting zoning and General Plan classifications. The General
Plan classification is Community Facilities (CF) and the zoning district is Agriculture. This conflict was
documented in the City's study on Agricultural Resources (2003), and determined that the General
Plan designation for this parcel was not inconsistent or in need of modification, and therefore the
zoning would be changed from Agriculture to PF during the Development Code Update process to
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study fof GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 5
address changes required by the 2001 General Plan update (not yet complete). Therefore the
'change in zoning from Agriculture for the 10-acre sports fields and the 11.6-acre vacant hiltside area
is not considered a conversion of prime agricultural land due to it's consistency with the designation
. as CF in the 2001 General Plan, review under the 2001 General Plan EIR and subsequent analysis in
the 2003 Report on Agricultural Resources (including it's non-prime classification as class IV - VI soils
according to the USDA Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County), However, the proposed General
Plan and Zoning Amendments for the 1.2 acre portion of John Taylor's 7.5-acre parcel (APN 006-095-
001), currently in row crop production, from Agriculture to Community Facilities/PF is considered a
conversion of prime agricultural land.
. Impact. Due to the proposed re-zoning and conversion of 1.2 acres of irrigated and farmed
agricultural land, the impact must be considered significant unless it can be determined that in
consideration of all the implications of the conversion, there is feasible mitigation that can reduce the
impact to less than significant. The General Plan Agricultural, Conservation and Open Space
Element objective Ag1 requires the City to "Avoid and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and
conserve non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands." Several policies and implementation
measure!' specifically relate to loss of the City's agricultural land inventory and must be considered in
light of tlie specifics of the proposal in order to determine if the impact can be mitigated to the extent
that it is no longer significant or if it remains significant even after all applicable mitigation is required.
Given that the proposal includes the improvement, extension and dedication of a public road to
address a circulation deficiency, Ag1-1.2 relates to the proposed action as it states: "Public facilities
are permitted on agricultural and natural resource lands when required by public health, safety and
welfare of the public". Adequate and safe circulation and secondary access around the high school is
an applicable application of this policy and provides for consideration of mitigation if the potential
conversion can not be fully avoided due to public health safety and welfare.
Additionally, the proposed conversion of 1.2-acres of agricultural land is located a triangular piece of
property between the Arroyo Grande High School campus and Valley Road, and as such it is not
anticipated that it will fragment or impair other agricultural lands. Since nearly the entire proposed
1.2-acre parcel would be included within 100 ft. of operational farmland, there could not be any
residential development on the property, consistent with the City's agricultural buffer requirements in
Section 16.12.170.E.
General Plan policy Ag1-4 and related policies include provisions for mitigation which may include
permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 with regard to the acreage of
land removed from the capability for agricultural use which may be satisfied by payment of in-lieu fees
as proposed. Development Code provisions suggest up to a 2:1 mitigation of comparable Ag
capability. -
Mitigation/Conclusion.
MM 2.1: Payment of an in-lieu fee sufficient to provide for the permanent protection of
comparable farmland for the 1.2-acre conversion. The General Plan indicates mitigation fees
of comparable farmland at a ratio or 1:1, however the City's Development Code requires
mitigation fees at a ratio of up to 2:1 to be used for acquisition of a farmland conservation
easement of farmland deed restriction in accordance with Section 16.12.170. Proposed
mitigation fees are consistent with the 2:1 ratio.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing: .
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande CDD Dept.
Prior to recordation of the final map.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 6
MM 2.2: A deed restriction shall be recorded on the proposed 1.2-acre public facilities
parcel prohibiting residential development consistent with Section 16.12.170.E oflhe City's
Development Code.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timing:
LMUSD
City of Arroyo Grande, COD Dept.
Prior to recordation of the final map
MM 2.3: Consistent with the 2001 General Plan Update Program EIR, any future
development application on the proposed 11.6-acre Residential Hillside parcel shall include
provision for a permanent open-space parcel to retain steeper slopes, drainage, natural
vegetation and other site features (I.e. a "cluster subdivision" or PUDlo
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande COD Dept.
Timing: Prior to certification of project-specific CEQA document.
-
3. AIR QUALITY - Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Violate any state or federal ambient 0 ~ 0 0
air quality standard, or exceed air
quality emission thresholds as
established by County Air Pollution
Control District (APCD)?
b) Expose any sensitive receptor to 0 0 ~ 0
substantial air pollutant
concentrations?
c) Create or subject individuals to 0 0 ~ 0
objectionable odors?
d) Be Inconsistent with the District's 0 0 ~ 0
Clean Air Plan?
..e) Other 0 0 0 0
Setting. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed the CEQA
Air Qualitv Handbook to evaluate project specific impacts and determine if air quality mitigation
measures are needed, or if potentially significant impacts could result. The City refers to this
Handbook for all discretionary projects subject to CEQA.
Impact. The proposed road extension allows for alternative circulation for existing development. Any
future projects that may utilize the road extension will be evaluated under CEQA for any potential
impacts. The proposed road connection would be constructed along the periphery of existing parking
lots for Arroyo Grande High School and would not subject individuals to objectionable odors or expose
any sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.
Short-term impacts related to dust generation from grading would result in dust generation that could
affect adjacent properties. Mitigation measures placed on the project would reduce short-term dust
generation during construction of the project to less-than-significant levels. The dust control
measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be shown on
grading and building plans.
.f:;!'! of Arrovo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 7
Mitigation/Conclusion. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential air
quality impacts from construction to a less-than-significant level. 0 '"
The project shall comply with all applicable Air Pollution Control District (APCO) regulations
pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PMlO) as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Quality
Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans shall list the following regulations:
MM 3.1: All dust control measures listed below (MM 3.2 - 3.6) shall be followed during
construction of the project and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor or
builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order
increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. The name and telephone
number of such person(s) shall be provided to the APCD prior to map recordation and grading of
the road improvement and extension.
MM 3.2: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. At a
minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is
completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable)
water should be used.
MM 3.3: Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation. .
MM 3.4: All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
MM 3.5: Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to streets,
or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles
shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
o MM 3.6: Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
MM 3.7: All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to
bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary
power units, shall be fueled exclusively with California Air Resources Board (ARB) motor vehicle
diesel fuel.
MM 3.8: Diesel construction equipment shall meet the ARB's 1996 certification standard
for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept., Building and
Fire Department; Air Pollution Control District
During construction
Timing:
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 8
Impact. The assessment for the' 1990 Vista Del Mar EIRincluded a surface examination of the off-
o site area that indicated that no part ofthe project site extends into the vicinity of the arctlaeological
site. Further, a thorough field reconnaissance of the project site revealed no surface evidence of the
prehistoric or early historic occupation or use of the site, and that the soils and geological conditions
o bf the site indicate that the likelihood ofllie project site is not anticipated to have any direct impact on
local archaeological/cultural resources. 0 0
Mitigation/Conclusion. Although it is not anticipated that there are any impacts to
archaeological/cultural resources, implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed below will ensure
that no impacts will occur.
MM 5.1: In the eventthat'prehistoric cultural materials, or historic cultural materials are
encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and a qualified
archaeologist ahd representative from the Northem Chumash Tribal Council allowed to quickly record,
collect, and analyze any resources encountered. The City shall be notified should resources meeting
CEQA significance standards be discovered., The Chumash representative and archaeologist shall
work as quickly as possible to permit resumption of construction activities. It is preferred that location
data of finds be recorded using a hand:held global po~itioning system (GPS) receiver. Ipthe event
that human remains (burials) are fouhd;the County Corqner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. "
If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner
recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those
of a Native American, he or she will contact by telephone within 24 hours the Native American
Heritage Commission;
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:'
Tlmeframe:
'Developer 0
City of Arroyo Grande - COD, Public Works Depl. 0
During grading and construction activities
6.
GEOLOGY AND SOilS"
Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Insignificant Not
Impact Applicable
a)
i
Result in exposure to or production
of unstable earth conditions, such
as landslides, earthquakes,
fiqu!Jfaction, ground failure, land
subsidence or other similar
hazards?
Be within a CA Dept. of Mines &
Geoiogy Earthquake Fault Zone?
Result in soil erosion, topographic
changes, and loss of topsoil or
unstable soil conditions fr:om
project-related improvements, such
as vegetation removal, grading,
excavation, or fill?
Change rates of soil absorption, or
amount or direction of suiface
. runoff?
Impact can
& will be
mItigated
o
o 0
b)
c)
d)
[8J
o
D
~ D
D D
o
[8J
o
o 0
[8J
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 10
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project: " Significant & will be Impact ' A'pplicable
mitigated
e) Include structures located on 0 0 l2SJOo 0
expansive soils?
f) Change the drainage patterns where 0 0 l2SJ 0
substantial on~ or off-site
sedimentation/ erosion or flooding
may occur?
, ,
g) Involve activities within the 100-year 0 0 l2SJ 0
flood zone?
h) Be inconsistent with the goals and 0 0 l2SJ 0
policies of the County's Safety
E;.lement relating to Geologic and
Seismic Hazards?
Oo" , I) ,Preclude the future extraction of 0 ~O 0 18I
,:" . valuable mineraI resources? ..Oo
, , '., 'I . ". ~} 1-. .'~ ;: }.,
J) Other 0 0 0 ,0'
Setting. The site has varying topographical gradients with an approximate 2 - 9% northwestem -
facing slope. There Is a seasonal drainage qitch that traverses the existing AGHS sports fields.
Undisturbed vegetation consists primarily of grasses. According to the'1990 EIR for Vista Del Mar,
the project area lies on a northwest -facing slope,
Impact. A major source of potential earthquake damage to Arroyo Grande is from activity along the
regional San Andreas Fault located less than forty (40) miles east along the eastern border of San
Luis Obispo County. The most widespread intensity of ground shaking depends on several factors
including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake epicenter, and
underlying soil conditions. Other region'al fa)Jlts of significance that could affect the project area in
terms of ground shaking are the Rincondada and Nacimiento faults, located approximately twenty-five'
',(25) miles~ east of the City. These faults are considered "potentially active", and could' cause
moderate (Magnitude 6.0+) earthquakes in the area. The West Huasna fault is .located roughly three
(3) miles east of the City of Arroyo ,Grande. The project' site would be subject to severe ground
shaking in a strong seismic event. which could cause damage to structures and endanger public
safety. ,
The project site will be subject to soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during construction and
after project completion. Specific erosion control requirements are specified below under the
Hydrology and Water Quality section, ,
Mitigation/Conclusion. Seismic hazard, soH stability, soil erosion and downstream sedimentation are
considered potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the mitigation measures listed below.
MM 6.1: Final road improvement plans prepared by the City's consulting engineer shall be
accompanied bya letter of certification from the civil engineer that the plans are in
conformance with the following: .
__ _~".'-'Jr"!:!'!E Grande,lnitial Study fo~ GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
_._-~ , . .
Page 11
.
The' r.oad i~provements s~all be designed to withstand grol!~d shaking
associated with a large magnitude earthquake on nearby active faults."
The project shalLcomply.with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance.
Site-specific specifications regarding clearing, .site grading and preparation, site
drainage, and pavements shall be delineated, including an erosion control
. program.
.
..
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
. City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to Grading .
a)
Result in a risk of explosion or
release of hazardous substances
'(e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation) or exposure of people to
'h'azardeJus. substances? .
Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not .
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
0 0 ~ 0
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Will the project:
'.,' ~ . ,- d'
"".
b) Interfere with an emergency
response or evacuation plan?
c) Expose people to safety risk
associated with airport flight
pattern? .
d) Increase fire hazard risk or expose
people or structures to high fire
hazard conditions?
. e) Create any other'health hazard or
. potential hazard?
f) Other
Setting. The project is not located in an area of known hazardous material contamination. The
. project is n_ot within a high severity risk area for fire. The project is not within an Airport Review area.
Impact. The project does not propose the use of hazardous materials. The project is not expected to
conflict with any regional evacuation plan. Although the project does not present a significant' fire
safety risk the following mitigation measures can reduce the usage of chemical herbicides within the
right of way and meet state goals.
MitigationlConcluslon. For fire reduction the following measure is being considered for use within
the project limits:
, MM 7.1 Use polymer for a natural soil pavement to prevent weed growth under (MBGR) around
signposts, power line poles and a 4-foot swath parallel to the edge of roadway to keep fires from
starting.
. . .' " . ~ '. . ,. ..' ,- -'~'.'
_,e".v_. ,--
0 0 .~ 0
0 0 0 ~
0 0 ~ 0
0 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency: .
Timeframe: '
City of Arroyo Grande .
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
During Grading activities
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 12
8. NOISE - Wm the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant" , Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Expose people to noise levels that. D lZJ. D D
exceed the City's Noise Element
thresholds?
b) . Generate increases in the ambient D lZJ D D
noise levels for adjoIning area.s?
c) Expose people to severe noise or D lZJ o' 0 D D
vibration?
d) Other D D D D
. Setting. Existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by vehicular
traffic ahd adjacent agricultural operations.
Impact.. The. project.is expected to generate loud noise during construction that will. impact the
adjacent school site and residences. This is Considered a potentially significant impact that can be 0
mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the below mitigation measures.
Mltlgation/Concluslon. The project will generate short-tenn noise impacts with construction
activities that require mitigation. Long:tenn increases in traffic and other operational noise levels are
considered less-than-significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary.. .
MM 8.1: Construction activities shall be restricted .to the hours of 8 a.m. . and 6 p.m. Monday
through Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday. On-site equipment maintenance
and servicing shall be confined to the same hours.
MM 8.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be required to
have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be located at least
300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine housing enclosures or
noise screens are provided by the contractor. .
MM 8.3: Equipment mobilization area's, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be
placed in a central location as farfrom existingresidence~ as feasible.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - COD, Public Works Dept.
During construction
9.
POPULATION/HOUSING -
Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
Insignificant Not .
Impact Applicable
a)
o Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
through projects In an undeveloped'
area or extension of major
infrastructure) ?
D
D
lZJ D
Citv of Arrovo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 13
9.
POPULATION/HOUSING - Potentially Impact can Insignificant. Not
, .
Will the project: Significant &wiilbe Impact Applicable
mitigated
Displace existing housing or people, 0 0 [gJ 0
requiring. construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Create the need fo', substantia/new 0 0 [gJ D
housing in the area?
. Use sllbstantial amount of fuel or. 0 0 [gJ D
energy?
Other 0 0 D 0
b)
c)
d)
e)
Setting. The project includes an improvement, extension and dedication of a portion of existing
emergency access road to improve 'public circulation around AGHS and to the existing development
of Vista"del Mar and residential. subdivision In the county. The proposed road 90nnection was
originally anticipated when the Vista del Mar subdivision was built as a preferred circulation alternative
instead Of.Orchard Ave.' ,Castillo del. Mar will enable access tq a potel}tiallow density (maximum of 7~
units) subdivision on the proposed 11.6-acre residential hillside parceL .. .. .
Impact. The proposal addresses a. long-term circulation deficiency for AGHS and surrounding.
residences. Although the project will enable access to a potential future subdivision, its potential for
increased traffic is less than ten peak-hour trips, and thus the road improvement is not considered-to
induCe substantial growth in the vicinity. The projectwill not result in a need for a'significant amount
of new housing, and will not displace existing housing. . ..' .
,
10. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project have an effect upon, Significant &wiilbe Impact Applicable
. or result in the need for new or mitigated
altered public services In any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 [gJ 0
b) Police protection? 0 0 [gJ 0
c) Schools? 0 0 [gJ 0
d) Roads? 0 0 [gJ 0
e) Solid Wastes? 0 0 [gJ 0
g) Other . 0 0 0 0
Setting. The proposal includes redesignation and rezoning of land and proposed road Improvements
that will not require the need for new public services in the vicinity and will not require modification of
existing utilities that are in place. Any future subdivision application will include an analysis, of impacts
to public services. .
Impact. It is not anticipated that the proposal will have a significant impact on public services.
City of AIToyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06"004
Page 14
11.
a)
b)
RECR~ATION- Will the project:
Increase the use or demand for parks'
or other recreation opportunities?
Affect the access to trails, parks or
other recreation opportunities? . . .
Other
Potentially
Significant
o
.0
D
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
o
o
D
Insignificant
Impact
IZI
IZI
D
. .,
Not
Applicable
o
o
D
Setting. The proposed road improvements will include sidewalk and 'improve vehicular and
pedestrian circulation for AGHS and residences in the vicinity. No trail or recreation amenity is
proposed. . .
.Impact.
-', ,m".
a)
c)
It isnotanticipated that the proposal will have a significant impact for recreation.
12. TRANSPORTATION!
CIRCULATION- WiJltheproject:
b)
Increase vehicle trips to local or
areawide circulation system?
Reduce existing "Levels of Service" .
. on public roadway(s)? .
Create unsafe conditions on public
'.. roadways (e.g., limited access,
design features, sight distance)?
Provide for adequate emergency
access?
ResDIt in inadequate parking.
capacity?
Result In inadequate internal traffic.
circulation?
Con filet with adopted poliCies, plans,
. or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian
access, bus turnouts, bicycle racks,
etc.)?
Result in a change in air traffic .
patterns that may result in.
substantial safety risks?
Other ,
Potentially
. Significant
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
'. ~~ '"
Impact can
& will be
mitigated' .
D
D
D
D
D
D
IZI
o
D
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001;DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Insignificant
Impact
~
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
!81
D
D
D'
Not
Applicable
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
IZI
D
Page 15
Setting. The project includes an .improvement, extension and dedication of a portion of existing
emergency access road to improve:public Circulation around AGHS and to the existing det'elopment'
of Vista del Mar and residential subdivision in the County. The proposed road connection will
implement a preferred circulation alternative (instead of Orchard Ave.) that was originally anticipated
when the Vista del Mar subdivision was built. Castillo del Mar will enable access to a potential low
'density subdivision on the proposed 11.6-acre residential hillside parcel subject to future
environmental review.
. .'
Impact. Due to the grade change on the north shoulder of the existing emergency access portion of
Castillo del Mar, additional widening on the north side may require retaining walls. In order to reduce'
. the need for retaining walls to accommodate the 64' right-of-way, the following mitigation shall be
required. Additionally, mitigation' is required in order to' provide for and encourage bicycle
transportation, particularly in the vicinity of AGHS. .
Mitigation/Conclusion. Although no significant traffic-related concerns were identified the following
mitigation is required.
MM 12.1: No parking or sidewalk shall be provided on the north side of Castillo del Mar where
grade change would require substantial retaining walls. Future residential subdivision on the
south side of Castillo del Mar will include a curb, gutter, and sidewalk with or without on-street
parkin'g. '.' ' '., ,.' .... ' '.
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
, Timeframe:
Developer
City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Dept.; Public
Works Dept. '
Prior to issuance of grading permit for future road
improvements.
MM 12.2: All road improvement plans for Castillo del Mar, including both the proposed
improvements and the anticipated future improvements, shall include a minimum of a class II
bike lane to provide safe bicycle access in the vicinity of AGHS and the residential
subdivisions. ' '
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Develope~ .
City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Dept.; Public
Works Dep!.
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Timeframe:
13. WASTEWATER- Will the Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
project: Significant & will be . Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Violate waste discharge requirements D D D [gJ
for wastewater systems? .
b) Change the quality of surface or D p [gJ 0
ground water (e.g., nitrogen-loading,
daylighting) ?
c) Adversely affect community 0 0 0 [gJ
wastewater service provider?
d) Other 0 0 0 0
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page16
I Setting. There is no wastewater disposal required for the proposal.
.., ,
! Impact: There is no anticipated impact for wastewater.
14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
" ,QUALITY - Will the project: Significant ' & will be Impact ' Applicable
, mitigated
a) Violate any water quality standards? 0 0 ~ 0
b) Discharge into surface waters,or 0 ~ 0 0
";'f "otherwise alter surface water,quality,
;.." (e.g., turbidity; temperature,; "
:'.
dissolved oxygen, etc.)?
c) Change the quality of groundwater 0 0, ~ 0
(e.g., saltwater intrusion, nitrogen-
.~~ading, etc.)?
d) Change the quantity or movement of 0 0 ~ 0
;","".,-,< ava/lab/esurface or ground water?
."""?~_;';,.;;;',;~' . 'y" O>:_:_~'..~.., ....: ,:..":.,:,,.:: -i< ~. 0
e) Advers~/y affect watersupp/y? 0 0 " ,
f) Other 0 0 0 0
Setting. Localized, stormwater surface runoff follows the topography of the site northerly toward
. AGHS and farmland. A season drainage ditch traverses east to 'west the AGHS sports fields and will
run'through a proposed pipe under the proposed road extension near Valley Road and continue
through existing farmland to Los Berros Creek. Approximately one-acre of irrigated farmland will be
removed from production.
Impact. Construction and grading activities and exposed soil could cause erosion during project
development. An approximate'150 ft segment of proposed road extension will traverse the vicinity of
, a drainage ditch, dug seasonally by the agricultural landowner for flood protection.
Mitigation/Concluslo~. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and to provide for seasonal
. . drainage. the following mitigation is required.
MM ,14.1: To reduce e'rosion hazards due to construction activities, grading shall: be '
minimized. and the developer shall provide for a temporary siltation and drainage control basin
during construction. All finished slopes shall behydroseeded with a permanent seed mix
composed of native plant speCies indigenous to the areas. If a drainage structure is widened.
all exposed soil needs to be replanted with native grass plugs or hydroseeded for storm water
requirements. ' ,
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept.
Prior to Grading
MM 14.2: Work shall be completed during the dry season (April 1,5 to October 15) to
reduce active construction erosion to the extent feasible., If construction must extend into the
Citv of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 17
. ' .'
wet weather season; a qualified hydrogeologist or civil engineer shall prepare a drainage and
er'ision control plan that add~esses measures to accommodate the seasonal drainage' ditch.
Responsible Party: 0
Monitoring Agency: 0
Timeframe:
Developer ,
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during
construction
MM 14.3: All tempora~ filL placed during project construction shall be removed at project
completion and the area restored to approximate pre-project contours and topography.
o Responsible Party:' , '0 00 ,
Monitoring Agency:
Tlmeframe:
Developer .
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 14.4: No construction debris or materials shall be allowed to enter the vicinity of the
.drainageditch either directly or indirectly.
,
'0'
,Responsible Party:
'Monitoring Agency:
Timeframe:
15. LAND USE - Will the project:
a) Be potentially inconsistent with land
use, policy/regulation (e.g., General
Plan, Development Code), adopted
to avoid or mitigate for '
environmental effects?
b) Be potentially Inconsistent with any
habitat or community conservation
plan?
c) Be potentially Inconsistent with
adppted agency environmental
plans or policies with Jurisdiction
over the project?
d) 0 Be potentially Incompatible with
surrounding land uses?
e) Other
Developer
Cityof'ArroyoGrande -Public Works Dept.
During construction
Inconsistent Potentially Consistent Not
Inconsistent Applicable
D
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
Settlngllmpact. Surrounding uses are identified on Page 3 of the Initial Study. The proposed project
was reviewed for consistency with policy and/or regulato~ documents relating to the environment and
appropriate land use (e.g., City's Land Use Element, Development Code, Zoning Map, etc.).
Referrals were sent to outside agencies to review for policy consistencies and code compliance (e.g.
County Agricultural Commissioner, RWQCB, APCD.) As discussed in the section relating, to impacts'
to Agriculture, the proposed zoning and general plan land use designations for the 10-acre AGHS
sports fields and 11.6-acre proposed residential hillside parcel are considered internally consistent.
The General Plan land use designation and rezoning of the 1.2 acre offarrnland requires mitigation.
.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004, ,
Page 18
-..-..-- ._----_._-~._,---_..__._----
The proposal also includes anarea of conservation open space land use designation overlay as
shown on the General Plan land use map. This designation is to acknowledge need to'maintain a
drainageJacility through thEiAGHS sports fields to prevent flooding and to convey regional drainage to
Los Berros Creek and, eventually to Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposal does not conflict with this
overlay by rezoning from agriculture to ,public 'facility and the proposed road improvements and
extension will. provide for the necessary drainage facility.' '
Mitigation/conclusion. No inconsistencies remain after implementation of all required mitigation and
no additional mitigation is determined to be necessary.
";.-"
. . ..~ .
;~.
't..:
"
,.' '-','
,. ..,-.
Citv of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 19
.'
",'
16. ' MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE -Will the
project:
Potentially
, Significant
Impact can Insignificant' Not
& will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
I' a) Have the potentiafto degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
,habitat of a fish or wildlife speCies, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop 'below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of , a rare or endangered plant or arUmal or eliminaMimportant
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
D [g] D D
" ';~
b) Have Impacts that are Individually limited, but cumulatively
co.nslderable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in'
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects),' "
D ' [g]
cf"
[~r"
. .'^" ,. ~ .;
c)
Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or Indirectly?
D
D'
[g] "
D",
d)
Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or/ndirectly? D D [g] D
.'
,
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 20
. .
Exhibit A - Initial Studv References and Aaencv Contacts
The City of Arroyo Grande has contacted various agencies for their comments on the' 'proposed .
project. With respect to the subject application, the following have been contacted (marked with an .
~) and when a response was made, it is either attached or in the application file: .
~ ,"
Contacted Aaencv
D County Public Works Department
D '. County Environmental Health Division
IZI County Planning & Building & F,ireDept. .
IZI County Agricultural Commi~~io~6'r's' omce .
IZI Air Pollution Control District
IZI Regional Water Quality Control Board
IZI CA Department of Fish and Game
D . CA Department of Forestry .
D CA Department of Transportation
"IZI',. ".'US Army Corps of Engineers.' .'
.'. 0 So. County Sanitation District
IZI Northern Chumash Tribal Council .
The following reference materials have been used in the environmental review for the proposed
project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The following information is
available at the City Community DevelopmentDepartment.
. ,." "'r~ >.i.
'".
" . ".- ~
'-., -.. -: ~
/.
SOURCE LIST:
1. . City of Arroyo Grande.General Plan (October 2001)
2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan land Use Map (October 2001) .
3. City of Arroyo Grande DevelopmentCode
4. . City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map .
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Program EIR (October 2001)
7: Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
. . . 8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Ordinance' No. 521 (Amending Title 10, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code regarding the
Community Tree Program)
10. Ordinance No. 550 (Amending Title 16 of the Municipal Code to incorporate regulations and
amending the Zoning Map to create an Agricultural Preservation Overlay District)
11. San Diego Council of Governments - Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates
12.' City of Arroyo Grande.2003 Report on Agricultural Resources
13. Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 89-2; Planned Development Rezone
89-215 (Vista Del Mar) December 1990. . -.'
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Roadway improvement location map
B: Map showing proposed road alignment and rezone
C: Map showing pr~posedroad alignment and general plan amendment
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek"
Page 21
- ~ '\ '.'
,=
ATTACHMENT 4
'.
;.l'
~
"".
..~
Ii
Ii
!II' I
81 I
ill
Ill' ~l '.
"~III ~I, .
~ jll IlliI
, I I
I II! ii
. 1111"1' I
., !.' .
I Iii' ,I! . f I
If 1IIIllltJII111
. ill! l!s 1IIlll!U II Ii 1111
~II ~J ! .... .. f 'Iii
. J U
/;; I'
!'iJil
Il:lnh
"
...
...
"
"
I
t- ,~,';
:';;'~/ "i . 'i'
b",.
if
'!."ii..':
,,<'~""
" ~ ,.
",-,".
.., ''',.
~
~
~
.~
~
"
...
..
~,
l
....
1,0
Z
<(
0::
".
o
><
o
0::
0::
<(
~
~
tr." .
.,,;
:(I)
F P
I I
.
t; ..1";--", 'f% ' '.';'
.i~~i;
liilii
l: I Ill:
",,'"
Z~
,
. -
, .
- ,
iiij
,: c
i. J..
-~ ia
L :~l<
=,..,,:..
i
I
!
.
!
...~..
~::~
!f~1
a.;;;.
.
I'
'. iJ
.//
:~<...
.!._~
,"'
--- -- -- '\
C1'tO~ A3"Y^
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
, MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5
PAGE 6
. I . ..:
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Mr. Atkission said he had considered pulling back the roof oVerhang, but wasn't ready to
make a decision at this time. Mrs. Atkisson requested the suggestion in writing (to be
provided via a copy of these minutes).
. Mr. Tennant restated that he would like to see accurate, verifiable measurements and
.. added that he's willing to compromise. . . , .' '.... .... .... .
.. Commissioner Ray requested that a rendition of the south-side silhouette ofthe
two homes be prepared if further review is needed.
Mrs. Tennant agreed that professional measurements of their house would be welcome.
. '
Consensus was the commissioners would like both parties to work together on an
agreeable solution, instead of having to live with whatever is resolved by someone else.
They would . like'. to; offer the;.quickestpermiFpath;through. Planning Commission. by.
leaving open options for Administrative Approval .of a redesign, .and/or appeals to
Planning Commission and City Council as necessary.
. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, ta continue the
item in order to allow applicants and their neighbors time to discuss the design and to
. allow the Community DevelOPment Director to approve the project as an Administrative'
Decision for future report orbring it back to public hearing as he sees fit.
Discussion on motion: Cammissianer Parker asked about halding a place an the
September 5 agenda. Mr. Strong nated it depends an the agendizing process - as' an
Administrative Decision or further Public Hearing. Either way, each party can appeal
and delay approval an additional 2-3 months as things are now.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES:.
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows
None
None
7:40 pm ,
. The Commission took a 1 O~niinute break.
C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 & DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-
004; APPLICANT - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - APN 006-095-
001 & 002 (adjoining Arroyo Grande High SchoolNalley Road/Fair Oaks Ave
,Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report, describing
affected parcels on a map. There are two levels of consideration to deal with in addition
to the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM): 1) the General Plan Amendment (to reflect actual
land use as Community Facilities [CF] and Single Family Residential Low Density
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
PAGE 7
[SFRLD]), and 2) the Development Code AmendrT]ent (to reflect zoning as Public .
Facility [PF] and Residential Hillside [RH]). There are several areas that haven't been
. updated on the land use or zoning map to reflect current high school use (CF/PF).
LMUSD has requested that the hillside parcel be rezoned to SFRLD in preparation for
possible sale, in the event that the District determines it is not needed for public facility.
In regards to the proposed extension of Castillo del Mar through the Taylor ag parcel,
there .....ereseveral. alignmentsrexiewed with different road ,~urvatures. ,. The pr.eferred
alignment presented by engineering consultant, John Wallace and' Associates affects
the least amount of. ag land., Also, it is the only viable access for the developing
parcels. '
The first issue that should be dealt with is the environmental determination.' If
commissioners see any potential for adverse effects that haven't been mitigated,then
they should take no further action and recommend an EIR or additional studies until
those issues are resolved;,. If they.accepUhe.mitigated negative declaration(MND),~ '
then discussion should ensue regarding the GPA. The TPM simply implements the
road alignment. This has all came about after years of discussion with JH Land, City
Council, Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) and John Taylor. They all entered
into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOUl that this should be considered and
coordinated. 'Each suggestion has importance to some of those parties; so' if
commissioners decide not to support one part, that could preclude the MOU from being
implemented and prevent the road from being accomplished at this time. .. '.
, ,.-,
Commission questions of staff;
Ray
. Why isn't, the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) model being used to
determine necessity of an EIR for this project? The City has no such model
established as a measure of significance. There are assumptions involved - one of
which is size (for ag suitability), and the entire Taylor property wouldn't meet size
regulations by the City or County standards (County is 20 acres, City is 10). There
are .ag easements on the Runels' property. Just putting it into a conservation
contract can be significant. Road extension and separation of one acre of land from
the rest of the cultivated area would be significant if not mitigated. Per the General
Plan, mitigation is allowed at a minimum of 1:1 replacement-,with like land and a
permanerit conservation easement. There aren't any one-acre parcels on the
market, but there may be some larger ones available in the future. The mitigation
proposal offers $200,000, which is 2-4 times the estimated cost of one acre of
Agriculture Conservation Easement., There's no assurance that City Council will find
that amount is. acceptable, and commissioners can comment on sufficiency of in lieu
fees.
. Please set our minds at ease regarding the lack of the "threshold of significance"
mentioned in the General Plan. There's no current standard that can be interpreted
one way or the other. The Commissioners and Council need to use their best
judgment as the lead agency. This could be challenged in court, but as there is no
established threshold, it is open to interpretation. .
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING ,
MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
PAGE 8
. So it is on a case-by-case and won't set a precedent? With any environmental
determination, it is case-by-case. , ' "
. Will there ,continue to be access at the acute angle intersection? It's a private
driveway now, not owned or controlled by the City. The road proposed is intended
to substitute for it
'. Can we condition it and will the condition be followed?, Commissioners can
recommend abandonment, but LMUSD has the ability to make decisions similar to
"Council. The Haddox property uses that as the only established access. to their 20- " .
acre parcel and they have a private driveway easement.
. In regards to traffic, anybody south of the intersection will choose this way to '
Orchard rather than Fair Oaks. What is the impact through the neighborhood?
There hasn't been a discussion, on that, as it was felt the new intersection would
more likely feect the parking lot.
Brown
. What is the overall benefit to the City, besides benefiting the developer and getting
., ' '. ',some funds for the road? Will Circulation begreatly'improved?Yes, that has' beefi>:c ,"
the understanding between LMUSD and the City for some time. Maybe it was
different 10 years ago, but withJhe new homes it is greatly needed.
. Was the in lieu fee just from negotiation and not from comps? Yes, but the City has
appraised properties equivalent to prime soils and determined it's appropriate.
There are other larger parcels available to seNe 8g uses, which cost less than
$100,000/acre.lt can be assumed that there would be less compensation required
for just a conservation easement. The $200;000 mitigation fee would probably result
in 2-4 acres of mitigation.
. In regards to General Plan statements about loss of prime farmland soils, it seems
they need to have a statement of overriding considerations. Is this appropriate
mitigation and would there be different "thresholds" if another property came
forward? The policy maybe flawed. If it is intended to require ,an EIR, though
there's no significant effect, then it's just red tape, If a project isn't mitigated to level
less than significant levels, then an EIR would be required. Planning Commission
recommended and City Council adopted the General Plan policy. If it's inconsistent
with- reasonable mitigation, then the policy can be amended. If the policy should be
literally interpreted, then this proposal is over.
., There needs to be a measure to use for consistency of approvals from one project to
the next. There needs to be a statement of overriding consideration. Mr. Strong
, replied there can't be a statement of overriding consideration if there's not an EIR. If
the effects are less than significant, there's no reason for an EIR, so it's a
contradiction. An applicant could come in and try not to mitigate impacts at all, but
the point is to make them try.
Parker '. ' ,
'. Will it set off the Taylor property's "right to farm" by extending the road? No.
. In regards to changing the land use to Single Family Residential Low, Density
(SFRLD), is an environmental review required? When they prepared the' 2001
General Plari, they did a blanket CEQA review over all changes proposed, which
was adopted.' Each project later proposed upon which the City takes discretionary
..'.:'.,.:;.;;,
.,.... -,:
PLANNING COMMISSION'
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
PAGE 9
action would require a new CEQA determination: LMUSD has requested it be
SFRLD. . .
Tait
.. Is the SLO County Ag Commissioner okay with this p~r correspondence? Yes.
. 12g on page 15 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is listed as"impact can
and will be mitigated". Why. is. that an impact? The Ag Commissioner verbally.
expressed concerns with the City's current policy of allowing pedestrian trails
. through ag properties. -.They're' concerned the Circulation Element could allow trails,
". through ag property. The "Lopez to Sea" concept implies trail systems follOWing the
creek, which would be of concern to ag interests. That will be brought back for
clarification with Pedestrian/Bike Plan considerations. They were concerned it
implied a trail along the drainage channel, and he assured them that wasn't the case
and isn't depicted on plans. .
. The only agencies that'responded to the MND were County Ag and the Northern
Chumash. Weren't there responses from APCD, DFG or Corps of Engineers? No,
: .,. :and it's not unusual. : ,,; . ' . .,. . .'......
. Do we knowhow much money will be needed for the road widening and in lieu fees?
The road widening is estimated by the City Engineer at $400,000. The in lieu fees is
$200,000. Land acquisition is a private transaction between those two parties as
outlined in the Moil. These are conservative estimates, but Council can decide the
sufficiency of funding proposed. More than likely, the 1:1 mitigation will be exceeded.
and they'll be able to ''purchase/and at 2:1 or even 4:1, but the land transaction isn't.
part of public agency control. " . .
. Is the current acute angle intersection considered dangerous? It doesn't' meet any
City or County standards. It's there, but that doesn't mean it's right..
Fellows '
. Could the LESA model be fitted to our community and used? If the City can create a
model that works, it would be a pioneer.' Those he has reviewed are for larger
areas.
o' That would help in making approvals more consistent.
o Does City Council decide if that's the right thing is to do? Yes.
Ray .
. What is the potential problem' (page 7, 4th paragraph) regarding the school district's
. purchase not being "within the control of the City"? LMUSD could create a new.
project after purchase, make. CEQA decisions as the lead agency on the new
project, and if the City didn't like it, they'd have to go to court to dispute it.
o What is the difference? Currently, the land isn't publicly owned by LMUSD,
so thfW can't make environmental decisions on it (and Taylor can't as a
private citizen). .
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Tom Runels. 586 Vallev Road. spoke regarding the project. Me felt the existing road
works fine. The angle may be hard, butthere's stacking capacity which would be lost if
it's moved further down. In regards to Valley Road, he already has to go to Los Berros
-- .~..'
",'
."
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
.JULY 13, 2006
PAGE 10
to access the freeway. He doesn't have a problem with the project, but the location will
create a bigger problem. There's another road they could open up that was used for .
construction for two years. Other:wise, there will be more traffic on Orchard than there is
now. There's only a school. traffic problem in the moming and the afternoon, but during
" mid-day there's no problem. If and when the road is changed, it will generate a
drainage problem that LMUSD should address. It seems like the General Plan is being .
ignored in regards to saving ag:land. The .road 'should be lined up to go through a
propertyand.line up with the Mortuary and with EI Campo Road.
· In response to' Ghair Fellows,'Mr.Ruriels responded that the current problem with
the acute angle intersection is mainly speeders who should just slow down. There
have been very. few accidents - mostly at night.
· . Commissioner Ray asked if the reason for not connecting the road as Mr. Runels
suggested is more loss of ag land? Mr. Strong replied that it was discussed during
approval of the 2001 General Plan and it was felt not to have a purpose at that point.
He outlined other possibilities, concluding this proposal was the alternative endorsed
. ,..byLMUSD:and.the.City., . ...... ' - ..;0'" ' "h.', ,,' ... ""'0'
o.Craig Campbell noted the road alignment is actually quite close to it (and he
showed his diagram with engineered accuracy),
o There was further discussion between Mr. Runels, Mr. Strong and
Commissioner Ray regarding road alternatives.
Mr. Runels concluded that if done, there would be many kids who circle ("cruise") the
school, which may be,an issue for the school district. '
Herman Olave. 222 W. Cherrv, spoke regarding the project. He talked to neighbors and
. hasn't found anyone dissatisfied with traffic circulation there. There's a problem in the
morning and the afternoon for about 20-30 minutes each, but otherwise it's fine. He has '
no objection to extending it to Valley Road, but feels they have been lied to by the City
and contractors. Any agreements need to be in writing and adhered to. The problem is
enforcement of kids jaywalking and parking where they shouldn't - tliere needs to be
. more code enforcement. Parents dropping kids off are the ones who complain. He's, .
concerned that $400,000 isn't sufficient for improvements.
Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment.
Commission comments:
Fellows:
. The engineer's map should be presented to Council for sake of accuracy.
. . Why couldn't there be different curvature to save more ag land? Some concerns
include sight distance, headlights into the Runels house, and the engineers said
the curves wouldn't work. .'
Parker
. Mr. Runels talked about cueing. What about taking part of the ag portion left
over to use for a left"hand turn lane onto the new street? It's not only possible,
but also proposed. There's still only room for two lanes to the south, but there's
. potential for three lanes or more to the north (toward the intersection).
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING.
MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
PAGE 11
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Judith Haddox. asked if the existing road would stay there? If this proposal is accepted
and the road is realigned, the existing driveway would be at the discretion of the school
district. . One concept is should Planning Commission recommend that it be eliminated.
It depends on acceptance to altemative road alignment. He showed another way to
place the driveway. If she doesn't agree to elimination, then it couldn't be done. It was
.. an offer to the City, to. dedicate, but it wasneverapcepted., I don't think we want it
closed, because it would be easier to get Ollt the same way and there are certain things
we need access to. It could be gated further toward the end.
:,;
Chair Fellows closed the hearing for p~blic comment. '
Commission Comments (continued):
Brown
. ,,' What is the intentfor, the pie~shaped piecE:! of land? There's no specific proposal. '
. Will it belong to LMUSD? Yes. ' , '
, Tait
. Has the City researched drainage problems with Valley Road? Drainage is being
relieved by bond improvements on the high school. Some water went across the
campus, through the intersection and ended up across the street. Drainage across
the ditch is handled if it's a low storm, but not a high storm. When the ditch runs ful/,
the low is at the intersection. The ultimate solution is a pipeline up Val/ey Road
toward the Saruwatari property and to the creek, which would be better than a single
corrugated metal pipe and 2-3 times the capacity. Under a worst-case storm, the
Taylor field is flooded. Seasonal drainage and water under low flow goes along the
ditch, across the Runels property, and continues as a flood plain to' Tiger Tail and
Sunset Terrace, then connects to Los Berros channel. It won't total/y solve thing,
but would be better than it is today.
9:30 om
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue past
10:00 p.m. on the proviso that commissioners only deal with the administrative approval
for 314 Whiteley (after finishing this item). Motion approved on a 5/0 voice vote.
Commission comments (continued):
Tait
. The main question is the loss of 1.2 acres of prime Ag land. In regards to AG1-1.2,
he thinks that circulation is a "public health, safety and welfare" issue. Although it's
an adverse impact, it can be mitigated with at least a 2:1 ratio. The benefits are
great and it should go forward. '
Parker .
. Access is vital for safety, not only to address problems with EI Campo, but Fair Oaks
and Valley Road. '
PLANNING COMMISSION
, SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 13,2006
PAGE 12
, '
. It's important t6 rezone - it's a cleanup issue.
. Regarding the' LMUSD request for rezoning, she understands that water and
infrastructure are, in place now for PF zoning and that when a project comes forward,
it would need the appropriate environmental review,at that time.
. She struggled with interpretation of the prime soils issue - whether it necessitates a
, statement of overriding 'consideration and CEQA review. She doesn't want to set a
precedent, but it comes down to adequate mitigation and consideration on a case-
, by-case basis.,' While she can recommend approval to Council for this project due to
issues of safety and community,. she noted this does riot indicate that loss of all
prime soils can be mitigated to less than significant.
Ray, "'.',,,
. She also had a problem with "overriding Considerations'" and' EIR necessity.
However, projects are reviewed ,on a case-by-case basis, and t~ere's public benefit .
of special significance for public safety and welfare - not just private development.
. The road itself is part of the mitigation. , '
. It is a public welfare issue undoubtedly.lf'shelivedin Vista del Mar, she would want "
fire engines to be able to access her home two ways. '
. She recommends closing the acute angle intersection for the safety of residents.
. She's not sure about approving the 11 acres from ag to SFRLD. It's less ofa
change to PF. In saying that, there's no question LMUSD needs the money, which
would ultimately benefit' the students. Though not' prime soils, she would
recommend the project as proposed except for the 11. acres, which she would like
addressed separately by Council.
Brown
. He has great misgivings about opening the door to perceived or actual changes to .
, General Plan policies by doing this. If they use the "case-by-case basis" argument,
that seems to say in this case we can ignore the prime soils loss and in others we
can't. He understands Mr. Strong's logic about the threshold of significance and
need for an EIR, but he's more concerned about precedent setting. Having said
that, he recommends approval with the footnote that the City agendize the "threshold
of significance issue", so in the future there's a less arbitrary methodology. He
wants to be fair and have perception of fairness. The LESA model wouldn't work,
because it would wipe out the small ag parcels. '"
Fellows
. The good thing about the proposal is less traffic on Orchard, where there is a
problem that would at least be helped every morning arid afternoon. When rezoned"
there would be more traffic, so the Castillo extension would help. '
. He's never been in favor of taking productive prime ag out of production and he isn't
now. His solution is:' '
o Leave the ag triangle in production, leave it zoned ag and make it a teaching
plot for organic farming, and take out the existing road and return it to ago
o If that doesn't work, pull out and return the northeast corner to ag production.
. The only way to mitigate ag land loss is to create ag land. 1:1 mitigation is good. In
lieu fees' sound good, but if they're not used immediately, that may never happen.
,
I
,
I
!
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
PAGE 13
The cost may increase and/or a new Council may decide to use it for something'
. else. A 2:1 ratio would be preferred. . '. .
· A lot of people worked a long time to put this together. Jim Dickens noted the only
. way to preserve ag land Jor the future is to put a conservation easement on it. The
only way to go .forward is t6 collect the mitigation money before the road goes in, find
land and buy the development rights and it will be protected in perpetuity. No
rezoning, grading, etc. should be done until 2 acres are conserved. It may be
aVliilable fairly soon. ,He canlvoteyesunless there's immediate conservation in,1:.1
or 2:1 basis. ' . .
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the
General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, Development Code Amendment Case No.
06-001, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004 with the following changes:
1. It is requested that City Council agendize discussion of General Plan Policy AG1-
4 in regards to the required "threshold of significance" to clarify whether Planning
. Commission shoulddecipe the necessity of EIR's on a case by,casebasis.
Discussion: Commissioner Ray emphasized the importance of Mitigation Measure 5.1
and the importance of monitoring by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council.
Commissioner Parker felt thaUvlitigation Measure 1.2 should' be moved to section 6
(Geology and Soils). She also questioned whether Initial Study Checklist question 9.a.
was an "insignificant impact". She felt that opening the road introduces the strong
possibility for future growth. Mr. Strong responded that any future growth of adjoining.
parcels as residential diivelopments would have to be reviewed by Commissioners as
individual projects, and they could be appropriately mitigated/conditioned at the time of
each project's review.
After further Commission and staff discussion the following condition was added to the.
motion: .' ,
'2. It is recommended ttiat the asphalt be removed from the abandoned road and
that area, along with the triangle separated from John Taylor's property, be kept
in ag production, possibly as a teaching area for the high school.
. and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-2004
. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001,
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL' MAP CASE NO. 06-004, INCLUDING
IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE
FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD; LAND USE ELEMENT
RECLASSIFICATION OF 11.1 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES
TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND CONSISTENT
REZONING' FROM AGRICULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH);
AND LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 1.2 ACRES FROM
AGRICULTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND CONSISTENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPEC.lAL MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 13, 2006
REZONING OF THIS 1;2 ACRES AND, AN ADJOINING 8.9 ACRES OF
, ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS FROM AGRICULTURE TO
PUBLIC FACILITY (PF),AS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE.
PAGE 14
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
, AYES:
NOE::f:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown , Tait, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows
Nohe ' 'C "~c. .'" n...' ,..,
None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of July 2006.
10:10 pm
Commissioner Parker left, as she wasn't feeling well.
'.,'. - -,'
. ....111. NON:PlJBLlCHEARINGITEMS:None.
, ,
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.0verlav direction. - Per above, it was decided this item would not be discus~ed due
to the late hour.
2. Request 'for discussion and'reconsideration bv Chair Fellows: Administration
Approval of the demolition of a 1960's ranch-style home and construction of a new
Spanish eclectic style sinale-familv home. ARC 06-004. located at 314 Whitelev
Street.
. Chair Fellows noted that Community Development Department staff has been
short-handed and the report omission probably shouldn't have caused the delay, .
Now that the information has been presented, the project looks fine, so long as
all ARC recommendations are followed, especially in handling drainage off the
property with permeable pavers, so there's little water leaving the property down
tbe street into the creek. It's also important to change the roof and that the
. garage door look like two doors. With the plans, he was impressed that the
garagewon't be as obvious ashe imagined.
. Commissioner Brown asked if the reason for pulling the item wasn't because it
may not have matched the Design Guidelines.' Chair Fellows replied that he
had reviewed the Guidelines and though it may not be a "great fit", the two
architects felt it fit fairly well and the Village residential guidelines are flexible.
. Commissioner Brown asked Chair Fellows again if he was okay with the project
Chair Fellows replied that 'his preference would be to remodel instead of demo
and rebuild, but there's no code to support that so it's not an issue:
. Commissioner Tait asked for clarification that with ARC's changes was Chair
Fellows fine with the project Chair Fellows replied, "Yes",
. Chair Fellows moved to not hold a public hearing to reconsider this project '
. Discussion on motion:
ATTACHMENT 6
,RESOLUTION NO. 06-2004
A RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN. AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001,
DEVELOPMENT 'CODE' AMENDMENT, CASE NO. 06-001, AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-004, INCLUDING
IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE
FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD; LAND USE ELEMENT,
RECLASSIFICATION'OF 1U ACRESFROM .COMMUNITY FACILITIES
, -' TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND CONSISTENT'
REZONING FROM AG~ICUL TURE TO RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH);
AND LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 1.2 ACRES FROM
AGRICULTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND CONSISTENT
REZONING OF THIS 1.2 ACRES AND AN ADJOINING 8.9 ACRES OF
ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS FROM AGRICULTURE TO
PUBLIC FACILITY (PF), AS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE.
. >," .
.0:.", ,..
-. r
, " '~.
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande on May 9, 2006 Considered and approved
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD),
J.H. Land, and John Taylor regarding the above proposals for circulation and access
improvements, land use and zoning changes and related mitigation measures; and,
WHEREAS, the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan adopted October 9,
2001, evaluated environmental impacts associated with numerous circulation, land use
and zoning alternatives, but did not address potential changes involving public agency
owned properties; and
WHEREAS, area and site specific DEIR was prepared in December 1990 for GPA 89-
3, PD Rezoning 89-215 and proposed development project known as Vista del Mar,
including the same circulation and more substantial land use and zoning proposals, and
'WHER~AS, the Community Development Department has conducted current initial
studies and concluded that environmental impacts associated with the MOU and
proposed circulation and land use changes will be mitigated to less than significant as
outlined in a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 23, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of the' draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the
Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate and adequate pursuant to State and local
, CEQA laws and guidelines,; and ' "
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff
report; all testimony and evidence presented, finds the proposed Castillo del Mar Drive
improvement and extensions necessary for the public health, safety and welfare and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
consistent with adopted Circulation Transportation Element policies, particularly CT3-
4.2; and ,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff report
regarding Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space and Urban Area Land Use
Elements, all testimony and evidence presented finds the proposed land use and
zoning map changes as shown on Attachments 1 and 2 to be appropriate and
consistent with the intent of 2001 General Plan Update adopted policies, including LU2-
2, LU2-2.1 and LU2-2.4, and Ag1! Ag1-1.2, Ag1-4, Ag1-4.1 and Ag1-4.2; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Tentative Parcel Map Case No.
06-004, General Plan Amendments and Development Code Amendments Case Nos.
06-001 will not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare and that the City
Council will determine the adequacy of proposed in-lieu mitigation contribution
regarding loss of prime farmland soils which cannot be avoided by any feasible
alternatives.
'NOW, THERE"FORE, BE '""(RESOLVED thatth'ePlanningCommission recommends to
the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-
004, General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, and Development Code Amendment
Case No. 06-001, including the improvement and extension of Castillo Del Mar Drive
between Orchard Street and Valley Road be approved as depicted on map
Attachments 1 and 2.
BE IT FURTHER RESOl VEO by the Planning Commission that:
1) the City Council agendize discussion of General Plan Policy Ag1-4 regarding
"threshold of significance" criteria to clarify whether the Commission should
decide the necessity of EIR's on a case by case basis when loss of prime
farmland soils is involved, and
2) the Lucia Mar Unified School District consider abandonment and removal of the
asphalt road or driveway from Valley Road along the southwest edge of the
existing high school property to the parking lot to offset the new pavement of
Castillo Del Mar Drive extension and maintain as much prime farmland soil in
production as possible, at least until off-site permanent agricultural conservation
easement is actually acquired by the mitigation in-lieu fee, possibly used for high
school agricultural education purposes.
On motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Tait, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:Brown, Tait, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of July 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
ATTEST: .
KATHY MENDOZA
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR
\ ,,<
;' ~.. _;-__c,< -
\11' ;, ('> .'-
. "''- I
" .... ~ ".-
;,
,-IT\I :""\':: ~ r;~r.." ,...... .f': '.. .... '"' ::
2'~;;:~~: ~:' ~:~',:; 'i:.. ~~.;':':.::~:~:;' : I :'~': ":-.
ATTACHMENT 7
DATE:
luV\.e 1.6. 200h
-
,fjI ...;...
PROJECT REFERRAL g f?Jtt/.
"""" .......'1...
~ /,(]t~~~,..
r- ..... .
Project Name & Numbe 'Z,=, ."....
. ,A
c;eVl.tYCl" PLCl"" AlMe""vl""'-l""t No'/DI:>-001.
DeveLol'lMe..u' coole AlMeVldlMe""t No. OG-001. ~
n",tCltLve PClyceL MClt> No. 0ii>-00.<f
.
'''>\
. ~.
\.:..
,
TO:
.' -?U?co....""ttl. A@. CoIMIMLssw""
. Att",-: .. LtJVcolCl A....cI1L"-ClcI1Le .
c'
FROM:
ROb stYO"'{I. COIMIM....""LttJ DeveLo.:plMe""t DLyectoy
Phone #: (805) 473-5420
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: cLttl-t~ttCltJol l'YQf>osClL ClS foLLows: 1) Te""tCltLve PClyceL MCll' foy Cl""
Cll'l'YOxt~~t~5!'.-fc~e t'~Oj>~yt-l1 tVl.cL....olt""0 ClVld so....tl1eClst of AYYOtlo c;YClVlde H-Lgl1 scl100L CClIM~lA.S to CyeClte Cl
3,3-ClCye pClYC~L ~~ ~'~ ~~~~~Yel'Cl;~~~~ ~o Ya~~ ~10~~c;e l'O~to~":~ tke ~-dcYe pClYcelfo~^A~'ri.cl:tLti.t~t'
(A@) to 'P....bLtc FClctlttLes (PF). ClVld Cl""'-lVld tl1e :2001 c;eVl.tYCll PlCl"" UlVld (,Ise 5lelMe",t to yeolosL@"-Clte tl1e
11-tlCye pClycel fyOI'\<. COI'\<.I'\<.....~ttl FClctlLtLes (CF) to Low De"-Stt!::j sL~le-FCll'\<.tll::j Rf.$tole~..ttCll (SF-LD) ClVld
to Yezo~ tl1e :!.:!.-ClCye l'ClyceL.{Yo"", Agnc....ltuye (A@) to R.estcle~ttll H-tlLstcle (RH)::2) n""tcitLve PClycel MCll'
fOY Cl"" Cl:P:PYOxtIMClte l?-ClCye ptlYcel Cloljot""tvco liVId so....t\-; of Arrotlo c;YClVlde H-tgl1 scl100l CClIM~lA.S 0"" tl1e eClst
stole of vCllletl ROClol to CyeClte Cl 1.:2-ClCye l'Clycel ClVld Cl 1:>.l?-CiCye pClycel ClVld CllMeVld tl1e :2001 c;p.Vl.tYCll PlCl""
UrVld (,Ise 6Lel'\<.e~ to olesL@"-Clte tl1e 1.:2-ClCye l'Clycel {YOIM A@nc....Lt....Ye (A@) to COIMIM....""tttl FClctLttLes (CF)
Cl""ol Yezo~ tl1e 1.:2-ClCye pClycel fyolM A@ (A@) to p....bLLc FClctLttLes (PF): 3) To olestg"". co",strnct. extevcCl ClVld
tlM1'Yove CtlsttLlo Del MClY Dn.ve .fYOIM Vl.tClY Oycl1ClYol styeet to VCllletl ROCld to e""ClbLe ctYC....LCltw'" ClYo....VId
.A;'i.~tjC ~i"c.:l-td~ H~l-; ~.c.~':~d- !!:.....? !!.t~.I'I~../ '.{l.:,.n.r. .;tvnr or..r.1c.c. p.xtPV'.~t&.~".~Pl,&tr.(p...st..t.Q_~~LQ.1?osed CouV\,t~
s....boltvtsto"" ~"-Ow"" ClS lSuswli TYClCt No. 1>'.~ LocClteol o....tstcle tl1e cttl:j ltlMtts:.<f) TO Clccent Cl'" l""-Lte....
~ttteCltto"" co""tYtb....tto"" foy loss of Cl1':pYOxIIMCltel~ 1-ClCye of l'Yt""'-l fClYlMlClVld ClssoctClteol wttl1'tYOj>oseol YOClv(
exte""sLo"" ClVld pote""tLCll co""veysLo"" of j>YtlMe fClYYi<.lClVld to f....t....Ye p....blLc fClCllLtl::j ....se..
PROJECT LOCATION:
'Poytw""s of APN'S 00G-00J5-001 S 001:>-0'15-002 (Cloliot""tvco ArrolAo C;YCl",v(e
_ _ .... - 'O,J
H-tol1 Scl100VvClllelA ROClol/FClty OClR5 AVe.).
- v
Please return this letter with your comments attached no later than ,...."-t 30. :2001:>.
. -
. .
PART I. IS THE ATTACHED INFORMATION ADEQUATE FOR YOU TO DO YOUR REVIEW?
,.............-V'ES (Please go on to PART 11.)
NO . (Call me ASAP to discuss' what else you need.)
PART II. ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS, PROBLEMS OR IMPACTS IN YOUR AREA
OF REVI~~O Wlease goon to PABT ilL}.
,.";
YES
(Please describe impacts, ~Iong with recommended mitigation measures to reduce the
impacts to less-than-significarit levels, and attach to this letter.)
PART III.. INDICATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ACTION. Please attach any
conditions of approval you recommend to be incorporated into the project' s approval, or state reasons for
recommending denial. IF YOU HAVE" 1\10 COMMENT", PLEASE SO INDICATE, OR CALL.
., ~ ",.." ,. ; .,~'.' '
~ Jr7/ ;)9/ ~(o
Da1e '
L-/4. )h64 A uc-flt J.J Ac(l/F
Name
7~/-S9/tj
Phone
T11Cl,d~ l:Jou!