The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2006-11-14 CITY OF City Council � ' � � � � ' Agenda , ' Tony Ferrare Mayor Steven Adams City Manager � Jim Guthrie Mayor Pro Tem �M1 Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Jim Dickens Councfl Member p�. 1", Kelly Wetmore City Clerk 'V';�'/CALIFORNIA Joe Costello Council Member � � � � �"- Ed Arnold Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 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: COUNCIL/RDA 3. FLAG SALUTE: CUB SCOUT DEN #4 OF PACK 13 4. INVOCATION: PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH PASTOR GEORGE LEPPER 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 — NOVEMBER 14, 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 Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action.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. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period October 16, 2006 through October 31, 2006. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 26, 2006; the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meeting of October 10, 2006; and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of October 10, 2006, as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Reiection of Claim Filed Auainst the Citv — D. McCallister (W ETMORE) Recommended Action: Reject claim. 8.d. Consideration of Authorization to Close Citv Streets for the 4w Annual Arrovo Grande Villaste Imarovement Association Christmas Parade. November 26. 2006 (AEILTS) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution authorizing closure of City streets for the 4"' Annual Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association Christmas Parade. AGENDA SUMMARY — NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA(continuedl: 8.e. Consideration of Transient Occupancv Tax Revenue Sharinq Aqreement for the Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel Proiect (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) agreement with Arroyo Grande Inn-Vestment, LLC for the Hampton Inn & Suites hotel project. 8.f. Consideration of A�proval of At�reements for Financial Advisor. Underwriter and Disclosure Counsel to the Redevelooment As�encv for Issuance of Bond Financina (ADAMS) [COUNCIL/RDA] Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors approve and authorize the MayoNChair to execute agreements with Harrell & Company Advisors for financial advisor, E.J. De La Rosa for undervvriter; and Jones Hall for disclosure counsel for tax allocation bond financing proposed by the Redevelopment Agency. 8.g. Consideration of Auaroariation of Funds for Startup Costs for East Grand Avenue Business Imarovement Association (ADAMS) [COUNCIL/RDA] Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors appropriate and authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to expend an additional $3,000 for startup costs for the formation of an East Grand Avenue Business Improvement Association. 8.h. Consideration of Resolution Denvinq Without Preiudice Vestins� Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Develoament Case No. 04-001: Aaalicant — DB&M Properties. LLC: Location — 415 East Branch Street (STRONG/HEFFERNON) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution denying, without prejudice, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04- 001 (Creekside Mixed-Use Center). 8.i. Consideration of a Contract Amendment with Wood Rods�ers. Inc. to Include a Northbound Auxiliarv Lane in the Brisco Road-Haicvon Road/Route 101 Proiect Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Approve a contract amendment with Wood Rogers, Inc. to include a northbound auxiliary lane in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. 8.j. Consideration of a Contract Amendment with Wood Rods�ers, Inc. to Include a Roundabout Feasibilitv Analvsis in the Brisco Road-Halcvon Road/Route 101 Proiect Aparoval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Approve a contract amendment with Wood Rogers, Inc. to include a roundabout feasibility analysis in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. AGENDA SUMMARY— NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 4 8. CONSENT AGENDA (continuedl: 8.k. Consideration of an SHAISTP Coo�erative As�reement with the San Luis Obisno Council of Governments (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL- 01; and 2) Direct the Director of Administrative Services to submit the SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL-01 and the adopted resolution to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of an Aoaeal of Planninsa Commission's Aoproval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015 to Convert Twelve (12) of the Sixtv 160) Previouslv Aaaroved Condominium Units from Two 12) Bedrooms to Three 13) Bedrooms; Aaalicant — Ocean Oaks Builders: Location — 579 Camino Mercado (STRONG/HEFFERNON) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015. 9.b. Consideration of Develooment Code Amendment 06-003. Neis�hborhood Plan 04-001. Vestins� Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit Develooment 04- 002; Aaalicant — Creekside Estates of Arrovo Grande. LLC: Location — 9 Acres East of Nos�uera Place and North of East Cherrv Avenue Extension (Cherrv Creek Proiectl (HEFFERNON) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) Planning Commission recommends the Council introduce an Ordinance implementing Development Code Amendment No. 06-003; and further recommends the Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-002 and Planned Unit Development No. 04- 002. � 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Consideration of Apuroval of Lease Anreement between the Citv of Arrovo Grande and the 5 Cities Communitv Services Foundation (HERNANDEZ/CARMEL) Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Lease Agreement with the 5 Cities Community Services Foundation, leasing City owned real property located at 400 West Branch Street to the 5 Cities Community Services Foundation for a proposed public recreation facility. 11. NEW BUSINESS: None. AGENDA SUMMARY — NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 5 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. Request staff to provide alternatives for consideration of changes to traffic study requirements in the City's traffic study policy. (ARNOLD) 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. 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 .«�«*�..**.*�*+.��.�.. 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 549542. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovoqrande.orq .......................... City CouncillRedevelopment 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-span.orp. � pRROYp S�a� � c'P � INCORPORr1TED yZ U m MEMORANDUM * JULY 10, 1911 * P 4��FORN� TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE�� BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR� SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period October 16 through October 31, 2006. FUNDING: There is a $987,119.59 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 128664-128845 $ 570,258.06 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 416,861.53 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 staff's recommendation; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; • Provide direction to staff. ' Attachments: Attachment 1— October 16— October 31, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register Attachment 2— October 27, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register ATTACHMENTI apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 1 11/O6/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor SUtus ClearNoid Date Invofce Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 128664 10/18/2006 000403 MAINTENANCE 101806 10/18/2006 20.00 20.00 128665 10/18/2006 004478 AG CAREER FIREFIGHTERS OCT 2006 10/16/2006 450.00 450.00 128666 10/18/2006 000718 ARROYO GRANDE FIRE OCT 2006 10/16/2006 330.00 330.00 128667 10/18/2006 000719 ARROYO GRANDE POLICE OCT 2006 10/16/2006 2,096.00 2,096.00 128668 10/18/2006 000039 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PPE 10/5/06 10/11/2006 51,715.75 51,715.75 128669 10/18/2006 003112 CA ST FRANCHISE TAX FTB GARN-10/13/06 10/16/2006 590.43 590.43 128670 10/18/2006 000726 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP DC PPE 10/5/O6 10/16/2006 7,345.00 7,345.00 128671 10/18/2006 000728 MID-STATE BANK&TRUST PPE 10/5/06 10/11/2006 252,757.85 252,757.85 128672 10/18/2006 000729 PERS- RETIREMENT PPE 10/5/06 10/05/2006 76,927.75 76,927.75 128673 10/18/2006 003113 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, OCT 2006 10/16/2006 110.65 110.65 128674 10/18/2006 000732 S.E.I.U. LOCAL 620 SEIU PPE 10/5/06 10/16/2006 929.07 929.07 128675 10/18/2006 004122 DAPHNE SPAGNOLO GARN-SPAGNO 10/16/2006 1,231.00 1,231.00 128676 10/18/2006 000734 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA ARS 13159413 10/16/2006 2,005.57 2,005.57 128677 10/18/2006 000736 UNITED WAY OCT 2006 10/16/2006 5.00 5.00 128678 10/19/2006 005828 MIKE HANNEGAN Ref000071772 10/10/2006 152.20 152.20 128679 10/20/2006 002627 STEVEN ADAMS 091306 09/13/2006 786.97 786.97 128680 10/20/2006 000009ADDICTION MED 100306 10/03/2006 49.50 49.50 128681 10/20/2006 004815AIRGAS WEST INC 103192492 09/30/2006 18.10 18 �� 128682 10/20/2006 005829 AK&COMPANY 001 10/06/2006 550.00 550.00 128683 10/20/2006 001050AMERICAN TEMPS INC 45489 10/10/2006 1,086.40 00045402 10/01/2006 1,054.44 00045488 10/10/2006 93�2$ 3,078.12 128684 10/20/2006 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 6AA00036 10/10/2006 275.73 275.73 Page: 1 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 2 17/O6/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa � Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total � 128685 10/20/2006 003175AQUA-METRIC SALES 0014493 10/11/2006 181.93 �8� 93 � 128686 10/20/2006 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 31964 09/30/2006 71.32 71.32 128687 10/20/2006 005615AT&T/MCI 9/11-5400 09/11/2006 1,757.62 1,757.62 128688 10/20/2006 000058 BANK OF AMERICA V 10/20/2006 0.00 0.00 128689 10/20/2006 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 10/8-9444 10/OS/2006 2,825.17 4024-4280 10/08/2006 2,047.48 10/8-9163 10/08/2006 1,604.80 10/8-2031 10/OS/2006 1,170.78 10/8-9436 10/08/2006 1,144.34 10/8-7762 10/08/2006 1,061.56 10/8-2059 09/18/2006 644.17 10/8-4272 10/08/2006 519.12 10/8-2083 10/08/2006 208.13 10/8-2091 10/08/2006 -203.45 11,022.10 128690 10/20/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL& LUMBER 130685 10/13/2006 6.72 6.�2 128691 10/20/2006 001577 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA) 8748 10/06/2006 963.81 8820 10/09/2006 �18.Z� 1,682.02 128692 10/20/2006 005830 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL 06101204 10/12/2006 425.00 425.00 128693 10/20/2006 004565 CAR SERVICE CENTER, INC 41356 10/11/2006 125.75 41409 10/11/2006 60.82 41405 10/10/2006 56.34 41389 10/16/2006 40.75 41362 10/12/2006 40.75 41406 10/14/2006 40.75 41416 10/11/2006 40.75 405.91 128694 10/20/2006 004746 CENTRAL COAST 1143 10/17/2006 100.00 100.00 128695 10/20/2006 003988 CENTRAL COAST 42425 09/24/2006 100.00 100.00 128696 10/20/2006 005834 CITY OF MOORPARK 102006 10/20/2006 315.00 315.00 128697 10/20/2006 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 746783 10/06/2006 575.00 575.00 Page: 2 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 3 11/O6/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 128698 10/20/2006 002842 COMMERCIAL 1006-1086 10/09/2006 200.00 200.00 128699 10/20/2006 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 10255 10/09/2006 610.79 610.79 128700 10/20/2006 005365 CPRS 101806 10/18/2006 45.00 45.00 128701 10/20/2006 000206 DEAN'S MUFFLER & 363613 10/01/2006 50.00 50.00 128702 10/20/2006 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 10917056 10/09/2006 225.77 10881638 10/03/2006 30.78 10925465 10/10/2006 15.86 10881640 10/03/2006 -8� ZO 191.21 128703 10/20/2006 000210 DIESELRO, INC 20281 10/11/2006 528.94 20216 10/05/2006 412.13 20268 10/10/2006 283.79 20241 10/05/2006 Z�z.52 20299 10/11/2006 25.50 1,522.88 128704 10/20/2006 002210 DUNCAN PRINTING CO 10737 08/30/2006 244.53 244.53 128705 10/20/2006 004164 FEDEX 8-439-48557 10/11/2006 93.25 8-426-50557 10/11/2006 �S.�z 8-426-50557 09/22/2006 16.03 128.00 128706 10/20/2006 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 101306 10/13/2006 15.00 15.00 128707 10/20/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK& KEY 24013 10/09/2006 42.36 24021 10/10/2006 14.16 56.52 128708 10/20/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 101306 10/13/2006 162.00 162.00 128709 10/20/2006 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 10/6-200 N 10/06/2006 133.11 10/9350 10/09/2006 1 Zz.42 10/9-1375 10/09/2006 8� �8 336.71 128710 10/20/2006 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 61256 09/05/2006 881.60 61257 09/OS/2006 455.56 1,337.16 128711 10/20/2006 000292 HACH COMPANY 4886783 10/OS/2006 204.05 204.05 Page: 3 apckHist Check History Listing Page:a 11/06/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 128712 10/20/2006 005272 HAMILTON COATINGS 1309 10/11/2006 169.34 169.34 128713 10/20/2006 005831 BOB HANNA 12801 10/11/2006 1,200.00 1,200.00 128714 10/20/2006 002405 CHUCK HARE 101306 10/18/2006 36.00 36.00 128715 10/20/2006 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS & 22652 09/14/2006 445.51 22705 09/22/2006 367.53 22656 09/15/2006 56.84 869.88 128716 10/20/2006 002820 INDOFF, INC 800805 09/18/2006 138.79 138.79 _ 128717 10/20/2006 000339 INTERSTATE SALES 2067 09/21/2006 2,050.09 2,050.09 128718 10/20/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 147060 10/12/2006 69.85 154796 09/14/2006 4 �� 74 02 128719 10/20/2006 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 191119 10/12/2006 101.73 101.73 128720 10/20/2006 005201 JAS PACIFIC INC BI 9043 10/11/2006 5,832.00 5,832.00 128721 10/20/2006 005833 KERN TURF SUPPLY INC 321012 10/09/2006 315.10 315.10 128722 10/20/2006 004020 KERN'S FITZGERALD 70118 09/15/2006 113.42 113.42 128723 10/20/2006 003949 KERN'S PAPER 18432 09/19/2006 440.26 18394 09/27/2006 369.48 18627 10/04/2006 173.75 983.49 128724 10/20/2006 001136 DOUG LINTNER 101306 10/18/2006 36.00 36.00 128725 10/20/2006 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070122/070123/070124 10/17/2006 450.00 450.00 128726 10/20/2006 005832 MAYS, PAMELA 101206 10/12/2006 20.00 20.00 128727 10/20/2006 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING & 101606 10/16/2006 10,666.90 10,666.90 128728 10/20/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 104053 10/08/2006 42.88 104210 10/09/2006 36.44 121164 10/11/2006 34.78 104408 10/11/2006 30.51 104189 10/09/2006 13.82 Page:4 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 5 71/06/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 104400 10/11/2006 �� 9 104328 10/10/2006 9.08 103908 10/06/2006 8.03 103946 10/07/2006 5.89 121181 10/11/2006 5.35 104060 10/OS/2006 3•�� 201.14 128729 10/20/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS172231 10/O6/2006 37.48 37.48 128730 10/20/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 355880073-001 10/06/2006 116.83 354117276-001 10/11/2006 99 3� 356447999-001 10/06/2006 ��•�� 351509384-001 09/01/2006 55.66 35561210 5-001 10/06/2006 19.95 355481804-001 10/02/2006 �8�0 387.52 125731 10/20/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 10/11-620838 10/11/2006 204.93 10/11-781296 10/11/2006 15.66 220.59 128732 10/20/2006 002413 PACIFIC SOIL STABILIZATION 13340 10/09/2006 1,198.93 1,198.93 128733 10/20/2006 000513 BEAU PRYOR 100706 10/19/2006 825.00 825.00 128734 10/20/2006 000519 R&B AUTO BODY 101006 10/10/2006 787.19 �a� �9 128735 10/20/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 101306 10/18/2006 90.00 90.00 128736 10/20/2006 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 101306 10/18/2006 45.00 45.00 128737 10/20/2006 004365 DANIEL RUIZ 101306 10/18/2006 45.00 45.00 128738 10/20/2006 002932 RUTAN 8 TUCKER, LLP 483772 09/21/2006 609.54 609.54 128739 10/20/2006 000538 S& L SAFETY PRODUCTS 132774 10/13/2006 321.43 321.43 128740 10/20/2006 000562 SLO COUNTY TAX 047,125,002 86 10/20/2006 348.88 007,774,012 53 10/20/2006 42.00 062,074,012 75 10/20/2006 28.66 006,085,025 31 10/20/2006 12.00 006,085,02619 10/20/2006 7.00 006,085,024 64 10/20/2006 7.00 Page: 5 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 6 11/06/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check ToWI 006,085,023 86 10/20/2006 � �� 452.54 128741 10/20/2006 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 16002 10/01/2006 6,994.40 6,994.40 128742 10/20/2006 000609 BOB SPEAR 101306 10/18/2006 36.00 36.00 128743 10/20/2006 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY 33779 10/11/2006 3,083.44 3,083.44 128744 10/20/2006 004876 THOMSON-WEST/BARCLAYS 01900001 09/26/2006 104.00 104.00 128745 10/20/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1015432 10/13/2006 26229 262.29 128746 10/20/2006 002137 VERIZON WIREIESS 2079032665 10/04/2006 253.17 253.17 128747 10/20/2006 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 761419 09/27/2006 682.81 761811 10/12/2006 z3_�3 705.94 128748 10/20/2006 000866 JAMIE WHARTON 101306 10/13/2006 30.00 30.00 128749 10/20/2006 000865 RON WHARTON 101306 10/18/2006 15.00 15.00 128750 10/23/2006 000557 SLO COUNTY EMS AGENCY 102306 10/23/2006 500.00 500.00 128751 10/27/2006 000723 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL PPE 10/19/06 10/26/2006 10,389.56 10,389.56 128752 10/27/2006 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 1912 10/11/2006 3,492.50 1928 10/13/2006 20.00 3,512.50 128753 10/27/2006 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5245715GI 10/15/2006 33.98 L525272GJ 10/15/2006 11.33 45.31 128754 10/27/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 45533 10/17/2006 1,089.80 1,089.80 128755 10/27/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS V 10/27/2006 0.00 0.00 128756 10/27/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS F776454 09/12/2006 121.45 F782352 09/19/2006 5224 F027705 OS/29/2006 47.62 F027837 OS/29/2006 44.93 F028078 OS/29/2006 44.93 F788155 09/26/2006 31.26 F770669 09/O5/2006 22.55 F782332 09/19/2006 20.44 Page: 6 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: � 11/O6/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor SWtus ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total F770664 09/05/2006 19.60 F776453 09/12/2006 �a z0 F782331 09/19/2006 �$•z� F788157 09/26/2006 1$•z0 F782341 09/19/2006 17.53 F770674 09/05/2006 17.25 F770663 09/05/2006 16.80 F770670 09/OS/2006 16.55 F776467 09/12/2006 15.00 F78S 171 09/26/2006 15.00 - F788175 09/26/2006 14.00 F776461 09/12/2006 11.80 F788165 09/26/2006 �� 8� F776460 09/12/2006 11.30 F770685 09/05/2006 11.20 F770678 09/05/2006 10.35 F782345 09/19/2006 10.35 F776466 09/12/2006 9.50 F788170 09/26/2006 9.50 F776471 09/12/2006 8.96 F782337 09/19/2006 $•80 F788164 09/26/2006 8 80 F770680 09/OS/2006 8.50 F782347 09/19/2006 8.50 F770677 09/05/2006 6.00 F782344 09/19/2006 6.00 F770679 09/05/2006 5.00 F782346 09/19/2006 5.00 � F776469 09/12/2006 3.08 F782338 09/19/2006 z 80 F770683 09/05/2006 2.80 F788173 09/26/2006 2 a� F027598 08/29/2006 2.68 F027595 OS/29/2006 2.68 F027589 08/29/2006 Z.68 F027590 08/29/2006 2.68 F027593 08/29/2006 2.6$ Page: 7 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: e 11/06/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total F027597 08/29/2006 2.6$ F027592 08/29/2006 z.6$ F027591 08/29/2006 Z.6$ F027586 08/29/2006 Z•6$ F027596 OS/29/2006 Z 68 761.39 128757 10/27/2006 004042 APA PLANNERS BOOK 101906 10/19/2006 74.45 74.45 128758 10/27/2006 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES 0014450 10/09/2006 7,360.05 7,360.05 128759 10/27/2006 005507 AT&T 489-9867 10/OS/2006 78.36 271-7480 10/07/2006 67.64 146.00 128760 10/27/2006 005615AT&T/MCI T5597377 09/11/2006 2,269.09 T5597389 09/11/2006 9�.62 T5571577 09/07/2006 8$•32 T5587961 09/08/2006 31.63 T5587963 09/08/2006 30.62 T5597372 09/11/2006 1� 9$ 2,529.26 128761 10/27/2006 000065 BRENDA BARROW 101906 10/19/2006 180.93 180.93 128762 10/27/2006 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH SEPT 2006 09/30/2006 259.00 259.00 128763 10/27/2006 000084 THE BOXX EXPRESS 103 10/17/2006 13.21 13.21 128764 10/27/2006 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 34276 10/18/2006 462.09 34192 10/16/2006 193.32 655.41 128765 10/27/2006 003053 CID CABRIALES 101106 10/11/2006 450.00 450.00 128766 10/27/2006 005843 CALIFORNIA 5381423 09/30/2006 25.89 Z5.a9 128767 10/27/2006 004565 CAR SERVICE CENTER, INC 41453 10/18/2006 40.75 41378 10/13/2006 40.75 41468 10/19/2006 40.75 41367 10/12/2006 40.75 41370 10/12/2006 40.75 41386 10/16/2006 40.75 244.50 128768 10/27/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-112724 10/13/2006 63.10 Page: 8 i. i apckHist Check History Listing Page: s 11/06/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 113622 10/17/2006 49.30 113327 10/16/2006 11.58 7314-C103870 09/06/2006 11.39 7314-C103881 09/06/2006 ->>�39 123.98 128769 10/27/2006 005374 CARTRIDGE INK 381600 04/11/2006 347.28 381561 03/t4/2006 267.05 614.33 128770 10/27/2006 000160 CHAPARRAL 247766 10/23/2006 204.40 204.40 128771 10/27/2006 004440 CHOICEPOINT BUSINESS& A80001515611 09/30/2006 250.00 250.00 128772 10/27/2006 005835 COMPLETE WIRELESS 66740 10/16/2006 3,204.00 3,204.00 128773 10/27/2006 002868 MICHELLE COTA 101706 10/17/2006 107.53 107.53 128774 10/27/2006 000192 CROCKER'S LOCKERS 101706 10/17/2006 200.00 200.00 128775 10/27/2006 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 9/30-14273 09/30/2006 38.75 10/3-63949 10/03/2006 19.50 10/3-70931 10/03/2006 11.50 69.75 128776 10/27/2006 005671 DEATH RIAG E&CO. 4802 09/30/2006 99.00 4803 10/12/2006 99.00 198.00 128777 10/27/2006 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 13882213 09/05/2006 160.00 013871307 09/27/2006 75.00 013871052 09/07/2006 20.00 013874375 09/07/2006 20.00 13878066 09/O6/2006 20.00 295.00 128778 10/27/2006 000230 NADINE ELLIOTT 102506 10/25/2006 41.27 4�.2� 128779 10/27/2006 003289 EXXONMOBIL FLEET/GECC 11573833 10/07/2006 134.87 134.87 128780 10/27/2006 004164 FEDEX 8-452-27115 10/18/2006 20.85 20.85 128781 10/27/2006 004628 FIVE CITIES DUPLICATE 101806 10/18/2006 223.00 223.00 128782 10/27/2006 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 102306 10/23/2006 22.50 22.50 128783 10/27/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 102306 10/23/2006 54.00 54.00 Page: 9 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10 11/O6/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor SNatus ClearNoid Date invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 128784 10/27/2006 001718 GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, INC 0015964-0028178 09/27/2006 802.56 802.56 128785 10/27/2006 000286 GROENIGER&COMPANY 618762 10/18/2006 1,761.05 DISCOUNT/618762 10/18/2006 -17.61 1,743.44 128786 10127/2006 002405 CHUCK HARE 102306 10/23/2006 54.00 54.00 128787 10/27/2006 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY INC 115928 10/04/2006 175.49 CR01046 10/11/2006 -167.99 7.50 128788 10/27/2006 005836 JULIE HINDMAN 101806 10/18/2006 60.00 60.00 128789 10/27/2006 002820 INDOFF, INC 820325 10/13/2006 91.04 91.04 128790 10/27/2006 003730 INDUSTRIAL TOOL BOX 28159 10/06/2006 127.05 127.05 128791 10/27/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 153798 10/20/2006 206.69 206.69 128792 10/27/2006 000357 JOHNSON ENGINEERING 6473 10/16/2006 30.00 30.00 128793 10/27/2006 005265 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER, INC 102506 10/25/2006 862.40 862.40 128794 10/27/2006 004015 DAN LANGSTAFF 092706 09/27/2006 219.57 219.57 128795 10/27/2006 005837 WALTER LICHTEN 101806 10/18/2006 30.00 30.00 128796 10/27/2006 005845 JULIANNE LIMOLI 102506 10/25/2006 193.22 193.22 128797 10/27/2006 005511 CHRIS LINTNER 102306 10/23/2006 22.50 22.50 128798 10/27/2006 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 102006 10/20/2006 650.00 650.00 128799 10/27/2006 005838 MINDY MCLEOD 101806 10/18/2006 65.00 65.00 128800 10/27/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 105222 10/17/2006 130.12 105497 10/19/2006 46.11 121482 10/13/2006 38.59 120394 10/O5/2006 37.46 105329 10/18/2006 2� S� 120545 10/06/2006 z�.$6 104977 10/15/2006 ZS.�Z 105397 10/18/2006 24.64 Page: 10 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 11 11/O6/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNOid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 122062 10/18/2006 20.29 104790 10/13/2006 »z8 105371 10/18/2006 16.07 105082 10/16/2006 �2.86 105346 10/18/2006 11.77 � 104564 10/12/2006 9.64 122098 10/18/2006 8�� 105670 10/20/2006 5.34 105867 10/22/2006 4.82 105594 10/20/2006 3.22 105477 10/19/2006 � 81 469.48 128801 10/27/2006 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE 364 10/17/2006 900.00 365 10/17/2006 400.00 1,300.00 128802 10/27/2006 000832 NEXT DAY SIGNS 3037 05/25/2006 45.05 45.05 128803 10/27/2006 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 158690 09/08/2006 126.67 126.67 128804 10/27/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 356209916-001 10/06/2006 209.48 356801922-001 10/13/2006 126.58 356085362-001 10/06/2006 76.69 352580993-001 10/18/2006 67.02 357164079-001 10/24/2006 27.11 506.88 128805 10/27/2006 001886 OFFICEMAX-HSBC 04476J2481 10/06/2006 1,008.10 00527J2711 10/06/2006 14.65 1,022.75 128806 10/27/2006 005839 OHD 11884 10/09/2006 560.00 560.00 128807 10/27/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS &ELECTRIC 10/17-704689 10/17/2006 28.29 28.29 128808 10/27/2006 002413 PACIFIC SOIL STABILIZATION 13345 10/11/2006 461.18 461.18 128809 10/27/2006 005186 NAN PENNOCK 102706 10/27/2006 218.00 218.00 128810 10/27/2006 000489 DOUG PERRIN 102706 10/27/2006 45.00 45.00 128811 10/27/2006 000492 FETTY CASH 102706 10/27/2006 294.71 294.71 128812 10/27/2006 004158 PHOENIX GROUP 92006157 10/18/2006 123.75 123.75 Page: 11 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 12 11/06/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invofce Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 128813 10/27/2006 000975 PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE 21328976 10/15/2006 73.43 73.43 128814 10/27/2006 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 7147128-OT06 10/13/2006 165.00 165.00 128815 10/27/2006 005811 POWER PLUMBING INC 12531 10/09/2006 559.59 559.59 128816 10/27/2006 005426 REGIONAL TRAINING 102606 10/27/2006 489.00 489.00 128817 10/27/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 102306 10/23/2006 54.00 54.00 128818 10/27/2006 000536 GREG ROSE 102306 10/23/2006 54.00 54.00 128819 10/27/2006 005229 XOCHITL RUBIO 101806 10/18/2006 30.00 30.00 128820 10/27/2006 003649 CHARLES D(DON) RUIZ 702306 t0/23/2006 22.50 22.50 128821 10/27/2006 004365 DANIEL RUIZ 102306 10/23/2006 22.50 22.50 128822 10/27/2006 005840 KERRI SANTANA 101806 10/18/2006 30.00 30.00 128823 10/27/2006 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL CFN97040 10/15/2006 27.69 27.69 128824 10/27/2006 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 158566 10/18/2006 82.58 82.58 128825 10/27/2006 005209 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS 06-4514 10/18/2006 2,327.00 2,327.00 128826 10/27/2006 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY& 51123 10/18/2006 87.56 87.56 128827 10/27/2006 002499 MICHELE STEARNS 102706 10/27/2006 138.00 138.00 128828 10/27/2006 000616 STERLING 22211 10/09/2006 2,419.04 2,419.04 128829 10/27/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE& SUPPLY 51018836-001 10/10/2006 41.50 41.50 128830 10/27/2006 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 919 09/30/2006 27820 Z�a.z� 128831 10/27/2006 005841 MARY HELEN SWEET 27408A 10/18/2006 45.00 45.00 128832 10/27/2006 002904 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS 5152 10/16/2006 182.54 182.54 128833 10/27/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1015481 10/17/2006 182.63 1015503 10/17/2006 74.05 1015353 10/11/2006 z3.�4 280.42 Page: 12 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 13 11/06/2006 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor SWtus ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 128534 10/27/2006 005317 TRACE ANALYTICS, INC C06-5996 10/11/2006 140.00 C06-5984 10/11/2006 10.00 150.00 128835 10/27/2006005842RICKTRIMMER 101806 10/18/2006 30.00 30.00 128836 10/27/2006 001609 UC REGENTS-EFP 101906 10/19/2006 240.00 240.00 128837 10/27/2006 005252 ULTREX BUSINESS 64544 09/30/2006 233.16 233.16 128838 10/27/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS 60109700-001 10/12/2006 281.25 60051233-001 10/10/2006 46.75 328.00 128839 10/27/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2079849424 10/07/2006 341.92 2078979708 10/04/2006 304.01 2079960560 10/23/2006 52.35 2079795666 10/23/2006 37.32 2080182136 10/23/2006 32.33 767.93 128840 10/27/2006 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 761837 10/13/2006 225.22 376043 10/07/2006 88.00 761847 10/13/2006 15.00 760505 10/09/2006 15.00 343.22 128841 10/30/2006 001834 PAPA-PESTICIDE 103006 10/30/2006 260.00 260.00 128842 10/30/2006 005847 CRWA 102706 10/30/2006 150.00 150.00 128843 10/30/2006 000562 SLO COUNTY TAX 007,192,060 0 10/20/2006 342.78 342.78 128844 10/30/2006 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 093106 09/30/2006 52,309.60 52,309.60 128845 10/30/2006 000123 CA ST BOARD OF DG MT 57-425096 09/30/2006 392.83 392.83 boa Total: 570,258.06 182 checksinthisreport TotalChecks: 570,258.06 Page: 13 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 10/6/O6 -10/19/06 10/27/06 FUND 010 373,373.34 5101 Salaries Full time 212,519.21 FUND 220 16,912.01 5102 Salaries Part-Time- PPT 19,730.20 FUND 284 687.86 5103 Salaries Part-Time-TPT 10,609.67 FUND 285 687.90 5105 Salaries OverTime 13,033.52 FUND 612 6,675.67 5107 Salaries Standby 378.39 FUND 640 18,524.75 5108 Holiday Pay 1,458.85 416,861.53 5109 Sick Pay 5,760.40 5110 AnnualLeave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 Vacation Pay 7,362.70 5114 Comp Pay 3,499.38 5115 Annual Leave Pay 5,144.30 5121 PERS Retirement 72,195.18 5122 Social Security 18,896.94 5123 PARS Retirement 376.05 5126 State Disability Ins. 1,032.35 5127 Deferred Compensation 775.00 5131 Health Insurance 35,867.59 5132 Dentallnsurance 4,572.54 5133 Vision Insurance 1,077.67 5134 Life Insurance 584.83 5135 Long Term Disability 974.16 5143 Uniform Allowance 5144 Car Allowance 500.00 5146 Cauncil Expense 5147 Employee Assistance 237.60 5148 Boot Aliowance 5149 Motor Pay 75.00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00 416,861.53 S.b. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem 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 Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer pon Spagnolo, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, and Assistant Planner Ryan , Foster. 3. FLAG SALUTE Charles Howell and Aimee Clayton, representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Dr. Mayer-Harnish, Bahai Faith, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. i, 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only Council Member Dickens moved, Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Richard Hamilton, Walnut Street, stated that several letters had been written to the City regarding the unfinished and incomplete fire lane located at 345 Walnut Street, and requested a response from the City regarding the matter. Mayor Ferrara asked City Manager Adams to follow up with Mr. Hamilton on the issue. Robert Brownson, Asilo Street, read a letter into the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department) regarding misguided information presented to the Council in opposition to City Measure 0-06. He then spoke in favor of the City's sales tax measure. Joel Couser, Arroyo Grande, spoke in favor of City Measure O-O6. 8. 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. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Arnold seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.h., with the recommended courses of action. The motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period September 1, 2006 through September 15, 2006. 8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of August 31, 2006. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 22, 2006, as submitted. 8.d. Consideration to Approve Final Parcel Map AG 05-0198; Subdividing One (1) Parcel into Four (4) Residential Parcels at 263 Spruce Street. Action: Approved Final Parcel Map AG 05-0198, subdividing .43 acres into four (4) residential parcels. S.e. Consideration of an Award of Contract to Granite Construction for the 2006 Annual Maintenance Project, PW 2006-07. Action: 1) Awarded a contract for the 2006 Annual Maintenance Project, PW 2006-07 to Granite Construction in the amount of $249,252; 2) Authorized the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $15,000 for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; and 3) Directed staff to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed with other necessary contract documents. 8.f. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Formation of the Grace Lane Assessment District (Tract 2236); Approve and Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Funding and Reimbursement Agreement with the Petitioner to Reimburse City for Costs Incurred in Forming the District. Action: 1) Received the Petition requesting fortnation of an assessment district filed by Vista Roble, LLC, for operation and maintenance of improvements associated with Tract 2236; 2) Adopted Resolution No. 3953 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR FORMATION OF THE GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT'; and 3) Authorized the Mayor to enter into a Funding and Reimbursement Agreement with the Petitioner to reimburse the City for costs incurred in forming the Assessment District. 8.g. 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. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 581 as follows: "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". Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8.h. Consideration of Approval of the Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum of Understanding. Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to execute the proposed MOU. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of an Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-002; 270 North Halcyon Road (Continued from August 22, 2006). Assistant Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended the Council review the results of exploratory trenching performed on the site to determine the extent of the tree root zone and consider the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-002. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Joseph Echevarry, architect representing the applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. He confinned that a parking agreement had been reached between VCA and the church on the same side of the street; noted that a trench had been dug on the site and that the results of the arborist report speaks for itself. Mr. Echevarry and consulting arborist Wes Conner then responded to questions from Council regarding the placement of the building on the site, as well as issues concerning the trees. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. The followina oersons saoke in oaaosition to the qroiect as aroqosed: Sunni Vogel, Cornwell Avenue, presented a petition entitled "Save Our Neighborhood" with 44 signatures (on file in the Administrative Services Department) opposing the project expansion as proposed, citing impacts to the neighborhood as it relates to parking and traffic, building size as it relates to character of the neighborhood, loss of view, removal of mature trees, and zoning conflicts. Lisa Woodward, Short Street Wayne Allen, Cornwall Avenue property owner Ron Rawlinson, Corbett Canyon Road Jill Lysobey, Cornwall Avenue Sage Lysobey, Cornwall Avenue Lin Bird, Fairview Drive Dave Mullinax, Santa Barbara Stan Vogel, Morro Bay Gary Scherquist, Short Street Doug Tait, Asilo Street The followina �ersons sooke in favor of the oroiect as oroaosed: Jeanne Nix, VCA employee Rich Hagler, Stagecoach Road Carolyn Leveck, Victoria Way Christine Klopfer, Pearwood Avenue Terry Tosdale, VCA employee Louise Fott, Arroyo Grande resident Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 Dr. Steven Paulick, VCA Medical Director, noted that all employees are local residents and that the VCA's corporate status allows those employees to have health and retirement benefits. He also commented that there had been compromise on the hospital expansion plans through each step of the development review process. He noted that three Architectural Review Committee and two Planning Commission meetings were held and each time there had been compromise. He noted that moving the building away from the trees eliminates parking; that the proposed building is only 1,000 square feet larger than the existing building; and that the VCA has no plans to add additional staff, that they just need more space. In response to questions from Council, Ted Elder, arborist, addressed issues relating to the location and proximity of the existing trees to the building, and the potential impacts to the root system. He noted that the closer the building is to the trees, the harder it would be for the trees to survive. There were no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Spoke with a representative at Native Sons Nursery about eucalyptus trees and found that they are very resilient trees if maintained; - Acknowledged need to determine if any of the trees could be saved; - Referred to Municipal Code section 12.16.070 as it relates to regulated trees and tree removal in residential, mixed use or commercial zones; - After reading City's and applicanYs arborists reports, believed it is possible to construct the building and still save six of the trees; - Need to balance whether the requested expansion of the facility fits in with the neighborhood, fits on the site properly, whether it is going to affect quality of life, whether it would impact parking and the trees; - Supports project with retention of the six trees; if trees are trimmed and maintained, they will last a long time; - With regard to parking, not a wise alternative to move the building 24 feet from the trees as additional parking would be lost; - Acknowledged that the Police Department, which is next door, will expand to a two-story building in the future; - Did not want to see the VCA property turned into a parking lot; - Noted that a two-story building is allowed in this zoning district; - Acknowledged some impacts to the residential neighborhood; however, a community is a balance of commercial ventures and residences and impacts to the neighborhood will be minimal. - Supports moving forward with a plan to retain six of the trees; however, he would not support removal of all the trees. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Proposed building does not work with the shape of the site; - Concerned by applicanYs arborist who claims that with the building placed at 24 feet, all the trees should come out; - Noted that VCA is a large corporation and not a small business; however, he acknowledged that the employees are locals which is not unique for any large corporation; - Would require that Halcyon Road be widened as part of the proposed project; Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - Noted that project is in a residential neighborhood and felt there was a lack of a public outreach program with the neighbors conceming the project; - Suggested that there is an ability to put in a basement instead of a second story for storage purposes; - Believed that there are alternatives that have not been presented; will not support project presented tonight; , - Encouraged applicant to work out issues with the neighborhood. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: - Acknowledged that the issues are broad; more than just support of pets or preservation of trees; - Issue is not a matter of supporting small business while disregarding potential impacts; - Noted that the property is zoned commercial and it is expected that the property will, in the future, have some increase in commercial use; - Issue is to determine whether the proposed use for the project is appropriate based on the allowable density for this property; - Felt it was unfortunate that this has become a tree issue; - Noted that the trees are located on a property line, and therefore was precedent setting; - Noted that the type of eucalyptus trees are the same type planted along E. Grand Avenue; - Location of the building on the site is an issue that needs to be worked out with the applicant in a compromised approach; - Acknowledged the community need for expanded animal healthcare; it is important to support the City's businesses regardless of whether they are connected to a co,rporate franchise or not; - Project must balance needs of the neighborhood and the business; - Questioned whether the proposal is appropriate as it relates to size and scale of the neighborhood and also meeting the needs of the applicant; - Reviewed findings that must be made to apprnve the project and stated he could not agree that the site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed; and could not agree that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare (due to the proposed location of the lobby in proximity to Halcyon Rd); - Would vote to deny the project without prejudice to allow the applicant to come back with a modified project. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Stated there is a need to make a land use decision while balancing issues regarding the proposed building and the redevelopment of the property, the trees, and the neighborhood; - Acknowledged that the properly is located in a commercial zone wliich has the potential for a two-story building; understands the viewshed issue; however, if not allowed, wondered how that would impact future two-story projects on Grand Avenue; - Acknowledged site constraints; believed parking is an issue which must be accommodated; - When balancing between the neighborhood and the trees or the redevelopment of this property, he felt the trees should be removed; - Could approve the project as proposed; - Reiterated that the parking issue should be accommodated because the problem is created due to the desire to widen Halcyon Road; the City must resolve the parking issue; - Prepared to move forward with approval of the project; felt that there would be impacts to the neighborhood, however, those impacts are small compared to the impacts from denying this project. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Spoke about conflict resolution; - Reviewed chronology of the development review process and the suggested alternative proposal to position the building approximately 24 feet from the base of the trees; reviewed the results of the trenching done on the site to determine impacts to the root system; and stated that enough evidence has been presented that determined at least six of the trees would survive. He noted the tree issue is therefore back in the court of the VCA. - Acknowledged that there are other constraints on the site including Halcyon Road, Rena Street, the trees, as well as the VCA's desire to remain open during construction. - Believed that what is being proposed is out of scale for the lot; is curb to curb line; and agreed that it should go back to the drawing board; - Concurred with the Planning Commission's inability to make the required findings for approval of the project as proposed; - Cannot support the project as proposed. Action: Mayor Ferrara moved to adopt a Resolution, as amended, as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPEAL 06-001 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-002", and further moved that the applicant consider the following courses of action: Use all of the site; consider a redesign; consider a possible remodel; and if an altemative proposal is presented that affects day-to-day business at the existing site, work with staff to identify a site for temporary quarters such as modular buildings; and consider working with staff on the potential for relocating the project elsewhere within the City. Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Ferrara, Arnold, Dickens NOES: Costello, Guthrie ABSENT: None Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 8:50 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to move Item 11.a. up on the Agenda for consideration prior to item 9.b. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. Consideration of Information and Potential Action on Position to Support or Oppose Countywide Measure J - Dalidio Ranch. City Manager Adams presented the staff report and requested the Council consider information provided regarding Countywide Measure J - Dalidio Ranch project for discussion and possible action to oppose or support. He then introduced Ron DeCarli from San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and David Murray from Caltrans District 5 to make presentations. Ron DeCarii, representing SLOCOG, gave a presentation of SLOCOG's background as a Regional Transportation Agency and explained its 20-Year Transportation Infrastructure Plan; noted that SLOCOG staff had reviewed the Dalidio Ranch initiative (Measure J); reviewed potential impacts to regional facilities as a result of the project; reviewed staff concerns with the proposed traffic mitigation plan; reviewed potential implications to the regional funding program; and reviewed potential financing solutions assuming the initiative passes. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 David Murray, representing Caltrans District 5, gave a presentation that covered three principal concerns relating to the Dalidio Ranch Initiative, including traffic circulation, hydrology, and the cost of the Prado Road Interchange. Council questions of Mr. DeCarli and Mr. Murray ensued about what constitutes a Level of Service (LOS) F; concern about existing traffic conditions at Los Osos Valley Road and anticipated impacts to Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Road, and Highway 101 if the initiative passes; what the process is for re-prioritizing funding for regional transportation projects if the initiative passes; flood mitigation measures if the initiative passes; and the proposed Prado Road Interchange Project. Action: Ivlayor Ferrara moved to take a position to oppose Measure J based on impacts it will have on funding for other regional transportation projects in the pipeline, and Council Member Costello seconded the motion. Brief discussion ensued on the methods to be used to get the word out to the public on the reasons why the City opposes the Measure. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Ferrara, Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Arnold NOES: None ABSENT: None 9.b. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-003 and Planned Unit Development No. 05-007 for a Phased, Mixed-Use Development Located on Fair Oaks Avenue East of the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital; Applied for by Central Coast Real Estate Development. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and stated the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-003 and Planned Unit Development No. 05-007 for a Mixed Use project on Fair Oaks Avenue. She stated that staff recommended additional conditions of approval as follows: 1) "Phase 2 shall be developed as medical office space with surface parking that satisfies all mixed- use development standards for the OMU District and Design Overlay OMU D-2.20, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and related environmental analysis", and 2) "To ensure that Phase 2 is developed pursuant to hospital faciliry needs, prior to recordation of the final tract map, the applicant shall provide the City with an option to purchase agreement for the Phase 2 property, between the property owner and Catholic Healthcare West, subject to approval of the City Attorney". She also noted alternatives for Council consideration which included approving the project as proposed after deciding on the preferred drainage solution, Woodland Street extension, and acceptance of fees for loss of non-prime agricultural land; modify as appropriate and approve the project; do not approve the project; or provide direction to staff. Staff responded to questions from Council concerning the proposed project. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Gary Young, applicant, stated they were back from the March 14, 2006 meeting after making changes to the project as directed by the Council. He acknowledged the Development Code Amendment previously approved by the Council that would allow the proposed use on the property. He noted they had met on site with the various regulatory agencies concerning environmental issues on the site. He reviewed the revised drainage plan; reviewed changes to Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 the project including changes to the pedestrian path at the north end of the project, and movement of three buildings back from the pedestrian path; amended the tra�c study; noted that Arroyo Grande Community Hospital wants to maximize square footage for future expansion; confirmed that a streambed alteration permit has been submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game which is pending; agreed with the proposed mitigation fee for the loss of non- prime agricultural soils; confirmed that four parcels exist at the request of Catholic Healthcare West for a future plan; clarified that the other parcels cannot be sold off individually due to the Planned Unit Development configuration; confirmed that the porous pavers had been eliminated as directed by the Council and stamped concrete would be used instead; confirmed that there would be no detention basin, but the project would include bioswales; and confirmed that the proposed conceptual design for Phase 2 includes surface parking. Mr. Young responded to questions from Council regarding the proposed bioswales as it relates to drainage. David Foote, on behalf of the applicant, explained an arborist report and tree protection plan was included in the staff report and confirmed that a survey and evaluation had been conducted on all the trees located on the property. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Bardhyll Nushi, Cerro Vista Circle, expressed concern with the proposed extension of Woodland Drive and spoke in opposition to a mixed-use project going through the process with only a single use and not a comprehensive design for the entire site. He referred to S. Alpine Street and displayed several photos showing the existing termination of Woodland Drive, the narrowness of the road, no sidewalks, children having to play in the street, and opposed the extension of Woodland Drive. He appreciated the efforts the applicant has made to widen the bike and pedestrian path, but still thinks the buildings are closer than originally proposed. He referred to the proposed barricade and stated there was a paved area that should be maximized to include curbed parking spaces and some vehicle/pedestrian access and landscaping while still maintaining the emergency access. Barbara Washington, Cerro Vista Circle, expressed concern with drainage impacts behind her property. She displayed photos, suggested adding more trees, and noted the narrow width of the street and lack of sidewalks. Colleen Nushi, Cerro Vista Circle, spoke in opposition to the Woodland Drive extension and expressed concern for pedestrian and children safery. Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 10:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:50 p.m. Lisa Moylan, Vice-President for Patient Care Services at Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, read a letter from Rick Castro, Hospital President, into the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department), supporting the proposed project. She personally supported the proposed project and emphasized the need for a housing component near the hospital to aid in their recruitment efforts for medical professionals. She noted the Hospital needs time for an in-depth study to determine the future medical needs of the community. Arlene Rowan, S. Alpine, expressed concern about increases in traffic and opposed the Woodland Drive extension. She also expressed concern with the lack of existing sidewalks in the area. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, Septem6er 26, 2006 Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Amold provided the following comments: - With regard to the traffic issue, not extending Woodland Drive equals poor planning; - Believes there are mitigation measure to address traffic concems, inGuding speed humps, bulbouts, stop signs, and/or increased Police enforcement; noted that the existing stub-out was put there with the intention to extend the street; - Believed that the proposed project had been improved; - Expressed concem with parking; however, he acknowledged that development standards have been met; - Stated that Woodland should be 40 foot wide with speed humps and bulbouts; would provide additional parking; - Noted that there are mature eucalyptus trees on the Phase 2 site; would like to see planting of street trees today (along the west side of Woodland) to mitigate the loss of Vees that would come down on the property in 10 or 20 years; - Expressed concem with the driveways; should include more decorative concrete instead of plain asphalt; - Suggested that stucco be sand or smooth; - Expressed concem with the creek bank; need to survey the condition of the creek bank; - Noted that condition#10 and #58 need to match conceming hours of operation; - Include condition regarding build out as one project in Phase 1; - InGude mitigation on S. Alpine for traffic calming. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: - Noted that condition #110 requires Phase 2 to be developed as medical office space with surface parking that satisfies all mixed use development standards for the Office Mixed Use disVict and design overiay; - Appreciates applicanYs willingness to offer a mitigation fee for the loss of agricultural land on the site; - Disagrees with staffs analysis regarding the .074 acre piece of land; should be looked at as an agricultural piece of properly and be identified and mitigated accordingly; - Suggested adding a mitigation measure 2.2 stating that the applicant shall mitigate the loss of non-prime farmland at a ratio of 1:1 or the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee as specified by the City; - Stated it is in the City's best interest to extend Woodland Drive to the north without the gate/knox box and eliminate condition#8; not necessary to install traffic calming devices; - Noted that porous pavers had been eliminated; supports use of stamped concrete; - Supports enlarged pedesUian walkway; - Referred to water quality issues as it relates to the drainage; supports proposal; - Supports the projects with minor modifications as suggested; - Supports widening Woodland Drive now to allow additional parking. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Questioned whether Woodland Drive needs to go through at this time; however, recommended widening now for additional parking spaces, leaving as a blocked street, and reconsider extending the street in Phase 2; - Supported removal of porous pavers and using stamped concrete instead; - SuppoRed Council Member Dickens's suggestion to add formal mitigation measure for the agricultural land; Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - Suggested being mindful in how the outflow is being directed; needs to be fixed; - Supports the project however, recommended keeping the sVeet blocked. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Number one concem was the mixed use split (75%/25%) and supports the change in the General Plan language; - Drainage proposal is a good plan; - Supported change to pedestrian path entrance; - Suppo�ted agricultural land mitigation; supports proposed buffer, - Would see a solution to the erosion problem on the creek bank; - Questioned that the Woodland Drive extension will be a significant circulation improvement; dces not oppose opening; however, suggested formally studying and reviewing after 18 months to determine Vaffic impacts; - Expressed more concern about increase in traffic when the commercial component is built; - Supported widening of the road; - Supported the project. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Is proponent of through circulation to facilitate flow of tra�c; however, this is not one of those instances; - RefeRed to traffic study and noted that the Level of Service deals primarily with the number of traffic trips and dces not address safety issues. - Dces not favor increasing traffic in this neighborhood at this time; could open up as experiment in Phase 2; - Would not favor road extension without traffic calming devices such as speed humps; - Supported standard street width for Woodland Drive; - Supported installation of knox-box at gate now; - Lack of existence of adequate sidewalks is a constraint throughout this area; - Supports drainage plan; refeRed to outfall and recommended examining condition and stability of bank where the pipe comes out and gces back in; - Supports adding language for agricultural mitigation as recommended by Council Member Dickens; - Likes stamped concrete and limiting use of asphalt; - Supports project as recommended by the Planning Commission; - Cannot support opening up Woodland Drive. Action: Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution, as follows, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05-007, APPLIED FOR BY CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LCOATED ON FAIR OAKS AVENUE (EAST OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL)", as amended to include language recommended by Council Member Dickens that the applicant shall mitigate the loss of non-prime agricultural soils at a 1:1 ratio or paying an in-lieu fee as determined by the City; include language that Woodland Drive shall be fully constructed with sidewalks; and include special conditions as recommended by staff. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 11 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Dickens, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Held Executive Board Meeting to set agenda for next meeting. (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Reported on the DistricYs Rate Study and proposed service charge and connection fee increase. (3) Other. None. b. MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE: (7) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). Discussed establishing actual agricultural water use; some concern expressed by County regarding the Memorandum of Understanding as it relates to funding; discussed County development of Conservation Element. (2) Other. Attended the South County Area Transit (SCAT) meeting as the Alternate; agency is in good financial shape; there has been a growth in ridership; agency was successful in receiving a grant for purchase of a hybrid bus; and currently preparing a grant application for bus shelter improvements. c. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS: (1) South County Area Transit (SCA�. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie attended as the Alternate (see report above). (2) South County Youth Coalition. No report. (3) Other. None. d. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Boa�d. No report. (2) Air Pollution Control District(APCD). No report. Meets tomorrow. (3) Fire Oversight Committee. No report. (4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. No report. (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). No report. Meets tomorrow. (4) Other. Reported on training sessions attended at the League of Califomia Cities Annual Conference relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); city-wide wireless systems; and "Can Small Towns Be Cool?". Minutes: City Council Meeting page 12 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: None. 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Council Member Arnold commented on the success of the Annual Harvest Festival and thanked City staff for their involvement. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: Bob Lloyd, AGP Video, announced that they are continuing to work with Charter Communications to resolve technical issues associated with the government access channel. 78. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk (Approved at CC Mtg ) � MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Member Jim Dickens, Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: APN: 077-204-026; Located at 378 S. Halcyon Road, Arroyo Grande Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager Negotiating Party: Brenda Auer Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54956.8: � Properties: APN's: 077-204-008; 007-204-031; 077-204-036; 077-204-037; located at 379 Alder Street (008), and 382 S. Halcyon Road (031), 362 S. Halcyon Road (036), 370 S. Halcyon Road (037) Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager Negotiating Party: Tommie & Margaret Jones, Trustees of the Jones Family Trust Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase c. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Title: City Attorney 4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. M/NUTES OF CITY COUNCIL SPEC/AL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 2 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at 6:53 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: , Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER MayoNChair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council/RDA: Council/Board Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Jim Guthrie and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Police Commander Steve Andrews, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Jim Bergman, and Consulting Engineer Craig Campbell. 3. FLAG SALUTE Members of Girl Scout Troop 1016 led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Robert Banker, Open Door Church, Oceano, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council Member Costello, Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, commented on a recent item on the Planning Commission's Agenda concerning a project already started by the Lucia Mar Unified School District and expressed concerns about the lack of erosion control, the deteriorating condition of the road, no required tree replacements; the lack of sidewalks, and the loss of park space. Gale Gascho, Quiet Oaks, responded to the position the Council took at a previous meeting to oppose Measure J. He expressed concern that no public comment was allowed, the other side was not invited to present its side, a�d felt that this was an unusual action by the City Council. Bob Lund, E. Branch Street, Executive Director and President of the Village Improvement Association, spoke in support of City Measure 0-06. Mayor Ferrara clarified the position the Council took on Measure J to oppose the Measure as it was written, not to oppose the project itself. Minutes: City CouncidRedeve/opment Agency Meeting page y Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited members 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/Board Member Arnold moved, and Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Guthrie seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.0., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Dlsbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period September 16, 2006 through September 30, 2006. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of August 29, 2006, as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Disposal of Surplus Bicycles. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3956 as follows: "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". 8.d. Consideration of Request for Funding from Energy Solutions Coalition. Action: Approved funding in the amount of $500 for the Energy Solutions Coalition Smart Energy Solutions Summit. 8.e. Consideration of Agreement with Tierra West Advisors, LLC for Redevelopment Consultant Services. [COUNCIL/RDA] Action: 1) Authorized the City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director to terminate the existing contract with Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc; and 2) Authorized the Mayor/Redevelopment Agency Chair to execute the Agreement with Tierra West Advisors, LLC for redevelopment consultant services. 8.f. Consideration of Agreement with Tierra West Advisors, LLC for Redevelopment Bond Fiscal Consultant Services. [COUNCIL/RDA] Action: Approved 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 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-O6). Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3957 as follows: "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-O6)". Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, Oetober 10, 2006 8.h. 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. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 581 as follows: "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'. 8.i. Consideration to Authorize the Expenditure of Funds to Purchase a Pre-Owned Bucket Truck. Action: Approved 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 Reception Area Renovation. Action: 1) Awarded a contract in the amount of$29,969; 2) Authorized 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) Appropriated $5,000 from the General Fund. 8.k. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase In-Car Video Systems for the New Police Patrol Vehicles. Action: Authorized staff to purchase two (2) digital in-car video systems from ICOP Digital, Inc. for a total cost of$13,458.35. 8.1. Consideration of a Resolution Integrating the National Incident Management System (NIMS) into the City's Existing Emergency Management Plan and Operations. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3958 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INTEGRATING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTO THE CITY'S EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OPERATIONS"; and adopted the NIMS Implementation Matrix for Tribal and Loca/Jurisdictions as a guide, effective October 10, 2006. 8.m. Consideration of Authorization to Lease Purchase a New Fire Engine. Action: Authorized 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 authorized 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. S.n. Consideration of Authorization of City Manager to Sign Contracts with Paci£c Gas & Electric for Phase 3 of"Let There Be Lights" Street Light Installations on East Branch Street Between Short Street and Crown Hill. Action: Authorized 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 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. Minutes: CJty CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, Octo6er 10, 2006 8.0. Consideration of Engineer's Report and Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Form the Grace Lane Assessment District(Tract 2236). Action: Reviewed and approved the Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 3959 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING AN INTENTION TO FORM THE GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT". 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to his indirect financial interest in the Dixson Ranch and stepped down from the dais. 9.a. 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). Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the 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 twenty-two (22) acres. Subarea 2 encompasses thirteen (13) acres where no subdivision is proposed at this time. The Planning Commission recommended the Council find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project. The Planning Commission further recommended that the project be returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental determination. Consulting Engineer Campbell gave an overview of the existing drainage flows from Newsom Springs; demonstrated how the improvements proposed by the Cherry Creek development would significantly improve drainage flows, explained future drainage improvements in the regional plan; and responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. John Knight, RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which highlighted regional issues associated with the project (Neighbofiood Plan, drainage, agricultural buffer, and emergency access), and site specific issues associated with the project (density and lot size, drainage, street design, agricultural buffer, and creek enhancement); noted that the applicant had met with the neighbors to create a conceptual Neighborhood Plan for Subarea 1 that would address i�frastructure (sewer, water, drainage system, agricultural buffer, creek setback, and emergency access) improvements which would also serve Subarea 2; reviewed components of the previous site plan for Subarea 1; reviewed the revised site plan for Subarea 1, including proposed density and lot size, drainage system, street design, agricultural buffer/entry features, and creek/channel features; and provided an overview of the supplemental environmental studies conducted for the proposed project. He asked for Council suppoR of the project. Minutes: City CouncidRedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, October 10, 2008 Cliff Branch, co-owner/applicant, addressed the density issue and noted that a lot of land was required for drainage swales, setbacks, open space, and buffers, so the lot sizes had to be reduced so the land could be used for other things. He explained the project includes 27 new lots and anything less would not be feasible; therefore they are proposing the lowest density possible which is lower than the City's standards allow. He referred to the creek and stated it was important not to .have parking along that side of the street. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Larry Turner, Noguera Place, spoke in support of the project as proposed, requested the City abandon the existing drainage easement behind Noguera Place, supported the drainage plan, and supported the proposed single story homes behind Noguera Place. Steve Ross, Garden Street, spoke in support of the revised project; however, he encouraged the improvement of E. Cherry Avenue. Gary Scherquist, Short Street, urged the Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and expressed concem about the historical resourceS on the site, potential impacts to the creek, potential traffic impacts, and the proposed density of the project. Polly Tullis, Garden Street, distributed photos of the former Stilwell property located at 734 Myrtle (on file in the Administrative Services Department), spoke about its historic walnut farm, that it was important to recognize that the trees on the site have historic value, and expressed concern about the removal of the walnut trees and the loss of prime farmland soils. She urged the Council to require an EIR for the project and stated she would like to see fewer homes on the property and see it used for heritage farming and gardening. She said there are many environmental issues that have not been addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Jim Dickens, Branch Mill Road, representing the Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve, provided comments about the MND, referred to page 4, and said the land use classification for the property located to the South of the project (the Dixson Ranch) should be designated as "Agriculture Preserve", not "Agriculture" and that the current uses of the property are not "Undeveloped". He said a more accurate and appropriate description of the land uses to the South of the proposed project would be "Commercial Agricultural Production". He also stated that all references in the MND to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) should be stricken and recommended the City adopt a modified version of the LESA Model which examines Arroyo Grande's distinctive set of circumstances and site conditions. Further, he acknowledged the Council's direction and progress on the Newsom Springs regional drainage solution; however, he expressed concern that the proposed projecYs drainage improvements were not adequately and thoroughly considered in the MND and requested that appropriate time and consideration be given to ensure the Dixson Ranch is not adversely impacted due to drainage project amendments on or adjacent to their property. He requested that the current MND be amended to reflect the concerns he addressed. Colleen Martin, Olive Street, spoke of the importance of public involvement in local government; expressed concern about the proposed drainage plan and its continuing evolution; concem with the Neighborhood Plan and the lack of an improved road on E. Cherry to serve Phase 2; stated that the Minutes: Clty CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 staff report does not address accommodation of development as proposed by the Neighborhood Plan; stated that the applicant has deviated from the wishes of the community regarding density and said she would like to see less density in Phase 1 or in Phase 2; expressed concern about the proposed bioswale and how the water gets into the bioswale; said discussion has not taken place regarding the increase of impermeable surfaces that the development will include; and stated that there continue to be many issues that can be addressed with an EIR, including tree removal, traffic safety, and improvements. She noted that the plan includes an enormous amount of monitoring and wondered how that was going to be accomplished. She further expressed concern with design aesthetics and the issue concerning the prime soils definition and the mitigation for prime soils. She noted the project has gone through many changes. She referred to the Planning Commission's recommendation for requiring a full EIR and asked the Council abide by its recommendation. She said if the Council decides against an EIR, she agreed that the MND needs to be reconsidered, amended, and recirculated .to agencies to reflect the correct land use category descriptions as noted by Mr. Dickens. She concluded by urging the Council to consider an EIR for the project. Cliff Branch, co-owner/applicant, responded to public comments concerning the zoning of the property and stated he hoped the Council could stay consistent with the philosophy that was developed during the 2001 General Plan Update. He also commented that the walnut trees are not native and are near the end of their life cycle and some are dying. He noted that they have done a lot of environmental studies, and in addition, more study will occur on the drainage plan. Tony Janowicz, Lierly Lane, read a letter into the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department) supporting the project as proposed. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, spoke in support of the project as proposed and acknowledged the drainage, sewer, road, and emergency access improvements that are part of the project. She urged the Council to listen to the majority of neighbors in Subarea 2 who support development of the Cherry Creek project and to develop E. Cherry. She noted that the surrounding neighborhoods are higher density with smaller residential lots. Polly Tullis, Garden Street, expressed concern about the proximity of the bioswale to the former Vanderveer house and its potential impact to the structural i�tegrity of the house. She also stated she did not receive a public hearing notice; however, she was not sure if her property was located within the 300 ft. distance for notification. She also suggested that it would be worthwhile to determine if any of the acreage within the 22-acre property has irrigation rights as it relates to loss of prime agricultural land. There were no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 9:01 p.m. The Council reco�vened at 9:09 p.m. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - In detertnining whether the MND is adequate, he stated that drainage and environmental impacts to prime soils were the most significant issues and he referred back to the 2001 General Plan Environmental Impact Report which adequately addressed mitigation for the loss of prime soils in this area; - Noted that the property in question was not zoned as Agriculture; Minutes: City CounciURedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, Octo6er 10, 2006 - Expressed concem with drainage and favored the proposed drainage plan; however, he wanted to ensure that the development does not move forward until it ties into the completion of the EIR on the drainage issues for Newsom Springs regional project; - Acknowledged that setbacks are established for creek protection; - Noted that siltation would be addressed in the regional drainage solution and would tie in with the proposed drainage system; - Does not believe there any additional pesticide calculations that need to be addressed that come from Dixson Ranch; pesticide calculations for the project would be adequately addressed in the MND; - Would like to see the MND amended to show the correct descriptions of the properties; - Does not think a full EIR is warranted for the project; - Suggested a reduction in density with lot sizes larger than 6,000 square feet; - Supports proposed lot sizes for the duet lots; - Suggested that Subarea 2 be zoned as Medium-Low Density when that comes forward; - Stated the issues with E. Cherry Avenue should be adequately addressed which guarantees that the road is going to be improved. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Referred to the Report on Conservation of Prime Agricultural Resources dated July 2003 (on file)which addresses all the agricultural lands in the City and stated that the agricultural Class 1, 2, & 3 soils on the subject property is referred to on Maps 4 and 5; and acknowledged that farming could not occur on any of the land because zoning for the majority of the property is residential; - Acknowledged that this property has been zoned as residential for a very long time; and if someone wanted to bring commercial agriculture operations to this property, an agricultural buffer would be required and would substantially reduce the usable land; - Believed that residential development was planned for this property and is appropriate; - Believes there is a need to mitigate the loss of the one acre of prime soils with an in-lieu fee; - Does not support eminent domain on E. Cherry; however, acknowledged di�culties in determining/contacting owners; - Supports extension and improvement of E. Cherry Avenue; - With regard to Subarea 2, suggested that Planning Commission revisit the zoning for that area; Medium-Low Density may be more appropriate; - Supported the abandonment of the Noguera drainage easement, assuming this project moves forward with the correct drainage plan implemented; - Need to ensure the proposed drainage system is sufficient before development occurs; - Supports number of lots proposed; - Supports one-story homes backing up to Noguera Place; - Can approve the MND as amended to remove the LESA model a�d to correct the land use description for the Dixson Ranch. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Referred to the 2001 General Plan Update and remembered specific discussion regarding the rezoning of the property to a higher density classification and that the reason was specifically related to the drainage issue and the potential to solve the biggest flooding issue in Arroyo Grande, as well as that this was a good in-fill project adjacent to the Village; Minutes: City CounciURedevelopment Agency Meeting - Page 8 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - Spoke about transitional housing as it relates to the adjacent agricultural use and the agricultural buffer concept; - Did not recall any previous discussion about prime soils on the property which required special consideration as it has always been zoned residential; - Also noted that in 2003, there were changes to the Agricultural Element and there was no discussion about the prime agricultural potential on this property; - Believed that the General Plan language that refers specifically to an EIR required for loss of prime agriculture soils dces not apply for this project; - Supports MND with modifications to the land use definitions for the surrounding property and supports the use of the LESA model. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Referred to 2001 General Plan Update and agreed that discussion regarding prime soils did not come up; however, the issue of density did come up; - Believes the zoning should have remained as Rural Residential or at least Medium-Low density; - Acknowledged the site has always been zoned Residential and is pleased the proposal for Subarea 1 has fewer units per acre than what it is currently zoned for; - Has issue with Subarea 2 as it relates to zoning and spoke about the need for transitional zoning; recommended sending Subarea 2 back to the Planning Commission for review of potential change in General Plan land use designation; - Stated he is comfortable with the MND for Subarea 1 as it relates to addressing all the constraints on the site, including creek protection and the drainage plan; - Acknowledged that any proposal for Subarea 2 would require detailed environmental review; - Supports the MND as modified to clarify the land use description of the Dixson Ranch as indicated; and before adding language about the use of the LESA model, recommended being clear about the criteria being applied; - Supports the MND as it relates to Subarea 1; has issue with Subarea 2 and prefers going back to review the density. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following additional comments: - Requiring mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned properry would set a bad precedent; - Supports the Neighborhood Plan as it provides adequate infrastructure to develop the rest of the area; - Supports the 130 foot agricultural buffer for the proposed project; - Supports the drainage plan and emphasized how big of an improvement it is to the community; - Noted that development impacts fees will provide for traffic improvements; - Eminent domain for E. Cherry might be necessary as last resort; - Agreed that parking should not be allowed along creekside. Brief discussion ensued regarding the suggestion to include mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned property. Action: Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subarea 1, as amended to remove the LESA model reference, to change the land use category definition of the Dixson Ranch to reflect the existing commercial agricultural operations, to mitigate the loss of the Minutes: Clty CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, Oetober 10, 2006 one-acre of agricultural land at a similar rate that was used on the Fair Oaks project, and to send Subarea 2 back to the Planning Commission to review the zoning for that area. Council Member Costello asked if the two Subareas could be separated. City Attorney Carmel responded that he did not think they could be separated without going through the mitigations to see what should be taken out and what should not and requiring some level of recirculation of the document. As a matter of clarification, he explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the Neighborhood Plan component, which identifies whether the Subarea 1 project provides adequate infrastructure for Subarea 2. He recommended not separating out Subarea 2 from the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He clarified that Subarea 2 would have a project, or a sequence of projects, that would all be evaluated separately with full environmental review. City Manager Adams explained that recommendations regarding the zoning for Phase 2 could be considered separately. Mayor Ferrara asked for clarification on whether the City was moving forvvard with the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Neighborhood Plan only. City Attorney Carmel explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates all components including the Development Code Amendment, the Neighborhood Plan, the Planned Unit Development, and the Tract Map. He noted that the Development Code Amendment is a City initiated application and process to achieve General Plan consistency; however, the City is not taking action tonight on the Development Code Amendment. He explained that approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration allows approval of the Development Code Amendment at a later date; however, does not bind the Council to approve it as currently proposed. He explained that the City could amend its Development Code Amendment application to consider Subarea 1 separately and exclude the Subarea 2 portion. Nlayor Ferrara inquired whether the motion could be separated into two motions to 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) to direct staff to review Subarea 2 separately. Council Member Arnold amended his motion to not separate out Subarea 2 from the Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, he said the remainder of the motion stands. Mayor Ferrara clarified that the motion includes the issue concerning the mitigation of the loss of 1-acre of prime soils. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold. Costello, Ferrara NOES: Guthrie ABSENT: Dickens Action: Council Member Arnold moved to direct staff to amend the (Development Code Amendment) application for Subarea 2 and send it back to the Planning Commission to revisit the zoning for that property. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: Minutes: Clty CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, October f0, 2006 AYES: Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens Discussion ensued concerning the process for continued review of the project, and clarification that Subarea 2 would be considered separately from Subarea 1. Further Council discussion ensued clarifying that approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed environmental issues related to the project and that Council would be directing the project back to the Planning Commission to review only the specific proposed project (Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development)for Subarea 1. City Attorney Carmel clarified that the Council would be directing only the Development Code Amendment, Planned Unit Development and Tentative Tract Map for Subarea 1 back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Action: Council Member Amold moved to continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of November 14, 2006 and to return the project to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for Subarea 1. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens Mayor Fercara called for a recess at 10:29 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:37 p.m. 9.b. Consideretion of Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-007, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004 — Location: APNs 006-095-001 8� 002, Including and Adjoining Arroyo Grande High School at Valley Road/Fair Oaks Avenue. Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the 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; and 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. City Manager Adams briefly explained issues that had arisen regarding the design of the proposed road extension and identification of several drainage issues which have increased the cost of the project. He outlined the associated costs and recommended that the Council authorize execution of 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 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting proposed changes in the payment provided by JH Land Partnership and any other minor modifications determined to be necessary to carry out the direction provided by City Council. Minutes: City CounclURedeve/opment Agency Meeting Pege �� Tuesday, Octo6er 10, 2006 Consulting Engineer Campbell reviewed the proposed drainage improvements as it relates to the extension of Castillo del Mar and responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis Associates, representing Lucia Mar Unified School District, stated that she had shared the road design and drainage with the District and said they understand and concur with the current design; noted that the property will be impacted with a loss and reconfiguration of parking spaces; stated that she had discussed the concept with John Taylor and received written confirmation from his legal counsel regarding his concurrence with the proposal; and noted that modifications to the Memorandum of Understanding would have to be revisited with the Board of Education and Mr. Taylor. She requested the Council approve the parcel map and the changes to the conditions on the map. In response to a question from Council Member Dickens, Ms. Florence said that environmental concerns on the ten acres of hillside property to the south had been relayed to the District Superintendent and Board, and any proposed subdivision or development would have to go through the environmental review process. Council Member Dickens commented that he had previously recommended a Conservation Overlay for the parcel to identify to potential purchasers that there were environmental concerns that would need to be addressed. Ms. Florence responded briefly and noted that processes are in place via the California Environmental Quality Act to address environmental impacts. There were no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Supported the proposal; - Supported the proposed funding and reimbursement agreement; - Noted that flooding problems at the school would be addressed. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: - Supported the conceptual issues; - Expressed concern about disclosure of environmental concerns associated with the parcel; - Would like to see a conservation overlay on the parcel being considered for rezoning to Residential Hillside; - Expressed concern with the reduction in the agricultural mitigation fee due to the increased cost of the road and the drainage improvements; - Recommended that the fee be changed back to $200,000, as originally agreed to; - Acknowledged that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted at the previous meeting; however, he referred to the smaller portion of land that is considered prime agriculture land which was not taken into consideration; - Stated it was important to maintain the City's policies; - Supported modification of the Memorandum of Understanding as recommended; however, need to add for some potential reimbursement of agricultural mitigation. Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 12 Tuesday, Oetober 10, 2006 There was brief discussion regarding the mitigation fee for loss of prime agricultural soils as it relates to the total estimated costs of the proposed road extension and improvements. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: — Supported the proposal as recommended; however, would like to include some form of future mitigation to offset the loss of the $100,000 for the prime agricultural soils. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Supported the proposal as recommended; - Sees the nexus between development of the residential parcel and the agricultural mitigation that is taking place now as it relates to the reimbursement agreement. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Supported concerns expressed by Council Member Dickens regarding additional mitigation for loss of prime agricultural soils. Carol Florence, representative for Lucia Mar Unified School District, requested that staff provide language for the Memorandum of Understanding that conditions some future development of the parcel as it relates to the mitigation for the loss of prime agricultural soils. Council Members Dickens and Arnold inquired how the Council could notify and condition a potential applicant coming forth with a tentative tract map to include reimbursement for its fair share of the increased cost of the road, and also reimbursement of the agricultural mitigation that was reduced in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding. Discussion ensued regarding the subdivision map process and language that is included in the Memorandum of Understanding concerning reimbursement for loss of prime agricultural property. Brief discussion ensued regarding the concept for a conservation overlay on the property. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to adopt an Ordinance as follows: "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 ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS". Council Member Arnold seconded , and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Dickens ABSENT: None Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution, as amended, as follows: "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". Council Member Arnold seconded the motion. Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 13 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 As a matter of clarification, City Attorney Carmel noted that the motion referred to the revised tentative parcel map resolution which included the modified conditions of approval. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with JH Land Partnership that includes road improvements and also the reimbursement for agricultural mitigation; and further 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. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion. As a matter of clarification, City Attorney Carmel stated that the noted provisions would be included in the MOU, the reimbursement agreement, and/or both documents. AYES: Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS ' a) Request to place on future agenda an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015; Applicant — Ocean Oaks Builders; Location — 579 Camino Mercado. (ARNOLD) Council Member Arnold requested, and the Council unanimously concurred, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015 which proposes the conversion of twelve (12) of the sixty (60) previously approved condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms located at 579 Camino Mercado. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. Minutes: City CounciURedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 14 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Colleen Martin, Olive Street, recommended a proposed agenda item to look at a rubric, threshold, or formula regarding mitigation for agricultural prime soils. She suggested that a policy be put in place regarding this issue. She also suggested some type of rubric to decide at what point the threshold has been met for requiring a project EIR versus a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). She referred to the decision the Council made on the MND for the Cherry Creek project and pointed out that the Council had agreed that the language could be amended in the MND regarding the description of the subject properties. She noted that the reason to amend the MND would be to recirculate it for public review and she questioned why it would be amended if the Planning Commission was not going to discuss it and it was not going to be recirculated. 17. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair , ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary (Approved at CC Mtg 1 pRROY� ��C� pE C,P � iMCOFVOR�TED 92 V � D m # ,iu�r �o, ie�i * c4��FOR��P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESICITY CLERK SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY - CLAIMANT: D. McCALLISTER DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council reject the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimant as recommended by the City's Claims Administrator, Carl Warren & Company. FUNDING: None. DISCUSSION: Danny McCallister filed a timely claim against the City on February 27, 2006. Carl Warren & Company, the City's claims administrator, is recommending that the claim be rejected on the basis of the claim administrator's investigation and authorize the City Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. The statute of limitations will run six months from the date the rejection letter is sent. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Reject the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. 2. Take no action; however, this will extend the statute of limitations. Attachment: None, claim on file in the City Clerk's office. S.d. � pytROY� ° �p MEMORANDUM ` INCOqPpq�1TE � V d A � MY 10. IYH �. c�<<FORN`P TO: CITY COUNCI� � FROM: TONY AEILTS, CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE 4TH ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS PARADE, NOVEMBER 26, 2006 DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing closure of City streets for the 4th Annual Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association Christmas Parade. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The 4'" Annual Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association Christmas Parade is scheduled for Sunday, November 26, 2006 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The parade will proceed east on E. Branch Street from Bank of America and turn south on Short Street, disbanding behind City Hall. The parade organizers are requesting the closure of Short Street at E. Branch Street, E. Branch Street from Traffic Way to Mason Street, Bridge Street from Olohan Alley to E. Branch Street, Nevada Street from the Car Corral to E. Branch Street and Olohan Alley from Mason Street to Short Street(rear of City Hall). Also requested is restricted parking along the E. Branch Street parade route (from Traffic Way to Mason Street) and the rear of City Hall. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: -Adopt the attached Resolution; - Modify and adopt the attached Resolution; - Do not adopt the attached Resolution; or - Provide direction to staff. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE 4TH ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS PARADE, NOVEMBER 26, 2006 WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association has requested closure and restricted parking on portions of E. Branch Street, also known as Highway 227, from Traffic Way to Mason Street and restricted parking at the rear of City Hall in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday, November 26, 2006; and WHEREAS, the reason for the street closure and restricted parking will be for the purpose of holding a Christmas Parade. WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Police Department will arrange for signing and traffic control during the requested time period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. That request be made of the State of California Department of Transportation for permission to close a portion of E. Branch Street, also known as Highway 227, from Traffic Way to Mason Street, for the period of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday, November 26, 2006. 2. That request be made of said Department of Transportation for permission to restrict parking on both sides of E. Branch Street, from Traffic Way to Mason Street, for the period of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday, November 26, 2006. 3. That the City Council authorize the closure and restricted parking of said street upon receipt of approval from the State Department of Transportation for said closure and parking restriction. 4. That the Arroyo Grande Police Department will arrange for"No Parking"signs on said street. 5. That the Arroyo Grande Police Department will control traffic around the street closure, and its officers will be stationed or detour signs posted, to give instructions and directions to motorists on detouring around the street closure. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the foliowing roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted this day of , 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONYFERRARA, 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. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE 4TH ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS PARADE, NOVEMBER 26, 2006 WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association has requested closure and restricted parking on portions of E. Branch Street, also known as Highway 227, from Traffic Way to Mason Street and closure of Short Street at E. Branch Street, Bridge Street from Olohan Alley to E. Branch Street, Nevada Street from the Car Corral to E. Branch Street and Olohan Alley from Mason Street to Short Street(rear of City Hall)and restricted parking at the rear of City Hall in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California, from 5:00 • p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday, November 26, 2006; and , WHEREAS,the reason forthe street closures and restricted parking will be forthe purpose of holding a Christmas Parade. I WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Police Department will arrange for signing and traffic control during the requested time period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. That request be made of the State of California Department of Transportation for permission to close a portion of E. Branch Street, also known as Highway 227, from Traffic Way to Mason Street, for the period of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday, November 26, 2006. 2. That request be made of said Department of Transportation for permission to restrict parking on both sides of E. Branch Street, from Traffic Wayto Mason Street,forthe period of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday, November 26, 2006. 3. That the City Council authorize the closure and restricted parking of said street upon receipt of approval from the State Department of Transportation for said closure and parking restriction. 4. That the Arroyo Grande Police Department will arrange for"No Parking"signs on said street. 5. That the City Council authorize the closure of the following streets: Short Street at E. Branch Street, Bridge Street from Olohan Alley to E. Branch Street, Nevada Street from the Car Corral to E. Branch Street and Olohan Alley from Mason Street to Short Street (rear of City Hall). I RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 6. That the Arroyo Grande Police Department will control traffic around the street closures, and its officers will be stationed or detour signs posted,to give instructions and directions to motorists on detouring around the street closures. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted this day of , 2006. ��I RESOWTION NO. PAGE 3 ' TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK �'� APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: I STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY pRROYp �.e. OF G',p I , INCOHPORATED 92 N i V m * '�`Y �°' 1B1 ' MEMORANDUM ic4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR �� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT FOR THE HAMPTON INN & SUITES HOTEL PROJECT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) agreement with Arroyo Grande Inn- Vestment, LLC for the Hampton Inn & Suites hotel project. FUNDING: It has been estimated that the hotel project will generate $200,000 to $250,000 in annual TOT revenue. The agreement will result in a reimbursement of a maximum of $50,000 per year for a five-year period. DISCUSSION: At the October 24, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved design and landscaping changes to the Hampton Inn & Suites project, as well as recommendations to enter into a revenue sharing agreement in order to increase the economic feasibility of the project. The agreement is attached for City Council consideration and includes the terms outlined and conceptually approved by the City Council at that meeting. Under the terms of the Agreement, reimbursement will be provided only after the TOT revenue generated by the project and the increase in overall City TOT revenue reaches $50,000. A reimbursement of 50% of additional TOT revenue in excess of that amount will then be provided to the developer up to a maximum of $50,000 annually for a five- year period. The base amount will be determined using the 12-month period prior to opening of the hotel. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the City Council's consideration: - Approve and authorize Mayor to execute Agreement; - Modify terms of the Agreement and approve; CITY COUNCIL HAMPTON INN & SUITES TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 2 - Do not approve Agreement; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Proposed TOT Revenue Sharing Agreement � S:Wdministration\CIT1' MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Hampton Inn Revenue Sharing Agreement � 11.14.06.doc i AGREEMENT TO ENTER INTO COVENANT TO OPERATE AND TO PAY COMPENSATION BASED ON TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE [HAMPTON INN & SUITES] This AGREEMENT TO ENTER INTO COVENANT TO OPERATE AND TO PAY COMPENSATION BASED ON TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE [HAMPTON INN & SUITES] (the "AgreemenY') is entered into this day of November, 2006 ("Effective Date'), by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a California general law city and municipal corporation ("City"), and ARROYO GRANDE INN- VESTMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owner") (individually a "Party" and collectively the"Parties"). RECITALS A. Owner owns fee title to certain real property located at 1400 West Branch Street in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, California, which is more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit"A" (the "Site"). B. In or about June 2006, Owner obtained land use approvals from the City to develop an approximate 104 room Hampton Inn & Suites hotel on the Site (the "Hampton Hotel"). C. In consideration of Owner's encumbrance of the Site by the Covenant (as defined hereinbelow) and Owner's performance of its obligations thereunder, City has agreed to enter into the Covenant that creates the obligation of making certain annual payments to Owner following City receipt of a Threshold Amount in an amount equal to a portion of the Transient Occupancy Tax (all as defined in the Covenant) generated above the Threshold Amount. As set forth in the Covenant, if certain conditions aze not attained, City shall have no obligation to make any an annual payment to Owner. D. By its approval of this Agreement, the City Council of City has found and determined as follows: (i) the value to City of Owner's performance of its obligations set forth in the Covenant in each calendar year during which City payments aze to be made (in terms of economic revitalization, generation of additional local tax revenues that will help to fund vital public services, provision of expanded and more accessible resort facilities, and job growth and retention) will be not less than the amount of such payments; and (ii) that the imposition of the covenants and use restrictions upon the Site pursuant to the Covenant in exchange for the payments to be made by City constitutes a valid public purpose. COVENANTS Based upon the foregoing.Recitals, which aze incorporated herein by this reference, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by both Parties, City and Owner hereby agree as follows: 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 1. Defined Terms. Any capitalized terms contained in this Agreement, which are not defined in this Agreement, shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Covenant. 2. Renresentations and Warranties. Owner represents and warrants for itself and its successors and assigns the following: (a) Owner has obtained all necessary land use entitlements from any and all local, regional and State agencies necessary to permit Owner to open and operate the Hampton Hotel on the Site, and (b) Owner intends to commence construction of the Hampton Hotel on the Site within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement and complete construction and development of the Hampton Hotel on the Site such that the Hampton Hotel shall commence to Operate (as that term is defined in the Covenant) no later than eighteen (18) months following the Effective Date of this Agreement, subject to the Force Majeure provision set forth in Section 6.4 of the Covenant. 3. Execution and Recordation of Covenant. Within ten (10) days after the later to occur of both the following events (collectively, the "Covenant Conditions"), City and Owner shall fill in the blanks and shall date and execute the Covenant in the recordable form attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and Owner shall record the Covenant against the Site and provide a conformed copy of the recorded Covenant to City: (i)the date City issues the final (i.e., not any temporary) certificate of occupancy for the Hampton Hotel permitting Owner to open the Site for business and Operate consistent with the Land Use Approvals (as defined in the Covenant); and (ii) the expiration of any periods for challenge of or appeal from, all of the Land Use Approvals without any such challenge or appeal, or the successful resolution of any such challenge or appeal. The foregoing conditions aze for the benefit of both City and Owner. City agrees to cooperate in the recordation of the Covenant against the Site at no cost to City, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized on behalf of City to execute all documents and take all actions necessary or appropriate to implement this Agreement and the Covenant; provided, however, that in no event shall such date of recordation be later than the date the Hampton Hotel opens for business to the general public and begins to Operate. 4. Termination of Agreement. If the Covenant Conditions are not satisfied within eighteen (18) months following execution of this Agreement, or such later deadline as may be mutually approved in writing prior to that date by City and Owner, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect at such time without the requirement of any further notice or action by either Party, and thereafrer neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for Owner's indemnity obligation set forth in Section 8 which shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 5. Covenant. Upon recordation of the Covenant, the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be as set forth in the Covenant, and the Covenant shall fully supercede this Agreement, except for Owner's indemnity obligation set forth in Section 8 which shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 6. Assignment. The rights and benefits of this Agreement and Covenant aze personal to Owner and its Corporate Successors (as defined below). Owner shall not assign, hypothecate, encumber, or otherwise transfer, voluntazily, involuntazily or by operation of law, its rights and obligations set forth in this Agreement to any other person or entity other than to a Corporate Successor without the City's prior written consent, which consent the City may grant 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 '2' or withhold or condition in its absolute discretion. The term "Corporate Successor" means: (i) any entity which is controlled by or under common control with Owner, or (ii) any successor by merger, acquisition or corporate reorganization of Owner that will operate a facility similaz in size, operation, transient occupancy volume and all other material aspects to the Hampton Hotel on the Site. 7. Cooperation in the Event of Leeal Challenge. In the event any third party files an action seeking to invalidate this Agreement or the Covenant or seeking any equitable remedy that would prevent the full performance hereof or thereof, City and Owner agree to cooperate in the defense of such action. Owner shall pay all of the City's costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation and court costs), shall indemnify the City as provided in Section 8, and the City shall have the sole right to select its legal counsel; provided, however, that such obligation to indemnify and pay fees, costs, and expenses shall terminate if Owner elects in a written notice delivered to the City to terminate the Covenant rather than to oppose such challenge. Such cooperation shall include, without limitation: (i) an agreement by each Party to not default or allow a compromise of said action without the prior written consent of the other Party; (ii) an agreement by each Party to make available to the other Party all non- privileged information necessazy or appropriate to conduct the defense of the action; and (iii) an agreement by each Party to make available to the other Party, without chazge, any witnesses within the control of the first Party upon reasonable notice who may be called upon to execute declazations or testify in said action. 8. Indemnification of Citv. 8.1 Owner shall indemnify, defend, assume all responsibility for, and hold the City, and the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and volunteers, harmless from any and all claims, demands, damages, defense costs or liability of any kind (including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation and court costs), that arise from the construction, development, or operation of the Site, including but not limited to the death or injury to any person or damage to any property, or arise from this Agreement (other than those damages caused by the breach of the Agreement by City or by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or by the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, or volunteers acting in an official capacity), including, but not limited to, Owner's failure to pay, if required, prevailing wages on the construction and development of the Site and any portion thereo£ Owner shall be solely responsible for determining and effectuating compliance with prevailing wage laws, and the City makes no representation as to the applicability or non- applicability of any of such laws to the development and construction of the Site or any part thereo£ Owner hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City has not previously affirmatively represented to Owner or its contractor(s), in writing or otherwise, in a call for bids or otherwise, that the development or construction of a Hampton Hotel is not a"public work," as defined in Section 1720 of the Labor Code. The foregoing Owner indemnity of City shall include any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, cost, expense and/or "increased costs" (including attorneys' fees, court and litigation costs, and fees of expert witnesses) that results or arises in any way from any of the following: (i) the noncompliance by Owner or its contractor(s) or any subcontractor(s) of any applicable local, state and/or federal law, including, without limitation, any applicable federal and/or state labor laws (including, without limitation, if applicable, the requirement to pay state prevailing wages and hire apprentices); (ii) the I032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/Ob -3- implementation of Section 1781 of the Labor Code, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any other similaz law; and/or (iii) failure by Owner or its contractor(s) or any subcontractor(s) to provide any required disclosure or identification as required by Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any other similaz law. The term "increased costs," as used in this Section 8 shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time. The foregoing indemnity shall survive termination of this Agreement and shall continue afrer completion of the construction and development of the Site. 8.2 Owner shall indemnify, defend, assume all responsibility for, and hold the City, and the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and volunteers, hannless (including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation and court costs), from and against any claim, action, suit, proceeding, damage, liability, deficiency, fine, penalty, or punitive damage (including, without limitation, expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees) (collectively, "Environmental Claims"), resulting from, arising out of, or based upon (a) the presence, release, use, generation, discharge, storage or disposal of any Hazazdous Materials on, under, in or about, or the transportation of any such Hazardous Materials to or from, the Site, or (b) the violation, or alleged violation, of any present or future statute, ordinance, order, rule, regulation, permit,judgment or license relating to the use, generation, release, discharge, storage, disposal or transportation of Hazardous Materials on, under, in or about, to or from, the Site. j "Environmental Law" shall mean all applicable past, present or future federal, state and local statutes, regulations, directives, ordinances, common law, and rules, which pertain to environmental matters, contamination of any type whatsoever, or health and safety matters, as such have been amended, modified or supplemented from time to time (including any present and future amendments thereto and re-authorizations thereo�, including, without limitation, those relating to: (a) the manufacture, processing, use, distribution, treatment, storage, disposal, generation or transportation of Hazardous Materials; (b) air, soil, surface, subsurface, surface water and groundwater; (c) the operation and closure of underground storage tanlcs; (d) health and safety of employees and other persons; and (e) notification and record keeping requirements relating to the foregoing. Witttout limiting the above, Environmental Laws also include the following: (a)the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.), as amended ("CERCLA"); (b) the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq.), as amended ("RCRA"); (c) the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 11001 et seq.), as amended; (iv) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.), as amended; (d) the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.), as amended; (e) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.), as amended; (fl the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.), as amended; (g) the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq.), as amended; (h) the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq.), as amended; (i) the Federal Radon and Indoor Air Quality Research Act(42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.); (j)the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq.), as amended; and (k) any state, county, municipal or local statutes, laws or ordinances similaz or analogous to (including counterparts o� any of the statutes listed above. The foregoing indemnity shall survive termination of this Agreement and shall continue after completion of the construction and development of the Site. I032/024600-0001 759536.02 al I/06/06 -4- 83 Owner shall indemnify, defend, assume all responsibility for, and hold the City, and the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and volunteers, hannless (including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation and court costs), from and against any claim, action, suit, proceeding, damage, liability, deficiency, fine, penalty, or punitive damage (including, without limitation, expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees), azising out of any obligation for payment of any real estate or broker's commission or finder's fee in connection with this Agreement, the Covenant, or Owner's acquisition or development of the Site. The foregoing indemnity shall survive termination of this Agreement and shall continue after completion of the construction and development of the Site. 9. Integration and Amendment. This Agreement and the Covenant attached hereto constitute the entire Agreement by and between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and supersede all prior agreements and understandings of the Parties with respect thereto. This Agreement may not be modified, amended, or otherwise changed except by a writing executed by both Parties. 10. Notices. Notices to be given by City or Owner hereunder may be delivered personally or may be delivered by certified mail or by reputable overnight delivery service providing a delivery confirmation receipt, with mailed notices to be addressed to the appropriate address(es) hereinafter set forth or to such other address(es) that a Party may hereafter designate by written notice. If served by overnight delivery service or certified mail, service will be considered completed and binding on the Party served on the date set forth in the confirmation or certification receipt. If notice is to City: City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Attention: Steve Adams, City Manager with a copy to: City of Arroyo Grande P. O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Attention: Timothy J. Cazmel, City Attorney If notice is to Owner: Arroyo Grande Inn-Vestments, LLC Attention: Michael F. Gallegof with a copy to: Attention: I032/024600-0001 759536.02 al 1/06/06 -5- i � I 1 L Leeal Advice. Each Party represents and warrants to the other the following: they have cazefully read this Agreement, and in signing this Agreement, they do so with full knowledge of any right which they may have; they have received independent legal advice from their respective legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement, or have knowingly Ichosen not to consult legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement; and, they have freely signed this Agreement without any reliance upon any agreement, promise, statement or representation by or on behalf of the other Party, or their respective agents, employees or attorneys, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, and without duress or coercion, whether economic or otherwise. 12. Interuretation; Litigation Matters. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California without regazd to , conflict of law principles. If either Party commences an action against the other Party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party its expert witness fees (if any), its reasonable litigation costs and expenses including, without limitation, litigation costs, and its reasonable attorneys' fees. The Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo shall have the exclusive jurisdiction of any litigation between the Parties. 13. Nonliability of Citv Officials. No officer, official, employee, agent, representative, or volunteer of City shall be personally liable to Owner or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Owner or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. 14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts which, when taken together, shall constitute one fully executed Agreement. [END -- SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 aI 1/06/06 -6- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first set forth above. .�Ci�,,, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Califomia municipal corporation By: Tony Ferraza, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney "Owner" ARROYO GRANDE INN-VESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Michael F. Gallegof, Managing Member 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 '7' EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 all/06/06 Ttle No. 06-34001251-TB ;�?,��' Locate No.CACT[7740-7740-1340-0034001251 , LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELObV IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ARROYO 6RANDE,COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: Parcel B of Parcel Map No. AG-79-268, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according [o map recorded January 14, 1981 in Book 30, Page 11 of Parcel Maps and as per Certificate of Correction recorded April 5, 1983 in Book 2476, Page 114 of Official Records, in the o�ce of the County Recorder of said County. PARCEL 2: A portion of West Branch Street adjacent to Parcel B of Parcel Map AG-79-268, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,State of Cal'rfornia,according to map recorded in Book 30, Page 11 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, more particularly described as foliows: Commencing at the most Westerly corner of said Parcel B,said corner being also a point on a curve, concave � to the Northeast, with a radius of 957.00 feet, radial to said poin[bears North 22° 28' S3" East; thence Southeasterly along said curve, being also the Southerly line of said Parcel B and the Northerly right- of-way tine of West Branch Street,through a central angle of Ol°Ol' 22"and an arc length of 17.08 feet to a point of tangency,said point of tangency being also the true point of beginning; thence continuing along said Southerly line and said Northerly right-of-way line, South 75° 22' S2" East, a distance of 299.18 feet to the Westerly terminus of a curve, concave to the NorthwesY, with a radius of 25 feet; thence continuing along said Southerly line and said Northerly right-of-way line, Easterly and Northeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 92° 57' 00" and an arc length of 40.56 feet to a point of cusp; thence South il° 40' 08" West,along said Southerly projection of the Easterly line of said Parcel 8, running parallel to and 30 feet distant Westerly from the centerline of Camino Mercado,a distance of 1.62 feet to the Northeasterly terminus of a curve, concave to the Northwest, with a radius of ZS feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve,through a central angle of 91°57'40"and an arc Iength of 40.13 feet to a point of tangency; thence North 76°22' 12"West,aiong a line parallel to and 31 feet distant from the centerline of West Branch Street,a distance of 185.83 feet to the Easterly terminus of a curve,concave to the Northeast, with a radius of 957 feet; thence continuing along said parallel Iine, Northwesterly along said curve,through a central angle of 06°49' 43", and an arc length of 114.06 feet to the true point of beginning, as abandoned by Resolution recorded September 15, 1982 in Book 2432, Page 493 of Official Records,which wouid pass under Section 831 of the Civil Code of the State of California,by a conveyance of Parcel B of ParCel Map AG-79-268. APN: 007-771-063 2 CTA Cel'mmzry 2epart P:r.n�:1fli(G'J EXHIBIT «B„ FORM OF COVENANT [SEE FOLLOWING PAGES] , I032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Attention: Steve Adams, City Manager [Space above for Recorder.) (Exempt from Recordation Fee per Gov. Code §27383) DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS,AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY This DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY ("CovenanY') is entered into as of this day of , 200_, by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a California general law city and municipal corporation ("City"), and ARROYO GRANDE INN- VESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owner") (individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties"). RECITALS A. Owner is the owner of that certain real property located generally at 1400 West Branch Street, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, which is more particulazly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Site"). B. On or about November _, 2006, City and Owner entered into that certain unrecorded agreement captioned "Agreement to Enter Into Covenant to Operate and Pay Compensation Based on Transient Occupancy Ta�c Revenue [Hampton Inn & Suites]" (the "AgreemenY') authorizing the recordation of this Covenant against the Site upon the timely satisfaction of the "Covenant Conditions" identified therein. C. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, Owner has agreed to develop and operate a Hampton Inn and Suites Hotel on the Site. D. In consideration for Owner's encumbrance of the Site by this Covenant and Owner's performance of its obligations hereunder, City has agreed to make certain payments to Owner, the amount of which is measured by the Transient Occupancy T� generated by the Hampton Hotel and received by the City from other Transient Occupancy Tax payors in the City above a Threshold Amount. City and Owner have agreed that the amounts required to be paid by 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 City to Owner hereunder during each Year of the Operating Period provided for herein is a fair exchange for the consideration to be fumished by Owner to City in that Yeaz. COVENANTS Based upon the foregoing Recitals, which aze incorporated herein by this reference and are acknowledged by the Parties as true and correct, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by both Parties, City and Owner hereby agree as follows: 1. DEFINED TERMS. The following terms when used in this Covenant shall have the meanings set forth below: The term "AgreemenY' shall have the meaning ascribed in Recital B of this Covenant. The term "Annual Reimbursement Cap AmounY' shall have the meaning ascribed in Section-4.1.1(b). The term "Commencement Date" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2 of this Covenant. The term "Corporate Successor" shall mean (i) any entity which is controlled by or under common control with Owner, or (ii) any successor by merger, acquisition or corporate reorganization of Owner and that will operate a facility similar in size, operation, transient occupancy volume and all other material aspects to the Hampton Hotel (as defined below) on the Site. The term "Covenant Payments" shall mean the amounts to be paid by City to Owner with respect to each twelve-month period during the Operating Period for which a Covenant Payment is due and payable. The term "Covenant Payments Cap AmounP' shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 4.1.1(b) of this Covenant. The term"DefaulY' sha11 have the meaning ascribed in Section 5.1 of this Covenant. The term "Effective Date" shall mean the date this Covenant is executed by the latter of the two Parties to sign, which date shall be inserted in the preamble to this Covenant. The term "Force Majeure" is defined in Section 6.4 below. The term "Hampton Hotel" shall refer to the specified hotel use authorized by the Land Use Approvals approved by the City in or about June 2006 permitting the Site to be developed, constructed and operated with the Hampton Hotel and related permitted uses. ' The term"Holder" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 5.1(b) of this Covenant. l032/024600-0001 i 759536.02 al l/06/06 '2' � � � The term "Land Use Approvals" shall mean those discretionazy land use entitlements approved by the City in or about June 2006 permitting the Site to be developed, constructed and operated as an approximate_room hotel. The term "Operate" or"Operation" means not less than eighty percent (80%) of the hotel rooms in the Hampton Hotel are available for transient occupancy to the general public except for such reasonable interruptions as may be incidental to the conduct of its business. , The term "Operating Period" refers to the period between the Commencement Date and the Termination Date. The term "Permitted Assignee" means a"Corporate Successor"to Owner. I ' The term "Permitted Closure" means periods of Force Majeure and such period or �� eriods a e atin u to not more than one 1 p ggr g g p ( ) year associated with any renovation of the Site. '� The term"Site" shall have the meaning ascribed in Recital A of this Covenant. The term "Termination Date" shall mean the date that is the eazliest of(i) the date that is five (5) years following the Commencement Date; (ii) the date that the Covenant Payments Cap Amount is paid in full; or (iii) the date on which this Covenant is terminated pursuant to Sections 5.2 or 53, as applicable. The term "Transient Occupancy Tax" shall mean taxes received by and paid to the City pursuant to Arroyo Grande Municipal Code chapter 3.24. 2. CONDITION TO OWNER'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE COVENANT PAYMENTS. 2.1 Opening Date: Commencement Date. As a condition precedent to Owner's right to receive the Covenant Payments, Owner shall open or cause said Hampton Hotel to be opened for business to the public (excluding any "pre-opening" periods or similar special periods) not later than the Outside Date defined in Section 2.2, all in compliance with the Land Use Approvals. The date on which the aforesaid condition is satisfied shall constitute the "Commencement Date," at which time Owner's obligations pursuant to Section 3 of this Covenant and City's obligations pursuant to Section 4 of this Covenant, to the extent applicable, shall commence. Owner shall notify the City in writing of the Commencement Date and City shall confirm its agreement to the Commencement Date in writing. The Parties' written confirmation of the Commencement Date shall be deemed part of this Covenant and incorporated herein. 2.2 Outside Date. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Covenant, and subject to extension for events of Force majeure as provided in Section 6.4, if the condition set forth in the first sentence of the preceding pazagraph is not satisfied on or before the date that is eighteen (18) months after the execution of the Agreement ("Outside Date'), this Covenant shall automatically terminate and in such event, neither Party shall have any further rights against or obligations to the other Party arising out of this Covenant, except for Owner's indemnity obligations set forth in Section 3.6 which shall survive the termination of this Covenant. I032/024600-0001 759576.02 al l/06/06 -3- 2.3 Operating Condition. If Owner or a Permitted Assignee ceases to operate the Hampton Hotel on the Site other than by reason of a Permitted Closure, then this Agreement shall terminate as of the date such Operation is discontinued (other than by reason of a Permitted Closure) and no further payments by City shall be due under Section 4.1. 3. OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS. 3.1 Continuous Oneration; Site As Point of Sale. Owner covenants and agrees to continuously operate the Hampton Hotel on the Site, ar to cause said Hampton Hotel to be continuously operated on the Site, during normal business hours (except for Permitted Closures) during the entire Operating Period. Owner covenants and agrees to report to the applicable govemment authority, or cause the reporting of to the applicable governmental authority, all transient occupancy, sales, and use taxes from occupancy, sales, and use occurring on the Site as being generated from the Site. 3.2 Use Restriction. During the entire Operating Period, the Site shall not be put to any use other than the operation of the Hampton Hotel and incidental related uses that comply with the Land Use Entitlements and applicable provisions of City's Municipal Code. 33 Maintenance and Repair of Site; Landscaping. During the entire Operating Period, Owner, at its sole cost and expense, shall keep and maintain the Site and the improvements thereon and all facilities appurtenant thereto in first class condition (as judged by other developments of similaz quality located in Santa Bazbara and San Luis Obispo counties) and keep free from accumulations of debris, weeds, graffiti, and waste materials, with landscaping in a healthy condition, and shall otherwise fully comply with the Site's landscape and maintenance standards established in the Land Use Approvals and Municipal Code. During such period, Owner shall not abandon any portion of the Site or leave the Site unguarded or unprotected, and shall not otherwise act or fail to act in such a way as to unreasonably increase the risk of any damage to the Site or of any other impairment of City's interest set forth in this Covenant. 3.4 Compliance with Laws. During the entire Operating Period, Owner shall construct and operate the Hampton Hotel on the Site in conformity with all applicable federal, state (including without limitation the California Civil Code, the California Government Code, the California Health & Safety Code, the California Labor Code, the California Public Resources Code, and the California Revenue & Ta�cation Code), and local laws, ordinances, and regulations (including without limitation the City's Transient Occupancy Tax). 3.5 Non-Discrimination. In the development and operation of the Hampton Hotel, Owner agrees not to violate applicable laws that prohibit discrimination against any person or class of persons on the basis of any impermissible classification including but not limited to gender, marital status, race, color, creed, mental or physical disability, religion, age, ancestry, or national origin. 3.6 Indemnification of Citv. 3.6.1 Owner shall indemnify, defend, assume all responsibility for, and hold the City, and the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and volunteers, 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 -4- harmless from any and all claims, demands, damages, defense costs or liability of any kind (including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation and court costs), that arise from the construction, development, or operation of the Site, including but not limited to the death or injury to any person or damage to any property, or azise from this Covenant (other than those damages caused by the breach of the Agreement by City or by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or by the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, or volunteers acting in an official capacity), including, but not limited to, Owner's failure to pay, if required, prevailing wages on the construction and development of the Site and any portion thereo£ Owner shall be solely responsible for determining and effectuating compliance with prevailing wage laws, and the City makes no representation as to the applicability or non- applicability of any of such laws to the development and construction of the Site or any part thereof. Owner hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City has not previously affirmatively represented to Owner or its contractor(s), in writing or otherwise, in a call for bids or otherwise, that the development or construction of a Hampton Hotel is not a"public work," as defined in Section 1720 of the Labor Code. The foregoing Owner indemnity of City shall include any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, cost, expense and/or "increased costs" (including attorneys' fees, court and litigation costs, and fees of expert witnesses) that results or azises in any way from any of the following: (i) the noncompliance by Owner or its contractor(s) or any subcontractor(s) of any applicable local, state and/or federal law, including, without limitation, any applicable federal and/or state labor laws (including, without limitation, if applicable, the requirement to pay state prevailing wages and hire apprentices); (ii) the implementation of Section 1781 of the Labor Code, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any other similar law; and/or (iii) failure by Owner or its contractor(s) or any subcontractar(s) to provide any required disclosure or identification as required by Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any other similar law. The term "increased costs," as used in this Section 8 shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time. The foregoing indemnity shall survive termination of this Agreement and shall continue after completion of the construction and development of the Site. 3.6.2 Owner shall indemnify, defend, assume all responsibility for, and hold the City, and the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and volunteers, hannless (including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation and court costs), from and against any claim, action, suit, proceeding, damage, liability, deficiency, fine, penalty, or punitive damage (including, without limitation, expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees) (collectively, "Environmental Claims"), resulting from, azising out of, or based upon (a) the presence, release, use, generation, discharge, storage or disposal of any Hazazdous Materials on, under, in or about, or the transportation of any such Hazardous Materials to or from, the Site, or (b) the violation, or alleged violation, of any present or future statute, ordinance, order, rule, regulation, permit,judgment or license relating to the use, generation, release, discharge, storage, disposal or transpoRation of Hazardous Materials on, under, in or about, to or from, the Site. "Environmental Law" shall mean all applicable past, present or future federal, state and local statutes, regulations, directives, ordinances, common law, and rules, which pertain to environmental matters, contamination of any type whatsoever, or health and safety matters, as such have been amended, modified or supplemented from time to time (including any present and future amendments thereto and re-authorizations thereo�, including, without limitation, those relating to: (a) the manufacture, processing, use, distribution, treatment, storage, disposal, �o3vozaeoo-oom 759536 02 al l/06/06 -5- generation or transportation of Hazardous Materials; (b) air, soil, surface, subsurface, surface water and groundwater; (c) the operation and closure of underground storage tanks; (d) health and safety of employees and other persons; and (e) notification and record keeping requirements relating to the foregoing. Without limiting the above, Environmental Laws also include the following: (a) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.), as amended ("CERCLA"); (b) the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq.), as amended ("RCRA"); (c) the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 11001 et seq.), as amended; (iv) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.), as amended; (d) the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.), as amended; (e) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.), as amended; (� the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.), as amended; (g) the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq.), as amended; (h) the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq.), as amended; (i) the Federal Radon and Indoor Air Quality Research Act(42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.); (j) the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq.), as amended; and (k) any state, county, municipal or local statutes, laws or ordinances similar or analogous to (including counterparts o� any of the statutes listed above. The foregoing indemnity shall survive termination of this Covenant and shall continue after completion of the construction and development of the Site. 3.63. Owner shall indemnify, defend, assume all responsibility for, and hold the City, and the City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and volunteers, harmless (including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation and court costs), from and against any claim, action, suit, proceeding, damage, liability, deficiency, fine, penalty, or punitive damage (including, without limitation, expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees), arising out of any obligation for payment of any real estate or broker's commission or finder's fee in connection with this Covenant, or Owner's acquisition or development of the Site. The foregoing indemnity shall survive termination of this Covenant and shall continue afrer completion of the construction and development of the Site. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY. 4.1 Covenant Pavments to Owner. 4.1.1 Amount of Covenant Payments; Covenant Payments Cap Amount. In consideration for Owner's undertakings pursuant to this Covenant and the encumbrance of Owner's interest in the Site pursuant to this Covenant, City shall make the following Covenant Payments to Owner during the Operating Period subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) At the conclusion of each twelve (12) month period following the Commencement Date (until the Termination Date), City shall determine all of the following: (i) if the total City Transient Occupancy Tax revenue received by and paid to City by all Transient Occupancy Tax payors during such twelve (12) month period exceeds by Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) the total City Transient Occupancy Tax revenues received by and paid to City by all Transient Occupancy Tax payors for the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the Commencement Date, 1032/024600-OOOI 759536.02 al l/06/06 -6- i (ii) if the Transient Occupancy Tax received by and paid to City I from the operation of the Hampton Hotel on the Site during such twelve (12) month period is at least Fifty Thousand Dollazs ($50,000) ("Threshold AmounY'); and (iii) if the Owner complied with its obligations set forth in Section 3 during the entire applicable twelve (12) month period, as described in Section 4.2 below. (b) If City determines that the conditions in clauses (i) and (ii) of the preceding subparagraph (a) have been met, City shall (in accordance with Section 4.13) reimburse Owner One Dollar ($1.00) for every Two Dollazs ($2.00 ) that is in excess of the Threshold Amount (the "Annual Reimbursement Payment); provided, however that in no event shall any Annual Reimbursement Payment be greater than Fifty Thousand Dollazs ($50,000) ("Annual Reimbursement Payment Cap AmounY'). There shall be no carry-over to a subsequent year of any reimbursement amount eamed but not paid because it exceeds the Annual Reimbursement Payment Cap Amount of Fifty Thousand Dollazs ($50,000). City shall have no obligation to make any Annual Reimbursement Payment if the Threshold Amount is not attained even if such Threshold Amount is never attained during the Operating Period. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Covenant to the contrary, in no event shall the total sum of all Annual Reimbursement Payments made by City to Owner exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollazs ($250,000.00) (the "Covenant Payments Cap AmounY'). (d) Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Covenant to the contrary, even in the event the Threshold Amount has not been reached at the end of the Operating Period, and/or even in the event the Covenant Payments Cap Amount has not been reached at the end of the Operating Period, this Covenant shall terminate and City shall have no further obligation after that time to make any further or additional Covenant Payments. 4.1.2 Source of Payments. The Annual Reimbursement Payment shall be payable from any source of funds legally available to City, including City's general fund. In this regard, it is understood and agreed that the Transient Occupancy Tax that is generated from the Hampton Hotel and other Transient Occupancy Tax payors is being used merely as a measure of the amount of the Covenant Payments that may be periodically owing by City to Owner under this Covenant, if applicable as set forth above, and that City is not pledging any portion of the Transient Occupancy Tax generated from the Site to Owner or any other general funds monies. 4.13 Payment Procedure. (a) Not later than thirty (30) days afrer the end of the first twelve month period following the attainment of the Threshold Amount, City shall pay the Annual Reimbursement Payment for said twelve month period to Owner. Each such payment shall be accompanied by a statement identifying (i) the amount of Transient Occupancy Tax upon which the Annual Reimbursement Payment amount was calculated and (ii) a cumulative total compazing how the Annual Reimbursement Payment in question, together with all prior Annual Reimbursement Payments, if any, relate to the Covenant Payment Cap Amount. 1032/@4600-0001 759536.@ al I/O6/06 —7— (b) It is understood and agreed by the Parties that the amount of City's Annual Reimbursement Payments to Owner shall be based upon the amount of Transient Occupancy Taac that City shall have been able to reasonably confirm it actually has received from the within fifteen (15) days prior to the applicable payment date. In addition, if, after any such Annual Reimbursement Payment is made (or not made because the conditions for payment were not met), either City or Owner obtains information that the amount of City's payment was in error, the Party obtaining such information shall promptly notify the other Party and shall provide such detailed information as may be necessary to explain the discrepancy. The , discrepancy then shall be taken into consideration by means of an adjustment to the next Annual Reimbursement payment to be made by City (either an additional payment in the event City has underpaid a prior Annual Reimbursement Payment that is due or a credit against the subsequent Annual Reimbursement Payment in the event City has overpaid); provided, however, that in the event(i) an adjustment needs to be made in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), or(ii)the Annual Reimbursement Payment in question is the final one to be made under this Covenant, the Party entitled to said sum shall be entitled to deliver a written notice to the other Party requesting an immediate adjustment and in such event the other Party shall make an appropriate payment within fifteen(15) days from receipt of said notice. 4.1.4 Books and Records. Upon the written request of either Party, the other Party shall make available for inspection (at City Hall in the event of a review of City records and at Owner's place of business in Arroyo Grande in the event of a review of Owner's records) such of its books and records as the requesting Party may reasonably determine must be reviewed in order determine whether the correct amount of Annual Reimbursement Payments have been made or are being made hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall not be required to produce any books or records that it is prohibited from producing by law and Owner shall not be required to produce information that violates the statutorily prescribed privacy rights of individual customers. 4.1.5 No Acceleration; Prepavment Permitted. It is acknowledged by the Parties that any payments by City provided for in this Covenant aze in consideration for the performance by Owner during the time period(s) for which payments are due. Therefore, City's failure to timely make any payments or City's failure to perform any of its other obligations hereunder shall not cause the acceleration of any anticipated future Annual Reimbursement Payments by City to Owner. 4.2 Additional Condition Precedent to Citv's Oblieations. In addition to the provisions set forth in Section 2 of this Covenant, City's obligation to make the Covenant Payments pursuant to Section 4.1 of this Covenant for any twelve month period during the Operating Period shall be contingent and conditional upon Owner's performance of its obligations set forth in Section 3 of this Covenant during such twelve month period. 5. DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES. 5.1 Defaults. (a) Subject to Force Majeure (Section 6.4), the occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a Default: io3zrozaeoo-000i 759536.02 al l/06/06 '8' i - (i) the failwe by either Party to perform any obligation of such Party for the payment of money under this Covenant if such failure is not cured within fifteen (15) calendaz days after the nonperforming Party's receipt of written notice from the other Party that such obligation was not performed when due; or (ii) the failure by either Party to perform any of its obligations (other than obligations described in clause (i) of this Section 5.1) set forth in this Covenant, if such failure is not cured within thirty (30) days after the nonperforming Party's receipt of written notice from the other Party or, if such failure is of a nature that cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days, the failure by such Party to commence such cure within thirty(30) days and thereafter diligently and continuously prosecutes such cure to completion; or (iii) any representation or warranty by a Party set forth in this Covenant proves to have been incorrect in any material respect when made; or (iv) the Hampton Hotel is materially damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty during the Operating Period and Owner fails to commence restoration of the improvements within a six (6) months or thereafter fails to diligently and continuously proceed to complete such restoration in accordance with this Covenant; or (v) Owner is enjoined or otherwise prohibited by any governmental agency from occupying the Site during the Operating Period and such injunction or prohibition continues unstayed for ninety (90) days or more for any reason. (b) In the event Owner fails to perform any of its obligations under this Covenant and City sends a notice of such failure to Owner, concurrently therewith City shall send a copy of such notice to any mortgagee or deed of trust holder with respect to the Site (herein the "Holder") (the name and address of which Holder shall be furnished by Owner or such Holder to City) and the Holder shall have the same period of time as is available to Owner to remedy such breach or failure under this Covenant. City shall accept any proper cure of a breach or failure tendered by the Holder. 5.2 Citv's Remedies Upon Default bv Owner. Upon the occurrence of any Default by Owner, and after Owner's receipt of written notice of default and expiration of the time for Owner to cure such Default as provided in Section 5.1, City may at its option: (i) suspend the payment of Annual Reimbursement Payments otherwise due and payable to Owner hereunder for the period that Owner remains in Default. If City has so suspended its payments in accordance with the terms of this clause (i), then upon Owner's cure of such Default, City shall resume its payment obligations, but shall have no obligation to make payments for any twelve month period or portion thereof during which City's obligation to make payments was so suspended; or (ii) if the Default continues uninterrupted for a period of six (6) months, City may terminate this Covenant, in which case City's obligation to make payments to Owner for any period of time after the occurrence of the Default shall be fully and finally terminated and dischazged. 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 -9- . � i � i � In no event, however, shall City have the right (i) to specifically enforce Owner's ' covenants set forth in Section 3 of this Covenant, (ii)to seek damages other than by offset of future Annual Reimbursement Payments otherwise due hereunder, or (iii)to prevent Owner's lawful conversion of the Site to another lawful use (even if such use would be inconsistent with this Covenant). 53 Owner's Remedies Uuon Default bv Citv. Upon the occurrence of any Default by City, and after City's receipt of written notice of Default from Owner and expiration of the time for City to cure such Default as provided in Section 5.1, Owner may terminate this Covenant by written notice to City and/or seek whatever legal or equitable remedies may be available to Owner, subject to the provisions of Section 4.1.5; provided, however, that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing to the contrazy, in no event shall Owner be entitled to obtain damages of any kind from City for lost profits or any other economic or consequential damages of any kind other than any amount of Annual Reimbursement Payment to which Owner was entitled but which was not paid by City to Owner. 5.4 Cumulative Remedies: No Waiver. Except as expressly provided herein, the nondefaulting Party's rights and remedies hereunder are cumulative and in addition to all rights and remedies provided by law from time to time and the exercise by the nondefaulting Party of any right or remedy shall not prejudice such Party in the exercise of any other right or remedy. None of the provisions of this Covenant shall be considered waived by either Party except when such waiver is delivered in writing. No waiver of any Default shall be implied from any omission by City to take action on account of such Default if such Default persists or is repeated. No waiver of any Default shall affect any Default other than the Default expressly waived, and any such waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent stated. No waiver of any provision of this Covenant shall be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same provision. A Party's consent to or approval of any act by the other Party requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consenting Party's consent to or approval of any subsequent act. A Party's acceptance of the late performance of any obligation shall not constitute a waiver by such Party of the right to require prompt performance of all further obligations. A Party's acceptance of any performance following the sending or filing of any notice of Default shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to proceed with the exercise of its remedies for any unfulfilled obligations. A Party's acceptance of any partial performance shall not constitute a waiver by that Party of any rights relating to the unfulfilled portion of the applicable obligation. 5.5 Limitations on Citv's Liability. Owner acknowledges and agrees that: (i)this Covenant shall not be deemed or construed as creating a partnership, joint venture, or similar association between Owner and City, the relationship between Owner and City pursuant to this Covenant is and shall remain solely that of contracting Parties, that the development and operation of the Hampton Hotel is a private undertaking, and City neither undertakes nor assumes any responsibility pursuant to this Covenant to review, inspect, supervise, approve, or inform Owner of any matter in connection with the development or operation of the Hampton Hotel on the Site other than as expressly provided for herein, including matters relating to azchitects, designers, suppliers, or the materials used by any of them; and Owner shall rely entirely on its own judgment with respect to such matters; (ii) by virtue of this Agreement, City shall not be directly or indirectly liable or responsible for any loss or injury of any kind to any iosziozacoo-000� 759536.02 al l/06/06 -10- � � i I I i person or property resulting from any construction on, or occupancy or use of, the Site, whether azising from: (a) any defect in any building, grading, landscaping, or other onsite or offsite , improvement (b) any act or omission of Owner or any of Owner's agents, employees, independent contractors, licensees, lessees, or invitees; ar (c) any accident on the Site or any fire or other casualty or hazard thereon; and (iii) by accepting or approving anything required to be performed or given to City under this Covenant, including any certificate, survey, appraisal, or insurance policy, City shall not be deemed to have warranted or represented the sufficiency or legal effect of the same, and no such acceptance or approval shall constitute a warranty or representation by City to anyone. 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 61 Integration and Amendment. This Covenant constitutes the entire agreement by and between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and supersede all prior agreements and understandings of the Parties with respect thereto. This Covenant may not be modified, amended, supplemented, or otherwise changed except by a writing executed by both Parties. 6.2 Caotions. Section headings used in this Covenant are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction of any provisions of this Covenant. 63 Binding Effect; Successors and Assigns; Assi n�. This Covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of, the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, as limited by this Section 63. Except as such assignment relates to Holder, the Owner shall not assign, hypothecate, encumber or otherwise transfer, either voluntazily, involuntazily or by operation of law, its rights or obligations as set forth in this Covenant without first obtaining the City's written consent, which may be given or denied or conditioned in the City's sole and absolute discretion. Owner may assign its right to receive the Covenant Payments to any Holder for security purposes or to any lessee or business owning and operating the Hampton Hotel on the Site. In the event of an assignment for security purposes to a Holder, City agrees that this Covenant be subordinated to the lien of said Holder's deed of trust or mortgage and City agrees to cooperate with Owner in executing an appropriate subordination agreement. In the event of any assignment that is consented to in writing by the City, the references in this Covenant to "Owner" shall be deemed to refer to the assignee. 6.4 Force Majeure. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Covenant to the contrary, in no event shall a Party be deemed to be in Default of its obligations set forth herein where delays or failures to perform are caused by circumstances without the fault and beyond the reasonable control of such Party, which circumstances shall include, without limitation, fire/casualty losses; strikes; litigation; unusually severe weather; inability to secure necessary labor, materials, or tools; delays of any contractor, subcontractor, or supplier; unjustified acts or failure to act by City or other govermnental agency in the processing of plans or permits or inspection or approval of the construction of the Hampton Hotel project; litigation by third Parties challenging the validity or enforceability of the Agreement or this Covenant or the Land Use Approvals and acts of god (collectively, "force majeure"). Adverse mazket conditions or Owner's inability to obtain financing or approval to operate the Hampton Hotel shall not constitute events of force majeure. In the event of an event of force majeure, the Party i o3xiozaeoo-000i -11- 759536.02 al l/06/06 so delayed shall notify the other Party of the circumstances and cause of the delay within a reasonable time period after commencement of the delay, it shall keep the other Party informed at reasonable intervals upon request regarding the status of its efforts to overcome said delay, and it shall exercise commercially reasonable diligence to perform as soon as practicable thereafter. 6.5 Notices. Notices to be given by City or Owner hereunder may be delivered personally or may be delivered by prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, or by reputable pre-paid same-day or overnight delivery service providing a delivery conformation receipt, with notices to be addressed to the appropriate address(es) hereinafrer set forth or to such other address(es) that a Party may hereafter designate by written notice. Notices given by personal delivery shall be effective upon receipt. Notices delivered by same-day or overnight delivery service or by certified mail shall be effective on delivery or attempted delivery as shown on the delivery confirmation receipt or postal return receipt. If notice is to City: City: City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Attention: Steve Adams, City Manager with a copy to: City of Arroyo Grande P. O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Attention: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney If notice is to Owner: Arroyo Grande Inn-Vestments, LLC Attn: Michael F. Gallegof, Managing Member Anoyo Grande, CA 93420 with a copy to: Attention: 6.6 Further Acts. Each Party agrees to take such further actions and to execute such other documents as may be reasonable and necessary in the performance of its obligations hereunder reserving to City, however, its lawful discretionazy and police power authority. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, upon the expiration or termination of the Operating Period, City will execute and deliver such instruments as may be prepazed by Owner at Owner's expense to release the cloud upon title to the Site created by this Covenant; provided, however, that any such document shall be in a form and with content reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney of City. 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 '12' i� 6.7 Third Party Beneficiaries. With the exception of the specific provisions set forth in this Covenant for the benefit of Holder, there are no intended third party beneficiaries under this Covenant and no such other third parties shall have any rights or obligations hereunder. 6.8 Lee.al Advice. Each Party represents and warrants to the other the following: they have cazefully read this Agreement, and in signing this Agreement, they do so with full knowledge of any right which they may have; they have received independent legal advice from their respective legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement, or have knowingly chosen not to consult legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement; and, they have freely signed this Agreement without any reliance upon any agreement, promise, statement or representation by or on behalf of the other Party, or their respective agents, employees or attorneys, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, and without duress or coercion, whether economic or otherwise. 6.9 Governing Law; Litigation Matters. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of law principles. If either Party commences an action against the other Party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party its expert witness fees (if any), its reasonable litigation costs and expenses including, without limitation, litigation costs, and its reasonable attorneys' fees. The Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo shall have the exclusive jurisdiction of any litigation between the Parties. 6.10 Nonliability of Citv Officials. No officer, official, employee, agent, representative, or volunteer of City shall be personally liable to Owner or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Owner or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. 6.11 Counterparts. This Covenant may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Signatures contained on next page.] 1032/@4600-0001 759536.02 al l/06/06 -13- � IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Covenant to be effective as of , the Effective Date. "CITY" CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a California municipal corporation By: Steve Adams, City Manager ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney "O WNER" ARROYO GRANDE INN-VESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Michael F. Gallegof, Managing Member 103JJ024600A001 759536.02 al l/06/06 -14- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/aze subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] 1032/024600-0001 759536.02 al I/O6/06 -15- __ E pRROY� 5�� p C� � INCOflPOFATEO ➢Z u ,°„ ♦ ,w�� +o, �e�� * MEMORANDUM C9��FORa`P T0: CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGERIEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR, UNDERWRITER AND DISCLOSURE COUNSEL TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR ISSUANCE OF BOND FINANCING DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 I � RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors approve and authorize the Mayor/Chair to execute agreements with Harrell & Company Advisors for financial advisor, E.J. De La Rosa for underwriter and Jones Hall for disclosure counsel for tax allocation bond financing proposed by the Redevelopment Agency. FUNDING: Total costs for the proposed agreements are estimated to be as follows: , Disclosure Counsel $12,500 Underwriter $67,650 Financial Advisor 24 300 Total $104,450 Total fees and costs are estimated to be approximately $610,000, which includes over $400,000 in required reserves. Reserves are funds 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 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 ' S:4ldministra[ion\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Redevelopment Financing 11.14.06.doc CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGREEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR, UNDERWRITER AND DISCLOSURE COUNSEL TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR I ISSUANCE OF BOND FINANCING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 2 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 $2,684,248 Sale of Faeh Street Property $830,000 Fees for connection to Poplar Ponding Basin 400 000 $3,914,248 Therefore, approximately $100,000 is projected to be remaining. It is recommended that this funding be utilized for undergrounding of utilities for the proposed Applebee's project. At the October 10`h meeting, the City Council/Board of Directors approved a proposal by Tierra West Advisors, LLC, the City's redevelopment consultants, to provide fiscal consultant services for coordination of issuance of the bond financing. Part of their scope of work is to assemble and coordinate the bond financing team. The proposed team consists of the recommended firms, along with the Agency's special counsel, Rutan & Tucker, who will serve as bond counsel. A kickoff meeting for the bond team has been scheduled in Costa Mesa on November 30�h, which will be attended by the City Manager and Director of ' Financial Services. ALTERNATIVES: i The following alternatives are provided for the City Council/Redevelopment ' Agency Board of Directors' consideration: ' - Approve and authorize the MayodChair to execute agreements with Harrell & Company Advisors for financial advisor, E.J. De La Rosa for undervuriter and Jones Hall for disclosure counsel for tax allocation bond financing proposed by the Redevelopment Agency; - Direct staff to proceed with bond issuance, but issue a Request for Proposal for individual services; - Direct staff to postpone bond issuance; i - Provide staff direction. ' S:�Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Redevelopment Financing 1114.06.doc I I CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGREEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR, UNDERWRITER AND DISCLOSURE COUNSEL TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR ISSUANCE OF BOND FINANCING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 3 Attachments: 1. Proposed Agreements S:�Adminishation\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Redevelopment Financing 11.14.06.doc AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, is effective as of November 15, 2006, between HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC ("ConsultanY') 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 , 2006 and shall remain and continue until terminated as provided herein. 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. Suzanne Harrell shall represent Consultant in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT Consultant shall be paid a lump sum fee by City in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B. Payment of fees shall be entirely contingent, shall be due and payable upon the delivery of the bonds and shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the bonds. 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. Page 1 of 9 i I , 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 ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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. 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; Page 2 of 9 (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 ConsultanYs 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 necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files. Page 3 of 9 11. INDEMNIFICATION (a) Indemnification for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for ConsultanYs 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 attomey'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 Liabilitv. 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 ' monitor 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. 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 ConsultanYs exclusive direction and Page 4 of 9 control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of ConsultanYs 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, 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. Page 5 of 9 (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 not imply 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: Harrell & Company Advisors 333 City Blvd. West Suite 1430 Orange, CA 92868 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. Page 6 of 9 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 convenience 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 writinp 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 behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. Pa e7of9 I� , g IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE/ HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC REDEVEIOPMENT AGENCY By: By: Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair Suzanne Harrell Its: Attest: Managing Director Date: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney Date: Page 8 of 9 i EXHIBIT A INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consu/tanf will maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consu/tant wil! use existing coverage fo comp/y with fhese requiremenfs. If that existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth here, Consultanf 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 applicab/e to a given loss, will be availab/e 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 ConsultanYs 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 behalP' 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 i � 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 Vll. 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 ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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 I�� I - - - 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 to 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 ConsultanYs 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 expiration. A coverage binder or letter from ConsultanYs 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 I be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect j thereto. Page 4 of 5 ; i 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. Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, is effective as of November 15, 2006, between E.J. DE LA ROSA & COMPANY ("ConsultanY') 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 , 2006 and shall remain and continue until terminated as provided herein. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall serve as the investment banker responsible to underwrite tax allocation bonds to be issued by City. Services provided by Consultant shall include, but not be limited to the following: (a) Work with the financing team on the organization and coordination of the financing team; (b) Prepare a financial analysis; (c) Review and evaluation of various financing structures available to issuer; (d) Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive financing plan and marketing strategy for the issuance of bonds; (e) Assess benefits of rated bonds, and if found cost effective or prudent, facilitate such rating; (f) Assess benefits of credit enhancements (letter of credit, bond insurance, etc.) and if found cost effective or prudent, facilitate such enhancement, if applicable; (g) Facilitate the preparation of an Official Statement (OS), including, among other things, a detailed description of each financing undertaken, the debt to be offered, the financing plan for each individual financing, and such statistical and other matters as desired for informing investors and other concerned parties; (h) Coordination of the printing and distribution of each OS; (i) Preparation of cash flow statements, debt amortization schedules, and other appropriate financial information as requested by issuer; Q) Submit a Bond Purchase Contract at such time and place as mutually agreed upon by the issuer and Consultant for the purchase of the bonds; (k) Purchase the bonds of the issuer; (I) Coordination of closing and delivery activities of the bonds. Page 1 of 8 � 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 ManagedExecutive Director shall represent City in all matters �, pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. Eric Scriven shall represent Consultant in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT Consultant shall be paid $16.50 per $1,000 for non-rated and non-insured bonds, $14.50 per $1,000 for investment grade rating, non-insured bonds, and $12.50 per $1,000 for AA or AAA insured bonds. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any costs incurred by Consultant. Payment of fees shall be due and payable upon the delivery of I� the bonds and shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the bonds. ' 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE 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 pertormed 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 ConsultanYs business; or (c) Assignment of this Agreement by Consultant without the consent of City. (d) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1. Page 2 of 8 i 8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT (a) The ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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. 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 ConsultanYs 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. Page 3 of 8 i 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 ConsultanYs office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files. 11. INDEMNIFICATION (a) Indemnification for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for ConsultanYs 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 Liabilitv. 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), Page 4 of 8 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 monitor 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. (d) Citv Indemnification Provisions. The City will indemnify the Consultant against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities and expenses (i) arising out of any statement or information in the Preliminary Official Statement or in the Official Statement, relating to the City, that is or is alleged to be untrue or incorrect in any material respect or the omission or alleged omission therefrom of any statement or information that should be stated therein or that is necessary to make the statements therein relating to the City not misleading in any material respect. 12. INSURANCE Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 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 ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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 per�orming services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or Page 5 of 8 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, 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 not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. Page 6 of 8 i � 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: Eric Scriven De La Rosa and Company 90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 414 San Francisco, CA 94105 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. I 21. TIME City and Consultant agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement. Page 7 of 8 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 convenience 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 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/ E.J. DE LA ROSA & COMPANY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: By: Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair Eric Scriven, Senior Vice President Date: Attest: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney Date: Page 8 of 8 i � EXHIBIT A 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 fo 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 fhe insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this secfion constifute 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 fhe 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 I paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by ;I 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 I 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 ConsultanYs 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 Vll. 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 ConsultanYs 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. I 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these I�I 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 i 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 I insured endorsement to ConsultanYs 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 ' I i - 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 in it surance 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 to 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 ConsultanYs 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 i 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 expiration. A coverage binder or letter from ' ConsultanYs 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. Page 5 of 5 i AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, is effective as of November 15, 2006, between JONES HALL, a professional law corporation ("ConsultanY') 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 , 2006 and shall remain and continue until terminated as provided herein. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall serve as disclosure counsel with respect to the Official Statement relating to the issuance of tax allocation bonds by the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency, which shall include the following services: (a) Review the Official Statement (both preliminary and final) to be prepared by the Agency with the assistance of the Financial Advisor in connection with the offering of the bonds; (b) Confer and consult with the Bond Counsel for the Agency, the Fiscal Consultant, the Financial Advisor and with the officers and staff of the Agency as to matters relating to the Official Statement; (c) Attend all meetings at which the Official Statement is to be discussed, as deemed necessary by Consultant for the proper exercise of due diligence with respect to the Official Statement, or when specifically requested by the Agency or the Financial Advisor to attend; (d) Subject to the preparation of the Official Statement to ConsultanYs ' satisfaction, provide a letter of Jones Hall, addressed to the Agency and to the original purchaser of the bonds to the effect that, although Consultant has not undertaken to determine independently or assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the statements contained in the Official Statement, in the course of Consultant's participation in the preparation of the Official Statement, Consultant has been in contact with the Fiscal Consultant, the Financial Advisor, the Bond Counsel for the Agency and with representatives of the Agency and others, concerning the contents of the Official Statement and related manners. The letter shall further state that, based upon the foregoing, nothing has come to ConsultanYs attention to lead Consultant to believe that the Official Statement (except for any financial or statistical data or forecasts, numbers, charts, estimates, projections, assumptions or expressions of opinion included therein, information relating to any bond insurer of provider of any other credit facility or investment agreement and information relating to The Depository Trust Company and its book-entry system, as to which Consultant need express no view) as of the date of the Official Statement of the date of the closing contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order Page 1 of 8 to make the statement therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability, experience and talent, pertorm 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 ManagedExecutive Director shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. Andrew Hall shall represent Consultant in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT Consultant shall be paid compensation in the amount of twelve thousand, five hundred dollars ($12,500). Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any costs incurred by Consultant. Payment of fees shall be entirely contingent, shall be due and payable upon the delivery of the bonds and shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the bonds. 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: Page 2 of.8 � (a) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party; (b) Sale of ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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. 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 ConsultanYs 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. , � Page 3 of 8 II I (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 ConsultanYs office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, � transferring, and printing computer files. 11. INDEMNIFICATION (a) Indemnification for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for ConsultanYs 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 I performance of professional services under this agreement. (b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liabilitv. 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, Page 4 of 8 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 monitor 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 A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 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 ConsultanYs exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over I the conduct of Consultant or any of ConsultanYs 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 i 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. Page 5 of 8 i 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 INFORMATIONICONFLICTS OF INTEREST (a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall i be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior � written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors, 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 not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. Page 6 of 8 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: Jones Hall Attn: Andrew C. Hall, Jr. 650 California Street Eighteenth Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 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. Page 7 of 8 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 convenience 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 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/ JONES HALL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: By: Tony Ferrara, MayodChair Andrew C. Hall, Jr. Its: Attest: (Title) Date: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk A roved As To Form: PP Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney Date: Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A 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 be/ow. Consultant will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet fhe requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that fhe 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 peroccurrence. 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 ConsultanYs 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. lnsurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer fhaf are admitted carriers in the sfate California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and a minimum financial size Vll. 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 ConsultanYs 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 ConsultanYs 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 to 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 ConsultanYs 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 expiration. A coverage binder or letter from ConsultanYs 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. Page4of5 22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Consultant arising out of the work pertormed 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. Page 5 of 5 � E pRROy� ��v� � C9 FINCORPORATED y2 V � T � ,nxr m, �e�� * MEMORANDUM c9��FORN`P TO: CITY COUNCILlREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGERIEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR STARTUP COSTS FOR EAST GRAND AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors appropriate and authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to expend an additional $3,000 for startup costs for the formation of an East Grand Avenue Business Improvement Association. FUNDING: Funds are recommended to be appropriated from the Redevelopment Agency budget. , Therefore, there will be no impact to the City's General Fund. DISCUSSION: The Mayor and staff have participated in a number of ineetings with business representatives on E. Grand Avenue, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Village Improvement Association (VIA). The purpose of the meetings have been to form a business association similar to the VIA, which would focus on and serve the E. Grand Avenue corridor. The goals would be to coordinate efforts and promotional activities to attract customers, provide feedback and coordination on efforts with the City, and fund and coordinate improvements to the corridor. Initial discussions have included efforts to create a, brochure to solicit membership, plans to increase holiday lighting in front of businesses, and to promote and enhance the Cruise Night event. IIndividual businesses are providing startup revenue and new members will pay a membership fee. However, additional funding from the City will assist in facilitating the organization to move ahead. The objective is for the organization to become financially self-sufficient. Given that the organization will significantly benefit the City's economic development goals, staff believes this funding will be a good investment. At the October 24, 2006 meeting, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of � Directors approved $2,000 for this purpose. However, after discussions with the I CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR STARTUP COSTS FOR EAST GRAND AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 2 steering committee, it was determined that $5,000 is needed and recommended to accomplish the initial objectives established. Therefore, an additional appropriation of $3,000 is now requested. ' ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the City Council's consideration: - Appropriate and authorize the City to expend an additional $3,000 for startup costs for the formation of an East Grand Avenue Business Improvement Association; - Approve a different amount; - Do not approve funding; - Provide direction to staff. 8.h. � PRR�rO � C? hINCONPONATEO 92 U m � JUIY 10. 1811 * P 4��PORN� MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: �` '�}tELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER P� SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-001; APPLICANT — DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION —415 EAST BRANCH STREET DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution denying, without prejudice, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001 (Creekside Mixed-Use Center). FUNDING: There are direct City costs associated with denial of the project. DISCUSSION: Backqround On October 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Creekside Mixed-Use Center project and determined that the project could not be approved based on the following concems: • Inadequate public use and pedestrian amenities and orientation adjoining Tally Ho Creek and the historic resources located on the site to become an extension of the Village. • Four (4) of the residential units proposed along Crown Terrace must back out into a narrow public street, conflicting with both pedestrian and automobile traffic and requiring removal of excessive numbers of existing trees that currently provide visual screening from Crown Hill residential uses. • Portions of the setting to the rear of the historic resources on the project site are not protected or preserved. • The proposed commercial/office building between the former Loomis warehouse and Crown Terrace is incompatible in height, mass, scale and design details with the adjoining residential neighborhood on Crown Hill and the on-site historic resources and setting. Council tentatively denied the project, without prejudice, on a 4:1 vote. CITY COUNCIL ' VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) NOVEMBER 14,2006 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying the project without prejudice; 2. Modify the attached Resolution denying the project without prejudice; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO i GRANDE DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-001 (THE "CREEKSIDE CENTER"), FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 415 EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY DB & M PROPERTY, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 3710 on September 23, 2003 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Creekside Center project (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002 and Conditional Use Permit 01-001); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-004 and Planned Unit Development 04-001 on January 18, 2005 and April 19, 2005 and recommended denial to the City Council based on the inability to make certain findings regarding issues of consistency with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent, and requirements of the General Plan; public health, safety, and welfare; and consistency with the purpose and intent of the Development Code; and � WHEREAS, the City Council has considered Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-004 and Planned Unit Development 04-001, filed by DB & M Property, LLC, to reconfigure 23 existing parcels into 13 parcels, and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 12 duplexes, a 12,000 square foot three-story commercial/office building, and retention of existing historic structures; and WHEREAS, the City Council held duly-noticed public hearings on June 14, 2005, August 8, 2006 and October 24, 2006 on these applications in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; 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: 1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, � programs, intent, and requirements of the General Plan Land Use Element, specifically policies LU6-5 and LU6-7, because there are inadequate public use and pedestrian amenities and orientation adjoining Tally Ho Creek and the historic resources located on the site to become an extension of the Village. � i � RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 2. The proposed project will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and result in an illogical land use pattern because four (4) of the residential units proposed along Crown Terrace must back out into a narrow public street, conflicting with both pedestrian and automobile traffic and requiring removal of a substantial number of existing trees that currently provide visual screening from Crown Nill residential uses, in contravention of General Plan policies C/OS 1-1.4, LU 11-2.4 and LU 11-2.5. 3. The proposed project is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code and certified EIR because portions of the setting to the rear of the historic resources on the project site are not protected or preserved. 4. The proposed commercial/office building between the former Loomis warehouse and Crown Terrace is incompatible in height, mass, scale and design details with the adjoining residential neighborhood on Crown Hill and the on-site historic i resources and setting, inconsistent with General Plan Land Use policy LU6-1 and the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies, without prejudice, Vesting Tentative Map 04-004 and Planned Unit Development 04-001 based on the above findings. 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 FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY 8.i. pRROyp pE c,A � INCOHPORATED 9 V m MEMORANDUM � JVIY 10. IBI1 * . c9��FOR��P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WOOD RODGERS, INC. TO INCLUDE A NORTHBOUND AUXILIARY LANE IN THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: 1. approve a contract amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a northbound auxiliary lane in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); and 2. authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. FUNDING: It�is estimated $17,320 will be needed to include a northbound auxiliary lane in the PA&ED. The $17,320 will be funded from Regional State Highway Account (RSHA)funds through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). This amount is included in the $182,000 of prior funds for project STLAG01 R - Brisco Rd/Grand Ave Interchange Improvements as shown in San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL-01. DISCUSSION: The Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase of project development is underway. To ensure comprehensive improvements and an acceptable level of service throughout the project study area, Caltrans, SLOCOG and Wood Rodgers, Inc. have recommended that a northbound auxiliary lane between East Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado be added to the project. This improvement is consistent with SLOCOG's Route 101 operational improvements studies. Wood Rodgers, Inc. has given the City an estimate of $17,320 to include the northbound auxiliary lane in the project. This item could be added to Wood Rodgers' existing contract and should not affect the overall project schedule. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE A NORTHBOUND AUXILIARY LANE IN THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve a contract amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a northbound auxiliary lane in the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); . Do not approve a contract amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a northbound auxiliary lane in the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); or • Provide staff direction. Attachment: 1. Consultant Services Agreement, Amendment #2 jep:M:�232-Cily of Arroyo Grande�232-5642 - Brisco.101 PA&ED\Consulfant Selection\Contract Amendment No. 2\Council Memo - Contract Amendment 08.08.06.doc CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT#2 ' The ConsultanYs Services Agreement by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE and WOOD RODGERS, INC., dated January 11, 2005, is hereby amended this day of , 2006, to include the following scope of work for a not to exceed amount of $17,320. All other terms and conditions set forth in said Consultant Services Agreement shall remain unchanged. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK Wood Rodgers proposes revision of the following documents to reflect the addition of the northbound auxiliary lane to include those features as part of the Project Report and the Environmental Document, and ensure the northbound auxiliary lane proceeds fonvard with the proposed Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 improvements. Prepare Geometric Drawings: Wood Rodgers will modify the geometric drawings for each alternative to reflect the inclusion of the auxiliary lanes in the northbound direction. With the proposed closure of the northbound Brisco Road ramps, the auxiliary lane will extend from the East Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Camino Mercado off-ramp. Analysis of the need for retaining walls or impacts to righY of way will also be performed, although these are not anticipated. However, if walis or additional right-of-way is deemed necessary, Right-of- Way effort and Retaining Wall studies can be added at a future date, pending City approval. Revise Proiect Descriutions: Wood Rodgers will revise the project descriptions for each Alternative to include the northbound auxiliary lanes as part of the proposed project. Revise Proiect Need and Purpose: Wood Rodgers will revise the current projects need and purpose to reflect the operational benefits of the northbound auxiliary lane. This will most likely include "merging" the Need and Purpose from the approved SLO-Ops 1C PSR with the current projects' Need and Purpose. ' Revise Traffic Analvsis: The current traffic analysis assumes the northbound auxiliary lanes will be constructed by others. Therefore, the operational benefits of the auxiliary lane is reflected in the future traffic analysis portions of the document. The document will be updated to reflect the northbound auxiliary lane being constructed as part of the current project. ,i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this amendment the day and year first above written. WOOD RODGERS, INC. By: � CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE By: I I . � jep:M:�232-Ciry of Arroyo Grande�232-5642 - Brisco.101 PA&ED\Consultant Selection\Contrect Amendment No. 2\Contract Amendment No.2.doc 8.j. E pRROy� O �',p 1 INCOFPOA�TEO 9 � m MEMORANDUM � JULY �0. 1011 * c9��FORN`P TO: - CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATIOi� OF A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WOOD RODGERS, INC.TO INCLUDE A ROUNDABOUT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS IN THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: 1. approve a contract amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a roundabout feasibility analysis in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); and 2. authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. FUNDING: It is estimated $25,540 will be needed to include a roundabout feasibility analysis in the PA&ED. The$25,540 will be funded from Regional State Highway Account(RSHA)funds through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). This $25,540 is included in the $300,000 of FY 2006-07 funds for project STLAG01 R - Brisco Rd/Grand Ave Interchange Improvements as shown in San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL-01. DISCUSSION: The Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase of project development is underway. The alternatives analyzed to date require the widening of the Brisco Road overcrossing in order to achieve an acceptable future level of service. There is a possibility that the cost of widening the overcrossing may not be fundable. This analysis will be aimed at determining if roundabouts would mitigate the need to widen the Brisco Road overcrossing. This analysis will also determine conceptual roundabout design, and identify additional areas of impact that will most likely need additional environmental study. It should be noted that the roundabouts may extend outside of the current areas of environmental study. If this occurs, the existing original agreement may need to be augmented for additional services. 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WOOD RODGERS, INC. TO INCLUDE A ROUNDABOUT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS IN THE BRISCO ROAD- HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 2 Wood Rodgers, Inc. has given the City an estimate of$25,540 to include the roundabout feasibility analysis in the project. This item could be added onto to Wood Rodgers' existing contract and may slightly extend the overall project schedule. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve a contract amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a roundabout feasibility analysis in the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); � • Do not approve a contract amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a � roundabout feasibility analysis in the Project Approval & Environmental Document i (PA&ED); or I • Provide staff direction. IAttachment: i 1. Consultant Services Agreement, Amendment #3 � i il � CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT#3 The ConsultanYs Services Agreement by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE and WOOD RODGERS, INC., dated January 11, 2005, is hereby amended this day of , 2006, to include the following scope of work for a not to exceed amount of $25,540. All other terms and conditions set forth in said Consultant Services Agreement shall remain unchanged. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK At the request of the City and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Wood Rodgers will obtain the services of a Roundabouts and Traffic Engineering (RTE) to further analyze the feasibility of placing roundabouts at the intersections of Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Brisco Road/West Branch Street. This will be an analysis aimed at determining if roundabouts would mitigate the need to widen She Brisco Road overcrossing to accommodate future traffic. This amendment will also aid in determining conceptual roundabout design, and identifying additional areas of impact that will most likely need additional environmental study. It should be noted that the roundabouts may extend outside of the current areas of environmental study. If this occurs, the existing original agreement may need to be augmented for additional services. This amendment will list modifications to existing tasks, and add new tasks to accomplish the stated objectives. The scope is modified as follows: Proiect Manaqement: The Wood Rodgers Project Manager will coordinate the efforts of the project team members to ensure that necessary information and data is provided to most efficiently deliver the work products. The Project Manager will also be available for meetings, presentations, etc. related to this change, and perform all other tasks consistent with the original scope. Traffic Forecasts/Modelinq Wood Rodgers will utilize information from the previousiy prepared traffic study to provide RTE base traffic information, and future year traffic forecasts. Additionally, the Wood Rodgers traffic planning staff will support RTE in the analysis and micro- simulation of traffic at the subject intersections. Wood Rodgers traffic planning staff will also be available for up to two meetings/presentations to discuss the roundabout alternatives being considered. Enqineerinq Studies RTE wili be responsible for developing conceptual geometries for the roundabout alternative. Wood Rodgers will provide technical drafting support, and as required, incorporate conceptual drawings into the project base map. This will be used to determine the feasibility of roundabout placement within existing constraints, and analysis of impacts to the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Roundabout Analvsis (RTE) Task 1: Review of Existing Conditions: A review will be performed of the most recent site plans and roadway alignment information by RTE. RTE will be provided with the most recent electronic files (in AutoCAD 2000 format) for the existing and proposed roadways with respect to surrounding topography, centerlines, curb faces, edge of pavement, roadway lane markings (striping), proposed bike lanes, environmental constraints, buildings, adjacent access points, and right of way constraints labeled by Wood Rodgers. This shall include any special design constraints such as specific parcels/properties that cannot be encroached and specific lane widths desired. In addition, Wood Rodgers will identify and label the existing environmental study area boundaries in the design file for RTE's use. RTE will also review the Wood Rodgers' traffic study memorandum, which should include the final future design year traffic volumes and assumptions of the proposed project with the SR 101 On/Off Ramps closed. In addition, Wood Rodgers will provide RTE with the final future design year traffic volumes of the proposed intersections with the SR 101 On/Off.Ramps open since they are not defined in the traffic study. Any changes to the future design volumes will be provided to RTE prior to commencing the analyses. These items should provide adequate background traffic conditions, future traffic conditions outside the project area, as well as the level of detail, design parameters, right of way constraints, and location for the proposed roundabouts. Task 2: Review Future Conditions: RTE will review the future AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes at each intersection developed from the future projected traffic volume data. As mentioned above, since additional traffic volumes are requested that may not .be available in the provided traffic study, a simple schematic diagram consisting of the final future peak hour turning movement volumes at the intersections are requested with the "Ramps Open" option as a 5-leg roundabout. In order to accurately identify the roundabout geometric and capacity needs, the following will be provided by Wood Rodgers prior to starting the capacity (RODEL) analyses or roundabout design: • Future AM Peak Hour Flows (including Ramps Open / 5-Leg Roundabout) • Future PM Peak Hour Flows (including Ramps Open / 5-Leg Roundabout) • Future Percent Heavy Vehicles (by Approach, including 5-Leg Roundabout) • Design Vehicle Type by Turning Movement (i.e. WB-62, WB-67, etc.) • Vertical Constraints • ROW Constraints . Proposed Roadway Alignment Base Map (with travel lanes, face of curb, striping, bike lanes, ROW constraints, etc.) The future traffic conditions with respect to the operations and flows of the existing roadways will be reviewed and possibly discussed with the Project Team for project understanding and operational issues. These operational issues including the potential defays will be utilized in the design process and geometry criteria. RTE will also be provided with any relevant adjacent site plans and roadway cross sections that may affect the roundabout design (including the lane requirements for the proposed roadway). This task will also include verification of the appropriate heavy design vehicle and heavy vehicle volume percentages per approach assumed for the roundabout designs. Aithough at this point the design vehicle is assumed to be a WB-62, the heavy design vehicles should be identified for each turning movement for the required design constraints of the roundabouts. Identifying the appropriate percentage of heavy trucks is also critical to determine whether trucks will need to enter and circulate the roundabouts simultaneously. If a high amount of truck traffic is anticipated and trucks will be entering and circulating simultaneously through the roundabouts, special design parameter will need to be implemented in the design of the roundabouts to accommodate sucli occurrences on specific movements. Therefore, RTE will verify all sets of volumes, including truck volumes, and discuss with the Project Team any concerns that we may encounter. Task 3: Capacity Analyses (4 Roundabouts / 2 Alte�natives): After obtaining all of the pertinent information regarding the roadways, site, and traffic volumes, a geometric analysis of the proposed roundabouts under both alternatives (with and without the SR 101 Ramps) using the roundabout design software tool called RODEL will be conducted. The RODEL calculations will provide the initial lane geometry and capacity requirements for the roundabouts based on the future design volumes. This will set the right-of-way requirements for the conceptual roundabout designs. Both the AM and PM traffic volumes will need to be analyzed at each intersection under both alternatives at both the standard and peak percentile confidence levels for a total of eight (8) RODEL model runs/calculations. This will ensure each of the roundabouts will operate appropriately under both peak hour traffic conditions during typical design and critical design operations. The final results of this analysis will produce the following initial information: • Roundabout diameter (estimated size) • Entry lane configurations at each approach • Future traffic volume capacity by approach • Minimum approach widths and entry radii of the roundabouts • Delay of each approach and the overall delay of the intersection in seconds - Queue lengths for each approach for each alternative • Future Level of Service Task 4: Lane Configurations of Both Alternatives: Once the minimum design requirements have been established, basic lane configurations for the modem roundabout can be developed by initially identifying the flow of traffic and lane configuration requirements for the circulatory roadway and the exits of the roundabout. General locations for each roundabout will also be determined in order to identify if the environmental boundaries are currently adequate or whether revisiohs/expansion is needed for the roundabouts. After the general locations and roundabout configurations have been established, full modem roundabout designs can be developed, under separate agreement should detailed design be required Task 5: Feasibility/ Capacity Conclusions and Report: All of the pertinent results in the analyses conducted in the preceding tasks will be documented, tabulated, and discussed in the report. Based on the acquired data and analyses conducted in the preceding tasks, conclusions on the appropriate design alternative will be discussed. Specific design implementation considerations may also be evaluated and discussed in the report. It is anticipated that one draft of the feasibility report will be provided in an electronic PDF format. After review by 'vVood Rodgers and the City of Arroyo Grande, RTE will make minor text edits where requested for a final draft of the feasibility report. This does not include conceptual roundabout design or additional analyses as this is addressed in the next phase of the project, if necessary. If additional work or alternatives are requested, these tasks will be completed on a time and materials basis in addition to the scope and fees herein. Task 6: Coordination: This task entails coordination with the design team and potential conference call arrangements to discuss the results of the analyses in detail. It is anticipated that one two-hour conference call will be required and several short coordination calls/discussions. Task 7: Site Visit and Meeting in Arroyo Grande: This task consists of an in-person kickoff meeting with Scott Ritchie in Arroyo Grande to discuss the project details, which will also include a field visit onsite at the project location. Although no additional in-person meetings are assumed in this cost estimate or scope, RTE encourages the presentation of its.work for the project to both the local jurisdictions and Caltrans, if requested. If any additional in-person presentations in Arroyo Grande are requested for the final presentation of the feasibility capacity report or at public meetings, this is welcomed and can easily be accommodated. Any additional time or travel requests will be billed or. a time and materials basis. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this amendment the day and year first above written. WOOD RODGERS, INC. By: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE By: jep:M:\232-City of Arroyo Grande\232-5642 - Brisco.l0i PA&ED\ConsWtant Selection\Contract Amendment No. 3\Contract . Amendmenl No.3.doc J . -_. � _ ._._- _ _-_ _ . . 8.k. pRROY� O� c,A FINCOflPOR�TED 92 � m MEMORANDUM a �,�. ,o. ,s„ , c4<�F oRN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER/� v —v SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN SHA/STP COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: 1. adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL-01; 2. direct the Director of Administrative Services to submit the SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL-01 and the adopted resolution to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. FUNDING: During the 2006 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (STL) programming cycle, the City of Arroyo Grande was successful in securing $418,089 of Urban State Highway Account (USHA) funds, $888,000 of Regional State Highway Account (RSHA) funds, and $120,000 of Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient (SAFE) funds from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). DISCUSSION: The Cooperative Agreement is a general agreement between the SLOCOG and the City regarding the responsibilities of each agency. The specific projects are referenced and , attached to allow for future actions such as the transfer of funds between the various projects or the addition of replacement projects. A resolution must be adopted by the City that clearly identifies the official authorized to execute the STP/SHA Cooperative Agreement. Before the City can begin invoicing for reimbursement of the work performed; a Cooperative Agreement must be executed between SLOCOG and the City. Urban State Highway Account (USHA) Funds The total USHA funds available to the City of Arroyo Grande from the SLT programming cycle is $418,089. On December 13, 2005, the City Council programmed the $418,089 as shown in the following tabl�. In addition, there were $15,547 of USHA funds remaining from the Bridge Str,eet Bridge study that will now be used for asphalt repairs on eligible Federal-aid routes. The following table also lists the fiscal year in which the funds will be available from SLOCOG. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN SHA/STP COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 2 Urban State Highway Account (USHA) Funds Prior FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Total New USHA Funds Valley Gardens Rehab $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Pavement Mgt Projects 41,089 41,089 Farroll Road Rehab 143,000 184.000 327.000 New Subtotal $ 50,000 $ 0 $184,089 $ 184,000 $ 418,089 Carryover USHA Funds Asphalt Repairs - Various 15 547 15 547 Carryover Subtotal $ 15,547 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 15,547 Total $ 65,547 $ 0 $184,089 $ 184,000 $ 433,636 Regional Funds On December 13, 2005, the City Council identified $2,284,435 for projects in the City's current capital improvement program (CIP) to compete for regional funding. The City was successful in securing $888,000 of RSHA funds and $120,000 of SAFE funds as shown in the foilowing table. The following table also lists the fiscal year in which the funds will be available from SLOCOG. Regional Funds Prior FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Total Brisco/101 Interchange $ 300,000 $ 482,000 Project Development $ 182,000 Village Enhancements for 588,000 588.000 East Branch Street RSHA Subtotal $ 182,000 $ 888,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,070,000 SAFE Funds Village Enhancements for 120 000 120 000 East Branch Street SAFE Subtotal $ 0 $ 120,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 120,000 Total $ 182,000 $1,008,000 $ 0 $ 0 $1,190,000 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN SHA/STP COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 3 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration: • Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; • Do not authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; • Modify as appropriate and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; . Provide direction to staff. jep:M:\232-City of Arroyo Grande�232-0607 - General Consulting\'19 -Administration\STL Coop Agreement\SHA.STP Cooperative � . Agreement 11-14-06.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SHA/STP COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. AG-STL-01 WHEREAS, the SLOCOG Board approved allocation of Urban State Highway Account (SHA), Regional State Highway Account (SHA), and of Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient (SAFE) funds for the projects within the City; and, WHEREAS, SLOCOG intends to exchange its apportionment of Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds for the projects within the City, therefore eliminating the non-federal match and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and, WHEREAS, the City and SLOCOG are authorized, pursuant to the requirements of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and State Statutes enacted by Senate Bill 45 (1997), to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for any transportation purpose within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City and SLOCOG are authorized, pursuant to the requirements of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (STL), and State Statutes enacted by SB 45 (1997), to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for any transportation purpose within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby: 1. Approve Exhibit 1 attached, entitled "San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL-01". 2. Appoint the Mayor as the official representative authorized to sign San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SHA/STP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL- 01. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONYFERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Agreement No. AG-STL-01 SHAISTP COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON THE DATE BELOW STATED is behveen the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, referred to herein as"SLOCOG",and the ARROYO GRANDE a municipal corporation and political subdivision of Ihe S[ate of California,referred to herein as the"CITY". RECITALS WHEREAS, SLOCOG and the CITY are authorized,pursuant to requirements of the Safe,Accountabie, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (STL), and State Statutes enacted by S8 45(1997), to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for any transportation purpose within the CITY, and ' WHEREAS,the SLOCOG Board approved allocation of regional Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for the projects identified on the attached Table 1 (summary table and project summary sheels)and each of the individual project is herein referred to as"PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, SLOCOG intends to exchange its apportionment of Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP)tunds for State Highway Account(SHA)funds for the PROJECTS,therefore eliminating the non-federal match and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA); and WHEREAS, all applicable laws, regulations, and policies relating to the use of State Highway Account (SHA)funds for the PROJECTs, including"funds at work"insignia information, shall apply notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement;and WHEREAS, all obligations of the CITY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to funding appropriation by the Legislature, and the receipt and allocation of funding by SLOCOG; and WHEREAS,Agreement No.SLO-TEA21-Oi and all associated amendments remain in full effect. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the above noted findings and considerations,the parties agree as follows: 1) The CITY agrees to administer each PROJECT and conduct the applicable environmental process required under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)for each PROJECT. 2) The CITY agrees to advertise, open and review bids, and to award the contract for each applicable PROJECT(or combination of projects)as needed, in accordance with State laws. , . 3) The CITY agrees lhat all phases of each PROJECT will be developed in accordance with policies, procedures, practices, standards, regulations, and laws that apply to the CITY, Caltrans (where appropriate),and SLOCOG including but not limited to the applicable requirements included in Exhibit D (Attached hereio),the April 13, 2006 annual exchange agreement behveen SLOCOG and the State , of Califomia (Department of Transportation. If in the judgment of SLOCOG a project may impact a street, road or highway owned or controlled by a jurisdiction other than CITY (including without limitation the County, another city, or the State of California), SLOCOG may require the CITY to establish a project development team (PDT)composed of representatives of such jurisdiclions,as well as SLOCOG. 4) The CITY agrees ro construct each PROJECT in accordance with the plans and specifications of the CITY (and Caltrans when PROJECT involves state highway facilities), and in accordance with the conditions of funding adopted by SLOCOG. S�OCOG SHA/STP General Cooperative Agreement page t I _ _ _ 5) The CITY agrees to maintain the facilities constructed,improved,or otherwise modified. 6) The CITY agrees to utilize, for each PROJECT, an amount of Regional or Urban SHA tunds equal to or less than that adopted by SLOCOG, and that SLOCOG's total obligation shall not exceed the amounts shown in Table 1 unless a grealer amount has been authorized in advance in writing by SLOCOG. 7) The CITY agrees to account for all costs for the PROJECTS to be paid by SLOCOG pursuant to this Agreement and agrees to perform all the reimbursable work for each project accortling to the billing period identified in lhe project summary sheets. 8) After the opening of bids on applicable PROJECTS, the CITY shall notify SLOCOG of any cost overruns or underruns to the original cost estimate. The following will be assumed and reFlected in SLOCOG's SHA accounting spreadsheets: a) If less funding than what was programmed is required for a PROJECT, the cost savings will be made available for reprogramming into another CITY project as approved by SLOCOG. b) If more funding than what was programmed is required for a PROJECT, the CITY will be solely responsible for providing the additional funding, which can be comprised of various non-regional funding sources, including cost savings irom other CITY SHA projects. 9) The CITY may submit an invoice for reimbursement of funds expended for each PROJECT no more than once a month, using the attached Reimbursement Request Form (Exhibit A). All Payments will be prorated between CITY and SLOCOG based on the agreed percentages of funding, as adopted by SLOCOG and listed on each project summary sheet(Exhi6its A•I ihrough A3, attached hereto). As identifed in Exhihit A,all invoices must contain the following: a. SHA PROJECT number and name b. A brief description of work accomplished during the billing period. c. A copy of the consultanl's bill to the CITY('rf applicable). d. Amount expended by the CITY during the billing period,with evidence of funds expended(e.g. a copy oi a CITY check to consultant or accounting documentation,etc.) e. The pro-rata share reimbursement rate for the PROJECT as specified on lhe project summary sheet • f. Amount requested for reimbursement for the billing period 10) SLOCOG agrees to reimburse the CITY within 30 days of receipt of a completed reimbursement request form(Exhi6it A)with all applicable attachments and signatures or as funds become available on a "7°'come, 1b'served" basis, an amount expended by the CITY during the invoices' billing period less the aforesaid proration. If a PROJECT receives both Regional and Urban Siate Highway Account funding (referred to in Exhibits hereto as"RSHA" and "USHA"respectively), reimbursemenls shall be made on a pro rata basis from each source for SLOCOG's share. SLOCOG's total obligation for each PROJECT cost shall nof exceed the amount shown in Table 1 as the "Approved $ Amount," unless SLOCOG has in writing authorized a greater amount per adopted SLOCOG policy. 11) Within two months of each PROJECT's completion and all work incidental thereto, the CITY must provide SLOCOG certification in the form provided in Exhibit B hereto, of completion in accordance with the provisions in this Agreement, and a flnal invoice containing those items listed above. In the event that final project costs are less than those listed as"Total Projed CosP'on Table 1, hereto , the funds shall be reallocated in accordance with item#8�above. i2) If this project has been paid for either entirely, or in part with Regional SHA funds, and CITY, or any of its officials, chooses to publicly memorialize participation in said project, then CITY shall also � memorialize SLOCOGs financial participation in said project in a manner agreeable to SLOCOG. � This paragraph shall apply to, bul is not limited to, signage during construction, representation at dedications and placement of plaques or other objects of inemorialization, whether at or near the I project site or not. 13) The CITY grants to the State of Califomia and/or SLOCOG access to the CITY's books and records for the purpose of verifying that SHA funds paid are properry accounted for and the proceeds are expended in accordance with the lerms of this Agreement. All documents shall be available for inspection by authorized Caftrans and/or SLOCOG agents at any time during the PROJECT development and for a four-year period from the date of completion, or for one year after the audit is SLOCOG SHA/STP General Cooperative Agreement page 2 � � completed or waivetl by Calfrans and/or SLQCOG,whichever is later. 14j Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and tit�e to all materials wili automatically be vasted in fhe C�TY and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership � to the CITY. . 15) If existing pubiic and/or private ufilities conflict with the PROJECT construction or violate the CITY's . encroachment policy {as applicab�e), the CITY shall make ail necessary arrangements with ihe owners of sucfi utilities for their protecdan, retocation or removal, The CITY shall review the plans for ' protection, relocation or removal. If there are costs of such protection, relocation, or removal which the CITY must Isgaily pay, the CITY shall pay the cost of said protection, relocation or removal, plus � cost of engineering, overhead and inspection. If any protection, refocation or removal of utilities is required,such work shalt 6e performed in accordance with C�TY policy and procedure. 16}The CITY shall defend, indemnify and save harmless SLOCOG, its officers and employees from ail and any ctaims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, judgments, attomeys' fees or any liability arising oul of this Cooperative Agreement to the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof, or any project referred to in the Exhibits hereto. Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity provision shall be construed to require CITY to indemnify SLOCOG against any responsibility of liability in contravention of Civi�Code section 2762. Y7) If the CITY transfers its risk connected with design or wnstructian of this project to independent contractors, GTY agrees to use its best efforts to obtain the independent contractor's inciusion of SLOCOG as an indemnitee and in any insurance procuretl by such independent contractor(s}for the project,to name SLOCOG as an additional insured. 18) BoFh the CITY and SLOCdG shall designate a Prqecf Coordinator who sha11 represent the respective agencies and through whom all communications heN✓een the parties to this agreement shall occur, 19) Both parties agree that if, in the course of carrying out the PROJECT,there is a disagreement among the Project Cowdinators over ihe direction of the project,the matter will be forwarded through a three step conflict resolution process. First, resoiution will be attempted betwesn the CiTY Manager and S�OCOG Executive Director. If a tlispute continues, a determination shatl be made by the SLOCOG Executive Committee, and, if required,final determination by ihe fuil SLOCOG Board. 20} Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties, obiigations, or rights for third parties not signatofles to this Agreement or aNect the legal IEability of either party of the Agreement by imposing any standard ot care with respect to the maintenance of local roads different from the siandard of care imposed by law. 21} No aiteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid uniess made in writing and signed by the parties thereto, and no oral understantling or agreement not incorporated herein or in the attached Table 1 shall tre binding on any of the parties thereto. 22)This Agreement may be terminated or provisions contained therein may be altered, changed, or amended by mueual consent, in writing,oP the parties hereto. 23} Prior to award of a contract for any PROJECT, SLOCOG may terminate the applica6le PftOJECT in the Cooperative Agreement by wririen notice, provided SIOCOG pays the CITY for all PROJECT- related costs reasonably incurred by the CITY priw to temtination. Also, prior to award of a contract far any PRQJECT, the CITY may terminate the applicable PRpJECT in the Cooperative Agreemenf by written notice, provided the CfTY pays SLOCOG far all costs reasona6ly incurretl by SLOCOG prior to termination. SLOCOG SHPJSTP General Cooperative Agreement page 3 � _ _ _ _ _ - � sicNaruRes: , CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ,� , : ,t - BY� ____.�'�14',?�._...'�'_�4..1'.�;4.��'.L`__.____... Tony Ferrare, Mayor Rt>nalci De Carli, F_xc;r,ullve Dlre:;l�x Date: Snn Luis Obicpo Cauncil ni G�vcrnnuntc ATTES'f: , f3y: ,City Clerk ' t',(,. �l . APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: �.��G�J '`�� - BY: Wyatt Cast), Leg.ai Counse;i By: , City Attorney Date: Dated: C4- ��' .�t' �'' SIOCOG SHA/STP Generel Cooperative Agreement page 4 EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Council of Governments State Highway Account (SHA) REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FORM Agency Name: Date: Contact Person: Project Number(s): RsHn: usHn: Project Title: This Invoice Covers Work Completed (rom: / � io: i i Project Budget Information: (complete box below-refer to cooperafive agreement "Tabie 1"for budget information) Total SPENT ThiS invoice When usin elecironicformaC fll in unsha�etl areas aN � Other Sources TOTAL Re "onal SHA r n o Re ional �must e uai i00% Reimbursement Rate by Fund Source(must be consistent with E#�ibit 0°/a A Projecl Sheet) Pro-rata Reimbursement by $ $ $ $ Funding Source(RSHA/USHA) Please send a check for$ � Total SHA share due this invoice(total of heavier shaded boxes abovel Attachments: 1) A brief description of work completed; and 2) Consultant invoices 3) Proof of payment (e.g. copy of City check to consultant). Signed: gency ep. Shaded boxes below for SLOCOG Use (— egiona anner pprova ccoun mg m ia s ( I SLOCOG SHA/STP General Cooperative Agreement page 5 EXHIBIT B PROJECT COMPLETION FORM for SHA Projects This form notifes SLOCOG of project completion in accordance with the provisions in the Cooperative Agreement noted below. Our records indicafe that the pro%ect listed be/ow, funded all or in part with SHA funds, has been completed: � Project Name: � Project Number(s): Cooperative Agreement Date (Recipient Agency): Approved SHA amount: ' I certify, on behalf of the City/County � name of authorized�cial of thaf the project named above was comp/eted name of jurisdicfion on _in accordance with fhe provisions set forth in the cooperative • approximate date of wmple[ion agreement dated . It is my unde�standing fhat all savings ' tlate jurisdiction representative signee from a cost underrun will be returned fo �or , ciry/county or SLOCOG reprogramming in accordance with the cooperative agreement. I, Signed: , Date: signaWre of auMOrizetl oHicial � date signed . Return completed and signed Project Completion Forms within 2 months of the completion of each project to: SLOCOG � 1150 Osos Street,Suite 202 � San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Darren Brown ' � SLOCOG SHA/STP General Cooperative Agreement page 6 Table 1 (RSTP SWte Exchange Funds)-2006 Transportation Improvement Program San Luis Obispo Region (in $OOOs) Arroyo Grande,Ci of MPOID: 22300000008 RSTP#' STLAG01R RTIP#' 07-00 .. TITLE: Brisco Rd/Grand Ave.Interchange Improvements 'I � DESCRIPTION: In AG,design the improvements to the Brisco Road and the Grend Ave Interchanges with Route 101 This �, project(coupled with 101 Operationai Improvements iC)will improve operetions on NB 101 between Grand Ave.and Camino Mercado, at the 3 interchanges,on W. Branch,at the Brisco Road undercrossing and various intersections. CHANGE REASON: Carry over from 04-17, Change project description,Regionally Signficant Project-Future Need for Intormation Purposes Only TO7AL PRIOR O6/07 07108 OBl09 09H0 70/11 PE RW CON Future Funds $11,083 $11,083 $1,266 SJ,017 RSTP-RSHA $482 5182 $300 5482 70TAL 571,585 5162 5300 b11,083 5482 � $1,266 59,817 COMMENTS: RSTP Program 04-17(June 2006�;Other COG Board aclions(2/4I04,4/7/04, �/12/OS). RSTP#-STLAG01 R MPOID: 22300000039 RSTP#: STLAG03U RTIP#: 07-00 TITLE: Eligible local street and road rehab and maintenance DESCRIPTION: Road maintenance per pavement management system and city priorities on eligible routes. CHANGE REASON: Carry over irom 04-17, Revise Funding-Revise Between Fiscal Years TOTAL PRIOR O6/07 07108 08/09 09H0 10/11 PE RW CON RSTP-USHA $368 $184 $184 836F. TOTAL 5368 5184 §180 $J68 COMMENTS: RSTP Program 04-17(June 2006);Other COG Board adions(2/4/04,4/7/04, 1l12/O5.RSTP#-STLAG03U MPOID: 22300000052 RSTP#: STLAG04R RTIP#� a7-00 TITLE, Village Enhancements(ITS-x-walks,227,Creekside) DESCRIPTION: This project will enhance the overall character of the Village, improve safety and mobility for pedestrians, , mainiain and improve fraffic flow,and provide beautification in an area with economic strength and potential. CHANGE REASON: Carry over from 04-'17 , TOTAL PRIOR 06l07 07108 08/09 09H0 10117 PE RW CON LocPunds-SAFE $120 $120 $120 RSTP-RSHA $588 $588 $5II6 � TOTAL 5708 E708 E708 i COMMENTS: RSTP Progrem 04•17(June 2006). RSTPILSTLAG04R � MPOID: 22300000057 RSTP#: STLAG02U RTIP#: 07-00 TITLE: Valley Gardens Improvements DESCRIPTION: Valley Garden improvements. � CHANGEREASON: Carryoverfrom04-17 I TOTA� PRIOR OB/07 07/08 08/09 Wl10 10/71 PE RW CON � RSTP-USHA $50 $50 $50 � TOTAL S50 S50 E50 COMMENTS: RSTP Program 04-77; Prior COG Board actions(2/4104,4!7l04, 1112/OS)./RSTP#-STLAG02U Page 1 Wetlnestlay September 20,2006 9.a. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS On TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: 1. Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06- 015; Applicant — Ocean Oaks Builders; Location — 579 Camino Mercado. The City Council.has appealed the Planning Commission's.approval of Plot Plan Review 06-015 which proposes to convert twelve (12) of the sixty (60) previously approved _ condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items 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 notconstitute grounds � : for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to the proposals is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. � � :, Kelly W more ity Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, November 3, 2006 �, � � � � o� pRROVpG, � INCORPORATED ? u ,°n � JULY 10. 1811 y I c9��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: ��'�', KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-015 TO CONVERT TWELVE (12) OF THE SIXTY (60) PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM TWO (2) BEDROOMS TO THREE (3) BEDROOMS; APPLICANT - OCEAN OAKS BUILDERS; LOCATION - 579 CAMINO MERCADO DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015. FUNDING: There are no financial impacts to the City with approval of this project. PROJECT LOCATION: '��N-- , / � �� /`''__i`\ , � PROJECTSITE ' �''�.,�� -t\�T '! fy � ^� ' �� - �1 �\�a�, �� ,��C t � �� I� l �k +,��L�-'' '��,\/� � < `\ ' �\//� � � � \ }�� --�..� `� _�fr�_ \ �\�-�_� �l (` � I�.��_ � �.��' '� -.` e �\\\�`\�\�-1 � � � �� , .�,�, ,�.--,_-�.___._ _ , ,^j' \�,�.�` ��,�r---- � � . �,\�;�� , � � CITY COUNCIL PPR 06-005 ' NOVEMBER 14,2006 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION: Backqround The City Council approved Conditional Use Permit 01-010 on January 22, 2002 to construct a 60-unit senior apartment complex and 3,000 square foot senior recreation center. On May 28, 2002 the City Council approved an amendment to the project to convert the mix of one and two-bedroom units to all two-bedroom units. On August 26, 2003 the City Council authorized a second amendment to reduce the on-site parking by two (2) spaces, allow construction easements on City open space property, remove eighteen (18) Coast Live Oak trees, and construct a pedestrian path on City property. ' On July 13, 2004 the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 04-001 to ' subdivide the property into sixty (60) senior condominium units and a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center. Twenty five percent (25%) of the units, or fifteen (15) units, were restricted to the lower and moderate income levels as follows: • Six (6) low-income affordable units; and • Nine (9) moderate-income affordable housing units. On September 5, 2006 the Planning Commission pulled Plot Plan Review Case No. 06- 015 from the Administrative Item agenda based on concerns of affordability of the proposed three (3) bedroom units as compared to the two (2) bedroom units and scheduled the item for a future public hearing (see Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on October 3, 2006 and recommended approval, with the provision that 25% of the twelve (12) units (or 3 units) be reserved for affordable housing .(see Attachment 2 for Meeting Minutes). At the October 10, 2006 meeting, Council Member Arnold requested, and the City Council agreed, to appeal the decision. These units would be part of the fifteen (15) required � affordable units. I Proiect Description The applicant proposes to convert twelve (12) of the sixty (60) condominium units currently under construction from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. There is no impact to the size of the units and parking requirements do not change with the additional bedroom (see parking requirements in the table below). The only proposed physical change is to the floor plan to accommodate the additional bedroom (see Attachment 3 for proposed floor plan). It should be noted that parking requirements were stricter when Council approved the Tentative Tract Map for this project (July 13, 2004). At that time, the project was required to provide 1.5 spaces for each unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit for visitor parking (or 120 spaces) and a 13% parking reduction was authorized. On October 28, 2004, Council adopted Ordinance No. 557, which eliminated the requirement for visitor parking for senior housing projects. Under current Development Code standards, the project is over parked by thirty-nine (39) spaces (see Attachment 4 for previous Development Code parking standards and Attachment 5 for Ordinance No. 557). i I � I CITY COUNCIL PPR 06-005 NOVEMBER 14, 2006 � PAGE 3 Previous Parkin Re uirements Required Number of Parking Approved Number S aces of Parkin S aces 2 bedroom units (60 units): 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit (60 covered and 30 uncovered s aces Visitor Parking: 0.5 uncovered space per unit 30 uncovered s aces Subtotal: 60 covered and 60 uncovered spaces (120 spaces) 3,000 square foot Senior Center 1 parking space for 50 square feet of floor area designated for public assembly (40 spaces, assuming 2,000 square feet is used for public assembly) ---------------- ----------------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------------- ------------- TOTAL: 160 total parking spaces - 60 139 total parking covered and 100 uncovered spaces -96 covered and 43 uncovered(13% reduction Current Parking Requirements �_... ...._.. ._ . ..___. ..._ _ _.. . . . . ..... SENIOR HOUSING - independent living _ --- - - - ----- - - Studio i1 covered s ace er unit �---------- P p ' '! 1+ bedrooms (60 units approved) 1 covered space per unit _ . ._....,. ... _. _ _ _ .._. ____ . �Total Residential Parking Required: i 60 covered spaces Total Residential Parking Provided: i 60 covered spaces ----"___. i i _. ._._ _.__ _._ . .. _ _ _. .. _ , ._ � __.._�_._ _.. _�_ _ _... _. _ ... SENIOR CENTER: 1 space for every 50 sq. ft. of floor area !Idesigned for public assembly (assuming 2,000 used for public assembly) Total Senior Center Parking Required: j 40 spaces � _ . .. ___ __. _� _ . . _ __ ..._.. .. _ ___.... , Total Sernor Center Parking Provided: i 40 spaces _.. .. _= -- . ........_. _- ';Net Difference: i 39 spaces surplus (139 spaces ' ; provided) Based on the County's Affordable Housing Standards bulletin published each month, the price of two (2) bedroom and three (3) bedroom units varies depending on the income level (see table below). i CITY COUNCIL PPR O6-0OS NOVEMBER 14, 2006 , PAGE 4 Count Affordable Housin Standards 10/03/06 — Sales Prices Unit Size Very Low Income Lower Income Moderate Income Bedrooms Studio $67,944 $103,704 $160,920 1 $77,520 $118,320 $183,600 2 $87,248 $133,168��>:�� , : ' �" $206;640 ` � . a ' 3 $104,728 $159,848�`;` ' $248,040 4 $112,480 $171,680 $266,400 The applicant would like to have the flexibility of selling the three-bedroom units at either the market rate price or affordable three-bedroom unit price, depending on the buyers' circumstances. The two and three-bedroom sales price for the lower and moderate- income levels are highlighted in the above table. As indicated above, the Planning Commission recommends that three (3) of the twelve (12) proposed three-bedroom units be restricted to the affordable housing requirements. Staff met with the applicant to present alternatives for consideration to address the potential impact on affordability from the conversion, which are summarized below under the Alternatives section. The applicant's response is included as Attachment 6. Public Comments A public 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 not received any comments or correspondence to date from the public. A letter from the applicant is included as Attachment 6. 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 has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES - Uphold Planning Commission's approval of the Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015. - Approve Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015 with added conditions of a maximum of four (4) three-bedroom units designated as affordable and one (1) low-income unit be converted to a very-low income unit. - Approve Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015 with other conditions. - Deny Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015. - Provide other direction to staff. � Attachments: � 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2006 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2006 1 3. Floor Plan CITY COUNCIL PPR O6-0OS NOVEMBER 14,2006 PAGE 5 4. Previous Development Code Parking Standards 5. Ordinance No. 557 6. Letter from applicant dated November 6, 2006 � I ) S:\Communiry Development\PROJECTS\PPR\06-0�5 Ocean Oaks\CC PPR rpt.doc ' -- � -- - - - - RESOLUTION NO. � A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF f ARROYO GRANDE UPHOLDING PLANNING � COMMISSIONS APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-015 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 579 CAMINO MERCADO, APPLIED FOR BY OCEAN OAKS BUILDERS WHEREAS, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 on January 22, 2002 to construct a 60-unit senior apartment complex and 3,000 square foot senior recreation center; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02- 002 on May 28, 2002 to convert the one-bedroom senior apartment units to all two= bedroom units; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03- 003 on August 26, 2003 to modify the plans approved for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 by reducing the on-site parking by two (2) spaces, allowing construction easements on City open space property, removing oak trees and constructing a pedestrian path; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande approved Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-001 on July 13, 2004, filed by Camino Mercado Partners, LP, to subdivide the 3.98-acre property into 60 residential condominium units and a 3,000 square foot senior center; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Ocean Oaks Builders, filed Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015 to convert twelve (12) of the sixty (60) condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms; and WHERAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on October 3, 2006 and recommended approval of the project to the Community Development Director, with the provision that 25% of the twelve (12) units (or 3 units) be reserved for affordable housing; and ! WHERAS, the City Council appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project on October 10, 2006; and ,l WHERAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on November 14, 2006 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and ' WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and the environmental documents associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: � RESOLUTION NO. ' PAGE 2 Plot Plan Review Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande general plan; The proposed project consists of converting twelve (12) previously approved condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms, providing more f/exibility of unit size for moderate and /ow- income seniors, consistent with Housing Element policies. 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; The project approval is subject to all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code, thereby conforming to applicable performance and building standards; the project will not by � detrimental to fhe public health, safefy, or welfare. 3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; � The three (3) bedroom unifs will be dispersed throughouf the condominium project and will have no impact fo fhe surrounding neighborhood beyond what was addressed and mitigated with the originally approved project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby upholds the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015, with the above findings and subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. On a 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 14�' day of November 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 ' TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN D. ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY j RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 ' EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-015 OCEAN OAKS BUILDERS 579 CAMINO MERCADO C�MMl1NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS This approval authorizes the conversion of twelve (12) of the sixty (60) previously approved condominium units to be converted from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and Ciry requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall, as a condition of approval of this Plot Plan Review, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its present or former agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its past or present agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for by law. This condition is subject to the provisions of Government Code Section 66474.9, which are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full. SPECIAL CONDITION 3. Twenty five percent (25%) of the twelve (12) three-bedroom units (or 3 units) shall be sold to families earning a moderate or low income, based on the County of San Luis Obispo's current Affordable Housing Standards bulletin published each month. PLANNING COMMISSION � ATTACHMENT I MINUTES � SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 �: _, � ;'s:.CaseNo': «. A'��`:�.sl z .Aild�es's ='' .:DesoN Gon ':' ' ,Action'. ,P.lanner , Drive attached two-story secondary . dwellin unit. 7. PPR 06-016 A.G. Spanish Oaks, 175 South Elm Lot 9 expansion of the first A M. Meier LLC Street floor bedroom to a master bedroom to accommodate tenant limited mobility. Expansion of lot 10, rear bedroom,for mobili as well. 8. PPR 06-015 Ocean Oaks Builders, 579 Camino Convert 12 of 60 condo units A K. Heffernon Inc. Mercado from 2 to 3 bedrooms. The Commission had no concerns regarding Administrative Items Nos. 1-6. It was noted that Item No. 5 had been incorrectly advertised as 126 Pearvvood, corrected to 117 Pearwood. Administrative Item No.7: Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-016; Applicant — A.G. Spanish oaks, LLC; Location — 175 S. Elm Street. Ms. McClish answered Commission questions on this item regarding concern with potential loss of open space. After discussion, the Commission agreed that they had no further concerns on this item. ' Administrative Item No. 8: Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015; Applicant — Ocean Oaks Builders, Inc; Location — 579 Camino Mercado. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, had prepared a short staff report as follows: The Community Development Director approved a request to convert twelve (12) of the sixty (60) condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. There is no impact to the size of the units or parking requirements; the only change made is to the floor plan to accommodate the additional bedroom. Chair Fellows read a memo from Councilman Arnold requesting that this item be . scheduled for public hearing to allow the Planning Commission and citizens to better understand the impact the requested change could have on the affordability issue. Jason Blankenship, representative, stated that the requested changes will not alter the existing building footprint, meets all uniform building code requirements, does not affect affordability, meets the affordable housing requirements, and their project is 25% affordable without being subsidized by a government grant or City funds; he does not believe this needs to be heard in a public hearing. Ms. Freedman spoke again, asking if the 12 units (of the 60) are still affordable? With the requested change the applicant would be providing an affordable opportunity for a larger household; there are people 55 years and older who have 10 year old children; if these are converted to three bedrooms it would allow a small family to be able to get into affordable units. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 Mr. Blankenship stated that some of the three bedrooms would be affordable, although the prices may go up. Chair Fellows recommended a public hearing based on the fact that there are several different viewpoints on this item. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, that Administrative Item No. 8: Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015, be scheduled for a public hearing to allow time for further discussion and clarification on the affordability issue. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait, and Chair Fellows. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: In reply to a question from Chair Fellows regarding the PUD process, Ms. McClish replied that staff is presently researching the PUD process; because of lot size a high percentage of subdivisions are concurrent with a PUD application; this analysis will be brought forward next with the residential updates, and consideration of an ordinance to address this will be taken into consideration. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Fellows gave an update regarding a discussion at the August 15, 2006 meeting, on transplanting of existing fruit trees for a proposed project at 125 Nelson Street: He informed Commission and staff that an agreement has been reached between the Historical Society (the recipient of three trees) and the applicant, and the developer will only have to pay $2,300 instead of$30,000 for remoVal of the trees. In reply to a question from Chair Fellows regarding banners, Ms, McClish stated that staff is still working on this and there is no news to report. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Chair Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Tait. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ATTACHMENT 2 OCTOBER 3, 2006 � ` i RESOLUTION 06-20.15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005B), MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP AND CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.12, & 16.44 AS APPLIED TO VIEWSHED REVIEW AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS SF-D-2.5, RS-D-2.6 AND SF-D-2.7 TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN The motion was approved by the following roll call votes: Overlav SF-D-2.5: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Overlav RS-D-2.6: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Overlav SF-D-2.7: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, and Tait NOES: Chair Fellows , ABSENT: Commissioner Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of October 2006. The Commission took a 10-minute break. B. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-015; APPLICANT— OCEAN OAKS BUILDERS; LOCATION —579 CAMINO MERCADO Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to convert twelve (12) of the sixty (60) previously approved condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, by minute action, a request to convert 12 of the 60 previously approved condominium units from two-bedrooms to three bedrooms. Staff answered technical questions from the Commission regarding the history of the project and what effect the requested changes would have on the affordable housing issue and traffic. PCANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Gary Young, applicant and Jeremy Gardener, representative, explained why they were asking for the modification to the floor plans. In reply to Commission questions Mr. Young gave the history of the project and stated that the increase in bedrooms would increase the price for both market units and affordable units, but would satisfy a need. Carolvn French. 525 Dos Cerros, stated that she was not in support of this as it would increase traffic and parking. Asked what the City intended to do regarding the potential increase in traffic. Staff agreed there could be an increase in traffic with the proposed increase in bedrooms; � installation of a three-way stop sign would not be feasible in the immediate future; the parking requirement would not change with the increase in bedrooms. Mr. Strong suggested that four of the 3-bedroom units be guaranteed for affordable units. Mr. Young agreed they could do this. � Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. �, Commission comments: � Tait: i • Concern with the potential increase in traffic. • Agreed that four of the 3-bedroom units should be reserved for affordable. • Concern with the history of this project and how many times it has been changed. • Concern on the impact this will have on affordability— prices will go up. Parker: • Concern on the affordability also, but understands that the developer has to make money - does not believe this is a greed factor as it is offering people what they I want, giving them choices— supports the idea of offering 3-bedroom homes. • Agreed that three of the 3-bedroom units could be reserved for affordable, but could approve without this requirement. • Not agree that an increase in bedrooms would trigger an increase in traffic; the Development Code does not require an increase in parking with an increase in bedrooms. • She is in support of this conversion; it offers a choice for people; condos are more affordable and it is great for the community that 25% of the units will be affordable. Brown: • Concern that this project has changed so much since originally being approved. • Concern with the changed affordability issue, but that.is past history. • He could support the modifications if some of the 3-bedroom units are reserved for affordable. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows on whether a 3-way stop sign could be installed coming out onto Camino Mercado, Mr. Devens explained why it could be a while before this could be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 Fellows: • It would be better to have more than one bathroom in the 3-bedroom units. • Looking at the big picture, he could support the request for the 3-bedroom units; this project is what we need in this area. • Agrees with the suggestion to reserve three of the 3-bedroom units for affordable (this avoids risk of 12 units going up in price). • If some of the units do not sell the ratio may be able to be changed in the future. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to approve the request to convert 12 of the 60 previously approved condominium units, from 2-bedrooms to 3- bedrooms, with the provision that 25% of the 12 units (or 3 units) be reserved for affordability. The motion was approved by minute action on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows and Brown NOES: Commissioner Tait ABSENT: Commissioner Ray C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-005; APPLICANT — JEFF HOLLISTER; LOCATION —231 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for a mixed-use building at the above location consisting of 3,720 square feet of commercial/office space and one (1) apartment. The ARC reviewed the project and their conditions have been included in the Resolution. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution for approval of the proposed project. Staff answered Commission questions regarding drainage, sewer laterals, in lieu fees for undergrounding, permeable paving for the parking area, and the request for cuts in the asphalt on Dodson Way for utility connections. 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Ray arrived. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Mark Vasquez, representative, then began answering Commission's questions regarding the drainage, undergrounding of overhead utilities, waiving of the condition versus in-lieu fees, permeable paving and the request for making the utility connections on Dodson Way. � 10:00 o.m. Commissioner Brown made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ray. Discussion: Commissioner Parker stated she would like the time for adjournment to be included in the motion. Commissioner Brown agreed to amend the motion to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. ATTACHMENT3 .:P�7�+i'�'dQi';13Q 1J.!��>�,:lL�O:y ?��tl�a� tJ1,n�?��` �a Ail� � � _i�11�1 '' d t,'�l 4��\:J ,,.'�y-.1[. 0.J �. �. i V �� "�' �F ' t � � ,�I �.. .r_i�r•�i.? uJ Z^a�.r_��c:� IQfClIEN �K � 6-10' 1 8'-10' T �/ Ol�l� 9'V Y!� BED 7 I 16 C-to' 4+bx �f —_ r ti ortm r-r � J@\ �0� i i ��. f\ Ll l:J �—__' ROOM � �\� r____� e'-w•cv \� hy�y—, I ��--i tifzlFl� 'P �j—_e_IaJ'r � � � � I � I � � �— —� I I ~ � � ryyy I I Qa�" II —__ _ — \\/�J' O l/ �� O au�e� P 8 PHIVA7E B'-1o' � B'-10 � �� h� Pd OOx coN� soo a.rr. � x-ir PLAN B 3 BEDROOM OPTION ATTACHMENT 4 Chapter s-t2 ARROYO GRANUE DEVEI.�PMENT CODE N�:�, �.y} �, `3„ A'��k:T:i. '_ 1 AESiDENT1AL USES a. Single famly homes Cornrentional size tot 2 spaces per unit v�ithin an endosed garage Smal1 lot (PUD) 2 spaces per unit wfthi� an endased gara9e aad�.5 space/unit for visitor parking b. Duplexes 1 space per uni[within an endosed garage and t uncovered space per unit c. Second resideritial units t covered space per unit and t uncwered space r unit d. Townhouse and condominiums (Attached ownership units) RESiDEt�l'( PARiQNG: Studio 1 space per uni[wi[hin an endosed garage 1 bedroom 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage and 7 uncovered space per unit 2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and �.5 uncovered space per unR for each additional • bedroom over 2 � VfS1TOR PARf4NG: 0.5 uncovered space per unit e, Apactmeats and multi-fam�y , dwellings (Rental units) RESIOENT PARI4NG: Studio i covered space per unit 1 bedroom t crnrered space per unit and 0.5 u�covered space per uni[ 2+ bedroom 2 covered spaces per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit tor each additional bedroom arer 2 VISITfJR PARftlNG: OS uncovered spac�per u�rt � f. Senior Housing - independerrt I'rving AESIDENT PAAI9NG: Studio 1 covered spaca per unit � t bedroom 1 covered space per unit 2+ bedrooms 1 covered space per unR and 0.5 uncovered space per unft VISiTOR PARKiNG: 05 uncovered space per uni[ g. Senior Housing -assisted 1 uncovered space per 3 beds and 1 space per living emplo ee on the larges[work shift h. Mob1e home parks 25 uncovered spaces per unit i. Large FamOy Day Care t uncovered space per s�haif person other tlran the Fac�lities homeowner in addition to the required parlcing for �� . the residernial buading EHecLve June i3, 1991 260 i ORDINANCE NO. 557 � ATTACHMENT 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE 20NING MAP AND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING THE COMMERCIHL� INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL D18TRICTS; AND REZONING THE COMMERCIAL PORTIONS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 AND 1.2 DISTRICTS (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 03- 008) WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became effective November 9, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and neaessary revisions to the Development Code and mning map for consistency in accordance with Govemment Code Section 65860; and WHEREAS, the City has a responsibility to assure adherence to the General Plan in meeting the needs and desires of the residents and the community; and WHEREAS, the City staff held a public workshop on April 7, 2004 to faalitate public comment and the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on June 15, June 29, July 20 and August 17, 2004, and recommended ce�tain amendmerrts to the Development Code conceming the Mixed Use land use designation for the purposes of General Plan oonsistency and implementation of its goals.and policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered DevelopmeM Code Amendment 03-008 at duly notioed public hearings on September 28, 2004 and October 12, 2004 in acoordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which tlme all interested peraons were given the opportunily to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and oonsidered the information and public testtmony presented at the publfc hearings, Planning Commisslon recommendations, staif reports, and all other information and documents that are paR of the public reoord; and VYHEREAS, the City Counal finds, after due sWdy, deliberetan and public hearing, the follawing dreurt�stanc�s e�dst A. The proposed change in zone and revisions to Title 16 wiil satisfy Objective LU5-5 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which requires the City to "define different Mixed Use overiay or combining designatbns concuReM with Development Code revision for General Plan oo�sistency to de�ify allowed, conditionally peRnitted and prohibited uses In each MU subarea',; LU5-8 which states that the Mixed Use corridors are to "provide for different combinations, configurations and mixtures of commercial, office and reside�tial uses designating the East Grand Avenue, EI Camino Real and Traffic Way corridors as Mlxed Use (MU)'; and other policies under objectives LU5, LU7, and LU8, and is therefore desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. � ' ORDINANCE NO.557 1 PA(iE 2 B. The proposed change in zone and revisions to Title 16 reflect that both the ewsting zones and proposed zones are predominanUy commercial and contain historical residential use, and the promotion of maed use wiil not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogicaf land use pattem. C. The proposed change of mnes and revisbns to Title 16 satlsfy Sedion 16.36.010 of the Development Code, which states 'It is the purpose af this chapter b provide regulatbns that implement those goals, objedives and polkies, and that are aimed toward the provision of adequate and appropriate commercial areas within the City'. 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 a NegaUve Dedaration has been prepared in Accordance with CEG1A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as folbws: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and cort�d. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sectlon 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby 4 amended as shovm in Exhibits 'A" and "B" attac�ed hereto and incorporated herein by i referenc;e. SECTION 3: Moyo Grande Muniapal Code Chapters, Sedions and Tables set forth hereinbelow are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "C' attached hereto and inoorporated � her+ein by this ►eference: � a. Amend Section 16.08.010 in its errtirety; b. Amend Sec�lon 1624.010.C; c. Repeal Sect�on 1624.010.D.1. ; � d. Repeal ar�d replace Sectlon 16.36.020A. in ffs entlrety; � e. Add Table 16.36.020-A f. Repeal Sedion 16.36.020.D; � g. Add Sections 16.36.020.E, 16.36.020.F, 16.36.020.G., 16.36.020.H. and 16.36.020.1.; h. Amend Sectbn 16.36.030A; i. Repeal Table 16.36.030(A)in its eMirety and Add new Table 16.36.030-A; j. Repeal Chapter 16.40 and Table 16.40.030-A in their entirety; k. Add Section 16.52.095; I. Amend Secdon 16.56.020.B.; m. Amend Secc�On 16.56.050; and n. Amend Secdon 16.56.060. a S�CTION 4: Amoyo Grande Municipal Code Chapters, Sections and Table(s) set forih hereinbelow are hereby amended as follows: ORDiNANCE NO.'S57 PA(iE 3 a. Repeal Table 16.36.030-A1 in its entlrety; b. Renumber existlng Section 16.36.020.F. to Secction 16.36.020.B. and renumber existing Table 16.36.020-D. to Table 16.36.02a6.; ' c. Renumber existing Section 16.36.020.6.to Section 16.36.020.C. and renumber � exlsting Table 16.36.020-A.to Table 16.3B.020-C.; d. Renumber e�assting Sec�ion 16.36.020.C. to Sedion 16.36.020.D. and renumber existing Table 16.36.020-8.to Table 16.36.020-D.; e. Renumber e�dsting Section 16.36.020.G.to 16.36.020.J.; f. Renumber existing Sedion 16.36.020.H. to 16.36.020.K.; SECTION 5: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of AdminisVative Servioes shall fie a Notice of Determination. SECTION 6: If any sedion, sub�lon, subdivision, paragraph. serrtenoe, or dause of this Ord�anoe or any part thereof is fw any reason held to be unlawful, such deasion shall rwt affed the validity of the remaining portbn of this Ordinanoe or any part thereof. The City Council hereby dedares that it w�ould have passed each section. subsectlon, subdNision, paragraph. sentence. or dause thereof� irrespective of the fad that any one or more sedlon, subsectlon, subdivlsion� Paragraph� senter�ce.or dause be dedared unconsfkutional. SECTION 7: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and clrculated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days pricu to the Cityy Council i meeting at which the proposed OMinence is to be adopted. A certifled copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the oflice of the Diredor of AdminisVative Services/Deputy City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days aiter adoptton of the Ordinance, the ; summary with the names of those City CouncN Members voUng for and egsinst the ' OrdManoe shall be published again, and the Direc�or of Administretive Servlcea/Deputy City Clerk shall post a certHied oopy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. � SECTION 8:This Ordinance shaU take efFed thirty(30)days after its adoption. � On motion by Council Member Lubin seconded by Counal Member Runels, and by the folbwing roll caU vote to wit: AYES: Council Mernbers Lubin, Runels, Didcens, Costelb and Mayor Fertara NOE3: None ABSENT: None � U�e foregoing Ordinanoe.was adopted this 26'"day of October,2004. I � � � ORDINANCE NO. 557 � PAGE 4 ' TONY M. FE , MAYOR I ' ATTEST: �✓ (�� KELLY WETM E, RECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE3/ EPUTY CITY CLERK � � APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEV ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: � , � u i TIM THY J. AR , CITY ATTORNEY '►_ / ` ` �. p►., `�I,�►j��•��, • • • � . �,...I,�� a��maqtip ��J't ► 11 1► �at ►.aqn., II l �'- a�� riii..f:!� ��1 ��i��• �`� 'r i�UI� �j ��q��\ , �►a►,+,► ,�►''��►G i � �`�'��ty�� \ -�/.-....� �-; ;� . . .: �.:It►I!. iY,l , ��,tS►��O�`�•��`%; �;;:�",,,�;Ij► � ' �� /�,,1►��n�` + l�� O� ''� i'1 • L`i!:i��N►►� �rj�+�r�� ,��►►�`��+ �,.. ��:��,�' t �i`��►rr ��+' ee � ,�:�o� � :�► ��C 1+, , ..M�<<�x ,. .. :: . ♦ � s un.r � '� ,��`� � �j`'�;:fr *��,�'`.,\,,.i�� - :.�`q•�r�;;!;,p, �, • r .;s"C i.� �,. ., �•�. !.. �/I,r, .. ; � �q. ,.,. ��``� ,,r� s��'�-►�i1�::� ♦ � �j �� w \�� \ � . �i �„�o+�► �rll�f li�i.y: � '�{ It�� '��`�� `f� p ��"tj� �it/�s�r�� ► ♦ �� ..o��1��i � {�j��'��'�1/I//v�r•:�lat s•. ` �l� �� ,'.4 ��'�'� Or� ` �41+a\�+ �� ,♦ ji :!�, iipt �rl1�r.��it�;�►�/�� ' .� {� r�yy m��unuu ' _. ._... ...' \��1\1i11 � �� t ��,�� fI 1'i�"��\�r ��n��-� a, t rT:. "�-�_ _ �,�1�� .�� :1�'��\�.��I��j�� pun ` f.j1Dr�D��^_ ,} _. �-�j�� rs�►,I'�'� ��r�r."'.�1 '�'' ` .. r► ��,�y�.r�. l�C i �r � \O�I f ♦ I� ♦•� �I .. � �''` �',,'•',,'•• �i i�i Iin ul/nU ,� . ♦ I. \` '-____.... ._. _...__._-�-�. �+ \ A umn+�+,- � `� �� 0�\�� l�� +,,`�� 7111 --••-lo w/�tl0 �,.�r�i . 1'E"•Y' ., ti /\\� i0/ \\\ �.. I��♦ .. � � a .�r ..�. ..� ,,, .. � ♦ ��° .. �� .. G�\ D.�. -��',�O .�. ♦i`� !\��`\'\�\i `':1��j �. �=�=1��- ■ .�.��L, � �\�� :�� '�j�' ��ureif v��i�� ` ,`��j``��i�� . . �.�- ! �I�/� �l . �^►�� I�j ij�,� ��/��i �1i ' rrtrHtrrerrn �:.��..�.A� ¢�� ,��Ij+• �n1�� T1111/1!! �t�U -.. _ ��u Yi jl�i�ifllJp Jrqltll�rny�! iJ��s: .n, ��ui�� .i*. %► rl . ii.►r ��n unn��11� 11111uN^� ./ �� ii� 1/111 --� � .��{Ut �/ � � �.t� .� �l � ��/r ��,*� ��..� �111�� [� �u .uenu .6r .��, �,w � .. �. �"� M'� � ��t �u.u..� . I111i411{G � �rl�til�t�►i:►: �� u�Nn�:i:y�,11111. �` �/ � .A� .r_iiiiii �P��W V�w =� {111�{t{�iH f{�t�r� �� ! .. .�p nu�;�,.1� .,. �.,\�1{ t�1,s �C +��N�: �►� �: rl�r� �i� � tllS C ��{■ � ?__ n�u/ i�ini • �' '�� ' w~' i��1� � � t -_ unn' i' , + ��'�`� �flll 1��Wum' _ ..�... .�,,. .�. . %�' r. - ■.�� ; 1 ;::.,... _►. ;t,r - .�■. ,:: . .,.r �� ' a�nr ��oa��l�'►� 'T �1",�lN�111/�, f'._ � �t111�t1A� �� ..na� e �� _ �I�tt��,j r�� . .. � .� ��',�, =�� ' ��1 �� . .' i�';;:� . �- .:. - \t �+�' s�/��.►� ■� •r '•'�i��ii anur �.u;,G�1T�� '� w � � i1� -�� -^�� f1��b iM��4 tO� ♦ � �►�'w. �Pt�� ,��'{ ��w�s� U► ♦ L �. �P�/- 1 '�-v�. �'' �',�^1�:yS�� +�F�� ► r�� aU��l � .{ ��f� i� V�=�a �tfi�� i ;, .� i � /{�/ /��/r� ~ �/{�� y\�� 1 i �' � '� � 1ni I1��/iOtl� ��p� .�.� �� UI�Otl i� �ti{� E � ...��'.`� 'si�� 1\/O�� LOI� � �� '�= .��- �11f1111111===y. ��► �► �� I/ � � ` �rri �+• •aan . :r un► � s � .A .. � u __ _c � l : � �1. + tR �t } ' � :'r �'r�� d/l N��►:.i... j�y . . =_= ►•� `• �: * �(�' i��i `��.`'. 11�111`\�t/1�C r��jt��i�� {�f��\,f� _+`: ^ i `i"n= � ?ia:� � ':: / ;,, -%mm��.. .u��u /{ . n► • 7um : � �► wmu�C/ ,�UID4\ ��1►{i�M1►I:t�\�lf� J1111 ��I��'J� • �� ) r %�......,..c��y��an�n� =` " n�� C�.► j►Hfi:!{l�� s:ii: n:P� r 'I A��1►1 I� � ■ / =�•��;+'-:� :►3f�,ti aN isAf f/N1QF��'iii�i %��Q �.� •' p� wp:si�n i iiiut�0��1 ��6��i0 i�t �O�POf� : r�rf :i OMU-D-2.20 Exhiblt "B" Design Overlay O-D-2.20 Mediql Mixed Use Descriptlon of Parcels: APNs: 006-39- 044, 046, 047, 048 and 049 (see attached map). Use Regulations: Mixed use development with 75% office use compaGble with Hospital Facilities Plan. Ail other uses as specified in underlying zoning disUict(OMU). Site Development Criteria: 1. As speafied in the underlying zoning district, (OMU). Three-story building components allowed only with substantlal transitional space and/or lower story elements adjacent to residential districts or uses. Future hospital redevelopment shall fnGude public transportation improvements (reference development approval CUP 02-006, Planning Commission resolutions 02- 1839 and 02-1841). 2. Maximum Building Size may exceed 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 Pertortnance Standards. Design Guidelines: none. Addittonal Information: These parcels were zoned with a —D overlay at the time of the 2004 Development Code update to darify development standards that pertain to the subject parcels. A Hospita/ Facilities P/an must be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department prior to any use peimit approva! within the OMU- D-2.20 Ove►1ay. i � . . �.._ - ♦a F �g,.�� a �' � � - e n�" c '.M ' . .r d a`* r re''� ��. ' Cy T y �a ? .°�k k: i,r•� � ` ti ._ . .. _ . - G/�H�B�t � . �+. � �, :�. �:." {� r °x� l4 �� _e3 r '^ � .. . 'e.� . E? � .d` !9°as' . . .a ..� �. ' _ . . ` Y . ' � . ... . " , . a . . . . _ ' .. . . � _ _ ^Y . . 'f ' . . , .. ` - . , . . . , , , . , . • , . 'x . .. . ' _ . �..� . . . . - " O � ' . e . � 4 o � � . 1, a • • - � .e'• 0- .. . � •. � • 0 .. a � P . ' . .. • °� . B e 6 �B F3 s • ° �� . ' C ,' � � . . • � � -. � - � . ... �t�a a � � a • , . : . �. se a �5, pa � e e6! e e .s . o ,t �.e . � � �, � � °Q°� ° .. ' e o � � � _ OAfl�1-D-2.�U , o �o • � � ; me � . � • ��`w , . e e ° .. t e ,ea - • �e . < ° F� ° � °' . .�e.m � = o • O O s B � B a ° e . ee om ep P Q o � . .� ° e �� • e ., e � � ° , ° 8 . 0 . e a o e_ � o . m e e .� • ' . ,,,�.'ckF[•-.:.. � . . e a B ° a . . m 4 .�i _ . . . . . . - o • � � �� o �Co� �O �c�r��a� p �a o ��C� o� �� r� p l Ord 557 Exhibk "C" Page 1 of 15 ' EXHIBIT "C" 16.08.010 IncorporaUon by Reference � The following documen4s are hereby incorporated by reference (nto this tiUe: � A. Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District(D-2.11)pertaining to the Traffic Way and Station Way area (as amended); B. Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Distrids, 2003 for Design Oveday DisMct(D-2.4) pertaining to the Village area; C. Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed Use Districts pertaining to the E. Grand Avenue and a portlon of EI Camino Real (as amended); D. Arnoyo Grande Standard Plans for Public Works Construction (as amended); E. Oak Park Aaes Planned Development•Ordinances 140 C.S., 150 C.S., 196 C.S., 246 C.S., 259 C.S., 291 C.S., 296 C.S., 316 C.S., and 396 C.S.; F. Rancho Grande Planned Development-Ordinances 186 C.S., 302 C.S., 315 C.S., 343 C.S., and 397 C.S.; G. Royal Oaks Planned Development-Ordinances 355 C.S., 356 C.S., 358 C.S., 384 C.S., 406 C.S., 418 C.S. and 430 C.S.; H. Wlldwood Ranch Planned Development-Ordinanoe 214 C.S.; I. Oki Planned Development-Ordinance 420 C.S.; J. Flood Insurance S�dy for the Cit�r of Artoyo Grende, dated July 1983,or as officiaily amended; K. City of Arroyo Grande Development Standards for Fire Protection, as amended. � L Ordinance 153 C.S. relaUng to a Design Development Overlay DisMct; a M. Ordinance 329 C.S. relaUng to a Design Development Overiay Distrid; � N. Ordinanoe 135 C.S. relatlng to a Design Development Overlay Distrid; 1 O. Ordinanoe 86 C.S. relating to a Design Development Overlay District; { P. Ordinance 360 C.S. relaHng to a Design Devebpment Overlay District 117. i Q. Ordinanoe 130 C.S. relatlng to a Design Development Overlay Districk R. Ordlnance 558 relaUng to a Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20. Copies of each of the above listed documents are on file wffh the oommunity development departrnent and administrative services deparUnent. , 16.?A.010. Created. C. Commerdal and M1xed Use Distrids: 1. Industrial Mixed Use(IMU)district; 2. Vfllage Core Dovmtorm (VCD)distrld; 3. Wlage Mixed Use District(VMU)district; 4. T�a4fic Way Mixed Use(TMU)district; ; 5. Gateway Mixed Use(GMU)distrid; 6. Fair Oaks Mixad Use(FOMU)disUict; 7. Highway Mixed Use(HMU)distrid; 8. Oftice Mixed Use(OMU)distrid; 9. Regional Commerdal (RC)distrid; 10. Historic Charecter Overlay(HCO)district. ' Ord 557 Exhibit 'C' Pege 2 of 15 ' 16.36.020 Commercial and Mixed Use DevelopmeM Districts and Site Development Standards � A. Industrial Mixed Use(IMU)district. The p�imary purpose of the IMU distrid is to provide a sound and diversified eoonomic base and employment opportunities for the citizens of Arroyo Grande. It is the further intent of this chapter to acoo►nplish this via the establishment of a specific, well-defined pattem of industrial acUvides which is compatlble with residenUal, commerdal, institutional, and other uses within U�e community; has good access to the regfonal transportation system; accommodates the personal needs of workers and ' business vis'dors; and which meets the service needs of local businesses. ; In additlon to the above, it is the further intent of the IMU distrid to: 1. Reserve appropriately located areas for indusUial use and protect these areas from inUusion by dwellings and other inhartnonious uses; 2. Protect residendal, commeroial and nulsanoe-free non-hazardous industrial uses from noise, � odor, dust, smoke, Uuck U'affic and other objectionable influences and from flre, explosfon, Iradiation and other hazards inddental to oertain heavy indusUial uses; 3. Minimize traffic oongesUon and to avoid the overioading of utllitles by resMciing the constructlon ' of buildings of exoessive size in relation to the amount of land around them. � Refer to Table 16.38.030-A for allowable uses and Table 16.36.020-A for minimum site devebpment standards. _ ;� � r y � 7. �knum Densily Mixed Use New resklentlal Ihrdted to INawak wdta In conJundion witl� albwed uaes. Pro dete�mined di�etlone adbn. 2.MMimum Lot Sbs 18 000 uare feet ross . 3.Mk�Mnwn Lot Widlh 100 feet 4.FroM Yard Selbeck 10 feet 5.Rear Yard Setbadc 0-15 feef. (50 feet if adjacent Eo a resldeMial disMd) 8.Side Yard Seffiadc 0 — 15 feet Ezoept as otl�enwbe pamltEed. requlred rear and I�ior side Mdldk�p eetl�adc arees e1�eU be ueed only for IerW�inO.p��YB. ddvaways� otf-street parkhp a bading� retxeatlonsl activitles a fadBtles. end akdla►aa�seo ectivitles. 7.3treet Side Yard Selback 20 feet.Except ac othenMae pemdmed�a street side bulldinp setback area ahel be used oNy for �P�6. Pedeefrie� walkwaYs. d�ivewaYs. or oft-s4eet PerkinG• 8.BuAdk�p Size Limks Ma�dmum heipht b 30 feet ot lwo arories. Maximum BulWkg Size is 102.500 square feet. 9.Ske Coverage and Floor Aiea Ma�dmum wverape of aiEe tliat mey be covered by strudures and pevement is Ratio 509i. Maxhrwm Fbor Arae Ratlo is.45. 10. OIfSVeet Parktnp and Sectbn 18.SB.OZO. Loadirp Whete oiFe6eet parkirp ereas are alh�eled auch that they are Neible irom any atreet, a waU, be�m. or �Inetlon walUbertn tluee teet In heipM ehatl 6e erected bet�ween tlie req�dred �Pe area and the perkinp area to a screen tlie rld areas. 11. Site Desfpn and Sipns See Guidelhes and Sanderds for Mizad Uae Dls6icts. See Sectbn 18.80. Ord 557 Exhibit �C� Page 3 of 15 E. Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) Dlstrid. The primary purpose of the GMU district is to provide for the combinadon of finandal institutions, retail, offioe and commeraal uses and multi-family residences with ( retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses on the ground floors of structures fronting E. Grand Avenue, � _, and residential units or oiflc�s allowed on upper floors. Regulations for the GMU distrid, cornbined with , tt�e Design Guidelines and Standards for the GMU both intensifies commerdal devebpment and muttl- family housing opporUmities in tl�e westem gateway to the City. The GMU district implements and is consistent wNh the Mixed Use land use designation of the General Plan. Refer to Table 16.36.030-A for aUowable uses and Table 18.36.020-D. for minimum site deve ment standards. � x , . ' `; � � . ,;.. ,�' J. ,::; 4 .. -' .'°i- `".`�:� ... _,,� c. . . -. '; I 1. Ma�dmum aeneny-NUxea use F►oJeds z5 aweuu,p urdtdacre(taeee on gross projecc area) 2. Ma�dmum deneily-Multl-farrdly lausinp 15 dwellkp uNldacre ' 3. Minimtan densUy(qoJecte that do tat front 7596 of ma�dmum deneily(rtieasured on residentiel paUon of E.Grand Avenue.) horimntal mixed uee proJect area or 50%of proJect area. i N07E Densltles do not lndude densllY whichever is bes) bantrs.5ee Sectlon 18.80 3.Mlnimum Lot Strs 20 000 .R ross � 4.IAk�imum Lot Widlh 100 feet 5.Frord Yard Selbadt 0-10 fe� F.uceptlona for lerger aelbadcs maY indude e�ance courtya►ds,areas tor outdoor diNrq,w for qojecffi fednp a residentlel distriet as detertWned h reviexr. 8.R�r Yard Selbeck 0-15 feet PaiWnp encouraged. For projeds abutlkip a reeWentlal reaiderdlal setback aheN � 7.Side YaM Setbadc 0-5 feet. Fw poJecls abWtlnp a reeideMlal dietrk�,aorteapondinp reaidentlal selbadc eha9 6.Street Side Yard Setback 0-15 feeL Exoeptlons mey kidude areas for outdoor d�kq,or and�itecfivaNendseape feaWres detennlned Cnouph disaetionary � actlon. 9.Butldkg Size Lknita Maxhnum heipM b 35 feeR or tliree sbries whid�eve►is less: I e ma�dmum'of up b 40 feet tor mbced uae Prol�bY��Y edlon on IWs lerper tlwn 20.000 eq.ft and where the buiWh�p Is not � edlacent to a reeid�tlal dia4ld. I , See Dealpn Gufdeiines and StandaMs for Mixed Use Distrids. Also see Set�lon 78.48.030.B.5 and 8. � Ma�dmum buNdl size Is 102 500 uare feet 10.SIEe Coverape and Floor Ar� AAa�dnaan oover�e of aHe tl�at may be covered by sUuchues is Ratlo(maxirtwm bu9dinp area as a ratlo ot aite 75%. area.e�iu�0 Purol�es.cellars.attics.and u round AAa�dmum Floor/iuea Ratb Is 1.5. i 11.SfOs Deeign and Sipns Commerdel and mhced uae projecta�ei9er tl�an 20.000 aq.lt i 200 eq. R of pWYc accesdble open spece is requbed fo► eveiY 5.000 eQ. R of oflice ot conm�erdel ePece ezclualve of areas fa P��• See Cieneral Conune�del and Mixed Uae Deeign GuWelines end Staraferds. � General Plen Poliaes LU5-11. For mizad use proleds.refer to Sectlon 18.48.085. Additlonel ' n standards also fn Sectlon 18.60. 12.OiF-Street Parking and Loadinp See Deeipn GuMelines end Standards.Parklnp Is Oo be bCaEed behind bidldinps w b Ihe sfde. Driveways along E.Grarb Avenue ahaN be minkMzed by combiMnp ddveweys.ueinp aUeys or �8�8 devebDment ao tl�aR axess is provfded from bcal stree�. Ord 557 Exhibit "C" Page 4 of 15 ' . ._ . . . �� , ._ �p. , `. _ .... See Sec�lon 18.56.020. F. Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) District The primary purpose of the FOMU distrid is to provide for the combinatlon of retail and servioe uses with an emphasGs on those related to home improvement, as well as restaurants, oflices, visitor serving uses and multl-family residences that are preferably � incaporated in a mixed use project. Regulations for the FOMU district, combined with the Deslgn Guidelines and Standards for tlie vianity. of tl�e FOMU, intend to promote a pedestrian aa�ssible mixed use distrid with shared parking and transition to surrounding residentlal neighborhoods.. The FOMU district implements and is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designatlon of the General Plan. Refer to Table 16.36.030-A for allowable uses and Table 16.36.020-F for minimum site ; development standards. . , ,.. ,, n . ., _ :< � . . ( �' �.. ., ,: . � : .... _ .., .:.. , ... � 1. Ma�dmum Densfly AAixed Use Projecfs zs awea�q urda�acre(�seed on eroes v►clea erea) 2. Me�Nm oerrelly Muro-fama�r nouaing ts dwellinp unim�acre 3. b6nimum DensHy(projecffi that do rat front E. 7596 of ineximum densily(rt�eawred on reeidentlal portbn Cxand Avenue.) of hotizontal mbaed use project area a 50%of proJxt area. NOTE' DenslUes do rrot i�lude densky bonus.See whM�ever is less) Secdion 18.80 4. hBnhntpn Lot Size 15 000 .ft. m88 5. MlnNmim Lot WIdM 80 feet 8. Front Yard Selbedc 0-10 feet E�bns br larper aetbacks mey 4�dude entrance cowiyard areas for outdoor�p.or for projects fadnp a reciderdial dlsMct as determined tlaot�gh diecretiona review. 7..Rear Yerd Setback 0-15 feet Parkkg enoouraped.For poJecffi abutlirp a reskfeMial dietrk:f,oonespondinp resideMlal tetbedc ehall 8. Side Yard SeLL�ack 0-5 feet For pojeds abuWrq a resWentlel district, co ndi resMentlal setback shell 9. Street Side Yard Selbedc 0-15 feet. Exoeptlons mey indude areas for ouEdoor �ninp,w fasWres detemdned thro h dkaetbne action. 10.Buildkg Sbs LImNa Meximum helpM for mbted reskie�uae is 35 feet w three seorbs whkJ�ever b lees;a ma�dmum of up to 40 feet for mbred uae p�ojeds bY diepetlone�r adion on bffi large�than 20�000 eQ.ft and where the bupdinp Is not adjacent Eo a reaideMlal dishid. See Deslgn�and StandeMs for Mixed Use Districta. Also see Sectlon 16.48.030.6.5 and 8. Maximum size is 50 000 feet. 11.Sioe Coverape and Fbor Area Fiatlo �Aadrrwm aoverape�ai�tl�at may be oovered by sWdures le 70'!6.�Aezimum Fbor A►ea Ra1b Is 1. 12.SNe Desipn and Sipns See Deelpn GWdel4�es and Sfendarde. pleaee rqte Generel Plan Polkdea LUS11. For mixed use pojecla,refer b SecUon 18.48.085 Additbnel n e�rvderda in Sec�lon 18.80. 73.O(f-Street Park6�g arM Loadinp See Deeipn GuideNr�es arW Standerds.Pa�tcinp is b be bcated behkM b�dldMps or to fhe side.Drivervays abnp E. Grand Avenue slap be mkdmired when Poselble bY wrt�WrdnD drivev+aYs.ueinB alleYs or designMO developmeM ao that acoese Is proWded irom loeal atreefs. See Sedion 18.58.020. Ord 557 Exhibk "C" Page 5 of 15 G. Highway Mtxed Use (HMIn Oistrfct The primary purpose of the HMU distrid is to provide areas for a variety of visitor-serving and auto-related uses in areas convenient to both freeway traffic and vehicles or pedestrians. Development standards and design guidelines are intended to enhance this speciaUzed mix of uses which indude automobile sales and servioe and repair oflioes, wholesale and retaii sales induding outdoor disptay, motels, restauraMs and Iimitad reside�tial uses fundioning as live-work units.The HMU disUict implements and is consistent with the Mixed Use land use category � of the General Plan. See Table 16.36.030-A for allowable uses and Table 16.36.020-G for minimum , site development standards. r j ° ,.. , , �,� � x 1. �Aedrtwm DeneMy AAlxed Use ProJects 20 dwelNrg unilslacre(baeed on gross projed area). ! 2. Me�dmum Densily MWttl-Famly Housing 20 dwel8np wdfslaae Pbte: Densitlea do rat ir�clude density bonus. See Seclbn 18.80 3.hNnkmim lot Size 20 000 .ft ioss . 4.ANnNn�sri Lot Wldlh 80 feet � 5.Fmrd Yard Sett�sdc 0— 15 feet. Exceptlons mey indude areas fw ou0door sales i determinad tlf �eaeUone actlon. � 8.Reer Yard Selbadc 0— 1b teet. Wherever a lot in a�ry comrtbrclal a iNxed uee � distrh;t abuts a retWentlal uee a a bt in any reWdentlel ; distrk�. e miNmum buildir�g setbadc ot lwentY (ZO) (eet measured firom U�e p�operty Ilne eheB be required for propOSed cortirnerdal uee. . ; 7.Side Yerd Setbeck 0 feet Wherever e bt in any oortwne�dal or mbmd we dittrkd abuts a reaWentlel uee or a lot in em�d uae dhtrlU,a ' rtdnqmim bu6dhg setbadc ot tw�enty (20)feet meawred irom the propeAy Bne shall be required for proposed commerGal use. 8.Street Side Yard Setback 0— 15 feet. 600eptlo� may indude a�s (or ou0door sales deferrnined thro dfea'etlo�a aclfon. 9.Buildinp Sbs LJmits Me�dmum hefyht la 30 Eeet or three sEoiies. whid�evar is lees: i a meximum of 38 feet Is albwable th�ouph 1he CUP prxsss , tor viefEor ae�Wnp uees. Ma�dmum Bull�r�p Sizs is 50.000 squere feet; a gres6er size mey be allowed Muouph the CUP process. 10.Site Co�e and Fbor Area Ratlo Mezimum cove►age of site thet mey be covered by striwhues la 75%. Me�dmum Fbor Area Ratlo is.75. . 11.Sita UedOn and Sipns See Deeqn GuiO�and SfarMards D-2.11. Additlor�el sipn et�Watds aleo in Seelbn 18.Q0. 12.OlfStreet Pa�king and Loadinp See Desipn Gulde6�es and StendaMs D-2.11 E�d�iblt 'A' for shared parldnp bcetbne. See Aleo Secfbn 18.58.020. ' E albwed Sectbn 18.18.120. H. Otflce Mixed Use(OMU) District The primary purpose of the office mixed use (OMU)distrid is to provide areas for the establishment of oorporate, adminlsVative, and medical offlces and fadlities, commeraal services that are required to support major business medical development, and multi-family housing. Retail faalities and support business are encouraged to serve nearby offioe and residential uses. Typfcal uses iruiude, but are not limited to, professional and medical offices, business-related retail and service functions, restaurants Ord 557 Exhibit r{i^ Page 6 of 15 (no drive-through windows), health dubs, finanaal institutions, medical and health care faalities and multl-family housing. Refer to Table 16.36.030-A for allowable uses and Table 16.36.020-H for minimum site development standards. Requirements of this section supercede corresponding requirements within the Planned Development 1.1 and Planned Development 1.2 distrids. '* �: �'.. 1 t k 4 y'.r A xf,. ,�.�' a r3 SS'�` t y.t . (f r:r � l f hF Y �, k , 1.� Me�drtwm DeneNy M�red Uee ProJecte 20 dweUlrg w�telacre(baeed on groas project area) 2. Maximum Dendly Multl-famly Housing 15 dweUing uNtNaae 3. Mkdmum Density 75%of ma�dmwn densily(measured on reaWeMisl poitlon N07E: Densftles do not lndude denslfy Donus. See horimMal rNxed uae proJect aiea w 50%of pro�ct area, Seclbn 1&&1 whicAever is less) 4. M(nimum Lot Size 10 000 .it ross •20 000 .R for resldeMial 5. NtlNmum Lot Widlh 1 UO teet 8. ProM Yard Setback 0-10 feet Ezceptlons may hidude eMrance courtyarde Iand areas for ouldoor dintrg determh�ed throuph ! discretla�ery revlew. 70 feet is required for proJecta a straet a raeWentlei disMct. � 7. Rer YaM Sefbeck 0-15 feet Parld encou ed. 8. Side Ymd Setbeck 0-5 feet 9. Street Skle Yard Setbedc 0-15 feet. E�aoeptlona may indude areas for outdoor dinMp,or ard��lOecWraNendecape features dete�rtdned thro dia�xetlOne actlOn. t0.BuUdinp Siae Lfrnifs Ma�dmum heigM for mixed reaWentlaUcortunerdal we k 35 , feet or tivee s0orbs wlrichever is less. Also eee Seciion 18.48.030.8.5 and 8. Maximum building ake is 50,000 squara feet.(See OMU- D-2.20) Thre�ebry bWld�p canponents albwed oNy wiM� eubsfarqial tra�ftlonal spece andlor lower sEOry elemenffi ' to fesWentl91 dislrk�s M uees. 1 t. Site CoVerage and Fbor Area Retb Maximum coverege of ske by structures is 70%. Me�dmum Floor Area Ratb is 1 12. Sfte Deeipn and Signe See OMU-D-2.20. Please nota Caenerel Plan PoIIGes LU�r11. Fw mixed uee pioJects�refer 10 Sectlon 16.48.085. Additlonal n smndards also in Secfbn 18.80. 73. df-Street and Loed Sectlon 18.58.020. 1.Reglonal Commercial (RC) District The primary purpose of the RC is to provide for a diversity of comme�ciai uses that serve oommunity and regional needs for retail and personal servioes within distinctNe and intemaly pedesUian-oriented shopping centers. The RC district implemerrts snd is consistent with the Regional Commerclal land use designation of the Gen�al Plan. Refer to Table 16.38.030-A for allowable uses and Table 18.36.020-I for minimum site development standards. Requtrements of this secUon supercede corresponding requirements wlthin fhe Planned Development 1.1 and Planned Devebpment 1.2 distrids. � -.. � ;- -� ; ,:. , ` , ... . _. , __. . �-:. �,. .. , _. . .. .: . _. 7.Minimum Lot Size 5 acre minknum st�oppYp o�sloe. 5,000 eq.ft:bt size by PUD N ooMwmance to development plan for the eMire ceMer. 2.Setbecks end All a IkaWe aeC�edcs wNl be decided distxetiona ecdon. Ord 557 Exhibit "C' Page 7 ot 15 s , � _ . r ,, , _ ..,..,, � `.;,. :,a . _ .,. ._ ,_ . , . _ .. , .�, ,. . . . : , APProPrlate eesenienffi for redProcal exess.Pe�in9 and mairnenance must be reoo�ded and mair�ined. 3.Bu9dfnp Slze LImNs Maxlmum heigM Is 35 feet or�abries whidiever is less; Maxfmum non-resldentiel buddl size is 102 500 uere feet. 4.Site Coverape and Floor Area Ratlo Maximum coverage of alEs by�is 100%. Floor Area Ratb Is 1.0. 5.SNe n and rre Sectbn 18.80. 8.OIF-Street P and Secfbn 18.58.020. ' 16.36.030 Commerclal and mixed use regulatlons A Pertnitted uses withln commerclal disUicts in the city are identified in Table 16.36.030(A). Pertnitted uses are idenrified wiM a "P," uses pertnitted subject to a Minor Use Permit are identffied by a 'MUP" and uses pertnitted subject W issuance of a oonditional use pertnit are identified by a "C.' Uses not idenWied in the fable are prohibited. Note fhat other secHons of the development cotie, general pla� li goais and objecfives, and other federal, state and local requirements may also apply to proposed ' oorruneraal uses. Table 16.36.030-A Uses Permltted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Distrlcts IMW IndinMel Mlxed Use Oletrict (EI Camira) FOMU—Falr Oake Mi�d Use OlsMct ' TMU=Hiphway MNxed Use District HMU=Hiphway Mixed Uee Dlahk:t VCD■VNlepe Core Dowobwn District OMU=Ofike Mized Uee Dlatrict VMU=Vlllape I�ixed Uae Diatrict RC=Repbnel Commerciel DieMct GMU=Gateway lo6ued Use Diatrkd HCO = HlstoriC Charactet Overlsy D� (DesiG� a�Y Dlatrict 2.4) ' P=P�mitted Uae MUP=Minor Uee PertnR NP=Not Permitted CUP=Conditlonal Uae Permit(NOTE:Planewd Unk DavalopmaM(PUD)may be roqulrod for mlx�d us�wbdivislons) PED=Not pe�miQed in pedeatrien orierhed sEorehoM bcatlons on pround floor.fednp E.Grand Avenue Albwad Land Parmit Required By Dlstric! Sp�cHic Use Uses and Pertnit All naw eanune�elal 6ulMinps o/tldrd-Story ComporNntsiaqWn a CUP 8bndards ' R uiremaMs �p�gE WU 7MU � o-� WAU FOMU HMU OMU' RC' D,2.11 2N �� HCO D,tA A SERVN�B—BUSINE83 FlNANC PROFESSIONAL , ATM P MUP MUP P P P P P Bank NP MUP MUP MUP MUP hN1P MUP MUP CUP FYw�id 86fvIClS ' MedkalSsiMOes— NP MUP MUP/ MUP IYR1Pl MUP MWP P CUP dxbfs o16oe PED PED Medkal3ervices— NP MUP CUP/ MUP MUP MUP MWP I.R1P WP ctlnk,leb.urpent cere PED CUP/ PED ' MedcN- NP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP 011ice—aooeeaay MUP P MUP MUP PiPE P P P P D 011loa—po�emnbnt MUP CUP MUP MUP CUP CUP CUP MUP CUP , Wlbs—pr00MSMq MUP CUP CUP MUP MUP/ MNP CUP P NP PED I Ord 557 Exhibk "C" Pege 8 of 15 Allowed Land Permit Requlred By District Speciflc Use Uses and Permit ai n.w commxc�al bu�ku�ps w�lyd-atory eompononts requrre a cur Standards R uirements LAND USE �U TMU V� 0.� OMU FOMU NNU � OMU' RC� D-217 277 D,2.20 HCO D-24 � OIROe—Profeealawl MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP/ MUP MUP P CUP . PED VolrYiery cWYC,anlrtial �Jp CUP NP CUP CUP CUP CUP MUP CUP B.SERVICES—GENERAL AdWldeyeare— NP NP MUP/ MUP MUP/ MUP NP MUP NP 78.52.120 14 a fewar dlenffi PED PED AduR day cere— NP NP NP NP CUP/ CUP NP CUP NP 18.52.120 15 Or more cBenb PED /wOOrtwWe and veAlde MUP MUP NP NP NP NP MUP NP NP 18.52.210 �—�� cr v+pk AubmdiMe and veNde MUP MUP NP NP NP NP MUP NP NP 18.52210 � eMNws—mYqr mWnlniWice or repeU tlie eervloee CaWYiO�ervloes MUP MUP MUP/ MUP MUP/ MUP MUP MUP NP , PED PED � CHId day are oenta— NP NP MUP/ MUP MUP/ MUP NP MUP MUP 14 a Mwer PED PED CMdday�anOx— NP NP MUP/ hN1P MUP/ MUP NP (X1P NP 1&52.120 , 15 or more PED PED ' DA�Yroi�Aaarvioes NP CUP NP WP NP NP CUP CUP NP �� MUP CUP NP CUP NP NP WP CUP NP � Keroiel.miYnA CUP CUP NP CUP .NP NP CUP CUP NP 78.52.100 LOdpYg�Bsd 8 Np MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP 6UR 78.52080 ��^^ NP LodynpFloW a mold NP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP NP See Ga�xd Wm LU7i , LodpNp-ReasaUa�el NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP ValYcle Park MaNlanenoe eervloea- MUP MUP NP MUP NP MUP MUP MUP NP � disnt eI1B seniws bbrEUmY,Nnaral hame CUP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP Pa�sonal aeMees NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Pe�sa�elaervloes- NP CUP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP 1&52.IX10 ReBUICIBd Ri06csafeyfadlib MUP P MUP! P P P P P P PED RepalreaMos MUP MUP NP CUP CUP MUP MUP NP NP �L lerQe etc. 8ocW�nMaas NP CUP NP CUP WP/ MUP CUP MUP NP apan�aYOn PED � TNaaomm�nka�on CUP MUP NP WP WP CUP MUP WP CUP ' haWtles carmerciel C.INDUSTRY.MANUFACfURING AND PROCESSIN6,WNOLESNJNO.STORAGE ApAadh�l podutt CUP �P NP CUP NP NP NP NP NP 18.82.096 Carotruellon yer�d MUP NP . NP NP NP MUP NP NP Np 78.'52.085 Ord 557 Exhibit "C" Pa9e 9 of 15 Allow�d Land Permit Required By District SpscHic Use Usas and Partnit NI new eamnqrGal bulldinps or thlld-story compof»nfa nquln a CUP 8tarulards uiromenb �p� � �� VCD o-U aMU FOMU MMU OMU' RC` D-2.11 111 �-Z.� XCO D,�.4 FuNYxe and 9�Nres MUP NP NP NP NP MUP NP NP NP 18.52.085 m�dinp.�abinet NMwtrial roaeandi aml CUP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 18•�•�' t LeborabrY—Medkel. CUP CUP NP NP NP NP CUP MUP NP �&�•� ' erlalylical.feeee�ch end t � M�adirYpor �P CUP NP NP NP NP WP NP NP 18•�� t. � P�Yqhq end pudhhhq �P MUP .NP NP CUP CUP MUP MUP NP 78.52.085 ' RxyG6q—scnparW WP NP NP NP NP NP . NP NP NP 18.52.085 � W�ydYfp-3meW CUP MUP MUP MUP MUP/ MUP MUP MUP 6AUP 78.52.OB5 � oOY�cWOn taeMMy /PED PED _Ouldoor �P MUP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 1&52.OB5 mH—orora0e) �P NP NP NP NP NP NP Np Np 1&52.096 W1wlswWq and CUP CUP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP 7&�.� d�butlon WY�xy CUP WP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP t&52.OB6 0.RETNL TitAOE AooessayrsfalFU�ee P P P P P P P P P SuhJe�ttoBuetrisss Liaen»dsaiarwe Adult biMYiass�II CUP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP SuOj�ct b 8e�ibn 1&52.03D Wr bcatlon �� devekDmeM atendards NodaYCbevaspe NP CUP (x1P CUP WP CUP CUP CUP CUP aalss ' ArWan tlwp MUP MUP MUP MUP bkJP MUP hRJP MUP NP �, Aub.vsNck and Iwvy � MUP NP NP NP NP MUP NP NP 18.52.OB0 �#�a 18.'32.070 reMal Aub.vM�de perls �P MUP NP NP NP NP MUP NP CUP wss w k�Yauon sarvioes BuidYp and Iwdenpe MUP MUP CUP CUP hNP/ MWP MUP NP MUP 111BIOIfY16 sBIBB�fldotf PED ConwYe�ioa slora CUP MUP MUP 6�1P MUP MUP MR1P MUP MUP � rofaY NP CUP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP NP E�dended laur refa9 CUP MUP MUP ARIP MUP MUP MUP MUP NR1P Fam�wppy and tood MUP CUP NP CUP NP ' NP CUP NP CUP 80019 ' Faniinammkd CUP MUP ANJP MUP WP CUP MUP CUP CUP Fuddeabr CUP CUP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP (p�opane for harrb and , fairn uae Gesstatlon WP CUP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP 1&52.170 Csenaral�efail-b.000� NP MUP P P P P MUP MUP P S��t to 8winess or Iqs Licarae desianoe Ord 557 Exhibk "C" Page 10 of 15 Albwad Land Permit Required By DlsMot Sp�elfle Use Uses and Psrmit AII new eanmorclN bullmnps w thlN-story eompOnents nqulro a CUP Standards ulroments LAND USE �MU TMU � �� GMU FOMU NMU OMU� RC` D 2.77 211 0.Z3C HCO D-2.4 Ganera�MeY- � NP CUP MUP CUP MUP MUP MUP CUP P 8 001 b 19 988 af Gaiara��e� NP MUP NP NP CUP CUP CUP NP P NoOa:Ma�dmum 20.000 af b 102.500 sf �W� parldbhlct and Sectlon 18.52220 � Ca�oorbs,tpsdelly NP MUP CUP CUP MUP MUP MUP CUP MUP � t00dt-20 000 at Or les8 Graorfes:spedally NP CUP NP NP MUP MUP MUP NP WP Note:Me�dmum i AooCS 20.000 sf ro BuWWg Sl�e 102.50D d peddlatrkt antl Secllon 18.52.220 I OuMoor nfaH aebs and MUP MUP MUP MUP NP CUP MUP NP WP adWitlss MabYa lartie,boeL a MUp CUP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP RVaaNs Produos sfmd I�1P MUP MUP MUP .MUP MUP bRJP MUP NP ��. CUP MUP M� MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP (x!P 1&52.180 r��P LU7-4 ReqwuaM,d�iva NP CUP NP 1� NP NP CUP NP t� 1Q520B0 � IMoiph 4et lood LU7d Sem�dlwMsbre NP NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP SUOppnp eanlx NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP NP NP CUP Waelquse�fa9 CUP CUP NP NP NP CUP CUP NP WP 1&52.760 e wasauai.Educ.ua,a Pueuc aa�ney uaea BaAlawmMphtdub CUP CUP G1P P CUP WP CUP NP CUP Club.bdpe.prNaOe NP MUP MUP P MUP/ MUP MUP CUP NP mBa1Nq Ilep PEO Cambrddreaeatlon CUP MUP CUP P WP CUP MUP NP NP a�m�- Indoor Cam�erdel reaestla� CUP CUP NP P NP CUP CUP NP NP a ePab Ix&b- Ouldaar CamMrdlyanbr NP CUP CUP P WP WP CUP CUP NP CaMerenoal NP CUP CUP P CUP CUP CUP WP CUP cm�sntlon , Equphlanfar�ih CUP CUP NP NP NP WP NP NP � Rh�s�ad��lY NP � CUP CUP IYR1P MUP (X1P CUP CUP L�Y,rtw»wm. NP � CUP MUP MWP MUP MUP MUP NP Park.playpwiW NP CUP WP P CUP CUP CUP CUP NP ReepbusiadBb NP CUP CUP/ P WP WP CUP CUP NP PED /PED Sd�ool-EMmen�ry. NP NP NP P NP NP NP CUP NP middk Sdad-SpsdaYaed hRJP MUP CUP/ P CUP/ WP MUP CUP NP edueatla�NalnMq PED PED Ord 557 Exhibk "C" Paga 11 of 15 Albwed Land Pertnk Requlred By Distrfct SpecMic Use Usas and Permit All new canmweial bulidlnps oi Ehlyd�s�ory eomponenb roqulro a CUP Sq�dards R uiremants IANDUSE �U TMU VC� 0.� GMU FOMU NMU OMU� RC� D-Z11 211 �� HCO D,2.4 �—�.d� NP MUP MUP P MUP MUP MUP MUP NP rnartlel als etc. ��.� NP NP CUP CUP CUP NP WP CUP F.Rseldantlel Uees As�ead�MnG NP NP CUP P CUP/ CUP/ NP CUP NP PED P� ' �M�� NP MUP P P P P MUP P NP 16.18.090 ��k� MUP CUP CUP P MUP MUP CUP MUP NP IndWea caretaken uMfa. ProhlbHed In aonjwwtlan wIM restric0ed Peisa�W services and vehide rt�alntenence/repeir. �U88 oslaWielled in new or conanerdal miret WNh UBC oCCU Is. bca�witlJn a�miwed� NP NP NP P PED PED bb (an CUP NP M6Nmum damiry uee pqsct 20,000 bts > �aYowad dmM�d) eq.R 20�000 req�ed bY��B .R Ekrnent b not �N+oed uee p��e NP NP PED P PED PED NP CUP NP �E Grand ' Ava.,E.&anrh Shaet a in HMU a � ' IAAU dbtrkls. ��. NP NP MUP! P MUP/ MUP NP MUP NP 8 a Iw cianb pED PED ��X NP NP CUP/ P WPfP CUP/ NP CUP NP ' �a�� PED ED PED I ��Y�� NP NP NP MUP NP NP NP NP NP 1MWn a mhrsd ues ' ReQuiremenffi of this section supercede cortespondfnp requlrements in fhe PD 1.1 disUict. 2 Requirements M this secBon supercede ooResponding requiremenb in the PD 1.1 end PD 1.2 district. Chaoter 16.32.098 Industrlal Uses—Site Develoument Standards : A Speaal Site Development Standarcls. � 1. Where oif-street parking areas are situated such that they are visible from any street, a wall, bertn, or combinaUon walllberm three feet in hefght shail be erected beiween the required landscape area and the parking area to adequately screen the patking areas. i 2. Required front and street s(de building setbadc areas shall be landscaped. The ' landscaping shall consist predominantly of plant materials except for neoessary walks and drives. Where off-street parking is iocated within such building setbadc areas, a ' minimum landscaping area of ten (10) feet in depth shall be provided between the properly line and off-street pa�icing area, wHh an additional minimum landscape area of ten (10)feet in depth between parking areas and bufldings. 3. Except as otherwfse permitted, a street side buildfng setbadc area shall be used only for landscaping, pedesVian walkways, drimreways, or off-street parking. 4. Except as othervvise pertnitted, required rear and interior side building setbadc areas shail be used only for landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways, off-sUeet parlcing or loading, recreational adlvities or facilities,and similar axessory activities. I � E ; Ord 557 ExhWk rC� � Pape 12 of 15 t' � B. Special Regulatlons for Recyding Fadlfties. Recyding faalitles allowed within the indusUial district shall indude large collecdon faciliGes and processing facilitfes, as defined in Sectlon . 16.52.140, and shalP be subJed to the following standards. " ": 1. Large Collectlon Fadl(des. ; a. Fadlily does not abut a property zoned or�anned for res(dentlal use; f b. Fadliqr will be scxeened Trom the public ripM-of�way by operatlng in an endosed " building or, � i. Within an area endosed by a solid ma�sonry wall at least six feet tn t�eight and scteened wfth landscaptng, ( ii. At ieast one hundred fitly (150) feet irom properly mned or planned for ' residentl8l us@�end iii. Meets all applicable ndse standards in this tiUe; c. All exterior storage of matetiai shaU be in sturdy containers which are'oovered, i secured and maintatned in good conditlon. Storage oontainers tor flammable E material ahall be construc�ed of nonflammable material. No sttorage exduding � irudc trailers ar�d overseas oontainer, wfll be.visible above the height of the � fendng; d. Site shall be maintained free of litter and arry other undesirable rtietedals, and wlll be deaned of loose debris on a daiy basis; e. Space wifl be provided on site for six vehides (or tlie antldpated peak cwstomer j load,whid�ever is higher)�droulate and to deposit recydable materiels; '� f. One parking space Will be provlded for each cornmerdal.vehide operated by tt�e i ' recyding fadlity. Padcing requiremeMs will othen�ise be mandated by Chapter 18.56; � g. Fadlities shall be desigr�ed sudt Utat nolse levels will not exoeed tifly-five (55) I dBA as measured at the pnoperty iine of residentiely noned ar oxuP� P�'oPenY. � or otherwise shaU not exoeed seventy (70) dBA. CertificaUon of such design will ' be required at tlte tlrne of project approval; h. If the fadllty is bcAted wifhin flve hundred (500j feet of property zoned, planned or oa:upied for residendal use, it shall not be in operatbn'between seven p.m. and seven a.m.; i. Any containers provided for after-hours donati�on of recydable materials will be at least fHly{50)feet from anY ProPertY zoned or oxupied for residenUal ime. shall ; be of sturdy, nistPraof construdlon and sutRdent capacity to accommodate materials collected, and shali be secure from unautFwrized entry or rertwval of , - materiais. Contsiners shall be at least ten(10)feet fran any building; j. Donatlon ar�s will be kept free of Iftter and any other undesirable matedal arul the oontainers will be dearly marked to idenWy the type of materiai that may be deposMsd, and the fadlily shall display a noUae statin8 that no material shall be '� left ou�de u�e recyding oontainers; ; k. Sign requiremeMs shall be in aocordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 ot , ; this tltle. In additlon. the fadUty wiU be dearly ma�lced wffh the name and phone � number of tl�e fedlily operator and the hours of operetlon; 1. Power-driven prooessing, induding aluminum foil and can oompading, baprig, plastic shredding, or other IIgM prooessing ac�ivffles neaessary for effiGent tert�porary storage + and shipment of material.maY be•ePProved thrnugh the oonditional use permit. i 2. Pracessing Fadlities. a. FacUlty does not abut a properiy mned or pianned for resfdenUai use; � � b. Processing fadlily wpl be screened from U�e public ri9�-�-�Y bY oPe��9 � a i � wholly endosed building(exoept far inddental storage), a: i. Within an area endosed on all sides by an opaque wall not less than eigM feet in heigM and lendsceped on ail street frontages. , � - --- -- - ---�— . _ - .d . . 0� 557 GlU1W� V� � ', Page 13 of 15 i ! ii. Loca�d at least one hundred fdty (150) feet from properly zoned or � planned for residentlal use; j c. Power-driven processing shali be permitted. provided all rroise level requlrements I are met UgM processing facilitles are limited to balir�, briquetting, aushing, ' compactl�9� 9rinding, shredding and sortlyng of source-separated recyclable mater(als and repai►ing of reusable rt�aterials� d. A Iight prvicessing fadBly shall be no larger than forty-flve thousand (45,000) square feet and shaU have ra more �han an average � Meo culbound trudc ! shiprrreMs of material per day and may not shred� oompad or bale ferrous metals j otF�than food and beverage containers; ' e. All exterior stwage of material shell be in sturdy containers or endosures which � are covered, secured and matntained in good oondidon. 3taage aonfair�s for i flammable material ahad be construded of nonflammable material. No storage � exduding trudc trailers and overseas oontainers, wlli be visible above the height of the fendng; � � f. Site shall be maintafned free of titter and any other undesireble materials,and will � be deaned of loose debds on a daty basis and wlli be secured from � unauthorized entry and removal of mate�ials when altendants are not present; g. Spaae shall be provided on site for the aMicipated peak load of custamers to drexilate� Perk and deposft recyclable materials. If tl�e,facc;ilUy is open to the Public,spaoe wip be provkJed for a minimum�ten(10)custorriers; h. O�e P��9 $Peoe will be provided for each canrr�ercial vehicle operated by tlie prooessing center. Parking requirertients w(II othervvise be as mar�dated by Chapter 16.52 of this t1tle; i. Nofse tevels shall not exceed sixty (60) d8A as measured at tFre pncperly Iine of residentlaly zoned or ocaipied properly� or othervvise shall not ezoeed seventy (70) dBA. CertlNCadon of such desfgn will be required at the tlrt�e of projed : approval; j. If the facfUly is bcated wftl�in five hundred (500) feet of propeAy zoned or � planned for restdentlal uae. it shall not be in operaUon between seven p.m. and seven a.m.The facility wiU be administered by on-site personnel during the hours ihe fadlity is open; ° k. Any aontainers provided for after-hours donaUon of recydable matedals wiU be at least fifly (50)feet fiom anY P��'�Y mned or oxupied for residenUal use� shall . be of sturdy� rustproof oonstnx�ion and suffident capadty to a000rtu�adate materials col�, and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of ' materiais� i. ObnaUon areas shall be kept free of INter and any other undesirable mater(al. The oorMainers sFtell be dearly merked to idenUty.the type of � tl►at may be deposited. Fadlihr shaA display a noUce stadr�g that no material shaN be left outsWe tl�e recyding containers; m. Sign requirements shaN be in a000rd wlth tlie provisions of Chapter 18.60 of this title. In additlon� tl�e fadUty wUl be dearly marked wrih the name and phone number of tl�e fadiily operator and the hours of operation: • n. No dust� fumes, smoke. vibraUon or odor above may be detectable on neighborin9 P►oPe►des• 16.'56.020 Applicability. , � � � = Ord 557 Exhibk 'C' I ! Pags 14 of 15 � ; � i B. Yllage Parking and B�iness Improvement D1sVk�. For tha area within the boundaries of the ; parking and business (mprovement area for fhe village, oif-�treet parking fadlitles or the payment of In-Ileu fees.as establfshed by resolution.shall be provided as fdlows: ! 1. Outdoor dining areas, Umited to twenty-ftve (25) peroent or less of the totel gross squere footage of the encbsed area of tlie use. shail be exduded fram tlte requirer� to provide , off-street paAdng fadlitles or b pay iMieu fees. For the purposes of celade�kfg a�treet � P��9 �'eQu�. ouEdoor dining area must be nor�ai�-condtUoned or F�eaEed and witlwut � wall enclosures. My outdoor din(np area in excess af tweMY`fire (25� Pe�ceM d ihe totat gross aquare footape �tl�e endosed aros of the use sha9 be re9uired to p'ovide crdY 1he , additlonal number of perldnp spaoes for the InaemeMal square footage over ths t�wenty-tive � 2. �E�dsdn�buildings that are remodeled or enlarged shetl not be required to provide parking M � the incxease in the square fo�pe is less then 300 sq. R If the addfdon !s grea�er U�an fhis � amount, or ff ft is the oonstruWon of a rrew building. off-street parking shaq be requireid i consis�ent wifh tl�e foNowing: ' a. OfF-street parkir►g fadqtles�neisteM wfth requtrements o�F Sectlon 16.56.080�or b. Payment of an iMieu fee based on the to�al number of parkinp spaoes required by r Secdon 18.58.080: c. A oombinatbn of off-str+eet paAcing facilitles and payment of an iMieu fee may be P�rnitted• _ ' 16.58.050 Common Parklnp Fuilitles. � Common parlcinp faciliUes may be provided in qeu of individual requireMenffi if the t�l number of parking spaces is the sum of fhe requirertienffi for irMivWual uses and the parking fadNtles are ! bcated w(thin tive hundred (500)feet of the asaodated uee. 1. TFte total Parkin8►eqtdre�r�nt maY be reduoed to eiBMY(80)Peroent of Uie requBed sfarWard for ahared t�: or severrty (70).peroent of the requked standard for shered �ff a P8�9 �Y� P►ePared bY a Uoensed er�gineer or archkect. can deaAy show that the shared uses have dil�ereM houis d operedon and would not oonflict in tltsk tlme of use. A conditionel uae perrtdt sheN be neQuired to be reviewed. and aPP� bY.� P�9 aommisston for such a redudion. 2. As.a aqnditlon of aBovrir�g oommon pa�icinp fadWies. Pertles_usUB oommon P�kirp faWi�s shaN pruvMe,evkienoe of six�joint use bY e ProPe� legal a8�aDP�+�d bY � �Y atEomey. su�a, apresn,e�ts wr�er, appro�rea sr,aa be tilea w�a, u,. pl�v�p a�a e�l�r�g departrr�ents and recorded wHh tl�e couMy reoorder. 16.56.080 Off�Stivst Parking RequlrenwMs by Land Use. The followir�g off�sUeet parking requUements shall apply to sll buildings erec�ed and new or e�ryanded uses. Where ihe total require� resuR in,a frac�fa�al number� a fractlon d 0.5 or greater shali be roiu�ded to the higher whole number. For arry use � specificaly set fanh.in this sectlon, the planning corrunission sFialt detemdne the amount a�requhed perklnp based upon shNlar uees� or evidence of actual demsnd baeed on trafHc ` engineedng or planning data. The applicern shall provide tl►e neoeasary data and badcgrauid ; irNorrriation. �. �swe�uses a. nomes comrontlona size bc 2 wrt wMMn an a�cwsea I 8map bt(PU�) 2 eVeoss per uNt vdtlin an endowd pe�ape and 0.6 ! for � ^ b. D�pla�aes 2 ePeoe Pa► vMUYn an endoeed peraps and 1 unoo�rered Wt � a 8eoaid reelderqlal unHs 1 wioovered unk , i ._ . .----- ---`- --------- . _—_------–_ ._ . . d Ord 567 Exhibk 'C' Page 16 of 16 � i d. ownhouee and condominparo wdts� � f�StOENTAND VISITOR PARKING: , � S�udb 1 uNt rMINn an encbeed ' 1 Eedroom 1 epaoe per ir�wltl�an encloead pvape and 8 I w�oovered eDaees Per udt for de�elopm�nb ove►Aou► � 2+bedioortr 2�p�cas per uNt wtlNn an ando�ed pa�p�ad 0.5 unoovered uNtior ov�rfourunqs e. and mu�Fandgr dwe�ps � �e�l a�ls RE&DENT PARIQNO: 81udb 1 covered uNt i 7 bsdroan 1 oovsrod spaoe per unk and 0.5 urwrovered tproe per i tmkfor ovetiourunqs 2+be400nre 2 ooveied apaoae Per uNt and.5 wit for dsvebpnwnls over Goiu wYls Go e L Senbr RESIDEIR PARIUNCi: Shido 1 aoveied unit 7*bedlooms 1 ooMxsd unk , g. Saibr Iwirkip-aseMted MNnO 7 uiw:oveied apaos p�r 8 bade arW 1 sP�P��Y� on tl�e work ddR h. 2.8 unoovared art �• ��Y�Y cme� 1 wooverad�Pece PK�f paraon dher tlren the : . homeowner In addltlon Eo Uie rsquYed pa�kkip lor U�e reeldeM�l � 1 l � i4 I � � OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, Directot of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk of � the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Lu(s Obispo, State of CaliPomia, do i hereby certlfy under penalty of perjury, U�at the attached is a true, full, and � correct copy of Ordinance No. 557 which was introduced at a regular meeUng of { the City Council on Odober 12, 2004; was passed and adopted at a regular � meeUng of the City Council of the City of Amoyo Grande on the 26"' day of y Octotier, 2004; and was duly published in axordanoe with State law (G.C. + 40806). �i WRNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 28"' day of October, 2004. � - ' r , l� , � .?� v " � KELLY W RE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK I I � � � ' � _ 1 � ; • � � � "�--__ � - � . _ : - - . ' f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- _ -_ � - ---__ - � -` - - ---- � � _. .. ._. _ _ _ -:. .-. .: . � I , � , ' ATTACHMENT6 ' ' � ; OCEAN �AKS ' ' ; ; � e e . � 197 S. Oak Park Blvd., Ste. 10, Grover'Beach, CA 93433 •Telephone: $05-4�4-8051 • Fax:805-474-6053 � � I i , November 6,200fi Rnb Strong,Steve.Adams � City of Arroyo Grande i 214 Easi Branch Str�t - � ; Arroyo tirande Ga,9342Q RE: Plot Plan Review 3"�bedroom Dear Rob and Steve, Thank you for meeting with us last week regarding the appeal of the 3'�bedroom conversion for the Ocean Oaks proj�t. As you know this,3`�beclroom change was approved administratively, ' i then appesied to Planning Commission,then approvai by the Planning Commission and now it has been appealed W the Cowccil. We appreciate the different scenarios yop presentsd at this meering,but have elected to go forch as approved by the Planning Commission on 10-3-Ub. We feel that we have given all we can on I this project in the way of affordability and cazuwt give anymore. It.shouid be nated tivit we are li � providing more affordability in this project than any other project in the City nf Arroyo t.irancle 'i i withaut the'subsidy of government funds ar ta3c credits. Typicaily a project would provide 10 to 15%affordability and we are providing 25%affordabilily. It should elso be noted that although � this 3'�bedroom change does 'rncrease the potential sales price of the affordable units,it al� i broadens the vcry narrow window these affordable buyers mnst fit in to qoalify to buy one of , -,these affordable units.(Se,e the Couniy Affordabie ETousing Standards for details}, i As the applicant, we would not support an approvai that differs from the approval graarted by the I IPlanning Commission. If yon should have aay questions I can be reached at 431-0906. I . Thank you, I �,�v ��.3��;' Jason Blankenship � Project Manager ° �iI � . � J i � I _� � ;� — _ _ ------- ~ '° - --- . 9.b. � pRROyp ° ��A �' INCOHiORATEO T ��Z U � m � JULY t0. 19H * C4��FORN�P CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ' PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that separate public hearings will be held by the Planning Commission and City Council, respectively, in the Arroyo Grande Council Chambers located at 215 E. Branch Street, on the following dates and times to consider the following item: 1. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 06-003, Neighborhood Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Pianned Unit Development 04- 002; Applicant — Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location — East of Noguera Place and North of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Cherry Creek). The Planning Commission and City Council will consider an amended and recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and residential development project. The project consists of a proposed thirty (30) lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on nine (9) acres. The Planning Commission and City Council will also consider a Development Code Amendment to change the Residential Rural (RR) zoning designation to Medium Density Single Family Residential (MD — SFR)for the nine (9) acre project site, which is consistent with the 2001 Generai Plan. SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2006 TIME: 6:00 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 TIME: 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission and City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items listed on their Agenda before or after the items 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 Planning Commission or 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 the proposals is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5420. The meetings will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. h ��u�G�//1 Lyn Reardon-Smith, Secretary to the Commission Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, October 27, 2006 � pRROy� � c� � INCORPORATED yz U m � JULY 10, IBI1 * CQ��F�RN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL � FROM: �: � KELLY HEFFERNON ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 06-003, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NO. 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 04-002, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 04-002; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — 9 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA PLACE AND NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (CHERRY CREEK PROJECT) I I DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 10, 2006) i RECOMMENDATION: Per City Council tentative action at the October 10, 2006 meeting, it is recommended the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission recommends that City Council introduce the attached Ordinance implementing Development Code Amendment (DCA) No. 06-003 for first reading by title only. The Planning Commission further recommends that Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-002 and Planned Unit Development No. 04-002 (the "Cherry Creek ProjecY'). ' FUNDING: There would be additional City costs associated with landscape maintenance within the creek setback area if the Council approves the Cherry Creek Project and 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 Drainage Project. DISCUSSION Background The City Council considered the Cherry Creek Project on October 10, 2006 and tentatively adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration with an added mitigation measure, as follows: � , CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 2 MM 2.3: To mitigate for the loss of approximately one (1) acre of prime soil on the Subarea 1 property, the developer shall pay an in-lieu fee in the amount of $56,000. Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the lead agency must recirculate the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for an additional public � review period when the MND is "substantially revised". An MND is considered to be "substantially revised" if: • A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to a /ess than significant level, or • The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will nof reduce potential signi�cant effects and new measures or revisions must be required. The City Council determined that the loss of approximately one (1) acre of prime soil on the nine (9) acre Subarea 1 property is a potentially significant impact requiring mitigation, and therefore recirculation of the MND was required. The MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) on October 12, 2006. The SCH distributes the document to all responsible State agencies, and to any other agencies that may have relevant expertise in the subject or otherwise have a reason to review the document. The normal review period is thirty (30) calendar days. To date, there have been no additional comments on the recirculated MND. Council continued the item to the November 14, 2006 City Council meeting with , direction that the Planning Commission consider the land use applications for the Cherry Creek Project (DCA, TTM and PUD) prior to the Council's November 14th meeting. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the proposed Development Code Amendment for Subarea 2 at a later date. The General Plan states that the 22-acre project area is subject to a requirement for a Neighborhood Plan prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map. The Council considered the Neighborhood Plan on October 10, 2006 and determined it met the ��, requirements of the General Plan provisions based on a finding that Subarea 1 adequately provides the necessary utilities, circulation and infrastructure to accommodate future development of Subarea 2 at its current General Plan designation. The Planning Commission reviewed the Cherry Creek Project on February 1, 2005, March 1, 2005, March 15, 2005, May 16, 2006, and July 18, 2006 (see Attachments 2-6 for Meeting Minutes). On November 6, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment to change the zoning of the ' nine (9) acre Subarea 1 property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family Residential (SF), and further recommended that Council deny the other project applications, stating that the project should be considered only after completion of the EIR for the Newsom Springs Drainage Project (a DVD of the November 6, 2006 meeting was provided to the Council as a separate attachment). I CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 3 � For informational purposes, the proposed Conditions of Approval for the Cherry Creek Project as presented to the Planning Commission on November 6, 2006 are provided as Attachment 1, which include recommended modifications resulting from discussion at the Planning Commission meeting. Proiect Descriation Proposed is a Tentative Tract Map for a thirty (30) lot residential subdivision in a Planned � Unit Development configuration on the nine (9) acre Subarea 1 property. Because three I (3) residences already exist on the project site, a total of twenty-seven (27) new residential units are proposed. The City is concurrently processing a Development Code Amendment for Subarea 1 to change the Residential Rural (RR) zoning designation to Medium Density Single Family Residential (MD — SFR) consistent with the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed Development Code Amendment for Subarea 2 will be processed separately and presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration at a later date. Proposed residential lot sizes range from approximately 3,905 to 12,980 square feet (average lot size is 7,100t 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 a meandering pedestrian path through the 130' wide Agricultural buffer. Sidewalks are provided throughout the development with accent paving at crosswalks and landscaped parkways. 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, and paid for by the Cherry Creek Project applicants pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. It should be noted that the applicant has provided an alternative for the access street to be separate from Dirt Cherry area if preferred by the City. A twenty-foot (20') 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 si�y- to eighty-foot (60'-80') ' CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 I CHERRY CREEK PAGE 4 i 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. 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. These Guidelines were modeled after the Citys Design Guidelines for Historic . Districts and include much detail to ensure quality development. 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. The applicant originally proposed a 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 issues identified by the City regarding permitting and construction and maintenance costs, the applicant eliminated proposal of the bridge. On November 6, 2006, the Lucia Mar Unified School District staff submitted a letter outlining their concerns regarding environmental impacts of constructing the bridge and student safety (see Attachment 12 for a copy of the letter). They indicated if CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 5 the City wants to further pursue the concept, they can request a formal position from their Board. This does not preclude the City from pursuing a pedestrian bridge option now or in the future. It should be noted that this amenity was originally included when forty (40) lots and a one hundred foot (100') agricultural buffer was proposed. The cost of constructing a bridge is currently not included in the project cost estimate, and because the bridge is not part of the project description, it was not included in the environmental review. Development Code Compliance 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 the project site. 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. Development Cocle�Requ�rements:((pMD 5FR 2omnci�District) .� x> :�� . � '� �Yee�fu e ' �.f :$� ' +';rt T X ,- :��aA�k � ' .: i�li . r.,.... ' �...�.. .�.. .. �. t vi Et.S�a h.t '�..: .rvr3�a�Ft, +'k F. . .�:� x. ..t. . �.... ' .rl Setbacks: Front: 20' Interior Side: 5' one side, 10' other side Street Side: 15' Rear: 10' 1-sto , 15' 2-sto Minimum Lot Size 7,200 s uare feet Minimum Lot Width 70' Minimum Lot De th 100' Maximum Densit 4.5 dwellin units er acre Maximum Lot Covera e 40% Maximum Hei ht 30' or 2 stories, whichever is less Minimum Distance Between Buildin s 10' � Fcoposed Rroiect. Subarea 1 - �� '�'�' ` ' t^se,.+, d Jt 1 i i x`�`^. t'�'�t> i �i a n� a e'��`°y �„-.." u �: _� 3 � } . . '�� sd� R! � �;FLn.B(, i t�' , .�. ,.._�_, � �''� s, �E..'': ' ,w R5' S�s".�. .. ..��a i i9HU. b,�a:4f . t •�K ��'�� .._._BI .4 ,i ..� ?._. �. <n...�.s T ' . .,.,... �'" b � R s:i f " ' v�' ?;+!3t ..;. '; � �- �� Item ' ' Proposed �. .� � �Descript�on�"�s "+' ' ` {�;:n „ w _ _ ...�. .� . �� , ;� , y �s ...�: � _ . . . . , ; .. Setbacks Lots: 1-7 Front- Porch 10' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of orch foundation. Front - House 15' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of house foundation. Front - Garage 20' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to , street to closest ortion of the ara e door. CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 6 � Proposed�:P�oiect'= Subarea 1 "�.,�" : �4 f � ; k i , F y, m i; l ,e," p� y �. .. . . .- .'�n.... . �.. . ..r �m . d�:. ... .` ..._., ... � ::_ .v��. ' � s........k' : ' Item�; rt } Proposed' ��h Descr�ption ��' ! �. �� s r � a•rz � � � � ' �_. .�.. � ... �� {�, , . :�� ... ..... F n ��.i � $$��W��'^�... x n u .. �. �•.v_aer� .�e,� °�d�.._. . .�. ._°.§"+,e t��.� e .. v _ . ., Side (Internal) 5' min. Measured from property line to closest portion of house or ara e foundation. Side (Street) 10' min. Measured from street side property line to the (1 story height closest portion of the foundation of the house or , restriction) 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 ard. Rear— House or Garage 10' min. Measured from property line to closest portion of (1 story house or garage foundation. height restriction Lots: 8-23 Front— Porch 10' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of orch foundation. Front - House 15' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of house foundation. Front - Garage 20' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of the ara e door. Side (Internal) 0'—attached Measured from property line to closest portion of 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 ara e. A lies onl to corner lots. Rear— House or Garage 15' min. Measured from property line to closest portion of (1 story) house or garage foundation. 15' minimum rear 25' min setback for the 2-story portion of the house on (2 story) lots 15 and 16. Other Standards all/ots : Maximum Density 3.35 units/acre Based on gross density (30 lots/9.0 acres) Minimum Lot Area 5,800 s.f./ 6,000 square feet for detached units and 3,900 3,500 s.f. square feet for units that share an internal zero lot line. Minimum Lot Width 55'/35' As measured 20' back from the front property line. 55' for detached units and 35' feet for units that share an internal zero lot line. Minimum Lot Depth 80'/75' As measured at the approximate center of the lot. 80' for detached units and 75' feet for units that share an internal zero lot line. CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 7 + ,�: � .�r � ' � ' ��Proposed Pro4ect-:Subarea 1 3 � � " ° ` ; , u e � — t�t � '�A �n+ + .' .: ; t + � .� _ �� i .: J 4 4� ' M. � 7 Iterii ` , _� � Proposed� � ��; '.� � � �Descr�ption ' :� .� , ,� f ;� . e "� '� .," .� �,. �,. :k 1� r�`�.':, . -: r , +.i r''*.. e � „u k.:'' b i:' � .<.. .'1.,, � ye :� � . . .� Maximum Lot Coverage 40%/45%a/50% b t excu des une caosed Iporches, decksga dea, 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 I 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 be possi6le 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 in the original proposal 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 easf side of the site for better compatibility. Of the total 30 lots, 15 are under 7,200 square feet, of which 13 are roughly 6,000 square feet and 2 are under 4,000 square feet). � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 ' CHERRY CREEK PAGE 8 ' 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 Re uirement 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' S5' Lot de th 100' 90' i � 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 requiremenfs as shown in the table on pages 7-9. The project a/so deviates from the 40% maximum lof coverage requirement for lots 1- 7 and the duet lots. Lots 1-7 back up to the residences fronting on Noguera P/ace and are sing/e story as requested by the Noguera Place residents. Single story units predicfably have greater lot coverage than two-story units. The iPlanned Unit Development process enables approval of the projecf despite this � deviation in standards in order to facilitate development where greater flexibility in design is desired fo provide a more efficient use of land than would othenvise be possible. In the case of this projecf, deviafion from standards is enabling the applicant to ufilize 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 I 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 CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 74,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 9 to the east. The proposed medium density units will be most compatible with the existing neighborhood to the west since that area is already built out. The neighborhood to the east has the potential for infill development up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre under the existing Genera/ Plan and proposed zoning. The projecf will be environmentally compatib/e with the adjacent Agricultural land with implemenfafion 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). 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. Pedestrian/bike 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 and/or recreational features. (The projecf includes landscaped open space areas with the proposed vegetated swa/e in the center, along fhe Cherry Avenue frontage in the Ag buffer, and adjacent to the creek. A meandering pedestrian � pathway is included within the Ag buffer. It shou/d be noted that earlier i versions of the project included passive recreation facilities, which have since f � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 74, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 70 been eliminated in favor of greater environmental protection along the creek. 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 mainfain 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 compatib/e with the surrounding neighborhood. With residential lot sizes ranging from 3,905 to 12,980 square feet, the proposed unit types will vary accordingly. Note that design of the duet lots will look like one large residence. Final design, colors and materia/s 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 nof dominate the streetscape). I. Open space shall be provided in accordance with Table 16.32.050-C and the following requirements (fhe 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 mu/tiple , functions, including stormwater filtration in the bioswales and � providing a buffer between the Agricu/tural and residential uses. There are no proposed "active"recreationa/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 adjacenf to the creek, along the East Cherry Avenue frontage, and through the center of the project). i 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 neeiis 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 recreationai facilities. CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 11 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 j more desirable growth, and grading and seeding. (The open space ! adjacent to the creek will be augmented with native riparian ( vegefation. MM 4.2 requires that a Riparian Habitat Resforation � 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). 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. 's 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 (D) Common undeveloped open space shall not be turned into a commercial enterprise admitting the general public at a fee. (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; � � - - CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 i CHERRY CREEK PAGE 12 (D) 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). a. 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 PUD 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; (B) 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. (Condifion of approval). Open Space. There are various definitions of open space included in the Development Code, as provided below: Oaen Space. "Open space" means land used for recreation, resource protection, amenity, and/or 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 watercourses. 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). O�en Space. 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 i � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 13 � 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-of-way. O�en Space, 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 front, rear or side yards on a lot designed for single-family detached or attached housing. Oqen Space, 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. Ooen Saace. 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). 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 is conditioned to show an irrevocable offer to dedicate the streambed and 25' creek setback area to the City on the Final Tract Map. I CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 . CHERRY CREEK PAGE 14 Table 16.32.050-C: Open Space Requirements for Planned Unit Developments General General General ` Geaeral , ; Requirement s Requirement Requirement . ;; Requirement.[ ° Private open � 100-224 225-499 500-999 ° *1dd0 ` Space (average Propasedaverage�s s.f. per lot) __ � dPP/4zl�ri�#B/y 4,000 sq ft ' , i , ;(based att��',D00 sq. ft house ;:: wlfh e 404 s9 f�9arage antl I .' 40p sq :f� dr�veway� : ;; _... `s _ -.._... ' _ xw:�n . ,Common Open 35% 30% 10% '0°0 Space(minimum %! Piojiosedisapproxiii�ately ; of project area) 52;95p sq::ft_(inClirdes Ag ; butferr'lrioswale; walkways, . laniiscape strPps and porfion:of.. :� area r+eaf creek bui ndt within :..the 25"setback area) _�: �Usab pen �0% 40% 45% +F5°k O#'1800008a ft �Space(minimum %= Fropr�sed i�a�fproximatety �of project area) � 2'l4;T00''sq_1`L (mclUdes iCammon_antl prtvate open . i Space,�rralezcle�Gfes�pub/ic � , open space) ; i ' `Public Open Space No PUD i No Ptnposed'fs approxiinate/y ::� requirement- ' requirement ' SS,BQO sq.ft (ittcludes the ' dedication is per` creek_channe/anaf25'.setbaCk :: ' , � ! Develoqment ° ': area)- � I Code Section ' 16.64.O60.R. ' _ ..... .. . _ _ ... -°-.-- __ _-- „ .,, , Issues Drainaae. 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. CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK � PAGE15 . p�1.'f'pP OF CRG[K 9�WK T'1�APB I�� .. . „«-�- �TOP OF CR[EK 6t{NK f ---- ti =MlCU4YER77dP �l18 qILVERT iNVERT 1129 iMOMEBT RECORD�FLBiV B{uCCLLLVEFT.. EN6 ,r'�r�' bY87NEAMti1Rl1OE.99� I PAOTHCTED TO �,.�4t O9DINARY Nit#1 YU7ER PNEV6lVT GtJiRRhK� ..._. • ._"'��iUO!90Tfi0�i! M'TON HIf�t7AP SLOPE Pf�TEC714�1 SEC� Previous Submittal Current Submittal �' � s°�+'� ` i'�r ac �°�� a +�'`:. ,'��;t , u�#1., , .<�e�t�?.st,s rk A•..�x. :s�� °a �t .� .::iu�..� �.�.• AK. '�:§r ; Combination of vegetated Combination of vegetated channel channel and three, 72" pipes. with 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 Wo/ff, City's environmental consultant, the applicant has agreed to adjust the planting plan fo use exclusively native plants in the bio-swale area. CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 CHERRY CREEK , PAGE16 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 extension. As a result, the applicant has requested, and staff recommends, that the two (2) year approval date for the Cherry Creek Project commence when the EIR for the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project is certified (see Condition of Approval No. 3). 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 7). 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 I 4-feet wide bottom and a flat slope of about 0.75 percent. The side slopes are 2:1. I'I The proposed design has many of the aspects called for in the Califomia 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 I � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 17 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 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. The Public Works Director has determined that it is not feasible to install an inline filtration system on the regional drainage culverts. Based upon the analysis provided by the City's consulting engineer, it appears the property can be integrated into and is generally compatible with the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Project ("Regional Drainage ProjecY'). In order to do so, the consulting engineer recommends that the following conditions be imposed upon the project (see Attachment 8 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 100-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 100-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 Drainage 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 Regional Drainage Project will complete the flood protection to a 100-year storm level. Staff CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 ' CHERRY CREEK PAGE 18 recommends that the 10' Noguera drainage easement (Tract 409) should be Iabandoned upon completion of the first phase of the Newsom Springs Drainage Project. 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. Bioloqical Impacts and Water Qualitv. 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 25' creek setback is identified on the project plans, including the 25' setback from the impacted creek outfall area. 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: MM4.1: The Final Tract Map shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City the creek channel, the twenty-�ve 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 CITY COUNCIL � NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 19 open space easement shall also be recorded stipu/ating that no development shall occur within 25'creek setback area. MM 4.2: Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Rep/acement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Restoration P/an) shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and/or restoration biologist experienced in native habitat ' restoration for the dedicafed open space 25-foot creek setback area measured from top of bank and any environmentally sensitive areas, as determined by a quali�ed biologist. The Restoration Plan shall include af a minimum a detailed planting plan for the 25-foot setback area and for a/l disturbed areas from culvert/outfall construction and Myrt/e 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 Restorafion P/an shall also include an erosion control plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all disturbed areas wifhin the 25-foot creek setback and exposed banks. The erosion confrol seed mix for the riparian setback area shal!be composed exclusively of nafive species." 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 Steelhead, 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 i states that the "developer shall dedicate to the City all the area that includes the stream ibed 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." ' 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 i City. The creek itself runs well below steep banks more than twenty (20) vertical feet � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 20 below the top of the creek bank and the Cherry Creek Project area. At the Countys 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 project area. The riparian habitat through Phase II essentially abuts the backyards of existing residences. Through the 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 remaining English Walnut trees occur along the edge of the thicket adding to the contiguous riparian canopy above top of bank along the 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 California 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 projecYs 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 i (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 Ivalue riparian area within the specific context of Arroyo Grande Creek. i CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 21 The Cherry Creek 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 Street and the existing riparian area adequately mitigates for the limited direct impacts on riparian habitat that are proposed and will result in a net environmental benefit. Historic Status of Trees. MM 4.4 requires the following regarding native tree protection: MM 4.4: Any native trees intentionally or unintenfionally killed or removed that are greater than or equal to two (2) inches diamefer af breast height (DBH) and less than twelve (12) inches DBH shal/be rep/aced 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 sha/l be limited to in-kind replacement of appropriate nafive tree species as approved by a qualified landscape architect and/or restoration biologist, and the City Parks, Facilities and Recreation DepartmenYs arborist. All frees to be removed shall be clearly marked on construction plans and marked in the fie/d with flagging or paint. All trees to be retained shall be clearly identified on construction p/ans and marked in the field for preservation with highly visible construction fencing at a minimum around the drip line. , Native riparian trees impacted shal/ be replaced within the 25-foof riparian setback area. Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone shall be rep/aced 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". I Aqricultural 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: cmr couNCi� NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 22 16.12.170. Right to farm provisions and farmland preservation. E. Agricultural buffer. 1. In conjunction with General Plan policies outlined in the Agriculwre, Conservation and Open Space Element, and specifically Objective AgS, the CiTy has determined that the use of property for agricultural operations is a high priority. To minimize potential conflicts beriveen 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 buffec "DevelopmenP'as used in this section,means subdivision of land, use permits and building permits for new residential units. 2. The buffer azea shall be a minimum of one hundred feet, measured from the edge of the designated agriculwral district. Optimally,to achieve a ma�cimum 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 azea 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 16.12.170.F. 4. The following shall be permitted in the one hundred foot agricultural buffer. native plants,h�ee 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 buffec 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. 5. 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. IC. Agricultural preservation overlay(AG-2.2)district.The primary purpose of the AG-22 � 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 approvalin accordance with Section 16.12.170.E, � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 23 Prime Soils Mitiqation. 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 in 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. As mentioned above, Council tentatively adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with an added mitigation that requires the developer to pay an in-lieu fee for the loss of approximately one (1) acre of prime soil. Reference to the LESA Model has also been eliminated from the MND per Council's direction since it does not adequately reflect the City's unique circumstances, especially as it relates to parcel size. CEQA Comqliance and Streambed Alteration Aqreement Proqram. 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 9). Affordable Housinq 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 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). � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 24 Transportation/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 Neighborhood Plan 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 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 "D" 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. 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. As a result, the Traffic Way Streetscape Plan approved by City Council on October 24�' includes a recommendation to add a dedicated left turn lane on Cherry Avenue at this intersection. 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 ' 10). � � CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 25 Exhibits 9 and 10 show that the peak hourly volume occurred befinreen 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 Tra�c Way. , Environmental Assessment The Planning Commission determined on July 18, 2006 that the current Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is insufficient and recommended to City Council that a full Environmental Impact Report be completed for the project. The Planning Commission reconfirmed this recommendation on November 6, 2006. The City Council determined on October 10, 2006 that the MND is adequate with the following added mitigation measure: MM 2.3: To mitigate for the loss of approximate/y one (1) acre of prime soil on the Subarea 1 property, the developer shall pay an in-lieu fee in the amount of $56,000. Other changes to the MND included eliminating reference to the LESA Model under the Agricultural Resources section and identifying the Dixson Ranch property as having an Agricultural Preserve (AP) land use designation and currently in commercial agricultural production. Staff requests that the City Council consider the revised MND as recirculated with the added mitigation measure (see Initial Study, Attachment 11). 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 during the numerous public hearings for the project, which are included as Attachment 12. Letters received for the November 6, 2006 Planning Commission meeting are also included. Alternatives The following alternatives are offered for Council's consideration: - Introduce for first reading by title only an Ordinance implementing Development Code Amendment No. 06-003 and take action to require an Environmental Impact Report for the Cherry Creek Project; - Introduce for first reading by title only an Ordinance implementing Development Code Amendment No. 06-003 and take action to adopt the revised and i recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-002 and Planned Unit Development No. 04-002 and direct staff to return with the appropriate supporting resolution; - Provide other direction to staff. CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 26 Attachments: 1. Draft Conditions of Approval 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2005 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2005 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2005 � 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2006 6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2006 7. Cherry Creek Flood Channel Preliminary Analysis dated August 31, 2006, prepared by Keith Crowe 8. Correspondence with Wallace Group, dated October 3, 2006 9. Memorandum from David Wolff to Kelly Heffernon dated August 21, 2006 10. Traffic Analysis Exhibits 1-10 prepared by Higgins Associates 11. Initial Study 12. Letters from the public regarding the project i S:\Community DevelopmenflPROJECTS\NP�Cherry Creek\11-14-06 CC rpt Cherry Creek.doc ORDINANCE NO. I� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF); DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-003, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA COURT AND NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates the subject 9-acre property as Single-Family Residential Medium-Density with a Neighborhood Plan overlay (SF-MD-NP); and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map designates the subject property as Single-Family Residential Rural (RR); and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has initiated Development Code Amendment 06- 003 to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Single-Family Residential (SF); and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning designation would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 06-003 at a duly noticed public hearing on November 6, 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 of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Development Code Amendment 06-003 at a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 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 is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. i ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 '�� 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. Medium Density residential development within the project area would be required to meet develo ment and desi n standards under the SF zonin desi nation that P 9 9 9 insure orderly development. D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 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. SECTI�N 2� Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTIDN 3� 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 any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION d� Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Exemption. SECTION 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/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. SECTI�N s: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. ORDINANCE NO. ; PAGE 3 � On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of 2006. i ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN D. ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM; TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY i ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT A �,'" i 1 '� � ' __1t�''�w--_` __._ � / � 1 7 �' 1 ,� ,, ��"'j� � � ��i� � ;�� \ v� 4 �� y jr7 1 E4�PVE'1�1.{,--."I""�_ ,i \ \ \ \ m 4 ""'� iy� ,� / � n _.. �t �� '" /r � � . r ,� � � . , _. ; m � _------' < �_._m.i �r,�________�, •, �� r� � �\� 1 �� r,r' ,�r�`� �� . � � � �,r � � �a= �� `\ , �r�" / . i �\ ' r -'fgsr' \\, � ��;; �,�,,r i t,.-.,..,,.„ """'-...... �,.,^ �a(1 \ ,� J` !� \ , ,� ._..-� y� �v r� / � r 1� / % rr^'!�' � �� l !�%� � �__�__ 'J r \ �,�'� �� l' `- / �\� � ''�� `,\ � �� \�` `, � � ,� � �'� � � \ �'�'� .,% � ` a � � ��y,;�°/ � \1 �,��'`�l 1� � `� c �P� � � .\� r° �,l` Y 9 , 9� ` � . J �o � ��v � �. � �•''� �s� �° / � 'ti;``° . . � �\ �.. , F.,��,��",;�"��;,�''�;�' � `` Re-zane from �'`- � Residentiai Rurai(RR) � 1, �� ,! to Single-Fam�y{SF) \, ' �,�\✓�! lt� � �� Y*yE � } J,� �•f I . L'aP� � ' 1' j '% c`"w. ,.{ � . � � � , 1�1 .�'i;�'�C'�� ` e�r�' �} � � i , ATTACHMENTI ; EXHIBIT A � J DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL for: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-002 and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002 For property located between East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC .OMM INITY D V OPM NT D PARTM NT N RA ONDITI�NS This approval authorizes a thirty (30) lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration with four (4) open space parcels on the nine (9) acre Subarea 1 property. 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 Development Code Amendment 04-007, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002 and Planned Unit Development 04-002. 3. The tentative map and PUD approval shall automatically expire on (two years after the certification of the EIR for the Newsom Springs Drainage Project) unless the final map is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to Section 16.12.140 of the Development Code. 4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of and marked Exhibits "B1 - B10" except as modified by these conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall, as a condition of approval of this tentative map application, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its present or former agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its past or present agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for by law. This condition is subject to the provisions of Government Code Section 66474.9, which are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full. SPECIAL C�NDITI�NS 6. The project shall comply with the provisions of the Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2). No new residential structures shall be allowed within the Agricultural Buffer area unless approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. 7. The Environmental Impact Report for the Newsom Springs Comprehensive Drainage Master Plan shall be certified prior to issuing a grading or building permit. 8. Consistent with the City's Housing Element policies, the project shall restrict ten percent (10%) of the new units, or 2.7 units, to qualified families earning a moderate-income (based on the City's affordable housing standards). The developer shall pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee for any fraction of a unit. Prior to recording the final map the applicant shall enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, whereby the applicant agrees on behalf of itself and its successors in interest to maintain the affordability of the units for thirty (30) years or longer, as well as other terms and conditions determined to be necessary to implement this condition (see also MM 9.1). 9. Garages shall be setback further from the street than the residential units, side loaded or designed such that garages do not dominate the streetscape. 10. The meandering pedestrian path through the Agricultural buffer shall be made of concrete and not decomposed granite. 11. Landscaped parkways shall be included adjacent to sidewallis. 12. The CC&Rs shall require uniformity in all backyard fencing and shall restrict any construction or obstructions in the City's drainage easement throughout the swale. 13. The internal road name shall be changed from "Surefire Drive"to "Stiliwell Drive". 14. The following list of permits are required from various responsible agencies: a. Biological Opinion and Take Permit; US Fish and Wildlife Service; prior to issuance of Grading Permit b. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); Regional Water Quality Control Board; prior to issuance of Grading Permit c. Section 404 permit (potential — refer to Due Diligence Report of the East Village Neighborhood Plan Appendix); Army Corps of Engineers; prior to issuance of Grading Permit d. Streambed Alteration Agreement (potential - refer to Due Diligence Report of the East Village Neighborhood Plan Appendix); California Department of Fish and Game; prior to issuance of Grading Permit. NOISE 15. Similar to MM 8.1, construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 AM 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. D V OPM NT .OD 16. Development shall conform to the Single-Family Residential (SF) zoning requirements except as otherwise approved. 17. Minimum separation between buildings on adjacent lots shall not be less than ten feet, except for attached units. , 18. The fence/wall combination along the East Cherry Avenue frontage adjacent to the residential subdivision shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height. All other fences and/or walls within the subdivision shall not exceed six feet (6') in height unless otherwise approved with a Minor Exception or Variance application. 19. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.20, "Land Divisions". 20. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.64, "Dedications, Fees and Reservations." 21. The following shall be included in the CC&Rs regarding open space: a. The dedicated open space parcels shall not be further subdivided in the future; b. The use of the open space shall continue in perpetuity for the purpose specified; c. Appropriate provisions shall be made for the maintenance of the open space; and d. Common undeveloped open space shall not be turned into a commercial enterprise admitting the general public at a fee. 22. 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. 23. A property owners' association and covenants shall be established to ensure that common areas are owned and maintained by Planned Unit Development property owners. a. The homeowners association must be established before the homes are sold; b. Membership must be mandatory for each homebuyer 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT 24. All walls, including screening and retaining walls, shall be compatible with the approved architecture and Development Code Standards, and shall be no more than 3 feet in height in the front setback area, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL MAP 25. The applicant shall submit final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are administered by a subdivision homeowners' association and formed by the applicant for common areas within the subdivision. The CC&Rs shall preclude private property owners from utilizing the 25' creek setback area for private use. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the final map. 26. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. The landscaping plan shall include the following for all public street frontages and common landscaped areas: a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: (1) Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surFaces and curbs; (2) Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan; and (3) All slopes 2:1 or greater shall have jute mesh, nylon mesh or equivalent material. (4) An automated irrigation system. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 27. All fencing shall be installed. 28. The applicant shall submit final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are administered by a subdivision homeowners' association and formed by the applicant for common areas within Subarea 1. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and i approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the final map. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (A� 29. The ARC shall review the architectural plans for each unit to determine compliance with the Design Guidelines approved for the project. 30. The ARC shall review the final landscape plan. � PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 521 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance. 32. Linear root barriers shall be used at the front of the project to protect sidewalks. 33. All street front trees shall be 24-inch box and shall be located a minimum of one (1) tree for every seventy-five feet (75') of street frontage. 34. The CC&Rs shall address trash service in areas with receptacles, period cleaning and maintenance of any grills, tables, benches, etc. All trees and other landscaping along East Cherry Avenue within the project area shall be maintained ', by the HOA on both sides of the street. '� B �I DIN AND FIR D PARTM NT ONDITI�NS U BC/U FC ' 35. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the ' City of Arroyo Grande. I 36. The project shall comply with State and Federal disabled access requirements at public areas. SETBACKS 37. The applicant shall show all setback areas for each lot on the tentative tract map prior to map recordation. Also, the applicant shall show all setback areas for each lot on an additional page for the final tract map prior to map recordation. 38. There shall be a minimum three-foot (3') setback for the garage on the Peters Trust property. , il �' FIRE LANES 39. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. 40. On-street parking shall be required to leave a twenty-foot (20') clearance. FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS 41. Project shall have a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours. 42. Fire hydrants shall be relocated per City standards. 43. Prior to bringing combustibles on site, fire hydrants shall be installed 300 feet apart, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. Locations shall be approved by the Fire Chief. FIRE SPRWKLER 44. Prior to occupancy, all existing and new buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines. ABANDONMENT/NON-CONFORMING 45. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. OTHER APPROVALS 46. Prior to issuance of a building permit, County Health Department approval is , required for well abandonment if applicable. 47. Project must comply with Federal and local flood management policies. 48. Prior to issuance of building permit, a demolition permit must be applied for, approved and issued for buildings to be removed. Development fees resulting from demolition will be appropriately credited to the property. 49. Any review costs generated by outside consultants shall be paid by the applicant. PU6LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS All Public Works Department conditions of approval as listed below are to be complied with prior to recording the map or finalizing the permit, unless specifically noted othenvise. FFFS 50. The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees at the time they are due. (For your information, the `Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions"is provided below). 51. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval: a. Map check fee. b. Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. c. Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. d. Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. e. Inspection fee of subdivision or public.works construction plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. PROCEDURE FOR PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR EXACTIONS: (A)Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project by meeting both of the following requirements: (1) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure perFormance of the conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition. (2) Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of the following information: (a) A statement that the required payment is tendered or will be tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed are provided for or satisfied, under protest. (b) A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. (B) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision (A) shall be filed at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on a development project. (C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision (A) may file an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency within 180 days after the delivery of the notice. (D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or parcel map is approved or conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a tentative map or tentative parcel map is not required. (E)The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions occurs, for the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific development. GENERAL CONDITIONS 52. Clean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations or as directed by the Director of Community Development or the Director of Public Works. 53. PerForm construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 A.M. to 5 P.M.) for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or contractor shall refrain from perForming any work other than site maintenance outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or approved by the Director of Public Works. The City may hold the developer or contractor responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these hours. 54. Install deep tree root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to water, sewer and storm drainage lines. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 55. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. 56. Submit four (4) full-size paper copies and one (1) full-size mylar copy of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction. 57. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Director of Public Works. One (1) set of mylar prints and an electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required. 58. The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control. b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. c. Public utilities. d. Water and sewer. e. Landscaping and irrigation. f. Any other improvements as required by the Director of Public Works. g. Profile water, sewer, storm drain and retaining walls. � 59. The site plan shall include the following: � a. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. b. The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed sewer laterals. c. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. d. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property. e. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas. 'I f. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. i 60. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets, utilities and retaining walls. , 61. Landscape and irrigation plans are required for landscaping within the public right of way, and shall be approved by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. The Director of Public Works shall approve any landscaping or irrigation within a public right of way or otherwise to be maintained by the City. I l�IAIEB 62. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Director of Public Works must grant permission to dead end water mains. i 63. Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters. 64. Each parcel shall have separate water meters. Duplex service lines shall be used if feasible. 65. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. If the units � are to be fire sprinkled, a fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water meters. ; 66. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works. 67. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: a. 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, b. The applicant may pay an in lieu fee of$2,200 for each new residential unit. 68. The applicant shall replace the existing 6" water main with an 8" water main from the project site underneath Myrtle to the 10" main underneath Garden Street. 69. The applicant shall relocate the public water line easement and 8" main shown on Lot 25 to the northeast edge of Lot 28 with a blow off at the end of the line. 70. The applicant shall pave over all water main easements passing through private property. SFWFR 71. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. 72. All new sewer mains must be a minimum diameter of 8". 73. All sewer laterals within the public right of way must have a minimum slope of 2%. 74. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards. 75. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works. 76. The applicant shall connect all existing residences within the project to the sanitary sewer system when tested and approved. 77. . The applicant shall sewer the project in the following manner: a. Extend a parallel sewer main underneath East Cherry Avenue from the intersection of Pacific Coast Railway and East Cherry Avenue. b. Extend the main across the property frontage. c. The main shall tie into the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Trunk Main at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Pacific Coast Railway. This main is approximately 12' deep at this location. d. Size the main to handle all possible future development in the area. e. The main shall remain su�ciently deep to ensure adequate slope and depth for future extension. 78. Install all necessary sewer mains on site. 79. Project shall be subject to the review of the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. 80. The applicant shall pave over all sewer main easements passing through private property. 81. All sewer mains shall be straight between manholes. P 8 I . TI ITI S 82. Underground all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the Development Code. 83. Underground all existing overhead public utilities on-site and in the street to the next existing pole outside of the tract boundaries. 84. Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving. 85. Submit all improvement plans to the public utility companies for approval and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 86. Submit the Final Map to the public utility companies for review and comment. Utility comments shall be fonvarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 87. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. STREETS 88. Obtain approval from the Director of Public Works prior to excavating in any street recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director of Public Works shall approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal. 89. All trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned and filled with epoxy. 90. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards. 91. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test, but shall , not be less than 3" of asphalt and 6" of Class II AB. � 92. Overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal any roads dedicated to the City prior to acceptance by the City may be required as directed by the Director of Public Works. 93. Handicapped ramps shall be installed where the sidewalk terminates on the northeast corner of the project. - 94. The extension of Myrtle Street past the internal road shall adhere to the following design standards: ■ 24 feet street width from curb to curb. ■ 6 feet wide concrete sidewalk with concrete curb and gutter on the south side of the street and concrete curb and gutter on the north side of the street. ■ 32 feet wide right-of-way. • 25 mile per hour design speed. ■ Traffic Index of 6.5. 95. Interior streets shall adhere to the following design standards: ■ 36 feet street width from curb to curb. ' ■ 6 feet wide concrete sidewalks with concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the street. ■ 52 feet wide right-of-way. • 25 mile per hour design speed. ■ Tra�c Index of 6.5. 96. Streets designated as a local street shall adhere to the following design standards: ■ 32 feet street width from curb to curb. ■ Concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the street. ■ 52 feet wide right-of-way. • 25 mile per hour design speed. • Red curb the southern curb adjacent to the Dixson Ranch. • Traffic Index of 7.0. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK 97. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 98. Install tree wells for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. 99. The applicant shall install sidewalk along the north side of the proposed East Cherry E�ension. i i 100. The applicant shall install sidewalk on both sides of the Myrtle Street Extension to the internal road. 101. The applicant shall install a survey benchmark along East Cherry. I102. The applicant shall install all driveway approaches as such to maximize parking. GRADING 103. Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance. 104. Submit a preliminary soils report 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. 105. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Director of Public Works for walls not constructed per City standards. 106. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall destroy all wells, septic tanks, cesspools, etc. to County Health Department standards. The applicant shall be responsible for providing all appropriate documentation from the County Health Department to the Public Works Department prior to acceptance of the � improvements. DRAINAGE 107. The proposed drainage facilities shall be designed to be compatible with the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage project. System flowline elevations shall i allow for the extension of storm drains upstream with a capacity to convey the 100-year runoff and adequate cover. 108. The drainage system design shall include the connection of future Newsom Springs storm drains. The design of the future connections shall direct the 100- 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. 109. 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. 110. The applicant shall install box culyerts 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 100-year peak flow. 111. 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 I reimbursement agreement with the City for this work. 112. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow. 113. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan. 114. The project is in Drainage Zone "B" and will require storm water runoff to be directed to the creek. 115. The applicant shall perForm a detailed drainage analysis prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California. 116. The applicant shall coordinate with all appropriate regulatory agencies for the , . outlet of the storm drain line to the creek. 117. The drainage ditch along the western property line will be concrete lined. 118. The applicant shall remove, not abandon, the two (2) 24`' pipes underneath Myrtle. 119. The applicant shall install an in-line filtration system to remove hydrocarbons, sedimentation and pollutants from on-site stormwater prior to discharging to the creek. 120. The grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed by the Coastal San Luis Obispo Resource Conversation District. The applicant shall reimburse the City for this review. DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS 121. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared bq the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 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. 122. Abandonment of public streets and public easements shall be listed on the final map in accordance with Section 66499.20 of the Subdivision Map Act. 123. Street tree planting and maintenance easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all street right of ways. Street tree easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet beyond the right of way. 124. The applicant shall dedicate the appropriate right of way for the following streets as shown on the tentative map: ■ The extension of Myrtle Street. ■ The extension of East Cherry. ■ The construction of Morrello. • The construction of Surefire. 125. 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. 126. Easements shall be dedicated to the public on the map, or other separate document approved by the City, for the following: • Drainage easements where shown on the tentative map. The easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. ■ Sewer easements where shown on the tentative map. The easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. • Water easements where shown on the tentative map. The easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. • A 25' creek easement from the top of the bank. 127. The applicant shall dedicate a 10' wide private sewer easement along the northeasterly property line of Lot 41 for the benefit of the existing residences along Lierly Lane. PERMITS 128. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing any of the following: a. Performing work in the City right of way. b. Staging work in the City right of way. c. Stockpiling material in the City right of way. d. Storing equipment in the City right of way. 129. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on site. A �C'RFFIVIFNTS 130. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 131. Subdivision Improvement Agreement: The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The subdivision agreement shall be on a form acceptable to the City. 132. Covenants; Conditions, and Restrictions for maintenance of all privately maintained items. These shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney. 133. An Open Space Agreement for review and approval by the Director of Public Works and City Attorney. IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES 134. All bonds or security shall be in a form acceptable to the City, and shall be provided prior to recording of the map, unless noted othervuise. The Improvement securities shall be such that they shall not expire until the City accepts the improvements. 135. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by the Director of Public Works. 136. Provide bonds or other financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost estimate approved by the Director of Public Works: a. Faithful PerFormance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of all , subdivision improvements. b. Labor and Materials: 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. c. One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all , subdivision improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the ! subdivision improvements. d. Monumentation: 100% of the estimated cost of setting survey monuments. This bond may be waived if the developer's surveyor submits to the Director of Public Works a letter assuring that all monumentation has been set. OTHER DOCUMENTATI�N 137. Tax Certificate: The applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's ; o�ce indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. The applicant may be required to bond for any unpaid taxes or liens against the property. 138. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to checking the map. 139. Subdivision Guarantee: A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to recording the Map. i PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT 140. The Final Map shall be recorded with all pertinent conditions of approval satisfied. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY , 141. All utilities shall be operational. 142. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non- essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial securities, may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Director of Public Works. 143. The City shall have accepted all public improvements prior to issuing occupancy for the final 10% of the lots. MITIGATION MEASURES A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; Police Dept. Timin : Prior to issuance of Buildin Permit 9 9 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 — CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 2.1: The City 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, 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: Developer; Real Estate Agent Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD Timing: 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 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 incluiie assurances ' that the screening is sufficiently maintained. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, PR&F (Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept.) Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit. MM 2.3: To mitigate for the loss of approximately one (1) acre of prime soil on the Subarea 1 property, the developer shall pay an in-lieu fee in the amount of$56,000. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit. Conctr�ction Phace Emissionc The project shall comply with all applicable Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PMio) 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 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 shall be used. MM 3.3: Soil stockpiled for more than iwo 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. ' 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 II 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. i� 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. II 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 identified 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 outlined in the Asbestos Air i Toxins Control Measure (ATCM) regulated under by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept., Building and Fire Department Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction On -rational Phac . mi cionc 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: Provide sodium streetlights. MM 3.15: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept., and Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit 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. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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 I 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. ' Responsible Party: Developer shall submit the plan to the City I Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD and PR&F; CDFG ', Timeframe: Restoration Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of Grading Permit; I 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: Developer shall submit the landscape plan to the City. The CC&Rs shall include a maintenance provision. I Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD and PR&F ' Timeframe: Final landscape plan shall be submitted and ' approved prior to issuance of Grading Permit. ', CC&Rs shall be submitted prior to issuance of I Building Permit. i, 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 i 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 DepartmenYs 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 i plans and marked in the field for preservation with highly visible construction , fencing at a minimum around the drip line. ', i 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: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, PR&F Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, PR&F Timeframe: During construction MM 4.5: A qualified biologist shall perform one pre-construction survey for southwestern pond turtles immediately prior to initiation of site grading and culvedoutfall structure construction. If southwestern pond turtles are observed within an area to be disturbed they shall be relocated out of harms way to an I appropriate area immediately upstream or downstream of the project area within Arroyo Grande Creek. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.6: All tree removal shall be limited to the time period of September 1S� to March 15t, 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 i between March 1S� and September 15�, 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 I time as the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by the qualified biologist. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit I 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; Corps Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; CDFG Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.9: The applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the CRLF in the form of a take permiUauthorization 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 permiUauthorization 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; USFWS Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit i 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 permiUauthorization 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 steelhead to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; NOAA Fisheries Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 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 CEQA 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 Development Director prior to submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the I!� project. A high-quality, laser or equivalent copy, shall be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file. IResponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM • An alteration to the Vandeveer house shall com I with the Secreta 's 5.3. y p y ry Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit for alterations to the residence 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. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit � 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit ' 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 hydrologist. 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 br 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; . 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.; Consulting biologist and hydrogeologist Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 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 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: Developer; City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to approval of improvement plans MM 8.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8:OOAM 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept. , Timeframe: During construction 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, City Attorney Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map MM 10.1: The applicant shall pay the mandated Lucia Mar Unified School District impact fee. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; Lucia Mar Unified School District Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 11.1: The developer shall pay all applicable City park development and impact fees. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; PR&F Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 12.1: The developer shall pay the City's Traffic Signalization and Transportation Facilities Impact fees. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.2: The developer shall pay the City's sewer hookup and SSLOCSD impact fees. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map 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 the 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. . Required site preparation and erosion control BMPs for any work that may need to be completed after October 15. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 14.2: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 14.3: The project shall install best available technology for low-flow toilets, showerheads and hot water recirculation systems. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Building Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 14.4: The final landscape plan shall show low-water use/drought resistant species and drip irrigation systems rather than spray irrigation systems. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — PR&F Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 14.5: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 14.6: 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 per new residential unit. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit II , ' SITE STATISTICS SHEET INDEX SHEET# SHEETTITLE T-1.0 TITLESHEET C-1.0 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS 8 LEGAL INFORMATION C-2.0 VESTINGTENTATIVETRACTMAP Develope�s Statement: The Cherry Creek tlevelopmenl is a nine(9)acre,residenlial C3.0 PELIMINARY GRADING PLAN tlevelopment. The project consists of thirty(30)single-family home lots and open C-0.0 SEWER AND STORM OR41N EXTENSION space. Ciry standards require the pmvision of 2,7 a%ordable housing units.Two �_� � CONCEPTUAL PLANTMG PLAN afforda6le units will be conslmcfed on-site.The fraclional unit will be provided ihrough �_Z� NATIVE PLANTING PLAN BLOW UP payment of an in-lieu fee.The ezisting Stillwell,Vandeveer,and Peters homes will be L-3.0 LANDSCAPE AREA ENLARGEMENTS relained on lots within the subdivision. L_q.0 FENCING PLAN W/STREET LIGHT DETAIL �_g.p SITE SECTIONS -Total Number o�Residential Lots: 30 . -Tolal Project Area: 400,000+/-sf,9+I-acres ; '• ; `� `_ .o«.w°_°°'-- . !p`�.R"" .:*�'a, R=." �P, �'�; �':�... "� � � 92 a �i. H�a � 'i,P ,'a' i 'V .'� `i+ r"^'�. j �`a u�.`�° c.�. 'r. . _n :!..,r -_, " �' 6� ,`\ s � � I ° , �' ; n:; r, ca •'�j \ ;,._, , . �.; :. ' ' f�, ! CI?Y O� P.:".�GYQ Gna,Np� � CpM'�'il;�,iTf D=V�LCPMEN� m Title Sheet rrmdesigngroup�� Cherrv Creek T-1 .� .�.m�zm��•�uo�w•�w,^ ,. 2006050 n�9�s�za.zoo6xc,�,.an�„se�e.zoob . - '"._i ...._- --- _ __I _- ' '--- ' -- u . � � i I � � I , � , , v � .. � = . �- - . ., , . ...._ �a,• , � .._.,,,, y ...._, .._ —�. . _....,.. .. '�"� � a...v..... ..........................�....,,... ...,.,.,. . � _,...,.....W. ��tHH..�ex�E .�.._...._. �....,_._,.....,.,.... ..__ ,�. ..:....,...�..,...,.,...,.,,.......,.,.m,�. ...., _. _. ,_. .... .., .. ..y. - � - : . .... .... _ . _ - _ . . �., _.._... , , . � �'"_r'� ---_-. ��_.:� . � , � I �� I � ... . ...�... �. � I � ' ...,.._.:�v..._.w._..�...._W...s.. .....�.,. � , . — � _� i _ _ ; _.e...�u..,,. , _.... .. .,. ._.__....... .W....._..�.,._.,..-:�,:-...... ..__.�.... :-.�;-�:.._�"�..�.._�.,._.. .,, �_. MVRTLFSiREEi6 •••:�••��' ••µ•a•••�• .• ��•••• • ~•••�y . .........�.. �r...............w.. � ......�..i...' . SIILLWELLDRNE ..�� ..�........�.,.wr.+.........�„„�.,�,.... u�ABOVE �� Road Cross Sections & Legal Infor ation - Tract 2653 GRADE rrmdesigngroup ��e r ry C re e k C-1 .� �NGINEERING "`u"y`" "'a°o��•rvm' . .i�m� �m •- �-��- ^°� ""'"""""""""""' 2006050 ^�v�i�ze,mue re��sea Ho�emte�e,zaoe w-.w,o,�,..�.��. .....,.�....,...__...,. . .�._. �`--� ` _�` ;,- ��.,,--_, . �__ _ — . .._.m.. ,,,: ..._.. .._ � ...._ �--�' -�� ° t� A �` J� . � .. �� ___ ...._. . , _ _ .. _ ...... �.4 < ,;�_i -_ —_= \ \ .<: - -i - _ _ _ . :I— , ,.; - - - � -� -- - -- ° _ _. __ .. _ ,... _` _. :� _. : . . _ .,_.: _ �—..... ;i � , � � , � ;� � o � � � � � �� LEGEND r ':..�.... : .... � � : I 'a - - ; — -- i i ... ..._ . .�. ,I ......... �i _.. i ,......_. - i, ' ,. - G;. il' ....,,.. _.. i i, — i � 1� ,.. a . , .. __ � 1 � �� 3 �� , — . .� � _ .. , � ...._._�.._.. i .� i� . .... = � ��,�,i- :. � . i � ; . :a �. . . , , � . ,. � �� .. . , _ . , , , �, ; , . ' ; i .. . � �'d'� '� , � � _ .. =' ; �--� i �� — l \ -�� I " .. , � � � /, c �. _ �� _ ,.� �' : - � _ � . — -_ ,..,� _ _� .... .. • � --= --- I _..,. - r _-_ - _ � _-� -- � I , _ �. ...._... � __. � � - - , _ . - ,- � ,; ; I ••.••• �..ii ' � P�50' ABOVE �$� Vesting Tentative Tract Map - Trac[ 2653 GRADE rrmdesigngroup e Cherry Creek C-2.0 ENGINEERING "`•u.y.�..��u�oi...�iq- �.�,...ur,m.��a......�� ........................�. 2006050 ^ n�go:�xn.zou��e��.ea rvo�emee�e,zooc r ,._..,_v,�. . .....�.�..... ,....,-.... ._.,.......- .�.......� � ,,.....�...,. � r.=--_. _.._._ _ � � �� .. w..-:. : "..". ...,,,.. s�� c, � ;�. % ' ' ' � w._.... �� , ., , �� , _ _ � � _ _ - 1 �, � � - ---- � � r �` � - � �--- ' _ __ -- -`- � �== �� _� � � -�;; - , - �� -�F `_�r� �t, �..�—�.-- �_ r+ ^, —� - '� --� � �I y ,. .: « _ � � � i ;. _ i ......�. i � �.,, t � �� / a �1�' I � - . , " � , I � � � . . � � , ( 1 � t . iI ,.`"",", . �,.i � , 'i` �r V ° �� ,� 1 � ----- 1iI! � i � �- _ � .v . .w _ _ ' , � .� i , . . � �:�. , .« .—. � ' . � , � : . , � i . 1 ', � . _._ __ ._ .. i ;.� � I{ � � '� . , � � � . 'S 1 fl 1 �c �"'c_� �� < � F � 1� � i � ��+,� ....,. ; , .: I� i. 1 I : ` �.T - , �q .:. � j� � — _ .._.w' __ b - � j . �i ;'I i. �� .,_ ._ �r — — „�;� , , � �� - , i � �;� i �� . ��il � � ,�-�- a �• �I (� �I�V' k _' L[GE_NIT . ( }_ �I� 1 .. . _ - —_ ' _ '. s g• , � �.. . . ,1� � ' ! . .5 �"'J��`'— 11 � � I�� „ � I�: m ,�. _ ... � � � . �� j �� ^� e� � ;. -- , � — . � ' f �� ' . � �, �� .' � ��' ' _ . ��. ,�.�'� \ � , . , - � E � � / . � , � � ��-,. �, l��`� _ . , - -- - � ,� � � _�-,__-� - .x>- _ � - _ _ _ - � - , -. � �-� - _ -= - --- - `-' c---_-�� 3 , ... . .. ��1 1 �h. _M . . . f ' ,� Qi I i � ' � ��' r.sa' � �= � � ' 'a= � �r �r —� — �` preliminary Grading Pian - Tract 2653 �.� � £ ,�, � � �" ��j Cherr Creek ABOVE rrmdesigngroUP■�� `i - G(�p 2006050 Avym�zn,zooa��iseoea.emeern,>ooe awng m+nonnvmz P�°W a�PY NGWEERIN u "uw,�:��,�"" ._..__._......._..�._...,...._ -� , ,` „- , I � � ! ° I L ' ' � I.� � V � 1. � .' .., II, � I��— � ' ` 6 ��^ � / �\�� J I - _i... � ��._....._.��.��— _ . . . - . .. :_ _ ... ._�— � • � - -—--°`.__. __> ..'- _—_`r --. .. _ . .___ . __" - —' -- _ .,. '— _._._._ _ __"'_ " '"___'—_ � 'I � -�_ '_ . ' _'— ____' __--_ '.—_� � ..�•___ -�,'.. . .._ . ._ . ._ ._ _ . — '�: tFGfrvD: �.� �.............. �..,«......�..� ` ' � _... ..._ ...._. . _ � i I .. - � �.. �.. o' . .«� �m � I ................n......... -��— ...�,..:�....,... _ .- •��......... � ' I. � _ ............�...�.�.,.. ....:.�... ... +�I .. ..�....... I I �I� I' I I � �..I:�� /�\ I . ��•��—.` .;. -_ _':�\::: ' ..„. v��>w€.:. - r_su. I ABOVE E�� Sewer and Storm Drain Extension - Tract 2653 I GRADE rrmdesigngroupr C"4.� ENGyNEER16N� R•��•��m•��•�••��- Cherry Creek ��m—+•-. m.� . �� __:'_';G.:":=��='::»'.:' 2006050 auyuv za.zoos ea Hovemo:�n,zoos .�.m��,�.�wn�.o��. .....__._..,._._ M..�._�_ ,,.,. ,_w�. �o � _.,..._..�.._ . . ;- r�.�o, ��.:..--�-� PLANT LEGEND �\\, °�� $YMBOI. qOTPNICPLNl�MC COMMONNPML •�u . ��f" '�.��' ' � -112LL-5 :'.� - . .. � �� .�n..vn......� 4� n�v��wm. s.ot<..i��.. —r . . _ `� �, ' q (�� ."M �� YYPiLE eIPE[1 _.- - - y�. •�� f a E�miaenVV� I .. .. d' 4 f � y��^p� Y {�} �W.rw.walre lunMR»I�w ' Y � ^�^�(�``��/�J`�^(��j/"'�\T' ��'J�•pJ�I �Yi{1� R.usu�ixmu.r C or�vircnm . \ � •••:(r V' ' :.:".�.t_ .j J _ . . .� I � � _ " !`i C) A � _ � __ � � a��.,.�tiia. �iwsc..rv � � -- '..' � � w�,.�..m.+„ u�,.i.mo.. . .'�,� �^ _ � :,. __"_ � ' _ _' � ONeuawne CNW� 'i. � l�H . f ...___ • O � � ` `�' �ntiammm'nm ___ _ __ ' � J ._ � 1 . � S SI�IRU95 Ce..�iaaw� � � � . � � � .... _ __.} a _ ^. y _ __.._ _._ i : N.muW.,wu Nw.reuwn, W.:..nu ' I .� � � .. i�,r1' . _ e.n�.m.�..av��wam .�,H..�n,�rv �'""— . - _.i. � fJ '� i� � ___ _,, ; i .w.m=�.. x,..�... , — _ _ ' � _ _ _ � . ' -.i F.ro...co,�., w..�.r � ,�✓ ' ' � . i j _- �; ��w.b.,.sw ..�,�. . yyy .�. p� • � � -- ---� �; ��i � � � �� , GROUNOCOVER cwn.M✓u+ w uawme . � 1. � - (':' f = I: � � xa.......w.cnnrwv�m Hm�mw � p�mnvw sauva�n • 1� . ' / n _ ____ L '' . - rrryvmnt+nnaWUS S�aW �a0vq �- r : �� : , , , , , .,; ; _. _ ��, �� ..f�..,�� .�G�.� �.a��.��.�. o.�.�, - — � — -- -- - — � , � ; �� wv�muH�iw iaw�an Q, � — �...� ��uWaw��+�Wnm.as. Su��ar.me sw�w�.;� «'��" ` _ ' _ C -� .�_. r . ��,�w.�, . � Vii�... xnnYSq.u' �.mr.� y ' j • BIOSWALEHYOROSEEOMIX �j Xummram�en uaeN wny - � �.� Gwrww�� .�.,�ra,�.�. � �. 1 � � _ I _ ,� `°��; � �:', � ..e�., ;� -, .W�� °�� . � aHvmwHmwm fIBI CKMNY AYFMI/F \^:.� �"W^f^� �^1++� 1 � ' I ...._ - :.. ....n....0 _ .: I i . .- � . . .s- . .., ..^. , _. __ : -'_ � �` —"_"_ . _ ._. ' ;..1•. �.. `-_' - � �."'_ . �.. " �u...ow....ru.� .,. - �_. �� .x_ -.._.._____.. SCFLE I'=90'�0' rrmdesigngroup�� CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN rt.,,�m„��pkm,� � Cherry Creek L-1 .0 - 2006050 A�HUSI L8,d004 ftevisetl November 8,d006 � Arroyo GranEe Creek ' P!Ieq BW dary NATNEPLANT LEGEND IntermixWillowpoacunin9s SVMbOL 90TANICALNAME (:OMMONNAMF TOPOIClCCk wilhrockmcrea�ea�uHerarea TREfiS � Propaga�e exisl�ng willow Irees � �?•.,,�;��M,:. (w reslorat�on of native dantinq � 1= Q O urm,..a..�.� n.�.m.wr Ne9M1bor �� '`- .__ ��' .� . \ �,�...�..�.d, u...,..�.,s. encroacnment �" � -�£�� .� � � w. u.,�wo.� InROW � J if� Y ' � J d � (� i, ) �'. (♦ O a:n a.. �.� w, y. �c1� i ) P v.w.a. h .,F X i� .y _ 1� � } _ '. �5'. '' �' .� sHrsues ,� � � .e _ i .."- � .: (e)NaliveVe9etalion 1 d �- � 1 r. .�a.....,....ia..... wd�.,s�n,v. t -" (e)WaiulTreemtieremoed �^"4 -l�4 =- �, `4�ii r�. e.�r..n,�.k cwu.avm _"__ � � � ." -'-., replacew�h9CalifomiaSYcamores�; ,yu-^y�y 4 .'...: ` �1( )-. �`r�,`. — m Y^ � _."'_"'_'." .. -'— _�_.. . _ .._ . . (\ c..�.�.,,.�nm,. '-- . .. .,..�.. . ww�nv.v. --... .._. _, C /f ...- -._. . ._— ,— �:.\ �^`1�.y��1_.i- )�: `, """°""'..,"""° '°^" MyFTLE STREET _ . � — - � _ ` \� �� a�..a�b... ��.��..., � I � 1 ��'� j .__�h -_ ;� ww.w.�»� rc..ru,....a..a.n... MATCHIINE,SEE BEIOW � �, ��_L -�,,, 9 Aai.�.w.aam w.a�w>m�v , ne+.+w... wewr MATCHLINE SEE ABOVE� ;r� h '_-�_--- . n,n..w�K cwm.,n...�rcm i. -.� ' � �.�I s.m..race.nn wm.amwrv , , \� V "� 25 CmekSflbdck RFSTORATIONHYDROSEEDMI% �' I ' � � I � '—"� K�� °° . . r n�mi�v.0 m �.�rnrn.n � y. . � . GROUND''C��--O--^^VE11H C. � ra�..rcw+.� u�ur..f.nn - i . � . �..�. SCAIE I'-10'�0' rrmdesigngroup�� NATIVE PLANTING PLAN BLOW UP ,��,�.,� m.��,o,.�,� C h e rry Cree k L-2 .0 2006050 a�v��:�ia,zooe ae��:ea rv�.embe�x.zoos — - , , - _._ f_) � . _ . � �. �{�� - :.:: __ _ _--� - ;� ' � � i .p � �( l{'2- e __� 1�9 �I .:... �- '°i _... � � y: .,.� � . ��il- /�,}�_ ., �. _ � ..I � �, _ f�.;,, ,x ., .'Ff � b ' `\ �'! .i___ . °.° �, . 1 ' � : :; . � v/..' �. 7 . . � _t-.1 T� �A ` �J �� a ��y i /"..7:/'J, "' - ._ I .'`�y, �Q " �. yV � 4.. �2.✓c.n ..J i � '"_ '_____ p�._ 9� �h . ---I .a�o ,µ �-�..� � . .. nt�»iv f ;i �•+ .,�....,��..�,4 s�� ,.��,M 4� HE�- t � t , ! O(illltlllLlllfQAlfSIIfU(.11Ut( qlL' 1-b'RM.LL'1.11//L)YIf/H']'1'AkOL.1�U(A{G m l:l �.'... . . ,./ ;° . �. .;:5r°;- --- —._---�i.:. (;'J. J : . .�,,.� ;;�.f, . :r,, : � 'I:��_i , 'i.- :-r,.:., s-vcr:rr��rm nia,e,vrc � � - 9" , ��kE,.m �.° - an � - < ° '�� . . r �� !�`"� � � ,;' { �-�� v�- � i � f e �C� , � ` _ " `� 1 � �.r � s � �F f: � � � �Y r�i,�'y r(,y.li'f �'� �� : ^ Y�y �d� �,� t v`� � i� i �.} � ,r . n": , , . > y �t lP1 � . �. +(x. �, n . r _r_t � �i �f=� y . � S � " f � ° ��1 � - 5 J � u3 '` � � `� , � � � / ' p � '-:) 1 f " ,�� .�� i . ) E' � >2 �O / 7 . � �/i )� -�' � -t 1 .� � .. , � t � �> r , �� -. .. y t� � : P�� . t L�Tr - �r i �� T$�N f ., .�t J'S � yl�� k f'�� ..� _ � � ��( '. i; � L l: � r . � '[� t? . � ��' �f ��' i � �� thi . '� / � � .i � l < �. ,$ Ur n. ;�'- �yJ xr1-� �{ i r1� � O ,(t, i X � (Y I � p ��y�1� - _ 1,l't' ._ —_ _ _i�� V��,r -f l S .. ,0 U (Ol X�tt' � �'i Z t ��S?�Y� l�Cl'. ':1 �_:! . .,'"' � ' ", ,? 1�. ., : �5��l)(U. Fl � � { c{ . �� • " �� C7 - ( , . ___ Jc�h.rljl .. -. _ � = EAST RRY " l .� r .� �� ' CHE +�`� ' � . _... .__ _.;;.. . _ . ._. ._. . __ i __ . ..._ _�:. i # 7 � ��.>{ k D'7 p°-�' � - . - . .'_ A VENUE �:�-��r � . Y i ._.. — . _ _.. .., - -�: .__ � ;� �t�s��- ; ,_ .. ,- :_ ,.- a _ — -- -- :. ' •m`r7. �t.t L•!•;� ,_ .: . _ , ._ �- ` .:,_. � , -. . . . ;. --. _.y _ ,...-�_, - -- - � J-C�TRI I:VD:IGR/CGZTL'R�IL[f[F/'ERL.1\'OSGIPC / ��_—� � si:uo r g B P��Y s�A�E�._:a..o.. Landscape Area Enlargements rrmdesi n rou �"� .O �°��°�°� Cherry Creek "----""�-"-•""' 2006050 !ugust 2tl,300G NeviseE Novembe�x,zooa �'� �ii!�;i �`'� i'i i'' I'�'+-+-I'I''i �__`` � I � / ;�� '�. I �_.II' � i_,! � I i:; , l . l;. Ill j SiEE�GK�[ISEXCCb'VMtT� ^�� \\ / � � / \ / ��- .��_.. \ . w � \ � _ � \ _ I � � 4J{1��j�� ` fI Il _ u J11L1JJ' I— � , i ' ' _ _. ' _ ' i / __ _ wmn.�w�'es o x..r . - . - � . I l�L;\!l\GC1':ltlVLt�' 'i --.�._..... _ vu.usiwsam.wwe.vmm� ..�. ... .— swe x�s - i _'_'_'_'_' I — I —1 ' _ � _ _M1 I ' i � I o�u.i�xrwc I � �uow��'�w� I Imncrenc[e.ux✓.nw�nwvnx[ ..__..._. , I _ � I i ' ic.vcnvr, c:ranirr.�s I �I �, � � u..E�„ � - ` �� , , ;: -- - ,,. , � �� =�. .--�_--- -- E tiurcerucin� - --' . . . _--� , �w.E.�aaw� u..�r„� _. _._. . -. .— . _�_ —_. �— c . •no- @ NTS rrmdesigngroupl�� Fencing Plan w/ Street Light Detail ,��g.��,�,��.M,� Cherry Creek L-4.0 2006050 A�HV51 28,200G Revisetl Novembe�8.300fi _ _� �------------.� , �-.,� , _ .... ��>J-=- ,, � .� � I ' : � �� r � i� �• �_ _ p y l _ 'F,�PW � � � . -. . ' � vmW.°°-y�r 1 .. i�u �, maun� �. 1Ad � w�a M" vNnxN�s aF�3wn . 1 . �� nmaenow"m �`, 5 Ctia�p` �� ,1 �,.-. �. .. . � ' \ �� --- � R12 �� - ' t � .� `` y-�-----_'-�—�" i �w��• �,t , �vw 1 � a�� ,o, e�4 - _-- �� . � �o . �,�, �'rs+ ' _--^ -- «++,�' • '�° y^� '.t v'� SCW14�B�_� � _ �. 1 � Y+4'.F_4T�%IWS!(W — � J1Rp a�..._ . j, �w ' °e�� Section8 I I �°°°`"¢----" . �.s ,��w. ZQ} 1 ' J"; ' "' p.l � ' �' ' pSMi[� s �� `' � . �NaU—� r . t � wqqw- � � � � � � �� _ �� .1 , ._. �RW _ � � � � e � � e � � I .x:. �[Y�� . � � . n iUC�_—."'— ' _, Y.PAA, ._,. ��— � — ....__ .....- � MtijRR4NNT _ „ '_�� . , � �i - �� . - YR9� -- _ �� _, . - . . - SU _�_. .� 1Pd _.-a ' �- , �J '`"�� c �'g S" - - - TIO 1 n ''. s��cp SITE SCCeek L�� .l Ch�r r ker,ed�a.emce�e.z� Zp0605� 4 �, � � rrmdesigngroupp� ��- _ --- MINUTES i ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 � ` 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. Heffernon then presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for a Neighborhood Plan (NPj 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 is a 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. Heffernon -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 iYs full width including the exisfing 15 foot wide dirf access road and we would like this issue resolved before Phase 2 is ente�ed into. • Mitigation 5.3, page 31, asked which "owner" shail be responsible to register the residence in the California Register of Historic Places? Ms. Heffernon - 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 wafer is not required as the entire watershed drains to the creek. • Page 4, a) the Initial Study check list regarding ag. resources, staff has marked off "insignificant impacY', but the Ag Commissioner's letter states "the projects site soils are almost entirely prime soils..." Ms. Heffernon - 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 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Heffernon — the project soils are designated as C/ass 2, non-irrigated soils; prime soi/s occur when Class I and !I 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 - fhe new zoning land use for this property was adopted with the Genera/ Plan Update and all the infrastructure will be provided; the details wilf 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 Streef has existing constraints and in this instance there would only be one access streef, 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 WQCB. 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 fhe 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 100-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 fhe 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 e�cient 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 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 • Is the road width on East Cherry Avenue to City standard and what is the proposed circulation? Mr. Devens - it would be at typica! 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. • Re overlay of 100-fee4 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. • 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 app�oved for Phase 1 would apply to Phase 2 and would be done at the time someone comes fonvard with a discretionary project. • Asked for clarification on the creekside trail along sub area 2. Ms. Heffernon - the NP does discuss the alternatives. . 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. • 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 verifcation 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 fhat they be put in the conditions of approval and the specific agencies named. Parker . 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 tra�c 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 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 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 applicanYs representatives had done a terrific job; he was very impressed with the design and the N P. 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. Lincla 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. r � MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 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 pon 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 tra�c 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 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 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; thaf 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 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 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: Commissioners Fellows,Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: 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. Heffernon 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 Tait. MINUTES ATTACHMENT3 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 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 Pianner, 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 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 e 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 topo 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— fhere are two poles being relocated; he explained which they were and stafed PG&E would not put anything down on creek bank, but it may end up in fhe 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 nof to grant occupancy until exfra 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 soR mitigafion 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 staffs 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. Heffernon — 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. Heffernon — 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 2"d 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 PAGE 7 � PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • 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 steelhead 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 su�cient. . 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. Heffernon — the subject site is not agricultural land 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 100-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 100-year flood event if the pipes are 17 feet plus under water? Victor — the outlet elevation was being selected based on trying to 6e above fhe 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 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 recommendation was based on the Master Drainage plan or the Newsom Springs Report (which Pubiic 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 nof believe it was subject to overriding considerafions. • 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 staff's opinion on the curved route? Ms. Heffernon — staff would like to see this not curved; like to see the East Cherry Avenue exfension 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 315�� 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 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 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 is 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 hvo 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 doe§ 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 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 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 dete�mination as it is wriften 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 moving 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 100-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 ttie ability to split his property at the density given to him. MINUTES PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 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: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: 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 100-foot buffer with vegetation. Mr. Dickens — fhe County Ag Commissioner recommends this to allow for protection (even though the exposuie 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 recommendafion. 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- fe�tilizer smell, dust etc. that is why we need more space. • Re drainage basin, should it be the applicanYs 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 theirproperty. 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 moye into the area it becomes more di�cult to educafe people and we do not know what tomorrow may bring; it may be helpful fo bring a representative in from the CountyAg Commissioner's o�ce. 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 feef (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 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 e 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 fhe 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 properfy line to property fine 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 100-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 perfo�mance buffer than what is currently there. . Where in the material does it describe that 100-feet is adequate? M�. Mavis — recommendations from the Ag departmenYs 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 100-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 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • 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 fhis 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: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: 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: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: 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. MINUTES � ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION � MARCH 15, 2005 � � The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: 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 Avenue, 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 cecommends 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 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 wouid not be feasibie with the project time line; time should be taken for the review- it's very important. • Loss of prime ag land under CEQA: Asked for clarification on "prime soil zoned for residential use". Ms. Heffernon — it is staffs 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 habitaY'. Ms. Heffernon - she would get clarification from the biologist. • Mitigation measure 4.20: A sentence has been deleted that weakens the mitigation. Ms. Heffernon — 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 "permanenY' was added to sentence. Ms. Heffernon — 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 fhe 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. Heffernon — the applicant must go through these agencies before obfaining permits. In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. Heffernon stated: e 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 Iyear) 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 ove�it. . Is the Vanderveer house a registered historical house? Ms. Heffernon — it has nof been registered, buf it may be considered to have historical signi�cance. MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 . 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 forsub area 2 has been included in the information submitted for Commission review, but if is only in discussion form (fext 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 Miil, had concerns regarding the buffer, drainage and emergency access. Biil 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 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 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 HoneycutYs 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 ciarified. . 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 concem. • 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 wiliing 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: e He would like to receive RWQCB and Fish & Game responses before going forward to further discussion. MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 Commissioner Parker stated that she was submitting her detailed written comments on the CEQA Negative Declaration (ND) to staff (copy to go to the developer); stated that the ND 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 — iYs 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 agriculturai 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 II 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 it would 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 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 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 III.A. Ta it: . 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 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 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 applicanYs 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 TaiYs 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 � PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 e 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 govemment agencies; issues must be resolved prior to approval of the project. Commissioner Keen suggested that the Commission ask City Councii 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 fonvard 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 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows, Brown and Tait NOES: Keen ABSENT: 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 iwas 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 ITEIVIS 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: LYN REARDON-SMITH TIM BROWN, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the meeting of April 19, 2005) ATTACHMENT5 MINUTES ', l 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 Pianner, 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 PAGE 2 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 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 previo,us pubiic 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. Fieffernon 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. Hefferrion 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 PAGE 3 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 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 steelhead 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 Consecvation. 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. Saaqnolo: 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 slowiy migrate towards the low point, then the bioswale, and finally flow into the collection area. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 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 iYs 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 Feilows, 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 residenYs 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 100-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 PAGE 5 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 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 Mollv McClanahan, 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 Cherrv 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 PAGE 6 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 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. Coileen 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 Viilage; 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 alfowed 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 42 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 PAGE 7 MINUTES ' MAY 16, 2006 ', indicated that there may be impacts and presence of these species — a deferral mitigation is illegal under CEQA. '� Kevin McCarthv. 222 Garden Street, stated concems 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 wiil 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 p�operty. Mike Kellev. 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. Larrv Turner, 323 Noquera Place, stated he had attempted to file an appeal of staff's 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. Lvnn 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 fhis 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 PAGE 8 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 ' Jamie Ohier. 126 Allen, stated concems 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' iYs an 'F'. Pollv 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 designafed 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, buildeddeveloper, 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 Tait, 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 PAGE 9 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 2, 2006: Case No.'.: _:... < ... . , .. .: , - - A . Name''s , . .,.Address . `�: �' - Des`c�i tion:"'' :. Action. ". Plannei``- 1. TUP 06-010 Jeff Strickland 1200 E. Grand Nature's Design Center,Open House A. K. Heffernon Ave. and Art Show for Uni hi Foundation 2. TUP 06-011 Gospel Lighthouse 710 Huasna Fundraiser cherry sa�es. A B.Soland Church 1200 E. Grand 1026 E. Grand 1570 W. Branch 497 Fair Oaks 3. PPR 06-008 Wiiey/Butcher 201 Wood Place To allow continued use a non- A T. Ricard conformin 2ntl residential unit.. 4. VSR 05-016 D.Osborn 448 Allen Street Demolition of an existing one car A. T. Ricard garage and construction of a two-car garage and 2n°floor dwetling a roved b ARC 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 4�n 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 4�h meeting and meet next on July 18, 2006. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Brown, Tait, and Chair Feilows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. V.A. 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: , _, ,, . .. '- ;,Case,No , r , :'App +, '� Address -� -', ;:; Desc�iption,,; '.� ` ;�Action ". . Planner -`' �, MEX 06-017 (Changed J. Mocan 375&375A MEX for FAR and possibly A. R. Strong to PPR—no new# Walnut Street garage/2nd du assi ned. 2. MEX 06-015&VSR 06- J. Godwin 527 Arroyo Street On file A. B.Soland 011 3, ARC 06-005 J. 522 E. Branch On file A. R. Foster Severance Street Q, VSR 06-013 B. Stote 381 Zogata 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. 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 ('CHERRYCREEM')—ConYd from 5/16/06 Planning Commission meeting. Associate Pianner 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 PAGE 3 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Drainage Master Plan will be discussed at the City Council meeting on August 8, which would be a better arena for discussion on a regionai basis. She outlined changes to the project as outlined in the staff report. The request for tonighYs meeting, however, is to first determine if the Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) is deemed adequate by Planning Commission. If not, then iYs suggested the Planning Commission stop discussion of the project and report their recommendation to City Council. If it is, then iYs 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 Josivn Broome, of RRM Design 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 Mvrtie 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 iYs 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 demo/ 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. Cindv Hansen, 775 Santa Manuela, voiced her preference that the project remain as it is. - PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 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/appiicant, spoke in support of the project. They're working on helping to solve the regional drainage issue. IYs zoned residential so iYs 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. Mollv McClanahan, 617 Malvern Ave., Fullerton, CA, (co-trustee of Gordon Dixon Trust at 769 Branch Mill Road), read aloud Neil Haviick'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. Greq McGowan, 432 Garden Street, responded to Commissioner TaiYs 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, wfien 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. Cherrv, gave a brief history of the project since 1997. He feit 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 PAGE 5 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 10:10 qm 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: o A) Prime Farmland — change to "impact can and will be mitigated." This area has prime soiis 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 approp�iate. o Remove paragraph two from MND page 6 that says it is not an impact. o Add language that says why this would be considered prime land. o Add the reasons why iYs 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: o Change MM 4.3 to read "Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone saa shall be replaced within the riparian setback area ..." ' PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 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 iYs 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 iYs 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. IYs 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 IYs 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 concem, is about the pesticide use from the adjacent farmland. � PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 • Per Ag1-1.1, "Prime farmland soils shali 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 environmental impact." The SLO County Ag office said this has been classified as prime soils, it has no limitations if farmed, and iYs suitable for orchards. • Ag1-4.1 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 "IosY' yet and is still prime farmland soil. • Ag. 1-4.3 states, "Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are geographically specific, the onlv means for mitipation to less than siqnificant is preservation." o He read from Ella HoneycutYs article "Arroyo Grande Valley Prime Farmland a Natural Treasure to ProtecY' which states, "We cannot dig deeper into the earth and find new productive soil. We must keep what we have or do withouY'. 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 impacteci by siitation 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 th'e Newsom Springs watershed but never acted upon". , PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 . Other: They have received many letters recently that maintain iYs 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 hund�eds 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. IYs 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 "significanY', 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 iYs on the City. Because iYs 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 thaYs 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 PAGE 9 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 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 thaf 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 iYs 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 iYs 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 siitation? — 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 tra�c and noise problems that require further study. I PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 o Agriculture Resources - Does it convert prime ag land to non-ag use? Yes. Literally, it tloes. i • He quoted from the CEQA Handbook "If there are one or more 'Potentialiy Significant ImpacY 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 fuliy 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: Commissioners Brown, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioners Parker and Ray ABSENT: 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. ill. 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. ATTACHMENT7 ; � � � ' 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 ��: ��;.��,��.�.< , ;'h/�r�' �', �• ��: Lic.NO.31.581 �.�"'�,! II�,` Expires 17/OB � � ; � �VA �� . �,\��\ �` O� � ��..'. � V, lic�_ August 31, 2006 Background Above Grade Engineering is proposing the subdivision northerly of the intersection of East Cherry Road and Branch MiII 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 wili 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 100-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 cer[ain issues that must be addressed in a final design. The analysis only demonstrates it is possibie 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 100-year water surface elevation is the number on the left side of the plot. Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 1 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer � Table 1. HEC-RAS results for channel as proposed HEC-RAS Plan:Plan 05 River:Cherry Reach:Projecl River Sta Profile �Tolal Min Ch EI W.S.Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl FlowArea Top Width (c(s) (fl) (fl) (fQ (ft/ft) (fUs) (sq(t) (fq . 1000 PF 1 1024 725.4 132.24 0.001588 4.91 208.69 51.03 1000 PF 2 878 125.4 131.71 0.007675 4.81 182.49 47.85 � 1000 PF 3 707 125.4 130.85 0.002071 4.92 143.57 42.69 1000 PF 4 531 125.4 129.89 0.002682 5.03 105.54 36.97 1000 PF 5 197 125.4 127.71 0.005598 5.04 39.06 23.85 980 PF 1 1024 125.4 132.04 129.42 0.001801 5.78 177.04 3329 ' 980 PF 2 878 125.4 131.56 129.06 0.001724 5.44 16127 32.33 980 PF 3 707 125.4 130.76 128.6 0.001815 5.2 136 30.72 980 PF 4 531 125.4 729.87 128.06 0.001919 4.86 109.32 28.94 980 PF 5 197 125.4 127.77 126.8 0.002271 3.72 52.9 24.73 925 Culvert 870 PF 1 1024 125.1 130.6 0.003477 7.29 140.39 31.01 ' 870 PF 2 878 125.1- 130.23 0.003268 6.81 128.84 30.25 870 PF 3 707 125.1 129.73 0.00302 621 113.91 2925 870 PF 4 537 125.1 129.12 0.002755 5.5 96.54 28.04 870 PF 5 197 125.1 127.49 0.002202 3.69 53.43 24.77 850 PF 1 1024 125.08 129.99 129.61 0.007197 9.14 112.09 32.65 850 PF2 878 125.08� 129.6 12926 0.007306 8.81 99.69 31.09 � 850 PF 3 707 125.08 129.1, 128.78 0.007448 8.35 84.64 29.09 850 PF 4 531 125.08 128.52 128.22 0.007587 7.76 68.46 26.77 ' 850 PF 5 197 125.08 127.04 0.008262 5.95 33.08 20.82 750 PF 1 1024 123.88 129.18 0.007473 9.38 709.22 312 750 PF 2 878 123.88 128.76 0.007775 9.11 96.39 29.52 � 750 PF 3 707 123.88 12821 0.00808 8.74 80.85 27.33 750 PF 4 531 123.88 127.57 127.36 0.008604 828 64.13 24.76 - 750 PF 5 197 123.88 125.97 125.87 0.010242 6.66 29.59 18.35 650 PF 1 1024 722.68 128.73 0.005509 8.42 121.57 322 650 PF 2 878 122.68 128.28 0.005617 8.16 107.66 30.42 fi50 PF 3 707 122.68 127.7 0.00579 7.8 90.67 28.1 650 PF 4 531 122.68 727.01 0.006069 7.36 72.12 25.32 650 PF 5 197 122.68 125.16 0.00769 6.14 32.07 17.91 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 2 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer River Sla Profile Q Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width . (cfs) (ft) (ft) (tq (fUft) (fUs) (sq ft) (tt) 550 PF 1 1024 121.48 128.35 0.00442 7.79 131.44 32.87 550 PF 2 878 121.48 127.9 0.004426 7.5 117.09 3'1.08 550 PF 3 707 121.48 127.31 0.004436 7.11 99.5 28.73 550 PF 4 531 121.48 126.61 0.004458 6.62 80.21 25.9 550 PF 5 197 121.48 124.68 0.004642 5.21 37.82 1821 450 PF 1 1024 120.28 727.56 0.006033 8.75 116.96 30.63 450 PF 2 878 12028 127.13 0.006045 8.43 104.13 28.91 � . 450 PF 3 707 12028 126.57 0.006043 7.99 88.52 26.66 450 PF 4 531 12028 125.91 0.005957 7.4 71.79 24.02 450 PF 5 197 12028 124.06 0.005866 5.74 34.31 16.64 . 385 PF 1 1024 119.5 126.44 126.44 0.010151 10.62 96.41 27.77 385 PF 2 678 119.5 126.04 126.04 0.010304 10.28 85.43 26.14 � 385 PF 3 707 119.5 125.5 125.5 0.010574 9.83 71.92 23.99 385 PF 4 531 119.5 124.82 124.82 0.011244 9.37 56.7 21.3 385 PF 5 197 1'19.5 123.t 123.1 0.012569 7.62 25.85 14.38 365 PF 1 1024 119 125.89 123.03 0.001582 5.52 185.41 33.79 365 PF 2 878 119 125.2 122.66 0.001693 5.4'I 162.28 32.39 365 PF 3 707 119 124.33 122.19 0.001854 524 134.99 30.66 365 PF 4 531 119 123.37 721.67 0.002071 4.99 106.47 28.74 365 PF 5 197 719 121.2 120.4 0.002879 4.03 48.92 24.41 310 Culvert 255 PF 1 1024 118.5 122.49 122.49 0.009958 10.39 98.54 29.39 255 PF 2 878 116.5 122.12 122.12 0.010292 10.01 87.68 28.51 255 PF 3 707 118.5 12'1.66 121.66 0.010592 9.44 74.93 27.43 255 PF 4 531 118.5 121.14 121.14 0.011024 8.71 60.99 26.21 255 PF S 197 118.5 119.9 119.9 0.012888 6.51 30.27 2329 235 PF 1 1024 718 123 121.78 0.00352 6.83 150 40 235 PF 2 878 118 121.45 121.45 0.010103 9.46 92.81 33.8 235 PF 3 707 718 121.32 121.03 0.007513 7.99 88.49 3329 235 PF 4 531 118 120.83 120.55 0.007502 7.31 72.64 31.32 235 PF 5 197 118 719.37 119.37 0.01283 6.31 31.2 25.49 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 3 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer Cherry Creektent map Pian: Plan 14 8/31 /2006 , 136 �` �ryP�� - Legend 134 _. W5 PF 1 132 �� f,: � . � �' __ � ,. �:a� WS PF2 130- v . ., .. - � � z ---r— .,�_ - . � W5 PF 3 � ,� v,_ .��.�� ; 0 128- ��.��.-��..�� , _ ��" �,''�` ,�' ,��I WS PF 4 > 126- .. -'";.;�� =p �, - �,i �— °' - ��•� WS PF 5 W 124- t #e� ' :; � _ Q-ound ,. e _ , � 1?2-� - ^ . y: . � - -- „; LOB 120 � ��, 118 � � , � , , � � � , , , � � 0 200 400 600 800 Ma n Channel Distarioe (ft) Figure 1. HEC RAS profile for channel as proposed Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 4 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer , i I y ,, !� I ,�; � ___ �` ; _ � � , � _ � _ �� ' �_`„ ��r r^ .Wi c :.__ - \ i %r ]l ��. "' �I' S1 I ._ . i _ , .._. � . . .... . .. / , f d r ,:�. I-�.. . ... .. `\ � , C � . , � ; \ li M1.�% i �. _-=__�4`-` .i -._� .�'�-\_ . :_:,�. .. ." '. ... 1. - �� _' —� - .�'s' '_'__ _ _ ' __' " . _ � ' �i . j ___. '. i .. _._..__ .__._. . . __ _ __ `. i , " r N �r, - - - � _.�` ' ',- : I _ ' , ��: ,j , �� .:, � � '9 _ _ :. ; ,� i ,� . --- r � _ I�I� ...... � i,�,, j � ' !-.::I J` ' � _. _ r �'�' .. I = ''� _ �..r � �� _ jj .. - �- �': - - I �J �� 13 Zg I �� ' 1 I'! � < _ r 1.'. 2 I _ , ; � I r / II � ' _ I � ' _t] ��I •.: 19 . . � ( I � .. - i , I ' .. � ' l>'�I � I __ ,I.,_ ' i �' � '� A, ��l� � � � q ` . r f.. + �. . .: { � : �'r � W 2f � � 4 � � �� 1 , j , j l _ �, _ ��,. ' �. Y 4�10 t �� 1 �]1' � ' � � ��- I � — ��i �1 . _ 'L y , ;ji rl , , ( - '� - ' F � � ° - f j -' I. i i.� i o - i '! I ' y '1-i n.,n — i I � .� - � _ : - �� - - � t ' _ : I _ � � � ,. , I � • 'li I,,, J j � y. ._. -:,r : ' � '--•e �-_. � �''�I I ;I , z3 i7 _ I - _ __ . . - '� +� - - t^' - - - - '_- - - �L }3 _ u ". — �� . _ �� I 91 �.I !i ' . � .�� " ". . ( ^ ..�rl^ } a, " •. .. ;,'I *� : . i 'l. . ...II .I : " : , ' _ .. .. ....- _._ . _.. ,..-'' . �il t—_ �M1 EAS'f CHERRYAyEM1LU — " ,__:� _. .= � � .� , f ; . �� . �_��._32 � -03:F. '�--�-"-- � �- '� �e _ -- --_ .., , - -- !� Figure 2. Results of analysis of channel as proposed ' �� i Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 5 August 31, 2006 il Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer ii �i ;i , There are several issues with the results of the channel analysis. They are I; • 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 channei configuration were made. First, the longitudinal siope 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 induded as I 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 100-year water surface elevation is the number on the left side of the plot. Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 6 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer Table 2. IIEC-RAS results for modified channel River Sta Profle �Tolal Min Ch EI W.S.Elev Cril W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width ' (cts) (ft) (fQ (fq (fVft) (fUs) (sq ft) (fQ 1000 PF 1 7024 123.75 132.35 0.000355 2.87 357.15 63.02 1000 PF 2 878 123.75 131.79 0.000345 2.72 32226 60.19 1000 PF 3 707 123.75 130.91 0.000357 2.6 277.59 55.82 1000 PF 4 531 123.75 129.94 0.000361 2.42 219.61 50.95 1000 PF 5 197 123.75 127.73 0.000273 1.65 119.05 39.88 980 PF 1 1024 123.59 132.19 127.63 0.00072 4.16 245.91 372 980 PF 2 878 123.59 131.65 12725 0.000668 3.88 226.06 36.11 - � 980 PF 3 707 123.59 130.8 126.78 0.000644 3.6 196.13 34.42 980 PF 4 531 123.59 129.85 126.25 0.000596 3.23 164.49 32.53 980 PF 5 197 �23.59 127.7 125 0.000352 1.99 99.07 28.22 925 Culvert 870 PF 1 1024 122.76 129.87 0.001419 5.31 192.76 34.22 B70 PF 2 878 122.76 129.41 0.001319 4.95 177.29 33.3 870 PF 3 707 12276 128.81 0.001195 4.49 157.5 32.09 - B70 PF 4 531 122.76 128.08 0.001055 3.95 134.58 30.63 870 PF 5 197 122.76 126.07 0.000732 2.55 77.19 26.62 850 PF 1 1024 722.61 128.76 128.4 0.007494 9.49 107.87 29.84 . 850 PF 2 878 122.61 128.36 127.99 0.00749 9.13 96.17 28.23 850 PF 3 707 722.61 127.83 127.4fi 0.007491 8.64 81.8 26.11 850 PF 4 531 122.61 127.19 0.007496 8.04 66.06 23.58 850 PF 5 197 122.61 125.49 0.0075 6.22 31.66 16.76 750 PF 1 7024 121.86 128.01 127.65 0.007487 9.49 107.91 29.85 750 PF 2 878 127.86 127.61 127.24 0.007475 9.12 96.24 28.24 " 750 PF 3 707 121.06 127.OB 126.71 0.007476 8.64 61.86 26.12 .. 750 PF 4 531 121.86 126.44 0.007487 8.03 66.09 23.59 750 PF 5 197 121.86 724.74 0.0075 622 31.66 16.76 650 PF 1 1024 121.11 12726 126.89 0.007471 9.48 107.99 29.86 650 PF 2 878 121.11 126.86 126.49 0.007439 9.11 96.42 28.26 650 PF 3 707 121.11 126.34 125.96 0.007435 8.62 82.03 26.15 650 PF 4 531 121.11 125.7 0.007454 8.02 662 23.6 650 PF 5 197 121.11 123.99 0.007506 6.22 31.65 1676 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 7 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch EI W.S.Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width (cfs) (ft) (fQ (ft) (Nft) (fUs) (sq fQ (ft) 550 PF 1 1024 120.36 126.52 126.14 0.007436 9.47 108.18 29.88 550 PF 2 878 120.36 126.15 0.007254 9.02 , 97.33 28.39 ' 550 PF 3 707 120.36 125.61 0.007273 8.55 82.71 2625 550 PF 4 531 120.36 124.97 0.007297 7.96 66.73 23.69 550 PF 5 197 120.36 123.25 0.007412 6.2 31.79 16.79 � 450 PF 1 1024 119.61 125.8 125.39 0.00726 9.38 109.16 30.07 ' � 450 PF 2 878 119.61 125.51 124.99 0.006666 8.74 100.45 28.83 450 PF 3 707 119.61 124.97 124.46 0.006647 827 85.54 26.68 450 PF 4 531 119.61 124.33 123.84 0.006607 7.67 69.25 24.11 450 PF 5 197 119.61 122.61 122.16 0.006337 5.85 33.69 1724 385 PF 1 1024 119.73 125.34 124.91 0.007166 9.34 109.69 30.08 385 PF 2 878 119.13 124.51 124.51 0.010069 10.2 86.11 26.77 385 PF 3 707 119.13 123.98 123.98 0.010323 9.74 72.58 24.66 � 385 PF 4 531 119.13 123.35 123.35 0.010697 9.18 57.87 22.15 385 PF 5 197 119.13 121.68 121.68 0.012338 7.47 26.36 15.44 365 PF 1 1024 119 125.89 123.03 0.001582 5.52 185.41 33.79 365 PF 2 878 119 125.2 122.66 0.001693 5.41 162.28 32.39 365 PF 3 707 119 124.33 122.19 0.001854 5.24 134.99 30.66 365 PF 4 531 119 123.37 121.67 0.002071 4.99 106.47 28.74 365 PF 5 197 119 1212 120.4 0.002879 4.03 48.92 24.41 310 Culvert 255 PF 1 1024 118.5 122.49 122.49 0.009958 10.39 98.54 29.39 255 PF 2 878 118.5 122.12 122.12 0.010292 10.01 87.68 28.51 255 PF 3 707 118.5 121.66 121.66 0.010593 9.44 74.93 27.43 255 PF 4 531 118.5 121.14 121.14 0.011024 8.71 60.99 26.21 255 PF S 197 118.5 119.9 119.9 0.012888 6.51 3027 23.29 235 PF 1 1024 118 123 121.78 0.00352 6.83 150 40 235 PF 2 878 118 127.45 121.45 0.010103 9.46 92.81 33.8 ' 235 PF 3 707 118 121.32 121.03 O.OW513 7.99 89.49 3329 235 PF 4 531 118 120.83 120.55 0.007502 7.31 72.64 31.32 235 PF 5 197 118 719.37 119.37 0.01283 6.31 31.2 25.49 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 8 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer " Cherry Creektent map Plan: Plan 15 8/31 /2006 136-�` Cherry Proj ect '� Legend 134- _ .... WS PF 1 132. _ ,�. , , , - - � - � WS PF 2 v �30_ _ - - � �:�:. �� —r— o �� _ . ��,.�„�:��' '��,��,� ' m �.W �°"xv:�.�� _,� r�.. � W5 PF4 > 126- �,�K:.��`�. .�� „�. � . � � .,.�� .� � = � ; � �— � _ � �� . .� � ,� "�� ',: ��,�a � WS PF5 w 124- � � ,' �'�. � ��._� ._�. �— � _ . r ; . _- t � � . .� �„ � � Q-ourxi 122 � _ <: � 2 :: _ _ - t +K .. e. - � = LOB 120 � M; �, � . 118- . � , � , � , � � � , � � � , 0 200 400 600 800 Ma n Channel Distarioe (ft) Figure 3. Revised channel profile Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 9 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer �I I I I Ii �� . ' I �� , . y/y/y/��\ _�.e . . �If ' / \ . :_ . �` _\\ , r... �^/ \ 3�- ��i � _ ! y i��. ... ��j � : -=.�- � - c :: _-.-�: `� =- - � � �, � �� , .,., �� i�, � . ` _ .. . ,. � , _r�„ ; - i \� ,� / 1. �� , ., � _. il Y ��- ,I ..� � .=� �. _ ± '.i I.. � � . .a.. ' ..�._� .�. .. " -.. ' '.1. _____ .' .. -. .. ` � ._ � -� �. . .. . . '. . � . .' . . .. . � _ . � � ._� . � ...._... ..._.. , � �� : 5 1 .. I I �45 � > �� "' ., � I I . " I� '�- .ii .-- - _� I ��w. , . n i .., . 1 ., I I. � . :t T . . _..I �;i I �� h 1.. 29 ], � .. ,' ...... ��. . �a p � �- ,W li '_'"' " f '. _..:{ ........ . �`. I � . -_-� ; ..' a _ i_ . .i ... j 1 . ;:" ,.ii ' . 2 I � � � � � � . .I ,: .., i e ' ' - - _ I � i i. 1 i . ..._._ ' _-x- l _. �: � �J� ..=fiN� '�_ i � 'I' ��' , t3 �r 1, . . r 38 ��I .I " ,'� ', . _ � li `; '' ,' _ T , I .. � ! �_� r ' I i I a-� i9 II .� '_ ' 1] ! 1'� i_.. �� Y) � I ��,.I ` >�I � 1 � .. ��_�. -- �rl ' 4 ' 2' ..{}. . , :, ' - {j p 4 I ' I � Fr- �� 'r I. I� .. .{ .. � . Wg. � 3f �� _. '� .''{ ... ' �� .� � - / 1-t.:t4 �� j • . N _ -'. ,��. J. " I � � j; s �: w �`1 �'� . J .... � . I �! I 10 � � �t'J K I � � ��- � �_� Y I , � I.. '.. : ' f � �� , � � i s ' 'r •i ��•-` -� , I f' I 9 "Y_'t'-� YY. ` — I I � . 1 1' `i ; � _ I " 1 �� , i _ - - � I . ;: J � I; ,_�. � � � •- �,� � , � �: 2� . �J I /8 il .�.. : .,� � � �� { . ;> � � _ . s '� ;� � r �., � _ � ,.t,"_' . - - ... . _ . I' - �x � � �! � g �7 � _ 53 `i � ' ai. � i I _ J� 1.:1 v I �'i f y �I�� - -..-. . r .+I'' I r � . i - I� .l � I . ' '� , II �' F.. i '..— "Il. _ � ; .� --i .,. t ..� EAST CMERRY AVEI�U ..:: . �' . . � ,�._ �" �- _ �:- _i�� _�—��—�1� 3. . 00�� --_._ ` - li �r '- -- , _ _. — , ' - - ,I �I Figure 4. Revised channel project plot u i; i �I �I i Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 10 August 31, � 2006 � Keith V. Crowe, Consutting Engineer !� IJ � This channel is an improvement over the first channel because • The Flood leveis have been Iowered to a more acceptable tevel • The channel provides some flat bottom to work with • The velocities are slightly lower �II 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-foot right-of-way that will handie the maximum flow rate proposed by the city. I Some additional modifications that could be implemented to further 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 lhat can be constructed within the i available right-of-way i I � Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 11 August 31. , ,; 2006 " Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer �, i '' --- i Keith V. Crowe, P.E. Consulting Engineer , a member of: _., 'i , , . > , r��_.� September 1, 2006 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 "reporY' 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 �� i ATTACHMENT8 ' � �� J �~�' WALUCE GROUP, October 3, 2006 C:IIL E1'GINEL'rcIYG CUNSi2UC'flCh' MAN�GFM[N� LrtlJUSC.FE F,NCHITECTURE Ms. Kelly Heffernon City of Arroyo Grande �.+:cnnN�c,�. 214 East Branch Street enc„he�ninc Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 v,r,n�r,�r,c PJB:If,. W!iRK:: Subject: Tract 2207 Cherry Creek and Newsom Springs Drainage :�,��:�v�s-,nnor: i"JIIVEYI`:G : Dear Ms. Heffemon, si� so�unor:s v:A:ff� FESOUHCfS 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, ;:',';;,';,`;;'y;"sor, 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 probiems 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 staft, RCD staff, and representatives of the Cherry Creek and Dixon Ranch properties was held on September 19'b. 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 titi,,,�� ,�F �:a;:�„ A-4,due to impacts to Dixon Ranch. .:.:.:......:...:...:..... 2. A desire to extend the storm drains across the Dixon Ranch and other agricultural properties, with potential funding assistance by the RCD "" ""0t' " :��,_, ,,.s 3. A desire to increase the proposed pipe along Branch Mill Road to be ,;,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,�,,,, compatible with a forthcoming 250-300 cfs perimeter ditch. <.;,: �o��r.�;, ,;��, rers s+�t�<n;; ; Br5 Sae.<LEa , www.wa I lac e9�o u p.u s I Ms Kelly Heffernon October 3, 2006 Page 2 of 4 THE WALL/BERM , The wall / 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/berm would ailow 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 staff/RCD meeting) have the potential to eliminate the need for the wall/berm. PIPE ACROSS DIXON RANCH /AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES This concept was suggested by the RCD as an alternative to alignment C iacility 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 , muitiple 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 of facilities sized for a 100•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 100-year ilow 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. I � 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 slope 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 wouid 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 100-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, and/or 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 elevations from Tract 2207 at the drainage inlet to the stone culvert are ! flat. The slope therefore must be made up in the pipe underground. Also, 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 viabie 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/ siltation basin is determined feasible. 4. Enlarge the capacity of the Branch Miil 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 compatibie 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 Iowered further still. Based on a preliminary analysis, the 100-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: 7. The proposed drainage iacilities 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 100-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. i� Ms Kelly Heffemon October 3, 2006 Page 4 of 4 3. The main flow channel shall be designed to have a minimum of 12 inches of freeboard above the 100-year water surtace elevation. The channel shall be provided with a permanent erosion geotextile 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 we�re..eo� li I! Page 1 of 1 Kelly Heffernon From: Craig Campbell [CraigC@wallacegroup.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:14 PM iTo: 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 flooding � • Capacity of existing stone culvert = 100 cfs, approximately 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. . Total 100-year flow uncontrolled andlor 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 100-year storm, it is estimated that 284 cfs would cross the over Branch Mill Road and cause flooding downstream in that direction. • In a 100-year storm, it is estimated that 490 cfs would cross into the Tract 2207 collection ditch and be controlled by the new facilities. . Total 100-year flow uncontrolled and/or causing flooding: 284 cfs Let me know if this helps or if you need more information. Craig Campbe�i, PE i J �I — �� .__ 10/5/2006 � --, , ATTACHMENT 9 � ` �avi� Wo�{� �nvironmenta� �'�' �- • -- -'�, �'"' " . cc�.�... : , - P.O. Box 6552 Los Osos, CA 93412 �E�N'o�(1��(J� 805.235.5223 805.528.3504 FAX DATe August 21, 2006 To: Kelly Heffernon, City of Arroyo Grande FROM: David Wolff Sus.�ecr: CEQA Compliance and the California Department of Fish and Game Section 1600 et, seq. Streambed Alteration Agreement Program Kelly, This memorandum follows the July 18, 2006 City of Arroyo Grende Pianning Commission meeting on the Cherry Geek project. At that meeting, two Commissioners stated as one reason in recommending to City Council 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 informadon to support this position. Fsh and Game Code Section 1602(a)(1)(D) states that a notification shall include a copy of�n (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 includes the following information on CEQA compliance (I have added bold and under�ine 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 Alteratton Agreement7 Yes. The Department must compty with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)(Pub. Resources Code, §21000, et seq.) before it may issue a final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. Issuance of a final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement occurs aKer the Department receives a d�aft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from the applicant and the Department signs it. In many instances, the Deparfment will receive a signed draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from an applicant beiore the lead agency has fully complied with CEQA. In those instances, the Department must wait for the lead agency to fully cwnply with CEQA before it may sign the draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, thereby making it final. i '! Biological Resources Analysis, Planning &Monitoring oavid@�icwenvironmentaLcom i Regulatory Compliance Spetialist www.dkwenvironmental.com I I I, Cherry Creek CDFG SAA CEQA Memo Page 2 of 2 pa��d wolff Environmental Under CEQA, the"lead agency" is the local or state govemmental agency that has the principal � responsibility for carrying out or approving the activity.All other local or state agencies with discretionary approvai authority are"responsible agencies." The lead aqencv must detertnine first whether the activity is exempt from CEQA. If the ' activity is not exempt the lead apencv must arepare an environmental document which , will be a neqative declaration a mitigated neqative declaration or an environmental impact renort.A lead agency is entitled to recover ail of its CE(�A-related costs from the � ! applicant. If the Departrnent acts as the lead agency for the activity your draft agreement covers, it will instruct you to submit an initial deposit to cover its initiai CEQA-related costs. The deposit and any further CEQA-reiated 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 a�document prepared by the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, if one already has been prepared. You must aiso 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, uniess the activiry is exempt ' from the fee. if the lead agency prepares a negative or mitigated negative declara6on, the fee is $1,250. If the lead agency prepares an environmental impact report, the fee is$850. For a detailed explanaHon of CEQA,you should consult the statute ftself,the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) that implement CEQA, and CE�A handbooks and guides. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines are available at www.ceres.ca.qov/�lanninq. Furthermore, it is my experience that CDFG accepts lead agency findings that a projed 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 Categoricai Exempt under CEQA. In summary, the Fish and Game Code provides for CEQA exemptions or�ny CEQA document from a lead agency to satisfy the CDFG CEQA requirements. In practice, many forms of environmentai documents have been submitted, accepted, or determined by the CDFG to satisfy CEQA compliance that include EIRs, Negative and Midgated 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. �� - I I Biological Resources Analysis, Planning&Monitoring oavid@oicwenvironmentaLcom ��I Regulatory Compliance Specialist www.dkwendronmental.mm -- - - - - � � TRIP GENERATION RATES Daiiy AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour � Trio °/,of °.,oi Land Use Type Rate To!al Daily Trips In Out Totai Daily Trps In Oul Single Pamily Detached Housing tp O.d 8°5 70% 70% 1.0 10'.6 JO;a 30% PROJECT TRIP GENERATION � AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour %cf '/,,of Daily Daily Daity Land Use Pro ect Size Tri 5 TOfal Tri s in Ont Tctal Tri s In Ou[ PROPOSEDPROJECT-Phasel To�ai Tnp Generation(All Lotsj 30 DU's 30G 24 8% 7 t7 30 10'.0 21 9 Ezislin Tri Generation 3 UU's 30 2 8% I 1 3 10°�0 2 1 Net New Trip Generahon 27 DU's 270 22 8°!< 6 16 27 t0"(o 19 d BALANCE OF SUBAREA BUILDOUT•Phasa 2 TotalTripGeneratian(Alilots) 26UU's 260 21 8% 6 �5 26 �O;o IS 8 Existin Tn Generalion 11 OUS 110 9 6°G 3 6 11 iC^4 8 ? Net New Trip Generanon 15 DU'S 15(7 i 12 8°.6- 3 9 75 �C?� f0 $ I TO7AL SUBAREA 6UILOOUT-Phase 1 +Phase 2 I Total Trip Generation(All Lots) 56 DU's 560 a5 8`.k 13 32 56 10/ 39 1 i , Exlstin Tri Generation 14 DU's /40 i1 8% 4 7 7< t0% �0 n Net New Tri Generation 42 DU's 420 I 34 8'/ 9 25 a2 10% 2c t 3 NoteS: 1. Trip generedon rates ob±ained from"San Diego Tr,p Generators', 7596. D � � D n 2 � m z � � 0 EXHIBIT 1 HIGG/NSASSOCIA7E5 e��arc REVISED PROJECTTRIPGENERATION TRIP GENERATION RATES Daily AM Peak Nour PM Peak Hcur Trip %of °io of land Use Type Rate Toiai Daily Trips in Out Total Daily Trips In Out Single Pamily Detached Housmg ?0 0.8 8°!� 3Q% 70`!o t 0 10Yn i0°'o 3G% TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON � Ori inal Pro osal Versus Revised Pro osal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hou� °.e of °Jo of ' Daily Oa�ly Daily � Land Use Pro ect Size Tri s Total Tri s In Out Total Trips In Out PROPOSED PROJECT (Net NewTrips:Phase 1) Original Proposal 36 DU's 360 28 8y 5 t5 36 70'/, 26 10 Revised Pro osal 27 DU's 270 72 8'= 6 'fi 27 �Olo 19 8 Difference -4 DU's -90 �6 7% -3 •3 -5 �0% -7 -2 BALANCE OF SUBAREA BUILDOUT (Net New Trips:Phase 2) Original Proposal 52 �U's 520 42 8°l0 13 25 52 10'/0 37 75 - Revised Pro osal 15 DU's i50 �2 8i� 3 9 75 1C% t0 5 �iHerence -37 DU's -37D -30 8% -10 -20 -37 10°/ �7 -i0 TOTAL SUBAREA BUILDOU7 (Net New T�ips: Pnase 1 +phase 2) Original Proposal 88 DU�s 68C 70 8'! 22 48 88 t6ib 64 24 Revised�Pro osal 42 DU's 420 34 8'.�, 5 25 42 1f°,�� 29 ?3 DiRerence -a6 OU's -a6C -36 8°%, -13 -23 -a6 t04-� -35 �1' Notes: 1. Trip generation rates obtained from"San Diego Tnp Generators". 79�36. EXHIBIT 2 HIGGINS ASSOC/ATES a.oearccorro��san TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON � ,..,�, ., � �..,,�::,.. ., , ,,,,., ...:,, __ _--- -�-p-� -_ _ __.../,V � . , ry✓ . � 'N , `, �- - , : ; ,- � ; , �- . f� �' �_ $ p y y �� :1 Y f � /r � ^ G ..� I /� : _. • n . �� ; _....� �� i r� O . , r �� ( j� ••.�•� .. u n �. .� e n c _ - y .e:C^r�q '� � +�arc. �. 'a�p �a r.v . S� rt . .. ..}......... ._. ' .. . .. . }..._..__ . . ..... _ ' V /• ... ., � / ., e 1 aa .- \ � ' __ : � �'- : I � " n \ .. i . ♦........._ 1 � ...._. �� % �......._.. � < v ✓..— � ! � � Y ✓+" . /� n ` / �` T ,_ls i'� � � .> 'A , ; `_ ' � � � - � �. ��\ a. o r� � a` !rn'I+.H4.:i * ' . .__ . . ...........__. 1` \ '- . q}r :i"� F.H�ancM1Fl. ! �y \ G q;%. 1 Z F• � �. .� I �iClSOn51. � lae Sl � n i. .e r�.u.:cr,,,.� 3 .._.._..................................."___. ___....� o F yC • � 4 ° J � �� I �� ..__..... G 2 '� L^ I W �� fairOaMSAve — � MMIeS�. ] n � /". �� u:: 0 3 PPOJECT SrtE � �~ 7 nl�nn St. 5 10 Total lob y o n _ �3]NelNewlob� lI ili a .... GM1emAro.:.......... fi :9m }Vl � } ,� EXHIBIT 3a• � � AM PEAK HOUR PHASE7PROJECT ''.I n ' TRIPASSIGNMENT Higgins Associatea . �TraRic Generated ey 27 Net New lots) � U n a�.��ma e a:e,�...u.��,,, �.,.e,�n� � . ,�.. u .: ��,,:. . ....._..._" "— __" ..... . _.._.... ......__.... . __ . ...."___—'_""' , 1, .� 1_ � , - \ , ,_ � i � ,, � ,-- r ,i ,- . � f . J...� <\ �> � `> a'l .l �p i �> � '� n r. o �. .. ._ .. n �� i V��!)a1.5 �5 \W�r.n'fll.n �6 '�+C".�r'.� N l.��.�. ��li } .. }� ._ .. ._._. ...............�.}....�.. � ................�.:_� !' � .\ , n .\ /• r .�` , � a r� v i� � , � ., �_. n , �� - o : 1 .— ; � ...._._ , r- I .., ..."_ ` . , `y ` <� � � 1 � � � .•./' < > c..-f � ? � '___ . ._... � r q -..` .. �. r: . ..�` n c n ral�d:4��e �. ^ ................._..___ n � I' � i ` � � y�.«y ' F Hranr�St. ' - '' �— o �:r , °. i ' �� !� Naison 5�. � IOC 5�. . nmzcr.�.,n 3 I .n .._ ..,____'�__................. " ' F w y ''I �. O 9 , % i '" 3 e' � � �-- 1 Fair Oaxe Ava � _ M�nie 5�. r , � fl� A ,7.� � € � r —� �'� I / �.. ' PNOJECTSIfE p .` � Allnntl, 5 JOTOlallola �• �� 3]NCtNawlola) 6 C�crtV�lve. . 6 :OR :Cx { t i{ ' �' � EXHIBIT 3b- i� PM PEAK HOUR ;i PHASE 1 PROJECT �� TRIP ASSIGNMENT . Higgins Associatea ....��.�.�„� �,.,,. (TreHic Generated By 27 Net New Lots) �--- - , 'N 1 p E.8ronch St. 70 70 Nelson St. Ide St. � 3 � � � � N N � C y � � a � T � 80 °i Myrtle St. Fair Oaks Av `-' 3 < 4 �y � � 10 � � Allen St 5 PROJECT SITE 30 Total Lols (27 Net New lots) 8 Cher Ave. 6 O 10 EXHIBIT 4- PHASE 1 PROJECT DAILY TRIP ASSIGNMENT Higgina Associates �..o�� tn:,,:;,,r r,:i„:+.u,,.,,;_>, (TfOffic Gene�aled By 27 N0t New LotS) s: F{.te�V .• C 1'sn'!H�Wn Ri `varMr'!/-_ / � ._.w......��. -- !' ......... ._..__ :..__ ....___... `- � J` )N .' ' ,• n u , „ ,, ..,_ , J � ; -- ; , � - , � �, �--- _ �. > ; �. �._. ; � , < ; y �_, � . f,— , f' 1 c .�f / '1 T ; 1 ; C.� � I ( + -� A J� � —� , C - i � - � � '�, v a e. n n �y .r �a u .,; ,x�.,' y . u Lwr.. c .s u�....� '___ ., ....._.____._ . .. }} —�_� ..._._`_.''_._. � .a .> � ♦ -'_� u va � � �/ '' " t'- : J �ii 1 i_�_ j 1 '`� t-._.... ... t, ',y a— ; � v �y ' , � v ✓. c ✓ n � _/ . .- A ".i.> % __' a•l i %n u > �� ` o ' 7 .y � � � '�v r r..n..cnc<, } _.___..—_.—_.__...._......_.._.....'IY..... '� L Arant.M1 S� � � � 2 ' `j_ � I � � NQI]9n$1. � `a IJe St. > �d im>WC�euy � ; ' v � � J C N � � O � 5 S N �j V � � MYnlnSt. 1 1 t— u �� r' y �\`> f. � _ � ,'I V Faiea�kaAV 3 �r /> d PXASEt : -�� / � PII¢n 51. S 26 iolU l06 "y ... u u IfSNefNewloul e _ GherN_AVe. „ 6 EXHIBIT 5a• 'j AM PEAK HOUR PHA5E 2 ,4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT � ,� Higgins Associales ...��•.:.�...�.,:.a.......,:,-,�� (Tralfie Generated By 15 Net New lo i1 q j � k P'arvr.�rtea'SC �% (l'�In:M1Vd�vn C.a.M.r.4T�'.<. i �: , ._ ........... . . •... ........ ....... .__.___ _ __ _.. . ...__._ , u o � \ •' �;.' p � � e� <a \ � i � �_ � .._ . ..,. ., � l a i � �j I � <—._ o „l I �., ._.._... e �,> � f.- . � v �- . � �%- � ' , ^ 1` ; _, <� T �> " " ' `l T �' T � _,,, . � � —�� ,a ,. � ;� q iulfic.cr�Gab �5 V�uo:Ai4r. 4+ Giwrn.:le�•rv . -. .... _.._ . ..... _._ . •A) '/��"� l' �' <� '�`> `_ � l .+ ; 1 j '�, <, : I 4 _ � f J / v 0 n n ..> � I �� > E --9 <� '� �? 5 ti . � u �' a : u L In li ..._._._ J' ' ` .�'^- p F Pranc�St �y 1 2 ✓ ( t� Nelnon St. ' o IAe 51. > �tl l�aM1CCne^/ 3 _.. .. �y /A/ N N �� C � J H 9 S�'' I �Y ( — C I } � � �^' ' 3 Mynle St. 3 � I,I �, fnir O+ke Av a 3 � � —' � I' � PHASE] '� ` , � A��51' S 36 Total Lob �� {15N<iNewLON� g ......._ChemAVe. . 6 I II I� E%HI81T 5b- PM PEAK HOUR PHASE 2 j� TRIP ASSIGNMENT �I Higgins Associates ,..,...,._.�.�..,,.....�...�� (TreHic Generated By 15 Net New Lots) ii � E.Branch St. 7 2 so Nelson St. Ide St. � 3 � A F , J N � C C O 9 N � � � 30 °—' Myrtle St. Fair Oaks Av � 3 t 4 r0� � 4 �� \`' �� PHASE 2 � Allen St 5 26 Totai Lots (15 Net New Lots) fu e Cher Ave. 6 izo EXHIBIT 6- PHASE 2 DAILY TRIP ASSIGNMENT Hiqgins nssoc�aros ,,.,., �;,,,,-<,r.,,.,i..,r.,n.n„„�:,,., (Tra�c Generated 8y 15 Net New Lots) i I II `i, � •.:�TliMii: C�i\��lY.n vA':H�.If�M10 I �1 # + .�r<n ��1 ' .... ..._...� . . . ........ . . . _ ..... .._.... . � /• ...... i . .\�.� � u i- \..� � I' ^ .. � ' u � J � �,_._. > „I � \„ ,- [ I Y . y ✓„ p V f.. 1 " �-- ; p :�� . F .f q �' T � I C > '1 (' G '--> l j � I �Y .. .� �Y eu o .�. « _ - Ara..NUA11Yn M f.dr�Y.r:Cl:nr!y H an �5 } . .. ... ...... ...:...___'_.'_�___ __. ._ ..._..... . . .'___.__.. __........_ 1•_.. . � `/� ,. - 1.._ '' ,: � .. \.._ < , - o � � e i � � �'� ) I � �_...._.. � : \ 4._._. � / \, e .. �q �� / y Y . � j . Q • . p J� ," / � n � — - c—' n n o—> `1 � �'� � o / —_� `'� � % � L �'V � � �y p u c li � i' �' fiaLUN:nn _._. . . " " ��_ � f PnnchS�. �1 ; �\ 1 l f' a II ,I T /' Nelaon 5�. i I_ • Ide 51. t Y. Ire'�i<(:!+Crry i •. I . . . ..._... I �. ___ _ ..._....................... ` y � V tl �. I I � E �� f— J Z y V �� Js 5 _ Myrtb5l. J � iairOaMSAV f ,i y 3 � —� � � / � VHASE 1�PHASE 2 p ..,� .. 1 Pllen5l. 5 56TobILal� • - (<¢NetNcw Leln� , I .,, a _ C�amAVe. __, 6 ' EXHIBIT la- �i� AM PEAK HOUR li , '�, . PHASE 1 +PHASE 2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT ��I Higgins Associates ..,.�.,._.,.....,,.�.,..., (TraHit Generated By d2 Net New LotS) �I �' 2� Z� � � � � � � o 0 0 ' Z E.Branch St. Nelson Si. Ide St. r 3 � s � ~ N N t u N � A y A � � � d Myrtle S[. Fair Oaks Av - L 3 a 3 PHASE 1 + pHASE 2 � Allen St. 56 Total Lots 5 (42 Net New Lots) $ Cher Ave. 6 EXHI8IT 7b- PM PEAK HOUR PHASE 1 + pHASE 2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT Hlgglns Associatas �,�-.o: ��a��<a�.r,,,,..,,.i,,;,,r., (Traffic Genereted By 42 Net New Lots} � � 2 E. Branch St ion i Nelson St. � Ide St. �, 3 � : � ' m y c � o O1 N � � `A � 110 T d Myrtle St. Fair Oaks Av L 3 4 �` � �— --- �•, 30 PHASE t + pHASE 2 - � All¢n SL 5 � 56 Total Lots (42 Net New Lots) 90 8 Cher Ave. 6 � i EXHIBIT 8- PHASE 1 + pHASE 2 DAILY TRIP ASSIGNMENT � (Traffic Genereted By 42 Net New Lots) I HigginsASSOCiates �..:,; r.��.::�.,i r.,:�:�,:.:.:.u:w�i,:,, I _ f ; -- -- -- ----- '--. . .- � -- - - - - -- - " - - - -- - -- - - - - - - --- �_._--- ---- - - - - � - - �--- - - - - - - ' - Alan Street Hourly Volumes 160 -; � '� I s � ' � �� f � � i �"y' � { _ . ; A '' x. �S t --�r �' f �-r x : i �YO : J'C 4 1.-; # K A { 2 . �'p fi �.I ' . l� r � ..H n$:� ilR..1 � :.1 4 Y.� 120 �� , , - � � , � . r � � ' J t � } ( 'h 'Y1 l � t . _ M t �QQ y . t I �x 1 X. i � ' X !� �` ' :4 1 � �: °i +A ' . • M ` ; , "„ : : , ----- ,-- kd __ _._' _ _U29/04 i p ' ' - - Avg Hourly Wee ay Vo ume i oo � � '.� 4 ��. � . "; K � � : � .,., .:ry ,_: x .i�. Ft5 � �I . ..___'_"._.._". ._. .... __. ___._ _ ..._. �.'•'� 2/5/04 � � � � e � , `+ ;"u c t r �E 60 ' z` tx �,� i, �� , ' � � � A ' ic�F �Kr l . r� � � � ` . _ : � 't 1 1 .^ sy . .€_ ' � ;;y * - �� s� $ 5 '�.,� �t � �g � � ..r x �e � ti 40 » , " � .,E.�u :.�: : a ,., � „r,;� , :�: r , ° ti.. � ZO ' y - ,.�s , � �� `' � i � j i� Ik �.� `„rv i � 0 . , .. . , . � � � . . , � . _ , . �� , . .� P� P� P� P� P� P� P� P� P� P� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� O� ^h '�j� bh 00 �h 'h0 bh 00 ^h ."�O Rh �O ^h n�0 �h �O ^h ,�j0 �5 , �`L' ^' `L' "�' �' co' '�' 0' ^O' ^'�' �r1.' h' "�' G' �j. �o' 0• p�' ^O• ^^• , . _ ___. ..____._.._ _._____.._ ..__.__...'___'...__ .. .__._ ........... __ . .._..._.__ ._.. _.... ...._____._ _.. _._..._ _.___. .. EXHIBIT 9- AVERAGE HOURLY WEEKDAY ; TRAFFIC VOLUME , ON ALAN STREET Higgins Associates I?20061G Jobs�050-10016-093W-0121CountsW-012-2C-HrVolumesd-C12-24-HNOiumes (East of Traffic Way} Cherry Avenue Hourly Volumes ' ` 300 -:x , ,. .: . , , , , t � r� = � � , m� : �i � r , '� t : �` �_ . ,� _ �..6 i - `�' - �. x " n �. ,e i � . 25� W � y _ � � _ � � , ' h. +' �', � .. � � 1E H 4 � ^/ y � � % I ��' `': "� . a � , -� a ��. G0o { 't�. : a t . y 5e + . �. _: J i�.:. '. .J. i , s �. ' .: ' d ; „f'"-��.. s . k ' -__'_ __._.. . .__....._._ _.._..... � I 1 Y ' � �. •F C ; " '• •� i � , � � Avg Hourly Weekday , � r ; 150 �` : z �, , � " '� ;, � , , ' Volume 1 /29I04 - r ; -�,., � , s- irv a :r ,� . i � ',:r� � ,Y � :�S .� [, � } . � ( � __._......_.. .. �...... . . __......__. _....._ ' 25 � 100 � .� _ :�� r _ ' spi :2 e �"�,du- � �� 'a f� e. i u' _ , tz � f' ; �i ,� .. : « -. � , '. ...� i e.i ' . �.Y f A � 9 � Y Z „ � � 50 � , � , � � :_7 r ,� �.,�,ra i t� § • �� "'`+- , O � .i � . ��r; . � .t ! . R' . �i�' . . , . . . . i � :t i:. � �. G G G G G G G G G G G G G G^ G^ C^ G Gn G^ G^ G^ G^ G^ G^ � . � QQQQQQQQQQQQ�L�J�LLLL�LLLLI.l1..L1..LLL1� . Q�O��QQ��d�d�� , ��Q��dQ��QO�� N�-NM�'�CS7t`o00�O�Nr-NMd' t.C)Cflt�-00�0�- � �� _... _. ..--_.... _. .. -- - - ----- _______ _.. _..._ _... ___ , ___ _ _. ._..---- _ __ _. _. EXHIBIT 10- AVERAGE HOURLY WEEKDAY � TRAFFIC VOLUME ON CHERRY AVENUE Higgins Associates 1:�200&\G Jobs�050-100�6-05344-C121Counts`A-012-24�HNOlumes4-012-24-HNolumes (East of Tre�c Way) ATTACHMENT 11 E pRR0�0 o �y � F �xCOnPoN�iEO 9= U m M .u�v�0.nn � C4�lFOP��P CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title 8 No. East Village Neighborhood Plan; NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 Cher Creek SCH#: 2006041025 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The proposed project could have a "Potentially Significant ImpacY' 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. � Aesthetics � Geology and Soils � Recreation � Agricultural Resources ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials �Transportation/Circulation. � Air Quality � Noise � Wastewater � Biological Resources ❑ Population/Housing � Water � Cultural Resources � Public Services/Utilities � Land Use DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation, the Environmental Coordinator finds that: ❑ 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 impacY' 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. ❑ 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. Kelly Heffemon Associate Planner 1/27/05• Amended: 3/20/06 6/27/O6, 9/01/O6, 9/25/06, 10/10/06 Prepared by(Print) Date Tim Carmel, Ci Attome D C� d � Reviewed by (Print) Signa Da City of Arroyo Grande,Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 1 Proiect Environmental Analvsis The City's environmental review process 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 staffs 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 East Branch Street 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 iwo 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 e�ension, 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 approximately 3,905 to 12,980 square feet. Four (4) lots are also proposed for the purpose of passive 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 this time. Currently, all of the residential properties are served by individual septic systems and the majority 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 ProjecY' 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, lnitial Study foi"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 � _ .. ` ; � %?-.:: '� . .: "'. . ;,�t,w. , .,, 'w«-y,s� �. _. e , t r y yH .� 5 :: .;n;�." .. �n .. �. y . .. $n. ,/�� i !� .ei„ ; �nR P � £& �; y�� i�"' .�� , Y . �4y i _ , m �, . .�,""i} n:m . � �g � Y Y �!y { L y �� 4 � . � 1k�1t � r` ` : y. • '�'+: .Yk �. ,� � Y ? . pYyFy�A� c T �,°'I��^"^!t�:. . x l' Avrri �, ' ,�. y �r '�' �} 'r ' . ! :. ... ...X �,� . """�. w ,�,-. � �. � ' -� y .,. a �w.�, .; ° : � �.:' �em&.�'. �: �,. .:� . . � .:. )t w...' :iSmVAY ��3(rr i : u3sSW4k � . ' l w„ .id �" +. �� v.. ��x �x... � .. � �. '� . ..: y.. m y S 4 m �� 4 .� �„ �;� � � � - �,.,. ^� � x C � ^Y..?�W� ,.�� : x �: . a . y.. `�"-*"�+#xa-. � .:�: ro '" r'� .w.. .. i . 4. ♦ ' �}y i ` ..n J.,.w.' . .e- � .. ^f"'^^*t s�. `x/ '. .. .,_ ".. ' �� ' �:: •• �, . .r. � •x '1 _ . v. •. �� 't„ . ... .Y g .. • ,n. .� .... .� m � , �yx� •-•� ...,�r/. . �*y' Y �� t � ":: . ., 3 ,. �4 �y ; �/y'1 , 3 1�" �. , � �X ��t �kzs" ;„n� �� : ,: �� \ti E.t�s.�}j� � i'�an � � e . .,e+g� l:�i.i' l tl�:Ei}t"t l I�EC:Ei ,_...il�» .. B. EXISTING SETTING LAND USE CATEGORY: Single-Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR-MD) with a Neighborhood Plan overlay. ZONING: Residential Rural (RR) I EXISTING USES: Low density residential development (14 homes on 22 acres) TOPOGRAPHY: Nearly level VEGETATION: Residential landscaping; walnut orchard; riparian forest PARCEL SIZE: Phase I: Nine (9) acres (4 existing parcels; 30 proposed parcels) Phase II: Thirteen (13) acres (12 existing parcels; no subdivision proposed) City of Anoyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 3 SURROUNDING LAND,USE CATEGORIES AND USES: North: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS); East: Agriculture (Ag); Commercial Agricultural undeveloped (Arroyo Grande Creek) Production South: Agricultural Preserve (AP); Commercial West: Single-Family Residential — Medium Agricultural Production 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 projech Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &willbe Impact Applicable mitigated a) Create an aesthetically incompatib/e � � � � site open to public view9 b) Infroduce a use wifhin a scenic view � � � � open to public view9 cJ Change the visual character of an � � � � area7 d) Create glare or night lighting that � � � � may affect surrounding areasl e) Impact unique geo/ogical or � � � � physical features? � Ofher � � � � 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 Arroyo Grande, lnitial 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; Police Dept. Timing: 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—CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit 2. AGRICULTURAL Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not RESOURCES Significant &willbe Impact Applicable mitigated - Will the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique � � � � Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural usel b) lnvolve other changes in the existing � � � � environmenf, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farm/and, to non- agricultural use? c) Conflict with existing zoning or � � � � Williamson Act program9 d) Other � � � � Setting. As described in the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Suroey, the soil type of the subject property is identified as predominantly Class II soils. The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan specifies 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. City of Arroyo Grande,Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 5 �� 1�� , I �, :��d �� c�� 1li/��hi� �� i�� =�`�°t�y� ��d� ��.. �.....�..�..� . �..� �...li... ¢ ..��._.�.. £ , �� w� �,� � . . .. , � v � ,y� � .:. � i� ,��,��*,�P'� � � � � �� f� � h � i £ � �,+'� Y ut '+ 'k C # t...:. . -.xL :�" L,(: � 1 � f "�� p(v.4 }, ".sq..� w - r �F�'�'9�.b4 vN �� ., _: ; �w t: �`k�.�{{`.�y � �r _ �'" � 3, x � § ��#'�.�` ,r; ��"�"�^'� ,�a��,��' � �,, x ,�'�� Project Site �,� � �,� � y �. �,�� ,��,� � x ` �* ��Mj'�" ��" � ; <� r �� ,��_ '�� 3;. � � � � , � � ,�— , ��-�� ` a � a,� x� � ��q��*�'��'," �'a��#h �� 'a� > � �p` ��.t�,� �� ..�'"+, r�'4`,a;�.�. "a��. s � � � � ,l�'.,q�" .�: . �.F e�d" t�. �' j �d .i , ",""`e."W,. f � ,�R cf� .' �..�,�,,� .,Sk�,�" , n � " �' �, i �p ;�s�' �.� �3- Un,; ,t � _ . �. � }, , -- s� :��•, �� <. ��'"F7 Li('� e'3.Y! GS�id'17c"JjC"C� ��C1 �.Ci�k..'ta� k � ^ .fs{,S� er t . nf �I�3� I ��e� 91 wna3� �v6fhan d4�s�� n � "�� ;� �rl�+j t1E �il'C�7}�:'9 �'`I'r.�{4{��.' ` '.�.:i•� E. $. ... ,..,... . .. ... � t s;:.. i t�3�s � a,..a� ..m-.-.�—....• ,.... ,... _ _,�.......w. � .......�.. »� �o».�»,�...,,.»�....»..1 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 (AP), whether or not in current agricultural productive use." The subject property (Subareas 1 and 2) has been committed to residential uses since the late 1800's and has been consistently zoned residential since the City established zoning. However, the cultivation of walnuts has occurred on approximately four (4) of the nine (9) acres of the Subarea 1 property since the 1940's. Although this property is not zoned Agriculture, the loss of prime soil in this unique situation is considered a significant impact requiring mitigation. Given the City's policy regarding the provision of a minimum 100—foot (100') wide Agricultural buffer around properties in agricultural production and the existing pattern of residential development on the Subarea 1 project site, it is reasonable to expect that approximately one (1) acre is viable for agricultural operations and subject to mitigation. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 6 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 Subarea 1 project area incorporates a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide buffer that complies with City Ordinance No. 550 (creation of Agricultural Preservation Overlay District). The proposed buffer includes a 60-80 foot 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 Subarea 1 project area adequately provides separation of uses that mitigates potential conflict by means of a 130-foot wide buffer that includes a 60-80 foot wide vegetative screen, a solid wall on the residential land use area and an exclusionary fence on the agricultural land use area. However, mitigation is necessary to compensate for the loss of approximately one (1) acre of prime soil on the Subarea 1 property. The following mitigation is necessary to mitigate impacts to Agricultural Resources to a less than significant level. MM 2.1: The City 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, 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: Developer; Real Estate Agent Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —CDD Timing: 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 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, PR&F (Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept.) Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit. MM 2.3: To mitigate for the loss of approximately one (1) acre of prime soil on the Subarea 1 property, the developer shall pay an in-lieu fee in the amount of$56,000. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 7 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit. 3. AIR QUALITY - Will the project: Potentiauy Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8�will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate any state or federal ambient � � � � air quality standard, or exceed air quality emission thresholds as estab/ished by County Air Pollution Contro/District(APCD)9 b) Expose any sensitive receptor to � � � � substantial air pollutant concentrations9 c) Create or subject individuals to � � � � objectionable odors? d) Be inconsistent with the District's � � � � C/ean Air Plan7 e) Other � � � � 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./day of emissions (emissions are defined as ROG, NOx, PM,o, SOx and CO). Projects having the potential to generate more than ten (10) Ibs./day of emissions may cause significant air quality impacts and are subject to on-site mitigation. 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,o 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 in non-attainment of the state standards for both ozone and PM,o. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 8 The major sources of PM,o 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. Sho�t-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 (PM,o) 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 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 shall 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. 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: 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. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 9 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 Califomia 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 outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxins Control Measure (ATCM) regulated under by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept., Building and Fire Department Timing: 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 3.74: Provide sodium streetlights. MM 3.15: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept., and Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 10 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not Will the pl'OjeCt: Significant &will be Impact Applicable i mitigated a) Resu/t in a/oss of unique or special � � � � status species or their habitats? b) Reduce the extent, diversity or � � � � quality of native or other important vegetation9 c) Impact wetland or riparian habitaf? � � � � d) Introduce barriers to movement of � � � � resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or factors that could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? e) Ofher � � � � 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 western 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 northern portion of the entire project is composed of an overstory of willow, cottonwood, and sycamore trees with an understory composed mostiy 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 8nd Game (CDFG) jurisdiction under Fish ' and Game Code Section 1600 et.seq. (Streambed Alteration Agreements) is typically the top of creek City of Arroyo Grande, lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 11 banks or the outside limits of �iparian 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 wetiand piants were observabie at the time. The Corps determined their jurisdiction over the Newsom 5prings drainage was limited to the realigned drainage ditch through the adjacent agricuiturai lands and remaining channel behind the existing residentiai development downstream of the "stone culvert° under Branch Mili Road at the turn in the road approximately %2 miie south of the project site. The Newsom Springs d�ainage downstream of the stone culvert runs behind the subdivision and through a series of culverts and open ditches through agricuiturai and deve�oped 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 seasonai aquatic resource values. Arroyo Grande Creek has known occurrences of the federally listed threatened stee�head South- Central California Ecologicaily Significant Unit (steelhead) and California red-Iegged frog (CRLF). The county stream gauge represents a partial barrier to steelhead movement but this fish has been observed upstream of the praject site. The CRLF is a highiy aquatic frog that would be mostly restricted to the creek and immediately adjacent riparian habitat. The southwestern pond turtie 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 couid be present at some time in Arroyo Grande Creek along the project reach. No other speciat-status species are expected to occur in the project area. Detailed water quality sampling and analysis studies were conducted for the County of 5an Luis Obispo Lopez Dam project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP} to identify any potential detrimentai water quality issues for the CRLF and steeihead that may occur as an existing condition in Arroyo Grande Creek. The following is excerpted from Section 3.4,5 of the February 2004 Fina� Draft HCP (the Final Draft HCP can be found on the foilowing website: www.slocountywater.org under "Lopez Water System") "A variety of water quality constituents affect habitat conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek, 5ome of these constituents are associated with naturatly occurring minerai deposits, and some are associated with agricultural spraying and fertilization, stormwater runoff from roadways, urbanization, recreationai activities, and other land-use practices. To provide reconnaissance- levei baseline information on water quality constituents within Arroyo Grande Creek, grab samples were coliected for chemical analysis by a certi�ed analytica� chemistry laboratory (Chromalab, inc.). During the first survey on July 28, 1999, water sampies were coliected from four locations along Arroyo Grande Creek: the concrete raceway immediately downstream of Lopez Dam {AGC-1), Cecchetti Road Bridge (AGG2}, Arroyo Grande (AGC-3), and Arroyo Grande Creek Lagoon {AGC-4; Figure 3-19}. The four sampling locations were se�ected to provide information on changes in water quality constituents within different reaches of Arroyo Grande Creek that may be affected by focai land-use practices. Citv o1 Anoyo Grande, fnFtia!Study for"Cherry C�eek" 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 5ectional diagram below of creek ouffall). 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. {�T�+itC t�tG[K NWK Tt St.i�B ...�(E�70P CN=CAC,[K NWK '. —i24 CULYERT TOP =—hi8 CULVER?lNVERt " 112.8 NIGMEST REOdRdEO FLOW � BOXt'�.YERT. �N� f' 8Y8TREAMfLhUfiE'.1886 �TE�T�� tOdt H10N WATER PWEV6NT�CiRAM� � .. � � 1tI01t 86i'fO70 4+TOM Ii1P�fUP StCil'B PROI'ECt1CN �.� City of Arroyo Grande,lnitial 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 and/or 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 orchard/grassland 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 exotiGinvasive 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"Cheiry Cieek" Page 14 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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 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. Responsible Party: Developer shall submit the plan to the City Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD and PR&F; CDFG Timeframe: 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: Developer shall submit the landscape plan to the City. The CC&Rs shall include a maintenance provision. Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD and PR&F Timeframe: 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 DepartmenYs 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. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 15 Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, PR&F Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, PR&F 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 from 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD Timeframe: 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 1S' to March 151, 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 15f and September 1S`, 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD Timeframe: 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 City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 16 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 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) wiil 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; Corps Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD; CDFG Timeframe: 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 City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 17 require a permit or authorization under the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. 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 CRLF in the form of a take permiUauthorization 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 permiUauthorization 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; USFWS Timeframe: 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 permiUauthorization 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 permiUauthorization 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 I continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on the steelhead to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD; NOAA Fisheries Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit I 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Potentiaily Impact can Insignificant Not Will the p/ojeCt: Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Disturb pre-historic resources? � � � � b) Disturb hisforic resources9 � � � � c) Disturb paleontological resourcesT � � � � d) Other � � � � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study foi"Cherry Creek" Page 18 - - — I Setting. The project is located in an area historically occupied by the Obispeno Chumash. The � Obispeno territory covered an area from Arroyo Grende 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 remain 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 be 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 CEQA 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 quali�ed 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 Development 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD, Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit for alterations to the residence 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Will the p�ojeCt: Significant 8 will be Impact Applicable mitigated aJ Result in exposure fo or production � � � � of unstable earth conditions, such as landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, ground failure, land subsidence or other similar hazards9 b) Be within a CA Dept. of Mines & � � � � Geology Earthquake Fault Zone? c) Result in soil erosion, topographic � � � � changes, and/oss of topsoil or unstab/e soil conditions from project-related improvements, such as vegetation removal, grading, excavation, or fillT d) Change rates of soil absorption, or � � � � amount or direcfion of surface runoff? e) Include structures located on � � � � expansive soi/s? � Change the drainage patterns where � � � � substantial on- or off-site sedimentation/erosion or flooding may occurT City of Anoyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 20 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Wlll the pl'OjeCt: Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated g) Involve activities within the 100-year � � � � flood zone? h) Be inconsistent with the goa/s and � � � � policies of the Counfy's Safety Element relating to Geologic and Seismic Hazards9 i) Preclude the future extraction of � � � � valuable mineral resourcesl j) Other � � � � 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 100-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 Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 21 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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 hydrologist. 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 e�ent 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, Initial 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —CDD, Public Works Dept.; Consulting biologist and hydrogeologist ' Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 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 culveRs 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: Developer; City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to approval of improvement plans City of Arroyo Grande,lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 23 7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not MATERIALS - Will the ro'ect: Significant &will be Impact Applicable P 1 mitigated a) Result in a risk of explosion or � � � � release of hazardous substances (e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation) or exposure of peop/e to hazardous subsfances? b) Interfere with an emergency � � � � response or evacuation plan7 c) Expose people to safety risk � � � � associated with aiiport flight pattern? d) Increase fire hazard risk or expose � � � � , people or structures to high fire hazard conditions9 e) Create any other health hazard or � � � � potentia/hazardl � Other � � � � ' 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: Poteot�auy Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated ' a) Expose people to noise levels that � � � � exceed the City's Noise Element thresholds? b) Generate increases in the ambient � � � � noise levels for adjoining areas? c) Expose people to severe noise or � � � � vibration9 d) Other � � � � Setting. Existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by vehicular traffic and adjacent agricultural operations. City of Arroyo Grande, lnitial 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:OOAM 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During construction J. POPULATION/HOUSING - Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not Will the project: Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Induce substantial growth in an area � � � � either directly or indirecfly(e.g., fhrough projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b) Disp/ace existing housing or people, � � � � requiring construction of replacement housing elsewhere7 c) Create the need for substantial new � � � � housing in the areal d) Use substantial amount of fuel or energy? � � � � e) Other � � � � 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. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 25 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 Element, residential subdivisions and mixed-use projects are required to restrict 10°/a 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD, City Attorney Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map 10. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES - Potentia��y Impactcan 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 following areas: a) Fire protectionl � � � � b) Police protectionT � � � � , c) Schoo/s? � � � � d) Roadsl � � � � e) Solid Wastes7 � � � � g) Other � � � � 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 City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 26 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. , 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 projecYs 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; Lucia Mar Unified School District ' Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &will be Impact Applicable 11. RECREATION - will the project: m�t�9ated a) Increase the use or demand for parks � � � � or other recreation opportunities? b) Affect the access to trails, parks or � � � � other recreation opportunities? c) Other � � � � 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 projecYs 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; PR&F Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit City of Ar�oyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 27 12. TRANSPORTATION/ Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &will be Impact Applicable CIRCULATION - Will the project: mitigated a) Increase vehicle trips to /ocal or � � � � areawide circulation system? b) Reduce existing "Levels of Service" � � � � on public roadway(s)1 c) Create unsafe conditions on public � � � � roadways(e.g., limited access, design features, sight distance)? d) Provide for adequate emergency � � � � accessT e) Result in inadequate parking � � � � capacity? � Result in inadequate internal traffic � � � � circulationT g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, � � � � , or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian access, bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)T h) Resu/t in a change in air traKic � � � � ' pattems that may result in subsfantial safety risks9 i) Other � � � � 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 tra�c 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 City of Arroyo Grende,lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 28 (LOS) "C" or better under project conditions. In reviewing the revised intersection design for East 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 tra�c-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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map 13. WASTEWATER- Wil/ the Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not pl'OjeCt: Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate waste discharge requirements � � � � for wastewater systems7 b) Change the quality of surface or � � � � ground water(e.g., nitrogen-loading, daylighting)? c) Adversely affect community � � � � � wastewaterservice providerl d) Other � � � � 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. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 29 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, 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 projecYs 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.2: The developer shall pay the City's sewer hookup and SSLOCSD impact fees. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map 14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not QUALITY - Will the p►'o'ect: Significant &w�u ne Impact Applicable 1 mitigated a) Vio/ate any water quality standards7 � � � � b) Discharge into surface waters or � � � � otherwise alter surface water quality (e.g., turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.)1 c) Change the quality of groundwater � � � � � (e.g., saltwater intrusion, nitrogen- loading, etc.)9 � d) Change the quantity or movement of � � � � available surface or ground wate�'I e) Adversely affect water supplyl � � � � � Other � � � � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial 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 runoff crosses the western edge of the site through a drainage easement along the adjacent residences 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 '/z mile south of the 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 100-year storm runoff in upstream detention basins to ameliorate the localized flooding problems at the 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 benefit. 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 applicant. Final 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 source. 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 prioritized 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 impermeable 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 the stone culvert and enter the site through a culvert under a raised Eest 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 hazard of existing residences. As discussed in the Biological Resources Section 4 above, localized runoff from the hillsides and developed lands would continue � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 31 providing fiow to the existing Newsom Springs drainage pattern downstream of the stone cuivert. As such, the diversion of flows at the stone culuert through the project site wouid not resuit in a substantiai change in the quantity or movement of a�ailabie surface water given the low values of the aquatic �esources along this lower reach of drainage. The project is designed for stormwater runoff from aii but three lots to drain into the bio swale before discharging through the Arroyo Grande Creek outfail. Runoff from the three lots (21, 22, & 23} wouid surface sheet flow to the creek through the vegetated 25-foot setback. As discussed in the Biology Section 4.Q, under existing conditions there does not appear to be an existing water quality probiem in Arcoyo Grande Creek as no consistent pattern was observed in water quaiity constituents detrimental to aquatic life at the sampie locations, The reconnaissance-level baseline water quality surveys conducted for the Lopez Dam Nabitat Conservation Plan indicated that water quaiity conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitabie habitat for stee�head, red-legged frogs, and other aquatic resources. Given that the project is designed to resoive localized flood hazard from project and regionai drainage, use a bio swale approach which is a widely accepted measure for water quality benefits, and that the project wou�d not contribute substantialiy to the existing conditions where there is not an identified water quaiity probiem for aquatic resources in Arroyo Grande Creek, water quality impacts from proposed project buiid out would be considered a less-than-significant impact. (See aiso MM 6.4, which requires ail project stormwater not passed through the dioswales to pass through an in line storm water system prior to discharging into the creek}. MitigationlConclusion. Potentialiy significant impacts from soii erosion and an increase in sediment and turbidity to Arroyo Grande Creek couid resuit from project grading and canstruction. Potentiaily 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 appiicant shaii submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to abtain a State Water Resources Controi Board General Construction Storm Water Permit, This shali include preparation and submittai to the RWQCB of a City- approved Storm Water Poilution Prevention Pian (SWPPP) and Erosion Controi Pian that specifies the imptementation of Best Management Practices to avoid and minimize water quality impacts as required by the Regionai Water Quality Controi Board (RWQCB). At a minimum, the SWPP and Erosion Gontrol Plan shaii inciude: • 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. Aii vehicle parking, routine equipment maintenance, fueling, minor repair, etc., and soii and material stockpile, shaii be done oniy in the designated staging aeea. • Major vehiclelequipment maintenance, repair, and equipment washing shali be pertormed aff site. • A wet and dry spiil clean up pian that specifies reporting requirements and immediate ciean up to ensure no residuai soii, surface water or groundwater contamination would remain after cfean up. • Erosion control and bank stabilization measures for instailation of the stormwater outfall cuive�ts 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 apprapriate containment or reuse practices. • A temporary and excess fiil stockpile and dispasal plan that e�sures that no detrimentai affects to receiving waters would resuit. ' �-��Grande, Mitia!Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 3Z • Required site preparation and erosion control BMPs for any work that may need to be completed after October 15. , Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timing: 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 projecYs 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 I I 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 14.2: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 14.3: The project shall install best available technology for low-flow toilets, showerheads and hot water recirculation systems. � Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—Building Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 14.4: The final landscape plan shall show low-water use/drought resistant species and drip irrigation systems rather than spray irrigation systems. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 14.5: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit , MM 14.6: 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: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit ' City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 34 i I , 15. LAND USE - Will the project: Inconsistent Potentially Consistent Not Inconsistent Applicable a) Be potentially inconsistent with land � � � � use, policy/regulation (e.g., General Plan, Development Code), adopted to avoid or mitigate for environmental effectsl b) Be potentially inconsistent with any � � � � habitat or community conservation planT c) Be pofentially inconsisfent with � � � � adopted agency environmental plans or policies with jurisdiction over the project? d) Be potentially incompatible with � � � � surrounding land uses? e) Other � � � � 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. Ciry of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 35 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not SIGNIFICANCE - Will the Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a �sh or wildlife population to drop be/ow self- sustaining/evels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered p/ant or animal or eliminate imporfant examples of the major periods of ', California history or prehistoryl ❑ � ❑ ❑ b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulafively 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) ❑ � ❑ ❑ c) Have environmenfal effecfs which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly9 ❑ ❑ � ❑ City of Arroyo Grande,lnitial Sfudy for"Cherry Creek" Page 36 Exhibit A- Initial Studv References and Aqencv 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 Aqency Response � County Public Works Department Verbal Response ❑ County Environmental Health Division � County Planning & Building & Fire Dept. "' � County Agricultural Commissioner's Office See Attachment B � Air Pollution Control District See Attachment C � Regional Water Quality Control Board No Response � CA Department of Fish and Game No Response ❑ CA Department of Forestry ❑ CA Department of Transportation � US Army Corps of Engineers See Attachment D � So. County Sanitation District See Attachment E ** `No commenY'or°No concerns"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 Anoyo 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 (on file in the Communitv Development Deqartment): A: Response from the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office B: Response from the Air Pollution Control District C: Response from the US Army Corps of Engineers D: Response from the So. County Sanitation District E: 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 Yov 06 2006 4: 20PM LMUSD OFFICE of the SUPER [805] 481 -1398� i ATTACHMENT 12 '�'�._ � , Lucia: IVlar tlni�ed School Disfrict � ' """'� 602 Orchard Street e Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 ,. `� '�;"�o:•�r;, "�r -____,s---_�_ (805}4743000 ext1030 e Fax: (BOS)473-5594 ,.. :,: �,: � �-z ,_`-5 F��tS GTtAl!1'I;�� !. lYll?(�1�4, : .. ,. GItOYEIt BEAG� : ,: . . ;:OCEACI*(f};:' I'�52bIO$�A.CH.. Date: Novetuher 6, 2006 To: Dr. DeUorah Flores, Superintendent From: Kevin Baker, Director, Facilities•'blaintenance/€Jperations 5ubject: STAFF ItEPORT O.+I PROPOSED STM'LEY S'L'REET FOOT BRIDGE Background: At several meetings between the City of Arroyo Grande and the Lucia Mar U�ified Schooi District, ihe concep[ of a proposed foot bridge crossing to be constructed at the end of Stanley Road has been discussed. Althouoh this is only a conceptual plan at this time, City staff has asked for some input&om LMUSD sta£f on the proposi[ion. ' LMUSD staff and consultants visited the proposed site locatcd at the end of Stanley Road during the week o f October 30, 2006. R'e obse!ved an extreme overgro�vth of vegetadon at the proposed site. This vegetation would need to be cleared prior to conducting any type of visual observation for a clear ]ine of site. Tn addition to thc extreme overgro�vth, there are several enormous oak trees and pine trees that ere in the direct path of this proposed bridge. These trees r��ould need to be removed to make a suitxble clearing and the environmental. impact associated with the construction would likely have a significant negative impact on the creek habitat. If one looks due South &om Stanley Road across the creek,there are residential hornes that could be �ea[ly affected by opening up a fraflic way. These impacts and easements would need to be mitigated prior to a project of 6�is naiure. A(though we can not calculate'the costs, there is no doubt the costs cou(d be excessive. . District Concerus: One of the main concems for the District i's the increased unsupervised foot traffic onto the Paulding Midd]e School Campus. There are two sports Selds and a hockey rink directly north , of the creek and run approximately nine hundred feet along-the north bank. The students access these fields severdl times each day and adding a component such as tinmonitored public access directly onto a Wfiddle School from a remote part of campus is a major safety concern.There is also the possibility of students walking off campus by accessing this proposed bridge without permission. Current Situation: $ranch Street sen•es as the main thoroughfaze througfi historic Arro}ro Grande. There is cunently in place a histori c swineing bridge that�i�as originally built in 1875 by Newton Shor[, whose land was divided by Asroyo Grande Creek. In 1995, a tree fell onto the bridge damaging it beyond repair and it was re-constructed in 1995 and is still in use today. This foot bridge is approximately 171 feet in length and stands 40 feet abo��e the Cx�ek. This bridge is within '/,mile of the proposed Stanley location. The access to this bridge is from Short Street in the village of Arroyo Grande. No� 06 2006 4: 20PM LMUSD OFFICE of the SUPER (805] 481 -1398 � p. 3 Memo re: STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED STANLEY STREET FOOT BRIDGE 6 November 2006 Page 2 Recommendatiou: At this time, ska,fj lias not presented[his conceptual proposal to the board and has ouly cor:ducted an ir.i[ial review of th;s idea. Ho�vever, after looking at both the environmental impacts an3 student safety concems for this project,�ve do not support the idea of a bridge at the end of Stanley Road. The damagc to the environment fro�n the construction alone would have negative consequences to thc creek habitat as well as the tree clearing that would need to done. In addition,the possible compromise in student safety from added foot traf£c would hecome a liability for the schoo] district. A more in-depth review would he recommended, if the City wishes to pursue this matter further_ 1 Colleen Titus Martin 855 Olive Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-489-2764 colleeentittismartin(�sbcglobal.net November 9, 2006 Dear Mayor and City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande: Thank you for your service to our City. I object that the Cherry Creek Proposed development is on the Agenda for November i4, 2006,just one week after the Planning Commission meeting. By I rushing this item, the Council has detoured from the normal planning process by not even including approved minutes from the Planning Commission Public Hearing on this item from November �, 2006. With the Friday Veteran's holiday and City Hall closing, this has been exceptionally RUSHED! After the October io, 2006 City Council, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was resent to the State Clearinghouse for review by various agencies. You should not proceed without these responses. � If the City Council is going to be the lead citizen body to study and inspect the � documents for the Cherry Creek application, then I expect the Council to go through the application page-by-page, line-by-line, as they have recent projects. I concur that there is volumes of materials; however, our Ciry demands and deserves your stewardship and scrutiny. Respectfully, Colleen Martin I Attached: Comments to Planning Commission Staff Report as City Council Staff Report is unavailable. z November 7, 2006 Comments on Staff Report for Cherry Creek Application Submitted by: Colleen Martin • Please recommend that all lots except the moderate-income homes be at least 7200 sq. ft. That would allow for 24-26 total lots (More reasonable). WHO IS GOING TO ATTEND TO THE PROJECT- SPECIFIC DETAILS? There has been no discussion of set backs, building materials, road widths etc. • There are no minutes from the City Council of Oct 10, 2006 stating its directions to staff and the Planning Commission. o Minutes would show that the City Council did not walk through the MND page by page or mitigation measure by mitigation measure. There was never any mention such as "Hey, look at MM 3.2 ,or page 23 says..." o The Mayor asked that the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting be very structured; it wasn't. o The City Council did not discuss details of the Neighborhood Plan o There was no vote to commit to the ownership of East Cherry. o No vote to commit to the extension of the Ag buffer through Sub area 2 • There are no responses from agencies for recirculated MND yet. 30 days has not expired. This is not the way the City of Arroyo Grande should do business. We do our homework. We should follow the process we have established. • There will be no minutes from Planning Commission approved in time for the Nov 14t`' City Council Meeting. o This isa bad precedent the City is setting by not providing accurate and approved minutes before the items move through the process. o All along the problem of transparency and process has plagued this pfOf6Ct. (I want my appeal!) o Without the minutes the discussion's recollections are /eft to the interpretation of the Staff. (For instance, at last nighYs PC meeting, the City Manager dare suggested that the phase 2 of the Master Drainage plan could be implemented concurrently with the Cherry Creek bioswale phase. Is this overly optimistic thinking?) 3 • There are no "pedestrian paths intended for "passive recreational use" or any other "meandering pedestrian paths" in the project. The only meandering pathway is in the buffer and is a replacement for a standard sidewalk. It is currently proposed to be composed of DG instead of concrete. (Pg. 10) • If fences are erected bordering the bioswale, what will they be made of? Will the CC and R's dictate this? I can imagine now homeowners sitting our on their deck they built beyond their property line enjoying the bioswale they have now irrigated. People will either construct privacy fencing or they will extend their backyards into the bioswale. (Check out the homes along Los Olivos or the Creek at Bolsa Chica Mobile Estates) • The emergency access road should be at least 36 feet the same as the interior streets as it is going to be an interior street if Phase 2 is developed. (Correction page 4 Staff Report) • Just because the developer is providing single story homes does not mean we should increase impermeable surfaces in the project. P/ease no deviation from lot coverage. • Because the development will allow secondary units, the traffic impacts could be more what the traffic engineers projected. Couldn't simple traffic improvements such as the following be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval: o Disallow parking on Traffic Way from East Cherry north to Heacock Welding driveway o Disallow parking adjacent the Dorfman ag land until the second driveway to the swim school. o Left hand turn lane from Traffic Way onto East Cherry There will be additional traffic on Myrtle and Garden! It will more than double the small streets usage although it will be less than an LOS C) • Of the total 30 lots, 15 are under the 7,200 square feet, of which 13 are roughly 6,000 sq. ft. and 2 are under 4,000 sq. ft. (WE HAVE ALREADY UPZONED THI S FROM 1 UNI T PER ACRE— THI S I S TOO DENSE PLEASE REQUIRE 7,200 SQ FT LOTS). • What kind of passive recreation are the planners/applicants thinking would occur in the open space? There is absolutely NO RECREATION. SPACE. 4 • Inordinate amount of monitoring is required: self monitoring, City monitoring, HOA Monitoring, but most of all the 5 year monitoring by a qualified biologist for the riparian corridor. Who will insure this occurs? Who's calendar will this be on to make sure it happens? o Keith Crowe comments should be taken to heart. Small watershed. o The 100-year storm can only be fully protected from when an additionai piping or plan is implemented as part of the Newsom Springs drainage plan. o This confirms that the drainage master plan is still a work in progress and is at best a plan evolving. o The bioswale is good for a "low flow" conditions. o The bioswale collection basin, as currently proposed, will never be 100% FULL. o The storm water run—off will be rushing down East Cherry toward Noguera way before the basin, at a higher elevation could ever maximize. • If you read Greg McGowan's report states that the creek set back area could possibly include the riparian corridor not just the top of bank. (Pg. 19) Commissioner Tait inquired about the line of environmentally sensitive areas outside the 25' setback, no definitive answer. • Regarding trees... The loss of trees also has to do with anything of height. Yes, K. Heffernon said all the walnut trees are going to be removed. What about the huge avocado tree? The palms? The tree behind the Peters property? The holiy oak? The trees adjacent the existing residences? That would allow for some height in the project. • Why hasn't the Vanderveer residence received much attention for its historical significance such as the Loomis Barn has. In a storm event, will the house foundation be too close to the bioswale? • WE HAVE LOST ANY SENSE OF TRANSITIONAL ZON/NG from the Village core to the rural land. Conditions of Approval: 7. Make sure the EIR from the Newsom Springs Drainage Plan is in, approved by the City Council, and that the bioswale et al fits into the EIR. � 5 � Absolutely no grading must occur, nor tree removal prior to the EIR consistency is approved. 40. Are you really going to sprinkler the Vanderveer home? Is the homeowner going to ask for a variance on this after the project is approved? I would rather have wider streets and not ask that this historic home be sprinklered. The only reason this is a Mitigation measure is to provide fire protection because the street widths are too narrow. We normally do not require sprinklering if the street widths are built to City Standards (40 feet wide). Check out the Traffic Commission minutes to see further discussion on this. 73. Does the City engineer believe the sewer system can handle this project? NEVER GET AN ANSWER TO THIS. 89.No mention of 5 foot landscaped parkway with street trees. No mention of which trees will not be removed. No mention of who is going to maintain the parkway, HOA, homeowner, City? 101 . How do we know this until the EIR and engineering come back? 106. There will be 284 cubic foot per second (cfs) that will flood the project until an additional project is completed (such as the 14 foot deep pipes under the Dixson farm) 111 . What's the story with the Noguera Easement? Will there be anything in writing to protect them from liability? Where is the written commitment from the City they will abandon this easement other than on the MAP? Please do not accept the pressure from the applicant and staff to finish this project. All the meetings in the last months have been rushed. The City Council Meeting on October 10th was rushed. DO NOT RUSH THIS PROJECT. Arroyo Grande does its homework, takes it time, and thinks their projects through. I am concerned about the process. Tonight not having the City Council minutes and they in turn not having your minutes is RUSHED AND TROUBLING. The majority voted for an EIR. Unless the details are in the staff report or conditions of approval or on the tentative tract map, there is NO GURANTEE that they will happen including saving the Stillwell home, changing the name of the street, not starting the grading until the EIR is certified etc.. Megan Bochum 823 Turquoise Drive Arroyo Grande CA 93420 805.474.6038 meganbochum@yahoo.com August 22, 2006 Dear Mayor Ferraza and City Council Members, I am writing to you as a resident homeowner in Zone 1/lA. 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 1/lA kiave recently voted on and accepted the levying of assessments to supply funding for the maintenance of the Los Berros Creek and Arroyo Graude Creek wittrin the zone. It is cleaz that many of the issues in this azea of the creek sysiem begin npstream: siltation,runoff, 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 wili be inadequate to accommodate the runoff from Newsom Springs. In addition,we must consider the added runoff created by the proposed Cherry Creek development. The amount of permeable land will decrease while the amount of runoff will increase. I quesrion whether a bioswale will allow enough time and physical space for sediment to drop out during storm events. I am concerned about the consequences to those downstream who continue to confront problems originating upstream. I urge you to remember those in Zone 1/lA who have come forth with community effort to work towazd a community goal. I request that any decisions you make concerning our creeks and adjacent development always consider the impact of the citizens downstream. I thank you in advance for your attention to tlus matter. Sincerely, Megan Bochum �� NOV Q 62�6 C�TY OF ARROYO GRqNDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Cherry Creek Nanci Parker Comments Planning Commission Development Code Amendment 06-003 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002 Planned Unit Development 04-002 1. PC(ICSYI'18I1 BC1f�EC: access over Arroyo Grande Creek It is vital that we keep idea of bridge viable for possible future access. � Provides safe valuable access across Airoyo Grande Creek for connection of east side AG to Village area ♦ Decreases pedestrian and bicycle traff c along East Branch. �1 Provides safe pedestrian access to school athletic fields. J Provides safe route for Paulding Sch6o1 students. � Decreases a.m. school traffic through Village on E. Branch&Crown Hill. Increases pedestrian h�affic for Paulding and Arroyo Grande High School students. � General Plan calls for sidewalks to every school for safety of the children. Sidewalks are not contiguous on Crown Hill,LMSD disallows student access for pedestrian use due to safery issues. ♦ GP pl l "Circulation constraints within the City" ' "Pedestrian, bike and other non-auto modes are poorly developed in the city. Design and planning for increased reliance on such alternative modes would contribute toward energy efficiency, more sustainable land use development patterns and better reflect existing circulation constraints." 2. Densi : v Cluster Development: GP LU12-3.7, Gov Code Sect. 65540 Due to numerous environmental constraints;with buffer requirements for creek and agriculture uses,this projects is superior as a cluster development. GP Rules for Clustering: �D Overall density not exceeded J Will not require greater level of public services ♦ More desirable and environmentally sensitive plan creating usable open space areas and preserves significant environmental features. �1 Compatible with surrounding azeas. RE�EI�� - Nov o"�;2QG'S CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNIN DEVELOPMEN7 1 I Cherry Creelc Nanci Parka Commeub Planning Commission � � TTansitlon: LU 11-2 "Require new development to create pleasing transitions , to surrounding development." Transition from high density areas to low density areas is important, but the concept of cluster development in this area of high environmental constraints is preferable. Transition of lot sizes as well as home sizes becomes more important. Placing the smaller affordable units within the project so that lot sizes on either end transist back to neighboring size lots would be an acceptable compromise considering the intensity of i environmental limitations. �1 Nogeura Place: Transition from one to two stories: Residents request one story units abutting Nogeura with equal or greater density. Lot I sizes are coruistant with Noguera on this side. i Phase 2 Residents: Ph 2 is currendy 2.5 units per acre. Several Ph 2 residents request similaz density in Ph 1 while retaining rural residentiat density in PH 2. Other lot owners plan to develop property in the future, increasing their density in Ph 2 area,t}us would provide the opportunity for both possibilides at later discussion. It would be I important not to decrease lot sizes under the 7200 on the Phase 2 side. Project places the larger 7200 sf lots against PH 2 end which creates transition to existing Rural Residential lot sizes of 7200sf and larger; and single story homes with consistent lot sizes adjacent to Nogeura. This establishes acceptable compromise of complyeng with the numerous emironmental corestraints of the property as well as providing for transition of derrsity with neighboring areas. � O�en Space: GP p. 22 LU 12-3.5 & LU 12-3.7 Require open space withiu urban residential portions of the city, emphasize preservadon of"natural landforms and vegetation" A Lot Sizes: Clustering lots in order to gain more open space, buffers, and other environmental benefits, often necessitates smaller lot sizes.Neighbors request preservation of current characteristics. LU 12-3.7 "Proposed lot sizes must be compatible with surrounding azeas:'Maintain open space, rural feel without encroaching on existing homes. �D Lot sizes neighboring azea are: Nogeura: 4.5 units/acre avg lot size 7200 Phase I 33 units/acre avg lot size 7200 Phase II 2.5 units/acre avg lot size varies greaUy 2 Chem Creelc Nanci Parker Commenb Pianning Commission 3. Circulation: 0 SeCOridaiV ACCess: A far superior and legitimate secondary access has now been provided though phase one and for arry future build-out of phase.l. Having two access routes thtough Phase 1 of the pmject is safer,provides better ttaftic flow, and also provides for Ph 2 azea if Ph 2 should later decide to build-out. o Myrtle Street Realignment: Realignment of Myrtle Street through to East Cherry creates needed access through the grid of the Village residential azea. This is a superior route through the Cherry project than the previous alignments. o Intersection of E. Cherry & Traffic Wav: Needs fi�rther study by the City. ♦ Currently designated level `C' (see Traffic Study). This study did not consider safety and delay time factors when completed in2004. When considering these factors, this is not a level `C'. Traffic numbers,delay times, as well as accidents have increased significantly within this one block area since the comer developed. ♦ Already a safety concern for residents,and student commuters. Many letters have been received rega;ding conditions on this corner. �D Since this intersecrion is already unsafe before pmject, it is imperative that the city address these concerns by doing a more adequate study and speak to these issues(see attachment of data regarding wamant for further study). 0 East Cherr�extension (Dirt East Cherrv�: Abandonment �D Although preferable for owners to be responsible for abandonment of E. Cherry extension, if this proves impossible,the City should consider taking responsibility of the abandonment and combine the two roads. This could become an unsafe situation and the area could instead be of better use. 3 Cherry Creek Nanci Parka Commeuts Planning Commission I ' 4. H1StOP1Ca� I1ri�laCtS: Vandeveer property � Realignment of Myrtle Road past historical Vanderveer home is extremely important and beneficial to retain visuai character of our historical sites, especially those within the Village area. The old plan segregated the Vandeveer home by creating a stone wall azound it. This made the property appeaz segregated from surrounding homes. The new plan desegregates the Sustorical home creating visual as well as lustorical availability. 5. Agricultural Impacts: Buffer 0 130 ft agricultural buffer is adequate to mitigate the impacts of the two land uses. It is imperative for a buffer to meet the following standards: ♦ To be scientifically and environmentally adequate. v'► To provide for the safety and welfare of adjacent residents to viable agricultural properry, while maintaining pmtection of the farmed agricultural land. �A Meet appmpriate standards of our General Plan,the County Agriculture Commission and consider advice provided from other communities and professionals who have some expertise in this azea. J � e 1�R��b�p�ro d�r�t�p�'�ro�e�ye�t��u�mg`went d, I?i�staqce;green sp��berm;and reolahon areas pmnd`ed are �-,�:�.��4� t..,x�r�s��°�'.�°�-��:�� ,�.. c�iucial�aspects"m help to d�muush the ampacts on both sides� R4"�'X""�i3f.'e^"��+'� *�� . g`�^ S-h!-. �"'"�"asaR�t'�#""stZ�'�*a". "aro�'`4 -x �commend auvmval o �th'e=�130�foot'bufferas bem��uate in �=��,x:,�� .��-��,� addressmft tt►ese°.concerns 0 Sub-azea 2: ♦ Providing for an agricultural buffer for Area 1 without addressing Area 2 is problematic. A few pmper[ies in Sub-area 2 would fall within a 130 ft. agricultural buffer zone. � Home sites currently located within the proposed buffer in Area 2 wili be given variances. How will an agricultural buffer affect impmvements? a If Area 2 is to be considered on its own merits, at a later time, it may ' come in piecemeal projects. 4 Chem Creek Nanci Parker Commeob Planning Commission Sub-Area 2 cont. a These are serious issues that affect the owners of Sub-Area 2, and would need to be addressed now if the Neighborhood Plan were to move forward as a whole. If Sub-Area(Phase 1) is to come forwazd separately, these issues will need to be readdressed when properties in Sub-Area come back for review. 6. Drainage• 0 Regional: As the City moves forwazd with the regional drainage plan to pmvide a permanent solution for the regional drainage problem,it is necessary to be specific with what will be addressed by the project and how it will connect with the new program. ' Before the pmject can be completed,it must be determined whether this is the appropriate site for the drainage. The following factors need to be addressed: a where the fmal drainage site will lie. ♦ How much water flow will be accommodated on this site. J Whether or not to close the"stone cutvert" and how much water flow would be needed through the culvert if it remains open. Appazently there is still debate with Army Corps about the culvert and how much if any drainage must remain flowing Uuough the current configuration behind the Coker property. J According to CEQA, stream alteration cannot occur without a full EIR if the course of a stream is aitered. v On site Drainage: �/ Bioswale maintenance needs must to be addressed by biologist, and 1'��H'3 written up in CCNR's. �D Determination must be made for who will be responsible for maintenance of bioswale and creek outfall. ♦ A plan must be considered for inspection of water flow to verify pollution and siltation aze not impacts of future run-off of drainage ��`y,� from project site into the Arroyo Grande Creek. i,� a�� ,,,;.,! �[`` '' " .'11 ,y �n �°�� ✓. y.t; � $ Chem Creek Commeuts Nanci Pmker Planning Commission 7. Neighborhood Plan: o4-oot o Addressing Neighborhood Plan in Two Phases: � GP LU2-7 [General Plan] Project subject to requirement to coordinate sh�eet,drainage, water, sewer,agricultural buffer, creek-side trail,and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or pazcel map. ♦ There is a case here for taking a partiai project on tlris NP designated area. It could be years before Sub-Area 2 is ready to make any changes, if at all, and that of course is their right. It would also be inappropriate to force the developers from Sub- . Area 1 to wait until the second area is ready to group together. Currently several homeowners are prepared to develop and several have no interest. Pazcels may ultimately need to come forward separately. a However, it is cleazly the recommendation of our general plan to provide tools for the build-out of the entire NP area to provide azea 2 with infrastructure and options to do so, whatever the future decisions are. For what we have now,pmvisions must be adequate to provide for density approved in the current GP. � �"��m��ures�ar�e�'no��„�,��_.�y�np�la�'�W�that�,;. .,: �o�,�,�o��been pmvided�for��ewei�'��, P°:��.�eS��°�r�a��4'��' C�nsideratio��re metto provide a smooth transihon stioW Phase'�°�2�tl�ide,to go"fo�`rwaid. 6 Cherry Creek Nanci Parker Commeub , PlanningCortunission Final Comments: I support the resolution of the Planning Commission recommending the City Council approve Dev Code Amend. 06-003, vesting tentative tract map 04-002, and the Planned Unit Dev. 04-002, for property located between East Cherry Avenue and myrtle Creek, applied for by Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC, and I support the proposal of the CC to bring in Phase 2 of the project separately... with the following changes: Conditions of Approval: Special Cond. #6 States "no new residential structures shall be allowed within the Agricultural Buffer area unless approved through the Conditional Use Permit process.° This statement needs to apply to Residential additions as well. COA Drainage: �1 101. "...and adequate cover." needs to be more specific. � 104. Box culvert under Myrtle needs to contain filtration system. � 113. add: "shall comply with all state, county and city ordinances and mitigations, and obtain any and all permits necessary. (This may seem unnecessary, as you would expect all appropriate agencies to be notified, but adding it in as a COA would remove any doubt. � 105. `The applicant shall extend a 72" storm drain line along Branch Mill Road to the existing stone culvert at Huebner Lane." This needs to state that it is subject to final outcome of Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Project. J 114. and other appropriate agencies. (Fish and Game, Army Corps, etc.) Mitigation Measures: MND If this project is being considered without Sub-Area 2, then the MND needs to either reflect that it pertains only to this project area, or it has to address Sub- Area 2 concems, especially with regards to the following: �D Agricultural buffer of 130 feet �D Drainage and how it might affect Sub-Area 2 a Traffic flow �l Creek buffer zoning � Cherry Creek Nanci Parker Comments I Ptanning Commissian The following changes need to be made to the MND as they apply to the project currently coming forward: a MM 1.1 additional measures: Ail lights facing creek will be shielded to prevent lighting glare from entering creek riparian areas. �i MM 4.3 change to read: Native riparian trees impacted outside the riparian zone can be shall be replaced...within the riparian setback area or incorporated into the development landscaping plan. �A MM 4.3 p. 25 (24) on rewrite, next to last paragraph reads "This would be considered a potentially significant impact." This needs to be marked as such under Biological Resources 4 a) on p. 11 � MM 4.3 p. 26 last impact paragraph 3 change all references of CRLF to Califomia Red Legged Frog. a MM 4.3 CCNR's to address continued maintenance of bioswale with regard to re-vegetation, sedimentation and water quality � monitoring: MM pertaining to �egional drainage issues could be premature and need to be addressed carefully. � MM 4.7, MM 4.8 both refer to agency permits or agreements for rerouting water from stone culvert. This rerouting of water seems to be a regional drainage issue, and therefor is predicated on the outcome of the Arroyo Grande City project. This needs to be stated. The project can only be conditioned to mitigate those things that are under its control. These MM are not mitigation measures but conditions of approval. �i MM 4.9 needs to be more spec�c. The measure refers to "the proposed project". It has to be assumed that this only pertains to ihe project site as it flows from iYs borders into the creek as drainage. The drainage flow to the project site is not part of this "proposed project", but part of the City Regional Drainage Plan and as such the project cannot be held responsible for its mitigations. This MM should make this clear. a MM 4.9 Spell out and shortened abbreviations CRLF (Califomia Red Legged Frog) on the mitigation measures at least once for clarification. 8 I Chem Crak Nanci Parker Comments Planning Commission a MM 4.10 see above in reference to clarity on "the proposed • project°jurisdiction. a MM 5.4 Vandeveer house. A new and separate MM should read that this historical property is subject to Village Design Guidelines for Historical Homes. 9 Cherry Creek Nanci Parker Traffic Report Comments Planning Commission Traffic Study East Village Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study July 16, 2004 Cannot be approved without the following update in information on East Cherry /Tr�c Way intersection: Traffic patterns reported do not consider corner of East Cherry/Trat�ic Way. Left turns onto Trattic Way from E. Cherry are not configured into study. LOS calculations aze inaccurate due to following conditions &concems: �D I.eft turn is highly unsafe considering on-ramp off- ramp flow from Hiway 101 high speed of travel onto Traffic Way J Lack of traffic signs or signals J Higki rate of tr�c accidents have increased sharply since development on corner. �1 Low visibility of right traffic view. Right side visual access poor,blocked by truck/suto parking & delivery from pool and welding. ♦ Cross-over of lazge potentia141ane traffic configuration on Traffic Way. J A safe left turn from E/Cherry to Traffic Way holds up traf�ic and increases wait. i East Cherry is a narrow 21ane road with dirt buffer pazking making going around stopped cazs impossible from cars from East Cherry onto Traffic as well as East bound cars huning into pool blocking incoming cars from Traffic Way. Traffic Study bases the LOS of this comer solelv on total peak hr. vehicular volume. Consider the following: Four wav stop sign based on Accident rate(safetv issuesl: Associated Transportation Engineers: according to stop sign warrant criteria contained in Traffic Manual.Calif. De�t. of Transportation, 1996 the following criteria that warrants a multiway stop installation; a "An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12-month period of a type susceptible or correction by a multiway stop installation." [#2, criteria multiway stop] page 1 �D In order to meet the partial stop si�warrant, the requirement is "on less nnportant road at its intersection with a main road where accident lustory justifies the placement of stop signs". ♦ Due to the nature of this intersection, computer data does not accurately reflect the situation. Unsafe conditions: make this particular intersection unsafe. This is reflected in the high rate of accidenu reported. �D Traffic approaching East Cherry from the leR off the freeway travel at high speeds without a stop. J Poor visibility from East Cherry due to trucks and cars parked along Traffic Way in front of the pool and welding shop. Tr�c from the right pull out only one shortened block from ttus intersection, making the decision to proceed with a left turn from E. Cherry based on spiit second timing, and is not safe. �D The combination of poor visibility from the right and the shortened distance from Oak Park intersection. a High speeds of travel off the freeway to intersection ♦ High tr�c volumes on Tra�c Way The following data was pmvided by the Arroyo Grande Police Dept. on the intersection of Trat�ic and East Cherry as well as the block before and block after(full informadon enclosed) Year Reported Accidents , 1992 1 1992 to 1997 15 average 3 /yeaz 2004 14 in one year alone an additional 4 more accidents reported in 2004 at Fair Oaks intersection Four wav stop based on vehicular volume: Hieeins Memorandum Feb-24-OS states the foilowing criteria for 4 way stop: �D A 30%decrease in values can be allowed if tra�c on the main street is over 45mph. �D Major street tr�c 300 average per hour over 8 hrs. Page 2 ♦ This figure can be dropped to 210 an hr if the percentile rule applies J Minor street traffic flow of 200 average per hour over 8 hrs. dropping to 140 cars avg. over 8 hrs with the percentage rule. ' �A E Cherry build-out tr�c will be 185 during the peak hours. Average over the 8 hrs was not studied. Four wav stop sig,n based on dela� My own studv: �! One yeaz ago on a Monday morning, I did a study on the average time it took to tum left onto Traffic Way during morning peak hours and came up with an average of 27 seconds. The surprising factor was that there _ there were only on average of 3 cars in the queue. The delay was on the speed of flow coming off the freeway, the numbers of vehicles coming from both d'uections as well as visibility to the right. It's not necessarily the number of cars, but all factors need to be considered at this intersection. 2000 Hi wav Capacitv Manual: "A vehicle may experience between a 15 and ; 25 second delay to operate at a level C for a two-way stop control. LOS "D"is 25 to 35 seconds delay." According to the staff report, the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Ave. will operate at a LOS "C" during PM peak hours at build-out, with an average delay of 18 seconds per vehicle. However,this only takes into consideration number of vehicles and not other factors. Omni Means Traffic Report p. 13 �1 For a 21ane collector street, between a 25 and a 35 sec. delay is "approaching unstable flow. This would be a LOS `D' according to the Reference Highway Capacity Manua12000. Daniel Takacs.Higgans and Assoc. � "T'he decision to install all-way stop controls or to signalize the intersection should be based on an engineering study that includes the analysis of vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle volumes, accidents and tuming conflicts as weli as criteria documents." �1 Although build-out will only add 22% increase in tr�c flow,this intersection already needs a study, based on the above information. This intersection may already meet criteria of 2 out of the 3 needed for an alternative, and it may meet the recommendations due to the dangerous pattems leading to delay and increase in accidents in ti�rning onto Traffic Way from East Cherry. Page 3 RECEIVEID � October 31, 2006 ��TY OF /��SF,OYO GRI�.!?^_ 06 tiOV -3 �;ii II� 35 City Council Members & Planning Commissioners City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Council Members and Commissioners: I My family owns the property at 835 East Cherry Lane. At this time we have no plans to develop our property, but want to protect the ability to do so in ttie future. � After a very lengthy and involved process the City of Arroyo Grande adopted its current Generai Plan only 5 years ago in October, 2001. That Plan calls for 4.5 lots per acre in the area around and including our property. I strongly oppose any move by the City that would reduce_that ratio. Furthermore, I can not see the logic in changing the zoning at Lierly Lane. ' The Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east, and the agricultural land to the south are the natural boundaries for zoning changes. Please remember these facts (the current General Plan and the existing natural boundaries) before rendering any decision on the future of our property and our neighbors' property. Sincerely, %f� ��. Mike Miner , c: � Yvu�j�►' Ci,� l�t�e�, ��u.`c��LaNh¢-v I Nov 02, '16 01:19p p,� i� . ' ��.CSlll�lle �'`d11S11111� To: (�o rYt m�5+-� �'�apmes+7` Fronr..SGtnw .� iCK'e,V15 G'rf.j o�$�r d Grw.d�. �"" PlOv`� �"l3-' S`f8'9 �' �oV.z ,a, 006 � w�on� �s h'�3-SS�ao � a� f.rn�vs.n;i !t'av_e.� �'l.:!`@�'6Le'Fy1�L�odme+�'t' CC: l�/'�-f/ /�GL✓�eP /� m•�. � � �Nl a..3 5LD �eso�.�- � �rnJSe!" f.l.I�d `.9 ha.�n ac.J� V`A�F?a n �'f S-Fi-i L� ❑Ur�eM x For Review ❑Pleese Canrt�ent ❑Pl�se Redv ❑Piease Reade . . �• . . . . . . . .. t�'- le � � at f s-Er i bc�f-�. � � _ �(� ,vFhT��7i �alssi"UJV --- . . '. � Cir�-�G�is.n.C'�i l ///Par� �N�''S _ Nov 02 06 01:19p p.2 November 2 2006 �� . NOV �� ?�r� TO: Planning Commission - Nov. 6, 2006 CITY OFARROYO GRANDE City Council Members - Nov. 14, 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMcNT City of Arroyo Grande RE: Creekside Development Mitigation Measure 2:3 As Co-Trustees of the Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve, we are pZeased to note that the City acknowledges the need to mitigate the loss of prime agricultural soils by the payment of $56,000 from the Craekside Estates developers for the loss of one (Ij acre .of prime soil within the development. We wauld hope this is an action that moves the City towards the adoption of a modified LESA model that better suits the unique situation of prime soils within the City of Arroyo Grande. A modified LESA modei would be an important tool in further mitigation of the loss of prime soils. While we support this m3t3gation move, we remain concerned that the drainage solution proposed thus far deals oniy with the tail end of the drainage problem. It daes not deal with the source of the water, nar the course the water will take be€ore it makes its way to the vegetated channel within the Creekside Estates Development. Therefore, we continue to urge the development of a comprehensive drainaga solution for the Nemsom Springs Drainage Project and the development of a cnodified LESA model for the City of Arroyo Grande. Sincerely, -�.�°-��.4..�,��:� yr�� .��.�� Sara L. Dickens, Co-Trustee Marianr►a McClanahan, Co-Trust� ee ~�� Gordon F. Dixson Trust Gordon F. Dixson Trust Dizson Ranch Ag Preserve Dixson Ranch Ag Preserve 3638 Blair Way 617 W. Ma2vern Torrance, CA 90505 Fullerton, CA 92832 cc: Neil Havlock San Luis Obispo Resource Conservation District i . � , __ - �. - OTIS S. PAGE JR. ' 606 MYR7ZE STREET � i ARROY80-RANDE jA 93420 RE�E��ED February l,2005 F EB D 1 2005 City of Arroyo Grande C11Y OF The Planning Commission ARROYO G�pE I COMMUNITY DEVELppMEM Subject: Creekside Estates iRespectFully,the following comments pertain to the subject: i 1—Ttie project is proposed to be located on land that is predominately Open Space that has excellent Prime Agricnitural 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 tLis land. To not do so is an obvious 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 afforda6le Lonses doesn't � make sense for the area. 6- The planned use of high density lots should be denied and the eaisting criteria of 7200 sq.foot lots should be the planned design criteria. My neighbors have participated 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,wLat ever that is,is unrealistic.That the project should mirror the eaisting high standards of the area,as eaemplified by the EIlsworth development, and not be an exception to it Respectfully, :-• / :� � � � � �� Feburary 1,2005 To Planning Commission Members Steven Adams City Manager Tun Brown Vice Chair Timothy J Carmel City Attorney John Keen Commissioner Rob Strong CDD Director Nanci Pazker Commissioner Doug Tait Commissioner .�- Chuck Fellows Commissioner Subject: The "Cherry Creek " Project Deaz Sirs: i I would like to express my support of this Project as this is the first plan that reasonably addresses the drainage issues. It appeazs to be sized coaectly and can be reasonably maintained. It provides a straight path from the Dixon Ranch to the Arroyo Crrande creek. This should provide a storm water path which will help flush the drainage I lines. It has been 30 yeazs 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 i 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. Yours l� J�� ! � � Larry Tumer 323 Noguera Place Arroyo Grande �ECEIVED Ft� � � 2005 C MMUN N p�� D �EIOP � . MENT � Arroyo Grande Community Development Department. Plannin� Commission � re: Cherry Creek Project Feb. 3, 2005 On Feb. 1 st I spoke with h•Ir. 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 possibi(ity of puttin� in either a street brid�e or a footbrid�e from Myrtle Street over to Stanley Rd. with a project we were currently lookin� at. He said someone had spoken with the school district about a year a�o, 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 su�gested it would be helpful to speak with the Lucia Mar School District Superintendent, Debra Flores. I wrote.down what Mr. Judd had to say and feft it mi�ht 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 brid�e 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 footbrid�e � 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 gan� members during school hours from the Myrtle Street neighborhood 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 concemed with the problems occurrin�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 durin� 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. - i Respectfully submitted, -�,-�; �� ' Nanci Parker � Planning Commissioner --- i . . - , Steven L. Andrews 465 Tanner Ln. Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420 (805) 489 8520 � � February 3`d, 2005. � To: Nanci Parker ' Planning Commission RE: CherryAve., and Myrtle St., Phase 9 and a/so Phase 2 Project. • � Re; TRAFFIC Dear NANCI; First, l wanf to fhank you for your keen observations, especially the mention of the Traffic Study. At the meeting on 2/01/05 it became clear fo myself, that the only traffic fix was to be a fhree way stop at: Cherry and Branch Mi!l Rd. That was a surprise, buf understanda6le, that fhe Tratfic impact on Cherry and Traffic Wy., was nof considered. Ormaybe it was considered, 1 am not sure. In fhis /etter, /once again whaf fo go on record, and express my feelings. The overal!project is a good one, and wi116e a assef to the City ofArroyo Grande, and fhe Village. l am not opposed fo the actua!site, the plan seems to fif the Neighborhood. My concerns have to do with Traffic congestion at : Cherry and Tratfic Wy. This intersection is already dangerous, and creafes Drivers to take much RJSK. At this intersection, we have mulfiple problems, 9. fast moving tratfic coming otf of the 909, they just don't slow down fo a safe speed. 2: a Driver on Cherry trying to furn left must be super cautious, and somefimes after waiting, is forced fo take a chance. 3. A row of vehicles often forms on Cherry, trying to get onfo Tratfic Wy. leading to the /ong wait, fhis being frustrating, and then /eads to bad judgment. 4. l do strong/y feel that the CITY may have liability. When you are aware of a hazard and yet pofenfially increase, l see possible litigation. . ` . The FIX; �� 1��'(/✓//✓� Tratfic wy., even fhough a main trave!street, is by no means up fo City standards. - The section between Traffic Wy., and PC Rai/road (the smal!side streef) is only two _ /anes, rvith NO PARKING. � Cherry Ln., needs to be made into a full on approved City Street, this means Curbs and Sidewalks on bofh sides, and YES parking on both sides. - �= � :; —- - ��: Now, politics enter fhe picture, 6ecause the Farm Field on fhe corner of Tratfic Wy _ and Cherry are still zoned ag, meaning the Farm operation isn't going to pay for the Curb and sidewalk improvements, a/so, fhe Farm isn't going to wanf 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 fhat the expense forall streef improvements, rvi!lbecome a � Cl7'Y expense, paid for by the ClTY. l realize that is a Big obstacle fo any change happening. Buf, on the ofher hand, do we have any otheroption. ? ' If, fhe CI oRwQ��d��o�the property owner of the Farm Land to Sa/e for development, � then all imprd m nt would be paid for by the Developer, costing fhe City z�Co, �ss . My feelings are fhat by leaving fhis properfy as ag has creafed fhis dilemma. _ No one wanfs to pay for the needed and actual/y up to code requiremenfs. Sq it puts a!1 in a bad p/ace, called boxed into a comer. 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 Sa/e and fhen a Development. This will save the City much expense on streef improvement. l have taken the LIBERTY of draffing a very rough (nof fo sca/e) and not accurate drawing of the Street improvements fhat/myself envision as 6eing correct. P/ease see the attached, a/so, I wou/d/ike to offer my feelings on fhis matter to the CITY Planning Commission, especially yourse/f, at any time thaf fifs schedule. I fee/strong enough thaf where ever, or whom ever wanfs to meet, I am available. Please don't hesifate to give me a Call. Thank You; l teve L. drews 489 8520 Home, /eave message is OK. \ � � PS; 1 frave no financial or polifical agenda, - --��` � as for the project at Myrtle and Cherry, it should gef the g�en light, it is not the builder or developers responsibility fo improve off site City streets. This is just a City issue fhat needs fo be addressed and resolved, before we have a injury accident. - >.t ,.- • �(6. '�: ��i �N�,, l�� A� __----- { � . . _. , ,_..----' � - � ��`� � y } , �� C � V" CvR t3;`� � _ ►M'� , ; � ` `Q�� =, � �� ` � _ _-:' �e�� _ � , �' , � �� -�� ' `� . //' ,I ��}'^ � _ � �qZ ,• t ' � r ,Cj . �j �"�.� '� __-- �,/� (f � � "> �� — G,.� %" . � �; � /''� � ' ,/ %� . , �� -- 5;�,dcv�sE{ - �:- , � ,�. '"�' i � , � � . . ./7-% . ":' ,'- i "% .!i � ._. i `;, � /� . ' .. � i, � _ !�_.._ r / �` , ' J � � �_'' � :' S��G ti f,t,f!C h- '� t % � C't�/�� `t' � '�,Q�, .` , `""' � :: � � Ci!fZFj �. '' ,-� . �. - ,,. `� '? v`_ . '� a .�� --� `L � ^ � � � _---�f� � �- '. �; �' � <z? �. . .. ��.: �. . � . .�� --�� - . 5 G-,! : �:�Q;.� . _ � �.. - � _ ;. . , � � .� ;�:�� fi , , � �-- �. S � ` :� � � �i � s q��_ :� ��;,,,.�.;�- . . . � �J � .,,. � -r -,:: � -�---� :�, � ... � � ..� }� .=- -- ::�:.. � '� . � � �.� �� ' " � � - - ^^^'��\,,, (`�, � 4 �j r /�.�11�E � r ' \ ' From: <LynnTAG@aol.com> To: <agcity@Arroyogrande.org> � Date: 2/17/2005 4:50:25 PM Subject: To the Planning Commission I know the drainage situation out our way (eranch Mill and Cfierry) has been studied and studied. I keep wondering why no one suggests that the water from , Newsom Springs isn't channeled in a straigiit line downhill path to the creek. That is what water wants to do--rather than making all those right angies. ' Maybe it is so simple 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. 1 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 ' ' � . ; . � � _ _ . . . : , . . I TO : PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY,OF ARROYO GRANDE I VIA: KELLY.HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER I - FROM: JIM DICKENS, 769 BRANCH MILL ROAD, ARROYO GRANDE SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007; NEIGHBORHOOD " P�AN 04-001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04- ��E� PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002 DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2005 FEB 2 2 2005 , CITY OF,qRROYO Gk,qNpE COMMUNITY DEVE�ppMEN" The following is an itemized response to the con6nued 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 residentia/lots on twenty-two (22) acres in fwo phases." Draft Negative Declaration (ND): Description—"Proposal by Creekside Esfates ofArroyo Grande, LLC fora Neighborhood Plan, Vesting Tenfative Map and Planned Unit Deve%pment to al/ow for ultimate development of eighfy-three ' (83) new residential lots 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 detail and additional pubiic review, Neiqhborhood Plan: The staff report fails to describe the Neighborhood Plan at a level of detail suffcient to facilitate meaningful public review and impact _ assessment. The Neighborhood Plan is.not adequately described, in part, 6ecause Ptiase II of the Plan has yet to be designed.' The public workshop conducted by the City this past Wednesday was an attempt to gather additionaF feedback in relation to: Land Use Plan; Circulation Plan; Fire (Emergency) � Access; Pubiic vs. Private Streets; Agricultural Buffer Width; Street Widths; Creek BufferSetback; and Pedestrian Bridge/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 Approvai and the Draft ND, to the City Council. Resolution: The Resolution before you states that"the proposed projecY' is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, program, intent, and requirements of the Ganerai 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 il in the USDA Naturai 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 15064J, that considers loss of prime , farmiand soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. The project site is situated.on a uniform strip of potential highiy productive "prime agricultural soil." This Class II(e) Mocho silty clay loam soii 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 anii p/ains adjacenf to the flood plains of coasfa/ � sfreams: !t has no limitations if farmed and is wel/suited for irrigated,vegetab/e c�ops and orchards." John Warrick, Agricu/tural Technician, SLOC Department of Agriculture, letter to Cify ofArroyo Grande, May 1, 9996. � As per the City's policy, the Negative Declaration, Agricuitural Resources, Will the project a) convertPrime agriculturalland 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 R�creation Element ' PR4 A network of recreational trails, bicycle lanes and bikeways should be established for use by locai residents and visitors to the Arroyo Grande.Valley. � . PR4-1 Trails should be located generally as shown in Figure PR-2. (See AttachmentB) �_ Z PR4-1.1 Review development proposais for consistency with this element and require easements, dedications, and improvements when necessary. � PR4-1.2 A regiorial 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 impiementation. 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) schoo!- . - aged children to the Lucia Mar Un�ed Schoo/District based on a student yield factor of 0.7, which wilP 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 recreationai activities on this site. � It is aiso 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 100 years ago. The Plan further fails to adequately provide for a regional recreational � trail along tiie 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 /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 alfematives or extensions, and/or other improvements ! to circulation and Transportation networks until cooperative i resolution of Element revisions and/or capital Improvement Programs. (See "study areas" on Circulation Element, Map 3, Attachment D) 3 - - - - - ' 4 ! As identified on the Circulation Map 3, the Neighborhood Plan is ` � 'i 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: , . , Neaative.Deciaration: � , 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-agricuitural 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 Agricuiture. If these alignments are to become part of the proposed Neighborhood Plan, the Draft ND 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 ND states; "The project adequately provides separation of uses that mitigates potential conflict by means of a 100-foot buffer...:.." The Draft ND 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'ND 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 Depertmenf would recommend that spec�c findings be made for why this particular buffer distance in combined , with the proposed additional measures are sufficienf to address the potenfial . � impacfs of this additional development" Finding.have not been made nor an' environmental review conducted concerning the buffer design (Phase i and Phase II o.f the Neighborhood Plan), a list of landscape materials to be used, a maintenance pian and timing for implementation. - Biological Resources: The Draft ND states,"The project site does not support any sensitive or special status native plants species regulated by the federal . and/orsfafe agencies." The "Project Site" consists of twenty-two (22) acres and . the ultimate development of eighty-three (83)"new residentiai lots. The Arroyo Grande Creek traverses the east portion of this Neighborhood'Plan and will undoubtedly fiave 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 weil 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) residential lots in Phase II will not have a post construction:adverse environmental impact on biological resources. The environmental review, I completed by the Morro Group, was only conducted on Phase I. This review is insufficient per CEQA. � The environmental review in relation to the.'Ywo 72-inch drainage pipes fhat � daylight at Arroyo Grande C�eek"(Draft ND, page 9J is vague. The final design has not been completed and thus difficuit 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 nof adequate. The Draft ND states, "According to the Report, fhe project may be subject to regulatory review of the Army corps of Engineers (ACOE).......the Regional Water.Quality Control8oard(RWQCB)...... the U.S. Fish and �ldlife Services (USFWS)........and fhe California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)': Negative DeclaraUons 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 Drainaae 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/Guaya Canyons", 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 Projecf, April'7, 9998) , The Newsom Springs drainage area has been the sutiject of much controversy and has been identified by the City as a problem area for well over thirty years. • � The City'§ D�ainage Master Plan lists the Newsom Springs Drainage Project as a "High Priority" capital improvement project and provides three project altemative alignments for public review and consideration. The construction altematives proposed to correct the historic flooding in this area consist of diverting all of the ' Newsom Springs runoff directly into Arroyo Grande Creek. As clepicted in the { 1909 Map (Attachment C), the seasonal creek, °Arroyo Yegua Flaca Y Las � ; Aquas Calienfes'; created from the Newsom Springs runoff is in the general j 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 hasyet to be adopted by the City. Furthermore, the staff report provides very little detail in regards to this regional drainage project, stifling meaningful public and environmental assessment. As 5 � per Condition 99, "the appficant 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 wouid 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 Froject, the outlet of these storm drains will require careful . construction. "Diverting the Newsom Springs Creek flow upstream of the stream gage will upsef 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 8 and C shouid include a recording sfream flow gage in order that the stream flow records may continue fo be sfatistically valid."(page 10) Given the current materiai 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 fo condition the applicant to instali a "stream flow gage" to calculate additional flows as a result of the regional drainage project. Althougfi the conceptuai 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 and/or operator of irrigated agriculture have in relation to storm water runoff flowing into the proposed drainage p�oject? 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 trave�se Branch Miil 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 G�ande Creek. These concerns are �eal ; and potentially problematic for the City, the agricultu�al operator, the public in genarat and the�vildlife living in the creek.. These concerns could be addressed through the establishment,of a detention basin within Newsom Canyon. Stormwater detention basins are specificaily� designed and engineered to �eceive and temporarily hoid 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 cah graduaily 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 deyelopment of - eighty-three (83) new residential lots based on.single family residential zoning. The Plan specifically identifies tlie proposed thirty-nine (39) lots.for Phase I of the Plan, yet fails to identify the location, piacement and circulation for the remaining forty-four (44) residential lot§. How many Oak Trees wil� 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 Deciaration? , Approval of this proposed Neighborhood Plan at this time, without sufficient detail and furtherpo�icy consideration, would be remiss. The Gity 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 appcoval would have resulted in a significant reduction in time and resources on the part of the City, the developer, and the community. It is fa� more productive to get it right the first time than to postpone challenges into the unforeseen future. As a result of the February 16�'1Norkshop, I'developed an.altemative conceptual Neighborhood Plan. (See Attachment E) This Plan is merely an attempt#o 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 irvithin the . proposed plan. . ` � � , � i . , 7 - - - - - - - - - - ' , . I. y��{ c ri'iNhpKt..,�"�cpaT�r . .. '4 . �L'�M1. �t �y` .4��1 qk �LA� x � �� 1 ,w ty. p+l� r�.+ 'M , �{ � ''� `s��'�y�,{C.. x4T� i1�rS�y�;�,v � 1�� , �F ` " .Y YY y Y ��y��fy�'�M1�2 P� �rTi1Kt'R 4 F�.A . Iyt;Fd�Y'J� F1 i�� 1 ` 1 ' � , .i •.� �'1},, '�A+�^ 47 t'�',�•y-��i< d~x��1. L�� . e. `r��i�y"i!m i�et :.R' � n l C+ �.+?� . A � � F.y�$�At� th d.' � �"�_ , r-r� � •� 'Su 4 �/. �(� \ �. . ,� �� r� t 5'W`u'S5t 4f y.11� � pY `� > d?> ' ,~i.�. Y >r. � ;t t�x,35 � ry%y'� />� „� ��,�(,* �„ ��t ' � , 3 �f J � \ �i� �` .•l$l� V'�(� � i1"„ I -''?�t�J 4 . �5+,� K x � �pY+N . y /' �". "a. Y' .�L y,�� ti n <� ,+�`t ( h4 x x !i4"i. Q � t� � y �?�j�" .f,.iti `� � � `. Y �.y�Y i 3Y.�7 � 'tl' y',�,iV"` Y x 1f( � f . 1�yi f��"Aklry� �jy�� +.�i'�s . ! ..� j��;. . �.^' . �' ,y �� r_.(�': � � ,��y" w�� yy�� C*6 �.-�; � ,• Kr. � l� • • ~,:�A }Ty{� ��i�� • •��t i � �t,tU 1L��V-".i� ..,:i. ' . t"' i w , . � R'F w. .A'R nS It}��'e+' �S . � �L }, �- 1 � � � O :P'1l � e ✓� � •, � ��1�>n qV�� 1 l�•17 r;� \ . �y�+� P . < �i�,}�Ay'�j� .� . OO• . / . � �1f�Y�-w4 a M1 �'V�.�a"�✓�� flf,`. }� . la 1 1°..�,��kl'��'�h�"`�.� • ' . O� ! ' � . h{�l. � .l �5�Me��Lu� r iwi .fwrrt x +-},� �,p�x� � 4 , k rv + ��ti� �.��Y. `y�� N� . A� 1� K Y I � ��` L YZ'Z �!Z�k)l l l � ry.b �'r 1 4'Cj� �. .y. O � � i A �l.. , . V .�� \ �YI�N �•' 4 t • ` ♦ � �, � �t '. •. � " '• � ��;a t t.:+*��y 3. ' ` La��' } i �.4 dwaw� ,��t . i • i * *�;1iz �, � . 1 a +s -x' 'til r�7 • a� ' � � . .°, �r 1 .��ff '.�i �"�.�"v.. is �� t s l�, .r '9:� '`�",y �.:� s �'hs r. .Y� ' . �' . },,"�ff�+. � � . a e � � ' � � i. <�' � . j,�YR+„h�v � eae � r �i�tt� i f . � i [�giy'�@� h�¢t�� y�M (� "�r� � - .-"4 . '��' �f.igl �' �F'�R '+��'ti 1� `� Y na'�j�lep'S�W�4� '��'�� .. � V� ..A � ,(4j � �o-''F7`�S"+r"� ��1. " �k Y nt�� f qsy"{�ia �• 'e t �ti� . w � �a "�Yrr�41t1 .� ru '&�� F , r � � �.'�a '�yv h^v�r,� `C'3:G'F..�,: "."�r... i . - p5j, K+�'_ � . , �. '"�fsrCy_t,.4 Sz,,, K� "e`cT t.,� k�� i `� + +�r .9� �.. • O � . h�k � � �'�H'a` ��w ,.�,,, { V$r9r,�,�.rytt* +�,ri ye,.q • . �. �y` C :FKit h3'�S`�1� i oc�,� id4�.�1 E � ,. .• (T � a t '/ a '. � 't,i Wa r.y�, en S< <` o 'a� ni ' 9�'}�'t l k ♦ `1�� n 5 ) \ .Y.'3n a 0. �'f d ^?". ` y„1 a�+ a�,, . `�i . ,�. '•.,.�NCC r�i w N,r s�i�. � ,. Y� ,li,�`^��,i.. .A;n��`F°G� .`:`' Ix� y�Y� ° q Sa ,y �', � �` .♦ C`j Ar.� y S�Y ,�v )'. 'Ar\ tkx ". �i w �.'Si1'�a'�A a� aici-�U.'!1}v �' ii'��`rw �i�'�7 1 �. • • Y�iy�}' Yf � ?' af a ti` ;v a4 ,r i '``,.� q.�� z� �°ahna^ ? n.p � Y �.��.r+" � . Q� d' 1 � a '�I � � � i ' ru r ��.�ti. ��'< �li:R l �wT .1`j 1 y�7 4' + c ' s • �I � - S;� � h . � . ..�pv.n. r v � ax'`y..�'��t �A�°-09 , 'j .. n •� ' .�.(11a �� i �.'�; . � 4 �''„�+•iK'� � . � K!1 Nt '^ � ?J l� {t �+. ^ti�W � ' Yi. r r°y:i� � a 'Y��. �n^�v . .� �2�" ,rv;ti�, �. �Yr. �+��,�"{'( �.?X� �„MN� Yn a'N �`: } y�, � t` i't' .� ./"l..�K� ♦ n r a t ,�� S (�- .v}Y� � jai�zY e t,� r'��` ry°C a� ' i, 1 x+ - �� n "1.ip' 11'� ; ..a , 'c . *r(�h 1'� e4' , i /�?' .� o4Cinqird�l4. «� ,�K��J � '+' t .. � t. " � < � ` `` y'� � a ' '�K•t '� '� �.. 'Y" .�'' � �1S`�'� � .'tr tfi�`�'xr'r4� '�r`_s�"�r ` .� � + . ;i; C��'� ,r � � , IrQ4} u :��1 �� 1f� ��`.,;�+-�wu r a�„�r r� *kts r�;L; �,. t" �// e �T, i! � �, .,aa2'�C"� Q�a . �� r � � •^� � 1_ � �� Jl `n r1 . u9�/ `t � L°� �i�'r. Vft' � ¢ '`.: �WR'i}P � k,{� Y"' 'y' ycY �` ' i a l �. C .. 5 t '�R',, l .. Y't '�` y,A' ' .O ,yJ,-� :� ' ,�r�.yr , .�+�,,+, r4 �r 4tY . t v .":t>* i4t�5>x�'�4' °��'� � tt � +, iy s�"',.k.,( r :. �(�� ti �., ♦ � .�� 3� � «''� t�� !;" µ �*�t^"_ `.�.�w9. . yit,�� s"'p" � .� .� � r 3 � 4.�- w 'S:: r. � ...J/�. p • .. �, r� sY ° ;tw ; . 4�,.�� ;: . .�'s<iy��Ata��,+t� +� H S . -'"t ' �hi, � �. . .. �f' . � , ' ..J. . � . �`H.4°y,. A . �'ffN1'M. h0 �' 4v I KF� t�l,i '��, . �^ . ! . SfF; 4�. ' • f�yf} '. �} Y' .� . . t. � J�1f(� 7,) M1I M1 \ -i Y r f t { F.�{ . � I/J • , � �.• �k'Rl IF� � �Su+ r/�1�r r��•4F?i� �y�,��'e7XLY.e6��'?° {< 'C ' 'd xz p ..sb'k» � 3 y ., ti /( '. . ., ,� � �._N �i t - " • ;dw y>>' � 1 � "icw�+t�;�}��.rY�/`.,iZr .+� �� .� J. J� r Q �� . ' t\' � i . �, �1 �r� A 1 . �k}s.�,�.a : �d�€��Z�y'��'�i+r aY . � tsA r t4�(��5'r �,�htC.c•, ^ � �l�{S�l�° , V �� .h )��.� .�j r ar. R� � �4v`A x'�'eMk� +';�t i Yeyr '!�•`�`(C . `� ' . i�1`.i.�kb . ,�. t� F•.i � �•�: ,d�c��i� ' ,e ��+j�fywx�`�a v v � ..3�} '�pna�a � 1' .. // "� '� n��''� :R. , ! � 4 a"w{�>�"� G)J'Y/ r� y � . h� . , / . . . �i i. M • 1 �t ��rtTS t t.' ,�. �-. ' � r . ' � l n. , � /�J' • ��* � .�""�'�i'{- �'�'�'4"'Ai� � y ;�.� �' }.,yrr. ��'.�, .M. �,�� . �� r 1 � r 4 T � . a ' ,7� . / � YK"r < ''� ' ��{�. Y\t s Y r.,,�� s ��i 16M+.�'Y�1,� � �� N- r . , y/� .�.(}'; Wn � a ' ..it.`a'r't'r'�' �e�ryt�„ X"�, .^�+�,�,jK,i' �f. � .. l� . r • R* .c .r`.K:7��3� ' "�a: - �VV §i,m. > rv.l'v++��\ �'i 1`Z'`. �, �. �Ca . � �'. , � ':� � R K�� . ///�� . ',�.', i�"'�"' t'{ �^,Q�'✓y1F} 1� �� d'T,^�� v�r� �� ;�5 � .l.f �!'1 � ,t .l'i Y�.4.i�"t Ai .. 4 �' � i � x �H a d � e"� • � t^: . 4i �ItgY.. �.� 'i �` . , t°A�'�� Y' �G �`�:�n e �`�t�{1,.�`,,e'4'av�� A.r � }.� q'-� � : r ! • Ta4,t+) ! ' t �k* im �.Y��5{ witS � y�`�•,�rt'$/ J' ��' ��' �[ . . [ i a a.G�; yY'i'.��rl'�r, i �?�,A n�A i. 1' n 6Y 2r ^."°�t�. . +a. . . "• ��'f. � :t""\� n �N't. � � Ks�. r s y3� , y�� pu`ci' �.�{c�k )..�-''L.�ip � i' , s'.. ..,�.in • ;��•Lr"'v�^. 4' '�bKt�tf"� : e �wi.d,*M°r��m��f ��) t��'.L+rstP.. - ,�.°�� j , �� . � � ' �` � � � � �1'b'��r� :t 4 .rk�°`�^A�,��y�'��,t��'.{, M , . � h . . _� � '„� �. �i g �,1.� • � ��w p. ��y��w�'� �,µ� %:f�?°, 'F.�.nrS`t%q.f�rr�K�S'`�^''•`' �`#x �7 . . � �.��.«'�. i � �R t '�. f �4 ' � V"`c�'T1�I�J� ,y� 1, �SY�'• .�� . :\ � . te4n t:: `ri _',t ��t .�!�t�v4 '�S�,�T„ k� �� i a�! ;'y,�� *n i�',CN �� , �. R�J"�ir�,i. ., . .. . � 9S9y :: t `� r �,f"" i �'y".,'.� ��.1 �..�Y,ls'"a s� ° - _ .,-. �,� q . ��,µ �� , < , ,� , r,h y.�h( 7 y. .. ��+ .. ..�'�,+ ' 4; , '�'�`H•? 'C��.v.#?�+��'°`�'` �— y+ 'r" ., '7� W t ,` . 1 : .<'�. a�M.�,` , 7 4' +•,♦ . . ;, � � , . '.r, .,Z+l.� a.s � +�.. . �9��.'^.�� y .. � (� ' • .�� • } _i6 Y r}y S.. . . V 't •4w �`� �'�taA_�: k � � �1,, Sl: o %� �' 1 �' `�D Lti.: �' 0? ',: .�--^=._ } • � i ' � . , I ( `rc" �. CITYO�ARROYO GRAND� i � _ � ...�/ .•�'G�y�WOI.V�� ? . .Y�,� .; * ,r �� 200! GEIVERAL PA.AN UPDATE '�''�d�'� PAROCS 8 RECf8E�4YlON E'L�MEAIT �.�. 4 ' " . �`!f�(��', 0' � . _ _ �Y �:�y O��h •�..Irbl.l�taeM ; � Community Park/Sports Complez , <�� '��, x—� , / ��. � Neighborhood Park � / ' , ' ' � � � Other Facilfties y �`"�� . * ' � scnool � �� ' ` `a,�� y � Pedestrian Area n A,. . � 1� e�� "'i�! �� Path/Trail � . °'. �`"'�.../ z . '''�� ,e,�� B Scenic H , y+ • � N ' . `�„ �. Priority Bike Routes ,�" S: _ "d► " � '�'� ��,` `� � •;a n � � ; ' . Map 4 ; i PL OT OF�ROPOSED Ch'ANGE' /N THE ; - A RROYO GRANDE'---HUASN,4 PUBLIG ROAD ; � Peti L`ion of'A. M. R4y/ et a/ ,�%d Fab.. 2'; /90 9 i O�dB� ofBoo�d af Sup�rvisors, FBLe 2;' %909 � i Fi=c,nlr Bc�r-di r�. ✓oh� M� G/p sh a� ' 1/ie rve�s � � Sa�vsy�d by A. F. Poi-aons, Covn6ySurveyor, Fe4 /4-/S, /909_ ' � � Scca/o--/ii�ch= 40o ft: YuriaEion-- /6'S5'E. • ,�• .. .. ;�n,�A ' Ro oc+�. �:4"/ino. 50 fL`. w:de, B /iisa 40 �. wide, . �-� �„x,.'`•�... . . . � �'�-/ _�. .._�.... ' AREAS REqtiiAEO! .__ �� . • "G./QndEG '�'Q, G eek ��oY� y . Vp� / �I'Lina-/Yewae.nEs$o�a • - - - /• 63AerCS, • , _ ' e1*I .G�p/�B Mis.Annia Shonnon - ' - .09 . : . 41k �,.� ^��' M. P. A v:/p - - se . l ' Ar � Thateha�Esfate - ----/•.20 . ' � �� . A. W. Dixcn - , - • - -- •/• z3 . . �S�- n''^7 � ✓chn Haabnei- • . . - - - /. 4 /' % . � � . � B�ioi,ga i ,�,/� M. Chopek - - -- - -- : .i s . • H D � .. ., ` _ - ., � . � B Lin� - A. YY. Dixon - o se Acres, � • o ,� E•, �� . � E. C. B�a/% - -- - o. ze - ,(n'ec�r/y) (7 Z �. �,�R � G.A. ✓ohn -'- - o.. ze .. . .. �+ , � � ` ` -. ' 38��387 36 ', • � Z �• � • G'f� `�'Q'v• ' � \ . .� . ' c� • � ` �F/ ,40�39 �' • jz,�" ' ' � '. • k••: .� • O � Ex1 . \ �_ ' ♦ 'r . a�...= ;:i� 9 O , yq� � �,�E� � � "�' Z, A . W. D �XoN W~ _ " Pv � � � PO �� ,,�. � pOG'S��LO . sorsa ��ove YoO�Q F/o�o Y .�ase SBarn ' T'o � ✓• HUE'BNER A Q'�9` ,y , ��.8� SY O A • 9Y6.2 /Sr/4 - : 89 r�ousB •• ' o .0 °�. icr�o •' � � w j.._ . ., .,,, '•. . ta.b . m„� •. � : �P .. M . ''• 1� . ,°" 4.b�. � .• "� 5 �- :' . . �.HA EK, � Boi-n `JI ea.o ° . ..,. �too P� ''�`� � .J F. THATCt1ER ES '7"ATE � , ` P�gt ° y t,`.. - •'`'� �� L'iiv E' ' �R 92 . , � , � '"` °° � CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE , ' „'�fi`��. 2009 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE • ��"'�'�,.'�� C/RCULAT/ON MAP 3 ' t � / , ' •• ,y"' :::..�_ �+�'"°' � / `j� 4 � Lr. vY OwY(e •r✓�w.��an ` J� f� , , �y . = ' ^ {. � Pedestrian Area � . �.. �,` . � �1, r. , \ ,�,�...^�y-t; ._ � Path/Trail �` .� � \,• t l , � ` � o " , �'y , t , ,,., �., � �; � Highway/Aderial 9 ., � . Tr a ��., + ; y. `. �"'°°-.;. t : �� ' � , ; � �_� �f`• . B Col�eclor , r "'... � ..... i �� r��,.)`' ,f B � • ,'`� T . ' , � t -ti' r ;:`. 9 Circulatlon Study Area y ..` ` .� �' �\ . .� `,,. .•`� �r _ r H � \ I. '•: ,, ' �• � ' � ) ° � , - � 1 %' � � SignaVlntersection Aftemative � f� •. .T � i 1 • ' �•' ��% ��r1 , � ,• , � r�; � �•� � - ►ry a ; } � i..: �� -.�� ~ ; �,��'; t ' • , O Proposed SignaVAllemative y � ', .. - T� -� ` , , t � �� J _ _ __ .., . '-,�i , � 1.� `._ � - , t�7 �y • .• T Priority 1 Transit Stops Z I �, . ,^. ` .�,`, � � �' �- .. j� � r. \ >� � L:i,� •,,.. •�' � Priority2TransitStops ' � '. , � . t• � �I � � G`� _t I ; • i � � .�� s�s'� , ��. � :, r{ , � � -- __ _, , ti � � . : � — � C",�' . i j! t�'...iri� '„ „ � :•. , f _ � , `��••��r' , , , � � T' � .�?� �+;� � � OfIpO . , .�. i -, f � . � Map 3 � i , . . . .. - _ . '. - 1 ' • .. . � I � � • � \ i ' I _ I � e� i i � . �: i� �� ;, � - � . � > ,�' , �_^�• __,. \. \ a,' ,`� � - i - - - - - -\• - - - - - — ' ,`'� �,,,� �' 'r' � _ _ � I ---,� _......------ --- �— / � ,, � ��', ` , �_. , 4 �, ` L��.� W S� �� . y, . �1 �� , �, � '� - z � �l t b ) 'y^' � W • ► -„' _.. � , � � .3 , .;�'� r _ _ 7C � � 1;•� ��' . x , , __ . ` ��n l 1 � U * I • * .. � „ Q � � �3 � �,,i 9 .. `� E., �, i,,� � . • Q u� � ' �; :,�� . ,,_ . ` � +rt� . , � , , � �� •�v 1 • ��, c� - • . �.� , , _ �.` � � , , , . _ �.._-----�� , , . _ � , _ . _ ' �SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY �� - DEPART'MENT' Of PUBLIC WORaCS .No�l King,Director _ ' , � �� ' � . . . " • Gounty Government Center, Room 207• 5an Luie Obiepo LA 93408 • (805)'781-5252 �' � Faz(805) 781-1229 email address: pwd@co.slo.ca.us �� I Februa 24, 2005 �I ry �� Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works �� g T��S City of Arroyo Grande C� Ar�royo G a�de, CA 93421 . C�MM Nj7Y p�L��DE ' MENT Subject:. -Cherry Creek Estates, Tract 2653 � . � Interference to Arroyo Grande Creek Gage #2 I Dear pon: IIt has recently come to,our attention that the subject tract is currently in the City's development review process. Our review of the pians for the project indicates that the drainage from the project will discharge into'the Arroyo Grande Creekjust upstream of the Flood Control &Water Conservation.DistricYs 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 shouid go without saying that the relationship of this gage to the Zone 3/Lopez Operations is important and benefciai 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 ihe 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, . �� , NOEL K�V� Director of Public Works , ; � c: Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, City of Arroyo Grande � Frank Honeycutt, Utilities Division . File: CF 210.10.01 L:\UTILITY�FEBOS�MEMO ON CHERRY CREEK�ESTATES AG NO 2.DOC.FH:MAC II 24 OS 02:42p ' r __ ' February 24, '2005 � �� l �E�� .> Draft Negative Declaration � ,� 2Q05 (The "Cherry Creek" Project} . r�`� - Planning Commission � C�.N OF ARR��{O C'�DE t-Iarch 1., 2005 COMMU��.�,� pE��OPMENT BUFFER ZONS In the comments regarding the adequacy of the agricultural bu£fer, I see '�no stated findings indicating a�hether the buffer zone is , indeed, adequate. How does staff come to the conclusion of what is adequate? Secondly, this draft negative declaration becomes, in effect, the proposal for Phase II of the development as well . An ag buffer is not even addressed here. May i remind you that under the General Plan, agricultural land is not #o bear the burden of furthering residential development. 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 pzoject . After the negative declaration is approved and the project is, app=oved, does that ,mean no public hearing on the specifics of the project? Tfie Dixson Ranch should not become a holding basin for water unable to iirain into the proposed swale due to a heavy storm. The treatment of the drainage solution seams 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 traPfic from the new residences, traff-ic will impact that intersection even more. Sincerely, J Sara Dickens, Co-Trustee Gordon F. Dixson Trust .� � �� ; JM : N.Rice NOCCCD D_ � . - ��}��y. ^ � � � ^ �� , �d'1 ,I � . r�:; 2 4 2005 I' � TO: Planning Commission, City of Arroyo Grande C�Ty OF ARROYO GRANDE ! ATTN: Kelly Heffernon,Associate�lanner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . FROI�: Molly D��on McClanahan, Co-Trustee Dixson Tru§t, for the Disson Ranch 617 �V.1l�alvern Avenue,Fullerton, CA 92832 . i .JECT: Development Code Amendment 04-007; Neighborhood Ylan 04-001; Vesting Tentative' Tract Map 004-02; Planned Unit bcvelopment 04-002 DATE: February 24,2005 � i �ese comments are provided in response to the Proposed I�Tegaave Declaration: , Page 4. 2. AgriCUltural Resources. b)Impair agricultural use of other property or result in conversion to other uses? The response should be"Poten6ally significant" It should be noted in the sta�'report that the 100' agricuttural buffer is a'minimum requirement. The reasons for going beyond this minimum ate several: the reasons spelled out in the November 18, 2004 letter from Mchael J. Isensee, County Department of Agriculture. Section 16.12/170-Rigkit to farm provisions end farmtand preservation, paragraph two. "Optimally, to achieve a maximum sepazation, a buffer wider than one huadred feet is encouraged and may be required if it is deternuned through environmental review under CEQA and/or recommended by the San Luis Opispo County Agricultural Commissioner." The fact that the Dizson Ranch has been under the Williamson Act for 25 years,the fact that the property is also prescrved in perpetuity for agricu(tural use,under a conseryation easement adopted in 2001,the prime quality of the soil in this area: these reasons alone demand a hi�her tevel ofprotection. The lono term economic viability, given the tugher reshictions mentioned, need to be protected foc the broadest possible range of agricuitura] uses permitted on agricultural tand. Tt 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 staffreport that"The project incorpo�ates a one hundred foot(l00') wide buffer that complies with City Ordinance No. 550,...serves as adequate mitigation°' The supporting data foc this finding is lackin�. �'he seven factors listed in the letter from the letter from the County llepaztment of Agdculture, need more thorough, deisiled and data supported response. d)"4ther" The following considerations need to be listed. They are: the nature of prime soii and its protection and the fact that the Dixson�ta�ich property is under a legally binding Conservation Easement. 2. Page 29. 14.Hydrology and Water Quality. The final paragruph in the November 18, 20041etter , from.Mchae]J. Xsensee, County Department_of A�iculture, underStonnwater, needs a response � that answers the concerns raised as to drainage, erosion, and sed�mentation as it irnpacts the adjacent j agriculturai land. Condition 99,requiring "a detailed draioa�e anatysis prepared by a registered ? Civ��ngineer in the Sate of Califomia;'needs to be done prior to approva! in order that an analysis ofthe impact on the adjacent agriailtura] land can be quanti£ied, and drainage plans designed based on that analysis. The prior Draft Hydrology and ISydrautits Study,Newsom Sprinos Arainage Project, should be part of this specific drainage ptan. The drainage plan shouid have no impaa on the adjacent agricultural iand. . �onl� o�e t�o-s�v� -�GM : ' FRX N0. : 0 Feb. 25 2��5 12:��FN Pe . . . . ... . . .. �,,.,.._.-_......._.�.�...-.,,._..... . . Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District 545 MtaIn Strcet,Suitc T3-1,hlorco Bay, CA 934�12 SUS-772-4391 February 25,•2605 Ms. Kelly Heffenton ' ��1 Y �� Associatc Planner Ciry oPArroyo Grande FEt3 2 5 2005 214�ast Branch Street � Arroyo Grande CA 93420 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RE: Chercy Creek Development COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear�l�fs. Heffernon: � The purpose of this latter is to express the concerns of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation � District regarding the residential devalopment known as Che�ry Creek development. At our T3oard of l�ircotnrs meeting on Eebruary 18`h,we heard a presentation from Mr.Damien Mavis, Mr.8rndley Vemon and their representntive,Mr. ]ohn Knight of the RRM De�ign Cnoup. The presentation provided the Board with a good description of the proposed project design, including the buffer distancc bctween the proJect and Dixson Ranch,and plans for stormwater drainage. Our agcncy is the holder of the conservation easement on the Dixson proparty. With this easement, � the property owners committed,in perperiury;to the condnued use of their pmperty for agiottltuie. The Coastal RCD hos the responsibzlity and interest to help ensure that the Dixson property remains a viabie farming enterprise. };encc,we are very ooncerncd about certain aspects of the proposed , , Cherry Creek dcvelopment,because of pr�vious problems that have resultad when residences are constructed too closa to agrieultural land. All too often,these situakions have resulted in limitaflons being placed on thb farmers' 'sbility to work their land,and cleuly demonsu�afe that when residential developments are planned,the design must include allowances to ensure the continued viability of - adjacent agriculture lands. , 7'he Aistrict is also heavily involved in management issues,including siltation,stormwatcr manugerrjent,and habitat mainten.ance, affecting Arroyo Grande Gteek. We are therefore concerned about projects and activities that can affect either the quality of water being transported to Arroyo Grande Cre�k from urban areas, and the nature orintensity ofthat dischargc. . With reference to the Chercy Creek development, our specific concems are that any new residential + ' development meet the following requirements: i 1, The best possible buffar between the agricultural fields and residences must ba required in order to allow for noise and drift that ere an unavoiduble part of fazming. F&rtning activities may be . . necessary di,ring all hours of day and night,euid nn adequace buffer is essential to allow for good relationships between the residential arca and ag fields.:The burden of proof is upon the project sponsors to�how that such is the.cass. • � www.CoastalRCl).org ; i . . . j ..02%2,%2005 23:55 8054748083 _ NICK ALTER PAGE 01 , i � ilI i ' Nicliolas A. Alter 354 Corbett Canyon ,Road . Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805)474-8062 Votce I (80S)474-8083 Fax Inicka�terC�mindsvrinsc.eom � FAX ME1V�0 Date: 2/27/OS - ' Pages: 3 including covei sheet To: Kelly Heffemon 473-0386 Fax Sub1: . Planning Commission Letter Hi Kelly, Attached is a letter I'd appreciate your distributing to the Planning Commi§sion. I'll try to deliver the original to you sometime on Monday,but can't be sure I'll be able to. Thanks. . � f,..-�� , � � i _ i i 0?/27;'2�65 23:55 8054746083 NIqC ALTER PA6E 02 Nicholas A. Alter 354 Corbe[t Canyon Road ArYOyo Grande, CA 93420 (805)474-B062 Voice (805)474-8083 Far _ nickalterCa)mindsorina.com , Date: Febivary 25,2005 I'o: Planning Commission, City of Arroyo Grande Via: Keily Heffemon,Associate Planner Subj: Cherry Creek Project Thi§is to comment on and express my qualified support of the proposed Cherry Creek development. The developers seem to have done a fine job of involving the community in the planning and design of the project,and in cieating a model far other developers to emulate in this.regard. I nonetheless have some serious concems. Above all,I am concemed about the City giving anything less than ifs full measure of. commitment to the spirit and letter of our General Plan's?,,griculture Element.By"full measure;'I mean doing all we can,and not§imply what is minimally required,for the long-term protection of fazmland in general and prime soils in particulaz. , Voters have made it plain in two successive elections that the long-term health and preservation of ag comes ahead of development, no mattec how appealing the development might be. But by proposing the absolute minimum.requirement for buffering adjacent prime farmland, Creekside Estates is asking ttte City to compromise on its prioriry to protect agland. In this regazd,I find the opening quotation of the developer's ABricultural Buffer Study to be paradox9cal:' . "Genttal buffer guidelines and implementation plans need W inwrporate fact-based or scienco- ' based solutions.... Impaztial facc and bes[practices rather ehan 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 ]00- foot buffer. To the contrary, Development Code Section 16.12.170 tells us: "Optimally,to achie�e a maximum sepazation,a buffcr wider than one hundred fcet is encoutaged and may be required if it is detormined through env�onmenul review under CEQA aadlor recommended 6y the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner.° 02/i7/2005 23:55 8054748083 NICK ALTER PA6E 03 . February 25, 2005 Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 This Code-excerpt is bumessed by the County Ag AepartmenYs November 18, 20041etter to our Community Aevelopment Department, stating: , "The proposcd project crcatcs the potential for significant conflict between existing use and new • residences." "Experience has shown physical distance buffers to be;he mosc effecdve mitigadon measure.For irrigated row crops,the counry buffer policy is a distsnce of 200 to 500 feet" . "Serious attempb to mitigate for a buffer distance of only 115 fcet between the agriculnual operation and the proposed adjacen[habitable struotures have been ineo�porated into the project's proposed buffer azea design....However,none of thae either alone or 1n combination replaees the benefi[s that adequate distance provides to mitigate potenflal conflicK." "Finally,it appears tharthe City of Arroyo Grande,in implementing i�recent agicultural buffer ordinance,wi11 be utablishing a precedent for its funue use.Will the sundard set in this instance represent the maximum buffer potmtial for future projects?If noc,the A�iculture Departrnrnt , would recommend that,cpecific findinas be made for whv this oarticular buffer di [�Ta ee in fsicl combined with the pr�posed additional measures are sufficient to addiess imnatts of[his additional develo,Rmen[•" . . . .. . . . Given the above, it seems to me that there is a cleaz need for an independent , environntental revie�v (as recommended by the County Ag Department)to ensure that an appropriate buffer distance, desig.n and maintenance schedule be established both to protect the Aixon farming operarion and to establish a clear precedent for future decisions involving fazmland protection. , I also believe tbat the ProjecYs conversion of prime farmland constitutes a potentially significant adverse impact under CEQA, and therefore ttiggers mitigation. Another concem I have is with the potential impact of the proposed drainage solution on both the Dixon farmland and the Arroyo Grande Creek.Again,referring to the Ag DepartmenYs 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�vater(including ag runof fl draining into the creek. My parting comment is that the City of Arroyo Grande has an opportuirity and an obligation, here,to pu�teeth into the farmland-protection policies we fought so hard to get into our General Plan. Failing this, we facilitate the continued displacement of farmland by housing developments. Were it not for such a threat of displacement, I would be all for the Creekside Project and de�•elopments like it. � � ` � ,� . � . �� ' . , � pRROYp o �y I � WCOHPORATEO 9z � • � I j - • m # du�r io.nati * � ' . c4<<FORN`P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYN REARDONSMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY - SUBJECT: INFORMATION RECENED FROM COMMISSIONER PARKER DATE: MARCH`2, 2005 Attacfied are copies of letters and information that Commissioner Parker requested be distributed to the City. Council. They wete received from Commissioner Parker at the March 1, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. - - . . i , i , „ - � . �� y . � � , � MAR 1 7 2005 1 � CEQA: Neqative Deciaratiort ^ Nanci Parker, Planning Commissioner ' CjP(OF.ARROYO GRANDE ' Arroyo Grande CpMMUNIN'DEVEIOPMENT- " According to CEQA, a ND is only pertnissibte if atf significant impacts are definite)y mi6gated: , . This ND is inadequate and cannoCbe certified for the following reasons: 1. The ND fails ro analyze the proposed projecYs consistencywith the.Arroyo Grande General Plan: _ _ • 2. Does not accurately classify potenGal impacts to environment. " ' � 3. Issues listed are not fuliy or adequately mitigated. 4. Sub area 2 has not beert addressed although this ND 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 appfopriate response. According to CEQA you cannot mitigate , this through a future study. We can not rely on the expertise of�espo�sibie agencies to find environmental concems affer a document is approved. The Draft ND defers analysis ' rden of identi in and miti atin of biolo iqi im acts ina ro riatei shiftin the bu fy g g 9 9 P PP P Y 9 . biological impacts .to the City. As a .resuft, wifhout additionat fieidwork by qualified � - biologlsts, this CEQA docuriient is fataliy flawed. 6. Mandatory Findings of Sign�qnce cannot be made as Iisted because it is not " known, based on the informaGon in the ND, whether or not the proposed project, or the ` proposed. drainage system would cause, significant. impacts to biologicat resources, ' including steelhead trout artd red-legged- frogs. . Additionally, the proposed drainage ' project would achieve short-term reduced flooding.to the disadvantage of long teirn . regional flooding and long term preservatiori of agriculturai production and land_ environmental goals. � . ' It is my recommendation that a futl EIR must be done for the following reasons: :. 1. Drainaae. The regional Drainage issue is a historicai;issue that has never had a fup -- CEQA process.. Studies at the time showed several possible drainage sites. These possible.solutions are now out of date and have ne0er been given pu6lic comment - Since ffiis is a regional drainage issue that changed the course of a sVeambed, as weil as caused several environmentaPimpacts on its own, the EIR process needs to conUnue , . on the project This issue muse either receive a fu11,EIR of its own for study, pubtic - comment and miUgation in order to decide the best course.of.action for the City, or a futl EIR needs to be compteted 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 fiistorically was designed to do so. Staff feels the drainage issue can retum at a later time•to add on if it tums out this system is , inadequate. This is inappropriate, if.this is an attempt to settie a regional drainage issue . for this area, the system needs to be addressed more fu(fy. According to dxuments , , provided to the City by various agencies invoNed,with the original Regional Drainage , Issue, a-full EIR must be done of the project � - , "The (Drainaqe) " Draft ND (which was never..concluded) fails to describe the proposed project in a,'level of detail sufficient ,to facilitate meaning: full publi:c and -responsible agency review and - , impact assessment." Brian Trautwein, Environmental Analysist dated May 11, 1998 , 'at time of Drainage Project. • . ' According to the City: "The final configuration of , the project is ' ' subject to refinement thzough final design".This final design needs to g0 ' through the process ot publia review and.City Council decision on a final plan that meet , the best needs of a regional d�ainage system. 2. Prime Soiis: The impact on,our prime soiis'according to CEQA and our General Plan must trigger a fuil EIR. Nthough,a mitigation recorrimendation has been established by , the General Pfan, ;loss-of'a City mandated Natural'Resource that would require an overriding consideration�of Uie.City Coundl. This cannot be fully mitigeted. _ _ __ __ � � - . _ . -- �- � g ' the two 72-inch drainage pipes that dayliqht at Arroyo Grande Creek will require removal of riparian veqetation, some grading, installation of rip rap and a qabion retaining wall to protect the bank. I' ' Construction of the project may therefore result in the loss of and . damaqe to existinq veqetation/'botanical resources and species habitat. In addition, poEential 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 weil as the Creek itseif will be endangered with this project Runoff from the site, as well as runoff directed to t}iis site from farmland sites upland that flow across farm soiis are potentially laden with chemicals, silt and debris that can and wili harm Uiese protected species in and around the Arroyo Grande Creek and wetland/riparian sites. The only way we will I , know if these impacts are iden,tified correcUy and entirely as well as I , mitigated fuliy is by a qualified biologist before approvat has been given to the CEQA document MITIGATION/CONCLUSION: States 'POtentiallY siqnificant impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to less-than-siqnificant level with implementation of the below measures° Since the impacts are not fully listed,we don't , know ff this answer is correct All impacts need to be Jisted, and mitigations listed. - MM 9.8 The applicant shall submit a notice of Intent to the Reqional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) � to obtain a...construction Storm Water Permit." Accofding to CEQA regulaUon, agencies need to be notified, you cannot mftigate these impacts through a future study, only monitor. The RWQCB needs to be aware of the drainage pian that may 1. alter the course of a. sVeam, and 2. deposit direct agricultural dreinage (debris, silt, chemical � run-of� 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 befoce the project is approved in order to ; detertnine ff the current drainage plan can be compieted as presented. j . � � !•R9 4.16 st2t8S'This is a potentially significant impact � � . that can be mitiqated to a less-than-significant i level with implementation of the followinq mitiqation - measures." These mitigaUon measures deal only with biological � monitoring. Although biological monitoring is appropriate, they will not ' substitute for response§ from responsibie agencies during the fact i finding and mitigation finding process of CEQA � PM7 4.26 This �project results in siqnificant impacts � to •Steelhead and their habitat "due to direct and indirect impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek...discharge of other pollutants that could affect downstream habitaE.. This is potentially siqnificant 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 rechatge (e.g., by paving permeable fand and/or placing runoff in a storm drain through within permeable land) violates the gen plan. 'Ensure that urban land iUse and Residential Rural or Suburban development projects result in . no net decrease in groundwater recharge(Ag2-3). . 15. Land Use: a. Be potentiallv inconsistent with land use, policy requlation (aen 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 pian, loss of prime soiis is Class I - significant and unavoidabte impact under CEQA. Only through preservation can this impact be mitigated to i , � less than significanf according to the gen pian. AG1-1 "Desiqnate prime farmland soils that are not . predominatelv committed to non-Aqricultural ,development as • A4riculture and or Aqricultural Preserve, whether or not in current - agricultural productive use." Under this sec6on, specific lands were to be identified. However, this does'not remove the fact that the property has been classified as Prime Farmland Class'li Soil. Prime farmiand soils � - have been identified as being a natural resource and must be classified as such; just as Oak Trees or water are also ciassified as natural ' resources. Just because a parcel of land may be zoned single family, it dces not entitle one to remove an oak Vee without first mitigation, just ' as a zoning does not give one automatic entitlement to ignore other � designated naturai resources in our city:Tract 1998 was zoned to build singie family homes, but first the deveiopment must plan for the protection and mitigation of riparian habitat and oak Vees found on the property. The same is called for in protecting the designated natural resource of our prime alluviat soiis. . � AG1 Avoid minimize and/or mitivate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-orime Aqriculture use and natural resource lands. ' Agl-1.1 Priine;�So is�sfiaT- ' ncIude� 3nd; W e. . Q. _ 'sinqle e�-.• arce ;i:=::dY:�oriti§uous., a ce � rriz�a ed�xqual fies�for5s�at3nq as F� ass.�_ _ o _ _ I:;in. he^USDA^�Natttral�Re§.durbes�Ctinse , at 'o e . • and'.: se�capa x3dtv c assif cat3on'sw etHer�.or o land:::`i.actua2lv:'�.irriiiated;. prodide' 'wth t r � is�:'-� feasib e: [Definition derived from Local i Goveinment Reoraanization Act of 2000 as reorqanized ! and amended in 2000 Section 56064 (a) ]. This p�Operty heS been'recognized in this 2001 General Plan as Prime Farmland Class II Soiis in the USDA Naturai' Resources ConservaGon Service land use capability classification. °The city determined that ali Class I and Class 11 — --- - � � r , 7 Inconsistent. Once mitigated fully, this impact will be Potentiallv Sianificant The impact of having med density zoning next to rural residential zoning with no transiGonal zoning causes an impact to tfie 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. Mandatorv Pindinqs of Sianificance: a. Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantiallv 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 endanvered plant or animal. Can & _ � Will be mitiaated. Since impacts have not been fuliy identified, the mitigation potentiat has � • not been addressed. Since impacts listed have not been fully midgated, this finding is currenUy potentially sign�cant. P,otential chemicat and niUate run-off into the stream will affect endangered species such as Steelhead Trout and Red Legged Frog as well as currently unident�ed possible endangered vegetative species aiong the creekbed and I . riparian habitats. Once a quatified and responsible agency has identified ati impacts retated io the run-off water flow from ag lands directiy.into a protected stream, and mitigaGons 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, especiaily in regards to any activity in Arroyo Grande Creek that may temporariiy re permanenUy impact by...allowing runoff or overflow form a contained land to re-enter a water of the United States.° The impact of loss of wildiife corridor has not been addressed. This project is causing the loss of open space atong a stream cortidor open . � to wildlife travel. The entire project area wiil be fenced and walied off, causing loss of corridor from the eastem regions along open ag Iands to the stream. This can cause the direct as well as indirect loss of wiidlife ' in the area. This impact must be looked at and mitigated. - c. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beinas, either directly or j , indirectiv? Insianificant Impact. + This impact is being addressed by providing for a buffer area between ag property in use and new med density zoning. Because it has been identified, the impact has been improperly identified and should be "Impact can 8 wili be mitigated'. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • � _ -. �. . � '. . . ' � . . East Cherrv Traftic Studv: � Nanci Pazker I Right Tum onto Tr�c: � '. Mike Titus prepared a study, complete with data and pictures for the City to present to the Traffic Commission of the East Cherry tum onto Tr�c 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 for trailer or hitch-work,that park on the street making visual � access nearly impossible. This not only increases the hazard for the righf turn, but blocks cars going through the stop sign from the Village side making a left tum more hazardous as well. Four wav stoa sign based on Accident rate (safetv issuesl: . Associated Transportation En�ineers: according to the stop sign warrant criteria contained in the Tr�c Manual, Calif.Dept. of Transportation, 1996, other than above criteria based on total vehiculaz volume, which East Cherry and Tr�c Way iritersection appazently does not yet meet, is the followin�criteria that warrants a multiway stop installation;"An accidenf.problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12-month period of a type susceptible or correction by a multiway stop installation." [#2, criteria multiway stop] , In order to meet the paztial 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 intersectioq computer data does not accurately reflect the situation. Tr�c approaching East Cherry,from the left offthe freeway travel at high speeds without a stop: They travel only one block before the intersection of East Cherry and Tr�c Way. East Cherry has poor , visibility of traftic traveling from the left due to huck,s and cars parked along Traffic Way in front of the pool and Heacock Welding. Tra�c from the right pull out only one shortened block from this intersection. Tfiis makes the decision on whether to proceed with a left tum from East Checry based on split second timing, and is not safe. The combination of poor visiliility from the right,the shortened distance of where traf�ic proceeds from Oak Pazk intersectioq high speeds of travel off the&eeway to the left, as weli as high traf�ic 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 Gzande Police Dept. on the intersection of Tr�c 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 additional4 at Fair Oaks and Traffic Way. i � Four wav ston based on vehicular volume: Hig�ens Memorandum of 2-24=05 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 traf�ic 300 average<per hour over 8 hrs. - Tr�c meets this criteria with peak of 768/940 an hour before.build-out. ! This can be dropped to 210 an hr ifthe percentile rule applies � 2. Minor street traf�ic flow of 200 average per hour over 8 hrs. dropping to 140 cars avg. over 8 hrs with the percentage rule. E Cherry build-out tr�c will be 185 during the peak hours. Average over the 8 hrs was not studied. � City of Arroyo Grande • . . , , Police Department • '� � _ � w �.' CAD CALLS-FOR-SERVICE QUERY LIST G9jsooueu�+°� EVENT CASE. UATE 01l01/2004 to 12l31l2004 CACLTYPE tc FWALTYPE LOCATION %ra�% UNIT DISFOSITION RESPONSE20NE RP NAME KEYWORD - DATE EVENT CALLTYPE LOCATION REPORTINGPARTY FINALTYPE ZONE 01/13/04.15:37' 0401130011 TC 215 TRAFFIC WY _' TCINFO . 01/20/04 11:3� 0401200006 TC 155 TRAFFIC WY FIRST INTERSTATE BUM TCNIA 01/30l04 ]6:44 0401300022 TC TRAFFIC N/Y/W BRANQH ST CARR,JASON TCINFO 02/02/0414:56 0402020009 TC 303.Z��FJ.S�'/_Y b Mo1-cl TCNIA Qy((Lg(04 16:49 0402040026 TC CHERRY(�TRAFFIC TCNIA 02/05/04 14:39 0402050018 TC GRAND&TRAFFIC WY TCNIA 02/05l04 15:12 0402050019 TC ' . . 52`,�°_+EF1�e.�11.'_ 60.S S} • TCIA 02l28/04 21:07 ' 0402280043 TC -¢z5 TRAFFIC,p(A`[ C�0.S 5� TCHR 03M7/04 0927' 0403170018 7C GRAND AND TRAFFIC WY SHIRLEY SPENOLOVE TCINFO � 03/21/04 17:58 0403270027 TC GR.4ND/TRAFFIC WAY TCINFO 04/09/04 12:33 0404090017 TC FAIROAKSlTRAFFIC WAY TCINFO 04110I04 08:30 0404100004 TC TRAFFIC WY AND NELSON RAMEY.LARRY TCNIA ' , 04/29/04 12:45 0404290014 TC 200 BLK TRAFFIC WY �"��' ' JANA DEBRUYNE TCINFO 04%2�J/04 13:37 0404290016 TC 400 7RAFFIC WY S t�v�v.7 STA 28 TCINFO 05/02/0411:28 0405020017TC 101@TRAFFICWAY AOACHP 05/11/04 18:10 0405110042 TC 500 BLK TRAFFIC WY �oas WILO LIFE ARTS TCINFO -05/13/04 18:41 0405130031 TC 215 TRAFFIC WY .GONZALES,JENNIFER TCPP OS119/04 16:49 0405190024 TC �00 BLK TRAFFIG WY �oG�S W IlD UFE ARTS TCNIA Q,5/'lt/04 07•'{p 0405210002 TC E CHERRYCa2TRAFFIC WY SCOTT KAWAOKA �TCINFO O5/22/04 1928 0405220025 TC FAIR OAKS 8 TRAFFIC WY •. PAUL ASHWORTH TCNIA OS/25/04 07:45 0405250006 TC TRAFFIC WYQFAIR OAKS AOA .05l28/04 12:12 0405280023 TC 330 TRAFFIC-WY HORATIO SANTOS TCINFO OSl30/04 15:01 0405300016 TC TRAFFIC WAY/NELSON TCN�A O5l30/04 15:47 0405300018 TC TRAFFIC WAYlNELSON 5497 O6/OSl04 16:40 0406080020 TC POOLE&TR4FPIG WY STA 28 TCNIA` 07/06/04 10:47 0407060011 TC TRAFFIC WY&BRANCH TCINFO 07l16/04 14:31 0407760021 TC 100 TRAFFIC TCNIA 07/21/04 1820 0407210020 TC GRAND AND TRAFFIC WAY. PETE FALERIOS TCNIA 07/26/04 08:54 0407260002 TC TRAFFIC WY!FAIR OAKS TCINFO O6/OS/04 02:36 0408050012 TC 525 TRAFFjC WY CP�^`� 23152 09%O7/0408:33 0409010007 TC N/E8LEY/TRAFFICWY TCNIA 09/25/04 09:42 0409250010 TC STATION WAYlfRAFFIC WAY TCNIA , 49/28/04,.Z:tft..Oq0928092CLiC rRQFFl�1�ty.g�� TCNIA' 10%03/04 1823 0410030023 TC TRAFFIC WY/BRANCH TCINFO 10117/04 '10:12 0410170006 TC TRAFFICWAYQBRANCH ANONYMOUS TCNIA 10/19/04 22:04 0410190027 TC TRAFFIC WAY @ GRAND�� "� TCNIA 10/26/04 14:11 0410260018 TC 400 BLKTRA FF JC�V(V�"/ 4637 TCIA '11/08/0412:11 0471080010 TC '. 525TRAFFICWY ,DctS LILLY • " ORPT � �2/28/0413:33 04122800t3 TC 417TRAFFlCWY �g�� MICHAELTHOMAS TCIA ' i TOTAL CALLS: 39 ' I _ E-mail correspondence with Michael Isensee Cherry Estates Project Re:buffer zone March 9,2005 Michaei J. Isensee County Departrnent of Agriculture San Lius Obispo County Dear Mr. Isensee, I am a commissioner on the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission. We aze currently in the process of responding to the project lmown 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 regazds 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 feet"You then go on to explai.n the process�of establishing these buffer distances. , . The developer of tliis 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 erop farmers in the wunty do overhead copter or sirplane spraying of pesticides,where this would be nearly impossible withia 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 yow list of reasons why you set your buffer limits. I would really appreciate it if you could respond to tlus,as your expertise is impoitant 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. �, ' , �... _ ; . .. � ' ' � -. I Y Mazch 10,2005 ' From: misensee cr,co.slo.ca.us Sent: Thursday,March 10, 2005 12:28 PM To: Tim Brown Subject: Re:buffers Mr. Brown- Nanci Parker contacted me eazlier today via email. Let me forward what I sent to her(I also forwarded it to Kelly Heffernon in the Community Development Departmeut). Please contact me if you have any additional questions. I spoke with the project applicant(Damien)in January and explained our policy regazding 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 azeas.Thus,reshicted 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 ancl project specific considerations,and then develop a buffer recommendation based on weighing all of these factors.I believe my eazlier 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 futureoccupants and growers from conflicts relating to aerial spraying,the Depattment would generally iecommend a buffer in the lughest range{400 to 500 feet). For instance,this is the range we generally recommend for projects along the Nipomo Mesa _ edge adjacent to the exteasive array of agriculhue in the Oso Flaco area,where serial spraying is still a fairly common occuireace. The buffer policy recognizes that distance buffers aze the most effective mitigation measute,but it also recognizes there aze 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 recomtnended a buffer below our recoinmended minimum for a project located near the A.G.city limits on Halcyon.I have attached our comments on tt►is 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 cau be of further assistance. Ivlichael , i - t From �vww.mndesi�n.com To: TBrownCu�hq.dir.ca 'misensee cr co.slo.ca.us' Subject: RE: buffers 03/15/2005 02.23 Michael, As we discussed this morning, could you please confirm that the County's policy allows measurement of the buffer distance to the fust habitable structure? In other words,the 130'buffer distance suggested could include the reaz yazd azea of the lots. Thanks, john ; John Knight rrmdesigngroup 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: (805) 543-1794 �F: (805)543-4609 - - - - - - - - - - - - - further address potential concems.These concems are lazgely based on more recent experience which is showing that today's home buyers aze less familiar with the reatities of current agricultural practices and often have a romanticized ideal of living next to the fazm. As you are �, likely awaze, complaints can become very time co�uming and frustrating for growers. T'he 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 I typical range would essentially eliminate all development potential It is also gade 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 forwazd 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 ifs buffer is properly implemented and adequate at the time of home occupancy,will significanfly reduce the likelihood of conflict between the proposed homes and adjacent agriculture. In fact,I remain more concemed with whether the drainage plan for addressing Newsome Springs ruuoff is a more significant issue for agriculture and has been adequately addressed. Michael Isensee Agricultural Resource Specialist Mazch 15, 2005 11:32 AM From: Micfiael Isensee To: John Knight . . CC:Kelly Heffemon Damien Mavis Nanci Parker It has not been uncommon for our Department to allow a portion of the agriculturai properry to be included as a portion of the buffer. This 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 fazmland. The inain rationate is the fact that these areas(in this case of row crops and vineyards)are typically field roads and aze often some of the most intensively used portions of the property(for such acYivities as tuming farm equipment and packiag produce). These roads create some of the incompatibilifies we aze 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 significandy 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 boih above and upwind from ihe.adjacent fields,two factors which lunit dust and,to a Iesser extent, noise. Implementing even our minimum buffer range on that project would essentially remove all development potentiat. While this can be recommended under our policy,it has been the norm for our Depazhnent to try to recommend a solution that we feel wiil profect agriculture and enable reasonable development. I just got your message. Here is ihe spec�cs related to habitable structures: Building setbacks specify distance between agricuIturat property and fuhue building sites. The buffer will allow for such uses as landscaping,barns,storage buildings, orchards,pastures,etc., while protecting agricu]tural use and the public's health and saYety. 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 DepartmenYs 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 ihe 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 ope;ations. 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, alon�the len�th of the southeastem property line. This would result in an overall buf�er 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 basius, pazking 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 screenin�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 lon� established goa] of the county's General Plan. The applicant has recently submitted development proposal with a 50-foot"agricultural buffer" located on the adjacent a�-icultural property. A buffer on a�icultural property is not an appropriate mechanism to address land use incompatibility created by urban development. A. Proiect Description and Agricultural Settin� 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 a�-iculturally zoned property is pazt of the greater Cienega Valley region that is recognized as one ofthe 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 ofMm•ime!silty c/ay loam and Mocho Yarirn:t fine sandy lornn soils that have historically supported a variety of intensive a�icultural activities including irrigated vegetable crops and the current vegetable seed production operation. B. Imnacts to Adiacent Aaricultural Lands One of the primary goals of the Agriculture and Open Space Element is to ensure the long term viability and protection of a�-icultural resources and operations. Part of the land use review process is to identify potential land use conflicts between proposed development and existin�production agriculture. • The proposed"agricultural buffe�" is inconsistent with AOSE policies due to the location of the buffer on the adjacent a�icultural property rather than the site of proposed development and the inadequate size of the proposed agricultural buffer. The intensity of a�ricultural activities for vegetable seed requires a larger sepazation between the locations of future residences could be built and a�ricultural land. As indicated with the original project, the]arger sepazation 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 momin„ 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 cobrdinate 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 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, le�al agricultural chemical use, noise, and hours of operation and the county's Right to Farm ordinance. If we can be of further assistance, please call 781-5914. , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Susan E. Kegley, Ph.D., Senior Scientist/Program 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 Mazch 14,2005 re:agricultural buffers f � � iHi 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 opurion is that 150 feet is bazely enough for most pesticides. I'm appending the first few paragraphs here--this part starts on page 4 of the attached document. I 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 I 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 regazding the issues raised pertaining to the use of pesticides neaz residences. Given Dr. Felsot's expertise and extensive experience in studying pesticide chemistry and toxicology,we fmd much of his testimony very credibie. 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 ("ADI") and ensure the safety of such residents. *3 24.We fmd Dr. FelsoYs opinion was based on an acceptable review of the facts of the.matter and the available scientific data. We reatize Dr.Felsot did not have time to do an extensive study,but we find his testimony more credible with respect to this matter than Ms. Bremer's [the landowners'attomey],because she was relying primarily on general literature that did not address the par[icular facts of this situation. We find, based on the testimony of Dr. Felsot and Mr. Pringle,that pesticides aze sprayed by Mr.Pringle at least four to five times per yeaz on his apple orchazd and four to five times on his cherry orchazd. We further fmd that at least three different types of pesticides aze used on each orchazd,with the most toxic substance currently used by Mr. Pringle being azinphosmethyl. Another more toxic chemical,diazinon,may be legally used on cherries, but currendy is not being used. V✓e also fmd based on Dr. FelsoYs testimony that the prevailing winds in the azea would carry chemicals from South to the North. Westlaw Download Summary Report for PHILLiPS,JOHN 4758792 . Your Seazch: FELSOT Date/Time of Request: Wednesday,May 12,2004 21:05:00 Central Client Identifier. RIOS Database: WA-CS Citation Text: 1999 WL 219783 Lines: 703 • Documents: 1 Images: p , (C)2004.Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepazed by a U.S.government oflicer or employee as part of that person's official duties. All rights reserved. No pazt of a Westlaw u�ansmission may be copied,downloaded,stored in a retrieval system, further hansmitted or otherwise reproduced, stored, . disseminated, transferred or used, in any form or by any means, except as permitted in the Westlaw Subscriber A ee men the Additional T ' o � �, erms Govemm Intemet Access to Westlaw or b West's rior , a y P wntten ageement. Each reproduction of any part of a Westlaw transmission must contain notice of WesPs copyright az follows: "Copr. (C) 2004 West; a TLomson business. No ciaim to orig U.S. govt works."Registered in U.S.Patent and Trademark Office and used herein under Iicense:KeyCite,WesNaw and WIN. WIN Naturai Lauguage is protected by U.S.Patent Nos.5,265,065,5,418,948 and 5,488,725. 1999 WL 2 t 9783 Page 2 95 Wash.App. 1011 (Cite as: 1999 WL 219783(Wash.App.Div.3)) I subdivision complies with the Counry's Comprehensive Plan. � The landowners objected to the 150-foot setback requireinent,azguing 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 requ'vement would have eliminated those lots or required a redesign of the plat. The Planning and Building Departrnent then issued a revised Determination of Nonsignificance,requiring that the landownecs plant poplaz trees on the south boundary of the proposed subdivision and that no residential sh-uctures be located within 35 feet of that boundary.The landowners did not and do not object to these mitigation meazures. After conducting hearings,the County's planning commission recommended denying the plat because of health and safety concems related to the neighboring orchazd. The boazd of commissioners agreed with the commission's recommendation,adopted the commission's fmdings as iu own,and denied the'plat. The landowners filed [his action in the superior court, asking (among otber things) for reversal of the boazd's decision. The superior court determined it"just can't conclude anything from [the boazd'sj findings without making some assumptions." The court thus remanded the case to the boazd for entry of more complete findings.,Lsj The boazd then entered new findings,among which aze the following: FN3.Neither par[y has appealed this order.The boazd's initial findings thus aze not at issue here. 19. Mr. Pringle testified both onlly and through written materials. This tesrimony included assertions tha[ his adjacent orchazd operations involve the applicarion of over 50 different kinds of poisons and that even though no drift is allowed during applicatioq toxic substances will migate to the neighboring properties for a period of time after application through a process Imown as volatization [sic] or "lift-off." Mr. Pringle fiuther 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 app]ication 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 similaz to heavy industiia] uses and that at any given time,equipment and people may be working and operating throughout the day and nioht.He further testified that the noise level in his orchards someNmes rises to a level of 20 decbels due to a variery of sources, including frost protecting wind machines containing large industrial engines withotrt mufflers and wiih riventy foot propellen running at full speed; chain saws and brush shredding equipmenr engine noise from h-ucks, tractors, and forklifts; � noise from workecs; and bird repelling measures consisting of loud speakers emitting a dish�ess signal and propane cannoae emitting a loud "bang." Mr. Pringle compazed the noises emitted from his orchazd to at times being more noisy than a running helicopter sitting 50 feet away. Mr. Pringle fwther testified that many of these noises occur at night and that he has had complaints from other persons who l.ive neaz one of tils orchazds about the loud noise. Additional testiirtony by Mr. Pringle was that his orchard activiries include the operation of smudge pots that create smelly smoke;mowers and traciors that create dust; smoke from brush buming; and bright lights that would I�lcely shine into the windows and backyazds of the homes proposed to border his orchazd. 21. We find based on Mr.Pringle's testimony that poplaz 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 attomey for Mr. Prin�le, tesrified that in his opinion the proposed plat would lead to less thau satisfacrory living conditions for the future residents due to the proximity of residential lots to [he intensive ase 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 about his past experiences regarding lawsuits over pesticide uses and the di3harmony Copc� West 2004 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt Works - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 1999 WL 219783 Page 4 95 Wash.App. 1011 (Cite as: 1999 WL 219783(Wash.App,Div.3)) could be reached within two to ttuee years of planting,provided sufficient irrigating. 29. Dr. Felsot further testified from personal experience that orchazd operations often cause dast and si�ificant noise that can impact neazby residents. 30. Dr. Felsot also testified that in addition to the health risks of pesticide residues, locatmg 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, testi5ed 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 orchazd and not the proposed plat was the cause of any problems resulring 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 EPA. Ms. Bremer cited a state regularion that protubits any person from applying pesticides if weather conditions aze such that physical driR may cause damage to adjacent land, humans, animals or plants, and an EPA regulation requiring a notice to fazm workers of a pesticide application if such workers might paSS through the h�eated area or any area within 1/4 mile of the treated azea duriog the application or during any restricted-entry interval after application. The EPA regulation implies to us that the EPA is concemed with the travel of pesticides [sic] particles to azeas outside of the treated properry for a period of time after application. 32.Ms.Bremer also testified that she believed some of Dr.Felsot's assumprions 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 reaz yard setback from the property line of the neighboring orchazd adequately mitigated any harmful effects of pesticide application,and that she did not believe that there was sufficient evidence produced thaz any drift was going to occur or cause any hazm. In support of her conclusion, Ms. Bremer introduced scientific literature that explains farming techniques, which she referred to as Bes[ Management Practices, cau 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 Ptactices,but she did not inhoduce any evidence that would indicate Mr.Pringle did not use Best Management Aactices. Ms. Bremer did admit that incompatibility problems may exist if the development wu approved. 33.Ms.Bremer also testified at various fimes that the imposition of a 150 foot buffer or setback would result in the loss of somewhere between 21 and 30 lo[s under the current design of the subdivision.No testimony was given as to whether the proposed plat could be redesig�ed in a manner to accommodate a setback larger than 35 feet whIle still maintaining 87 lots or some number close to it. *5 34.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 conife�, or a fence would diminish the movement of dust,smoke or noises from the orchards bordering the proposed subdivision. Based on the unconhoverted testimony of Mr. Pringle, Mr. Forgette and Dr.Felsot and the reasonable inferences therefrom, we find tLat significant noise, dust, smoke,smells and annoying.lights will be generated as part of the adjacent orchazd activities at all hours of the day and night throughout the yeaz. We further find that given the design of the plat,these conditions will be partiwlarly prevalent in the area of the small lots proposed along the South border of the Site,these conditions will likdly interfere with the general welfaze of the residents in those lots, and these conditions may cause some potential health problems at least for any neighbors particul�ly susceptible to the effecu of smoke or dust. We furtherfind, based on common sense and the lack of evidence to the contrary, that these negative conditions will exist notwithstanding a 35 foot reaz 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 Applicanu' own proposal, we find that some pesticide drift, either durin�application or more ]ikely after application tt�rou�h the process of volat'uation [sic], aUnost certainly will occur and result in the movement of to�cic chemicals from Mr. Pringle's orchard to at least the proposed lots directfy adjoinin�the orchazds even with the proposed mitigation measures. We reach ttvs conclusion after weighin� the statements of all those testifyin�as well as the credibiliry and qualifications of each wimess with respect to this Copr.� West 2004 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 1999 WL 219783 Page 6 95 Wash.App. 1011 (Cite as: 1999 WL 219783(Wash.App.Div.3)) Based on these findings and its authority under RCW.58.17.110,the board again denied the plat. The superior court held tl�e boazd's findings were supported by substantial evidence and its denial was not based on an erroneous interpretarion of the law,waz not cleazly erroneous,and did not violate the]andowners'rights under the federal or state constitutions.The superior court dismissed the land use petition,and the landowners appeal. A parry seeking relief from a land use decision beazs the burden of establishing that one or more of the following standazds is met: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process,�mless the eaor was harmless; (b)The land use decision is an erzoneous interpretation af the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiccion 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 oFthe law to the facts; (e)The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction ofthe body or officer making the decision;or (�The land use decision violates the constitutional righu of the party seeking relief. RCW 36.70C.130(11. The landowners contend on appea] that the County's decision implicates standards (b), (c), (d), and (�. The dispositive issue involves standazd(b). The landowners contend the County's authoriry 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 condidons or denials shall be based upon policies identified by the appropriate govemmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes whic6 aze formally desigpated by the agency (or appropriate legislative body, in the cue of local govemment) as possble 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 advene environmenial impacu wluch aze identified in the environmental documents prepared under Uvs chapter. These conditions shall be stated in writing by the decisionmaker. Mitigation meazures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. In order to deny a proposal under this chapter, an agency must find that: (1)The proposal would result in significant adverse impacts identified in a final or supplemental environmental impact statement prepazed under this chapter;and(2)reasonable mitigation measures aze insufficient to mirigate the identified impact. . ' '"8 RCW 43.21C.060. The landowners argue any denial for env'uonmental reasons must follow SEPA's substantive ad procedural requirements. But RCW 43.21C.060 unequivocally provides that the SEPA requqements "are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of all branches of government of this state, including state agencies, municipal and pubtic corporations, and counties." See Deoartment o(Nafura! Resottrces v. Thttrsfon CounN. 92 Wash.2d 656, 663.601 P.2d 494 (19791,appea!dismissed and cert. denied, 449 U.S. 830(19801.Thus,SEPA is not the only basis upon which an agency may disapprove a project because of envaonmental concems. Here,the County acted pursuant to RC W 58.17.1 I O which requ'ues a legislative body, in considering a subdivision request, to determine "(a) [i]f appropriate provisions are made for,but not lunited to,.the public Lealth, safety, and general welfaze ...; and (b) whether the public interes[will be served by the subdivision and dedication." Because SEPA's requirements aze supplementary to afl other requiremenu, the authoriry granted in RCW 58.17.110 is not limited by SEPA. The landownecs also contend, however, that the County has no authority to deny their proposal on the basis of environmental concems arising from neighboring property. WAC 16-228-185 provides in peRinent part: Copr.� West 2004 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works 1999 V+'L 219783 Page 8 95 Wash.App. 1011 (Cite as: 1999 WL 219783(Wash.App.Div.3)) Buchanan v Simo(ot Feeders Ltd Partnership 134 Wash 2d 673 677-78 952 952 P.2d 610 P.2d 610 (19981. ' Under RCW 7.48305,agriwltural activity is presumed to be reasonable and is not a nuisance when: "(1)the activity does not have a substantial adverse effect on public health and safety; (2) the activity is consistent with good agriculnual practices, ]aws, and rules; and (3) the activity was established prior to surrounding nona�riculhual activities." Buchanan. l34 Wazh.2d at 680.952 P.2d 610. *10 Assuming Mr. Pringle's orchazd operntion does not substantially affect neighboring residents'health and safety and is consistent with good agricultural pnctices and laws,the right-to-farm statute would shield him from nuisance liability. FN4 Residents of the proposed subdivision thus would have no recourse against Mr.Pringle despite the nuisance-like conditions. The tesulting tension between residential and agriculhual uses azguably would affect the "general.welfare" of the subdivision's residents. Certainly the County had the aut6ority under RCW 58.1Zt 10 to consider whether the proposed plat was compatible wiih the lawful operation of the neigj�boring orchazd. FN4. RCW 7.48305 would not apply if the orchard operation substantial[y affected neighbors'health and safety. Also, the statute does not bar other noo-nuisance claims. See Birchanan 134 Wash.2d at 685-91, 952 P.�d 610. We bnefly will address tbe landowners'other arguments,which challenge the legality of the boazd's decision.First, they contend the boazd's findings aze legally insufficient and unsupported by substantial evidence. Much of their azgument on this issue relates to the board's fmdings regarding the risk of pesticide use. "The test of substantial evidence is whether evidence is sufticient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the declazed premise." �nrkr v. Dotiglas CoirnN. 127 Nash.2d 901. 910. 904 P.2d 738 (19951. In considering the testimony on this issue, the boazd found Dr. Felsot more credible than the landowne�'s attomey. Substantial evidence supports the boazd's findings as to the use of pesricides. Regarding noise, smoke, dust and lights, the landowners contend in part that the boazd's findings aze legally deficient. "Findings of fact by an adminishative a�ency aze subject to the same requirement as aze Fmdings of fact drawn by a trial court"State e.r rel Bohon v Depnrtment ofPub Serv. 6 Wash.2d 676. 694. 108 P.2d 663 (1940);State er ref. Dtrva!!v. CiN Coi�n.. 64 Wash2d 598. 602. 392 P.2d 1003 (19641. The purpose of fmdings 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 u to the bazes of his[or her]decision when it is made." (Quotation marks and citatioas omitted.) In re LaBelle 107 Wash 2d 196. 218-19. 728 P.2d 138 (1986). Findings must be made on matters "which establish the existence or none�cistence of determinative factual matters ..:'. In re LaBelle, at 219. The process used by the decisionmaker should be revea(ed by Sndings of fact and . 'conclusions of law. Havden v. Port Toivnsend 28 Wash.Avo. 192. 622 P.2d t291 (198I1. Statements of the posirions of the parties, and a summary of the evidence presented, with findings which consist of general conclusions drawn from an "indefinite, uncer[ain, undeterminative narration of general condifions and events", are not adequate.State e.r reL Bohon. 6 Wash.2d at 695. 108 P.2d 663. *I1 6Yeverhneteser v. Pierce CounN. 124 Wash 2d 26, 35-36, 873 P2d 498 (1994). It is not unusual for wtitten findings to be more detailed than the wording of the govemmental body's motioq and"[t]he important aspect is that the decision be consistent wit}i tLe issues discussed in open hearing and tl�e oral decision made at that time." Snohomish Carnh• lmprovement A!liance`v Snohonrish Counn� 6l Wash.App. 6�1. 72. 808 P.2d 781 (1991); see Ttreirelf v. Kittitas Counrv. 90 Wash App. 1. 14,95l P.2d 272(1997). In this case, the boazd's revised findings quoted above are more detailed [han the board's or the commission's decisions, and many of the findings aze simply statements of the parties' positions and summaries of the evidence presented. However, in Finding 34,the boazd specifically found that Mr. Pringle's orchazd operations would create si�ificant noise,dust,smoke, and annoying lights,that these conditions wouid be most pcevalent neaz the boundary between the orchazd and the proposed subdivision, that these conditions would interfere with the residents'general welfaze, and that there was no evidence the landowne�' proposed meuwes would adequately mitigate these Copr.� West 2004 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works � 1999 WL219783 Page 10 95 Wash.App. 1011 (Cite as: 1999 WL 219783(Wash.App.Div.3)) or other proper proceeding for redress." 8. An additional concem for the Macri court was that the substao[ive due process claim should not be au ' eazy"loophole"for avoiding the ripeness doctrine for takings claims.Macri, 126 F3d at 1128-29. *12 'I'he determinative question here is whether the landovmers may raise a substantive due process claim in this context. Macri v. Kin� County, 126 F3d 1125 (9th Cir.19971, cert. denied 118 S.Ct. 1178 (19981. is directly on poini.In that case,King County denied a plat application under RCW 58.t 7.110.Id 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 fedeml 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 t6e substantive due process claim, the court held tha[ "when an explicit textual provision of the Constitution protects against the challenged govemment 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. Pemm�n 75 F.3d I3l I. 1325-26(9[h Cir.19961). The Supreme Court hu repeatedly recognized that a land use restriction that dces not "substanrially advance legitimate state interests" or"denies an owner econoaucally viable use of his land" effects a taking.A�ins v. Citv of Tiburon. 447 U.S. 255. 260. 100 S.Ct. 2138. 2141: 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (19801; Nollnn v. California Coasta!Comnr'n. 483 U.S. 825, 834. 107 S.Ct. 3141. 3147, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987); Dolan v CiN o(Ti¢ard. 512 U.S. 374. 383-85. I 14 S.Ct. 2309.2316. 129 L.Ed.2d 304(19941.In Dolan,the Supreme Court reaffumed 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 Appellanu can prove that King County denied their plat applicallon without advancing a legitimate state interest or under circumstances denying them any economically viable use of their proper[y,King County's actions would constitute a taking. Since the Takings Clause "provides an explicit source of constitutional protection" against the challenged govemmental conduct, substantive due process haz no place in this contexL Armendariz 75 F3d at 1325; see Patel v. Penman. 103 F3d 868(9th Cir.19961. Id at 1129.8 Under federal law, he takings clause provides the appropriate remedy for the landownen' alleged damages in this conteM.T'he superior court did not ecr in rejecting their substantive due process claims. •13 Both parties have requested attomey fees on appeal. The landowners' claim is based on 42 U.S.C. sec.1988, which provides for fees in a Section 1983 actiou. Because there is no bazis for their substantive due process claim under Section 1933 they aze not entitled to fees. The Camty requests fees under RCW 4.84370(I), which provides: Notwit6standing any other provisions of this chapter,reasonable attomeys'fees and costs shall be awazded to the prevailing party or substaatially 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-speciSc rezone, zoning, plat, conditional use, variance, shoreline permit, building peraiit, site plan, or similaz land use approval or decision. The court shall awazd and determine the amount of reasonable attomeys'fees and cosu under this sectioq 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 prevailin� party on appeal waz the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party in all prior judicial proceedings. Copr.� West 2004 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works Cherrv Creek Proiect Prime Soils City Councif , Planning Commission Members City Staff , Nanci Parker I This is infortnation I received from Brian Trautwein, Environmental Analyst with the Environmental Defense Center,a public interest environmental law firm My comments are in italic � I asked Brian abovt CEQA review with regards to the issue of whether or not the prime soils statvs on the property pertains to zoning oz as a naturaZ resource in deciding CEQA ieview ' and/or mitigation. I a2so asked hi.m briefly about ag bvffers. . Mr. 'lrautwein said his department was very busy right now and he was not able to reply officia2Zy, but could respond to questions I informa2ly. Brian Trautwein's quick reply is that under CEC1A,the baseline is the physicai existing conditions at the beginning of review,currently the conditions on the property on East Cherry includes ks soit. This is different than zoning. Brian suggested that there can be environmental impacts to the soiis on the project site regardless of the site's zoning. Under CEQA the cky can do a comparison of the projecYs impacts to those that would result from build-out under existing zoning, but under CEQA it must analyze the impacts to the existing conditions—e.g.,to the existing prime ag soil. if it is deemed sign�cant(e.g.,if the Cityhas thresholRfs defining whaf is a significan!ag(orsoil)impact and the project would ezceed the thresholr�then pursuant to CEQA 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 fuFfill most of its basic objectives. It is up to the City to detertnine what a signfficant impact is,and that decision must be based on some evidence in the record,e.g.,a report from a fartner,soil expert, etc., classifying the soil as prime andlor making a reasoned case forwhy it is a � significant impact (to soils and to agriculture).This has already been done wkhin the city's generel plan;anii the area has been detertnined to be prime soils. , Yes 1 think it can be mitigated through an ag easement('over ag land that could i someday be developed (maybe not prime soils ff they are already proteded), 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 CRy as perpetual ag lands -maybe a 1:7 acre ratio as noted before. On one hand, the Iand zoned residential and potentially vp-zoned I is on2y a8ding more homes to 2and that is not used nor has it � been zoned ag. and never wi13 be un2ess down-zoned to ag. (not iikely) . But it is prime soil thattechnicaily coutd be farmed and regardiess if it could be fartned it this is a CEQA impact to soils and maybe to the physical ag land (eVenifnotZOnedforag). Are we Sooking at prime ag as a land I issue or as a natural resovrce issue despite the zoning? If so, we might as well look at 2/3rd 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 Iand as well as the location the factor? � This protection you have for prime ag soils probably should not really apply to existing residentialiy zoned and developed areas (and block granny units for instance) -perhaps only to parcels where there is a viable size for economically viable agricukure to occur.SB 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 SB County a project would violate the Ag Element of the generel 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, ca21 it a natural � resource, and either mitigate it perhaps by requesting money to help keep other more workab.2e ag lands in production, (or an ag , easement nearby), or go one step further and disa.22ow the upgrade on it completely becavse it lies contiguovs to prime soiZs already placed in perpetvity 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 sign'rficant 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 commun"rty 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. I provided some other conTacts Monday (re; ag bufFers and water quality/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). 2etter #2 from Brian Trautwein, Envifonmental Analyst Wlth the I Environmental Defense Center I printed out and looked wer the general plan and will try to prwide my thoughts briefly , below: The gerteral plan seeks to maintain contiguity of ag and C/OS parcels. This cails for looking at how the project site is located reladve to the other ag and C/OS areas. if the project would go against this(by splitting areas of prime soil, ag and/or open space),it would seem to violate the general plan. ' An applicant with rural residential land use designation is not automatically guaranteed a rezone to higher density 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 etement. If not, though,it is worth looidng at now-wil1 a rezone here violate the general plan by avoidably developing on prime soils. Is there a way to avoid it(or part of � th>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-significani and unavoidable impact under CEQA. Only through preservation can this impact be mitigated to less than significant according to the gen plan. 1 believe this means this project will have a significant unavoidable impact and an EIR is required based on the plain language of your general pian. (fhrow 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 soiis.) An EIR is exactly what the community shouid want, and deserves. It provides a requirement that alternatives be studied. Afternatives may better preserve the onsite prime soils (e.g.,a reconfigured attemative that only develops some of the properties/areas irrvolved and preserves the rest in ag). Remember,significant impads must be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.If it is Feasible to have a workable project that also preserves some onsite prime soils in ag, CEQA disallows approval of the project. (fhis may entail7ooldng at project costs and expected revenues to see what - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - drainage were allowed to flow overland,through a swale of appropriate size, it would fiker pollutants through soil,soil microbes, and plant roots,which act to breakdown i pollutants and reoder some harmless and uptake oihers,it would also expose fecal bacteria to sunlight(Idlling it).It would do this without erosion or flooding concerns if engineered right. Brian Not sure if this info from the regional water quality control board is relevant. Funding and �technical help may be available re: water quality. Critical Coastal Areas (CCA) public workshops have been set for ' 8 locations along the coast in March. A central coast workshop I 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!� � i Workshops are also being conducted in other areas of the State. Please go to the Coastal Commi.ssion's website to view all the � locations: http://www.coastal_ca.gov/nps/cca-nps.html The CCA Program zs 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. The 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 * Gtant funding opportunities At these workshops, we invite participation fiom those of you interested in your coastal watezshed 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 potential paztnership 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 attached CCA Feedback Form and send it to eithez me or Julia I • i • � ' ICnarrv Estaces N2�1C2 ParAa. EIR vrs. a Neg Dec: � IAccording to our ag element of the Gen PSan, Agl states " Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farm2and soils and conserve non prime Agricultvral use and natural resovrce �� lands. " � Ag2-I.1 Prime Earm2and SoiZs sha22 inclvde a21 Sand, whether a � single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies £or rating as C1ass I or C2ass 27 etc_ [Definition is derived from the Zoca1 Government Reorganization Act of 2000 Section 56064 (a) . ] Agl-4 "EStab2ish and apply a significance criterion (threshold � of significance ) for CEQA analysis, as provided by CEQA guide2ines section I5064. 7, that considers 2oss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. i Neg Dec preparation: "After preparing an initial study and identifying a project's � potentialSy significant environmenta2 impacts, a Lead Agency (city of AG) may avoid preparing an EIR if it develops , ' mitigation measures to clear2y mitigate significant impacts and those measures are agreed to by the project proponent prior to Ipublic reviews. This concept someti.mes Ieads to extended , negotiations between the Lead Rgency, the project proponent, other concerned agencies, and even concerned individuals or organizations. Such negotiations are informa2 and with the concurrence of a project applicant, may prolong the formal neg dec review process for months. " "A neg dec is on2y permissible if a22 significant i.mpacts are definitely mitigated. . Rlthouqh the mitigation process under a neg dec is subjected to pub2ic review, sometimes meaningful participation by the public is eliminated when an EIR is not prepared. Another possib2e problem with a neg dec is that alternatives need not be evaluated in a mitigated neg dec. so sometimes agencies , sometimes jump direct2y to mitigating a project 's impacts rather than considering alternatives_ From: <misensee@co.slo.ca.us> To: <kheffernon@arroyogrande.org> Date: 3/10/2005 10:24:50 AM Subject: Re: to Michael J. Isensee re: arroyo grande (Cherry Creek Project buffers) Kelly- FYI. � Michael � -----Forwarded by Mike Isensee/AgComm/COSLO on 03/10I2005 1022 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 Isenseel IMrs. Parker, I spoke with the project applicant(Damien) in January and explained our policy regarding buffers. Pesticides ere 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 Agricuiture 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 coriflicts relating to aerial spraying, the Department would generaliy 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 stili a fairly common occurrence. The buffer policy recognizes that distance buffers are the most effective mitigation measure, but it aiso 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 fuli disclosure, you and the Planning Commission shouid be aware that our Department recently recommended a buffer betow 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: Eilsworth 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) Imisensee@co.slo.ca.us I Nancy Etteddgue � To: Mike Isensee/AgComm/COSLO@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 Parker' To: <AgCommSLO@co.slo.ca.us> <ParkerNR@Pacbell cc: .net> Subject: to Michael J. Isensee re: arroyo grande 03l08/2005 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 i � 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 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 counry 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 I FROM: Lynda L. Auchinachie, Agriculture Department SUBJECT: Ellsworth Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit SUB2004-00160 (0977) Summary The Agriculture DepartmenYs 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/oi operations. To mitigate impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project. Recommended Miti�ation Measures 1. An agricultural buffer of 12U feet located entirely on the project site, along the length of the southeastein properry 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 aze 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 parficulate matter. - - - - ' ' Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP i December 13, 2004 Page 2 I To ensure the effectiveness of the buffer landscape screening, a landscape plan should be prepared including specifics regazding 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 I 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 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 pazcels created by this proposal,of the consequences of existing and potential intensive agricultural operations on adjacent pazcels including,but not limited to: dust, odors, legal agricultural chemical use, noise, and hours of operation and the county's Right to Farm ordinance. , T'he comments and recommendations in our report aze based on policies in the San Luis � Obispo County Agriculture and Open Space Element,the Land Use Ordinance, the Califomia 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 applicanYs 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 Departrnent 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 origina] 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 i Page 3 operations. Protecting the Cienega Valley's prime fannland 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 A�ricultural Settin¢ 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 azeas in the county due to the combination of prime soils, mild coastal climate, and water availability. This area supports the most intensive fazming operations that involve labor-intensive use of heavy equipment and chemicals. The adjacent site consists of Marimel silty clay loam and Mocho Yariant 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 Aericultural Lands One of the primary goals of the Agriculture and Open Space Elerrient 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 lazger sepazation between the locations of future residences could be built and agricultural land. As indicated with the original project,the lazger sepazation is necessary to reduce impacts associated with the intensive activities associated with the generally yeaz round , operations. Additionally,pesticide applications occur, usually early in the moming, on a frequent basis with equipment which causes considerable noise, dust, and odor issues. With these activities, residence in such cioses proximity to the vegetables would create significant land use compatibility issues. Ellsworth Tract Map/CUP '� December 13, 2004 i Page 4 ' The goal of the agricultural buffer policy is to protect agricuitural resources. To achieve this goal, buffers are located on properties proposed for development adjacent to production agriculture. The applicanYs proposal to locate the 50-foot buffer on the adjacent agricultural pazcel 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 Mitieation Measures 1. An agricultural buffer o€120 feet* located entirely on the project site, along the length of the southeastem 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 aze 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 suf£icient density and maturity to provide an adequate screening for fine particulate matter. To ensure the effectiveness of the buffer landscape screening, a landscape plan should be prepazed including specifics regarding location, size and species of proposed landscape screening and a vegetation maintenance plan. 'The wrtent range of recommen�d buffer distances for vege[able crops is-200 ro 500 fee[(AOSE Appendix D) Our experience with-buffers and vegetable crops indicates that,in some circumstances,smallei buffers may be adequate[o address porential incompatibility problems. There are twn site specific features which are beneficial for land use compatibiliry 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 opemtion. With respect to dust,agricultural chemical use and to a lesser extent noise,this feature improves compa[ibility. 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. Wi[h[his existing condi[ion it is acceptable ro reduce the buffer distance below[he buffer policy distance. (Letter from Robert Hopkins,Depury Agricul[ural Commissioner,7uly, 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 aze not impact by dust and 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 pazcels created by this proposal, of the consequences of existing and potential intensive agricultural operations on adjacent pazcels including, but not limited to: dust, odors, legal agricultural chemical use, noise, and hours of operation and the county's Right to Fazm ordinance. If we can be of further assistance, please ca11781-5914. i S�b;: A�a�E RECEIVED Date: 3!9/2005 5:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time From: �nnTAG To: tterrara@arroyogrande.o� MAR 1 1 2005 CC: Citvcouncil�a arroy�rande.orq 404 Lierly Lane COMMUN(IYRDEVE OPM NT Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ; March 8, 2005 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 of the General Plan. When the General Plan was adopteii 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 ca City council ' � ; RECEiVED - March 10, 2005 N�x .� � - 1005 CRY OF ARROYO GRANDE Pianning Commission COMMUNITY D City Of Arroyo Grande ��PMENT PO Box 550 Arroyo Crrande, CA 93421 Dear Planning Commissioners: My fanvly 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&om 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 concem is urban sprawl and housing prices. Large lots increase both. • We support a 100' agricultural buffer between the existing fann 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 properry owners in this azea 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, � �'r��z�, -; - - - i i Mike Miner --�;��"`y ; � 3�/�QS ' 4� 7-57 _ :! N. TM.aaa,�r�m�e.+� V 52 �+ '* 53 �O�• il � tl ,� f1 •� - . .. . � w a •aJ .eo I.J.tl.MSi R I]5A I : � R fNYRTLE S7. . , � N � .. e ' lu.es � 1�0.P0 _ `°' STEEL� RFStJB 1S101J 0 PaRT OF °�' RANCN — CORR, DF PIED —. P1SM & y"�.5� ;. 80LSA CNQMIS e C ' M1 a ; 13 'u • � � D'1 4 • � I V �/�. u ;,_ . _ � ; J�F �� M 1��,�' Ew 's BDIVISCON B 4 � - -- o . p',- . .. � � 33 is` 3t 3� ° W � M . i • . 4..: • �O �. 9. O $ L� V C � .�. �v 1 b � � � � � � e Y . 1 V . I � � U i � V w � C �^ �� G ti !9 IS y 1 O Is ' r _ a � a � n �7V , �' . N � . . � O �� 4 { M � i1+ $ �• O l '4 _ � � � i� 1 1�6.l6 { I�fl1 W N L � I IS � � �D @ y.�'M. ', i w N OE•C ' � _'^'��l� R6T sn _' ' _ 7/ - N07E—/t59E550A'3�BLOCK a ?i 5. � l LOY NUY8ER8 SHDWt! �y? IH etRCLLS "'�t ' 1 , t`4' �.s ... n � ' �"�"�� C17Y OF ARROYO GRANDE ' � `� '' SAN LUfs OB1SP0 COUNTY �:.:,�/./,. CAUFORNfA � RE�EfVED � MAR 1 5 2005 � C"- !aF ARROYO GRANDE � (, .;^a);v1l1PfIT't DE��IOPMENT � _ RECEIVED March 21,2005 h1�1R 2 i 2005 Mayor Ferrara, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE �OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � Recently, I have heard remarks concerning the validity of SANDA traffic studies for rir•o 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 Intemet. This study predicted the traffic in San Diego eactending to 2030. The web site of the traffic study is sh�wn at the top af the first page. I 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 concemed that the local traffic studies do not have adequate input variables to provide reliable model-estimated results. Res ctively, I 6%��'Y /��v GS��. ' `" — Earle Balgeman 505 Le Point St. Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 CC: Planning Commissioner Nanci Parker nttp:iiwww.metrofuture.orgidocsi�aivul�G ioL"uforecasts.pcif I �;;/ �J.�tC�� 5 ; _�... � �n ! /' ) � � / � r ✓/ level i / , ' � � � (J f�V �/ "//�i f`�Cl �J 3tion 1 f� IBefore running the models in production, a c siderable amount time is spent calibratiy�g model ' parameters and vaiidating model accurac . The purpose of libration is to devet'op model relationships that ca accurately reflect isting travel behavi r, so there is confidence that the models can be use o forecast future tr el behavior. for ex ple, if the models correctly estimate curren[ trolley ri rship, then they sh uld be able to fore t future ridership on�proposed trolley extensions an on new bus rapid t nsit service. Most r ently, the modeis we�re re-calibrated to �oar �l1M � ,`iitinnc Fufnro ��cn '__ thc �()Z(1 f�TP. Th nurt cortinn �f ihic Sha�tnr !<xtinn fi 1 deuribes t e survey data used i his calibra[ion and Iida[ion process. � � Prepar' g inputs to the dels is often the st time consuming part of a modeling�oject. Seve I sections of this pter document th three major inputs [o the transportatio�Y models w ch inciude: / • growin for inpuis used io desc " exisiing and pianned'iand use paiierr�s a ' demograpnic ' characteris[' (section 6.3) • highway worlcs used to de ibe existing roadway faEilities and planned i provements to the roadw system(section 6.4) • tra it networks used to d ribe existing and plannetl public transit service ion 6.10) � e inpuis are avaiia' ' ine iour modeiing sieps are execuied seque " iry in two siages as snown ' Figure 12. Foilow' g the description of mo��l inpu[s, there is a sect on for each of the modeling steps listed in the rder[hat they are execu�d as follows: ,; • trip ation(section 6.5) ' • first ge uip distribution(sedion 6.6) �' ' • fi stage mode choice(section,fi.7) � • irst stage highway assignme (section 6.8) i �� second s[age[rip disVibuti (section 6.9) • second s[age mode choi (section 6.11) • secontl stage highway nd Vansit assignment(section 6.12} b.L IIIKVlT IIV!'Ull The transportation models need survey data to estabtish relationships between input variabies and model-estimated results. For exampie, trip generation rates are apptied to dwelting uniu from the growth forecasting proceu to determine the number of trips generated from residential areas. Data mllw.:tion is cnctty and time mnwmin�.sn survPVS arP mndur.tad relativPly infrPrniPntly. This nnrmaUy does not create a problem since underlying model relationships are relatively stabfe over time. — _ I �a i �✓ i ne ioiiowing six surveys provide most oi cne caiiixa'cion daia ior'tne iranspcxtaiion modeis. • 1995 Travel Behavior Survey • 1995 San Diego Regional Traruit Survey • Externai Trip Surveys • Traffic Generation Studies • i ri i San uiego Visiior Survey • 2000 Census Traruportation Planning Package Additionai data sources are used to verify model estimates against independent data. Major sources of validation da[a are traffic counLs from Caltrans and local jurisdictions, transit pauenger counts from SANDAG's Transit Passenger Counting Program, and SANDAG's Vehicle Occupancy and � Classification Study. 6.2.1 1985 Travel Behavior Survey Every ten years SANDAG conducts an extensive travet behavior survey which serves as the primary source ior modei wiinrarion data. wniie anotner survey is pianned ior 2iriu, ine mosi recent iri5 Travel Behaviw Survey is the basis for our existing models. in the '1995 survey, 2,050 San Diego households were interviewed. Survey respondents provided a compiete tisting of trips made on a survey data with information such as staK and end location,staK and end time,trip purpose, and vip mode. Information was also collected aboui househoid, household member, and household vehicle characteristics. Survey responses were expanded to regional totals and tabulated to deveiop the foliowing calibra[ion data. • Trip generation rates for the Vip generation model • Trip length frequency disVibutions for the uip distribution model • Non-transit mode use percentages for the mode choice model 8.�.� iSaS Kegionai iransit Survey Every five yearo SANDAG, in cooperation with transit operators,conducts an on-board transit survey to obtain [ransit trip and transit user characteristics. The most recent survey, conducted in fail of 1995, provides data used to calibrate the transit portion of the mode choice model. 7here were �mw tar.hniral diffir.ultias with thP 2(HN)u�rvav and 2002 survPV rauilis�ra nr�w br.in� irx:nr�ratPd into the modeling process. In the 1995 survey, surveyors sta[ioned on•board buses, trolleys, and the Coaster distributed questionnaires to passengers over 12 years of age as they boarded the vehicie. Passengers filled out forms whife they compteted their trip and dropped off forms as they got off vehicies. About 41,OQ0 wrveys were reiumed wiin useebie imormaiiun, wnicn we�e iauuiaieii iu uuiain iiie iuiiuwiny calibration and vaiidation data: • Transit trip shares by income levei,Vip purpose,and trip length for mode choice calibration • Park-and•ride locations for coding Vansit network park-and-ride nodes • Walk access distance distribution to set maximum walk access distances • cxiemai IIansii vip iabie for e�c[emai ffip modeiing SJ / • rceiaiionsnip oi iaiai ooardings io iiniced irips ior uaruR assignmerri vaiidaiion � Access mode percentages for Varait assignment validation • Zone-to-route trips for transit network validation • Zone-to-zone Vip tables for transit network calibration 6.2.3 Extemal Trip Survevs Roadside interview surveys are conducted periodicaily to determine the travet characteristics of trips coming into or passing through the San Diego region from ouuide the region. These surveys are difficuit to collect since mo[orists must be stopped as they are entering or leaving 2he region and asked a series of questions about trip characteristics. Surveys conducted between '1986 and 1999 are useu io uoiain. • trip purpose disVibutions for the trip generation model • eMemal trip�engths for the trip dis[ribution model • th[ough Vips which are added to internai and internal-eMemal Vips Gaiirans and ine Souinem �aiiiomia i�ssociaiion oi Governmenis are currenYry in me process of coliecting updated information where I-5 crosses into Orange County and where I-15 crosses into Riverside County. 6.2.4 Traffic Generator Studies Tnese siudies are conducced periodicai'ry io wiieci siie ievei irainc data. ine iasi major siudy, competed in 1999, placed traffic counters and video cameras at ail entrarxes and exits to 26 survey sites, which included shopping centers, offices, schools, and housing developments. Traffc counts were totaled and averaged over five days to obtain average weekday Vip generation totals for the sites.Trips rates were then calculated based on site characteristia such as number of employees, acres, and dwelling units. Travel behavior wrvey Vip rates for non-residentiai uses were adjusted to agree with traffic genera[or trip rates to correct for unde�-reporting of trips in Vavel behavior surveys. 6.2.5 1981 Visitor Survey San Diego is a major convention and vacacion destination. A smatl-scate visitor wrvey was wnducted during ine monv�s oi iu'ry, i�ugusi and Sepiemcer i�i io ooiain a more compieie piciure oi visiior travel pattems.Surveyors stationed outside selected hoteis and tourist atVactioru questioned passers-by about their Uips made on the previous day. Visitor trip generation rates and visitor Vip lengths for gravity modei calibration were obtained from this survey. 6.2.6 Census Transportation Plannina Packaqe (CTPP) Since 1960, [he decennial census "long form" has included a series of transportation related I questions about work trips, including travel time, travel mode, and empioyment location. There is a considerable lag between completion of the census and release of work trip data. Regional level mode shares and travet [imes from Census 2000 came out in fail 2002 and were used to 'adjus2 ��I , � - � modei-esiimated mode snares. nnore deiaiied suo-regionai GirP daia is expecied io oe reieased in 2004, and will be used in a more ex[ensive review of model outputs and for model calibration. 6.2.7 Traffic Counts �� 7raffic cn�_intc; �icvri im m�rlpl yaliriatinn, 2rg nhtaina�i frrun a varjgtv nf�fiffvrpnt crnvcac f2ltranc has about 80 permanent freeway traffic locations that provide average weekday Vaffic counts by hour and direction. Caltrans recently implemented PeMS (Pertormance 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 de[ailed counts by five minute intervals and also outputs speed estimates which can be compared wiin modei-esiimaied speeos. i�nocner Caiirans program counis ireeway on ano oii- ramps on a three year cycle. The Ci[y and County of San Diego and some of the other cities conduct comprehensive traffic count programs and maintain wmputerized count files. SANDAG converts [raffic count sta[ions into an Arclnfo point coverage and wbsequently matches counts to network links. SANDAG also collects counts to produce an annual Traf£c Flow Map. Counts from this program are used for ci[ies without computerized count fiies. 6.2.8 Transit Passenger Counts , �Hivui+G nas aperaied a rassenger Coun�iny rrcx�ram since iyiy, wi[nin wnicn every ous 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 poinu along a route. An up-to- date transit route and stop inventory is maintained as part of the Passenger Coun[ing Program. Bus stop inventories from the Passenger Counti�g Program provide bus stop locations for transit network coding. The Passenger Councing Program aiso produces the following validatio� data for checking the aauracy of transit assignment estimates. . nr�?��rr�A�«.,M ^r • Screenline counts � • Boardings by route and mode 6.2.9 2000 Vehicle Ciassification and Oceupancy Study Sr�ri'uHG and Caiirans siaiion surveyors ai i5 ireeway iocaiions and yi suriace sireei iocaiions io monitor trends in vehicle occupancy and vehicle classification. These counGS are taken every five years. Vehicle occupancies from the most recent 2000 study were used to verify mode choice model escimates and vehicle classifications were input to air pollution emission modeling. SS ColleenMartin �E�EI�Ep 855 Olive Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 MAR 2 1 2005 (805) 234-5913 i gmartinpc(�a,aol.com CIiY OF ARROYO GRANDE March 21, 2005 COMMUNffY DEVELOPMEN? Deaz Arroyo Grande City Planning Commission, In considering the status of the Planning Commission's review of the Cherry Creek project, it is obvious that the Applicants, are faced with major issues that must have been considered and understood before their � purchase of the Stillwell property and the establishment of their plan. It is not the City's concem the price they paid for this property and/or the costs already encumbered to develop this project. These major issues, as a mirrimum, 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-yeaz storm solution was required. - The existing traffic issues affecting East Cherry Street and the Traffic Way intersection. - The incongruity of high-density housing including rivo-story dwellings in the rural area and tLe aesthetically incompatibly with the Noguera/ 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 requiYements for appropriate EIRs addressing the Ag and drainage issues. As a function of their 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 � - . �c �.° �.� Mazch24, ZooS RE�EIVED To: Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission MA� 2 4 2005 From: Chuck Fellows CiTY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNIiY DEVELOPMENT I Re: Proposed Cherry Creek project � The following are some comments that I was planning to make during the Planning Commission special meeting of Mazch 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 retum for having a paved street for access to their property; others want more than that, still others are not reachable. Danuan 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, I even though the current applicants have proposed bypassing the old road bed. - The matter of drainage/groundwater rechazge/water cleansing must be taken seriously, as must a properly laid ouf 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 Attomey 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. Cher`ry S�eet would form the 25%non-vegetated southern firebreak,while the new intemal street would fill that role on the north side. This design will leave 75' in the center for the recommended 50%vegetated portion. This azea could also be used as a biological filter,that is, a�combination vegetated azea and percolation basin in case of run-off during storms. Water would be subjected to sunlight wh'ich 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 of larger homes plus smaller,more afFordable homes. The matter of the breach in the buffer could be corrected by slanting the southem entryway and having a wider,vegetated median there. , / � ,!%�,� U t � , . T + `i � . � ..� �a� P i,✓�'NF. ry ��,F� .' "R� ..�J, , �. '' �� 1 A,�� f Pi inq� *'� k ��4� ��it � 4 1 � t/ I — F 4 i.. .Fh� � �1'�� . i a�g� r�}{;1��1�'��y�}(� '� � . ME �� °��l"�r � Yf�A e�ll�•,� . _+�` - y.' '�' �l � {�A{Ir9 ��1 AG !( � � .,'�♦ F' � i �J ' r � b'+' � /. r� ��1 ( � a�4 ♦ �` � �� '/�-. '1Ptl ). �, � �.i�xl�;� ��jt �rc, �'�� riy� .: . r. � )�y�R�'4 r .u tiq : �47a -, �jy�. \ i i�4 t :r ,: � �M1� �',p��q ? 'Ct V �.yit "j'M;��.,�Y�1i��`'�� '7'�rvte 4��A, ,r�'��4��0�� µ�'+� ��.. y- � , "y �^�� p qu+r ��'��` V'rF�� . . . U� $ �. t t � na x�i!$� r r �. i y K < ` pup.�'r�. 3�' � 1.� \ . �, � ,��,;k^u ,�� }r;��'� �c ,r,:��°�;• ., , � . , a �: 1 U 1sr,_,r� � � st � ,� r' �*� b � �,��! �/ a� � ' 2 ' � �r�� , r �� f, ` ada + r r °' , 5�` � � I I �r ' � � �'fi,;� , �. �� ,�x� �, ni � �w.�" �#��'�� , o'�h'( � � \ � a o � I -�.ik� � +.rl��lriol +� �iy�� jyl � 4��j 1A 7� / 'a.v,.. ,. � �� I �x` � � ��d�.+��{�r�'�( � :1�4�' �. �,w%°t�a� �.i'-� 'i� Q��• i �o i i� � '3 � � �' `. t (�� '�'�}�^}�,{/f' a��nF � I��4��yn 1�<�" � �= ro � � � y� �!' , V �/��` � � n f �X ��a Pw (kkF� 't4lA1.-1�y y rl � P'Jr �y�t� ��pn(T' {7�n � � � . ' t .�rr. � i.��,M� 1 \. � . 'v I . �.� ..�`4 M�{�� I .'� t�, ` i .�i �i��,k�l. . ' 1 ,��y.�� .� 7/�� \�� 1 • � � ; . �lt�„r ' t�5'itl��i�J e��,�1$�� '� .r 1 ai c �;��" � i�4��. 1 ...ry' /'i � ^ y dt� r� �-� � ` 5 \ ��l 'ian � �-JJiyy '� • � 4t . � !.. ^ �� 4ij� � , w.' ur4i��-i..5� '� � ^� !�4� ��i� R � �'� el n+T' � •� ,/ .r, ��. F�`�1 S-.ki iC��t '� i� ` �i �t�. r�.• � -\`, c. � o �� J'' +l� '.f �4 f1�'-�Vt�a�:��,{.'� � #' � � i � - �' � ,�,t„ �.. 4, � �`!; r,v �5� 9�,.� . , / a � ✓ \� � �� , .. . .. � ��1 ;�� jp� ' .� 1 : ./ . C 4 fi\�, i \. c � ' i� Fl"�CP�c m;l1 Y,�� i ,r� ., � p;; � p y C .AwyC�^�n'.NV. x aK1/yx��y{��"�° ?� + '1;'P�, � �ji�. � w� 's / - �s ` / '.\• i wk F � ��d. " _,£*.�iy��M 4�'}��k "��" �� r f t,� '6�r • ' � ��.1 ~ � '..n�� ,T+�, ��x��¢ ��,'�"�4�"Tcy�j.�fn�d i;��(}��' � � 4.. . a � ,��t ��x� � !,�Y" �� A\yQr 3 \ � � ' . r ��.. �� E 9y! �1 +�h�{�� A '� �4 S k S kg'^�N��f��k n�� '�.' �' � (1 � �y,r� t ..t wA � � � ' i ` �,�1 �'�` '.� d` "Np. �' '� ��. �� 2 L � . y.....� r R,r '' _��;,�y.�„;t'�Sr '`` F�rasC i'tG° f� �k s. amvr � .n", � ` , 1 �-, 0/� \ . . i�6��j S .�14 i i( �i.��t 1 n� � `411t� �� tj.- 4 * rt ' � ',",`W�' F\. �r .1�t,i�,�P r+� \J� ��y u , tt' �, . �+ fi� �. w � d . \ �.«,. . . ,S� 1 I M1 „ � Yl � lhlt�4�F17A� 44�. ftfir ,�P��i�i��C, �� t� il� �^'k \( ./q 5 �F � �;��-, I ° i��rf t}x7F', 'T�d�r4ii��k ��.�"`bS7hi."a��iry. t�� 4T' i � � 4i��'� a at��/ f�'C" .�F��.. �) � � '� �. ..r W f .1 J I�' n � ,F'',� s �'r�1� � ♦ (4(r?�' S'� 1'� / � H i' 4 �� . I 11 1 ,�,�(I,l��r �1�,� �'qi� ��j:yW��i ��Fi�Iai1�1� n��r �5�. ��. �� .3� ��r � � � � : �, . �� - ��7 i�� :'r�tl�ta��f 'tiY�uS,� �� uk��s�'A i i�i V �i � �P ;" { y� . � � v '�� i.'/ ♦ �,. � , 4� r'..�,,; /� i� ��t 'l�ii'i .!rr�,��,i i '�i'"�'�R.! . � u a Ahw y �,,�i� � � 'M�' t M s� � '��"1:',%•;: 7 Vx��: ��I�� '� ar{}1r ��,1�'� :1t �ri �i �5�i�'i �.' � ��y� t�+ � �.lr�.y• '1. � 1 .yT. lf�fr f ti�. � � � r � t4, � �r � ` l� / qt i � �1'' �..� ,J� i�, r'111i �� 9 �� r 'ty . .� a�l „' �'a a�1�� '/ �--� ��.� �"n` '�i;\�d ��y �P �'�� . � 1 l.� . ,qtr�� J�."h�4 �� K� Si h '..r 'u � _ y� rh2F y��p��+r � �'y�. ��- � �1��iFti 1F°iaY,o+� 'i � + r� � �f [ � � � � � .'qr4� S i � tl� ! �I S �4 i i }r J �S� �t S � + � V�'�] '� r ... / �} c � r �.r.°r h.� r'S�+.d�d'S'^ � � '� � ! •�' ,r �' .� i Y: � . ", tf rt�%v �� h1 a�.� i Gr �h• lYq' V �{� � �. ' • 6i c � f {� �0. K�'�! A �Ph( t � t y.�tyl � � ' , � rt • ti� .�i. �� . t i t5 �y p+, r K �' H r l i� �,. � +{ � rJ i h i ,n � �� / i }�a �t y rif� i7 i� �, . �4'. i � i� r ,n'if "l 1 i H� � e. IM 4�7e 4'SAS' �, ��Y l! ✓ 1 �` i.La^'h ¢ i� � M� n u� 'k. d : ,f ` 1 .t� rh("1'� ' '�j ii r ra` �� } !i c��. c \ FM� u 4' �2� t� lA� �1� ��a ,`1� 911�. .'�'",7y� �r�.i' .,�;�.�aM`M � .. � V �� i iV.nP 'i1 �N.�t . 4'1 � �. 5a 4a"?. i � q �* n1�i� . , � i P" ii' { '�'�� A '�Iw �.S1Y3{'R i :ni �r��, i rytS ��n '�' r' itN�: .1 p "� '�� - -�i: ��rY �4��. S�S�t f�b� 4�i��.C^e,`�,�,�, • \ r� Ye�>t t F ��4i� � � P � . � c �}: `�� .:.� �� s .:�j^��J �.��1 �G��,ib ,.� ��`5�� V .24�4 ,{� r 't', W��,..r �g A 4` s r��y, �� ` � y. � i. +.xu � F K - m 4 " � r.,��""` ' '` r r 1�7 �� ° ,!'a. i�':� , � A g.��ip , LSr �� J 7. ?Iryn�,T� ' r�� . f' A. ,��tiH��..:`.��., y, , ,k,� fr�3M7r �41 ,, r ,�y� a q ��1•,, !y, L � { . �y � ^�-.r ..• i.i „ ;�pFCF��'Ye4�.r� w1d �\ \ �"tt"�hMP C'4. 1 } i t/ ��`�t.'' � �`M J t .'� . ' !� Y �� y .3. 1 ` � r i'� y ' �� 3�w�'Ya 14�+ ��C i , T r�l�i`..�.y� � #`i41 ** ' +'�.i� — J :�.., �� "' :' - �� L"�" ,� - . r�t. � �'�' i ' , a.'. �T:� �' �� .° p�, � .., • �� y'IA� 1' i a � < lw �p 5 � i. j , � {K��. r�. ��y t6��y� ay�� 'i NS �t ,�i:,��1 . �'i f : Lu". �.i{ � . . . `� � �7� �:� �fa��,�� .F'�.d ,k �� . 1 1 "�)a "�j k�� r � �� yp� K' . \ � ;��F"... � � -?.�i � x�f j j�a °� ro 6 � {,�' ... F � � a�,Y� 1 4 k i f. yt u��i{�n�' §�� x Yri vwn 1 Sj;"'«�� \ `,�� n.� yi' oe' �, � F ' Sy �'t 1. `w,1 i.0�-'Y � gL(�s�{' >F3i�'t � , . d! ' r .e{r� � F .t �K`� � .� �Y,}'y•i y. �-� �� `v .�� ' , p ,�p'LL��Y��:�. . � bai� I�y,� �a . r.i y ! 1�}��yi�i.'�,�1� .� . * -�i l �1�,�� '�Y. ,��1 ' ';+�rSl �i � i V ��1��^�`�'�iMh a. , y �+��,(,� ',�`t^'' .� 71?s ' �'y;s� , � '};S ,.p , '�'�f�.�.• c4�. �. , � ��5 N� r "�w�T, 1� ��;'�if ' .,+' ,:� d, ' �',� � .E��'. �, � � �` � �; i,�'1 �� F�� M ni ��`n�`e�f��`' ' ��A,f!;. � K+ �i� Q ° �.�` '-T '� 'p raM , ! �� : �' � i�+�U . .��a F� ��a r�. r �� .4 . S . 'l • y . iR �i'�� i ��._�'. 1, + . {� v I. ,�: � t � . � . . .� r . � �� X�k� � ��' . . �d : : {i 'qnra. ��v �. . ��y ��"�y r`�* � lw � .. .. � : . ��ui;iNtt,�;�'��`:� �rp � i• pN � �3� «nY� `y '� r '1 � �"�' h;'.�� . +, �. �('��.�. , , k.: .....__ ,..._._. � ._.-----. ..._._._.,�x�,K�.��.�t,4+l�k.,.u.y�.s ..�`_.J�_�_:.�_�.1L.y_.��.:..._ �!...a- , , ,��r,,_, ". � ��r�tu�'� ' �' �� t +� �Y + . � �� E6 ..�� .:S �r i�si! � .- �y��, ..'�.h ��, W � �kt��{�,4, ,� r7,' �, . 1 ,�i , 1 : � � �_ � k> ,. > , �: {q U'�F li ��5��1a��.� �s 1 �� .�' �P' 3 -� �iC� n�.. rf � �'. ��^ �\�, �l � # V��ul�t��d�ni1�� , ?�t,R�j�i 12"�,�� .r� , ..1�g1 , 6,� �.� r"� +_ 1�!} x°. ��p'"<.' A'`�\ �'r .�C.\\� ' Q � � �� lTla;4 �r5�� t��4p>r u�.. �r • V � IG �IPfU�l�Y yn} r ^ 81,.. � S�� N `R �1 >> � � y') V'/� '�i�fA��T•:��'�Y�'�l �b�fl:.+li� -t. pl I.��j�� p . I'tY �� \� r �'��` 6 �-4I . y+ (� /� irtl�ie��'r�'�Srr'�� t��i�1��ti�y�� s IL�'41'�, t� .L� �11t �.` i d�:.;� • i � ��` �ii��i �(Y 91��.'•i. � � I[�\y(�\ I�J ' f�, W� �1 n.� � Y � . � �^'9 W`Je.. .h4 � .. ' # . .�. ' i��j� ' . ` ' � .. . V 1 1}I!.��1 � Y ^ 1�4.�3�1 ' ', �� Y 1 , �py r(R � � 'l'li l� { ��. ��rY I1 � ' i� 0' - '"j� � ��'y`i N ' . �'i = � � 1 �. � !, �' i7 �r,. d � Y n' 1 �K I�AI�1 F 1�1 1. '�' � � ° ` G I ' .P � �. , �1�'be,� .,x `�,�4,7:af. �' ' .�t�`,y � .�i., �+, � i. '�' ,r � � � ��e ( ��.rt I � Ct n A . � �� n�i p�j � , � 5!'' ,. �/n � �bii�l r�H! � ?�t � �iu� h...#` 1f,�Cre' »� ;1� ` �� F.. �'� �.d�d/ �iS�1.^� .r� P �'ll 1 n� �i �1'li��" k n !�i N ir i �,l � � � � � 7�(y�rnr{ IF\Y�yAl0.�l. �^i.. °� tl� :-i i _u7.A� j'X.�.; y,�� 1' i �v . �S�i J `\ i \ V , ' � n �..�'i� 1 ry �AN<e1�L1 .� d ��y4r �� r. + �� '��i� +�1�� '1 P�i �i�j., �� k - (��)iA • � �� Yy • �� ^ \ ♦ � � r,. "' }�f, ��!)t�� ^a ?� , �'�'P�, ,- v !'.-{+ '° .i..� � � � A��,�.� n� ry F S �nf ��[�}� ' II�^ : 1� 7� ��;� � k .. .:� \ �< � 7� , .r w�" ~�M��`_i{. i4 �wUr�,��"�y�'� �t�. d,q�J�t � ..' � . qiy fJ t � � ! �F' \ � /'� . �ti 1[ � I rt1 l�M 4 �µT� '�{'� 1 �i'i�t:.� / �, � ` �� j r � ._ h � . �!? . �}� 3 L f��±�'�.:�.✓ t/ , ` � '� tiGn° ,� Tv� .,` r'`f�w�J�dx 4�i�s i ,�4 rcr I f � .. . ,6 '�e.\� ��'4` : � n �wN h 1,�} �Y� t� �} �g''` ^� a � � i �+. � <:t .. ' w M�q i �s�1�}k�"' M1�r '�'�1 i,. �F I � �, `M,�/ . ' C" `� O ,.f � .a�m�nw e Ay�1�'1 � + �1M�v� Fy � � r. a� � ry,tj'. " frb�� 1��M�.:A1i�� ; � ' / �, ..\ � Mst"1 �i'.dlil��'�' �,vt��uC`N��4�Lq�'�ii�,��x �'��' ��.+ � �p pi t� �'1� ��'�"Y`�� W, \ � y�`` .-� e . . � �i v.� oc ��"ror�n�'�'��5�� l� p ; � '1�',"�..�r'1'l�� ? � � � - �I .:�" � , . �1 ('� � f.i.... � N/iwu+/1s� d' � r i�.�Jl' 1 t �� Ab . iS',y SP` ��Y .4�� ,v � n 1 r i ,` �� `^' � r r ��r��i,r ��x"r,��y� �, � fp,, � �r a�" \ 1 � i�, d p�'. �`�' � i,�Fi �$h� � 5� 1''�,�� ,t' �h� ° �,, � K 4Fr i t �` �* � . �S �•, 4S� �k '1 E'�Y �`� . � � .�h _ � .F a�lyte I �N�y�. � iryr� ! ��a�a1 �� r" �H ,�e�,� .. � r F��'1 m ..,,� �� n � � � Yr +�, � py�� p�1'� F� w+ M 1 .�' u � ypr,� i i \ " I �t � i�f�4<t��jPtL�b�<�,�A �( t r� <�r��rif\^y�rr � .f�T�� ✓ ,��#,� Ry �ai �tF1�� A., S 7�r S ��. '� ` J� �NY,. .N � '��r�t41(��jt � �7. �{�i�f �iR �i�<e r �flir�ui��*' F ?`,1 k.: . �A� �� "� '` r4 - �� f � ''�� a `� i � Q� � q qh . . J u � 1,NIA J r'�1d ��'p „{N id�F t . .r, !� ' ' � �^--,� I , :'i�,� S�� I,r�r��lah��iu�` Ft��z � i � � ,�,:t '�-0, I� . ��'�A 1 ,� // /� � ,� r7 ��f ,Fo. / , - h r 'k r ' .. . . � ¢ �f� � `'�4� � tFi�a a ,.�'s t pi m GYr' � .��w� A4� r " 'u r C � �� . � � � � � �i .�'.�, � � i e � �nr 1 1 `4- 'R � 'Ll.� �` � +dr n�r �t -i ,r� a� �,�� r� N A'A v� � 0 ; r�� r�,w`' ,. 5 -. t iM i� � � i� +rr �1t Y � r � / r �� i S � ,� � ,� �; �r«� ;�,a r t,� �, �t� ;� ,�� , ,� � �"i� �,/� . ,. � � � � �ti�G� �y'�� , �, ��' 8�4��k��. 1� �1+n; y i �� ,� �. �S� wa:Y , ,P' . � . N�..6� f^� .��,'C�:' (p'�d. � �..L> - i, l�ft �i�,�'y� IE � ee�i'�Y` p ��. ' a4 ! �.,, . � �. �.�: � !} ��. ,� pN� � _� ` � �. V,{17rP � ��' �'i )A#�5�.� � l� � t' r � a�. � �. �f Y� uµ��4 � T } ,� I� � �R� 1}n '��T7'J�x� i (rl}�r `�'M • .V �� c � .� �4 1. ``� 7`J� M � � 1 � ss 1 i � r ir: � �' 7 N. . i. FN 1' i h �� . W l y� ��I}� �1 v � t� 'u'� ��1 . 6 Er � ..J� � ` p �Yl� �`yl ��' u��+ � t �i .7N � i.� d4 £ ¢� ie � !�"r�� .' i �t ♦t n.. ,ryJaMr ..:�. rT 1( [� jfx�� 11 �� tk� �\1� 7� YYY 4�' t \b t�7� k �� r'�� ' !a - -�� x��'��mi�.r� � i �rylP�iY �� it��4SNN+d ' •`. P�'� V � :i ,�+} , i .( s�.k , �h.�. -.+ i �+.,•• y . i "a _ Y �k i� V �r 1�" 12'4�`' ,,,_5 X �'i}�� i 'ti6ff+�1.�i B�� y�.�i A1 ��pt N� � { � �y� �1 I�{N/ !r � �1 L,��/ � '' � �4.{ � ��)�M}p�7�N rl �j 1�d�iTV? \ �r3�'r ,o, ��A � � A p ' r, x 7°'°\� r I, � �.. � t��;� '* ^ ;, � 1 � � � . �� „ j�o�m.1 ' � `.,. � !_ :"�� ,�'�1. Q`'� � �yS!^m� .�� i� �5�=. . Y' � d.�K;.,�(, a t�i .. x � :�".' N� � ' ," � r ,� !./ � $ rw�i y� 1:r {�� ^� ��l.:� �; �. a ". C�M ,}{?�,yj y�, ^ +�3!�s7r�4r * . f. ��t�;��^�'y � " ' " .�� ^siti��.��,��" �� 'Cy"q�'"uip' r' 4k�j1� 'P[ iA, 4 � . � . I ' . � r s. . � � A, '�aG y r ..\ �s�,� 4 7 �i� �`7�,��eiJ �'y ��.\ t} � �• ` �� x i -' �.- . l �� / �F5i7F�ayd '" ^ i.i- �. � .� �rp Y �r,:, `� ' I� i ^p i �' . : � . � q�± \ � T .r'k !'� � '.4 r.ei � �'4 1 Y � .+ ' �. �!.� r ' ' � .•��y,��9r�� YS� , 1 ��p�'�i / r�v y rEr ,3,^ ^y�7�'�ay . Ipe � � 4 �- a y .. �i �. 4Fr x 1N �. Yk� 4 �.x,}n. .�iF. Y�'l ' �� ro' r � • �'� `� ' .� �g,v . a: , ,�/ a ( ...t^ x . . . +' k� .:}� � '�.� �fr� .� 'r' i�j, �� ;S��Y �.. � ..1 -.:..4M1 � �'F��`) H�� f. i I�i \ �� Y �r � � J . .f, � .i � � �ll6 `I� ��.i .. di�.l � r�S� \ �i�� . 4 i' .+" . i � �y,� !. . rT� � ,;�„S� l��,l�' ,�i � , <f�s ,. .:�� , `'�4, �,� �y '��' ''' �� 1 � . '�Y � `�` * " � p-�4 .:� �� .� „�:r l y i �J• ytYi. � • J. i pf�'�4�':� �Y�� '!L 1 � �i . �� `�Y��F9{h�;'w'� � .. '. . , � 3 l .'�.�8 . 'v' r�RnFR t ' J�� :� ' �7(( r �/�1•�..! � . 1 _ l� '- .��'�� {�'�Y � �` C��i F}�If �. i, '� � . t . '�� 4 � ln�(5�•. {� �4�� I �,I, u . ,.�jY�' �,,.: , � fi � w �/—'-^�; .. , , �� ,'!'��j�d6vFG+��Rt`Y ��, �tf��`3Y"4� , "�. ��J yy �°_,',� �y ..� �L ��°�. 1 �,r'��`�..`"� � � A�6: � 4 � ..; � '�'�� ' ` 1.��y } t��f IZ�1 Y ! � � �. . � f �,i �� P�� x�� I.l �: . �{ �fa� i'+l� �f. v i c .. �. '� q) }r �7�°,r .� - .�+�; d'" ,. . . - �l j�. K � Sh � �l��j k�; � � q. '�. y4,.y'. '�j ,9:. • � A . �, � ; - . .'�,�t i 4 . 11Y�, �'y�` .1 �Vt" .y �51�. t � ��L ` r .. � A":�l,h . 4 , ,�♦h �5.�.— f , . . ... .__. :._.."'_'..._..�_.__. _..._...�..i ��wxw+ -.�...� +ilir..�...'.r._"_:�...`.v ._�...�7�... � :.�.�J.n..._ ... . . . • _........._ ...'.,.�..,._..,...�,..—....��...�...«wrm.�..n+�.�na-...n••-....e�,.a.wex�.-w--��m � 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 Fazm Provisions and Farmland Preservation regarding the buffer requirement of 100 feet as the minimum amount of buffer and referencing the recommendation of the County Agricultura] 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 wi(I 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, ��_�°�� - �� - y�'/�;�.�.�..�..�� 7ylc -� �_��.�v �-L�-- Sara L. Dickens and � Marianna McClanahan, Co-Trustees Gordon F. Dixson Trust � ,:��- � �.y , / '4� Y I May 9, 2006 ,,� `'°� • I C/ +4%�� `�~cr' Subject: Creekside Estates Planning Commission Meeting May :I��y: ` `��„!•.^_� ] n V' Dear • �'"°�'_ ��'`,� `� • '''%� `�c ''`'�'�� ``�C;a, .` F �r�`'✓T We are very pieased that at long last there is a sensible and workable drainage project proposed as a part of this plart. 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 feei 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 ihe 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 ptastic 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. lnstead of providing an eyesore to tF�ose owners on both sides, we fee(that it wouid be appropriate to instail 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. - - � ; - . IIt 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 originaily required the neighborhood plan to be consistent with the surrounding area with Iregard to lot size, density, and appearance. We feel that this is the correct way � to address the original intent of the Neighboorhood Plan. � Thank you for attenti n to ou r� t. �� , �°�''� �� , C�� C'• G�� 5� �� 610 Myrtle Stree 307 Noguera Place 311 Noguera Place �1 � �.�Q � ��- � ��.� � i ,1 �� . 315 Noguera PI ce 19 Noguera Pla 323 Noguera Place �,iJ,ca s�,sa a.✓�r.Y+� . 3�Noguera Pla� 615 East Cherry Avenue . � D�� ' I I ir�. .., ___, ., � � - -�: � �..�' � _� _ , ._. __,s BILI,Y J �`YI�Ek2 ��'� � `� �Jv�^ � rtr-�l�� ne.�.�.- 246 GARI)EN SB' cnv o� ,..;,.., o c .,.;._= v r� • I !"Oi�`.Hi'✓'�\i:'I ri�Y :�vf11�CiV! Ag2ROY0 Ga2ANDE, CA 93426 �� 805-473-3782 May 10, 2006 _ ITo the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande NYy husband and I and our three small little girls live in the residence at the intersection of Garden and Allen Streets. I That intersection of roads is a very busy and dangerous place. I 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 traffc will flow down Allen. - This additional flow will increase the risk of accident and the � clanger of harm to our young children. We respectfully request that the PIanning 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 Crrande, CA 93420 (805) 234-5913 colleentitusmartin@sbcglobal.net Deaz Planning Commission and Council: I I have presented some documents and quotes for you to ponder as I present a brief oudine to consider with your Cherry Creek Application deliberations. From the October 9. 2001 Citv Council Minutes. Pa� "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-yeaz planning period. He stated that in almost all instances, any significant projects are specifically identified in the EIR as requiring a Proj ect EIR when the property is considered for development" From httn.ceres.ca.QOV/ceaa/flo�vchart/lead aeencv/EIR-ND.html i "How Does the Agency Decide? • A Negative.Declaration can be prepared only when there is no substantial evidence in light of the w�hole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significanCeffect on the environment. (PRC 21080), (14 C.C.R. 15070) • An EIR must be prepazed when there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair azgument that significant effects may occur. (PRC 21080 (d))" From the June 2006 issue of the Stazecoach Express published bv the Ciri of Arrovo Grande, Development Code Update Focuses on Residential Land Use Issues � "The focus is now on amending design overlay dishicts, improving the viewshed review process, and refining residential zoning changes needed to maintain and enhance the Arroyo Grande's `small town nual character':' From email to former Mavor Ladv from former resident Michael Titus, October 4, 2001 "Comments favoring the increased density for this property suggested it was part of the `rura!character ofArroyo Grande.'Visits to the 7E area confirm that the urban part of our City, ends at the start of Branch Miil Road and that the 7E area is part of that rural chazacter. As brought to your attention eazlier, this azea 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 s/:ould they be zoned 4.5 units if`rura!cl:aracter' � lras any meaning. i Cherrv Creek Questions 1. Is the proposed zoning recommended for the 7E azea for Phase I and Phase II appropriate`? Should the Phase 1 zoning be denser than phase II? Could the zoning be different for the two sub areas? Is this�ansitional 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? 2. Should this vote be unbundled, each item taken separately inciuding making a sepazate determination whether an EIR or Negative Declaration is needed? i 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 buiid?Did the vote to upzone as part of the General Plan Update forget to envision that this could occur? (There are I plans in the file in the CDD 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 and 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 thatJlowed to the creek would require considerable emironmental review as the historical flows of the creek are being altered." 5. Is Phase I an appropriate use of aPUD? Is the PUD recommended so the developer can further increase the density already so accelerated from its current zoning? , --• 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. T'he developers stated that Allan Little was no longerinvolved. 10. Do the Conditions of Approvat include the acquisition and improvement of"dirt East Cherry"? If so,will the developer pay the costs of acquisition? 11. Will the conditions of approval for Phase I prevent cons�uction of secondary or granny units? 12. How could the traffic study results be so different with just 81ess homes? There still will be 270 additional trips from Phase I a possible 500 additional trips and generated by Phase II. - I E=`. -° ,��.r-.r� ,•.-�� ,, � � . � ,�; I � �:�;�;:�� ; �.� 236 Garden Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 is'i,��,� _ �"'�f;^ ' May 14, 2006 CIiY O' !,.`:�:^v i� G^,-^,.',:;`c' Planning Commission Members CG�,;;,;J:�;;}' L��,•`��,�y.`,y.. 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 iYs gone/ They paved pazadise and put up a pazking lot" (from song"Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell) Dear Planning Commissioners, I am Yespectfully writing in response to the upcoming May 16`�meeting regarding the proposed"Cherry Creek Development," 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 stated in the Mitigated Negative Declazation, and urge you to consider alternatives to dense development and the rezoning of this property. I have very impo;tant information(see 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 (neaz 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 �vas friends,�vith 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"). Accordin�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 aze in fact 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, Laveme (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 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 1,4401bs. of Class I walnuts (with no insect damage) for Diamond Wainut Growers alone (see receipt of payment to mothet,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 fann. According to a local farmer I know who sells at Fanner's Markets, there has recently been an renewed demand and market for walnuts and walnut oii, 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 Declazation 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 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 lazge fanns. Thirdly, a lazge 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 concems. 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 particulaz school site? Perhaps the parents and staff of these schools may have some concems. Please do not accept the Negative Mitigated Declazation 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 currentiy 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 orchazd, 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 i development occur on that property. I Here are some possible alternatives to developing Phase I. 1) Require a complete EIR before even considering development. 2)After cazeful 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 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�valnut orchazds 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 reinain 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 of R-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, ��'y,��?`��L� i Polly Tullis I -- — - :=)' . . . . i �; _ . -_ . -. . . ./� .:�. �l �Y ..:.,.. ._.:. '. - u n ... _: . . I _,...,:�: :., . _ EXHIBIT' A - -� . .. I Parcel 1• 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 Californi2, as laid dowm and designated upon a Map entitled '.'Pfap of the Resubdivision of a part .of the Ranchos Corral de Piedr2, , - :Pismo and Bolsa de Che3isal, Ssn Luis Obispo County, California, the property of E. id. S[eele, Esq., surveyed by R. R. Harris, November, 18E5," , according to P:ap on file ia Sook A, Pa�e 63 0: p:a�s. � P2rce1 2• Tne portion of Lots 17 2nd 1S of the Subdivision of the R2nchos Corral de Piedra, Pis�o, 2nd Solss ce C^e=1sa1, i^. tne City of :.rroyo Grance, Ccun�; o= San Luis Ooispo, Stace o= Cali:ornia, as laic doa� and cesigr.a[e� e_oa a *:a? e:�t::'-=c ":•`_: -: -:,_ 'asubcivision of a part o= [he Rancnos Ccrrs'_ de Piedra, ?is;�o znd &olsa de Cne�is21, Sza Luis Ooispo County, Cali=e:nia, tnE pro�ert� Oi E. j5. $L'c°__E� _SC.� SL`Tre�EG }1y R. :�. iizrris, 2�oce-�er, li..�._�� according to :fap on file i: noov A, P2ge 63 of ?:aps, descriSed as follec:s: BEGI�\IVG at Sts�e S.62 2t ti< �est Seec^erly co:ner o_' s2ic Lot 1S; taeace i 10ICR 5�� '3C� E25L 2�0^.� i.^._ �O=L��25�E_��' 1=�{2 O: )�ti:�1e Stree[, E�].O ' �22i� Ci12.Cc .i�OlC:l � l.� .:c'o= LO L1E CcC:L"c= 0= L'c C:c:::c1 0. .-._:C:'v ..:c:'c I.:CC1p ��:c:�C •1C��C_��: C__-� �.� � �_� �� .0 ..-c-.__ �.� _`�� .. to tae East line o: S�cG_- >Vc::i:2� L..c.C2 SOlii� 5` 'L' E2st a:cr.g _.._ =e�� 1_II2 OL $CcLiS2C :.1l2.-.:lc __'v =c:L� =0L2 C: 1'c55� LC LGc :tilaL ll' __.._:.��_�.�. --�50 cll �_�ilt� :1ClE c:C '_�L2:ESt Oi t.ic olc.^.COS GO�c_P. 1^ c:G iC �.c� Cc�_c_: "aoreer,.ent _oT ,�UiL'c� _____'�_OII $V5=c3�� JeL.2e^ CC_15�1II0 :.. ::c_CE� eC c_ G2`.0� l2��iic_)' 3� �.�� E'Cv_TCCO_CEa :�c_C:': �� Z��J '_: DOOe: �E� �2ce �iC C= J2cL5 =C tt12 OiI:CE O_ tIIE C.^;i::L. ?ECC_TG07 O: Sc�C COL•.^.L�'. t+'nich Sc1C :i.iETESi tCcS aceuired D}' n. T�. _:c.'= � ' CcE6 =:0� ...c'Oi2 S2C15�i'_�'� 2 5=.^.�12 ::C-c'� Cc�cC JL��' 7::� �C!l `c3C 'v""v' ` '. '.,� 1`-_ _"' .�.COc: :Q:� =2g� l]_ ; C""'c� ".c...C�S. - � ( c:�esct�Pk�o;-. o-F 13y M+�r�kl.c St. � �o✓ more� �r�ro. v.e.�re ,r �v _ � DOG . 32� 17 � Ott' lGt0.� Y2GOY� S _. _;.;,. . .. ,. . � � S 1.o Coun+,� R�¢ ccYd s -� i ; • . .pa.F-e d L4u (o, lcl $ 'Z - . - ' - - - � �' � - -- � � ��: ` .� � -_ _Vo1 . = 2423 .p9s �b8- qb9 r � t �� _� �> ,. - - - - " - - F'"n i-�:z f..v;: -�<'a f' - . , : F t��f.-� �• . - .. . �`S Yl L•L'o,,.�,j.i�� . 2 � .y2 ' � , . .�.'� _ _c==.=. s.:Y.�v. ..�\i-vF�"� . . � � -. .':`.: _ ..... '. . "':�- _, _ ; �._,r:.h, : .� : . � , � ,`'-' . DIAMOND �ALNUT . GR01�IE_RS, IuNC. : � A GROWER-OWNED .COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION . . .•-, .• BOX 1727 ' ' , � r. , _ 570CKTON. CALIFORNIA 95201 . I • .• ... '" _ ' � � .• : . . .. ' ' . �TELEPHONE ' 466•4851/AREACODE209 - I �- ._ 7ELEX359-470 � _� . _ . . _. ._... , . . . ,_. _. .. ._:�. .. •__„t•= " . .- � -. ... .. I . ..._ � ..' w . . ' ' ., ' _ , � IDear Grower Member: � The enclosed check is the first advance on your 1g77 crop deliveries. i - .- - . . . _-- -�-•------- ---_ _- - --- ---- -- ------- _ -------------------------------- . � PAYEE'SNAME A55iGNEO% MwwPefe.ieiMiNV�le.lo.oll � OF NET PROCEE05 �+w�d.+.Ce•inwnde=n r�a. :: �93631 M�S NADMI.-E..3TILWELL' 100� 00 10 '21 77 15; 844640; 00[ _ 520 . MESA__L Ij;A ROAO _ - . •- : GLENDALE CAI.TF _ - 91208 - 1977 CROP _ � Diajica�n�l'�,.�.t,?,T,,�hc,��x:xs;...I�c.. � � P.O. BOX 17T7 � STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA DELIVEP.v IrvSPECiIONRE5UlT5 D�Y pVCle"IOT "`� v NE7 WEIGH Kc9NF.�PVAL�5�5 SG IYSECT ACCUN ' .IV. xou9Ea �ou u POUNDS E�.'�_` " -�>c` ' W_rGMT'w FLI iY i eS'�\ LCG:G� �Y_� M Dr�Nnu C/LJ 15 237C3 n7 � , uqp 34� u 53. 6 LIGNT 8,0 �S i� 8�r _ _ = .::,.,. : "..' . � . , . . , ._, _ _ . . ..:, . . . .:.: ._.. _.:. ,: �_ . ..:. ,. ,._ :,. . . .: . _.. _ . _. )UNDAGEi TOTAL8 . 3i4A0 .. . y438 �, . ,. - . _ � �... _; 115 } -s .;: _ . ' : •. . , ,_ . . ___._ . . _ � _u . _,. _. . . . . � �, / 06 Q � _ . " !/� s.:9 , so . . : __ _ : _ : , . . _ . " '.� °—� "'a '=♦ '�` ' " ��:1 . �: . . • . ' �� .. , A�`i t.:. �.:sY.� .: v .r�:..:.+J W�;a'� �. ��)i;�, � CI1Y G' �.^::O';'O G� .,:�E I �` �„ . . ., v-�r� . _. . .17��n�ri..��.i1� DGYC��/i�4��IV1 Subjec[: Planning Commission meeting CC: tjpask@charter.net, bcre�ler@charter.net Dear Commissioners and City Council, My wife and I reside at 314 Noguera PI, Arroyo Grande. We both feei that the Cherry Creek Development wili 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 smali 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 Cretrler —httn://us.f808.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=lnbox&Msg Id=1021_3988135... 5/1512006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C�-��" �. �G '�� v ,��.�.�-d-�-°'..� ' �1�`0 ' ! � ' �it�r�,L� � �� k�,-�.� �' �� . � �� -��- �" �`�.�,�� rL�t,�--a�z"'�' ,u-� '�-`� � �J�� . _ - �'�,�..� -�-i ,°.�~ �,�''-�`'_`,`�'� �,^�ct�4��'`e}~� � �,� � �� .� '��trs1.<�t' � �,?��—C � /��_ �,,t•�" � � �-��`'�`�`�� „ � �� ,,�,..�� ,�t,�. ,z%�- � �� ^-c��- , .eL'��'�-�� k�-2i i2�� k � �,�`",� �u--c-�� ..2�u'� �� ) c��2 � 1,•`r`o� � ,�/-��+� � � G� C�C`'�v (� ,�i.�•� ` :�Y1.G��i . ,(�/:c�c,-iCi,r�--12�2�4� -u,-�-�'-L, ir7�w•i�� V �i JL�.t�� C��.:� G�� i�u�-jis''� iv-�� .� ' / c'C��-,t,L� �C..i� �.c^t-�-� �GL o�.f�-�, i� `�iC_c�r� �(L �f`'�LC,Btit a.r�-��i G'7't ..�-�'-c�l.,�/ ; 0 i 1 ,�`�,�� l�ct �� i .,E/.� ��u�` �9 .c'd'-� �`.<�2-� , �i� �t-oti-� .�� .�-,u_� � C'��( -P.-�� .'� �n'�J ��Te�� .€� .<u�,�-�-�� Y-�-°�"r`-�, ' l �'�,J �n-�.c�ic: �� Ni��L. � �e.E:�c.a..� �/cE �'/�«-a-�—�-�— �-T �i,�� — � �,.�� '«l— l ,Ca—Jkitt /J?�-t��i, C< —'�[c�t-F�O�y�:t�-� J 0 —c�s �t��..,�� , ,�E��v�� 1LR�. j�ANIv'�'fTE TItIPOl71 • 521 East Cherry Avenue �/u��(�; Arroyo Grandc, CA 934?A THE MIKE TITUS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE THE APPELLANT 404 LLERLY LANE c--: -_ '"'_--. _• ... ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFOR1�tIA 93�#2a ��_.� .-` '` �, '- � „ .,,.;, f�i�-;,' .. '� :,�;;,,, May 16,2006 '(� �/'� /� . �'l t' O� Yt�:�V�l� l].lJ'u��VC To the Planning Commission ofArroyo Grande CO��,�.i.i��i�` ��C�-�:;��: 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 Deyelopment 04-OOZ; Cherry Creek Estates THE APPEAL Respectfulty, the following recites the authority for the appeal: Development Code:Ib.I2.IS0Appeals. A.Appeal ojAction. 2.A�ry ajfected person may appeal a decision of the community devdopment directo�or the architectural review committee to the Planning Commission A decision ojthe Planning Commission on such appeal nray be ju�iher appealed to the city council, whose decision shall be f:naC The appellant maintains that any one of the following major items I,II and III provide a basis for rejection of the Cherry Creek application. � The following are the recitations of the Appeal's major items: I.NEIGABORHOOD PLAN(EVNP) The Neighborhood Plan (EVNP)is a cooperative effort by staff and the RRM Design Gronp after cursory discussions with affected neighbors in Subarea 2. Of the 11- page eaplanation in the Plan only slig6t mention is made of Subarea 2 in the first 10 pages that deals with Snbarea 1, and onty one page is dedicated to Subarea 2 on page 11. A coasensus of the neigLbors in Subarea 2 is required for a neighborhood 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. i II. PLANNED ITNIT DEVELOPMENTS Developmenl Code16.16.060 Planned unit development permitr. B.Authority. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve planned unit development permits,subject to the appeal provisions of Section I6.I2.I50 vJthis title (See above) The co»ununity development director,stafj''advisory coinmittee, and architectural review eom�nittee shall provide recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding planned unit developmenl permits. A publie hearing pursuant to Section I6.12.160 of this title shall be required Neighbors attending different presentations of the 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 wning. Neighbors and certain Planning Commissioners have objected to the density of the project. Some insisted on adherence to the General Plan for minimum 7,200 sg foot lots. Development Code I6.12.I60 Public hearing and notification procedures. (regarding PUDs): A pub[ic hearing shall be held prior to adion by the Planning Commission or city eouncel when regue�ed by state!aw or lceal ordinance,guidelines or policies App/ieation for a planned unit development sha!!nvt eonstitute an application for subdivision. If a subdivision ojland is proposed in conju�u7ion with a planned unit- developmeni projeet,separale application, review, and findings shall be made in aeeordance with the provisions ojthe code The PUD hearing is being held concnrrent with the application of the Cherry Creek a�plication. The application is for a subdivision and should not be allowed. The Development Code provides that an independent public Learing of the PUD in S�barea i be held prior fo the consideration of the project III. USE OF AGRICULTURAL SOILS The property uses land possessing agricultural soils.The City's policy to preserve �udeveloped Ag Soils is clearly stated and confirmed by a Planning Commissioaer, This is a subject of record before the Planning Commission and Ctity Council clearly depicted in the Council's TV tapes of the meetings when and where the new Agricultural Policy was estabGshed. � 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 10a, Ag policy), even though the property is presently zoned Residential Rural and the area is a fallow agricultural area with a walnut orchard. OTHER SIGNIFICANT CAERRY CREEK MATTERS The three items above represent the major considerations of this Appeal besides the detail of the Cherry Creek application reqniring jndgments that are not included as items of the Appeal: Building heights: one story, if two stories,where?Respoasibility 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 aad Branch properties?Why a gate and speciai treatment of Venderveer residence?Adequacy of Open Space considerations?Preservation of esisting productive avocado and walnut trees? Commitment 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 of PUDs in a designated rural area?PUD garage size reqnirements? Critical traffic impacts? Traffic calming(speed bumps) on Myrtle?Traffic tight at Traffic Way? ADMINISTRATION OF TAE GENERAL PLAN , It is with reluctance that the Appellant Committee submits this appeaL Committee mem6ers have been very active in the past in the development of the 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 t6e questionable adherence to the provision and spirit of the GP "to ensure public awareness and full and open public discussion and debate regarding p�oposed actions"as provided in the Development Code Section 16.12.160. In this context the reluctance eapressed here also pertains to the loss of coafidence because of the Community Development Department's apparent managerial conflicts and advocacy in advising and supportiag the Cherry Creek applicants on "optious available" and "ideutified issues" as compared to defending the interest of the citizens in adhering to the . "provision and spirit" of the GP. The Community Development Department's role shonld be to insist on conformance with the City's General Plan and not to encourage and work with applicants to make eaceptions and amendments to that Plan. THE APPEAL PROCESS With respect to Development Code I6.72.7SO 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 t6e Planniug Commission on the Cherry Creek application. , � The appellant respectfully recognizes that the Planning Commission "may review and take action on all dderminntinns, interpretalions, decisions,judgments, or similar actions taken on the applicaiion or project,and are not limited to the reason stated jor the appeaL" The appellant further understands the appeal "shall not be withdrawn except with the consent ojthe appropriate hearing body;the Planning Commission. This appeal is filed Mayi6,2006 with the secretary of the Planning Commission,a £�ling rxithin ten (10)calendar days following the date of action of the Cherry Creek staff report distributed May 12,2006. The appellant eapects a Public notice of an appeaf hearing shall be given in the same �anner as set forth for public hearings,Section 16.12.160 and that a hearing date sha11�e set within t6irty(30)days of the filing of the appeal with the secretary.The appellant respectfully requests a dedicated hearing. TLe appellant understands that in considering the appeal,the Planning Commission may atfirm,a�rm in part,or reverse or otherwise modify the previous determinations in prier- meetings and those of the present meeting of May 16,20U6 that pertain to the issnes of the aspeal with the proviso that appellant may also appeal the Planning Commission's findiags- to the City Council. Further,the appellant prays that while the appeal is pending,any decisions by the Planning Gemmission regarding Cherry Creek will be suspended until such time the appeal is heard- and exhausted,including any possible sabmission to the CSty Council,or at that time, by aeeommodation,the appellant withdraws the appeal. Respectfully,the Appellant Committee c��-��-Q-� �S� o�-, �}-G- Lynn Titus,Chair Address �.,�.D.��zCd�� "�s �.r /,�, �. � Colleen Martiu Co-Ch ' Address C� �3z3 No�u,�.« f G• , ��. , Lar Turn r Address � �C �G � �� `�U.c.Pl,. �T �r Otis Page Address a May 16,2006 Chairman Fellows and Members of the Planning Commission, We will be addressing our wmments 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 independertly&om this Project.It is too important a consideration to be a footnote to a 9-acre sub-division. Rational: 1. T'he figures given for a 100-year-storm assign 891 cfs(cubic feet per second)coming 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 altematives needs to fully consider a multi-faceted approach that can handle major nm-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 residecrcs that a solution has been reached,they,too,would be best served by this recommendation to more futly debate the altematives. II. DENSTTY The requirements of an agricultural buffer and drainage easement were known considerations&om the beginning. White the developers' interests are for a certain retum on investment,the City is not respon- sible for ensuring that retum 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. T'hat is better land use planning and a more logical transition to the adjacent estate tots and ag land—as well as to Phase II. � PUD(planned unit developments),when used appropriately is a laudable concept. I-Iowever,this particulaz development gives the PUD an undesirable image and less than optimum application of what can be a usefut planning tool. III. LESA MODEL While we appreciate the effort that has gone into the LESA model by the State of Califomia and City's staff work to align Arroyo Grande's ag land with this mode(,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 staffto develop a modified model specifically tailoreA 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. N. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND CHERRY AVENUE Since the 15'existing dirt Cherry Avenue is used for a portion of the applicant's 130'agiculturai 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 ent'ue 22 acres. It is unclear whether"dirt"Cherry is part of the bio-swale. Is it? If so,what aze 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 aUowed within the agricultural buffer area unless approved t6rough the Conditional Use Permit process." - Omit"unless approved through the CUP process" Add under Development Code#17,e: "No new dses ot structures shall be allowed within the agriculmral buffer area"period. Rational: the agricultural land is there in perpetuiry,therefore restrictions witlrin the ag buffer should also be in pecpemity. b. #91 - Bullet 5: The south curb on the new Cherry Avemie is to be asphalted. Red paint will not adhere to asphalt for any length of time. We rewmmend a"No Pazldng" sign instead. c. #108 — We need an explanation of the location of the drainage ditch to be concrete lined along"the westem property." Whose property? d. #110—The applicant shalt extend a 48"storm drain Gne(along)within the Branch Mill Road right of way....to the existing stone culvert at Huebner I.ane. We want to ensure that this stortn drain is underground and access to Branch Mill Road by agricultural operations for 90 years is again restored. In summary,we respectfut(y request continuance of this item to address these four issues: a. A sepazate hearing on the Newsom Springs Drainage altemadves; b. A clear d'uection on lowering the density and the use of a PUD c. Direct staffto devetop a modified LESA model that is tailored to Arroyo Grande's prime soil lands. d. A pemianent resolution to the existing I S' dirt Cherry Lane as part of tivs appfication and the Neighborhood Plan and the agricultural buffer. d� d.°��-.�-J, �-- �'�-�- �.,,e,e� �, fi'1`��.,�.Q.,.,-, �,� �. �p�`°�.`� �.-°� G° • d!w,�,��. , - _ . .. ' ' ' '_ • . \ � '� ,. ..._. ._ _.a .. _ _... May 22, 2006 , 404 Lierly Lane �,. • �� =% -•.��-� Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 cm� e� �.�::;..� e::.;�:�= - -� •- - - cc:.;:,:_. .., ,� :;�.__..;,.�_, ,. 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 regardin.g staffs 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 Appeal--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 formai citizen appeai 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, . �• �� L�Y Chair, Appellant Committee cc: The Committee City Council Planning Commission �� r y°o� �� ,_. ��✓ � � �.�"�"�� ' T �' ,�,�,.e.�� b'"�" ,� �J •' . � " !� �"��°� 1�,�,�-��=�`�`� � � � � ' ��,,� a;�--�- . fi�'t �� e�,i.a. r 6-rt v�r�..�� . ��`�� - � �� a� � , G� �- �-• � '�'- . . � • � � �. . � •�-� �` � . � � �� , l�`� �- � _ . ��. �- �-� . - � ��, � �� . .� _. ��;� . ��.��,`�'.�`.� . �� . . COLLEG� - M�VIN 20p6 WARD ' ��. . � .��J,L�,RTON�G CONyOCAT10N SL'R� May 16,2006 � . . _ C. . . ' , - .. � Cha'irman Fellows and Members of the Planning Commissioq •' - ' 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)coming from the Newsom -Springs watershed. The 8'by 4' culvert at the mouth ofNewsom 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 ofwater has been to I.os Bertos Creek. To cut-off this option entirely ignores this historic,natural flow. 3. The discussion on the altematives 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.�hile we appreciated the relief expressed by the Noguera Place residents thu a solation has been reached,they,too,would be best served by this recommendation to more fully debate the altematives. II. DENSITY The requirements of an agriculmral buffer and drainage easement were known considerations from the beginning. Wlule the developers' interests aze for a certain retum on investment,the City is not respon- ,. sible for ensuring that return on invesiment 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 uansition 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 in,to the LESA model by the State of Califomia and City's staffwork 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 t0- acre pazcels. 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 standazds,upon Council approval,can then be placed in the General Plan as recommended by CEQA. N. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND CHERRY AVENUE Since the I S' existing dirt Cherry Avenue is used for a portion of the applicanYs 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 diit road needs to be resolved as part of this proposal and the Neighborhood Plan for the entire 22 acres. It is unclear whether"dirt"Cherzy is part of the bio-swale. Is it? If so,what are the plans by the app(icants and the City for this road? � a.e.p,�,u.. (re.Q,;h,,.i:(-..e., X.�'/ V. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS—E7CHIBIT A a. #6 - "No new uses or shuciures shall be allowed within the agicultura(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 tbe 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 Checry Avenue is to be azphalted. Red paint will not adhere to asphalt for any length of time, We recommend a"No Pazldng"sign instead. ' c. #108 — We need an explanation of the location oFthe drainage ditch to be concrete lined along"the westem propeRy." 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 Huebnet Lane. We want to ensure that this storm drain is undergound and access to Branch Mill Road by agicultural operations for 90 years is again restored. In summary,we respectfutly request continuance of this item to address these four issues: a. A sepazate hearing on the Newsom Springs Drainage alternatives; _ y. b. A clear d'uection on lowering the density and the use of a PUD c. Direct staffto develop a modified LESA model that is tailored to Arroyo Grande's prime soil lands. d. A permanent resolution to the existing 15' dir[Cherry Lane as part of this application and the Neighborhood Plan and the agricultural buffer. ��,�.- �-�°-�� `,�°� , �'_ ��.�� .,�1 �,��, � �P-�� ?6 9 ��€.e-�-c-2C, �F, �o�-� — � l�t,a,ud�-, C` �9— �`3 5�� .._ _ ._ _ / Bassett-The Appeal matter . _ _ Page 3 I woutd 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 f2ay,-Commissioner . CC: <guthrie@arroyogrande.org>, <jdickens@c2on.net>, <jcostello@arroyogrande.org>, <earnold@arroyogrande.org>, <mbassett@arroyogrande.org>,"LYNN TITUS"<lynntag@sbcglobai.net>, "Colleen Titus Martin" <coileentitusmartin@sbcglobal.net>, LarryTurner<Iturner140@aol.com> ^n . y Bassett-The Appeal matter Page 1 • From: "Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com> To: <tferrara@arroyogrande.org> Date: 6/2/2006 9:01:06 AM Subject: The Appeai matter June 2, 2006 It is my understanding that you, Ed Arnoid 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 appeai"by Citizens to the Plannirsg 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 deveiopers allows challenges to the determinations of the Planning Commission. Do citizens have that same right? I believe they do. But it is never formaliy 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. i Citizens should have that right of appeal of the staffs decisions, I determinations and recommendations at the Planning Commission especially when the staff's position appears to be complicit with the developer. ry Bassett-The Appeal matter Page 2 The objective should be to have the best record possible for the Planning Commission and Council.An independent public hearing of a citizen appeai to the Planning Commission serves that objective.A"complainY'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 qf 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. I To deny citizens the right to pay an appeal fee and legitimately chailenge the findings, decisions and recommendations of staff to the Planning Commission in a pubiic hearing is inconsistent with the spirit of the Brown I Act. If the City believes the citizens are afforded equal rights with developers by the soie 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 shouid be A� , 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 novei 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 I respectfully request that you reconsider your direction to the City I Manager to change the Development Code language to eliminate the citizen's right of appeai. Eas[Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM Greg McGowan Comments June 5, 2006 Ciry 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 IVilla;e Neighborhood Plan and the proposed Cherry Creek residential development at the - end of Cherry Lane in the Ciry 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 wriang. I live at 432 Garden Street azound 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 Qualiry Act (CEQA). I 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 aze generally sequenced from general to more specific. 1. Work Hours -Work hours should be stricdy 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 immediately . 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 ailowed outside the days and hours listed above. Project ac[ivities such as painting could 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 1 and 2 and the study areas and potential unpacts for which specific data was collected and analyzed for significance. The Project Tide and Number listed at the top of the Initial Study suoges[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;VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek) East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM Greg McGowan Comments the Initial Smdy, the Neighborhood Plan is required ro cover the integration of the build-out of 53 new residential lots in two phases on twenry-two acres. Subarea 1 consists of nine acres and Subarea 2 consists of 13 acres. Phase I includes the development of 38 new pazcels in Subazea 1 and Phase II includes the development of up to 15 parcels in Subarea 2. It should be noted that the Initial Study does not explicidy 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 ma�cimum 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 properry owners in Subazea 2 and a . " significant lack of consensus by the owners of that properry 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 consistendy evaluates only the potential impacts associated with Phase I development (nine acres of Subarea 1). For example, the description of biological unpacts on Page 13 specifies that "Implementation of the proposed project will result in the conversion of approximately nine (9) acres of seneseent 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 Subazea 1. No biological study was included for Subazea 2 and based on aerial imagery, the most significant ripazian habitat within the Neighborhood Plan area occurs at the east end of Subarea 2. Several of the other sections in the Initia] Study explicitly reflect the same inconsistency in defining the scope � of"the project" including Population/Housing, Public Services/Utilities, and � Transportation/Circuladon. The Wastewater section does appear to reflect both Phase I and Phase II. The scope of the remauung sections is not expressly stated. The Initial Study should be clarified to more specificaliy 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., applica[ion for grading permit, minor use pernrit, development plan, etc.). This discussion should include an analysis of potential future build-out parameters (e.g., maximum number of units, etc.) and haw 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 currenfly 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 Califomia Fish and Game Code. Because the project will require impacts to the area within State jurisdiction, i[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 I,ake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. If this setback is inconsistent with the project design it could result in delays for the project. I � Additionally, it should be noted that if using the top of bank as the basis for the I setback, CDFG will consider the top of bank to be the finished contour afrer 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 stormwater improvements including three 72-inch diameter culverts directing flows into Ar;oyo Grande Creek. For the most part, the ripazian conidor of the creek and the creek itself represent the most ecologically significant 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 Inidal Study. Based on the information in the Initial Study and in the City's public record file, a grading plan has not been developed for the installation of the three culverts tha[accurately delineates the anticipated limits of disturliance. 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 gender slope from the toe of the disturbance. This . raises several 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 of"fea[hering" of the slopes to transition back to the steep existing banks would be required. This would likely expand the limits of disturbance (upstreazri 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 VT'FM Greg McGowan Commenu the creek is a significant concem 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 ofthe 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 shifred accordingly. CDFG rypically 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 31 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 significandy reduce the disturbance and potential impacts associated with the installation. Reducing the size ancUor 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 dischazge 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 Inidal 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 furiher 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 [he 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, that the 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. I NP 04-001; DCA 04-007;VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek) East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM Greg McGowan Comments y 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 peaneable and to avoid the concentration of storm runoff. The developer shail also plant shrubs, such as native [hicket 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 costiy assuming that quantitative performance requirements are established to _ - demonstrate success. � I Due to the sensitiviry of this area, a detailed analysis of the required grading for all infrastrucmre 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. If potentially significant impacts are identified that I cannot be avoided, suitable mitigation 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 Concem (southwestern pond turde), aze assumed - to be present at some time in the creek along the project reach. The Initial � Smdy identifies several potential impacts including potentially significant impacts associated wich 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 Scudy and addressed in ten subsequent mitigation measures. Potentially occuning impacts from the projec[on California red-legged frogs and steelhead are further detailed on page 17 as "direct mortality, harm (habitat modifica[ion), or hazassment (alteration of behavior affecting reproduction and survivalj." 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 habi[at i features of[he site durin� 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 no[be conducted unless it is a requirement 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-]egged frogs, southwestem pond turtles). Removai 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 dischazge 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 and/or National Marine Fisheries Service) concurring that the project will not result in "take" (a broadly defined term describing impacts) or will not adversely affect the species. In practice, addressing "take" ttuough 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 defeaed 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 findings of studies tha[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 Declazation. As you aze likely awaze, a certified EIR strongiy 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 applicant (and the lead agency) to I 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/Cherry Creek VI"I'M 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 thoroughly describe the actual mechanisms that � may be applied to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Suitable mitigaaon 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 riCfle 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 morato;ium 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 pazt of these efforts, the City has identified residential development as an issue of concem and is currendy developing additional creek protection measures for residential development. It is assumed that these measures will include habitat protection requirements and I ideally the Cherry Creek development and the broader Neighborhood Plan will i exemplify the ambitions of the Ciry and the communiry in protecting local watersheds for both flood control and ecologicaThabitat qualiry. 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 omamental pazk 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-1.0 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 azroyo willow habitat that - characterizes Arroyo Grand Creek. Theoretically, the pazk would itself require � midgation as currently shown on the plan based on the discussion in MM 4.2. A relatively simple solupon would be to require locally collected native , propagules froin the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed for all plantings along the creek and within the buffer azea as this would restrict the plant palette to species that occur namrally in the uea. At a min;mum, 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 locai habitat. This appears to be the NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek) )' East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VT"TM 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 lunits. 8. TraFtic - 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 approxunately 90 units. However the Impact section of the Initial Study is limited to Subarea 1 and concludes that build-out of Subarea i 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 cleaz 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.planninQ.or�/thecommissioned19952003/spring02.htm), Level of Service C is the zone of mosdy 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 - residen[ial streets in the Village. As such, this seems like a fairly extreme ' ttueshold of significance as the change from Level C to Level D would be a very substantial change for residents of the neighborhood. The Initial Smdy 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 projec[would reduce [he Level of Service from Level B to I.evel 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 identifyin� 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 (Cherry Creek) East Village Neighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VT"TM 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 16i°hearing, traffic and project densiry.are the most signifcant issues of interest for the neighboring' community. _ I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and as weli 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 applicanPs 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) 349-7d80 cc. Erik P. Justesen, RRM Design Group � , . 1 , � NP 04-001; DCA 04-007;VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry Creek) , THE MII� TITUS MEMORIAL COMNIITTEE � THE APPELLANT 404 LIERLY LANE • ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFOI2NIA 93420 June 6,2006 , To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande ` � Subject: Appeal regarding staff's recommendations re: Cherry CYeek Reference: l)Letter of Appeal May 16,2006 to tLe Planning Commission,same � subject;2)Letter to the City Council May 18,2005;3)'Pubtic Comment to the Council on May 23,Z006 reqnesting action per letter of May 18,2006;4)the Mayor's request for meeting made in Councii meeting on May 23,20D6. ,; After reviewing a)the presentation by tLe CSty Staff and the applicant at t6e Planning Commission meeting on May lb,2006,b)the rejection of the Committee's formal application of appesl6y the CSty 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 Goancil during Pnblic Comment on May 23, � 20D6,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 of the appeal. This letter amends the letter of AppeaLof May 16,2006 to the Planning Commission ' of Arroyo Grande with the iollowing addition of Item IV of the Appeal: IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION BY THE ACTING ' DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � Referenee is made to CEQA FAQS heto:lnvww.a.rovoarande.ordcomm dev/ceqa faas.oho and the specific instructions quoted as follows: What IjlDisagree �th The E�rvirnnmental DeternrinationP The Commuruty Development Direc[or's decislon appealab/e to th¢Planning Commission wiihin 1 D days from the decision dat� The Planning Com»dssion's � deeision can be appealed to the City CounciL " � • The origin�l Appeal letter of May 16 refers to the"The environmentatimpact of the entire project?"and thereby conPorms to th"e"1D day" reqnirement ; The above specifically establishes—among the other Items I,II,and III in the „ Committee's letter of Appeal of May 16,2606-the jnstificafion for the tormat " appeai to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande. The Committee earnestly requests fhat the appeal be honored. Respectfully,the Appellant Committee � , C��__-� �� -� Chair�ae Addr��L�sa� U ' y � �.�DD�i��'Y1,a,s� �3�,r r,c.�� Colleen lYIartin,Co-C�air Address Ga,.w.._R �� ,.f/LGL'�cc.a.t.a TG� � Cej . Lar , arner , Address . ` � ,��d �y�; � � Otis Page Address � _ cc: City Council City Manager ; � ��: • ,�e v 'd c¢ l r31o� �. ��i,� bl �C C��Itn�['1._ Memo ,C � C�(� � ' , . , Date:. June 12, 2006 -d To: Anoyo 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 . pcovide 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 reseazch of the Stihvell property please note: Naomi Stilwell lived on the farm and worked the walnut orchard for sevenl years before she inherited it: The same is true�for Grace and Albert Stitwell. T'hey 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 Fazm. , �e��'�� u� �. a 2oos CITY OF ARRO'f0 GFZANDE COMMUNIIY D�VELOPMENT 236 Garden Street ` Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 , ',', ,,_ (revised) June 12, 2006 City Council Members (and � . Plannino 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 am respectfully writing in response to the upcoming(May 16th and)July 18th meefing(s)regarding the proposed"Cherry Creek Development,"located on the former Stilwell,Vandeveer and Peters properties. I will address tkie heritage of this particular piece of land,point out some of the misleading inaccuracies stated in the Mitigated - Negative Declazation, and urge you to consider alternatives to dense development and the rezoning of this.property. Ihave very important information(see attached documents) for you to consider before sending this potential development on to the City Counci! (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 tioth 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 Aaoyo 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 opetated a mortuary in the village for many years. �Ve both lived in the village when we were younger, and we have resided in the same house on Gazden Stieet for the past 12 years. , Our children have never lived any�vhere else. Therefore,both the past and the future of the Village of Arroyo Grande matter immensely io me (and to future generations). Because I was friends �vith Grace Stilwell for several years before she passed a�vay and have remained in contact�vith her sister-in-law, I kno�v a great deal about the former - Stilwell propeity. 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 irriaation 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 we1L That means that at least f ve (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 included a copy of a Diamond Walnut Grower's payment stub to prove that they�vere indeed an established and active farm that in 1977 produced � 1,4401bs. of Class I walnuts (with no insect damage) for Diamond Walnut Gro�vers 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. E4c�ording 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 tfie presence of imgation rights, and yet the , Planner fails to mention anything about this land being used for farming. This inesponsible 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 appro'val af 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 the May 16�' 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, classiooms, , 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 Declazation 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 cunently 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 enjby the rural setting of the village and have the , best of both�vorlds—a little piece of land to call their own: �vith 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 pioperty (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 aze some possible alternatives to developing Phase I. 1)Require a complete EIR • before even consideiing 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 adjustmenu 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 tfie amazing stone farmhouse next � door,and is unique in that it is one of the last remaining walnut orchards in the Village of A;royo 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 of R-R and consistent with the other properties within the Neighbochood 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 cuaently live in the village (including those land o�vners 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, se�ver, etc. Please consider the altematives T have mentioned above, rather than allowing this development and/or zonin�change to move.for�vard. Thank you for all of your hard �vork: Sincerely, '�...�<(—t_lL.� � . � Polly Tullis �• .'��{�Ly V `�Ca�'��'t�4}:�>' ! ... . � . ._._. ' . . .__.. _ �f>��?�j�� ij(- n'Y�:��•2''Y°'•!'y' . . � . . : t . . . . .�.. ... _ .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .`. �� P f �i� „4S' t 1'�4:• .1 : � .`]i 1'�'.njlL: • ��}� • ,riY+. ,�!> °n= �Y"` ^3 . x .t.�:.;' j?T:iiu. 1..� 't -� i.4..,•:ti-3�..Cl:s+Lt'si,�i. �.'":'i.i:..:'._,. �:r�: 'T':pt�jyf� �� .��r$�c�'�; ': ^j��J:Styy � �It 1 �c��a' ��.i.. � . _ , _ -_ i.�i .. 'I',�,it��ii�2ia��b .<fi�Yy.� �i:ti. r'F f. z�N1ZBITs-A,-. ..... '_'tt.,.<;.i�,:;F.-:_ .,i_..�• 1�:�-:.jp ... ... : . � s s... .f j r � :4� . '�r'. ' ��Pzrcel 1: �'•Lots:37.•and 38 oP=the Subdivision of. the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pismo ;•:;:?and `Bolsz de Chemisal, in the_ City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis ' , . T.. .:•':Obispo;=State .of Californiz, as laid do�.�n and designzted upon a Map Entitled ' • :�Map.jof:the Resubdivision .of a pzrt .of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, � ;a.:;�Pismo-znd;Bolsa •de�:Che3isal, San Luis Obispo County, .Californi2,. the . ..�4'��A' i.�. . �;'property of E:�[d.�Steele, Esq:, surSeyed by R. R. Y.zrris, Irovember, 18E5," . ._accordino to Map on file in Eoo!c A, Page 63 of T:a�s. ' - _�� . . . , ' . 'L. i d,• ... � ' . . � Pzrcel 2•� •The portion of Lots 17 aad 18 of the Subdivision oz the P.anchos Cor:�l de Piedra, Pis:.o, 2nc� Bols2 ce Cnenis2l, in• tne City o'_ �rroyo Grande,, Ceuncr of San Luis Ooispo, State of Czliiornia, as laid do.� �nd desigr.zted c?on . 2 �:2� 2:a�1C�2C °:S2D Oi ttt=_ Resu�civisian of E F15TL o? tne'RBIIG�tl05 CG.L2? de �iedra, ?isao �nd bolss de Che�is�l, San�Luis 0�`_s�o County, C�liiornia, . � tne propert� OI E. �i�. SLEELE� 'SC.� SL:iiEVE�a bV R. �. �2rris, :ovz��E:� Z�Gv�� accordino fo 2tap'on file in'SooK A; Yage 63 of ):a�s, @escribec zs iol2evs: , ' BEGIN\I\G �t 5[a.e 5.62 �. tie �est SeetherZc eo:aez o_' szic Loc 1S; t.^.E^CE � horth S7` •30' East aZor.� �!�__ Sorc?�::esterly line e' `t;rtle Street, 6is.o feet; L��2:!C2 �OLCR C� l� t25� LO C�E C:C'CE� O� LIIc 'C:c:i.21 O' "'O_:� b:2:CE . CT22i:i ::.2':C2 .�ESL2C_ti fi_C:.]. "a �e"c' ".- :fi::c_ .." °-__ C'cee'� . i0 [he' �tst Z1i1fl O+ St�£:22;% r.:c1L'8� �.^.8:GE� $OLLC..�� v� L25: c1CP.�' �LIE LES�� ' �-��•-�•:. line O: SL'aII32) i:�2i1U0 _LG'�EEL� ��0�2 CC 1�55� �C '��a 'YVt:�: C/: LG..__ a_a.. f ' "' e��50 211 :ignt,. :itle c�C lIIL2SE5L 0= L1E $�8.^.COI :.2:23.^. 2il 251G LO L:E� C2:L"n_: ' - u ':" � S"' ' �i agree�.an: ZO: : Vtli2_ _Cc�:Q:a $�£Lc�� bet•:2�.^. C.".:=5:1.E %. �;c'CE� EL 8�.� C�2CE4T 12�:i+c_T\• 3� Z��J fi.^.:. reco=eec ::a_ch �� .�.�J 1n �001 G6� �ZQa �}C Q_ J2cC5 �� :t: ii1E O:I1G8 0_` tae Ce;::::r �ECOLG2: 0= Sc.0 COL'P.:}. t�i.�Ct: Sd1C i:.L27B5t L'c5 � � 2CCL`1TEC D} n. r. fLB:`� O� C2°C IiC� nE:G:�2 .ScC15�1':�� c �5=::�:E S:C=c^.� Cc:cC � � � r� 'IC!:1 -� �- �- _ �= '�.' - � ' �. ?2`c l ' s^� n"^ e . JIIItiC s� 2_.0 cC""' .. _. ..� _r_ -.. 3�G:: -t J?. C"'C:`' 'c�C:C' , _ . . descc�Pk�o;r. o-� .-�3y M�rkt.c St. � s � • y�e�e r �'z' �ee� ' �OV 1M�YQi 1Y��• �.i-�J..:.:-is�tr: .^r , DOC � '32 t 1 .+. � .OT� � �r�A.l Y'e GV!�S _ � = z;r,�, ._ —_ _ . . . . . __ . . _. _ :� . . ' `'�a.;; i'J.:•S4'�'i�i, i.�.• YYSI'f� � . .. _j•�• /�� .�.. ti'^.� - ...�� . .. . — _ . . . _ . _ _.._..... . • •�LVY 'W�"'n' {GD GD�"�5 ": �:-:: �^�:i^' t+'�ri'`'u.Ya's'a' •Y,. - _ - `.ot>:tai' �.Cf,.> ;n��:�:ivti:�::i:l:r%•:�ti:.,Q::$f�=�;v�"Z�w�=`. �^�1'�� r�-.�+'�r'-�lr`„i:' ";^ i-.+�,c'tt':3�i3`F'r..�—��::��.. .ya..,�i�, .�, �y Q a.�-i�'.:;3'- :°:,. ,�_: a i�� ..ar�Ftia?.-Yc:�c icef-uZ�; `t . itL.. A 'z.... v -d�•e^'�_'3�"". .5.0- _��5. r,��'J7'. _ `..Sa't�>'.rrti'•'?*_(i�Q�eja�fr�,,l;C��s:-`�lp:lSc��l`O�"'�-�.".og:4`h r+''`'Sae:�. �� .-. ' '�� w F�a'.' n� :::•''t3-. r .av w w. xi�.,_� • •_y` �a`.s.t::.a�-`r•.?�'�.a ati a t .T. � . s '£A_..i.'' ++S i'' �J= r M1.y` .'� _.,...,��:.�:� ��4;L; =_r<�:?�*:�"�...:s� .'�y.+��.�s,..._�"� i:iy.-.y7��'.��t�":.,-r�,4?;?�'"�"�'��-j-. ° :�,�,��ry� --,+c, �.Y. :.y'=" 'T ! ..+;x�';'r_�•�\,.,i�� ,�t�':,; ); R3 . SS Q q+_ _ s7�,'e_^MT.�•'.�''Tt�i�•�+'Y.vY Y.D�i'. Z"l3✓,��''P-GQ�{YSi't�•—l�,e��j�v"�ri:�lai.� . -�....- . ,�. . .. .� �i "f. "' - a �l:•l1 �.-�+�- �' .. �c"-��F.'^�.'„z�ie :eSt:� t'��«.9� _ - .. � ...=a � y .� c: s��`-°� S.,,; 5� �1 3�f• ,�'i�\ !a . ��• r�n..v-.��1 • �3}y p' � f<vrS�Zrh7Y3• � •?• 1>!f� �� lij � . _ _ � fY"� e eJ'�i� .L�Y} i -�:�y �u"�� . � � ' ' ' DIAMOWD WALidUT G'iROWERS, �NC. A GROWER•OWNED COOPERATIVE MARXETING ASSOCIATIOK, , � • t � . � BOX 1727 ' , �� . � "STOCKTON. CALIFOFNIA 95201 _ � . � � • TELEPHONE . , ' . 466-485,I/AREACODE209 ,,. � ` 7ELEX S59•470 � � ' Dear Grower Member: The enclosed check is the first„ advance on your 1977 crop deliveries. � . .. ..._.. . _ . . .. • -- .• � � _ '_"_"' PAYEE'SNANE •... �- iS�W�:Offi � , • Mua.loroiw.r...,t«h.ei ' 0-NET VROCEE05 - �Ma.+:n.Cma»a.em:�.ex: '93631 MRS 'NA0►4I.•E..87ILY1�LL 100i 00 30 '2! 77 lSi 8496U0� OQ9 520 MEBk LILA• ROA9 Gl.EP1DALE CALIF _ 91209 197? CROP Dia�I()�D��=�t%,T Gtic»}�;x5.;I�c. r.a.eox i�s� STOCKiOH, CAIiFORN1A , IV Nv INSP£CTIOV RESUlTS 7AY pEIGNT v.um p NET W.IGHT � S¢a�c:�v��r5�5 ' %ISSECT °�� 'wCCC:' 11(�(Di t � OF G +J_ � V. ruveEn caa� u POUNDS .•�_�cw: . ,a_ :,t o: a w_ y. - OxS1AGE : c.'L= 15 237C3 07 � , u40 3Q. 0 53.6 ''- "LIGMT 8, 0 ..S 1 �.5 . . ,`, . ; . • . � ?.. : � ;; .s ; ;.XL ' • '. : r: : ' - . ,. , ' _, .:-_.�'.y i: _ . . • r. ' '- � :.� . . . . . . �., 2 � �=•.} .��?��°}��;. :t.�.i .�;�•:.`= - `�' .* - �.'.'_ " . . ' . . " . � . :tj'� _ � � .. . .'i:.. . ':�'� . . .• • . . " i .�NeAGE: 7oTAl.§:. :; :;: : .: .. l � 4yo, ..�u36 : .. : : . . . . .. - 135 ; . : � .` �; _._ .... . . -. . . - — � . � � . . Q � l.0 0 _ . / / �. �. 5� ��y��/ � �. �� 4� �`1 .�:n� � �t � .��1;] � � �(�f;� ^ _ j : I CITY C!= F,RROYO C-:r�,�`�J� .. �.�I`f r t� � �-' __',r' ` ili:�,V��Y 1''��iL'�:ii�l"��°�iy: _ . �, � � June 22, 2006 Arroyo Grande City Planning Department 214 East Branch Street r�rroyo 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 Airoyo Grande for the past 25 years. I recently read a story in the Tribune regarding the new Cherry y Creek Development, and have also taken the time to review the plans and visit the site. I �y am encouraged to see that the Ciry 'is actually proceeding with new homes for our azea! ,� 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 pazcel 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. Siic�� Richard Blake ' � Please distribute copies to: P,rroyo Grande City Council & Planning Commission �- ��•� �T.--;�-��c.;,3�+ 'S'Qnjr';T'.5��'�'^ �� , � �� ` �� Y ,11 J1 / � 4 `a`�r�'�I. � � . . :1¢-, � � y,�r 7� ^ 3 : a + �•3 � i E �� - ' ��.�5,a' � - __. Stav�ri 8s Sheri Hauck 420 Hiddexi Oa1i Road � Arroyo Graxide, CA 934�0.� . . ,i i,l: _ .. . .. . . June 25, 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 aze residents of Arroyo Grande and familiar with the area where the project is proposed. Af[er 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 t�vo existing residential azeas 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 3� homes. It seems to us that allo�r5ng 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. ' Si er ly, _ :J �� Steven Hauck Sheri Hauck Please distribute this letter to: City Council Members Planning Commissioners City Planning Director e; (;�,-��cu.�,Q-, �n��.�� , r.. P��,��.�- Telephone (805) 474-5940 Facsimile (805) 474-5941 Elizabeth Scott-Graham (805)785-0248 Ce11: 710-0712 �1��1 _;. � 1 ^ o>� -� E-mail: eserahamna slonet.ore �''��.,, '�q �� i�y„ ��y _�,_,�' June 23,2006 '�";f""'' n �''f,^ I �� S I. i7 y�'r / • �'~��r��'��' Arroyo Grande Planning Commission and "d�''f�+iU`,;;�_� z,`,_.'r�''��DF Mayor Feaara and Members of the City Council '"'-�L'rp�"��•: � City of Arroyo Grande 413 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 RE: Cherry Creek Development City Council Agenda for July 18,2006 Deaz Mayor Ferraza 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. I have lived in San Luis Obispo County since 1969,over twenty of those yeus in Arroyo Grande. I have worked conscientiously since that time to protect the environment of the azea.As a volunteer,while practicing law in Arroyo Grande during the 1980's,l spearheaded the successful effort to raise the$15million that was used to conserve the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes. Shortly afrer that effort I took a position with a.national nonprofit,The American 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 Califomia lnstitute 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 fartnland 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 wazte of agricultural resources and tax dollars can be avoided by encoura�ing more compact,efficient growth..." The low density of this development is a ciassic example of a waste of land and in-fill opportunity. It wili eventually resuit in a decrease in wmmuniry services or an increaze in taxes as the Ciry struggles'to pay fcr neeutd szrv i�es. The residents who have encouraged the increased lot sizes are only accelerating the time when Artoyo Grande wilf be swal(owed by moie sprawl. I would encourage the City Council to increase the density of the proposed development in the name of the greater good of the community az a whole. Sincerely yours, - a��'r.�'��/""'"� /��y'— �� Elizabe Scott-Graham ° � , r� . .. 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 cazefully designed within our City limits within w�alking distance to the village. This"Cherry Creek"neighborhood design will be more in chazacter 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 Staffhas done a good job of planning this development, and I would encourage you to accept their recommendation for approval of this project. Sincerely, � � �� Ulf Erenius D.D.S. P. S. Please forward a copy to the Councilmen and Planning Staff: 9915 SCANDI TANE PHONE (805)489-8793 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 FAX (805)489-1941 c� c��.�C�.c.FUi� p��,�.�c�.� C��r��.ti�e� ('�,�;� �-�,�,��.� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l�e.�,,r, �1 nnvn�.'✓ ��Y:, ��:� r, �. . :.- ..�. ,y`�,.. p� . i� i • r _ ��. �� =. r . .. •_ i,. � ;':: � S CiTY C� .-".".:-�„�-; ;:_ ...:?;7c June 28,2006 i ;; ,. _ ;. . ->;- 0�,; .,:; ,,, _ _.�.:: ��.:.., . Arroyo Grande City Council &Planning Department 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: Proposed Cherry Creek Project To the Members of Arroyo Grande City Council: As 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 concemed about this netiv development. After looking over the current project drawings and overall plan, I believe Uus will actualiy be an excellent addidon 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 of large 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. incerel , . . �� / s.) Norma Jean Erenius - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �� ,,.,,�.. f�... .- . � � '—,Y ' � ..e 1 '1�-•`.�r__� . . . � . _ . r ^r^^ i�;l� _'.!. cirr c� F��o�ro c��:*",= C;O�!::;�'J::iiY Gc,'_LC�;:,��i� 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 condirion of approval of the development. There are always peopie who are against the growkh 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 - � - - - � 2225 HUASNA ROAD ARROYO GEiANDE, CF�e�t��(Yc (805) 481�1�5'` "F '01'�' . �� . ,, ,i , '._ .:f:•. CONT.LIC.:3"0677 p� ��' � O• � 'F�� != ..? June 28, 2006 • • The Mayor and City Council C/O City Hall 413 W. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Mayor and City Council, I have lived in Arroyo Grande for about 20 yeazs. I own and operate a landscaping cpmpany from Arroyo Grande that operates counlywide. 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 I am not there, I would like to go on record with my support of this new subdivision. I have heazd it has become almost impossible to get any development approved in Arroyo Grande. After reading the property owners have been trying to get this approved for three yeazs, 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 azea. The owners are local, and they aze 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, � � � ' Stephen Bosch Bosch Landscape Company � C: c��.�,�C �� ' � P��,,� - - �,��`�'�I�lo� - - - - - - - - - - - June 30,2006 Mayor Tony Ferrara City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Cherrv Creek Subdivision We aze writing to you in support of the proposed Cheery Creek Subdivision, covered by The Tribune on May 18, 2006. We are residents of tlrroyo 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 azeas 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 uld be to allow this important project to proceed. Si erely, � . Ken d Danielle Epstein � Please distribute this letter to: City Council Members Planning Commissioners City Planning Director ' � •. L`� r,.�,� �� 1�� -� ��e=�(a:�;xe,�: Telephone(805)481-7016 �I�I i3'�G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3ry 9assett-Coast News letters regarding the Appeal matter to tie heard 7!1'I/6 �oy� , From: "Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com> To: <tferrara@arroyogrande.org>, <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>, <jdickens@c2on.nef>, <jcostello@arroyogrande.org>, <earnold@arroyogrande.org> Date: 6130/2006 8:15:57 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: t f e rr a ra @ a r royo g ra n d e.o rg jgu th rie@arroyogrande.org jdickens@c2on.net j cos tell o@arroyog ran d e.org earnotd@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 appeat 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:"' ary Bassett- Coast News letters regarding the Appeal matter to be heard 7/11/Ei rayc c i `Subject: The report of impending,"broad implications" by Bob Behme (Front page,The Coast News,June 21-June 27), concerning an appeai 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'*Arroyo Grande`;. "' 'Yes, the intentions of Lynn Titus and Coileen 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. "' � 'It is surprising that only�ecently 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 impo,rtant step called the DUE PROCESS was in the headiines, that Honorable Mayor Ferrara has in effect done the same in this case. "'� I *Let the issue come before the Planning Commission. It is, during the public hearing before the Pianning 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 appeat to the City prior to the public hea�ing. "' i 'Yours sincerely,"' � 'BRAHAMA D. SHARMA, Ph.D.,C.Chem.,FRSC(life), RP'*" `Registered Parliamentarian"' 'P O "BOX 1626", "PISMO BEACH", "CA" "93448-1626"' `805-773-0342"' � � � I 'REPLY ` , . . . 'Subject:' ' BRAHAMA D. SHARMA's letterre: The report ot impending;'broad implications"by Bob Betime;The Coast News, June 21-June 27 ' 'The Cherry Creek appeal made by' 'Lynn"Titus and Coileen 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." i - - - - - Aary Eiassett-Coast News letters regarding the Appeal matter to be heard 7/11/6 �ay� , --------. --- . . � 'Titus and Mariin 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 typicaliy 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 aliow 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 staff's 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 estabiishing 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. ' . . � i 'Larry Turner and Otis Page for the Mike Titus Memorial Committee' CC: <mbassett@arroyogrande.org> i � ATTACHMENT6 i David Wo�{� �nvironmcnta� P.O. 6552,Los Osos,CA 93412 (805)235-5223 ! (805)528-3504 FAX July 6, 2006 ' Ms. Kelly Heffemon,Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande � 214 East Branch Street � Arroyo Grande,CA 93420' SUB]ECi': Response to Greg McGowan June 5, 2005 Comment Letter on the Initial Study Environmental Checklist for the East Vllage Neighborhood Plan (Cherry Creek Project) Deaz Ms.Heffemon: � David_Wolff Environmental(DWE)is pleased to submit the following information,clarificadons,and � recommended revisions to the Initial Study—Environmental Checklist prepared for the East Village Neighborhood Plan.As you know,I assisted the City of tlrroyo Grande with the review of available background information and field studies to prepare the Biological Resources and Water Quality secrions of the Initial Srudy. T'his letter is in response to the issues raised in the Greg McGowan June 5,2006 comment lecter on the Initial Srudy,as it relates to biological resources and water quality issues. I have provided the following information and dazifications for the record and a track changes version of the latest Initial Srudy with my recommended ctianges in the Biological Resources section for clarification of the analysis in considezarion of Mr.McGowan's comments. Comment 2—Neighborhood Plan Review Mr.McGowan suggests tliere are inconsistencies between the project descripdon and the environmental analysis of potential proje�ct 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 azea.The biological resources setting , section in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph states, `Severalresidences are located wit6in the proposed project area thatare surrounded bynon-native landscape vegetation."This statement refers the Subazea 2 project area.For clazification to the scope of project analysis to demonstrace the enare 22-acre Neighborhood Plan azea was adequacely surveyed and evaluated,I have provided edits to the setting seccion of[he Initial Srudy Biological Resources secdon. Mr.McGowan provides the opinion that the Initial Srudy 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 i Neighborhood Plan Area.Mr.McGowan further generalizes that CEQA analysis of potendal impacts be based specifically on theiproject description.The Inidal Srudy project description used as the basis for the , analysis cleazly states the Subazea 1 subdivision proposal and that no development is currendy proposed for the 13-acre Subazea 2 azea.Further, the projec[descripuon states ihe purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is to coordina[e screet,drainage,water, sewer,agriculcural buffer,and open space considerations. The Biological Resources setting and impact analysis clearly and adequately evaluates the project unpacts of Biological Resources Analysis,Planning&Monitoring David@DicwEnvironmenmi.com Regulatory Compliance Specialist www.dkwenvironmentai.com - - - - - - - - - �I- - I � �,ast�/illagc N=�ghborhood Plan�nitial study ResPonse to Commenks—Page 2 of 4 [,�avid Wo��.nvironmcnta� Subarea 1 where the development is proposed. Given that the project descripaon states no new development is cunen[ly proposed for Subazea 2,then it follows that there are currendy no impacu to be evaluated as the existing conditions established for Subarea 2 in the Initial Study(niral residential with non-native landscape vegetation)would not change from implementadon of the proposed project subdivision oF the nine-acre Subarea 1.It is my understanding that for the purpose of the Initial Study,the City would conduct additional environmental review with any proposed project or development in Subazea 2 that requires discretionary review. Comment 3—Creek Setba�ck Mr.McGowan provided tiis opinions on the applicability and analysis of the 25-foot creek setback required for the project and suggesu interpretations that may be used by the Califomia Deparunent oF Fish and Game(CDFG)regarding riparian habitat unpacts and setback requiremenu. i The Initial Study adequately addresses the riparian habitat impacts and required 25-foot creek setback.The 25-fooC setback from top of bank and riparian restorarion plan required in Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2 aze City of Arroyo Grande requirements and are independent from CDFG jurisdicdon or regula[ion. - Additionally,Mr.McGowan is not necessarily correct in assuming CDFG setbacks aze calculated&om finished contours as it would apply to the proposed outfall structure impac[s to ripazian habitat. Construction of the outfall structure on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek would be subject to a CDFG agreement as provided foi in Mitigation Measure 4.8.It 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 commensuzate mitigation as needed.It is my opinion that the proposed ripazian habitat setback and restoration plan mitigation measures would suffice for satisfying the conditions of a CDFG 1602 agreement that would be commensuiate with the project unpacts on riparian habitat for the outfall structure.For clarification,the applicant has provided a more detailed landscape plan sheet specific to the creek setback azea with a list of native iiparian species for inclusion in the record. Comment 4—Stormwater Infrastiucture Mr.McGowan correcdy summarizes the ecological importance and regulatory issues that have been � adequately addressed in the Initial Study. He further provides numerous suggesdons, opinions,and scenarios for the design a,nd engineering solutions for the proposed regional drainage solution outfall � s�ucture. The Initial Srudy provides an adequate description and analysis of the proposed outfall s[rucrure in terms of ecological significance azid needed regulatory compliance. Final engineering design is not necessary for the evaluation of impaccs and requiremenu to comply with all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to potential creek and riparian habitat impacts. The impact discussion in the Initial Scudy states thac riparian impacts would be avoide3 and n+�m;zed to that necessary for installadon of the stormwater outfalls for the regional drainage solution.Furthermore, compliance with state and federal regulations require that projects arrive at a final design by justifying thac impacu have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and feasible in order to achieve the project goals.As such,the Initial Srudy adequately addresses these issues with the conceptual outfall design in relationship to the proposed project without the engineering design detail suggested by Mr.McGowan. Bioiogical Resources Malysis, Planning&Monitoring David@DKwEnvironmental.com Regulatory Compliance Specialist mwi.dkwenvironmenraLmm i I Cher Creek Native S ecies DWE Recommended Planting Palette List Scientific Name ;'':�- Common Name:=:: =Recommended"; , -�X �:�� Trees 1 to 5 allon , „ Acer macroph Ilum Bi leaf ma le X Acer ne undo Box elder X Aesculus californica Califomia bucke e X Comus sericea American do wood X Juglans californica S. Cal. black walnut X Myrica californica Califomia wax m rtie X Platanus racemosa S camore X Quercus a rifolia Coast live oak X ;Rhamnus californica Califoinia coffeeber X �Umbelularia californica Califomia ba X Shrubs 1 allon Artemisia californica California sa e brush X Baccharis ilularis Co ote brush X Heteromeies arbutifolia To on X Mimulus aurantiacus Stic monke flower X Rhamnus californica Catifornia coffeeber X Rosa californica California rose X Rubus ursinus California biackber X Sambucus mexicana Blue elderber X Herbaceous Plu s Artemesia dou lasiana Mu wort X Carex barbarae Sed e X Juncus effusus Soft rush X Erosion Control Seed Mix 30 ounds/acre Artemesia dou lasiana Mu wort X Bromus carinatus California brome X Carex barbaree Santa Barbara sed e X EI mus laucus Biue'wild e X Eschscholzia californica California X � Lotus sco arius Deervveed X Lu inus nanus Lu ine X Mulenber ia ri ens Dee� rass X Nassella ulcra Pur le needle rass X Trifolium s . Clover X Draft-July 5, 2006 � I � i �ast�/illage NcigF�borhood P�an�nitia�Study RcsPonse to Commentr—Pagc 3 oF4 [�avid Nfo��nvironmtnta� . . ._ .. . . . .. . ._ . ._ ....... . . . . . .. ... _.. _. . .. Comment 5—Creek Trail Mr.McGowan suggests that impacts from volunteer trails to the creek and required creek�ail Mirigation Measure 4.4 aze unlikely, infeasible, and unnecessary. I would suggest Mr.McGowan's analysis is accurace in refleccing the likely small amount of po[ential creek access given the steep and thickly vegetated banks and the availability of the existing foo[path to the creek at the gauging scation. I have provided edits to the impact summary and sugges[deleting Mitigarion Measure 4.4 in response to Mr.McGowan's commencs. Comment 6—Sensirive Species Mr.McGowan provides a long summary and numerous opinions regarding the analysis of special-status species evaluated in the Inirial Srudy.I have distilled the lengthy comments to A)the need for species- specific surveys,B)riparian and sa�eam habitat itnpacts analysis,and C) adequate CEQA mitigadon and the potenrial deferred mitigation. A)Species-Specific Surveys—The Inirial Srudy adequately addresses impacu on steelhead,Califomia red- legge3�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 resul[in actual mortality to individuals aze limited to the construction phase of the proposed stormwater outfall stxucture. As currendy conceived,impacts would be mosdy on the creek banks with limited(if any)impact in the acave creek channel.The most extreme impact would be the likely�need for erosion control rock at the toe of the slope and potendally in the creek channel itself.Under the most extensive impact scenazio,direct impacu on any individuals could be easily avoided though on-site monitoring at the dme of construcdon.Assuming presence within the sueam and taking appropriate regulatory compliance steps along with typical consauction monitoring requirements would adequately address potential impacu and 'unpact avoidance and m;n;.++;�ation measures.As such,there is no need for extensive and cosdy species-specific surveys that �vould still only represent a snapshot in rime as these mobile species could move up and down the creek comdor in and out of the project area at any given time in response to regularly changing conditions in the creek. B)Ripaziaa and S�eam Habitat Impact Analysis—Mr.McGowan provided an opinion that removal of riparian habitat would have many indirect impacu on the Arroyo Grande Creek stream ecosystem.The Iniaal Study adequately addressed the potential impacts from the proposed outfall struccure construction given the creek flows aze managed from Lopez Dam and do not represent a natural scream flow scenazio. I'he relatively small and localized opening in the ripazian habitat for the outfall structure would not likely have the many indirect effects suggested by Mr.McGowan such as warmer water temperarures and increased predation by raptors. In addition,it is a typical requirement of finaI engineering designs oF outfall structures to provide appropriate energy dissipating structures based on high flow scenarios so as to noc cause subs[antial erosion co the creek bed or banks at the outfall strucrure. C)Adequate CEQA Mitigation and Potendal Deferred Midgation—Mr.McGowan suggests that a range of specific quantifiable pazameters and performance objectives are required to adequately address impacts on special-stacus species.Further,Mr.McGowan suggests tha�Mitigation Measures 4.9 and 4.10 defer mitigadon to the results of future srudies.The Initial Study provides adequate mitigation in requiring regulatory compliance for potential irnpacts on formally listed species commensurate with the relatively small and localized impact from the proposed outfall s[ructure.The purpose of the outfall is to handle scormwacer runoff from the full range of storm events. Small evenu would be provided a wacer quality benefit through the use of the bio swale approach in the project azea before discharging to Arroyo Grande Biological Resources Malysis,Planning&Monitoring David@DKWEnvironmenmi.com Regulatory Compliance Specialist www.dkvrenvironmentai.com �as:Vi��a�ve N<�ghborhood P�an�nitia��jtudy ResPonsc to Commtnts-Pa�¢e 4 oF4 ,�aviC�Wo��nvirOnmcnta� Creek that would adequacely mitigate potential effeccs from siltation and turbidity.During large storm events Arroyo Grande Creek would typically have high flows that would dilute any siltation or rurbidity from the localized drainage to a level of insignificance. Given the seasonal narure of the Newsom Springs Drainage, dry season flows are not expected to occur. Miagacion Measures 4.7,4.8, 4.9,and 4.10 aze not deferred mirigadon relying on furure srudies.These' measures aze included for the purpose of full disclosure under CEQA to provide the public with the understanding that the project applicants would comply wich all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.This is common CEQA practice to demonsuate the importance of other regularions that govem natural resources so that duplicate efforu from local govemment agencies aze not required.Inherent in the regulatory compliance processes articulated in these Micigadon Measures is the requirement to demonsuate that a project has been designed to avoid,n�**+;>e,and compensate for potendal impacts so that the resources aze lefr in as good as or better conditions than the existing conditions.With this understanding, the Initial Srudy has provided adequate mitigation demonsaating that potential project impacts aze mitigaie3 to a less-than-significant level.In order to clarify this posirion,I have provided edits to the Initial Srudy reflecting the outcome of required regulatory compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulaaons. Comment 7—Native Restoration Mr.McGowan suggests some clarificaaon in the native plant restoration plan would help with the understanding of Mitigation Measure 4.2. Mr.McGowan is correcc in suggesting the intent of Mitigadon Measure 4.2 is to provide a formal nadve habitat restoration plan for all disrurbed azeas along Arroyo Grande Creek. To clariEy the intent of Mitigarion Measure 4.2 the applicant has provided a plan sheet specific to the proposed native plant restoration efforts for[he 25-foot creek setback azea and the azeas disturbed by the stormwater outFall structure.The plan sheet evaluated for the Ini[ial Srudy 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 nadve plant restoration effort.With this additional graphic representation,Mitigadon Measure 4.2 still adequately demonstrates thac impacu on riparian habitat would be mirigated to a less- than-significant level. �� Thank you very much for the oppor[unity 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, � j �.V" � David K.Wolff Principal Ecologist Cercified Professional Wedand Scientist Biologi�al Resources Malysis, Planning&Monitoring oavid@oMlvEnvironmental.com Regulatory Compliance Specialist w�wv.dkwenvironmental.com , � �.::�.: �.�. , ^ . . '�)•r • ' r A ✓ 6 / ,'+,- Steven Puglisi ARCHITECTURE AIA � ^� - July 06, 2006 ' :'.° �.� -,- • • . , ^. ... , . ,, ..._ . . F _ ';. City of Arroyo Grande i.t�; �;,-: ,. . Communify Development Department ��. • • P. O. Box 550 '�C:.::.::: : . ' ' -. Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 � ' SUBJECT: CHERRY CREEK • . Dear Commissioners and Council Members, Having designed numerous projects throughout San Luis Obispo County including a number of both commercial and residentiai 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. I am pleased to see the new street design showcase this historic and beautifui home. I fhank you for considering these comments and hope you will support this appiication. Respectfully, �� b" " - Steven Puglisi Steven Puglisi ARCHITECTURE �( - —� . �� . � Joseph Hall J(�� ''�� 2Y 15 1N�JGG L11V G ��-o J p � �oy805-474e9332 3420 °MMU��QayoG�06 July 6, 2006 ��F�Op�OF . FNT Planning Commission City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street P.r:oya Gr�.3�, CA �3^2�J Deaz Planning Commission Members: I am writing to express my support of the Cherry Creek subdivision nroject and the associated Development Code Amendment; Neiehborhood Plan, Vesting Tentative 'IYact Map and Planned Unit Development. I have read about this project in the newspapers over the past yeaz 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 concerns that have been voiced by neighbors and ciiy oiiiciais; oecause iois projeci 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 sign�cant Vandeveer house will be rehabilitated; because the project is within a short half mile of the village C�°.i2��°.1� u.^a� Zrw�i�.S f^vi 'w^� �n��r RruLij a°.u^v v��a'�..'uv�.° 2�::'��..� t'i� u �iiv*i:�^�^.� 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 nroiect �vill nrovide lasting benefits for its neighbors; and , for the �vhole community in Arroyo Grande. Sincerely yours, � ��z�� 1 L�-A�s� G�Q7' ��C-� � osephB Hall ' �,-�`r%i�If� L�iMti'� 655-i�� f}tii[� Gt� G-£�/1� (i1L N1'�f��- : `_� :�,,,;_'�„ �__.-. —'� , .. ._. ' _" _,x='_ T; '.-a-':�'.r_— 'i_-._ c___----� �,.: _ _.,- '�: 7'w-•�j-1 �� `:.'. .. � ' �r � �� 'l'.Yc;��)'.^.p � "Y , 9 V l-1.'�i^ ��"` ' ... ;,..L,i= �' ; 'r.� �'�� .c `i . ,- �Y .�'-'.-'•��' -•, $ ) ,t �. ? 7 ��—Y < - . �_�.K:..��r .-'\i=��_. .��_� -- . ' - .. .. .-!. � rL�:�s • _._."..._.��.�- `_�.. :r_.-~ - =�. � =i�.. i ' ' � � :i r' �� U 5�N_� u�N�� i . � r 4 i v - . ` ':,_•'�' J'i e� s (' • l� '.. , a „ ..nnc: 'j. , y �t" oe� r.r .�Y�M _ �I � y_=i� ��tr� �� `..�. Ju�,�j 7n 2.006 _ : � er. , a� �a •.., •�_.; - �r�u: 'Y, '-r - ':: .-. �} �� - •�,_ _ !.'i� r�� : , ;.,: •, k i i� . .` ..>y. �.�:` ��'' .� �. - - . ', Y ��. � %i ,,; P�annin� Commission ` �� '. �j �, �e„,� r'S � C c� A y Grande ��C�� i �� '' ; it o� rro o t� :�� 2: 14 �ast granch St. �..L ,� .lU:.. f �� IQf,'S ,� : �rror�o �jrande, CA 934zo k '� '= CIT1' C� <;�a��;,� `z.,<;r.!pE ' � { COMivRtJiv{iY :::��:E�:.ir(t�ENT �}'•.. �= ^� , :. -.. . .. ]�ear P anning Commission, ti-,., f;��,' ..`�,��. � am writing to suPPort t�e new Cherry Creek suliclivision '•L . ' t}�at has been ProPosed by Iocal cleve�oPers, including Cliff {:: ��: �ranch. � clon't I-iave financial interest in t{�is Pro�ect, but J }-iave ,,`.'� �' l; known Cli{ffor 3oyears and am very �amiliarwit}� ot}�ert}�ings : �'� � {�e has done, suc}� as t{�e beauti�u� /�vila �jay Club, �assi t,` :i_: .. :'� _ Ranch, ancl t}�e Stonericlge Subdivision, not to mention the _. , '•:;, Private homes he has designed ancl built. � � - ��,.ti � have �oo�Ced overtl�e Plan forthis Pro�ect, ancl wa�jce� t}-ie ,_ ""` ProPerty and � can visua�ize w�at is Plannecl there. j�o one cou�d � - - �': �� clo a nicer�ob o� itt}�an C�i�f. . . �e is a�� al�out 9ua�ity, and ' ,:,; • �.1� something e�se . . . �e loves trees and care�fUlly landscaPes every L `�; . _. 1=� Project beauti�ully. � was P�easec] to see how t�is Pro�ect was �.; ; S �' ,:'�r; nest�ed between two existing neighborhoods anc� t}�at t}-ie ; , �� F � f'f �� _ _. - " -r;'="_-'i�^_�%y`r \�� .�-. -�-�..._ , ..� . : tr:.� Z"'��_ . `�` � � :! � ' . .2 �cJ �. 1,C�1.i^ 'Y�^ f1��: d`.-:J �:.i. � _�..:. �-�:.�..?;�- . C- .'�i' . ._'.- �=I ... �' _�=-_�:1- _• 'ttaf' •, �..i``. ._; � , `= - � \' .. !.5 •l'e� Y 1 C� N '_ _ _ _ _ _ - . T�n^. .. . ---... .._.. . ..__. _�.��__... _ -- .._ ...:::..:..... _.,:......�._._.. ,,..: ....�_._.:......_.. «.�______� .__. __._ .., - ...�____.____.:. , „ , historica� home on the ProPerty wifl be savecl. C�i� has�reat resPectforthetraditions o�a Place. ��t}�is ProperEy is everto be develoPed, no one cou�d do a nicerjob than C�i{-�. Thankyou so much foryourtime. � : �jincere�c�, �`'y``,,� �`'„�— �i �jusan granc}� rECFi�rE�: � '�� ( �i iiti�nY�� l...'.'.:'- : 0� ,;'J� I � F�� !_� '_ City Hall Arroyo Grande City Pianning 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 proposai and I'm writing this in support of the subdivision. 1'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 drai.nage 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, `%�`'�� Shannon Martin Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 I�f`6`� Cer2cw t-�-- �'Please distribute this letter to all City Council and Planning Department Members'* � : C�.��t,�.,u. ''.. �,�n�-�� cti� �� P�-��,�, - - - --_- - - - - - - C`.t,�C�e�+-��1�� o r . �,_�.�,, , _ .i:. . . _II i _7 r....�1�: ., . � ... _ Go .,.,_ f � l=:: :r -, 3uty 3,?006 Thc Mayor and City Cotmcil . C/O City Hall -• 41?W.Branch Strect � Anoyo Grandc,CA 93�120 DcarMayor and City Council, I live on Cherry Street in Atroya Grande.I understaud there is a p:oject ofnew�hom,cs tu ta.k�place fizre. F�r.the zecocd;L am in favur of ihese new homes. I undcrstend the owner.-of the Chcny Creek der•elopmcnt ac local:zZd they aze know:� fer quality projects.I pcefer qu�lity new homes be built here. We sheu?d h�ve a cho;cz and a vo;ce un this matter,an3 I am ir.favor of£nis developmznt ihis pmject desen�� epproval! 1 vr.11 6e at the next July heaciag so I can voict my support�n tlus na�v sub3i�ision. � Sincerely, ' ��l lr 1 l�s�-��.G% I�oug Friedeck Doug Friedeck Cherry. Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 e: C�� Ccu.+ut�, C�.�m��,_ . c�,� A�f�t� �.Pt��- G�C�.�f�� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RECEIVE�; To The City Council� City Of Arroyo Grande,�-�'Jafe#c ��'�Y�' �-�`•''�'�' OoJUL 10 11�il!� t'2 Dear City Councilman- This letter concerns a proposed new housing project 1 read about in the Tribune called Cherry Creek. 1 am employed in the City of Arroyo Grande. 1 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 Generai Plan that was recently updated by the City Council, so why would this not be _ allowed? How are we ever qoing to build any new homes in AG i£ we don't even follow our own General Plan? 1 looked over the plans for Cherry Creek that were submitted to the City and 1 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 -� fhat this project has been in the works for three years and the planning commission is now on the fifth hearinq? What does someone have to do to build a new neighborhood in this community? 7he .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. 1 suggest that AG listen to their professional planning st and tet this new project proceed! ��oY, Q�, c�-.�, a� �.�� o b � Ron Janelli, Lop Drive, AG. (805) 458-5820 � :�j��t�. L: C� . Cu,.� n'la��-`Je�' C P��'�^``,� - G,�S�,�,� ��° -11-2006 06 :30 qM P- 01 I 1 . � . � � � � . � Spalding Laboratories, Inc. 760 Print2 Rd. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ..� .: u. •:�.t� ,, •! �i 7/10/2006 Kelly Heffernon Planning Commissioners & City Council Members City Hall 413 East Branch Arroyo Grande, Celifornia 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 em familiar�cith this azea, and frankly, I was taken aback by the "not in my back yard" mentality af those few people who try to block any new development in our city. I recently took a look at the E. Cheery Neighborhood Development Plen end I sm one citizen who is�'a��or of thie new neighbozhood, and cannot understand why it has teken three yeazs to ailo�v new homes in an area, which is properly zoned for more homes. The property is within the City, which makes the eite a logical place for an "in fill" development, rather then tearing up land outside the City liznits. � I also know that the area at E. Cherry floods historically, and I understand that this development will proctide the funds to construct the City's existing drainage plan for this area—which will protect the existing homes in that area. I would hope the City will allow this projeet io move forward as soon as possible. It elways seema that those people "against" projects apeak the loudest'at the city heazings, because those peopie "�vho don't object" do not feel so compelled to o•oice their opinion. So I'm u7iting to say that my family (as well as the people I have known in AG for the past 30 yeazsJ would find this new neighborhood a welcome addition to our City! �� #itczP8ly, TomS�� v July 11,2006 � � �EC�1VE� Planning Commission �UL g ]� 2�6 City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 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 properiy,but want to have that option in the future. The Arroyo Grande Planning Department and Planning Commissioners, in conjunction with the Cherry Creek Developers, appeaz to have produced a plan that addresses and solves all of the significant issues regazding both their proposed development,and the future development of the neighborhood to the East (which includes our properry). 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 theu new proposal,which reduces the number of lots from 38 to 29, Cherry Creek Development appeazs 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, �� Mike Miner ,.3�� .. . �- " ' L . -_ t i r � . . , r , • - �`y ,y` "" , l� a... ... � . (.� /� � � . � i . ' , . rr t�L/}/ / ' ,/ . .. ! V 4 l � , � � t- „ . c � � _ � � / � U (� � Y � u �� l: . - � -� r �1l- i '�4 v NpE ?ME.N - �� r MM �l.e.� , �� , � � County traf�ic planning means staying ahead of the curve, ,. Br Cx.�xc.es Fec�x . tions aze saddled with the fis- ��::�;,. - ��, t�t1, cal responsibility for their ocr One of the many things that """=�t-:;'.;:'�,a�.�•''i�-_ going repair and maintenance. make the San Luis Obispo Y, �'":;�=:al::'�:�:�. In tight budget times,ir�a- area so special is the lack of F•"� �-�= " '� structure main[enance is typi- traffic congestion. , �Y m cally one of the Srst programs This is most evident and atr ,, ��' . cu[,resulting in more rapid de- preciated after returning&om - � ' teriorafion of the infiashvo- �.- a trip to I.os Angeles,San •� ture and,when this deferral Jose or any other large metro- '-- � ° results in premamre failure,an politan azea.`Vhile it may not '�__^i even greater 5scal impact be- i be possible to place a dollar ' � .�:-r cause of replacement costs value on this,we know that in- ' }` + � and legal liabiliry. � creased traffic congestion , So,while the new infra- • would severely impact our lo- �'.z. structure paid for by develop Ical lifestyle.This raises the _ '� ers may look Gke a gift,the question of w•hether we can x-� =;� .,., lang-term consequences are - " retain toda}�s condi6ons�tiith �� ' proof of that old adage— • all of the development being --='-- ;z>>;: �;� there is no free lunch. proposed in the county. TRIBUNE FILE PHOTO In my opinion,the most im- As a retired traffic engineer, portant parficipant in this I thought it might be worth- cal governments try to manage process is the citizen.While while to take a look at the role trafnc growth is bp controlling local residents have the ulu- that developers,local govern- the rate of development As an mate control over the selec- ments and cifizens play in the example,the rate of residential fion of their decision-makers, ' h�affic planning and develop housing gro«th in San Luis many do not become jnvolved � , ment process. Obi:po is technically limited[o in the planning process until �Vhen a major project is pro- 1 percent per year. they are affected by a particu- � posed,the developer must pro- �[aintaining limits is diffi; laz project - vide a haffic impac[report cult,and exceprions are often Change,like death and tax- that includes an analysis of any granted,parUy because]ocal �es,is inevitable.However,to effects the project may have go��ernments are continually ensure tha[an uea retains on local and regional traffic.II pressured to address the those characteristics that there is a negafive impact, «idening gap between the ex- make it unique,residents planning officials may reqiure isting supply and the unmet must leazn how decisions aze that the developec provide ade need for housing and servir made and how they can influ- . quate mifigafions.(roadway es.There also is an incentive ence the process. � � widening,haffic signals,etc.). fo;local governments to ap� Citizens can either be ac- The traf5c impac[report, proce developments[o main- fively involved in cdtical deci- along with the proposed miti- tain a��able revenue stream sions or leave them to devel- Igations,are then submitted to through increased property opers and local officials. the local government taees, development fees and Many jurisdicfions have Local agency staff inem- business ta�es. their General Plan and other bers review the proposed However,there is a 5sca1 planning documents available project and fora•azd their Catch-22 that local govern- for review,either by going to . analysis and recommendadon menta face when they imple your local government center to the plaruiing commission ment the traffic-related infra- or by viewing them online.If or elected officials. strucmre expansions needed you want to protect your way In addifion to the objective to support decelopment of life,you have ro stay in- analysis provided by staff,lo- (roads, traffic signals,sig- formed and involved. cal governments also look at nage,lighting.etcJ. whether or not parficular de- �Ihese projects are typically Cha�les Felic morked jor the •velopments'dreconsistent implementedeitherbylocal cityofSanJosefor30yean.As with goals and policiz>in the gocernments or, more often, a seuior trajfic e�rgineer,ke"u•as local General Plan,which is a by developzr;as part of rr iftt�olced in decelopme�tt and�e- community's statement of its quired project miugafions.An view oja S3 6illioi�airpo�t 'prioriries and its�ision for fu- ot;en o�erlooked aspect of this �ttaster plmi. He and his:cife. ture gro«th. added infi astructure is that, I�'ancy, nloced to Saie I�ris Obis- One of the primazy«-a}->lo- or.ce in;talled,local jurisdic- po Coivtty xea�ly t�eo years ago. y Sassett- tferrara@arroyogrande.org,jguthrie@arroyogrande.org,jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyograrf2�erg From: "Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com> ��-S"�'�I��e- l�U�lf'S �� To: <mbassett@arroyogrande.org> /�� 1 Date: 7/14/2006 11:34:10 AM - C��;c l,t-V�Gi I Subject: tferrara@arroyogrande.org,jguthrie@arroyogrande.org, /� jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyogrande.org,earnold@arroyogrande.org - ��hY111'1-[jl,bi'x�'�' n.,r! July 14, 2006 —C� ("TT-fLr✓� ' - f}� P�G-f�{l,C}� To: Steve, Adams, City Manager Subject: An "Informal Administrative Review" procedure Reference: 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 resuited 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 Amendments and EIR requirements presented by the staff in supporc 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. i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bassett-tferrara@arroyogrande.org,jguthrie@arroyogrande.org,jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyograrF2�jer� That probiem, simpty 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 typicaily defends the staff.This has been exempiified 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 bythe appeal. In any event, that disparity deals with major specific items on the historic rural agricuttural background of the Stillwell property, the agriculturai 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 appeai letter to the PC regarding the PUD, Agriculturai and EIR issues of the Cherry Creek Application. She Committee is continuing to be curious regarding the background � deliberations of the staffs 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 certainly admitted the"system is benY'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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - y �assett-fferrara@arroyogrande.org,jguthrie@arroyogrande.org,jdickens@arroyogrande.org,jcostello@arroyograrR�jer� Respectfully, it is my hope that the"problem"identified here may result in a further creative suggestion by you that an "Informai Administrative Review" procedure will either keep the"horse in the barn"before it is ` released or piaced in context before the PC where I beiieve it realisticaily belongs. For the Mike Tutus Memorial Committee Copy to City Council and Planning Commission I I . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . July 15, 2006 . 4 I , Le[ter regarding the application for development known as Cherry Creek from Tony and Rosemarie Janowicz, 447 Lierly Lane Arroyo Grande, CA On Avenda for meeting of July 18, 2006 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I 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 Airoyo 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 ihe best whi�h only concerned and logical minds can create especially in our own neighborhood. We compliment you for your dedication,patience, and diligence in studying all aspects 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 understandin� the Planning Staff of the city and the Planning Commission work cohesively as a team following the guidelines and city standards established by the city relatin� to zoning and development. `Ve a�ree the Planning Commission should not serve as a"stamp of approval" for all projects presented and supported by the Plannin� Staff and Development department, but in tum, not delay a proposed project for years. Shouldn't decisions be made in a timelier manner? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - „ • �Ve feel the Cherry Creek developers have exhibited due diligence in response to the wishes of the Planning Commission's seemingly unending requests for additional information for the past 3 years. Every issue or concem, 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? � � i • 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 all the propeRy 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 especially for those bom and raised here. The developers have acknowledged those reluctant for change by alteririg their plans to honor their wishes regazding density and esthetics. How much more should they do? The developers from the very beginning offered meetings, have personally visited neighbors to understand their concems, continually 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 all know it is impossible.to do so. This comment was also stated by one of the city council members back in October of 2002 when the General Plan was voted on and approved. In closing, we understand the importance of the decision makin�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 understandin�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 project in general. Sincerely and respectfully submitted, Tony and Rosemarie 7anowicz Phone: 481-1792 � Cell: 471-2385 (Tony) 471-7504 (Rosemarie) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - }fe.re,ta.�pi of C�ra.cpi �ar»v�roject" - (�r�sr.rving�am,d.L1ti,Lii�n:n.�thP.�orm.P.r Str.Zwe,L�.�ar►rv) No��fi-o-m•Gara.evvres�/rwfo,-maxwsu�z m,eet-vn�on,Ju.�.y Ys> zoo6 `<...Dow't i.t a.1,�vayY sezswto-gQ//thax'yoc�cl,ow't know wha.t yoc�v�go-t`tCLL i,t'y gosle/t3�ey pavecL pcu-adi�nia.na.putu.p wpcu-ki,vu�lot:.." -froywtitie.song-"Si.�reuow rwx.i%'1ryJmtil.Mi.tcheiL F. �fGst ,orv/�ac7cgm�.�.suL A. My Oww- fa.vnilY i.vv vLllagei Sincei Z920'b; te.achet; �a.rd.e,ne.r, �ve.a.t' re3pect fov vw.Ltcre., {arCioi�., {oi'theipa6t 8. �rien.d2�u:p wizh�C�rac,Pi Stilwell - S�e,nZ� hour3-at w tl,rnz far th.�ta�,t 7 yrx of he+' l;;{�, 7uletu her d,rea-m�for her lasuL a,ncL h.er tovv{ov ga.t"dzn.r^u�% {a�'nai,n�% a^'�ci' crea.t'we ao23: C. St"clwelL Fa.rnv - worTci,vu� wa.lvu.ct {urrw from� at Zeabt" 1913 througl,J 1987C�erated. f�" 40 yea,rY iry SCi,i,weLL {a.rni.2y), currentty �,one.cL Re3iden�'�:alr Ru.raL (onQ.home.per acrP•}, ha4� %rri�a.tlorv ric�3�.iJ5 CZcr.s3�II �ri,�rtvi AlZcwi.a.L SoiL, ' two-parceLa�tota,li,ng�5 acreas amalL centu+y o�.d.{cwmhoce�P, chi.cke.w hou�ri> asui. oric�i.via.L waLr�ut p+roce.s�'.ncJ'e9uipmev�t; cu.LturaL b�,�n.ifica.ncPi{or' vi.lta.�� (ru.raL heritagQ) D. �rcrpased.2)e,ve.�opmev�t- - 30 ha»�orv i.e�2�thccw 9 a.cre.s� Cun,ducLi.n�2 adjace-nt pa.rr.elr), no-acttvP.pud>lt�opew spcue. Cno-pcw7o cwew), propasing�N!�-s� �rovi.Gsu� wi,ilvva.ria,vu�,�osvnci,ni.mci,m,tot-�t�eito-a�ccomrrwdaL�Pi44 ft: wr'.dPid.rcu,nagQicuuL P�P�Y tha.L-goe.s i,nto-cree]vbed. � £. Alt'erv�a.t'wex - deve.lop Lsincl at onei hon� per a.cr-ai (a s 'vr cu.rren.tLy �one.d./no- �h"�'u9'�eb), sel.l la.ncl"a.s� ia" ancL mo�Pi ov�,s lot li.nei acZ�u6Lwient3�to-crea.te. ' I l�etter parcel� Cu� to-{ocu- wi.L3v oid.iot 2�.+1e�J «NUl seiL, se.U� Cto-prese,rvr.) onP.or morPi acrpi oF SC°LuieZL furrrv tcr lmi u�ed�{on c�indd� or�. corr�►reeinixy or.et�rea,civ a.nd. a�rEtocu'i�r,,.Cp+'vw�.ot�i.ng'ioca.uyg,'ou'ri' &a+ti�ta.cna�t�f�'��') II. C�a,i-dzw}for,�se�comMUCn�:tv oc�x,-eacH. - nor�pro(;.t�rcn�p stcwted.try rne�(aloru�wEth. othe,ry) iwoct. 2004 (cewren,tiy i,wth�iproc,eS�oti,v�corporat"cv�') r4. It�pirat'wn. - 10 yeavb� of reSea�'cTv and. coU.ed''uu� artEcles� C�tpTzs� arou.rui� thP. nat'�ons) �a.i,rrvizw Garde,n�r i.vv GoLet'w CaxteMdecL 3-d.a3' ilrbaw�lg-ri.cuztt+.re Con�'eren.e�z i,w Sept. 2002), Ca.mbri.cv �Lneb� Loc7,gQ Gcu'dR.vw, �n$la.ncL'y i.n�y�o✓tu.vu�u;r�awpubZi,a garde.vw. pre�e-rvaz'wrv a.nd.hertzou�e% acu"�'o�".P im,r�c'"v aa' a s�ecia.L ix�terr�t �ard.eni.ru�Bivie�stttidy ca,U.e.cL "GetCwu�Cloae.r 'to-C�od� Gn.t�Pi � Gardew" {o�cu.si.vtg-o-rvtend.i.ngour "i.vtine.r gcu-dev�" wr well a.�our ou.ter �aa-d.e,ns uding�wdeVOtionaLboolu(or Stced.y a.ncl garcieni.n�act'wit'�e�: B. Mitis2orv Statemer� - "...to- vr.coruoect pe.c�i�i w�t3v the� iand.s wizlv Gods a.rtd,/or wi.tiv ther;r he,�-i.ta�rr throug3v cut'wit',,es�reta.tec�to-gur'de-n.F.n�; fnrmn,nc�; c��nd.ticv d.o+vicest'�,a a�: Our �aaL Gb t3uiL' tiwoucdh. i:hP�r. rura.L ac�'wGtF.e3% commu-v�.i.�Y me�nbe.rY cuuL otherr wC7.l Uenz.fl.t w�entaZiy, P�''Y��'� �fl��' ��Ot' s}�%rixuaa.Iy ay weil a� becomim� more�wware�o f t�e+:r muw talenzx a.ncL pu+po3P'a' ��» C. Rea�ow {�»' claayi,n� cv fa.i.th-Ucc3ecL or�wni�a.t'eow - F�ed.om�..{reedorru to- r�w' Pi Gosi� cred.i,t whe�v cradix i�s d.ue, {s�eedam� Co- put i,w a. �CW�,c-,a.L �w whf,c3.. GracPi aLways� erwi,sdoned� aw her la.nc� nat w ciuerciv, nat w ccelt ...SinstpLy for" re.a�sov�offreedovrvCeducat'wsla.Lnorvpvofzd.oe�w't prov�d.P.thosPiopt'wnb�) D. Mar� abocct Gcu-dew}{ocv,e - W�ainw to-proviciz edecceztloncsl opporCwvu.ttea� Ce� ha�nd.b�-on. eru-Ec3une.nt da�biea� (bs' all cu�e.Y, "tri.pY to-thei{ieZc7,» le,cturerb�, etc�), sewtce opportu,nizF.ea� Csen.tor mentor/d.oce,ntss g�+'�M�$'��f�' �s��'" neeci. {�, womz.w ow bedrrest3, �'+'+'u�T'�� 2��+"�'ow-s+.te. vna.i,ntenancP, comynwn.tty-aupportect, a�,-Eu,c�zur� et�), a.nd. event� C�a�s'a.en, re«�; han�esz- da.ys; totiu-s; et�). Wei cu-� alrea.d.y d.oitiu� ma.wY of thelv ccct'wi.ttel� vw a smatl ScaL�., 1>cct wv. woccld. LCk.r. to- e,xpa.nci. Lt to- i.vulccclz w Iarger po��tian. of th� comMUtinLty t3woc.u�lvt3�pre��ervat'wrvof thei{ormer SC�LwelL{arrru III. Som��eopl�May Scw... A. `2ancL i.Y too� e.xpenbTNe�..1 wt,�b�avtcLtre2S� cwe�tuQrthle�SS-tear thevw d.own<..develo�ers�s�wc.�lcl.lrn.a.l�.�to-make.cvlae-ge.pro{it, eta" B. I 3uy ••i,f cvdeveloper who-'�-t3�.eisa.�nPiagPia4�mPiorYou.ruu�ee+"fUwncLPeo-plzto-truy tha.t 1.a.nc�, thP.n.so-cswv wP.(or so-ca.n.God.)...7hehou2e a.nc�orcha.rcL aa-r.{cw frorwtuo+2hleiesStheryarP.ne�izcxecLa.su�.ca.wlm.re�,t'ored: Nec�jlected.'vsno�'t�.e. 3ume.tlu;vi�ya�b�tuort3i.tP.�S�-.T�e+-n.i2�wba,Za,ncP.lm,tiveerv�rotvt3�.(pro{it and.thp. ethEca.Lrespon�„lii.Zi.ty to-presewPiour natccraLresocwce.b(ri.parla.wcorricior, pri.+v�.e.soitE�� a,nd,culLUraLherExa.gniCbwbrai,vutiUte, pe�-ttc�dvifre�isNna-U�fR+'w�.i.n�d') i fOY fGLtGlY2�2Yl2YGi.t��dY16't0'G(.�pY2C1.GL�P/LWIG�/UP.YL2�7.t{YOYl'k n C. Ch.A��PrY�P�S' ' GN'YiYIOttNIt�0�3�i.vi.��t2�b'. C}I!i(�.IR�YI�P�b'QYP/OUS�RCT.P�'�'�GT.tCGi.YVUPi bVPXCO'IN.PJ, OYIPi�P.p AZGL'C�t.YYLP/. a: Ta.ke�wWailvt-o-Ga'wv�erspec,t"w�.-WaZk�clown.MyrttPrSt. or�. Ci�erry+4veiuc� . pc�tth�former StY,lwetl farm(734 MYrt�zStJ tath�Va,nd,e�eer pvopevty. Not'�cz i rhzsraweufa,rrx%yloca.r,.on,ro-the�creeks iLY{eaturebs and.Ltsprow�+n�:tyto-ag� I iand< It±ytrcc�y wruraLa,;gl�.tto-br,iwid� l7onottrer3pa2�3�, i:wttry toca.tclvthRi vi.�i.ons wiihoz�.t be,im��nec�a,t'we.Ly u�i.ue,vue,cl i�j'the'ewterior of L'h�ho+,r.b� It I cccsvim.r�torecLbea.attP.{r.iUy. TryTo-seP.th�potenti,ali,wti�v.banct.-vcwF.ouytypes� of tlower anc7.herlrgcwden�, s�rrusa.l�veg:e.ta.l�Picrops'wvthPicleari.nc�, pmc3..cct'we o�-charcltrep.a; {a.�-rwheritac�e�rrLCV,e.utin�Lv�chi.ckewhacvP, d.cvrbe�i,vvt3�hou�e�, ci iyrndll f�'nvat.cs.nd.atth�cornes-of E. cherry/8rd,nch.Ma,i. N. �ferita.r�eofGrac��arrrv�miect-(pre,sewLng�axicLutLZLg.i,n�th�SCclwellfixr-nv) A. Acqud�ix'ww • part os- alL, prwate� ownexs or no-w-pYOfi:t owv�ed� or comT>o- (leparicta.�I t>a6ecl u�ow parc.ely), ccrg� Ci.ty CocwLC;.l to- not r��n� and. ta con4id.e,r c�.7.ter-nat'wea�, l.00k.Lnto-r�-ant{u�nd�.r�aruL con�ervat'ww ec�aemzntx 8. Restaraz'ww - hou4P., chi.ckew hoc�s�, orcha.rcL, re�pl.a.v� gard.e.vt�. creccte� new �arden�a.nd.sm.a.tLve�etal�e�{ielcZs: c. ut-�7.;noa�'ww - cornms�zy Pmg,`a.m� Cse� avov� pavt Ir. a.) to� begGn. a.t ss� tLrnecvrreatos-at'wwa,vul to-cont'uuc�(orfictccr�gev�e+^at'cos1� V. IrvCottcZu�:eru ItLitera.11vTake�xwVi.U.agr�CofCo+rt.srwulit�uppos'C) a. r�� raz�z, �t,n��,-� �. wh«x- ar� roL�- r�nzs/s�.ua-� sv�y ��-�rea.p�-son. �- �ea.ea, scg�, up o,1. contact lf.3t Er l»�a�,n�t"orm.your i,v�ter�stY or tk�U�x to-li.at wb�welL. c. TakPiactLOn,/se��roacrwe. - (atcena,rneeL"wuu�y Iweparca.nt c(zy couau�d.L m.eez�i,vt� mv Sept. 12"`. Checlv to- con{'wnv datni. Writ� ietterx to- Ca.w�ci,l 1 ov� �nezt9.n� .S�ea k.u�i at me.et"uu��: Share.v"v,i.ow w�x3v{rCer�d�and. nei.�hlmra: Shaw yow ccu-e, ancl lrn.Ia:eve. that peoplz ca,w r�.aacr. the. worid. av�d. titeF.r cosvusuuuty a, lrettev pl.ace, oneic�a��dzn/pre�3e+'vecLfa.rrn.at'wt'uriei� D. Qc�.StEovt��? CaiL rrcPi C805) 481-3428 i�yoc� hcwPi Ld.v.a3� {or a.ny 3t"e� a.loru�th�i wwy or i.�yow know sorneor�. who- wof.ci.d.Li.k.r.to-l� addecL to-t�.e contcuz li�bt Lecwe w m.es2u�e wi.t3v d.eta i.l�+:�I ca.+v'r ct.v�toer cct ther t'NVZei. Tha.n,�yow{or yocu' f,wre�-esc«.na,porenr�.a.Lsupperr.� - �ouyru.u� AT&T Yahoo! Mail - clfellows(a�sbcglobal.net Page 1 of 5 AT&7vahoq! Mail s:arch Search the Web �� Q� _ � P Welcome, � p� H�._� cifeliows@sbcglob... Maii Home � Tu[oriais � °f Help MAIL [Sign Out, My Account] --- - --- ___ _ _._ .--- Mail ` Addresses � Calendar � Notepad � WhaYs New- Mail For Mobile-Upgrades - Options. � � � � � Check Mail Com ose Search Mail Search the Web i . ...-- - '--... --- � - - �---- � --��- Previous � Next � Ba_4k to Messayes I Check Other Mail [Edit] -- ' fT18iI.tfUeSWItCh... Delete Repiy � � Forward � Spam Move... � _ . _. _.------- - - -- ._... _ . .. .._... __ i .. ...... .__.. ..__._ ... _. ... ._ .. _ .. _ . . ... _ _. .. . ._. _. .._ .. _._ ._ . ._ .. - �-- � - � -- �- ThIS fl'lESS89@ IS flOt flagged. [ Flag Message-Mark as Unread] Printable View �I �Foiders [Add - Edit] . . ._- - -- -- -----_.- . _-- - — —_ . ..- - --_ _..-----.__. - --- -- -�---�- ��-��- ` � �� Date: Mon, 17 )ul 2006 09:52:10 -0700 Inbox(5) _. _... .. __..._ . � DfBft "Otis Page" �ospagejr@gmail.com> �Add to Address Book � Add From: Mobile Alert Sent Yahoo! DomainKeys has conFrmed [hat this message was sent by ! Bulk [Empty] 9mail.com. Learn more TfeSh [Emptyj To: carenray@sbcglobat.net, tbrown@dir.ca.gov,clfellows@sbcglobal.net, � pa rkernr@pacbeli.net My Fotders .[Hide] Subject: Appeai regarding s[aff's recommendations re: Cherry Creek NetZero_Mail tferrara@arro o rande.or uthrie@arro o rande.or dickens@c2on.net, - -.... ..-- - ------- --�� Y 9 9,J9 Y 9 9.J -�-�-�� -�- �� '�� -�� CC: jcostello@arroyogrende.org, earnoid@arroyogrande.org, , �__. .__.. .._... __ .... ...._ ._.. - -------- - - ----- - -- mbassett@arroyogrande.org Search Shortcuts � My Pnotos THE MIKE TITUS MEMORIAL My Attachments COMMITTEE 404 LIERLY LANE ARROYO GRANDE , CALIFOI2NIA 93420 July 17,2006 To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande Subject: Appeal regarding staffs 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 Administrarive Review" procedure Despite the clear language of the existing Development Code: 16.12.150,that "Any ajfected person may appeal a decision of the communily development director or the architectural review committee to the Planning Commission ",the City Councii has rejected the Committee`s request made to the Councii on May 18,2006. - - -• • • ,^�- ----* -�---n,,.�,,,.ra—ocnn 7d�G7�13. S(,177 2320 775--- 7/17/2006 -_� ___ iAT&T Yahoo! Mail - clfellows(a�,sbcglobal.net Page 2 of 5 We are rateful however for the Council's sincere deliberation and g > > I discussion of the 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 Planniag Commission (PC)! We are also grateful that the Mayor has directed the City Manager to pursue an "Informal Administrative Review" procedure I _ - � described in the comments to the Planning Commission on July 13, I 2006 and in the referenced letter of July 14,2006 to the City Manager. iThe net of all this for the Committee is its appeat to the Planning Commissioa has no formal standing.We admit our disappointment but bow to the thoughtfulness of the Council in its conclusion and suggestion by the Mayor. , The effect of the denial,however,has negated the Committee's efforts for a "host of witnesses" 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 identitied "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 NeighborLood Plan. It further appea 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 of the General Plan since no consensus of the neigh exist regarding 1) the PUD precedent,2) the Ag buffer in Subarea 2,: the absence of an agreed to plan for the East Cherry Street dirt Road ' _ •• ^^�^ -- '+ -_-+--_ ....—.i.....ict,,,,,,r errAr9r,i�oTA=9540 14657213 56177 2320 775... 7/17/2006 AT&T Yahoo! Mail -clfellows(a;sbcglobal.net Page 3 of 5 The Committee believes the EVNP definitely does not fulfill the inten the GP in requiring a true Neighborhood Plan with a consensus of th� . neighbors for development of area 7E, ss determined by the then sit City Council on October 9,2001. PLANNED UNTI'DEVELOPMENTS Here, the Committee suggests, there is a dilemma posed by the staff using the PUD alternative to avoid ttie zoning of 7,200 sq ft tots � required for area 7E in the City Council's designation of the Neighborhood Plan. We beseech the PC to understand that Development Code16.16.060 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 ceuter 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 contiguous 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 • •• ^^�^ ---�� -•-�� .....i.,..,iet,,,,,,r PnPT?MsgId=9540 14657213 56177 2320 775... 7/17/2006 AT&T Yahoo! Mail- clfellows�a,sbcglobal.net Page 4 of 5 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reference is made to CEQA FAQS � http;//www,arroyogrande.orgicomm_devlceqa faqs.php_and the SPeci1`ic instructions in the Development Code: "WhatlflDisagree Wifh The Environmenta[Determination7 The CommunityDevelopment Director's decision (is) appealable to the Planning Commission." Again,the Committee reminds the PC that citizens cannot appeal the determination by staff eacept 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 th$t the City should have a LESA model for a determination "of its own maldng" to properly assess and make judgments on the EIR requirement for the Cherry Creek application. To uot do so avoids the intent and spirit of the � GP and leaves to staff the subjective opportunity to control the determination. ADNIIrTISTRATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN It would have been the Committee's intent to examine the staff on their decisions, recommendations and directions given the applicant. Reluctantly,the Committee reminds the PC that the adherence to the provision and spirit of the GP "to ensure public awareness and � fuU and open pub[ic discussion and debate rega�ding proposed actions"is provided in the Development Code Section 16.12.160. At the risk of being considered overly critical, the Committee � believes The Community Development DepartmenYs support of the Cherry Creek applicants on "options available" and "identified issues" are set in opposition to the interest of the citizens in adhering to the provision and spirit of the General Plan. Respectfully, for the Committee Otis Page Copy: The Committee The City Council The City Manager - - - - - � _ , ,�, __r _..__�,,,�„�ra—ocnn id�S��t� 5F177 2320 775... 7/17/2006 AT&T Yahoo! Mail - clfellows�a,sbcglobal.net Page 1 of 1 ; ��:E$Q�A MAIL Print- CloseWindow Date: Mon, 17 lul 2006 17:02:51 -0700 � IFrom: "Kathy Mendoza" <kmendoza@arroyogrande.org> To: °Kelly Heffernon" <KHeffernon.CityHaII.CAGGWS@arroyogrande.org>, tbrown@dir.ca.gov, ParkerNR@Pacbell.net,carenray@sbcglobal.net,clfellows@sbcgiobal.net, ktait@slocoe.org Subject: Fwd: Cherry Creek , . _. __ . . . .. . Forwarded Message ___ _ . .... .. . .. _ _ .._ _ _ _ __ - Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lynn Titus" <lynntag@sbcglobal.net> Subjed: Cherry Creek . Ta: "Tim Brown" <tbrown@dir.ca.gov>, "Chuck Fellows" <clfellows@sbcglobal.net>, "Nanci Parker" <parkernr@pacbeil.net>, "Caren Ray" <carenray@sbcglobal.neb, KMendoza@Arroyogrende.org (Ms. Mendoza: piease forward to Doug Tait) Lynn Titus 404 Lierly Lane July 17, 2006 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 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 curcent plan is an improvement on the original, but there are still many problems. One issue is the improvement of Dirt Cherry. 1 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 wiihout an improvement of Dirt Cherry as a city road. This staff report mentions that the applicant shaii 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 pian 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 ---� �• l^�^---� -•-�-�� ..�...i..,.,ic�,,,,�,rPttPr�hnx=Tnbox&MseId=4624 16049146 5734... 7/18/2006 CHARLES & NORA LOONEY ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 �� July 17, 2006 (hand delivered) �� ` 72006 CItY OF ARR�c�QrMDNT I City of Arroyo Grande COMM�N1'I`( D��'`�' To All Planning Commission Members IWe 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 13 acre piece of land. 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. Tliere 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 sf lots 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, (��,�o�- No�.�.,�� Charles & Nora Loone Colleen Martin 6ilOo � , Oral Comments during Public Hearing i Planninq Commission meeting � ! July 98� , 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 wav do 1 think that the amount of project iapplications, revisions and meetings have any bearing on the outcome of your deliberations. I 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 "Impound�ng water that flowed to the creek wou/d require. considerable environmental review as the historical flows of the creek are being altered." So, do piease 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 iYs time. ZONING FLYER I ask that you also revisit the proper zoning for this transitional area. . Is the prop�sed zoning recommended for the 7E area for Phase I and Phase II i ppropriate? Should the Phase 1 zoning be denser than phase II? Could the zoning z 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 cre) 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. )wnership changes, just like Grace Stilwells property, so decisions must be based n best land use practices. Let's look together at this laddec 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 10o 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 Generai Plan, provide for less density and obtain a certified Environmental Impact Reporf. 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 possib/e quality bf life for a/l residents." � � � ^. �_ .. - Itl i� My deceased father once wrote.to Mayor Lady the foliowing on Oct 4, 2001: "Comments favoring the increased density for this property suggested it was part of � the `rural character ofArroyo Grande.'Visits to the 7E area confirm that the. urban part of our City ends at the start of Branch M.ill Road�and that the 7E area is part of I�� that rural character. As brought to your attention earlier, this area should be divided �; into fwo. One 'neighbor plan' for the three parcels fronting Myrtle Street and a second plan fo�tlie remainder. But, in. neifher case should they be zoned 4.5 units if`rural characfer' has any meaning. ,{�. Please IeYs keep the rura! 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 doir�g your job. �� - � �; - �: ,,. ;'r: , ;. t; + � � ; ,; � �VI - i . k; r; . ., '',' , � 1 �, i • � . �ki ; �I ,-�, j; ,. - - - - - - ' - i�, -- � � �� - Mendoza-Coileen asked me to send.this to you Page 1;i ;¢ From: "Otis Page"<ospagejr@gmail.com> To: <kmendoza@artoyogrande.org> ' Date: 7/19/06 2:32:53 PM Subject: Colleen asked me to send this to you ' �i' 'Colieen Martin' . a� , f, 'Oral Comments during Pubiic Hearing' ' `Planning Commission meeting ' � It; 'July 18th, 2006 around 9:45PM• , Good Evening esteemed commissioners. '° 16 Thankyou 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 '�i Ia thorough investigation and review of any project before you. I want to � ';� I convey with my sincerest appreciation for the dme spent byihe 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 appiicant could have sailed through the planning process if they had : proposed a project consistent with the General Plan including all ' reguiations such as set backs, percentage of iot 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. !,! ' e; 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, ,'s from day one we have asked that the project inciude an EIR. EIR FLYER � There should be a checklist or grid or rubric to decide itan EIR is warranted, but from just a quick inspection of the properly it is easy to see how many of us wonder when the EIR is going to commence. Greg McGowen's � comments along with Vctor Devin's support this, as do the CEQA guidelines. . Over 10°/a 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 woutd require considerable environmentai �'� review as the historical flows of the creek are being altered"' .. - `�, , � . � ii�' �. , !S; iP' ;I 5� � :;i iy Mendoza-Colleen asked me to send this to you _ _ . . ,_ _ Page 2 � iF. ;i� 1i; So, do please request an EIR tonight and do not adopt the Negative ' Declaration. It seems from ali the previous meetings that there has never '! been an agendized discussion regarding the environmental report and iYs �i time. ZONING FLYER �°i , 4'r ;P,' 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 �. appropriate?Should the Phase 1 zoning be denser than phase II? Could the ,�; zoning be different for the two sub areas?ls this transitional zoning on . ;P; the outskirts of our Village Core1 Why did the City Council approve a jump from City RR(1 unit per acre)to SFMD(4:S units per acre) and skip the �j,� li next incremental density increase(City RS Low Medium Density(2.5 units per �� acre)?Shoutd this be revisited7 " - ,�i Making iand use decisions based solely on current ownership is not prudent. � Ownership changes,just like Grece Stilwells property, so decisions must be p! based on best land use practices. � " �� s. R ;�: Let's look together at tfiis ladder of zoning. How could we accidentally skip • '` a rung and acceterate the density.Jtis not too late to change this.The . ' � I City Manager said that the Planning Commission may recommend zoning changes . as part of their recommendation to Council when they send this project to, °s I them. � il!'i u 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. � �; �i;; . ; And once again l must.object,.as I have repeatedly to the City Manager not �i of your work, but that the staff report and the amendment to the Negative . ; Declaretion continue to be full of inconsistencies and ummeasurable opinions '' that are decisions of the staff.The staff did not know that Allan Little !i' � . 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 matteft 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 . � �i�,, ', be eliminated as we are no longer planning on p�eparing for the 10o year k� flood. Funny though, there seems to be no paper trail on the decision '�, against requiring an EIR. '' '4: , 1 , � . li 4: ��, �i, _ ° - I�, ; - � y Mendoza-Coileen asked me to send this to you Page 3 r Ptease deny the project tonight and recommend that the applicant foilow the I,i' Generai Plan, provide for less density and obtain a certified Environmental + Impact Report. ! :f, r The General Plan's mission statement states: ,;: -'Promotes a rural small town atmosphere and retains Arroyo Grande's '� Vaditional ties to agricultare. ' "' -'Recognizes Iimitation upon the natural resources necessary to ;i; support urban and rurel development, and tive within those limits. • � -'Accommodates a balance and variety of urban and rural lifestyles, f� providing fhe besf possible quafity of life for a(t residents."' ` �! My deceased father once wrote to Mayor Lady the following on Oct 4, 2001: t. "Comments favoring the increased density for this property suggested it was part oEthe"rurai character ofArroyo Grande.""Visits to the 7E area I confirm that the urban part of our Ciry 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 I plan'for the three parcels fronting Myrtle Street and a second plan for the '� I remainder.'But, in neither case should they be zoned 4.5 units if'rural charecter'has any meaning. ' .. �! Please IeYs keep the rural in Arroyo Grande by following the Generai plan p. � and requving the proper documents like an EIR to develop.This project, as ,�: proposed, is not RURAL, it couid be in San Bernardino, San Jose or �; I Sacramento. � r�, ki , Thank you for doing your job. t' , Ip, _ CC: "Coileen Titus Martin" <coileentitusmartin@sbcglobai.net> : �; _ ;i y. � � e � - iy� �i ' i;; � ' , �r � '"' , 4, � ia.' F' �� • rY f: I�I: ��1 4i 4, —'_ ._ . ,y,. —."_ -_ ' ' — "_" ' _ . � iP ' ' ' p'i AT&T Yahoo! Mail-clfellows(�a,sbcglobal.net Page 1 of 3, '€� ;;! � �,�H��' M A I L , � Print-Ciose Window ,;i ,. Date: Tue, 18 JW 2006 0938:28-0700 � � � ' ;��f lYi From: "OtisPage"�<ospagejr@gmail.com> � " . I' To: , carenray@sbcglobal.net,tbrown@dir.ca.gov,cifellows@sbcglobal.net, parkemr@pacbell.net, k[ait@slocoe.org ' Subject: Is i[Ag or a profi[able commercfal development? , - , ''. ��: tferrara@arroyogrande.org,jguthrie@arroyogrande.org,jdickens@c2on.net,jcos[elto@arroyogrande.org, .p�, earnold@arroyogrande.org, mbassett@arroyogrende.org ' �; n, , OTIS S.PAGE JR. Z' �. 606 MYRTLE STREET � ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420 '�� .I r� July 18,2006. To the Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande � �; F, Subject:Cherry Creek–For the record.Is it Ag or a pro5table commercial development? ;�` BACKGROUND ,-� The City of Arroyo Grande's General Plan was approved on a 3/2 vote at the Council meeting of October i 9,2001.Present mayor Tony Ferrara and Council member Jim Dickens did not coricur with tLe Ag.part " of the new General Plan.Theydisagreed with t6e Ag policy aud certa[n wning decisions. ! �. I� 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 6ecause of their '��' decisions to support the zoning of the Vanderveen;Japanese,and Dorfman properties. !k; ri; . Immediately upon attaining office,Ferrara�and Dickens proceeded to change the Ag policy and reverse !! the con�+ersions in meetings on December 10,2002 and January 14,2003. ;� �! THE PI2�APPLICATION HEARING OF CHERRY CREEK �i �. The Mavis Trust acquired the Stillwell property on 9/18/2003 and transferred it to Creekside Estates on ;w,, 10%14/2003. � �I�. Parcel 007-Sd5-004 Stilwe[l 9/18/1003 $1,905,000 to Pau[A.Mavis Trust then 10/14/2003 '+ " SI,84I,I00 to GYeeksJde Estates ojArroyo Grande ',i+ r� e, Pre-applicafion hearings were conducted in the Planning Commission meeting of March 16,2004. �i' Oae week Iater,in the same meeting that finalized,tLe Ag plan on March 23,2004,the•Council considered ;E; the Cherry Creek Estates pre-application using the old SHllwell farm,a fallow walnut orchard. It was designated as Rural Resideutial–before being possibly reclassi5ed as a part of a large Cherry ',, Cmek 23 acre"Neighborhood Plan"that was mandated as a part of the General Plan npdate of October 'G' 9,2001. �' �; � At the March 23,2004 Council meeHng then Councilmember Sandy Lubin stated the Ag question "must �f� 6e addressed".Observers concurred and asked how could the City pretend to preserve Ag while h appearing to concur in the development of property that clearly has Prime Ag Soils and is Open iy; Space?One week after the City Council mee8ng of MarcL 23,2004 where the new Ag policy was , }�; j;i .n,, !1.I 6 i la! I — - _..'_�...,,�e,,,,,,.r_e,+o,.�ti,.ti_T„h„Y�:M�oid=5226 30754332 6041... 7/18/2006 '�; AT&T Yahoo! Mait-clfellows(a�sbcglobal.net Page 2 of 3 p; j: �blished and the Cherry-Creek pre-application was heard Cliff Branch purchased the Peters and , Vanderveer properties on March 30,2004.Branch's portion is the remaining ares to be developed in the :i' Cherry,Creek plan. '� _ � r e Copy of title parce!007-565-005 Vandeveer 3/30/1004$I,224,000.Parcel 007-571-001 Peters i6: 3/30/2004 918,000 to C1ijjBranch IMPLICATION OF THE AG POLICY k': 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.Buf the City staif disagreed in its mysterious enthusiasm ;k' to support the Cherry Creek development,' :;� Director of Community Development Rob Strong had an option to buy property that is a major part of �i the proposed devetopmeut Strong filed Schedu►e B Califomia Form 700 2003 on February 3,2004 '�'; ' regarding his oft'er of pnnhase made on December 16,2003. '�' On December 16,2003I o6tained a 60-day o,(jer to purchase 756 Myr!!e and subsequently a 30.day j�! ojfer to purchase 776 MyrUe subject to assignment and option to aequire one lot in juture ;� subdivision ". I, In the City Conncil meeHng of May 24,2005 Strong•s staff recommended that the City's Ag poHcy only '', perfain to ezisHng farms that are dedicated to agricultural production and not other areas that have '�' prime farm sotls. E� Even though Strong had removed himself from involvement in the project=there are indications that he �" continued fo influence certatn decisions.Strong was a consultant on the October 9,2001 General Plan � update. He attstned his present position while advising the City on the estsblishment of the.Ag policy.He '�' is highly regarded for Lis eapertise as Commuaity Development Directoa. �� After a compelling "prime soils"argument by Jim Dickens,he and Mayor Ferrara swayed t6e Council ! not to follow staffs recommendation to,ia effect,change theAG policy until the Cherry Creek matter is �' heard by the Council. " I� i� :' 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 of zoniug considerallons-while ttre engine of I" residential development is rnnning to ezploit one of the remaining jewels in the City's arena of �i - undeveloped rural farm areas,the area betwecn the valnerable Lopez stream and tLe_D'uon Ranch + bifurcated by the homely dirt road that is East Cherry. ;r� A CONSERVATIVE PROFTf ESTIMATE OF THE CHERRY CREEK PROJECT '�' . j�;. A pro-forma financial analysis indicates the total investment,costs and probable profif for Mavis and Branch as consequence of Planning Commissiou'sand Councit'3 decision supporting the Cherry Creek , ' aPPlicaHon: ° �, Pre Planuing Commission approval costs: 'yi Stilwell $1,905,000 ,�i ' Vandeveer 1,224,000 -� �u� Peters 918,000 `., ` Total land costs $4,047,000 zl � �.� ; Assumed apptication costs $750,000(RBcM Design,ect) ',''; Total Cosfs prior to PC approval: $4,797,000 • ',t„ Post Planning Commission and Council approval value determinaHon: �I�'` ij' � � ,--�.--..........�,..,ie�,,,,.,r .,rrP��h�,rr�t,nx&Ms¢Id=5226 30754332 6041... 7/1872006 �i�' AT&T Yahoo! Mail-clfellows�a,sbcglobal.net Page 3 of 3 ,1;;� . . 6; Site infrastructure cost 51,500,000 ;'j � zf�� Total Costs after approvaL• $6,Z97,000 '�; i}� Sale of 301ots @ avg:of 5300,000 $9,000,000 �� Gross pro£t before sales eapense $2,703,000 Esrimated sale and other,ezpense 703,000 ' Probable pro5t Branch&Mavis $2,000,000 `�; ,p Branch retains the Vanderveer and Peters properties valued conservatively at$2,000,000:Mavis retains ,�; ' the Stillwell house probably�valued at$500,000 because of its condition.Value of project doubles with Planning Commission approval! �}, Question:What does a 201ot plan pro£t analysis show?At$500,000 per lot the revenue increases to R,. $10,a00,000! !`! � i jJ Risk assessment: VERY LOW RISK—SURE THII�iG 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— � i _ I+! y Ohs Page , � . Copy: The Committee � �'F{. The City Council , The City Manager . If �I y C . ' #! �E� �.: ' �' � i� fi; , . Pi �i�: ;p� �; �;; , G': u, ' iy' � ;. �,. � ;{, 1T i�l ,...:..ii....s�i n,,,e;i_.,sh��,.,,.„i�,,;ich�.,,,r.Ptte.r4hoac=Inbox&MseId=5226 30754332_6041... -7/18/2006 ;f; E;assett-City Council meeting of August 8, 2006 � Ik ^ --- J'' No. 6 ` From: "Otis Page" <ospagejr@gmail.com> �, To: <tferrara@arroyogrande:org> �- • v�w�i � +w�-�J..� h. Datec 8/9/2006 10:51:34 AM � ) �' Subject: City Council meeting of August 8, 2006 C(,� ?u; r *Subject: Decision to pull Cherry Creek forthe Council's deliberation and ��.�� 'E decision' ` �. ,. � , �;! `; 'It is my sincere belief the City Council's decision to pull Cherry Creek I`' 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 estabiished in the Planning Commission meetings of"March 15, ' 2005", May 16 and "July 18, 2006"cleady state the story.' .. j�l I '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 ''f�l as the neighborhood Plan-for a future public hearing' ;k, ,,, .. '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 appiicant and the staff took so long in ,!` bringing the matter back to the Flanning Commission-except there was a concem about the EIR matter and that the applicant was making changes in 'g' the plan. ' ' p', . i L •� [' . . - 'The Mike Titus Committee appealed the Staff report because of its ',' violations of the General Plan.The appeal was denied on the grounds"the l;' process works''with the Pianning Commission reviews!', '� 'Because of the massive changes in the applicanPs plan, and the substantial • pubiic comment in the May 16 meeting; the matter was scheduled for July 18, 2006. ' � ' .. ;E . �, 'The July 18 meeting became a review, again, of the Negative Dec with ` another decision by the Planning Commissio�for an EIR despite the fact the °' EIR issue was decided on March 15, 2005! ' �� . i; �' A . !i ;i+ . - - - - - - - - - ��1 ry 9assett-City Councii meeting of August 8, 2006 Page 2 F; ;�, s� .. p �: i. `The Pianning Commission was never given the opportunity by Staff to judge � �f. the other issues of the Cherry Creek Plan.The EIR decision was sent to �: Councit with the understanding it would be returned to the Councii when it , decided to back or deny the EIR decision. ' I .. , 'The record is ciear that the staff and the applicant wished to override the , ;E; Pianning Commission's decision on an EIR.Again, the record ciearly � ' li estabiishes this fact!' �; f, . . , af, •Something stinks here—and it is not the fertiiizer emanating from the fertiie fields of"Dixon"Ranch!' � , .. . , �i ,I�. . . c . I • taff has i51e h wh the matter '�, , I believe the s m d t e Councii on the reasons y shouid be pulled from the Planning Commission to be decided by the City �' Councii.Whyt The appiicant and staff are responsible for the delays—not ' Ithe Pianning Commission!' 'f!; „ `',�i �� ' 'I believe the Council has acted in e�ror in not allowing ttie PlanNng Commission to do its"due diligence"on an evolving recoPd of change by the I applicant in what it proposes to implement in the Cherry Creek application. .�i ; . . 'This is wrong and suggests a deeper compiicity of certain Council members r�, 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 bythe Planning.Commission.' �' I'. •e . • 'Respectfutly, Mayor ferrara,the Council shouid 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' �' - .'�' , . _ , � . • j�f CC: I <' uth�ie arro o rande.or > <'dickens arro o rande.or > Y� J9 @ Y9 9 � 1 @ Y9 9 . <jcostello@arroyogrande.org>, <earnold@arroyogrande.org>, <mbassett@arroyogrande.org>, ��i ; <carenray@sbcglobai.net>, <tbrown@dir.ca.gov>, <clfeilows@sbcgiobal.net>, <parkernr@pacbeil.net> �, � � ;E''� � 'r� , ;,�'i . ��i i�� . jr, — — jli I�RasGett-Letter re City Counai Mfg August 8fh _ . '° �I , 0 �O. 5 '�i ;; From: Colieen Martin <colleentitusmartin@sbcglobal.neb ` Ri To: Mary Bassett<mbassett@arroyogrande.org> Date: 8/9/2006 1226:02 PM ' }� I Subject: Letter re City Council Mtg August 8th ��' Ur Mary, - Please disperse to the City Council, Planning Commission and any peRinent Staff. -. a' Thank you. ,FI ICoileen k; i if! Colleen Martin � 3'� It: I � r. ` �� , '; I �� i �� s: � `E; i ;G � r: � �, �� _ j„ ! � f �i � � y . ' FI ic. ��4 R� ; .�� ili �w� � 7E; _ � � ' .. ��. . � tn ' � 4�. . �s� �'; � ' f� ' ' ' ' ' _ ih'. , � . Colleen Titus Martin ' ,�� 855 Olive Street • I�j Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 r� (805) 489-2764 . . '� colleentitusmartinna.sbc�lobal.net ;`i August 9, 2006 _ �` F, :�i: Deaz City Council,Planning Commission and City Staff, ,� F. I am writing to reiterate my comments made August 8,2006 at the end of the City If, Council meeting. regarding agenda item 12a: future agenda items. When I attended and read the minutes from the Mazch 15, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting,the Planning Commission at '�� tkat meeting approved a full EIR. Last night,I dispersed to all the Council members a one-page r' copy of the PC Minutes from Mazch 15,2005. Sixteen months passed and the applicant was !!� again piaced 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 " Idiscuss the other details of the project as the Commission akeady rendered the decision on the ,i; � EIR. IPs a mystery to me as wley.tlte Marc/i 2005 EIR recommendation was not fonvarded to s; the Counci[at ihat time. I' Now it appears that the applicant is using the time length the proposed project is in the � development pipeline as gn excuse to now expedite the projecl. Again,.if is not the Plunniug ,{ Commission's fault this application has taken so long.It is the applicanYs- as they changed - �i! partners and plans even changing whether the lots will be sold individually compazed to the �' ,i.. original application that included one builder,building at one dme. (By the way, all the reports ;K; and environmental studies are based on this one builder proposal) '� T/:e Planning Commission l:as yet to be able to discuss any details of the project and ;`s' boUi.times they have voted to "recon:mend an EIR they have also voted to have tl:e project �, return to thenr for the details such as the Neighborhood Plan,the geology and soils, and any fs ' development standazds including road widths, setbacks, sidewalks, mitigation measures, eta The �`,� ' last meeting all they even discussed,per Staff recommendation,was the environmental issues 'S .• and they specifically disallowed any discussion regarding other issues. I think the Council's f,; move to possibly take over the entire project would syrprise and should insult your Planning 4; Commission. T}ie applicants are busiriess people,this project won't die and they are not going ;� away. They have an investment to protect and ensnre 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 you;question to be the;choioe between supporting your Planning .t , 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 Declazation, continue the piocess"you so believe in" and send the �`'' �> , 'r; - _ +;: _ . '�;. ---- --- iW, - - - - - - - - !� i . � i , ,p. i ;. project back to the Planning Commission to do their job working through the details. Let the i, Planning Commission who has the time;expertise, and CEQA education,not.to mention many ;p� hours of investment in study and listening to,public cominent see this project through. Support 'i, your Planning Commission and follow the process to have them resolve these issues. They have e: I � not been given correct information from:the staff and the applicant continues to change plans, � Ipartners, and drawings that have accounted for the months of delays—not the Commission! If the I City Council is going to read and study the Cherry Creek application, aze there going to be any attempts to correct the errors and misunderstan3ings in the S;aff report prior to the Council reading these reports? ;' Although.the Council is granted the authority to pull this project from the Planning ` ��i Commission, this is not the way Arroyo Grande, or this Council does business. We, as a City are �� known for our open govemment,brag about our citizen pazticipation and should relish in our I;' " ^i honest dealings. , , �� ; F Sincereip, ' , ;p� CoCCeen Martin � '`; Colleen Martin '�' i�' , �, ,E. , , ,� ,�: �� r, 'i: ,�; . ��! • ��' I - ,�� 1 it. pi ' �!; 1 .;, .� ''� , �I ,�, ',rl '� ",;� �. F� �I 1: _ _ _ _ _� _ _ _ _ I`�' . ��::�� --`��'�� y � � � � �. � _......�:�=-�--�`�" °,, �� . � .,�, : �a��=�� u � � � . - � � � � . � �, � � �. �� , � � .� . . � . _ � � �, �Y� , � . ' � . . � .. � � � � j � � � � .� ; � � � � � � � � � � � � , � . � � � � a � � � , ' � � � - �� . � � � . ,� � .. � � , :.� � `� .�je � , . .. . 1 ' � ``- � . � � r • � � , � � � � . �. � � � � � - � ,,��ii � � 50 . � ^� �M.`� '� <,� :� �j ` < ,'\ �� Y • � t:. .J �l� ' , " . � �.� � ��.. � .. . . � . � , '' • . „ � � . � �. � . . � • � , : � �� °� -� �r .. .•�� . , � � � , � ' � �' �� G ;: �, � . � � � ` � ��;_ ��:�� :� ��. �� ,� � � . ._ � � � � � . ' S� � . . �' , �. . � � � � - _ � , . � d .� :� � � > > � � � - � : . � � � . . � � . . � . .: �. �°� � � � � � � � �� < �- � � �� . . � � � , � �' �, � � � � _ � . � � � � � � � � � � . _ . � � , .� �, � � � : _ � �� _ � �� . � � �� .. . � - � _ ��. � . , . . - . � , . � � . 1 . .. .. �. . ... .. ,:_6 � � � • ' ' � ' . .... ' .�Cr �P , �,eit.Q,�i�Gtr 7 J l ��t�+G u �+-� - '7'nL:/J�i�.� �_�✓1u. .h�ru�r.�� i: @ �',/A N '. ��. �� .. �� ' � .� .. U ' �, U ' �'. -'�l � ��7=i�iJ�! G�iyi�L 'd`�GG�-� 'L�� '�� ,. �� .,d,� z�.� �� l�J�'�/'� . ' ' .,.rs-r':�� .�'tu�C ..v�`�.�'�, 1`,.. � � �� .��✓ �� . 0 , >. . '_ .� u,v f� T�,i,�.-�' :zCu%d, ` �� lc✓��i / i7`� �,: c � �� .��-�' �; .��r' ' � , '��r�a�r�.Z�%�',� �.� �.c.�ru/.�r� �"!� i'`�� y��`�'�"�' ;� . .f�,t" :�� ..�''cr�y'�"�" '� . ° � �y , � G��.�„�� ,� .�'.� �.�-,�,a�,.�l.r. .�� i.,u�;.�-�- � r, , �.,�,� ��.��h.? 1f!.� �u:e .� �� : 'q ��. � � .�l"Yr�i 'Lf'r.( "7�",'._z'-C� GN�3",�,�.� ��yK�!I/y.�/ .GG�/22::�9�, �fPi .` .'w/ ., 1, � � �u . . `�'l.(,/!'v'—.� �'u'�/z� 1ii. ' �vx��L` C�-�z� ..a�'� �� . .. � � `` - •'� r�x ..G„� ' �-i � '�. �; . - � ��LL t%`�.2,{'..rv . :..�,�- �/f'� .; - . . • ", � ./ �E . ` �u' '1it��'�f" ; �" ,�, � .��L� i� ,f1•rr i� . C�ir� �ii�2��v' . -�-�'; C�it��J� � �� G''^!t:YU�*�'-�'d'(//riC.�i G1/+,t G:e:k.. - `J i` � � � � �y i��-r��- i . . ' ��w �: _y�,�' �,� y , / /J.c1/�'2� � � . . , �.�i•1✓�.k�G'� !�ltti�:Y�r'r..g�� .N�• . `� J � � . �� ✓ , �� `'tf✓LC/ L�c/I � ' ✓� 97'ff�i,cv�.r;.[� ��''"1/ `.T.�LC� ,CX�e'ilit� '�,a�+i:41�� y � � i(�. � � _ %.�`��.o �' � � . . ��,� -y��i.x T�',�r� �✓Lx��'' +i.,r ' 2�:c�cJ<r.� '. ,z:lri'..:K. -r�.v - �,. fi _ � a_ ' �� 7 .�.' � - . � •�l.col.a� /:.ea:ccZ�jr�i i..��-c�wLoL -�'?-u1 �-�'✓ '�"� �..�ee�,�c,:-,�..�-<- ' . f !/ / f � E -i?� � . . . . . . . . � Y 7�':.4.�/.CZct�if.PeL.-�.,ry,�iL ,YJ'�ei..lh�-�'Ei. �_ . . ., ' - . �� x� . � . . , . _ . � i . � ti��' . . . - . . , . � ' F�' _�y :%� ;j[��.� ��:. ' . - , ' �. . ' . //'� ':.�� ` '' ' f`f �! ,x: .. . . . . ' " . • ' � . , iii . )h . .. , � . ..ii'. �. . ..� .. ` . . ' .. , ., . . . � .. ' �� ' � . . � � . � . .� ' � � - .p[�. , � , ' � � . . '➢V�r$ , , , : , . . ' , , . . ' . ^� 1 'ti�t«Cl�' 'tl. , �� 't.r''�`"`"`G .`�`•U . � �:�,�� ;�; •(,i-C;(y1a��"-�' �,�, , , . . . ,'C�t� (,��.Lk-�G . . !(. . � � - � �, �J� � -rc��.n,�." �i -. �.�, �z� ,, . ; _ . , �,-�a('.�i.��_ '�`' �J_. � , , . ' � , : .. , . .. . , _ . . ' . .'�P'. - � -. " ) ' ' , . ' � ' , " . . � , ' - , {i�. ' ' ' . . , . � . ' . .�L .._ . , . .. "F . . . �.. , . ' ;�4 ' . � . � � . ' s,�� , :._ . �� :. � � . .. _ - . . _ . � �� . . . , . . . � � � _. .�k . , ' . � . - =?�' - {7 z36 Garden Street - �V'? , - Arroyo Grande CA 93420 � t�; w August 26, zoob _ .. . s.i �'� .., , � _ �;; . ' , �ity Council : C6 .; ?!' .: . . .. Ezi: . : " . City of Arroyo Grande ° . �',�,�A�,��;�! �a�4 E [iranch St. . - � c-y� Ih�i,,�� Arroyo Grande CA 93420 . . . ��,�_ ,�'" DearMayorand Counci! Members, - f - �ac�.r�+w� . �, � � � ;a; I thought you might be interesred in the information ! have endosed as it pertains to 734 „�� , Myrtle Street and the proposed Cherry�reek development. I havean interest in seeing i�i the former Stifwe(I farm preserved and utilized as do many others. On luly�5,Zoob a,� ��'' gard'en tea/informationai meeting was held to begin notifying neighbors of aiternatives to E�' dense development of j39.Myrtle Street (please cead the enclosed notes from that a€: _ ' meeting�..More than twenty peopie attended and others who couldn't make it<alled to S; put their names on the contact list. We now have almost forty names on our contact list. �� , of interested commur+ity'members. Fourteen members of our contact list attended the �G ° luly�8`"-Planning Commissionmeet+ng to show their supporE#or atternatives to the re- � �� zoning-and dense development of 734 Iviyrtle_Street:_ I was qoing to speak on thelr behalf �; _ at that meeting to share our vision but was unable to do so, as the Corrimission �hair ;�_ chose to cuL the public comment period short.'l.am, therefore,-sending thls information C on"to you to preview and consider slnce you witi be making important dedsions re:the �g� - . . formerStllwell farm in the near future. [iest possible land use is a serious matter to �ss; : considerin our rural community. r,� . � " �� . [iecause ofthe history offarming on'thls property and:the fact that it 1s prime so31 vvith "; . irrigation rights, I urge you not to allow this property to 6e re-zonedat'all: There are far ;� . better uses for this land. i am not promoting preservatton of the tand for the land's sake; ! �E am promotin preservation of this farm for the sake of our<ommuni —so it can become '`� 9 a unique modei of rural living in an excellent location, conducive to community outreach. ��; Again, please read the enclosed Neritage of Grace Farm ProJect meeting notes for the ,�i :. : vision we are proposing. Qecause the.land is zoned R-R and no pesticide sprays will De ;�;. ` used, no buffer ione is required and the land can be fully utilized. I urge you to consider :�? the"greening"of Arnerica and what aignificant role our community will play in conserving +�� our I(mited,natural resources and p'romoting sustainable; rural living=our heritage. ^�� At the very ieast, please do not atlow this proposed development to go forward without a �° full Envlronmental lmpact Review. It is necessary to require in=depth study, given the R � �numerous number of mitigations needed todevelop this particular piece of land. Many of " the mitigations needed arenot even addressed tn the Mltigated Negative Dedaration or sa', . . imPacts are downplayed in a very subjective way: A memorandum put out in Oct. ioo2 by '� Rob Strong warned prospectivebuyers of the issues involved with this particular piece of �- Iand.lNhy did the developerSbuy this iand in the first place if they are so opposed to an 4G, " EIR? Is it because they fear the results of an EfR? If so, this deve(opment shoutd not be 7� ;_ � approved.The developers themselves:are the ones who have detayed.this process. When i!' the Planning �omm(ssion,recommended a full EIR in Mar<h of zoo5,the developers ',,. ` ' stopped the City's pubtic process for�5 rrtoriths, ignor(ng the recommendation. They put ''� ' , themselves in the situation of running out of time and money. Had,they gone forward � , with the EI R in Mar<h/Aprit ioo5, they would have had their answer by now. lnstead, i� they constantly changed thelayout of their homes rather than effectively dealing with �� the environmental concerns. Piease hotd them accountable and.cequire an EtR, � ��I. 5incerely, 'PollyTuliis !-�-z,tL ' �� - � � . ��t ` rv . . � ''; � . - f� - - '�'� , ____ . - ,,. �� -�` .� � , � ��-; �� .:�-�� . �...:�--�--.-. . , • .�. � _._ : �� : ==.,,�--. � ..✓ _�'�`°,`. � N � � . � . , � �...�,.,.��y� `� � , � ` , � �. . ,- V ' �� • � , �. � � ; � . � _ � . � � . .. � �� . y � � . �. � � � � � � � � - � � � .. � � . � :� � � � � � > � . � .� . _ . - - � . . � . � � � - . � � � � � . � ri � �, � � � � , � „�M. � � � � � � . - . �� . .� � � _ - . . � � . � - �� . v . � � : � . � . _ � . � � �. ` � �. . . g. � . _ � � � : . � � : � ��,+,, � . � � � y� ' " , _ " � . , � � ,,. , � - � . . � � . - , � � q� . � „ �: � � � - � d � . . � � _ � � . �. . : � � ��`� : � � . � a � � w � � � � . , . � , . . � ��. . . . , : . � � � � � . . . , � � _ � � . . � �, �� . . - �� v � �,�. � -, ' ��.Y�'} �"'' � �� 4.-a�=-°- �"`�`�-° ; �� ' , �;� �,- - � � � .. -�-'�."�:' _� • ' "V ` , � � � ) � � , � •. ` - � . � � � . _ � � � � a � . � .; , � � . � � : . � � . . . , . r . �, � �� ' . „ , . . . , . � . � �� . � �� . , . . � . � � . _ r. � � . .� �� , . . ��° � � , . �. � . � : -� �� - � . � � Y � . � � � � � � �. � : �� , t � � � : , � . . � � � . � . � � , . . � . . , � . ; �� -� � . . - . �- � . � � � � 4 � , �� . � . � : � . � . . , � �. � - . � � � � ..�.. . . , � � � � � `� _ . .. � °� � � �. _ _ � � � � ��' � � � - � � � �� _ � � �� . � � �� ,_ � � � � � � � : � . � q .� � � � !` . .. Q . . � � � _ -� � , ,,� � � , � � � . . , �, . . � � � � - - �� . � � � � � _ � � � � � _ � � � . J � � , ,f f � , � pRROYp � /C ✓ �:�.�,'. O C� . �' '"°°"PO""TE°9x MEMORANDUM �''' U � m - # NlY 10, 19t1 * c4��FORN�P - , �r: !i 31 � ir. TO: CITY COUNCIL ;! 6i � FROM: MARY BASSETT, EXECUTIVE.ASSISTANTr�6 I�' ./I I SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 9.d. _ r' CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007, ��,; NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04- p� - 002; AND PLANNED `UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002; APPLICANT — ;si CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — 22 , ACRES LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA COURT AND NORTH OF EAST 4 CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION.(CHERRY CREEK) E� I ifi DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 ; . ��I � Colleen Martin requested that the attached supplemental materials be provided to the City Council regarding Cherry Creek, .which was received subsequent to the I� distribution of the Council agenda on September 6`". ° !�; F' . ti S! PI pl � ' . ' . . ' :4: . . �, _ , }� ti li. li� {�i. �r� �. . I�i �i, � f W ',i, iy . . - , � ;j,,' . s ` � lii V;1 .. _ . . _ _ . � . - !F��': . �-18-.06 10: 28A City of SLO-LD Dept. 805 781 717s �----- , , �' � � j�- ' ,�I Cnastal San Lacis Resource Conservatiun District � °� 545 Main Street Suile B-1 Motro Bay, CA 93442 SOS-772-4391 f`,, Mr. ChuckFello�vs,C:hair ��,r.�, i;� Planning Commission, Ciry of Arroyo Grande „ �„ � ' 2l4 E. Branch St. � ` s' Attoyo Grundc,CA. 9342U �!;� 1 �`��b r' �;f RE: Cherry Creck Development,Tract 2653 (proposed) CI;Y Q= E��,n�•., � ,�:,.i�E `�? COP�Ii;�ili�E�Y L.LYiLG•;.,cNT DearChairmun Fcllows and Commissioners: ` �� i. Thc Cotutal San Luis Resource Conscrvation I?istrict ("RCD" or"Districl") is a special d' igovernment agency created by the San Luis Obispo County BoarA of 5upervisnrs pursuant W '�� _ State law to undertake proa ams and activities desi�ned to protect and enhance :�gricultural lands � nnd natural habitat within lhe ares served by the Distric[. This area includes the City of Arroyo f � Grande and surrounding un,incorporated areas. The District has a long und proud record of r,' Iworking for the bcnefit of lhe natural ctnd human cnvironment of the Arroyo Grundc Valley. �`' The Distriet has two interests associatecl with Tract26S3. First, the RCD holds an ag�iculturul ;I= i easement(valued at c>ver$1.5 million)on thc Dixson prnpeny,located immeJiulely ta thc south t;' Inf the proposed developmcnt. in addition,thc RCD has maintained a long xnd acti ve in[erest in " i the quality and quantity of water flowing in Anoyn Grande Crcek. . ''' ' � ;��. ,;. 'Phe Cherry Crcek projecl designers,RRM,have mettwice with the RCD to closcribe their 1;;.' prnposed project and resolve idcntified concerns. Thcy have for instance extcndcd tlie agricultural buffcr zone beyond the spccified scundurd and havc incocporated a berm and wall to ' screen agriculmral operations and reducc impact of drift to the futurc residents of Truct 2653. `" u; i,. The RCD does not have a position regarding the development of Tract 2653. However, the RCD ;; seeks assurance that the prn�sed projcct.does not negatively at'fect thc agricultural easement ;� � thal the RED holds on the Dixon property,or degrade the waters of An•oyo Grande Creek. Fj . ;w, j Mt�ny of the concerns raised the RCD have been ucictres•.sed. However, there are a few items nf ?; � concern that cannot be resolved withaut conducting deCuiled studies. Thc RCll recognizes that ` these studies arc not typically perf�rmed until later in the develppmenrproccsscs. 1'herefore, the RCU would like t�provide the City with a list of potential issues that �vill nccd ro be addressed - and resolved,Prior tu issuing final map approval: '� ' �i . Proposal mocliticarion to stone culvert under I3ranch Mill Ruad i�' �; � �� The pl:�nto liinit the water conveyed to Tract 139 through the stonc culvert under t3r:u�ch Mill ;�� Road will likely recluce thc flooding risk to that neighborhood as well as to the Vag�hond blobile ;, Home Park and Pacific Coast Christian SchooL We undcrstand t�nd supporl thc rationale fnr the ';' I proposed reductit�n in eulvert capacity in that loeation, however,inlcc capacity and funetion t' �: r. ,,, � , ,: _ _ . _ � . ' 'ht gj ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ,u'� " " ' _ _ _ _ C 1 -18-06 10 : 28A C'ity of SLO-CD Dept. 805 781 717:a `--��--- , . ,,� ( 1 - i: , ' ��, (cloggino)may be a critical design element of this facilily and should be carelully rcvicwed as :`� praject dcsigm m�ves forward. • ' ?� Propotiecl Cutvert parallel to Branch Mill Road `' . � ,, The capaciry of a prarosed pipe and the requimd dimensions of thc channel pur�llel to Branch �; Mill Road necessury tu carry overland escape flows is unclear. Therc; also may be an inaJequatc `' numt�er of inlets present along Branch Mill Road to handle loct�lly-generatcd sheet fiow that will '�' � undoubtedly continue tu:mss the Dixson Rench. ;;! InterFecrion of Brunch Mill Road and Cherry A'venue ;; pi� Therc may be inuclequate topography ut lhe intersection of Branch Mill Roud and Chcrr��Avenuz ' �o keep the flood waters from crossing over Branch Mill Road and continuing intc�Traet 409. � . '; East Cherry Avenue as Weir � �� Verify that the post-development watcr surface elevation and velocitics along the Southside af ik. IEast Cherry Avenue ure Consistent with pre-development depths nnd vcloeitics. Consider grsde �; control structures to ensure that there is no heud cutting onlo the Dixson Ranch. �' I lnlet though Tract 2653 _ ��' j ';; � The cfficiency of the inlet to Ttact 2653 is limitcd due to its angle. Verify thal the post- "'''t cievelopment watcr surface elevatiori and velcx:ities along the.Southside of East Chcn•y Avcnuc and o� Dixson Ranch az•e aonsistent with pre-deVeloped depths and vclocitics: r Grass-lined channel through Tract 2653 Vcrification is necessary to assure that the channel can withstand the anticipated velcx:ities. '� Projcct CC&R's need to address the cc�ntinued maintcnancc nccds of this channel. It is possible �i that scour will occur due to the width and exlended length of the channcl: Check dams may ,p: thereforet�e appropri:�tc ta limit the length of con�inued run. Sediment will likely n�d ta be ;;,° � removcd on a regular basis. ` i��. Outlel lo Arroyo Grande Creek � Velcxities at the outlet necd to be evaluHted to determine that the d,iicharge �sill not c�use �h° erosion on ci[her thc adjacent or oppasing banks vf Arrciyn Gr�nde Cieek. � Addressing Arca-�Vidc 1�7oc�d Proteclion ii� . ,.; , ,� Many of the issues associated with tlooding at the Dixson Runch,Tr.�cl 139 and Truct 409 arc '�; areu-wide in naturc and cannot be resolved by.nor shauld they bc the sole responsiUility of, � Tract 2653. liowever, the b�sic:prublem of properly handling flocid ilows emanating frum Ncwsom Springs Canynn remains unaddressed, and the Aistrict fe�ls that somc foRn of li jn '`� ' �i. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '_ .'�, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _ - il�. ,l -la-o6 l0 25a c;ty of sLO-co oept _ �� ,�� _ _ _ _ ._ __ f, . ia' ' ` st�rmflow detention at or near the mouth of that Canyon ��•ould bencfit all downstrcam land�wners (inclucling those in Zone 1/1 A who are ulready heavily impacted by xilcation and �" flooding on Iower Arroyo Grande Creek). The Cherry Creek project provides ample rcason for ;3; starling anew the invtstige�tions undertaken in the it��e 199U's tis wel] as mor�-recently regatdin� ��; the Ncwsom Springs watershcd but never acted upon. j, ; i 'fhank you for the oppoitunity to commenc on this project. L ;�,: iSinccrcly, � ,F'` � ,i I �J�<7""''� ' " ��"• `c�,�,� ; Neil Hsvlik,PhD � i,, ' President,Bourd of Directors -'ef� Coastal San Luis Rcsource Conservation District ';' �' ,�. k� � i \ �[ . . 14' IIN i . . .. .. . . I�f: �. j�V �! �� f . . . � if�� (s' {,'. • � f' � �. f F' • e. �. ;C �y� � �r.i �l � :1 _ � II� ��' 1 ri � E i'�. ��. < < r` I�' . 'i' ' --- - ' � . �r: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - a ,N' FROM�:CDUSEDD FRX hl�. :pP.S 473 5469 Jun. 26 20Fi6 1�:4?F�11 �PI ��4�.., � East Vilinge Neighborhood Plen/Cherry Creck VTiM Grcg McGowan Comments �' ---�- ---- ,; ,. Pose.lr Fex Not9 7e71 .� 1e Qfj "m � i,:. � ��, P•�a^s ��,�k�,� - June 5, 2006 TO COIIGt.I� HA�►g1 "•o`" -� 1 � coin.q+i. - co.��'L.-vLJii. City of Aaoyo Grandc rnaw. ".` -'- F��,..r �4� Planning Commissinn Fa,. ......_ -- �. F�x 4 P.O. Box 550' - �. .----- --� p Arroyo GranOe. CA 93420 ` s RE: Eset Villege Nelghhorhood PIan/�herry Creck Developmcnt . �N Chair Fellows and Commissionors: ;i'. Tbnnk you Por �he opporcunity to provi4e commenta for che City's wnsi<krati.on c�f the Easr �� Village Neighborhood Plan xnd che propoved Cherry Creek resiQer.cial develop�neni az the i�, end of Cherry L.ane in the City of Atroyo Grande. [ expressed most of thc comme�ux I below in.oral tescimony a[ the Planning Commission heari�g nn May t6'", 2UOG eh�wgh che k'i discussion of the scope of the Neighborliood Plan review was not addressed at the {iearing. . As requexted by Chair Feliows at the hearing. these commcnts are heing rcitcrated in �� writing. I lipe at 432 Garden Saeet around the comer from the site. in preparing [Iiese [ commentv l�have reviewcd the Inilial Study Summary - Environmental Checkliat {"lnitia! i'' Study") preptired by the City, the public record filc available at the City office in Armyo ;�'� Grande, and applicable regularions under the California Environmental Qualiry Act .i,'. (CF.QA). i� �: In generai I support zesidential use of the site. The commen[s tselow are offered for your y consicieration.to impzova consistancy in the environmental review document, avoid �, poten�iai projeee detays, inerease public understanding of the projec[, and to facili[ate the highest quality proJect for the community and the applicant. The comments are genera4y sequeneed frrnn geixrnl ro more specific. R' I. Work Hours - Work hours sfiould be stricqy liFnited to busiricss hours Monday �iR, through Friday betweep 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. Thc current projcct would allow �i work six days a week from 8:00 am tn 6:00 pm. The'site is imrnediacely = adja.eent to residrntial family nnighborhoods and fne tocal community thae will �; be most affceted by project activitics de.aerves respitc afrer business hours and ;I on weckcnds. N�>noise or duct generating ac[ivities shoul�l be permitted outsidc �' the days and hours listed above. No staging nf trucks or ruatrriatx should 6e �I aUoWed outFide the ciays and hours listed above. Project ac[ivities sucli as " G painting could brallowablo during different hours undcr this ccenario as long as !�' ' - air compressurs, toud radios or othe� noisc gcnerating equipment arc nut uud( ; 2. Neighborhood Plan Environmental Review- In severaT placcs, qie Initial �' Study ]acks consistency between the Prqtct described on Pagcs 1 and 2 end the study arcas and potential impacls for which specific dapa was collected and .�� analyzed for sigaif3cance. The Projcc�'['itle and Number listed at che cop of the . z' Initial Study suggest trat thc environmental analysis is intended to cover the r, Neighburhood Ptan prepued by the applicant. ns indicace8 on pages 2 and 3 of !�'� ii NP 04-001; t)CA 04-007; V7"I'M 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Chcrty Creck) -- !"' r,. �; - - -----— ---- ---- -- —---- - '�-— - n 'Y' , jp:, bT '-d ESOS664SO6 s [zuel�d dSZ �Zi 90 61111',,da5 O _ � �' � ,� � _ � - ' , - � � �. d�°C � . . .;FROM :CDDBEDD , FR)C"tvl]. 't805 473 5489 Sun. 26 2Q06 �f�:42RM P2 �g` � , . ' - . . , � {�i I � Lust Village Neighborfioud PIan/Cherry Crcck VT7M Greg NcGowan Comments k#; ' ,. . , . . . . . . . . �3; _ , . • . • • � • ��•� ' thc lnitial Study, the Neighborhood Plan is required,to cover the incegration af `�" _ che build-c�ut of-53'new tesidential lots in two phases on twenty-two 3cres. �', � Subaren 1 cons+stF of nine acres and Subarea 2 consista qf'13 acres. Phe4e ! ;t$ � includes•the development of38 new parcels in 3ubarza I and Phase II includes ��'3 ' the development oF up to l5 parcels in Subarca 2. It should be'iioted ihat the ��; ' < Initiat Study'di�es not explicitly state that the totai maxin�uin build-uut of f` ' Suba[ea 2 is 15 parcelx. This number was calculatcd Uy suhtracting the'Phase I: E�3 � builA-out (38 parceis) from the toral allowable undrr the Neighhorhood Plan'(53 . �i � �, s�: parcels), Jt would be usefui to explicitly define che maximutn allowahte Buitd- i�E. out as considerable variation has been offored through public testimony,.ranging frcdn 53 to more than 200 ailowabie units. . +�' � � � ; � � I�r During the Planning Cuminission hearing of May 16, 200G, the applicant °��;, in�licated that due,to the numbet of property owners in Subarea 2 and a !�`. • " 4ignificant Iack of coasenstis;by the owners of that prope:rty regarding an !�� , approach.to Future dcvelopment; the Neighborhoud Plan was noc abte co ful.iy i, - ' • address both Phasc I and Phase I[developtn�nti ConscqurnNy the Initial Study " . '' � was not able to comptehensivcly addressmany of the Potentially Affec[cd �ki . . ,. F.nvironmenta► Facrora iisted,on pagal oFthe document. Further, the inici�l �; , . Study conxistendy evaluates only the potentiat impacts'associated with I'hase I i�; ' development (nine acres`of.Subarea 1). For exampte, the deurip[ion of �`„ biotogical impacts on Page.13 specifies thac'7mptementation of die proposed g�� project will rosult in the conveision of approximately nine.(9) acres of ' �� senesce�tt w5lnut.orchard and annual grasslancl habitats io'residentiat houses, �i ' �u•cets and landscaping with rton-native landscaping plauts." Based on thc �� in[ormation on page 2 and'page 3, ihe pcvject' actuatly includes 53 pnrcels on f. Z2 acres. As with a11 discussions undar CEQA the analysis'of potential impacts E' is based specifieally on ihe projec[description. The biological discusxi�in "��' continues_with a description of items speciFically-re:ated to Phase I dcveJopment ;i�; on Subarea 1.: Nobiologiwl study was included For Subarex 2 and based on ,�; aerial imagery, thtmost significant siparian habitat within ihe Ncightarhond - '�' Plan arca occurs at the eas� end of Subarea 2. Several oP�he othcr sections in �� ' [he Ini;iaPStudy explicidy reflecc �he same inconsistcncy in defining thc scope of"the ro'ect" includin P ulationlHoasin Public ServicesJUtilities, and . �� P J B oP 8• I�, � Transporfation/Circulation. The Wastewater section doas apperr to reflect both �,: � Phasc i and Phase 1(. The.scope of the remaining�eccions is not cxpreszly ?�; . —. . sc:�i�a. ,€; � _ �;; . �,. � � The Iuitial Shidy should be clarified to more specifically'define tlie scope of the `' � project and upeci£celly.idenfify theise components covered by the current . ��4 = CEQA review. PaRiculady as it applies to Phase Il or Subarca 2 for which no y�; , subdivision is currently.proposed, the document should also specifically identify �E�': tlte type�nf actions that wiU iequire subsequent studies and whac applications � ;�, '` would trigger the addicional studies(e:g., application for grading permit, minur ,,. , - use permit, developmenrplan, etc,). This Oiscussion sh��uld inc]ude an analysis �, oEpotential future build-aut pafameters (e.g., maximum number of unita, ctc.)_ ;` a: and how consistency or inconsistency w'tth.the Neighborhood Plan would bc . � �,' `� ��', � � . addressed or allowed:. �: � � - � � �pi. , - ,,, �� ' NP Q4-D01; DCA 04-007; VTTM;09-002;"PUD 04-002(Chcrry Geek) ' �;" + ' . � � . : . _ � _ .j�',. . ._ , _ .. . . . - , ipi .. ' . � _ , '. ' , . . . , . . �: gt •d £SOS68bS08 � � siyuetzd dZZ �ZT 9D 60i��da� .. - . -'- - --- __.__ .. . ... ' . • . ��i. _ ' , "'__—_ � is � r, FROM �:CDD8EDD . FRX FA. :805 473 5489 Sun. 26 20E�b 10�4�M P3 ��' � . . � � F.ast Village Neighborhooci Pian/Cherry Creek VTiM . Greg McCowan Commcn.ts — YI 'r;. 3. Creek Setback -Thc current project dcsign inciudes a 25-toot setback frum �'`.' � the top of ihe bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. While this sethack woulcl buff'er , the creek i�salf, it would provide essentielty no buffer for the assnciatecl ��f riparian corridor as ths�egctated corridor currendy ezlends approximately 25 'i - fect from the top of ffie bank. More commonly, riparian buffers are extended from the outside edge of che riparian corridor or the iop of l�ank, whichever is farther. This is consistent with the area under tTie jurisdiction of the State of ,k` California under Section 1602 of the California fiish and Game CoAe. Recause tha project will require impacts to the area within State jurisdiction, it may be useful to discuss the setback with representativcs of chc Califomia Depanmen� E; of Fish and Game (CDFG) as they may require a srtback as parc of the • anticipated Lake and S�reambed Atteration Agreemcnt. [f this setback is �' inconsistent with the projcct design i� cou4d result ia delays for the projeet. E," Additionnlly, it sfiould be noted [hat it using ihc top of han.k as Nie basis for chc setback, CDFG will consider the top of bank co be the fnished crnitour afrer - � any.grading activities, not tho pre�existing top of bank as is further discusEed �, below. EF{' � ' !II 4. Skormwater In[rasiructore - it is my understan�ing that the proposeef project is being rcquired to participacc in thc inscaltation of regional stormwater ��, improvements induding three 72-inch diameter culvcrts directing fiows into .ti Arroyo GrTndc Crcck. For,the most part, tAe riparian cortidvr of the crcek uid ',� the creek itself represent the most ecologically significant habiCac<>n the site p��tentialty �ubject to sevcral state and federal regula�ions including tl�e Federal ?. CFean Watet Act, the Fedcral Endangered Species Acc, che California �� Endangered Species Act, and the Califomia Fish and Game Code as notecl ;fi afiove and as discussed in the Initial SNdy. � Based on the infortnation in the lnitial Study and in the City's puhlic recor� ,�� ftle, a grading plan has not been doveloped for the i�atallation of the three I�+ - culverts that accurately delineates tBe anticipated limits of disntrbancc. I3ecause ��! [he existing banks_are extremely steep alang this stretch of the crcck, I would anticipate severat potentially significant issues associate� with the requited 4c: � _ grading f�nd subscquent restoration. Wit}iout instxlling walls Or relying on significant�hazdb�nk protec[ion, it yeemy wilikely that the bank could be restorod to the existing slope (nearly ver�ical in :�; scnne areas). Consequently the soil placed on,top of the instxlled nipes will , likeky be graded on a 2:1 or gcntler slope from [ha [oe uf the disturbance. This � ',�! raises sevcral que�tions that shwld be evalua[ed. How would the newly created `� ; slopes he inregrated with the existing undistwbed banks upstream and .. ;�, downstream of che.dismrbance area? Pttsuma6ly some sott of "feathering" oF ;r', the slopes to ttansition back to the steep existing banks would be rcquired. This '�� , would'Iikely.cxpaad thc Iimits of disturbance (upvtream and downstream) �� beyond what iv iequired to install the culverts. Because erosion and xilli�tiun of .'�° � !�� N.P U4-001; DCtI 04-0U%; VTfM 04-002; PUD 04-002(Chcrry Creek) ,'��. ti 93 'd ESOS684S08 scyue;zd � dEZ �ZT 90 60;��_da; � --- - - -- � - � . - ._ �`i U( FROM :CDD8EDD � , FAX ,hD. :B05 4�3 5489 Jun. 26 2006 10:43RM pq'�.R �� j. East Villag�Ncigliborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM Greg MeGowaa Comments the creck is a significant concern related to sensicive specics issues (ati is further discussed beluw), short term carLCCruction and long term bank stabilizltion and � erosion umtrol protection measures as well as slnpe stabilizatiun mechanisms 's` shou)d be fully developed and evaluated during the projecL planning process to !6 unclexstand ttie potential direct and indirect imgact� of[he work and the expeeted effectiveness of[he proposed pc�tection measures. . ;'�, - r If in fact the installation of Nae cuiverts wouid resutt in a siopc thac is morc r' ` ' gentic (leas steep) than the existing banlcs, the past-consttuc[ion top vf bank j�: wuuld he shifted xway from creek �owards rhe develupmen� envetope. ns such, i�i , the 25=foot buffer from the top of bank wouid also need to be shifted �,� accordingly. CpFG typically requires that any creek setback he based em the. finished grade and oontour, not on the top of bank prior ta construction wo�•k. � �� it is not clear if a change in the setback based on a new top of bank would 4i , . affect [he proposed sheet Row qf stormwater from lots 21, 22, xnd 23 as R desoribcd on pagc 31 of the (nitial Smdy. � � �i One potentiat solution for consideracion would be to utilize lateral drilling '�� teehnology to in��tall the culverts. This approach if technicalty feasiblc and '' reasonably cust effective for such large diameter pipes cauld significantly I�� reduce the disturbance and potential impaals associated with the installation. '� Rcducing the size xnd/or number of culverts would aiso reduce impacts but to a lesscr exteot iFtrenching was still required. �' � "�. A� is also discussed in Comment 6 below, analysis of d�e physical and ' ' mechanical i,mpacts of discharge water from the instalted culvertv em the 'AS existing crcek geomorphology (bed and tiank c�nfiguration) should be '�i conducted due to the assumed presence of sensitive species. ;� !�, 5. Creek,'IYail - The Initial Study.suggests that the public will cleinand creek ac;cess at die site and wiU create a trail if one is not provided. I peraon.dly F? disagreewi[h this assumption based on the copography and �he dense vcgetation !;; (including fil�ekberries and poison oak) and would recommend that no crcok ar.cess be provicled and fur�her that measures be specifically requiretl co prevent "` � _ creek access(e,g., fencing, interpretive signage, CC&K language). ,R The existing gauging station.currernly provides a very steep staircasc dowq to '�: the creek. If the City and/or the applicant insist on providing creek access, it shoulJ be limi[ed to this existing infrastrucwre to avoid additional impacts co d.ie creck bank. Note however, thac the existing stairway in no way meets �he standards oF thc Americans wich Disabilifies Act (ADA).'[nst:illacion uf an �` ;i ADA cumpliant access trail on the steep barilcs would likety require switchbucks '!• and considerable assaiared grading. ' i�l ,,, �i F; NP 04-001; DCA 04=007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherry�'reek) � _ `';i '?; LI 'd , ESOS684S08 ; siyuet3d db� �ZS 90 60,f; da, i,u� 4 i . . ., � � i'yi fl' FROM :CUDSEDD Fqk ND. �8E15 -073 5489 Jun, 26 2006 1014,3AM P� ''�,�u� . Ea.qt Village Ncighborhood PlanlCherry Creek VTTM Greg R4cL'ruwan Commcnk� !f' � 1,��_ Mitigation Measure MM 4.4 requires: ' !I; '...a foocpath to the crcek that would be stable and non-erosive. The trail '`� should be covered with base rock and designed to be permeable and u� avoid the concentration of storm runoff. The dcveloper shali also piant '� shrub�, such a� native thicke[ forming black6erry andlor California r�,se I`.� adjacent to any traits and/or footpaths to discourage use of a shortcut pathv, '. and sha11 restore any existing volunteer paths wicli native riparian species .�s � a parc of the approved rastoration plan under MM 4.2 above." l;i This mitigaticm measure appears to be mfeasibl� withou� subscanciat grading ��t: consideriug the stcep exi�ting banks. Restoration plantiog of shrubs qn tlie existing stecp banks outside the trail as described would be challenging and cosUy aseuming that quantitative performance requirements are establi�hed to i� demonstraee success. ± , ',t. Due to tha sensiavity of this arca, a detaiied analysic of the required grading ti�r a11 infrastruc�ure installation;potentia] [raii access, aod the proposed park along Ii; II - ATroyo Grande Crcek should 6e conducced during the planning and revicw `s process to Yacilitate adequate-assessmenE of potential impac[s as well as '' pckential impact avoidance and minimizetion measures. The engincered top ot ;y; bank mapped through [his process should be used as the hasis for the prop�sed �- 25-foot setback bvffer. If potentially significant impaots are iriencified ciiat !� cannot be evc�icied, suitable mitigation meacures should be developed to reduce �'� thc impact(e) to a lesc than significant tevel such that a mitigated negirtive `` declaration remaias the appropriate review document in accordance witl� the ' CEQA. If.impacts cannot bc reducetl to a less than significanc levcl;an " Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would bc rcquired, !?i ;4 I G. Sensitive Species — 7'he Initial.Study specifies that two federalty protected `� wildlife species (California red-leggecl frog; federally listed as "�hreatened" and `;s Central California steelhead: also federally tisted as "threatened") ancl onc ;; CaliTornia Species,of 5pecial Concern (souihwestern pund turtle), are assumed 'Si w be presenl at some time in che creek along the project rcach. The f.�itial " tud iden�ifies several ocential im acts inctudin ocentiafl si �ificant '4' S Y P P B P Y F-� ii P the to w c culvert and outfell �'• _ impac�s associatcd with the instatlation o s rm at r li structure. All otential ecoto ica! im acts includin sensitive s cies issucs are P B P 6 Pe , summarizcd on page 14 of the Initia! Study and addressed in ten subsequent , I% mitigation measures. Poeen�ially occurring impacts fcom [he project on '`� Catifornia red-legged frogs and steelhead are further detaiicd on page t� ac "direct mortality, harm (habi[at modification), o� haraciment (alteration of '' .� , behavior aFCocting reproduetion and survival)." , ;� !'; While assuming piesence of se�sitive species is a conseryativc approach, it ��' I avoids tl�e need [o conduct species-specific and/or site-specific survcyv.lt alsu ;; d<�es not provide the opportunity to consider potential imp3cts ta�miyue hatiicac ": �� fearures of�he site during the CEQA process for a given speci�s as this wt�rk i,�l ` n I '�' � NP 04-001; ACA U4-007; VT7'M 04-002; PUD 04-002 (Cherty Crcck) �'k; - 3: IS. i` � 'gi 'd ESOS664S08 sc�uetyd dSZ =zT 90 60 da� I iP. � . .. _'_". .. _ F FROM :CDD8EDD FRX NO. :BBS 473 5<169 Jvn_ 26 20Ef6 10:44HM1 PEi East Vitlage Neightx+rl�ood Plan/Cherry Creak VTTM C;reg McCiowun Comments ; would noC.be conducced unless it is a requitement of the subsequent foderal ,�. permittinF review: . The gauging station and associa[ed creek impedimcnt has created a dcep puul wliore Arroyo.Grandc Creek exics ihe siee co the west. This particu3ar pool is � reporteA fo Fupport steelhead. Consid�ring the genera]Sy sh�llow conditions of Arroyo Orznde Crcek, this deep'wacer likely stays cooler xnc'. stays full longet than o[hcr areas of dic creek and as such would be�especialty importan[ habicat �{i fot tHe other�scasitivr species a{so assumed to be prescut at the site (Californi:i I:'"'. red-leggcd Yrngs, southwestern pond cu[tles). Re�noval c�f the riparian canopy ascocfatcd with installation of the culverts couid resWt in warmcr weter, '�' increased predation by taptors,,and o[her pocencial impacts for several years '„� while tlse rescoration plants grow targo enough io scert provicling cover again. •';' Additionally, the impact of the ctormwater diccharge Suxing tlnw evenis should � if� � be considered on-this feaNre. Based on-the graphic in tho lnitial Stody, i[ is � ;t; anticipatecl that stormwater will spill ou[ onto the hardbank ucucturc ' �' immediately bebw the ou[fall.ofii�e culverts with rdatively tow preasure, but �P; no diswscion of[he stormwater ftow impact on the creek flow is inclucted. . �f; �� . Mitigation Me�ures MM 4.9 and MM 4.10 addcess tl,e pocentiai impacev for red-legged frogs and for steelhead. respectively: in both cases, the mitigation , �!�� addresses potrncial impacts by requiring documencation from the appropriatc �� federal resource pro[ection enticy (U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service andlor. I National Marine Fisheries Service) concurring thac dic project will not restdt'�n �f "take" (a broadly defined term �lescribing impacts)or wiit net advcrsely affect jM" the species. In•practicc, addrescing °cake^ through the Endangered Species nct �; wiU neccssarily add�ess the putencial harm to the species in question; however. � i[ shouid be noted that these two Mitigation Measures as wricren in die Initial Study do not direcUy provide quantifiabie perEormance objectivns (such ax no '? f9' 'measurafile inc�ease in water turbidity..no silca[ion of che screambnd, no ;' permanent loss of habitat, a maximum allowable numbci of take incidents, etc.) ''j or a mechanism to direclly achieve perfortnance objectives anA conseyuentty coWd be construed as deferred mitigation (this discussion and Hu discuesion ,� beluw may also apply to other sec[ions of the lnitiai Scudy sueh as Ge�Ao�y and J��_ Soils whcre �nitigation measures such as MM 6.1 rdy or. the findings of s[udirs X; thac have not yet been conducted). f The issue of deferred mitigation undu CEQA has been routincty litigated in I;ti Califoinia and ffic courts have genera]ly supportcd this type of deferral when it i;i is part M a cer[ified Environmental lmpact Report (EfR). However, fl�c courtv ol have bea� considerably,less supportive when.part of a Negative Dectaration or �` Mitigated Negative Dedaration. As you are likely aware, a certiFied EIR ��.� . strongly pmtectc a project apQticant and provides a mechanism to altow for �4� � _ poten[ially signit'icant impacts to occur(dvough a sta[e�neut of ovnr-riding 'k; ce�nsiderution). in contrast, use of a Negative Declaration or Mi[igared Negattve !�; Declar�tion placeg thc burden of proof on the appticant (and thr tead agcncy) w (, demons[rate q�at no significant impacrs wili xcur as a resulr uF a projcct and C; t. )ff NP 04-001; DCA fN1-007; VTTM 04-002:PUD 04-002 (Cherry C:reek) ^ ' ,'�j , _ ,, � — --- ------ --- ---- ------- - , --� - -- !�! -- i � "u � ±i ��, � ih� . . . ' . . " ' ,jCV i, 61 'd , ES056BbS06 . siquej�zy d9Z =Bi 9U 6€�O da `_" . - .- -. . _ .. � . - j�l , .. .. . . ... . __,r_,_._ FROM :CDD8EDD FRX�FD. [BOS 4?3 5489 Jun. 26 2006 10:44AM Pi��C�' i - 4 Enst Vi11�ge Ncighborhood Plan/Cherry Crcek VTTM Greg 1�tcGowan Comments _ , ,,` consequcndy requires a higher tevel of detail fnr any'prc�poscd mitigation ; measure addressing a potcntiatly sign+ficant impaet. s> The Initial Study indicares dial a mitigated negative declaration will bc prepared E' for che projcct. As such, i� would be to the.advantage of the applicant and the S' Ciry as the lead agency �o more ttioroughly desc�ibc the actual meohanisms tliat � m•ry, be applied to reduce potenrially significant impaccs to a less ihan +' significant levcl. Suitable mitigation meacures might inctude quan[ifiabie r! parameters for water qualiry through construction and ttirough tlie life of thc project, maintenance of the integrity of thc existing craek charactarist�cs (c.g., �� flow rate/volume, depth, poo] and rifflc charac[eristics, be�l, ban::, and channcl ;; substrate, etc.), erosion control measurec, water quality prptection measures such as filters and oi!/trash separators, maintenapce of hTbitat quelity and jC�. quantity, etc. x Tlie City nf Arroyo Grande has implemented a moratorium on buildin� on the � bank� of local creeks and has formally soiicieed the irvnlvemehc of otixr t�cal . ¢! � and statc agencies ro study watershed issucs. As part of these effures, chc City '�:' has identi!'ied resicte�tiai development as an issue af concern and is currently E developing additinnal creek protcction measures for residential develupment. I[ �� is assumeA that these meacures will include habitat protection requircmcnt� and ;�. ideally the Chcrry Creek development and the broader Neighbothood Plan wi❑ exemplify tha ambitions of the Ciry and the community in protecting tocal waursheds for both flood controt and ecological habiiat quaticy. ", _. 7. Nativc Rcatoratlon - Mitigation Measure MM 4.2 rCynires native restoration � for impactc to native.h�bitat along Arroyo Grandc Crcck. Plancing Sheet L-1.0 . !'' de9crihec an ornamencal park u6lizing horticvlmral varietals oF nativc plants for %i a�sthctic value. Baced on the plan,.a weU designed creckside pocket park would i' br. creaced, however this should not be conctraeQ as native restor�tion. 7[ is nc,[ ; dear it Sheec L.�I.Q is intended to address any portion of I.�[itigatinn Measure � - MM 4.2. Sheet L-t.0 proposes redwoods, eaks, manzanita, and numerous �i: ' other species that do not occyr in tix Central Coast arroyo willow Nabiule that cl�iracterizes Artoyo Grancl Creek. Theoretically, the park would icset(requirc + mi[igation as currcntly 'shown on the p1.1n baxd on che discussion in MM 4.2. A relativdy simple solu[ion wou{d be to require 1oca11y collected na[9ve �" propaguies from the Attoyo Grande Creek waterst�ed fur a!1 plantings along che 'i';� crcek and within the buffer azea as chis would restrict qte plant palette to !f', , cF�ecies that occur naturally in the erea. At a minimam, no horticultura] �. ' vxrieties of rare botanical spccies (if arty occur in the area) should be.altowed j�j and no inv�sive or exotic specics should be allowed. !! , Depending on flie levet of impact associa[cd with the inseallation of die � � stormwecer inCrastructure, a more appropriatc mitigation mcasurc would require ' preparati�n of a format native habitac rostoration plan fo:. atl disturbances alung �i' Arroyo Grande Creek prepared by a qualified restoration ocologisc, botanist, or " biologist with experie�ce restoring this local habitat. TEiis appears to be tha ;,;: ------- a' NP 04-001; qCA 04-OU7; VT'I'.M 04-002: P:UD 04-002 (Checry Creek) ",4; u r ' . , �i� �� : OZ 'd E50568bSOB sique ��y dLZ =ZT 90 6�0 da! �I: --_________.___._ ___ �. . _ j�� _ _ __ " " __ ___';E' " G FFOMI :CDD8EDD FRX NO. :805 473 SA89 �Jun. 26 2006 1B:45AM. �FO�� Easc Village Ncighborhood Plan/Cherry Creek VTTM Greg McGuwan Commont9 C --- ";t' intent of MM 4.2 and assuming that this is separate fmm che landscaped park ��F on Shcet L-!.t), this comment may noL be necessary. For refcrencc, the County &� of San Luis Obispo maintains a list of iryalified biological firms'as cloes the `� County of Santa Ilarbara. Additionally, the City of Arroyo Grandz har workcd _ wich a number of firms for projec(s o� tl�e creeks wiU�in the Ci[y limits. `i; 8. Trn1'C(c - I am not particalarly wc1/ verscd in traffic enginecring and anatysis '� however several commenu in [he Micial Study and during dee Planning t '��, Commiysion hcaring of May 1G'",were of interesc to me and appear co merit "' fur[her consideration. The Initial Study indicates [hat thq pro_ject wili have aa in.vignificant impact when addressing thc question "Will the project reciucc ��; , '. existing L.evels of Service on public roaJways?° In the sub4equnnt Se[tirtg '.,i� section the Initial Study refers to a 2004 study by Higgins and Assooiatcs f' ' evaluating Phase f and Phase II of the development. This is consis[ent with the � ,,,... testimony by the traffic engineer stating [hat the firm studied a tocal build-out of ��'� approximate]y 90 units. Aowever the lmpact section oF ihe Liitial Seudy is Jimited ro Subarea l and conetudes that build-ouc of Subarea 1 will not !" ` signif'icantly impaet intercection or road seccion traffic opo�acions, and all , �� studied intersections and road seccions will operatc ac a i.evel of Service "C." or �p, . better unAer project conditions. It is na dear if the change frum PhTSC [ and 6; Pl�ase ll. to only Subar�a 1 is intencional or not and ic is not 9prcified whether ;C the study concluAod that Phase 1 and P6au ll eumulatively would affece thc ' + Level oC Scrviee. ` ' 'r" a.. According [o the American Planning Assuciation (APA; see: ,;; http:!/www.p]anninK•ora/thecommissioner/799520031sprinK02.htm), Levcl of �I Service C is the zone of mostly staDle flow, hut speeds and maneuverabili�y are ,'i more cl�cely.constiicted by the higher volumes. Levc1 of Service D is a zone � fl�at approaches imstable flow, with tolcrabte operTting xpecds, however dri�ing ` spced is considetably affected by changes in operating conditions. i; ;,. Wltite aomewha[crypNc to the 9ay person, these two Levrls uf Servicc appear `i to be considecably different and especially so in tfir eontext of tlie amall ',`i residential streets in the Village, As such. chis seems like a f'airly extteme 't,` threshold of significance as the changc from Lxvel C to T.evel D wwld be a �� - very substantial change for cesi¢ents of the neighborhoocl. The Initial Study also ;�� does not providc the current L,cvels of Service and this informacion would be '�� very helpful in establishing the baseline for discussion. If fur �xampte chc . ;�; pr�jecc would reduce ehe Level of Service from Level B to [.evel C, this wuuld be significant �nd would merit public discussion. I a�n sure that chis informati�n ��i is provided in the study by Higgins and Assncia[es however xhat docwnent is k'� ` somewhat challenging to read for people like mycelf who arc not well versed in 6. trsifEic engineering. +'; Ic would be very helpful to provide a traffic anetysix in tay terens idenufying the 4. existing condi[ions and the actual anticipated chenges to condi[ions on che � atreets and intersections iathcr than relying on 1cRCr coeles ihxt hnve no i»Witive ,. ------ ��'�� . NP 04-001; bCA 04-007: VTTM 04-002: PUD 04UO2(Cherry Creek) 'i'. � ir� ° i' , �G;. s ;s o: �,; ,'; � Iz 'd �ESOS6BbS09 � � siquetq�j dL. =2I 90 60 dat ,_,_.. . _ — _� � '�'�I FROM :CDD3EDD FRiC N0. :605 A73 5489 J�n, cb 2006 10:45RM P9 Eavt Vilinge Neighborhoocl Plan/Chcrry Creck VTI'M Greg McGowan Commen�y meaning to the pubiic. AII other 3eclions of[he initial Study d«cuss potnneial cb�nges in readity understandable terms and the TransportationJCircula�ion seccion shnuld be revised accordingly to facilitate open discussiun of[be actual eonditians and amicipatcd changes on surface streets and at studied intervections. Sased on the public testimony at the hlay l6`" heari�ig, treffic and project density are the most significant issuex of imeresc for the neighboring corruhwzity. 1 appreciace the opportunity �o provide these commenu and as we]f 1s your continucd consideration of the issue9 thac ara addressed. The discussions shnve are provided cu asvisc alt interested parties in fully understanding the proposed project, thu impiicad�ns of d�e rcgulntory crnisiderations, and the potentiai envi�onmental impacts assuciace� with implemcncaticm of the project. At the request of the appiicant's representntive RRM Design, i am providing a copy of this Ictter to them fiir their consideration. Pleace don't f�ecitatc to contact me if S may he of further service. Sincerely, s Greg McGowan (605) 349-7180 , cc. 5rik P. Justesen. RRM Design Group NP 04-OUI: DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002(Cherry C'rcek) aa •d esossebsoe Sl��ec �i� dez :zt 90 so �d Sep 10 06 12: 39a Rtlantis 9054895053 p_ 1 Megan Bochum 823 Turquoise Drive Arroyo Grande CA 93420 805.474.6038 meganbochum�yahoo.com August 22, 2066 �ear Mayo�Fzrraza and City Council Members, I am writing to you as a resident homeowner in Zone 1/lA. It has come to my attention that you will be discussing and deciding issues involving the Newsom Springs Drainage and the continued sus�nsion of acceptance of projects adjacent to local creeks. As you lmow, residents, homeowners, business owners and operators and agricuIturalists u� Zone 1/lA have recently voted on and accepted the levying of assessments to supply funding for the maintenance of the Los Berros Creek and Arroyo (irande Creek within the zone. It is cleaz that many of the issues in this area of the creek system begin upstream: siliation, runoff,and erosion. I believe it is incumbent upon our community leaders to consider the impact to those downstream of inadequatc drainage from Nrwsom Springs and continued development along the creek. I have concerns that a bioswale w�ill be inadequate to accommodate the runoff from Newsom Springs. In addition,�ae must consider the added runoff created by the proposed Cherry Creck development. The amount of permeable land w�ll decrease while the amount of nutoff will increase. I question whether a bioswale H�II allow enough time and physicai space , for sediment to drop out during storm events. I am concemed about the consequences to those I downstream w�ho continue to confront problems originating upstream. I I urge you to remember those in Zone t/1 A who have come forth with community effort to work ' toward a community goal. I request that any decisions you make conceming our creeks and � adjacent development always consider the impact of the citizens ciownstream. I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Megan B6chum I ;ep 09 06 11 : 52a Rtlantis 8054895053 p. l ' .=,ic� N�CCCD D_ PHONE n0. � 714 526 6559 May. O1 2e05 H9:OSRM P2 -�_� cc w �i.uN . , . Fi a l . _� PGANNINC- COtIMI3SI037, CITY OF ARROYO GRACIL•E �� , ' ,�� _ ' ' biAYOR AND CITY COUNCLL, CITY O� �RROYO GRANDE�-, . FRON: G02DOY F. �IKSON TRUST CO-TRIISTEES � ' 5P.RA L, DICK6l7S At7A MAfiI.4:*!NA McCLA'�AfiAi; �iTBJECT: EFSi ViLLAGE VBIGEHOR300D PLAN; h'? 04-001; DCA OS-Q07; � VSTi^ 0�-�02; PUD 04-002 lCF�=PRY CR-^.BK1 DAT£: APRZL 28, 20D6 TNa =ollowing is an iieraized rPEponse to the DRt?,Fi INTTIF.L STUDY =_?!1SARY - ENVIRO.�PSBNTAL C3ECKLI6T fo_ the above �rojec�: I . AGRICULTLTRAL P.ESOURCES �'�e aection on "Setting" atates that all C1ass I and II soils are coas2dered orimo soils, but noY aecesszrily prime "fa=mland" so=is . 47tat are thE deYiaitions oi thase taras7 i�Ihat cci�ezia ece '_�°d to maka that deeis3on? Sx £act, under "Impact" (page 6} tha quote rrnu; City Policy Ob�ects.w_ AG:-1 of the Genaral Plzn apoaars to coafirm t�a= current agrict:ltural productivity is not a criteria for determir.- '_^� rrime soil status and hance, its viability as pri.cae farm �r.n3. ^_':?e f3rst sentence itt the subseq��ent pazagraph is not a correcE scat'�r.t. Thfl property has not °been ccmmittefl to residential usa aince the lete 1800's. The CiEy c+as incorpora#ed ir. 1912 and _:is area .ias prinaxily a walnut orchard ;uith a resideatial d�ell�ng on the f.armed narcel . IAeYersnce to the LESF_ Mo9a1 i� not a usefcl criter_a far the City a£ Arroyo Grande because tha majori�y oE its p�ixe soils ate in �.:aez 16-ac=e 'parcais . Fias the City Eo=mally adoptad tris model as its sea�uro o£ ir,.oact oa prise soils? Tf so, t�at negates � adopted City policy reflected ir, tne Ganeral P1a: to preserve pzizs fazm lan3 within the City. F2ease r_ota tha2 AttaCh�ent A was not inCludaQ ir. the paCkot for �?�e drsft Nitigated :�egative Deciaratfcn. 6T _?g° 7, paragraph 3 it "each �urSsdiction must exami.ae Sts own dCStc:vective set of circumstances and site conditions' ared the AG area is considered L:niq��e in tha; =t does have sma7.7.er prime soil � _�±cEls, wouldn't th3t a�au? Yor a Oitfezen_ wpi�Y.ting o. the � �=SA mpdei r,aasLre_'= 4.°�at waights aid Gi*y Stafi g'_ve to t*e varlous criteria unfler LESA? Are tkec� �eigbts the sa�o £or. the S*_ate cr County7 Srouldn`t �eight3 given zue varicus crite:ia be a discussion item =o see ho:� closEly they reflocf tno policy to preserve prine ag .lacfl ir. tF� C3ty ci Prroyo Graade? =:e ,`Iitigacicn/Ca.-.clusion acctica s:ates that the project �cozporatos a S�0' wide buf°_cr (3C' ride :andECapa strip, a 32 ' c•11de road and drainace iacilitiea. T:-te '� ir_itisl" repoit dated ' ;eo 09 06 11 : 52a Rtlantis 8054895053 p. 2 � - . � �NOCCCD D_ PHONE N0. : 714 526 6559 Play. 01 2E06 09:06ar1 P3 I January 2005 uses t:�ese seme dinensions to co[ae up with a 100 ' µ•ide Dui£er. What has been change3 ot zdced? TTO�a t�at County Ay- states that "exparieece has shoa-n physical di.s=ance (ersphasis ours) tc be Yhe wo9t effective mitigation , ^�asure. Tr the s ame �aragraph re£erence is made to tre County Department ' of dgrtcult_�ze letter (Attachtr.eat H} whicF� raises the qucstion, "Wi1: th� stardard set 3n. thi5 instance represaat titie maximum I '-�:.r£er poter_�iai fo: future projects7' How and where has the C�ity azdrassed and/or answared this quEStion' "Zi ^.ot, the Ag Dept, would recosmaad ihat speciSic findln4s Ae m�.d= for why this particular bufEer diat3,zce is suPficient to afidress the potsntiai impacts.° Ylill the recorunended apecific £indings be forthcorting? i ;1_ BIOI,pGICAL RESOURCE6 Page 13 reterences three (3) 72" culvezts (prior report zePBrz'e9 to t:ro (2) 72" culvarts). i. tthat is the rationale fc: the additional pige? 2. Do the pipes tie 2n c.Itb the propased underground pipe to ba laid alonc Branch Mi11 Rasd talthia �he City right- of-«ay9 3. iTnder k�qse maintenance jurisdietion does this Pall? In addressing tho "bio-swa?e deteation basin": 1 . Wt�a� is its location? 2. L:r_at �s Sts size? 3. 'e7hat aao:int �f water will it be able to handLe aad at what velociiy? 4 . ��Tlao will mainta3n it? 5. 4Tho holds the liability ior lt? Since the bio-swale agpears to be wLthin the unpaved section of Cher=y Avenue, shou2d r.ot this poztiar_ of Cherry be purchased _rom the tit2e holders ond subsequently aban3one8? Oth�rwise, `�^H cloes the City groposa to ad8ress long-tern maintenar_ce and lia�ility? It rould also see.*tt that if this is a "!+eighborhood Pian" , Chsrry �aenue ug to ard inc?udi�g Gierly Lane should aleo be afldressed at this tima. :Hoa does the City propase Lo deal with this? `L}:a59 questionS poce sone. scar.ious drawSacks to tne propcsed ^:g9tive declaration. O�r ba!'_er cF�at the !�emso:r,:'• Springs ��alnag� deserves saparate deliberetion and action is also a -ie�� concern. S:ncerely �° .�� -:_.� �.t�.-�J,��ty....4.� �y'�,(,Q,µ.tf.p.� m(�)� fi�ra L. bickens, Co-Trustee Piarianna MeClanaran, Co-Trustee Gordon F. D�xsan 'Lrust GorCOn F. Dlxso� Tri:s't ^•.�28 Slaiz Way 617 k'. Malvern :orrance, CA 90505 F`u!ierto�, CA 92832 ;ep 09 06 11 : 53a Rtlantis __ 8054895053 p. 4 i - --� `- . -- - . � ATTACHMENT 13 �i C 1 �. ` .,r�- - i Lynn Titus CfTI, �,� ,; ...._,.._; �,.,,•;-•` 404 Lierly Lane ':0:;;,,; ' , ;� � : ; - - . March 31, 2006 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 - - .:_., � ,..�,[ 489-5295 To: Planning Commission Re: Cherry Creek Development City oi Arroyo Grande Since 1 wilt be out of tovrn the night of your Aprii 10 meeting, 1 am sharing my ideas with you in this letter. 1 sfah by thanking you for your service to the community. The City needs to produce a Neighborhood Plan which includes road infrastructure for Cherry Avenue, My�tle and Lier(y Lane. A Specific Plan for the 9 acre Cherry Creek afone (phase i) is putting the cart before the horse. 7here is no plan for Phase 2 indicating infrastructure requirements. Many of our citizens worked long and hard on the General Pian update, and i see the Planning Commission and City Council making exceptions to this pian on almost every project_ The Neighborhood Pian concept was designed to protect this entire 22 acre area and should be in place before you proceed with the details of Cherry Creek. Piease do not shirk your duty. Plan this whole area first. The issue ofi the dirt road portion of East Cherry Avenue within this development is still not resolved which illustrates 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 developers ag buffer. How can it be in the developers 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 famt? The developers have proposed a new East Cherry Avenue extension that dead-ends at the tin buildings on the Reed property now owned by 7ony Janowicz. This is not good pianning. How dces that fd in with the Neighborhood Plan for the entire 22 acres? Cherry Avenue is the major road in this area, arul evenhfalty it wilE be t�sed by . futu re residents in the proposed Sub-area 2 when it is devetoped to build-out, vrith possibly up to 88 homes. Sub-area 2 witl be developed earlier than you may think. 7ony Janowicz is atready imporEing soil and grading in order to develop his praperty on Lierly Lane. ,. This is but one of the many issues invoNed with this project. It will take a lot of study. Sincerely, .--• �=��n�� /�� Ly� Titus � �ep 09 D6 11 : 53a Rtlantis � 8054895053 p_ 5 I -- ------ — -------' _ .— . --.._.— N 15 ATTACHME T ALLEGRA LOVE PAGE 60611�iYRTLE STREET � AR.ROYO GRANDE CA 93420 ��,�"''�:_,j�,�'�.�� a��^„-J �"''� - � . � May 6, 2D05 ?n�1Y rJ 5 '�f�o To: T7te Planning Commission ojArroyo Grande C�N OF P.�RO`!O GRAtvDE COM�/lU�;iiY D'cVELOriVlcNi Subject: Cherry Creek Estates RespectJulty, I have questions ihat should be answered before appraving this projecf. , o ' T/ee ro'ect s applicaftr is usi7g a rural area of prir�:e aa soils for a IrigJ� P J ' tivell established walnut trees. I density developmenL It presentiv has many I helieve ttae city's Gerierel}'lan pre��es for prot�Clll:a 132is t}�pe ojareu i $esides tleis, I don't understand how tlae city plans 10 protect us from tlie. obvious severe traJfic impect the projecf generates. Does the traffic flow down C7terry, Myrtle and iJso how much?1Yow much tra.ffic gaes to Trajfze fr'ay arrd dow�i Gardett Sireet to t;ie village? ��ll tlie water drainage accnmmodate a 100 year jlood—tTiat fras in 1he pasi heen a maj�r problenz for the arecT I atr:fru►ekly upset over sonle pasf platenitr� decisivns by the city, sucli as the large building being constructed at the corner ojTraffic Way and Branch Street; the large houses built on Whitely nert lo the creelc Are we oOtTte to see a repeat of i;:ese quesrionable decisiors. Please, aPprove a tasteful ezcellent low density project that conforms to tlze area and fs�ill be a credit to ihe lovelv village otArroyo Grende There are noi man}� a�eas [eft in the G�ty that are [ike the historic agricultural area tltat'is �tow b�ittg proposed fnr d��elop►�ietit Please make a wise decisinn we ca�t be pleased and proud of.� Sincerely, ��Z�. � �'�-�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ATTACHMENT16 ��' ,� .�f�ri'�.�.�. 606 MYRTLE'STREET 5-,. ��, rv, ;; ,_„_, ARRDYO GRANDE CA 93420 �4° � ' ' � •'.�;`° j j j��4.w • J ?c, � � .!-�1 Sa5-�S9-3S11 ,tiAAY `l � ��ro Apri13, 2006 CITY' OF ARRC';O GRA�<DE To: The Planning Commission ofArroyo Grande ��'�'�d��'�v�f� ��4'`�Gry7�iJT Subject: The Cherry Creek plan scheduled for review on Ay�ril iG, 2t�06 The principle of preserving properties with prime Ag saiis and open space, whether they or farmed or not, is specified in the Cit_y's General Plan. T believe it clearly states that property with Prime Ag soiis ure to be . presQrved. I respectfully suggest t1��! tLis 6e tL•e frst iter� of r�:•i�r:� by the Planning Commission. I If it is detertnined that the Cherry Creek resides on prime soiis then the other issues are mute and should not be considered. 1'hen let the issue go to Council for a ,final determination bzfore consideration of the other outstanding issues that pertain to the Cheery Creek application. The Council has the right, by law, ta eit6er mat:e an exception or to change the policy. The Planning Commission does not Respectfalt��, ,-. � .� � . u �� _ s �d ESOS6BbS06 stlueT1y dgT :Zt 90 60 da: �ep 09 06 12: 15p Rtlantis 8054895053 P_ 1 �-,�_ � > _ _- , . . - '-- z �..� � --� . . .-' --'.3. � �I�.L'Y J TYLER r,:f`'; �_ `� ��'r'' 246 GARL�EN ST cin� o= ;r.,c�:o c^,°.. :-�= ��.".�..�.�1'.'r �':��'..Lv i.��:" AR�OYO GItA�NY)JF., CA 93426 � � 805-473-3782 May 10, 2006 To the Ptanning Commission of Arroyo Grande My husband and Y and our three small IittIe giris live in the residence at the intersection of Garden and Allen Streets. 'That intersection of raads is a very busy and dangerous place. `Ve are very concerned about the increased traffic that will be generated by the Creek Side development ][t is our understanding traffic wili flow down Myrtle and Cherry Streets, aud that some of this traf#ic will flow down AIIen. This adclitional flow will increase the risk. of accident and the danger vf t�arm to our young children. `'Ve respectfulty ►•equest that tlie Ptanning Commission recognize this probieru and that every possible measure be taken to limit the r��k and danger from this increased traffic flow. � Respectfui[y, �y , _, J . � ' , /Pi�� i ' 5ep 09 D6 12: 15p Htlantis 8054895053 �01/t"�p• � i�" CU'V(MTI"I`E� �TUI)IES DEVELOPMENT CODT UPDATE FOCUSES ON JOINT F]RE RESIDENTIAL LAi�iD USE ISSLTES PRO'I'ECT'�Ol'� F.�JFORTS During the fast thrcc }rars,the Cit� has been int•nl�cd in an esCensie�e pri�cess uf updacin4 the lle�•elopmen[ Codc to achieve consiscenc}�wir.i� thr 'Ihc Cia i� par[icipatiu� ?i)Dl Gcncr:il Plan. 7lie 6�cu� i: no�v on amending design o�•crla�� districts, 05. on a ��xmnittre �t�iilt improvin� the vie��shrcJ rc�'irwprocrss,and refini�tg residenti:il zoning �� represcniaei�'es Cci,�n nc� �h;inkes needed tu maintain and enhance tficArroyo Gra��de's`sm:tll to�vn. ' Cit�� ul'Grin'rr licac(�,Cit�� rura!'�ch;�racter. Anwng �he issue5 einp revir�vr are Ioc sizcs.huikting _. ,; ol Pisn:u 33each aitcl 8ie hei�ht all�nvnncrs,co��erage and floor area limits,setbacks,pcirking --- • �_ Qec:ux> Cuinmutti[y 9 reituirements and otlier design standards. New water conservacion a��d - �- Scn'icc� District iu cITOU�;I1[ COICI'1171 I:I:uItiCx�)C df1Cl ICL17{:i110t1 SL'111Ca:lYCIS 3SC :1I5c7 UClilg C01151(�Cf -I ��`��01' for fucure de��elupmenc projecu within tlte Cicy. For more infnrmatiein,call rccummcnilarions on d�c C��mmunit� Dc�e(c�pmcnt Ucpartuicnt at -i''3-5-t30. , potencial joint firc F,��<�tc<<,�,,, rtt�rL.t�� t,l��,,,�� ;<r.;� LOPEZ WATER SYST'�M levrl: and efticienc�-. `T�lie C�,mmitre•r R:L` �'��`��'°,"�`' :`"`�:, ;"�"` °"c`�"� UNDER�OE� IMPRO�EMENTS i uf tlir eleccr�l bodir's frc�m all tlie i Fiec Cirirs juri,cticti<ms. The I.opez Li�r is an csremet} mee[State standards for��1tcr � Committee i; rc�•ir��•ing opti�ns For �•:iluable �vater suppl}•to all of the treaunenc Total cost for chc pcojctt � clispacch,tcai��ing,purch�se and Fi�-e Citir.s.anci Prm•ides Z/i oF is SZ6 milLion,funded by a 20-�car , inaintcnancr of rquipmrnt,and Arro}'o fnndc:e dri�il:ing «•ater. d Snte loan that��•iil be mptid by � :�clminisuatinn. 'ihc� Ciries oi.vroyo numher of signiticant im�estments F1ood Control and�t'a[er Gr.mde and Grot'cr Beach :ire lireail�, have Ueen under R-np co proccct Conscrvation Discricc Zonc 3. The I F1fCtiCi]'C:iR[I Iril(�CUCC 1t115 VAIUB��!'l' District primarily'vicludesalrro��c� �haring aciministntivc and vaining � si:ifE.��hic'h has inrreased set�•ice «��urcc. C;rrnde,Pismo Beacl�,G�rver Beacli Ir�els,n•lulc mana�;ing resource� 11re L��pez Dam rcrrofir Prr�gr.m� �nd Oceano. �norc eflicira�t{t. Rr.ivmntu�dation; ��'.�s contpleted in 2003 at a rotal L:stly,a Habitat Conscn:ltion � �,i tiir Comtuittrr are expecte-d tn he cust of 528.9 mil(ion tinanced bg a PL-m has been prc-parrcl forArruyo cnmplete:d h} tl�e rnd �>f[hc ?��-)'�s+r bonJ. 'Chr grujecc used Gr:u�de Gerk. Thc pur�>ose uf the i.dcncLir arac sconc columnc huil[ to suppurt rhe Plan is [o allow For mon cfficirnt ' dam an�l ��it6seuid a -.0 a.ucr releases from Lopez Dam tu CITX PRO ECTS PROVIDE `'"��'4�""�c. "I'hc rcuoft pro�ccc �vas ihc creek. This �ti'ill help bcttcr ,J rcquired in urder t�� m�et curccnt manxge wxtrr supply,�vl�ilc ac thc 1rEEDED L'41PROVEI�IENTS �[ate seismic stan�iard.. same tin�e protect n•ildlif� habitAt A number of importam sr��•er. Llpgradr tu the ��atcr tteatmenc and meet Federal regulati��ns. The ��a�rr and srrrrc impro�cmcnts arr planc is nu��•under��a}• and Plan is now under rc�•iew f>}'Statc under�cae. l!p�radc of tie�rer Life rrujected to br complete U}' Fatl 1��Fedcral regtilatorr�agencics. ticxei��n \u. 1,n hicia is Ie�cateel :it �Q�'� Imp4ementaticin of the nen� For more inform:¢ioai,contnct thc c�:ik Y��k 6<.>t�levare;_:uitt\�r>l microfiltntinn ti��strm i� ne�essan�t�� R�nlic u%orl:s DePartment at=!%3-54�C�. Sranch ticrert,�•ill improve cap;icic�� q( p� p(py� M p p �{ yp Vl�C�l� Clri': cC��'Cf 5�'.lClll. � �{!9� i�tl�YY p� �ttl��tl �� MI�M�1� �1ean��'hile.conStructiOn of a new' �.':t[er n'cll un Dccrl�nil Circlr i� �.y � - ncarinG crnnp)cii<m anc( «'ill Tlus mac-be}•ocv lasc chancc to bc part of[hc"Lct17'c'rc I3c �� , • l.ights'progrem. Rccent additions to theVillage uidude l� prrn ide an impurtant increase to �.� Iterira};c charicter streetlighrs on tlieTr.dfic Wa�•Bridgr. 12 the Cict b c�°acer suppic. Prujects � umetli�;l�ts along the Creekside Y.�tl�,ancl now IC necs•streetGghG� in �<�min�; up fl�is �uttiuirr includc rLc the h'rart nf thc histuric�illage along Br.mch Screec from'I'r.�tfic�Xa}' rriurf�tcin� iif Parr��ll Road.O:ik Park � tu ShoR Strect. 'll�esc i0 ne�v bu['olil sh'lc"strect ligl�ts��i11 5Wn bc Soule�:inl,ancl Jamc.lF'a�. "1'hc Cit� .l�y I,�inrcl h} 2i more.replacing thr rxisting L•iacccns on F,�st 6nnch titnrt d�anks ;ill rrsidrnts imp.ictc�l b�� ihc lrom Sfiort «� Cron-n Hill :�nd around Herir.ige Sq�4�re anet the Vilt:�gr � cn�»[ruc[ion acCi��itiis (i�r ��ciur Gmrn. 't'hese lightc d�at enl�:utce tl�e hi.wric Vi1L•�}�c area are being donateel b}' �r�riencr anel cooreealion. Foa mnre I�,c:d husinesses,Fimilirs nnci urg.mi>ations thai hace a'onU-ibuCCd Frum $1.>00 �u intiirniatiun on thc Ci[1''s<;a�iital $i.fHM)prr li<�h[a+p:irt e�(dii:��en•successful volwnan�progr.�m. Concrihurors [mproccmcnt t'n>�;ram. ��Ica.ec :irr «e n��nizc�l R-ith a plaquc instalFeS un tlie li�ht pole. 1f you .u�e intrrrsced in c��nt:�ct thc ['ublic\\'ork.v hripin�co cnn;plrtr diis conmiunitc impmcrmrn[ bc mal:in#� a cionation ��r UCJ):IClII1CilI el 9',l-j4 !O. (IICI�rt l0 tllC I.CSTF1CiC DC' Li�he.c"prq:;r.m�,plreur call 4?3-Sti20. Col I�n Ma�/fi �. 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 sarvice to our City. Tonight I am here to urge you to deny s the application for the development code amendment • Neighborhood Plan . Vesting tentative tract Map 04-002 • And the Planned Unit Development calied Cherry Creek I previously sent letters and notes to you regarding the DRAFT initial Study Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration. I also reviewed and agree with the comments and notes regarding the Traffic Study made by Ed Harrison found in fhe Staff Report. • 7his project requires a FlJLL EIR. Very little has changed since the first Mitigated Dec was filed and yet the applicant comes back here tonight mistaken that al! the environmental concerns wil� be sufficiently mitigated and are not significant. They are significant on all 15 items on the checklist. e 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 / Vellum property at 429 acres could certainly support a PUD planning designation, just as the applicant is trying to I 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 I perFect example of the absence of cohesion on the Neighborhood Plan. The "strong entry feature" for fhe access points to the project does not fit in with the neighborhood. Nowhere in the Viliage 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" T -d ESOS68bS06 si�uetyd dLE �Zi 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 of the Bio swale includes grass mov�ed regularly at 6 inches high and water to not be more then 4 inches in that culvert? Show Bio swale STATS and PHOTOS of canal « 7his project: the IVP and the Phase 1 Cherry Creek praject are not consistent with the Genera( Pian. 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". e The PUO application should bs 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 iR the project. At first inspection of the project, the buyer should have noticed a.) a canal running across a substanYial 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 Ar�oyo Grande obligation to give away "Arroyo Grande" because the buyer bought parcels of land with so many developing constraints.upon it. o By placing PUD on land you have in essence upzoned the property 4 times. a The PUD application benefits the deve�oper, not the residents of AG. MATH CALCULATIOPIS WORKSHEET • The leadership on the ownership ofi 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 pr+vilege. The Air Pollution Coptrol Board in their letter response contained in the staff report states: "Please address the action i#ems contained in this letter that are highliqhted 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 T 'd ESOS66bS08 st�uejlH d6E =2i 90 60 da� portion anci then transfer over to the dirt road via the aphalt transitian behind Margaret Reed's shed. • Never really decided the AG issue and is still up to interpretation and important interpretation • The Mitigated Dec is incomplete: does not address the loss of prime soils as a loss of natural resources, there is too much monitoring some as long as 5 years. There were 10 mitigation measures aione for the biological resources. Vague quantifiers such as" adequate sediment and erosion control measures". This must be measurable and specific. Please do not certify the Negative Declaration . How did we get to this point where a developer arits to build so many houses on such small fots on this rural parcel? � 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 noY'. • 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 residenYs 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. • 1 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 wan# 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 hav_e learned that everything is negotiable. • I reject the Staff Report, the initial Study Mitigated Negatiye Declaration, fhe Neighborhood Plan and the density. s 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. z 'd E50568b908 stquet �d d6E �zi 90 60 da� �eP 09 06 12: OOp Ftlantis 8054895053 p. 2 C'�'I'� Ol�� 1�RR(�1:O GRIINDF l:I+��IDE�\T��I��L DL\'SITY L�-17�DFR MULTI-FAMILY RESI�ENTIAL 9 du per ncre � MEDIUM OEiJSITY (MD) 4.5 du per acre ---_ ---�._. LOW MEDIVM �ENSITY (LM} 2.5 DU per acre LOW DENSITY (LD) CITY RR i dwelling unit per acre � — — V�RY LOW bEN5ITY (VLD) 1 dwelling unit per 2 1/2 acre ' --..,. .,_ � — — �... I ;ep 09 06 12: 17p Ftlantis 8054895053 p. 6 �I l` , I;��. ` � �/'1 i _ , .� . . , '�--- �-• � . The Sio-Swale -� • ^ �. ' - e Thick vegetative cover . Swale shouid be designed so that the water level does not exceed 2(3 rds the height of the grass or 4 inches; whicfiever is less, at the design treatment rate. . Grass height of 6 inches is recommended. . Do not use side stopes constructed of fiii, which are prone to structural damage by gophers and other burrowing animats. • One factor that strdngly aifected performance was the presence of large numbers of gophers at most s?tes. The gophers created earthen mounds, destroyed vegetation, and generally reduced the eifectiveness of the controls for TSS reduction. Pesformance: m Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted soils, short run off contact time, large sform evenfs, frozen ground, short grass heights, steep slopes, and high runoff velocities and discharge rates. Check dams installed every 50 feet • tt is not clear why swales export bacteria e In general, swales can be used to serve areas of less fhan 90 acres with slopes no greater ihan 5%. Summarv e The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic res+dence time of at least 10 m+nutes. a The max bottom Nridth should not exceed 10 feet. o Channel slope should not exceed 2.5% . The side slopes should be no steeper than 3:i (H: � • Accumulated sediment should be removed when it builds up to 3 in. at any spot. • Maintenance is a function of mowing frequently Process " � "lmplementarion of the approved master plan would divert flows from Newsom Springs Drainage at the stone culvert fhrough the proposed 48 inch culvert along the adjacent agriculh�ra! field to the 'bio swale'and fhe three 72-inch culverts discharging to AG Creek on the project site.° The Cherrv Creek Bio-Svuale • Runs from New East Cherry perpendicular to Old Myrtle, adjacent the Vanderveer propeRy. a The Bio swale wiil be fenced with 6 ft high steel picket fence for residenYs backing up to it, and a 4'hog wire fence separating the pedestrian walkway and the d+tch and at the entrance of the bio swale adjacent to ihe new East Cherry extension to prevent access into the swale � o At its widest widths approximate{y 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 botEom width, how deep and what kind of vegetation. • The Bio Swale wi11 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. III Bio Swale Description Summery from California Stormwater New Development and f2edevelopment Best Management Practices Handbook, January 2003 Overali 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�f inches; whichever is less, at the design treatment rate. � Grass height of 6 inches is recommended. � Do not use side slopes constructed of fill, �vhich are pron� 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 gophe�s'created earthen mounds, destroyed vegetation, and generally reduced .the effectiveness of the conirols 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 hlgh runotf velocities and discharge rates. Check dams installed every 50 feet • It is not clear why swales export bacteria a In gene�al, SWALES CAN BE USED TO SERVE AREAS OF LESS THAN 10 (TEN) ' ACRES with slopes no greater than 5%. SummaN . The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of at least 10 minutes. o The max bottom width should not exceed 10 feet. . Channel slope should not exceed 2.5°/a • The side slopes should be no steeper than 3:1 (H: � • Accumulated sedimenf should be removed tvhen it builds up to 3 in. af any spot, • Maintenance is a function of mowing frequently Process "lmplementation of the approved master plan would divert flows from Newsom Springs Drainage at the sfone cutvert through the proposed 48 inch culvert along the adjacent agricultural field to the 'bio swale'discharging to AG Creek on the project site." The Cherrv Greek Bio-Swale o Runs from New East Cherry perpendicular to Old Myrtle, adjacent fhe 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 Yo 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 wiil not exceed 2:1. • There is no mention of how wide the max bottom widfh is proposed. . The Bio Swale will also make a turn at East Cherry and run paraliel East Cherry and go under the new East Cherry before coming outside in the project. A7TACHMEf�T 4 ]�avid Wo�� nvironmenta� . - P.O. 6552, Los Osos, CA 93412 - , (805)235-5223 � (805)528-3504 FAX . _. . ti _ . .. _ TvIarch 9,2006 , „ . ; Ms. Kelly Eieffercon,Associace Plannes ;j;.ri ;. Comm�niryDevelopmencDepartment ' � --- . Ciry oFArroyo Gtznde • . � . . : . , . 214 Euc Branch Saeet : - Arroyo Grdnde,CA 934ZQ . . . . ' . .. .. .' SUB)ECT: Cherry Creek Project Stormwater Best Managemett: Practices Deu Kelly: David 1Volff Environmental (DVTE)is pleazed to submit this infozmarion regarding merhods and approaches for stormwater quality Best Management Pracdces (BMPs)for the Cherry Creek projecc. Ic is my undenranding tha�the project is designed to�eat on sice stormwacer in accordance wirh Cicy scandards and to pass re�onal stormwater drainage through an on3ite basin and three 72-inch culverts rhac ondall to Arroyo Grande Cree]c I am providing the following informadon to support rhe Idegadve Declaranon findings rhat nmpacts from the Cbezry Creek pzoject on biological zesources in Arroyo Grande Creek would be ac a less than significanc leveL , On-Site Smrmwazer Rnnoff—The onsite runoff would be conveyed in the project's streets co drainage inlets (catch bazins) that�vill have city approved filaadon prior to the smrm water enueri.ng Arroyo , Graude Creelc Reg�onal Scormwacer Ranoff—There aze tcvo aspecs to consider For the project to accommodace the I regional stormcvater dzainage issue from a vtiater quality pezspecnve.Firsc, to idenafy any currenc wacer quality itsues for biological resovrces in Arroyo Giande Creek,in pazvccilar for the federally lisced steelhead and California red-legged frog(CRLf�. Second,if the design of the Cherry Creek ' projecc regional stormwarer basin and outfall sysrem conaibutes a wacer qualiry benefit co the regional drainage. The Midgated Negadve Declaration (MI�7D)biology sechon for the Cherry Creek project cited and discvssed the findings oF thc Draft Habitat Conservadon Plan for the County of San Luis Obispo Lopez Dam projecc (HCP). As discussed in the MI�ID,the empirical data collecced on wacer quality pazametezs for the HCP conduded that there is currendy uot any idenefied water quality issues in Arroyo Grande Creek that advecsely afFects che steeIhead, CRI.F, or o�her aqaatic zesources.Foryour convenience, rhe following included in the MND is excerpced from Secdon 3_4.5 of che Feb:uary 2004 Final Drafc HCP for the Counry of San Luis Obispo I.opez Dam projecc. iI varietyofiratergualityconsatuentsaffecthabitrtconditioas u�cl�inArroyoGraade Cree1:. Some of�ese coasocueaes are associated svidz uatural/y oc��.�-%ng�ineral deposit� aod some are arsociated with agriculaual sprayieg and fer-alizaaon, storm ccater runoffhom road ways, urbanrzadoa,recreadonal aca�vioes, ar�d oche�land-use pracoces. To provide reconuaissaace-IevPJ baseline inf'ormadon on ccater guaL'ry constituentr within Arroyo Biologi�l Resources Analysis, Planning &Moni6oring oavie@�KwEnvironmentat.�m P.egu!atory Compliance Speciafis[ • m»v.dkvrenv�ronmentai.00m C�cmyCrcc�Pro�ccl5lnrmwatcr�ua�itv��nFormationL�e�«—Pa�cc2oFj �avid`vo�FFLnvironmrnt�� Graode Creek,grab samples were collecred for chelnica!analysis bya cercified analydcal chemisaylabora:ory(Chromalab, Ioc.).DuriQgnc�firscsurveyonJuly29, 1999, water samples we�e collectedfrom lorulocadons alon�Arroyo Grande Creek:the concrete raceway immecZiately dozsnstrzam ofLopez Dam (ACGI), Cece6etd Road Bridge(AGC-2),Arroyo Grande(AGG3), and Arroyo Grande Creek Lagooa(AGC-�-Fio�ure 3-19). T6e fo�trsampling locadoQS were selec�ed to provide iaformadon on changes m xater quaL"ry coasdmeaa zs�thin differentreacLes ofArroyo Grande Creek t6acmay be affected bylocalland-use pracoces. Each grab sarsDle cs as asalyzed,follo wing PPA p�otocoLc,fo�specific conductance,pH, arseaic, cedaium, chromiu�, copper,Iead,uickel, silver,zinc,me�cury, total hardaess, total dissolvedsolyds, totalphosphorous, totzlnitrooen, ammonia,screeningforpesricidesaod herbicides, and oi1 andgrease..4fter theJuly 1999surve}; rhe sampling design wasmodified forsubsequeors�uveys svith col7ecdonsat nvo Iocadoas,Arroyo Grande(AGG3)and the Arroyo Grande Creek lagoon (AGG4),'on October20, 1999,Apri129, 20G1� and tluo�ust 9, �-' 2000. Resulrs of wacer qualiry svrveys are summarizxl in AppendixA (TablesA 1 throug�A- s). Water qualicy analyses indicated most covsbtuents were belowanaTydcal detection limits.No consis[entpattern zsasobsery-ediu ivaterqualityconsdtuenrs betweeu up-aud downscream locatio�s. T6ese reconnaissance-level baseliRe surveys indicate that water qualfty condidoos within Ar�oyo Grande Creekp�ovide stirable habitat forsteelhead, red-legged hogs, and other aguaQC resources." Ic is my undezstanding that the on-sice basin and three 72-inch oucFall pipes aze required by the City to pass regional drainage through the site to reduce/eliminate]ocalized flooding. Given the sizing and design needed co pazs a substantial amount of�vatez during lazge storm events,the basin/pipe system is not designed co meec typical water quality enbancement BMPs. Ho�;ever,the basin will be designed co provide a scorm«acer quality benefit by incorporaang elemen[s from accep�ed BMPs detailed in the September 2004 C�lifo�nia Srormcsater QuaG'ryAssociadon Nc�vDevelopmen[and Redeve7opment Handbook(CSQA Handbook). This bandbook provides general gu.idance for selecdng and implementing BMPs to reduce pollutants in runoff iu ne�vly developed areas and redeveloped areas to wa:ers of the Scate. T'his bandbook aLso prorides guidance on developing project-specific stormtivater management plans including selecdon and 'unplementadon of BMPs for a parricular developmen� or redevelopment projecc. In gener3T,the basin would provide some of thc wa�er quality bene5[s idendfied in the CSQA I-Iandbook"vegecaced swale" and"excended detendon bazin" BMPs listed as Bb4P Facc Sheec TC-30 and TG22 zespeccively in che Landbook. Since these aze 13 and 10 pages long I have provided them co you via e-mail pdf for your review and use.The CSQA manual is available for further review as needed at ww-.v.cabm�handbools.or_g/De�•elopment_as�.The basin would provide some of the�vater quality benefics if it is seeded�vith herbaceous plant species(vegetated)and designed�vith a small bernt above rhe ouclec to detain small scorm e�•enes and capture sediment and consdcuencs from the "first flush"scorm (presuming it is a small evenc). Ic is importanc to nuce chat the primary purpose of �he basin and outfall pipe desio is ro elimina�e localized flooding by allowing unobsrruaed regional stormwater runoft'from large storm events to pass t}uough the site providing a regional flood con[rol Biological Resources A�alysis, Planning &Moni[oring DavidCDKWEnrironmentxi.mm Regulatury Compliance Specialist w•xw.dkvrenvironmental.com C�c/iyC�ce4Pro�cct5tomwatcrQua�ity�nFormationL�tt«-pagc3ofj pavidWo��vjronmcn[aI soluaon. As sucb, the waccr quality benefits are an added value from the on-sice basin to the maximwn extent pracocable for chc projecc. , rrrrr Thank you very much for che opportunicy to provide environmen[al consuldng services for che City of Arroyo Grande. Please concac�me if you ha�•e any quesdons or need any addidonal informadon. Very crulyyouxs, � � � David K.Wo1ff Princi�al Ecologisc Cerrified k'rofessiona2 Wetland Sciencisc Atcachments via e-mail: CSQA Tiandbook Bi�iP Fact Sheets TC-22&TC-30 � — 8ioiogiol Resources Analyss, Planning &Monitoring oa4id@DKWEmAranmental.com � Regulatory Compliance Specialist www.dkwenvironmenUl.com �Ieget�ted Swale TC-34 ,� . � ., .. � �� Design Considerations � '. ■ TributaryArea t i � '� ■ Atea Reqwred .�. . ,,,f.� pdry. `' �f r Sfope j�l-- �:1�',' # ' i•,� - `� i 4¢�� .,.� � v �� : .L,-y..z� �—," m 6lte,-Avai�ablity �iST� �� , . . —� :f " -- � . ..-.;ti��`'' :�,i:ii , . . : _ , . .. �._ _ :' _i�..t:,-�� " .� � ' ..5�, � ' � � �. _!' ,. � �N " _� �!l 4�4�". -!:.�` - • _ ��a_% _ __ ~•, �• � .�. '^, ��r_;.� - ��'�T� - ` ':r'_ �:'-i.e�•� • • • _ • J � � . r �� . ..f .^.:_., t:: t.' _.� `:� �svr;�" •;;`J -;;� �i J =\�. ..;�-• ' :._-'�- _ «=:;_'�v v4�.. 1' �t- . 1Yy�•\�� } _ ;."` .�__ .r.��v �'-~ ?�til' '�i�. �' `-a�f� .L� : •- �'`.'��_''�J Description Vegetated swales are open, shallo�ti• channels hi[h vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slox�ly Ta rgeted Constituents convey 2-unoff flow to downs�eam dischazge points. They are Q Sedmerd a designed to trea[runoff through filtering by the�•egetation in the � ��e� s channel,filtering throu,¢h a subsoil maQix, and/or infiltration � Trash o into the underlying soils. Swates can be natural or manmade. H M.emis • 'I'hey brap particulate pollutan[s(suspended solids and trace metais),promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of � Baderia • stormwater runoff. Vegetated sn•ales can serve as part of a � OJ and Grease ♦ stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs,gutters azid � Organics A stoim sewer systems. Legend(RemovilEHactivenass) 0 Lav � Ffigh California Experience ' ♦ Medum Cal�ans constructed and monitored six vegetated sw•ales in southern California. Tliese swales�ti•ere generally effecti�•e in reducing the volume and mass of pollutants in nuioff. Even in the azcas where the annual rainfall was only abou[io inches/yr, the vegetahon did not require addiaonal irrigahon. One factor L.. tha[sh-ongly affected performance vras the presence of large \ numbers of gophers at most of the sites. "!"he gophers created � eaztFien mounds, desti-oyed vegetation,and generally reduced the / effecriveness of the cuntrols for TSS reduction. � Advantages s If pro;�erly d:signed,aegetated, and opzrated, swrles can serve as an aestheric, potentially ine�pensive urban development or road�.cay drainage conr•eyancz measure Ki[h , � '- .. �' significznt collateral water quality benefi[s. _ . ' � ' :•.� -.-..., ......_•- January 200i C2!:forr.ia Sto'm�r+z;2r 6MP Hzndbco+ 1 of 13 N?w O?•+Elopm?nt ar.d Redz�elopment wv:�N c�mphand'oo:,!cs.com "TC-30 = 9legeta�ed Swale . Roadside ditches should be regarded as siguficant potentiat rnale/buffer sh-ip s�tes and should be urilized for this purpose whenever possible. Limitations w Can be difficult to avoid channelization. a hfay no:be appropriate for icdustrial sites or locarions vrhere spills nay occur m Grassed srvales canno�b•eat a very large drainage area. Lasge azzas may be di�zded and treated using multiple swales: �' e Athick vege[ative cocer is needed for these practices to funcdon prop�-ly.� � B They aze imprac¢cal in areas v.ith steep topography. a They are not effecrive an3 may even erode when flon•velociSes are high,if the grass cover is not properly maintained e In some places, their use is remicted by law: many local municipaliues require c�sb and gutter systems in residenRal areas. - �� Swales are mores suscep[ible to failure if not properly maintained than other treahnent� \ BlviPs. - Design and Sizing Guidelines ■ Flow rate based design determined by local requirements or sized so that 85°0 of the annual runoff volume is discharged at less than the design rainfall intensity. , • .r-Swale should be designed so tbat the wates leeel dces not eYCeed z/3rds the height of the� �� gass or q inches,�vhich ever is less, at the design�ea�nent rate. ' o�`•,J.ongj�tudinal slopes should not exceed 2.5°5 ` , a , Trapezoidal channels are normally recomme�zdedbut other configurations, such as � parabolic, can also provide substantial water quality improcement and may be easier to mow � than designs Hith sharp breaks in slope. " a Swales constructed in cut ere preferred,or in 5ll areas that aze far enough from an adjacent � slope to minimize the potential for gopher damage. Do not use sidz slopes constructed of ,) ( fill, which aze prone to str-�ctural damage by gophers and otner burrowing animals. � ■ A diverse selection of low growing, plants that thrive undzr the specific site, climatic, and watering concutions shoutd be specified.Vege[auon H•hose growing season corresponds to the we[season azc preferred. Drought iolerant vegetation should 6e considered especially for swales t�iat are not part of a regulazly irrigated landscaped area. a The width of the s h•ale should be determined usir�D4annin�s Equation using a value of o.z5 for Mannino s n. 2 of 13 Cal;fc�nia Sto�mvia;?r BMP HdnCboo� )anuary 2003 Dcew Developrr.ent aid ReC?velopm�t www.cabmphandhro�s com 'lde�e��ed �wale TC-30 Coristruction/.i'nspection Considerations ■ lnclude directiors in the specificadons for use of appropriate feralizer and soll amendments based on soil propertiu detemuned through testing and compared io the needs of the vegetation requirements. . Iustall swales at the time of ihe year wben there is a rezsonab?e chance of successEul establishment 4rtithout irrigation;however,it is recognied that rainfall in a given year may not be suEfiaent and temporar}•irrigadon may b e used. ■ If sod tiles mus[be used,they should be placed so tha[there are no gaps becween the tiles; sta�er the ends of the Ules to prevent the formadon of channels along ihe swale or strip. . Use a roller on tlie sod to ensure that no ai;pockets form bet�veen the sod and the soil. r Where seeds are used, erosion controLs will be necessary to protect seeds for at leas[y5 days • after the first rainfall of the season. ' / Performance \ � Theliterature suggests thatvegetated males represent a pracacal andpotentially effective I teciuuquc for conR011ing urban runoff quality. While limited quantitative performance data � exis�for vegetated swales,it is known that cl�eck dams, slight slopes,permeable soils,dense � gass cover, 3nereased contact time, and small storm events all conh-ibute to successful pollutant �•. removal by[he swale system. Factors decreasing the effecRv�ess of swales include compacted I soils,shoit runoff contact nme,large s[orm events,frozen gound,shortgrass heights,steep �, slopes, and high runoff velodries and dischazge rates. �� Conventional vegetated swale designs have achieved mixed results in removing particulate � pollutants. A s[udy performed by the Natiomvide Urban Runoff Program(NURP) monitored three grass rnales in the Washington,D.C.,area and foimd no sgnificant improvemen[in urban runoEf quality for the pollutants analyzed. However,the weakpa-formance of these swales was attributed to the high flow velociti�in the swales, soil compaction,steep slopes, and short grass height. Anotherprojectin Din-ham, NC,monitored the performance of a carefully designed arRfidal swale that received runoff from a commerdal parking lot.The project tracl:ed lt storms and concluded thn[particulate concentrations of heavy metals(GU, Pb,Zn,and Cd)werereduced by approximately$opercent. However,theswaleprovedlargelyineffectiveforremovingsoluble nutdents. . The effectiven�s of vegetated swales can be enhanced by adding check dams at approximately • i7 meter(5o foot)increments along tbeirlength(See Figute i). These dams maximize the retention time within the swale, decrease flow veloaties, and promote particulate settling. Finally,the incorporation of vegeta[ed filter strips parallel to the top of the channel banks can help to treat sheet flows entering the swale. Only 9 studies have been conducted on all grassed chanuels designed for wa[er quaLity(Table�). The data sq,rgcst relatively high removalrates for some pollutants,butaegative rcmovals for somle bacteria,and fair performance for phosphorus. )anuarY 2003 Cali(omfa Stormwater g'dP Hancbook 3 of 13 ' N?w Devetopm?nt and Redzve�cpment � .........�J..n..han.11.r...Lo .nm . TC-30 = �f�egeta�ed �wale able 1 Grassed swa[e pollutant removal efFiciency data Feruo�al FSficiencies(%Rcmoval) Study TSS TP Ti�' NO3 hle�Ls Bvetcria T}�pe attrx:�cx�o': - 77 8 67 66 83-90 -33 p`s+aies � tdbr.rgi993 � 67.8 45 - 31.g q�6? -ioo �ssedchanael a:tle hietro and�Yashino on DepartmenlofEcalogy1992 60 45 - -=� ^16 -:a scde6annel eattle Dtetro andtiVashino an 83 „q� _ � 4�73 � sed channel " Deprtmxntof Ecology,iqq2 .Vangeta1,i98i 80 - - - 7o-So - dryswale Dorman e[a1,t989 98 i8 - qg 37-Si - ry sv.�le acper�ig88� Sy 83 84 Co 8E-go ' dry s+vale ' 'ecche�etaL,i983 99 99 99 99 99 - tysvrale arper,i938. Si i7 4o g: 37-6g - etswale oon,i99$ 6y 39 - 9 -35 to 6 - ' et r.rnle While it is diificult to distinguish between different designs based on the small amount of available data,gracsed channels genesally have poorer removal rates tt�an wet and dry swales, although some sH�ales appear to export soluble phosphorus(Hatpzr,i988;Koon, ig95). Itis not dear w•hy ss+'ales exportbacteria. Qne explanation is thatbacteria thrive in the warm swale soils. �Siting Criteria . The suitability of a swale at a si[e H21L depend on land use, size of the area senzced, soil type, �- slope,imperviousness of tne contiibutimg watershed, and dimensions and slopz of the swale '' sy.tem (Schueler et al., i992). In general, swales can be used to serve areas of less than io acres, �' ' nith slopes no greatcr than 5°o. Use of natural topographic lows is encouraged and natural �\ drainage courses should be regazded as significant local resources to be kept in use(Young et al., i9g6) ,' ; , SeIection_Criteria(NCICOG, i993) ■ Comparable performance to wetbasins . a Limited to treating a few acres ■ Availability of x•ater during dry periods to main[ain�ege[ation e Su.fficient ac•aila6le land area ' Kesearch in the Aushn azea indicates tbat vegetated controls aze effecti�•e at removing pollutants • even rti•hen d�rmant Therefore,irrigation is not required to maintaut gror�-th during dry periods,but may be necessary only to prevent the vegetation from dying. a of 13 Calikrnla 5!crmwa!?r BMP Handbook January 2CO3 , New D_welopm?nt and Redevzlopm�t � - v��Nw,cz5mphandbook s.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '6i'e�c. e��te€� �waie �fC-30 The topogaphy of the site should permit the design of a channel with apgropriate slope and cross-secaonal area. Site topogaphy may also dictate a need for addidonal struchsal conh-ols. Recomzaendations for longitudinal slopes range betweeu 2 and 6 percent Flatter slopes can be used,if sufficient to provide adequate conveyance. Steep slopes increase flowvelociry, decrease detendon time, and may requue energy dissipating andgade check. Steep slopes also canb e managedusing a series of check dams to terrace the swale andreduce the slope to wzchin acceptable limits. Tbe us�of checl:dams with swales also promotes infrl�ation Additional Design Gvidelines Most of the deszgp guidetines adopied for swale design specsfy a minimum hydraulic residence time of 9 uiinutes.'Ftus criterion is bas�.d on the results of a sngle study con�cted in Seatde, Washingion{Seattle Metro and Washingtnn Departanent of Ecology,i9 g2),and is not well supported.AnalySis of the data collected in that study indicates that pollutant removal at a resdence time of g ininutes was not sigaificantly di ffer�t, aldaough there is mare variability in that data. Thezefore,ad�uonal research in the desgn criteria for swales is needed.Substantial . pollutant removal has also been observed for vegetated controls designed solely for conveyance . (Barrett et e� 19g8); consequendy, some flexibility in the desgn is wazrantecL Many desigu guidelines recommend that grass be frequendy mowed to main�in dense coverage near the ground sisface. Recentresearch(Colwell et aL,2000)has shown mowing frequency or gcass heighthas little or no efEect on pollutant removal. S�nrcmary of.Design Reeommendaiions � , i) The swale should bave a lengtb that provides a mmimum hydcaulic xesidence ume of at least io minutes. The maximum bottom width should aot exceed io feetunless a � divicking berm is provided. The depth of Aow should not exceed 2/3rds the height of - the grass at tlle peak of the water quality desi,gn storm inteasiry. The channel slope , ' � � should not exceed 2.5%. � • 2) A design g�ass height of 6 inches is recommended . - _ • 3) Itegardless of the recommended de[ention time,the swale shnuld be not less than ioo feet in length. 4) The width of the swale shouldbe determinedusing Mann;ngrs Equahon, atthe peal: of the desgn storm,using a'Mannings n of o.25. 5) The swale can be sued as both a h-eatinent faciLity for the design storm and as a . _ conveyance system to pass the peal:hy�aulicflows of the ioo-year storm if it is - located"on-line." "Ibe sde slopes should be no steeper than 3:i(H:�. 6) Roadside ditches should be regazded as si,gnificant potential swale/buffer strip sztes and should b e uhlized for this purpose whenever possible. I f flow is to be inh�oduced throug,h curb cuts,place gavement sligbdy above the elevation of the vegetated azeas. Curb cuts should be at least�z inches wide to prevent doggiv,g. ' �) Swales must be vege.ated in order to provide adequate treatment of runoff.It is important to maximize water contact with vegetarion and the soil surface. For general purposes, select fine, dose-growing,water-reastant grasses. If possible, � divert runoff(oth�than necessary irrigadon)�ring the period of vegetauon � January 2003 Caiifomia Sto�mwater BMP Handbook 5 of 13 New Devefopment a��d Rede+elopment www,cabmphandbooks.com T'�-30 � `1legetated Svirale es[ablishment. 4Vhere runoff diversion is not po;sible, cover graded and seeded areas with suitable erosion control materials. Maintenance T'he usefvl life of a vegetated swale systen is direcdy proportional [o its maintenznce frequency. If properly desi�ned and regulaz•ly maintained, vegetated swales can last indefinitely. 7he maintenance obj ecRves for vegetated swale systems include}:eeping up the hydraulic and -- res=oval e`ficiency of the channel and main[aining a dense,healthy grass cover. —..----- � hqaintenance acti�zties should indude periodic mowing(�rith grass never cut shorter than the design flow depth),wezd control, rcatering dising drought conditions,reseeding of bare areas, '� and etearing of debris and bloclages. Cutangs should be removed from the channel and •I disposed in a local composhng facility. Accumulated sedimentshould also be removed manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. 'Ihe application of fertilizers and pesecides � should be minimal. �_ . . Another aspect of a good maiutenance plan is repairing damaged azeas within a channel. For example,if the channel develops ruh orholes, it should berepaireduQlizing a suitable soil that isproperly tamped and seeded. The grass co��er shouldbe thick;if it is not,reseed as necessary. Any standing water removed during the maintenance operarion musCbe disposed to a sanitary sewer at an approved discharge locadon. Residuals(e.g,sil�grazs cuttings)must be disposed in accordance with local or S[ate requirements. Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. Typical maintenance activiries are summarized below: � ■ Inspect swales at least twice annually for erosion,damage to vegecation, and sediment and debris accumuladonprefzrably at the end of the wet season to schedule��*n*•�er maintenance and before major fall runoff to be sure the sw•ale is ready for winter. However, additiona]inspection afcer periods of heavy nmoff is desirable. The swale should be checl:ed � for debris and litter, and areas of sediment accumularion. a Grass height and mowing frequency may no[have a large impact on pollutant removal. Consequendy, moKing may only be nececsary once or tv�ice a year for safety or aesthetics or to suppress weeds and woody��getation. . Trash tends to accumulate in swale areas,particularly along highways. The need for litter removai is determined through periodic inspecaoq butlitter should always be removed prior to7nowing. � A Sediment accumulating near culverts and'ui channels shoutd be removed when i[builds ttp . Lo 75 mm(3 in.) at any spot, or covzrs vegetation. �� .' -� 4 ■ Regulazly iaspect s�vales for pools of standing water. Sw•ales c�n become a nuisance due to- - 1 mosquito breeding in s*anding water if obstrucrions develop(e.g. debris accuruulauon, , ; invasive vegetaIIOn) and/or if proper drainagz s!opes are not imp;emen[ed and maintained , 1 6 of 13 Czli(ania Stormvrater 6?•1?Handbcok Jan�ary 2003 Ne:v Development a-�d R_d=_•+elcpm:nt www.cahmphandbock s.com 'lS�e�e�ated Swa�e '�"C-3(3 � �ost Construction Cosi Little data is svailable to estimate the ditfereuce in cost between various swale designs.One shidy(S�VRPC,�99i)estirsated tae construction cast of�assed channeLs at appro�amately S Qs5 Per fc�.Zhis p:ice does not indude desiga costs or cone.ngencies. Bro�m and Schueler (199y)estimate these costs at approximately 32 percent of construc�on costs for most stormwa[er management prachces. For swales,however, these cos�v�ould probably be significantly higher since the construction costs are so low compared�rith other practices.A more reelistic esamnte would be a total cost of approximately$0.5o per ft=,which compares fac•orablyµith other stormwater management pracrices. , � 7anuary 2003 Callfomia Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 0.`13 New Develo0ment and Redevelopment www.czbmphantlb�ks.ccm . _ T�-30 '��ge��ed ��t�9e 7able 2 Swale Cbst Estimate (SEWRPC, 1991) Unll Cost Tolal Cost ComDonent Unit Eztenl Low Moderatc Hiqh Low Moderalc Hlph . hiobi'¢zlionl Swe:o 1 5107 �74 E441 5107 5214 Y441 OOmObiliEelion-Lip hl SiW Pmpara:im ' Clsariry°._............. Ano 0.5 t1200 E3.B00 Y.100 E1.100 51.900 E2.70C Gnibbn¢......_...... �0 025 SJ.00� 55,200� �,G00 SO50 81,�00 41.65C EzcavoliorP.._........ Yd' ]72 52.70 S7J0 5530 1701 57.�7G 4��7� lowl and Titl•........ Yd' 1.270 �A.20 f0.35 SD.50 5242 b424 g�as Silns Dowlopmnnf SalvsgoATopsol� Yd� 1,210 7040 31.00 51.60 Sd64 Et,ro S�.aac Saod,and M��tch'.. Sod3...:.................. Yd' 1,210 St�D S2.Q0 SJ.GO 51,452 52,004 SA.JSG Subtol.il -- - - - •• E5,17G $O,�M 317.ff,0 Conlinqvncios Swolv 1 25X 25% 25Y. 51.279 52,3A7 E3•415 Toinl .48,305 517 )35 517,075 Sourec: (SEWW'G, IBUt) � Noto:MobifizationMorno�il¢eficn rebra lo Iho orqenizelim end pinnninq invoivvd'n wlvbfishinp e vopobfva rvr.�lv. 'Swole h�s a botlom wldlh af 1.0 foot, o lop wi�th o110 feet�v�h 1:3 slde siopes,�nd�1,000•fool lenqlh. °Area cic�retl =(lop v,idih+ 10 fee�)x swde lenqth. `Aren grubbed=(tcp tivldlh x s�wie fenqlh). 'Votume ezcav:�ed=(0.67 x lop widih x swale Aen�h)x swate Iengih (para�olic aoss•section). °Aroa Il�led=(I�p widih�6{swala Qepih'1 z svr�le Ienglh(p�rabollc aoss-secli�nl. 3(top wldln) '�rca secded=orca cicared x 0.5. +Ama sodded=aroa cteared x 0.5. 8 of t 3 - CsllfornlaSrormwater-BMP Handbook _ Ja�uary 2003 New Devcicpment md RedevelCpment 5vww.cabm pha�dbooks.com . �le�e�at�d �v�ra�e 'TC�-�t7 , � 7a61e 3 Estimated Maintenance Costs ISEWRPC. 19911 '� � Svrsle She (Depth and Top Wldth) Componenl UnitCoe[ i,5F0otDApth,One• �•FootOeptfi,3-Foo� Comment Poot 8ottom Y41dth, Bottom Wldth,21•foot 10•Foot Top Wldth Top Width � ' LewnMowNg ED.OS/1,OOOf�lmoxlnq �.14/linmifool 50.21/frwertoot Lnwmm�inlonencoerw•(ivp widEl+10 foal)X lonpih.'Alow aiqhl llmas poryaar OonanlLawnCam 5900/1,OOOfl'/ynar �.1Billnm�foo! , b0.20lSroaifool Lawnmalntonancoarca •pop . wldtl�a 101nM)z lanptlt SwaloOabAsandllttar SO.t011lnaarlocrt/yoer $0.10/llnmrfool 50.10/fnoarfool _ Romwal CmssRosoaQnpr�6h 50.301yd� 50.01lllnw�tod 30.Ot/inomiool AroorovaqoMlvdoquotst'/. MuIM and Fattillmr of lewn mviMoneneo orva por yoaf ProgramAdmlMntrelbnand SO.151Moarfoollyoar, 90.15/llnmrfoot 50.t5/tnoa�fool Iaspoctfou�Umoeporymf Swalo Inepociton plu�525/lrupoetlon Total •• f0.6A f llnox foot S 0.75111neuioot _ � )rnua�y 2003 Cellfttnla Stormwater BMP Handboo!c � 9 0(13 �New DevelopmenFand Redeveltpment � www.cobmphandboo!cs.com Vege�aged Swate TC-30 throqgh gc'acsed swale ueaauelit. In Proceedings of thelnternational Symposium of Urbon Hydrology,Hydraulics and SedimenL Control, Lezircgton,KY.pp. i73—i8z. Occoquan Watershzd hlonitoring L.aborztory. i983. Final Report Metropo�tan tiVashington Urban Itunoff Project. Preparedfor the h4etropolitan Washington Council of Governruen�, Washingtoa, DC, by the Occoquan{�Vatershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas,VA Pitt, R., and J. nicLean.i986. TorontoArea It'atershecib4anagemenf Strategy Studg; Humber Riuer h'tot VVatershul Project. Ontario D1.inis�y of Enviroament,Toronto, ON. Schueler, T. x997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: Areanalysis. 6v'atershed Protection Techniques 2(2)379-383• Scatde hie�o and Washington Depaztmen[of Ecology. i992. Biofiltration Swale Performance: Recommendations and Design Considerations.Publication No. 65-/. �Vater Pollution Con�ol •Depaztrnen[,Seattlz,tiVA . Southeastern 4Visconsiu Regional Planning Coromission(S4VRPC).199i. Costs of Urban ' Nonpoint5ourceiVaterPollutionControiMeosw�es.Technicalreportno. 3i. Southeastetn Wisconsin Regional Plannuig Commission, Waukesha,WI. U.S.EPA, �999, S[ormwater Fact Sheet Vegetated Srrales, Report� 832-F-99-o06 httn://wwrv.eva.gov/owm/mtb/vePswale.vdf, OEfice of Watzr,Washington DC. tiYang,T.,D. Spyridal3s, R.Maz, and R. Homer.i98i. Transport,Deposition and Con[roI of Heauy 161etaLs in Highway Runo,�f.Ff�iWA-4VA-RD-39-10.University of Washington, Aepactment of Civil Engineering, Seattle,`VA Washington State Deparbnent of Transportadon, i9gs, Highway R�moffManuaI,Waskiiagton I State Department o`Transportahon, Olympia,Washington. �Velborn, C., and J.Veenhuis. i987. Ejfecls of Rw�off Controls on th e Quanti ty and Qua�ty of Urban RunoJj in Tiuo Locations in Austin, TJf. USGS titi'ater Resources InvestigaROns Report No. 87-400q. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA Yousef, Y., M.�Vanielista, H. Hazper, D.Pearce,and R.Tolbcrt.i985. BestManagement P.ractices: Remouat o,f Higheuay Coataminanls By Roadside Swates. University of Cen�al Florida and Florida Depatvnent of Transportation,Orlando, FL. `tu, S.,S. Bacnes, and V, Gerde. 19g3. Tesfing of Best l�lanagement Practices for Controiling Highway Runoff. FHWA/VA-93-Rt6. Vuguua Transportation Research Cowicil, Charlottesville, ��A. Inforrrcation ILesources A4aryland Depaz-mient of the Enczrorunent(MDE).2000. 1LSarylond Stormu�ater Design lbfanual. �+•an+� mdr_s[ate_md iLC/rnvironmen[hvma/stormwatermantlal. Accessedh4ay22, 2001. Reeves, E. 1994. Performance and Condition of Biofil[ers in the Pacific Northwes[. Watershed Protection Techniques i(3):ii7-1i9. )anuary 2003 CaliFomla Stcrm�va;er BtA�Han?boo1: it of 13 hew OevetoP'nent and Redeve!cpm_nt w ww.cmmphandbcaks.com 'T�-30 .� `!/egetated Swale Seatde Metro and Washino on Department of Ecology.i992.Biofiltration Swate Performance. Recommeadations and Desigz Considerations. Publicztion No.6S.Seattle Ivietro and LNashi.ngton Department of Emlogy, Olympia,�VA USEPA ig93. Gtadance.Specifying 1�Sanagement Alensures for Soto�ces ofNonpoi nt Poilution in Coastal LVaters. EPA-8�o-E-92-002. U.S. En�ironmental Pro[zc�ion t�gency, Office of Water. FVashington, DC. 4Vatershed Management Insdtu[e(4VMI). i997.Opera[ion,l�lairtfenance, and Management of Stormtuater�1lanagemert Systems. Yrepazed for U.S.Environmental Protection?�ency, OfFice of Watet.Washington, DC,by the V1'atershed Management Insd[ute,Ingleside, MD. I t 2 oF 13 Cali`unia Stormwa[?r BM?HanCcock January 2003 New Devetopment a�d Redeveitcme-i[ vrw w.cabmphandbooks.com PROJECT 1 CHERRY CREEK ESTATES FOR THE NP OF 7E LOT SIZE IS 9 ACRES +/- Larqe existinq homes orparcels:(Taken from map, buildable !ot oniy} Lot 21 Vanderveer 25,000 Lot 22 18,667 Lot 23 10, 029 Lot 31 Peters 11.826 'fOTAL ^05 522 sc� 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 POR-f'ION OF THE LOTS THAT ARE IN THE CREEK ITSELF Grace Stiliwel{ loved to brag that her lot went down into the creek. It does! Tracf Boundary line located af center of Arroyo Grande Creek Creek Bed Acreage TOTAL 18.750 +l- TOTAL Acreage used by 4 ESTATE LOTS or apen 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 esfate 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 obstacies to building and should not be used in any calculations. The estate properties get the luxury of being the size of a Law 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 ESOS684508 5i�ueIZN dLT =ZT 90 60 da5� � Subj: October 3rd Council Meeting ,(1�-{— / 1 �� Date: 10l4l2001 �� 1 • To: SODAMAN@THEGRID.NET � CC�(slubin@cbslo.com), (tony_ferraraQces.ca.goJj �, /� i �l p �i�-�—� .1 � /� �/1/1� I ,l CC:(idickens@c2on.net), (OTISPAGEJR) ' �� `'��-.� � �� p � ( While not in attendance,fhanks to the counciPs decision to televise, I was abie to "participate" in the " agenda. My obsenratioins aqnd comments: 1. 'fhe compromise proposed for the DorFinan property does not deal�nnth reality. ft is equivalent to a ''s tie game or kissing your sistec First, it does not solve the desperate need to widen this portion of Cherry Ave. Secondly, a PUD with 5500 sq.ft. �ots is inconsistent with the residentia!developmerd on three sides: Lets face the reality ofthis property: . . . . . :similiarto the Farroll land,.it is most assuredly an irrfill and should have been single family zoned yearss ago. �2. The so called 7E area seems to have been bst in tl�e late hours ofthe mee6ngs and the more vocal commerrts.on Tract 1998 and the ;land use desigmation on the Branch Mill Road property. Comments � tawring the iticreased density for this property suggested it was part of the"rural character of Arroyo Grande. Visits to the 7E area corrfirm theat the urban part of our city er�s at the start of Branch MiNCoker Elwood development and ttrat the 7E area is part of that riural character. No, one urnt per acre is not ',; appropriate for 7E, but neither is 4.5 units ! � ° � As broigM to your atterrtion eadier,this area should be divided irrto two . . . . . . .one neighbor plan fo� .. �. � the three parcels fronting on Myrtle and a second plan for the remainder, but in neither case ' : � � should they be zoned for 4.5 unifs 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 pafience and the time you have given to this importarrt documerrt. But ptease, revisit and ` rethink these two issues. � '; ike Titus � �(,� Gi +(`<lGl i'�l lS �`-�1 i �� (_,.C,��. � � . � � I � � - �! �. �� ; f . FAG%OClaber06.10D7 A��mQNInr.L�nTAG R9�:1 Zi 'd ESOS68450B st�ueTly dOZ �Zi 90 60 ,!da� � - . � _:_ -. _,�, :.<-__ _ _-:,--. _ - _. _,- -:_--- ` . � � � - - -= -.. �_. _- � _=r- : . : `= � '� -_- ;�,:-� - _-__ - ,-_„-- _�-°_ ' . . - l , I .. . � . � O 01 ' • Y � � N W ,�lf-;F;(�Y❑ N �.. 'L .- w : . a ;v . :: _ �'• I . . U /I .. ,�i.l • ,,I`; . � ��J� �Q i�;` � r -i i.�% ' � ' . ' n , r-+ .' 7 ��\'� N �/�� . . J % � n , • .-:� y�. . � 12 - N ' ��.,,5 �y1. �� p�� n 8 � � • '1 'i ' �< �� ' }��' 3 Z C� 9 � � 56 W i, ° � � . � , ALL PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY ZONED RR, _� � o , . � � � � ' � � � m , ^ � 1,� �1 cn . . . , . /� � \0 0 . 1 Grace StiMell 007-565004 734 M rUe Slreet 3.54 acr � 1� �/,', " � 2 Lawrence VanDeveer 007-565-005 756 M e Slreet 1.92 aues � l , 3 Glen&Belh Pefers ' 007-057-001 776 M rtle Street 1.80 acra /� 4 John ONeta 007-570-011 444 Lied Lane 1.15 aeres � V �- 5 Micheal Titus 007-570�012 404 Lied lane 0.24 acres 6 June Reed 007576�007 795 E Cher Ave 026 acres - 7 Ar�hon Jarawicz 007-574013 447 Lied Lane 1.58 acres ' 8 Hartison Famil Tru�t 007-5lP 16 441 Lierl Lane 029 acres� � 9 Reul Estes 007-57a017 811 E Cher 1.67 acres � 10 Gerald Vallem OW-576018 835 E Cher 429 acres � 11 Ch Summerfield OD7-570-019 831 EChcr 0.48acres .. ' 12 William Caldv�eli 007-574015 841 E Che 1.54 acres• � — — -- – j Sep 09 06 12: 19p Rtlantis 8054895053 p. 10 ;,. - Ed Harrison . ATTACHMENT 17 441 Lierly Lane . Arroyo Grande, CA 93a20 . . . .. May20o6 OoNd; -0 P,il {t� 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, fhe proposed Neighborhood Plan and the alignment of roads have changed. Because of ihis, the TrafEic 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 Tra�c Way and Fair Oaks Avenue due to the release of Arroyo Grande High School and other schools occurring in a one-hour -'''; window. Many farm workers who travel down Branch Mili Road are reteased from their jobs at that same 3 o'clockpeak 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 wili generate 880 average daily trips in and out of the project with ,( as many as 600 of those trips ending up afthe East Cherry/T�a�c 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 Wayto mitigate the increased. congestion. . • � ` � The descriptions of the major stFeets are poorly prepared. No where does the study describe Tra�c '' 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 afternative intersections. The cumulative impacts I, 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 will.r3gree that an outdated report on an alternate project will be insufficient to address .; the tra�c concerns and future problems this project will create. Thank you for your time and service to this City, ' , Ed Narrison � � _ ' Comments oo the Trat�ic Stud�• nrevared for Chem"Creek Estates East Villuge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study - July 16,2004 Higgins and Associates from Gilroy-Dan Takacs ` - takacs:iukUhik�,ins.com � Phonec 408-848-3122 FAX 408-848-2202 ,' �. 1. I.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sets forth: 99 residential lots, 88 newlp constructed in 22 acres Project 1 38 lots on 8.5 acres ` Project 2 entire 991ots on 22 acres ' 4.5 units per acre Therefore: ;� Pg 11. 3.5 880 new vehicle trips 70 new trips in peak AM hour xnd $S trips in PM peak huur c , Becawe the entire project musl be approved the tra�c study for 1he entire project mrist be considered. ' Looking at Project I impacts are inconseqKential C � �. 5. 21 Existing Stireet Network � , 2.1 No menrion of character of East Cherry with no on site parking or the narrow width on segment from '� � �I Traffic Way to Railroad Place.East Cherry is designated 35 miles per hour how wide?Pazking? � 2.1 Nn menlion thut Trp�c Wuy xrrves tw•an o�a•amp and oJ)7•un:p J'or US 101. Becuua•e there urr no more stop signs a,Jter Fair Oakr Are, cars errtering the 101 Sotrth Fwy here nre speedir�g Up�o ` enter the fast lane of the freeivayjust ar those exiting are at oflen at a high rate ufspeed. IVo mention Ihut Fair Udks and Tra�c Way rntersection serves as�ne�fn:ain feeclers for high school tr��c. 'i; ; Pg 6. Z.2 The study hac toa much emphasfs on the increase to Allen Street..Jfyot�lived in the sah area, chances are mrlikely yoz�would use Allen for n:bin ingress and egress. Why bother with Allen Street?If ; !he tra�c sludy professionals livect here, lhey would know that Jiis is not lhe preferred route iir or uut u�' , the projact. ' i � Traftic counts were takeo ONLY during one hoar(6Q minutes)between 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM WED 1/28/04-TlIiJRS 2/4/04 and MONDAY 3i15/04-WED 3/24/04 ' Peak itours in our community caidd be sometime 6eRceex 1:30 unct 3:30 w•hen the schools release. , Nn [ra�c counts were taken at Branch Mil!Road and East Cherry , Pg 7. 23. Savs LOS C ok at Fair Oal:s and Traffic Vl'ay, but what happens at 3? Pg 8. Atlen Street and Tra�c Way current L�S C. Study recommends partially barricading portion of Alten Street to calm street so does not deteriorate to LOS D from pro�sed projects. ;' Pg 9. This is wltere tke traffrc enginee�getshinrse/fconfused Projecr I evaluates Phase 1 or the 38-!ot b projecL "Project 2 evaluates the iinpact auociated with the bnild out oJthe 22-acre neighborhood r � i� ' T 'd ' E50566bS06 „ _ scyuei1d eb'S � Ii 90 t [ ..lda� . t � arem"BUT... Txhibit 12a, 126,and 13 are actua[!y based on!he l'hase 2 project OIVLY... they inctude just J/:e remaining SI lofs. TRIP.11ISTR1BUTION �" "Co/ from the North via US 101 35°.0 To/ from the North via W. Branch Ave 5°,'0 To/from the South via US 101 20% "fo I from ihe East via E. Branch Ave 20% To / from flie West via Grand Ave 10% To/from the West via Fair Oaks Ave t 0% ' P¢. 10. 33. Existin¢ntus uroject 1 intersection oneretions: Pg. 10. "The project(Phase i)adds less than 10 total ti-ips to these intersections (F. }3ranch J 1"rai�ic Way and E Braneh/Mason Stp' Ojlhe 380 trips out oJ'Phase 1 per�3av, less than !0 will end up ut Musnx und Branch?How could tha! be? Pe t0. 3.4_Existineolusproiect l ' `Based on the TIRE indes concept, ((Appendix E Pg. 4:) TIRE represenis ths effect of thc traffic on the sgfety and comfort ot human activities such as walking,cycling,and playiug on or near a - stree; and on the freedom to maneuver persnnal autos in aod out of residential driveways.) `°I'rs#1"ic' h increa'ses to Garden Street nort6 of Myrtle Strect duc to the project wil] be nnNceable to the i residents af Garden Street north of Myrtie Strnet...T6e increase in traffc on Myrtle Street wi11 stso 6e noticeable to resideats." Pg.l l.3.6_"Remainder will be providod via the extension of East CherryAvenue"Nu place does it mention keeping the existing dirt East Cliertyexcensian and some other to ba named road that feed into the Phase 1 Project only. . P� 11. 3.6'Cn� Distribution and Assignment Here again the writer of the reporf confliets with his original premise that Project 1 would be 1'hcase 1 (Cherry Creek) and Project 2 would be the entire 21-acre hP. The s�udv does not include those residents from Phase 2 that�rotdd drive dnwn East Cherry extensro�i, • � turn ri�hCOnlo the new Myrtle extension, lhrough Ihe project on to Garden, then lhrouglt the Village irutead of driving on their dirr roac� or driving all the tiray down East Cherry to Garden. The same route ' cuuld easily he used for residents return routes. ',; The NP provided does add extru trips uffectirrg Myrde, Garden. Ide Street, Whitely,'Nelson and Mason Streel becauSe new residents from sub area 2 wi11:be ahle to access the Yillage withot�t using Cast Cheny. Therefore,phase 2 WILL cuntribate to trips on Myrlle, Garden; Ide Street, Whilely,Nelson and hlasqn Streei Ifa resident of lhe Miner fi�ture develop�r:ent tivar:ts[v go lo the Yillage, they wilf drive !o Ihe 2U- foot access road through Phase I ou1 to Myrtle und around!o Mason Srreet The tra�c reporl Jnes not consider this new access road eifher. At[his point the traJfic study serms tno old, based on a plare/hat has bee�e changed too mucG, arld not ' it+corpnrafing the concept of keepfng the dirt portion of East Cherry afed the deve[opers of Phase 1 to build their owx ezc[raive road(whose name needs to be deiermined) on their awn property. ; Pg I 1. 3.5 Pazagraph 3 -brg misunderstanding uf Project 2 since Project 2 x•as preriously described as � the entire 12 acre 99- unitproject. — ------ .._--------------- -- ------------. �� t -d . ESOS6B4508 � st3ueTyd dpp :gT 90 S.T ��da5 ii _ :� , � ��`��`°y v� '; ' CoIleen Martin ' °' 855 01ive Srreet h4AY � � ZQ�� Arroyo Grande, Calzfornia (So5)4s9-276g C1TY OF ARROYO GRANDE May 6, 2006 CO��fiUIUNiTY D�VELOPMENT '? Dear Gtity ofArroyo Grande Planning Commission, City Councit and lt?'¢yo>-, I am a twenty year residertt ofArroyo Grande and I have always been active in our � ' City's activities: My parents also came here to take part in the r-itral tifesrijle ofArroyo � Grande.My father especially grew to loae the smali town poIitics and quickly became s entrenched in the General Plan Core Group trying to encourage vast participation of our �� community in the planreing of our future vision.I too haue been invoIued since i998, drafting ihe citizen's Survey that the City sti11 uses as a tool to guide important decisions. Thr�ugh every ;� step of the General Plarc, he and I peKtioned the City,Council to le�ve the�l are¢of the East �; Village to rural residential zoning.I continue to plead that the Planning Commisszon and the . City Couneil deny the amendment of ihe development code to upzone rhe qE area Lo singfe family medium density.2.5 units per acre would be sufficient zoning and stitl more dense than i arzy oYher existing parcel in the yE area. The three estate properties included with Phase i must be remoaed from any density calculations. I have carefully reviewed the Inirial Sfudy Sttmmary EnvironmentaI Checklistfor the ' proposed Neighborhood Plnn arzd Phase i Project of the yE area of ihe East Village. The Mitigated Negatiue Declaration is incomplete and has descriptions that are outi-ight invalid, li. such as referencing the area to be adjacent to `7cigh density residentiaf development°, i The project rures in to so many d�cuities environmentally that it should have a `. comptete en'vironmerttaI impact reportfiled for the project;If it,was just storm wnier iL would ' ',; be one thing, but it fs the riparian corridor, the drainage, the noise and light pollution, the ;� drastic tra,ffzc increases, the loss of prime soils io more,asphalted arid paued surfuces, and the loss of habitat. 2'he agricuItural buffer zone of just igo feet continues to be an issue for the County of SL0 and the neighbors, The agricuttural buffer is not agreed upon or even delineafed in ihe Phase a portion of ihe Neighborhood Plan. There also seems to be an ' inordircate nu»tber o monitorin ` f g programs to keep Phase 1 of ihe Neighborhood Plan project ; in compliance. Who wiR provide this monitoring? When?How?At what cost? � � The iraffic report, u�hich is outdated and incorrect in many ways, is referenced in this '' negative declaration and used to persuade the planners that the seuere traffie impacts carz be mitigated. There is no mention of[he true characier of East Cherry (rto parking,portions being � dirt}and Traffic Way (used as an on and off ramp for the freewny), nor were the traffic counts =performed during [he cruciai hours uwhen.schools and farms close for the day. One of the mostglaring is.sues under-nddr.essed in this euatuation is the exisring dirt porrion ofEast Cherry. The San Luis ObispoAir Pollution Control district forcefuIly stated that this road must be paaed. The proposed separaie "New East Cherry"on the subject property is not consisteret u)ith the Neighborhood Plan, which calls to "coordinate injrasiructure 6eiween the entire 7E areas; but instead n lame exr.nise to buiid whnt they want zvithout tackling some " hurdles. i I welcome arzy calls or questions regarding mJ detailed commenis and tntst you will '; use them to your and the City's bene,fit. Please do so. Thank you for yoter commihnent to t � Arroyo Grande; it's citizens, heritage and future. � , �,.,, + � Co�le arnn ' v��J � ' e �;� J ___—_ _ ___'"_"' " ._ _._"'________"_"__?' TT 'd � ' ESOS664506 � «UeI�H d6i =Z [ 90 60Cda� �ep 11 �6 12: O.1p Rtiantis 9054895053 � �� p�. 4 � CHERRY CREEK NOTES ON THE NEC:ATIVE D�CLARATION Prepared bp Collc:en Martin Negutivc i)eclaration prepared hy Relly Heffernon, 3/20/06 Pg,z. PRUJ ECT DESCRIP'flUN: � If the"purpose of the Iv'P is to coordinate street, drain�e,water, sewer, agricultural buffers and open space consideration", then wh4t is the plun fr�r all of these i'hinqs for Yhase 2? Where is the Ag bujfer for Phqse 2? ' , Sets lots sizes in a range from 2,��3 to 25,00o square feet. '' T'he fezv es[ate lots of targe size reeed to be removedJrom the density calculations of¢.5 units per aere. 5ets forth private i5 wide dirt road (existing East Cherry)for access to Phase 2 ' Pg. 3. Neighborhood Plun overla�?Nlore dn,scripiion please �' Ili _ , SFR MD —Ve est medium d�nsity surrounding land use categories � pg.q. States, "No significant visual impacts are expected to occur".If the subject properties end �� up bei�:g 2 stories then there u�ill be sic�nificant visual impact. � dJ Create glare or.night-light. ii is Gtack t�ut there right reow,... that wzll not be the case after li birild o�.et_ . ' S. Yrime Soils Definition- must the land 6e irrigated and be zoned AG to be ciass}feed prime soils? ' Pg. 6. Residendxl usa5 — wulnut grove. "The subject properiy has been committed to ' ' residenrial uses'since the late i3oo's and has been consistently zoned residential since the City ', established zoning." ' Page ii. q. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCF..S states, " The maiority of thc Cherry Creek pmject site is � composed of a sene.ccent walnut orchard..." !� Which one isit?7 he properfxj is Q trvlJ a residential rural area used fvr things like a waInut , , nrchurd; raising chickens, growing grapeuines,fntit orchards etc. Hoh•evec, for the purpose ot this analysis,the site is still considered as an old orchard.For any review by the neiqhbon nrneopfe driving by ic is considered an old orchm•d also. Pg. �. MM 2.3 Vegetative Screening shall be ingtalled b-foot fence atop a z-foot burm.And this won7look elitist and out ofplace in the cnuntry? Pg 8.Adclitional Average Daily Trips — 88n for NP and 600 of these on East Cherry and Traffic 4Vay. The air quatitJ emissions stated ARE SIGNIF7CANT."May cause significant air quality impacts° Pg 8. Assumptions on PhasP 2 developments ' "Phase 2 will liikely be developed raridomly over time" Whnm are they kidding? Ton� and Nora are already staking,their properties.Piaa�for Phase 2 right now! � ''; r � It _...- -� - - �:i __. _. _. . _ 3ep 09 06 12: SOp Rtlantis 8054895053 p. 4 !i Pg. io. Operational Phase Emissions ' . The mitigation measures do not include, and the plan shown theAirPollutiore Contro!District !i (APCD).4ttnchment C,for,rhat matter, also does not include the amended plan, which does aot ' !'i improue the clirt road or pr•ovide for a paved access to Phase 2. � T'h'e tetter from the SLO APCD A(tachment C states; "All access roads to this development should be paved to reduce the generation of fugitive dust." (top of page)The letter states, "Please address the action items contained in this tetter that are highlighted � br•bold and underlined text."(Middle page i) This is not optional in the Ietter from the ' APCD. . None. of the mitigatinn m.e.asures in the Negative Declaration set forthpaving existing dirt road.s in any part of the NP. The deuelopers of Phase i need to.pave the eztisting East Cherry. Pg.ii. Setting. "The project area is surrounded by rural and high density residential development", 9 Where is this high-density deaetopment'1 On Branch Street?Across the creek at the Bolsa Chica " Mobile Home Park?This statement is FAT.SE and gives a very false representation of. �i the subject property. Pg. i3. Bio-Swale Who will monitor and care for thu bio-swale and.houi will that be enforced?The City maintained culvert has been ful!of litter and weeds and requires residents to call Public Works to get things repaiT•ed,so oFiuiousty this is nof enough of a monitoring method. Will the fees for fhis monitoring be paid up front arzd� regular schedule be p�anned and adhered to? � 'I Pg. i4 Impact Summary • "The proposed project would substantially degrade the riparian corridor associated with Arroyo Grande Creek..." � � r b4M 4.2 CaIIs for"five year monitoring program and contingency measures to ensure meeting :'� the success criteria." YVhat is rhi.s monitoring plan and tvhat is considered successful? l�ery ' vague language, need specifics. Pg. i8. Impact: "Monitoring�vill be required for this development". Who will perform and pay for the monitoring? _ ;�. Pg i9. Registered house? Why does it matfer if the entire properiy will befenced off with an "neu�electric gate"People witl not euen be able to walk on the street in fi•ont of this historical property.MM5.2 Pg: 21. MM 6.3. Gt'hat¢re adequate sediment and erosion control measures?How do you qualify and quantify? °g 22 "Schedule for their maintenance and upkeep" Who monitors this nnd who u�ould require � this schedule? � � � , , � - I� � ';E 'V' ie.p 11 ,06 1Z: 02p Rtlentis 8054895053 � p. 5 � MM6.4 What is the Phase 2 ptan for flood coreMol? What are the ofher o�j`=sife drainage improvements atong Branch Mili Road?Be ', specz'fic � . i, Pg. 23. 8. b.) NOISE ` "LVill the project generate increases in tl�e ambient noise Levels for adjoining areas?" YES how do y�u mitigate the. rzoise of 88o more vehicle lrips in and out vf the project? Yg. 24. MM 8.i . , Hours of operation are restrir.ted to Monday - Saturday 8 AM to 6PM. Giue me a break!No I� , SatuT•days and quit hy 5. The existing neighbo�•hoc�d deserues to have the last vestiges of their peace and quiet. The times of the canstructiore noise must be limited. The ' , neighborieood shoufd noi haue to endure saws and tractars on the weekend, not to mentiorz, the ^ poorer air quality resutriny from the work. Ng. 24. POPULATION / FIOliSING '_ � 7'HE MOST.iMPUl2TANf ENFRACTION IN THIS NEGATIVE DECLARA?70N! "V1�ill the project induce substantial p,rowth in an area cither directly or indirectly (e.g.,thmu�li projects in an undeveloped area or extension of m�jor infrastructure)?" , The impact is `paterelially signzfzcanY, nai'impact can and will be mitigated'like the report says. If this 22 acres is devetoped at the density proposed, it wouid noi be con.sidered transitiot�al zoning beteveen ihe Villaye ared rural residen.lial as seen in the Grecmivood/1 anner/Flortt area. Secause the proposed zoning is more dense than fhe Garden Sireet/Myrtle Street/Cocker EiLsworth deveiopment, or ' any'otlier deuetopment in the Vi[lage asidefrom a coridominium compiex, it ioouid actually bs a eoritinuatzon of the Village with high dertsities at the � , oufskirts of the Village Core. 1 his not onZy does not fit in the plax for our City, but it atso begs for future high densities to be proposed for adjacenfi properties to the. subject properiy such as at the end afEast Cherry toward Flora. 'j , , Yg. 2g POPULATION/HOUSING ' "The 2ooi General Plan and program EIR adequately addressed the increase in density, and the project is within allowable density."°The project will also induce grow�th in the Neighborhood Plan area b}•extending the City's se�ver and water sy5tem." Just beeause y�u can do somethirig, doesn'f inean you ought to. I•`ronx [he�ninutes of Oetvber y, 2ooz: the night the General Plan Updace was npproaed. Page 10. Council Member LuGin said..."He then ieterred to fhe Land Use Area 7E and stated fhat if was a tough decision because there were property owners in that area on 6oth sides of the question. He sard in discussions with seve%at of the property owners, 8 appeared fhaf the majordy of the land would not be redeveloped and if would stay ; as it is today." Page 12. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Land Use Area 7E and recalfed one of the prope�fy owners who � requested the Counci!reconsider a lower density. He said he was hoping there was a high tumout ofpeople form , � i: i i Se.p 11. 06 12: 03p fltlantis - � 9054895053 p._ g ' ofher cnncerned partiPS who would like fo see the density remain as is. He stated that it was'not foo late to reduce ;� tne densify. He stated that he �vas nof comfortable le2i�ing it Medium Density at the last meeting and he was strD not comfortable with that desig.nation:He said he would irke to see a lower density in thai particular area and that it be consistent. He believed there was a lot of Dslidity to fhe notion that it is transitional area, it abuts an ag conservancy, and from who he had praviously and throughlestimony for,ighf, he v�as led to believe fhat fhe majoiity of land owners out there do not want Medium Density, they would rafher maintain a lower densiry. He sard he would support a lower �� density:., - pg 25. io. YUBLIC SERb'ICES / UTILITIT�S i Is the 2o foot alley good enough forfire protection? Yg 26. "East Cherq�Avenue will be extended the length of the development and constructed per Gtity standards: GREAT! What is the, width beiny proposed and is dn asphalt transition to the exisiing dirtportion of.. Easi Cherry n C'ety sta�edard? ` Whar u�il!hc the name. of the new road pl•oposed by ihe devetoper of Phase s to feed irtto his ' � rn•ojecf?Can'Y be F.ast Cher�-,y. The dirt road ulread_y has that name. � '�. Pg. 2�TKANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' aJ 88o inereased vehic]e trips to loca] or area wide circulation system. b:) 7 he level of service qt East Cherry and Traffec Way will be impacted and there will be a loss c f service nnd increase in dangerous turns. Becnuse[he iraJj�c study included an , inordin�te vmount of traffic_JIowing down A11en Street, the numbers for Garden and East cherry would actuall� rise without this misinterpretaRon. c.) There already are unsafe conditinns on East Cherry because there is reo altowable parking between Railroad Place and Tra�c Way.People are constantly crossing the F i street zzght bcfore the intersection, marzy wiih young chifdren. People areforced to make decisinns abot�t tur-ning when the speeds of cars exiting the freeway cere often higher than the posted sPeed limit. e.) 7 here is ao visitor parking places prouided for in the Phase i portion for the duet homes. � — Inadequate parking capacity. '! f.) Phase 2��ill result in inadequate internnl traffic circulation The only proposed traffic miiigation sn far that is outside the boundaries of the subject area nre installinq a 3-way stop ai Branch Mill Roac3 and F,ast Cherry. 88 additional homes musi make improaemerxts lo Easi Cher�y all the way to Traffic Way a�xd reconftgure that ` intersecLion.Phase i is the impetus jor Yhe onslaught of more deuelopment doum that street,so � it is fair to hat�e ihem carry the burden to prepare for,future deueloprnerzt. . i Pg. 28. " In zeviewing the revisec3 intersection design_for East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road, the traffic corisultant determined that an all-way stop is necessary."?'ieere mill be two � . rouds parat(el e.ach other F.ast Cherry and the proposed Cherry Creek Estates Road. YVhg xuauld the City euen recommend uplan sofoolish as to not requere the developer ofPhase s to iake over the ou�nership nf the existi�xg road und deuelop it to "City standards"? MM i2.2 Obuiously fhe City krtou�s this is incomplete as it states, 3e� 11 �06 12: 09p Rtiantis � 8054895053 p. 7 �� "Depending on the approval option for the East Cherry alignment,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 Pubiic Works". Tlie proposed a(ignme�tt is absurd!East Cherr� �nust he paved and drawn straight to brircg future,conso(idation of storm, water, and tr•ansportation systems online. Pg. 3a. i4. HYDROLOGYAND WATER_QUALITY . Yes, the pr•oject fuil huild.out dt g9lots on 22 ncres will aduersely affect the u�ater supp2y. It ivilI, "contribute to an increase in localized flood hazard during large storm events." 'L7ie neitigation {or this is inadequute. pS• .�4. ig L.4NA USE d:)"Will the project be potentially incompatible with surrounding land uses?" If this 22 ucres is develnpe.d at the density.proposed, it wouId ttot be considered transitional . � zonirig between the Village and rural residentinl as seen in the Gr•eenu�ood/Tanner/Fiora area. Because the prvposed zoning is more dense than the Garden Street/Myrtle Street/ Cocker Ellsworth deveIopment, if would actually be u continuateon of the Village with high ' densities at the outskirts of the Village Core. This not only does not fit in the plan for our City, but ir aLso begs fa•fitture higfi densiries to 6e pr•oposed fnr adjacenf pr•pperties to the subje.ct ;' ProPerhJ The ACPD requered all access road for the projects be paued. The previous surrounding area iu�s described as "high density" which is fulse uTid gives an imprpper descripteon and jeel of the : area. P�•Rs• i6. MAN11A'1'ORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANC� T��o of the tlu•ee questions regarding the cumulative considerable impacts were reported as "Impact can and�+�ll be mitigated."`°Cumulativelp coasiderable' means that the increment effects of a project are considerable when ��ewed in eonnection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects". There�vilI be impacts to all of the en��ironmental factors. Unfortunatel}�the checklist was not complete on tl�e Page i possiUle because some of the descriptions, and studies that are referenced were either is�correct or false. i. Aesthetics: the visual character and the light poliution wilt aJj`ect the surrounding area and be a significani impact to those who already enjoy the tim•k, quiet nights. z. Agricuttural Resoiu-ces: it witl invofve the change of an old u�alnut orchnrd to residentia! uses. � 3.Air Quaiity: It tui(1 exceedfederal amhieatair_quality emission thresholds. ¢. Biological Resotuces: It will impact wetland and riparian habitat. so mitigation � measures were recommended because there were so many impacis to biological resources. I , , ; , �. h r g. Cultural Resources: The projeci will disturb historic resources and hide them fr•om the � � public. , 6. Geology and SoiLs: There will be soit erosion,unstable earth conditions, change irc rates vf soil absorption, and change the natural drainage pattern ihat inuolve acrivities in the ioo year piain zone. . �: IIazards&Hazardous Materialsc The constr�ction phase wi11 certninly pose p risk or � health hazard fo existing tesidents for the NP area, nvt to menteon the risks to the riparian �corridor. 8. NOISE: The noise will exceed the City's noise eleme.nt thr•eshoids, generate irecreases in the ambient noise levels for adjoining properties,and expose people and pets ro severe noise or vibration. The hours and days of consiruction are completely unacceptable. 9. POPULATION/ HOUSING: T"he project willinduce subsianriaZ growth not onty in ihe 7B area, but also to:vard the Greenwood/FTora/Tanrrer development. The General Plan Adopizon ineIuded the possibziity for a developmeni amen.dment to up zone to Medium Derrsf ty, �cot the guaranfee of this zoning. ; io. Public Services/Utilities: Z he,fire prv"tection pIan is insufficient in the Phase 1 area. j; I ii. RECREATION: The fencing off of Q historical house that is enjoyed Hy marty to stroll pasi ' on leisure walks will be removed as wil!laryeporiions of creek access. ' ,' 12. T�ansportation/Circulation: It will irzerease[he vehicle trips to the local and area ° uiide circulation systerrrand ouer 8vo irips in the Village core. � ig. WASTEWATER: The prnject will violtite wuste discharge requirements. . i4. Hydrology and Watear Quality:lVot oniy will the�roject udversely affecc the u�ater• '� suppl� that is already at criticaL Ievels, it wiI1 distarb surface water conditions. ig. I.AND USE: This project is inconsistent ruith surrounding land uses. The surrounding land uses are rural residential such as raising chickens, haruesting grapes,ptums,peaches, ; walnuts and raising goats, boardin9 and ridircg horses and other•crops and nnima[s. T his project is denser than any otb.er single family residentiai project in the Vitiage so ' it is incoti�istent with the surrou�tding land uses.¢.g units per acre u�ould be a �20o square foot Zor! i , , . 8 'd ESOS68b508 --:..- ------ silue[1(j ` d�--- �� da� ES =ZI 90 60' ,i , - t � pRROY� ' � � . O c,p , � iNCOPV09�TE0�Z � " . V _ _ O , T � JULY �0. 191f * ' - ' � .. c'4<�FOSeN`P MEMORANDUM .� TO: PROSPECTiVE PURCHASERS OF S7ILLWELL ESTATE: � 734 MYRTLE STREET FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN7 DIRECTOR I SUBJECT: APN's 007-565-004 AND 007-522-d08 DATE:. OCTOBER 22, 2002 . Because the City has had numerous inquiries since the Stiliweil estate properties have been noticed as avai�able, I am writing a brief outline of some answers to typical questions regarding planning and zoning: , Q. WhaYis the existing zoning? A. Both parceis are classified Rural Residential (RR}, which requires one (1 } acre Fots � for single-family use. ' � Q. What does Yhe 2001 General P1an provic�e for the area? � A. The Myrtle Avenue area 'south of Arroyo Grende Creek and north of East Cherry � Avenue alignment is designaied Single Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR- ';� � ` MD), which would enable a maximum density of 4.5 d�velling units per acre (typically 7;200 sq. ft. minimum lots). Possible subdivision may also propose 25°/a "density bonus" for affordable ilow or moderate income) housing. This '' ' implies potential for 20 or more homesites. ; ,, � Q. What is Yhe creek setback and intent of Public Facility or Conservairon/Open . Space corridor a/ong 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 Q. Whaf does the "NP"special overlay on the 2007 General Plan mean? � A. Policy LU2-7 requires a "Neighborhood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, , :' sewer, agricultural buffer, creekside traii and conservation'open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parce{ map" in the 21 +/- acre area. ° Ei '�d � ESOS68b508 ' st�uejqd dOt =Zi 90 IL;, da�. , "� � Q. What is intended by 'agricultural butfer"? A. The area south of East Cherry Avenue alignment is a .permanent Agricultural !! Preserve and actiye farming operation; General Plan policies require a minimum " setback of 100 feet between the nearest house and agriculturai operations, at ; least 25 feet landscaped to "buffer from normai noise, dust, or other possible ii land use conflicts. The City also has "Riyht fo Farm" provisions that prevent li residents from claiming normal agricuifural practioes as "nuisances". �i. Q. What does ihe CircuJaiion/Transportation Element of the 2401 General Plan i "study a�ea" designation imply norihwest of B�anch Mi// RoaJ and East Cherry. ',� Avenue? A. Policy CT5-5 provides for circulation "study area" corridors to define and li preserve "alternatives for future freeway, arterial and collector street i,' connections, eMensions, completions, reconstruction, widening, fro�tage road �` ' a►ternatives or extensions andlor, other improvements to Circulation and ;; Transportation networks untit cooperetive resolution of Element revisions and/or 'j Capital improvement Programs". Although no specific solutions a�e currently ;1, defined, 'either or bot}i a northeriy extension of Branch Miil Road or an easterly ; - ' , ' extension of East Cherry Avenue, potentially across Arroyo Grande Creek as a j;: residentiai collector is the purpose of this "study area". � _ Q What might happen with the drainage ditch that crosses the -mrddle of the ;; propertyl - '� A. The City construcied a temporery drainage ditch across the center of the '� �I rectangular parcel and the west edge of the 'triangte, parcet adjoining Arroyo ,; Grande Creek to convey Newsom Springs a�d other area storm drainage to the ': creek channel. The City will cooperate with future developer io pipe this drainage !; in a permanent easement across the center br ,west edge of the properties, '� including local drop inlets from the area. . Q. Who shou/d l contact for more information? A. The estate's realtor is,Byron Grant (805) 481-4297 or the City of Arroyo Grande � Community Developrrient Department at (805) 473-5420. ; . _ i . _ I � 2 ' ' . � bS 'd ES0568bS08 sc�uetzy dZj :zT 90 I.;i da� , ; O� pRRGYj �9 � ixcGA�oawrEO yZ ' . ; U _� m i: rvv �o. ian * ' � . ' - . c'�iFO��P � . MEMORANDUM ` TO: PLANNING.'COMMISSION - ,;, FROM: Rob Strong, AICP General Plan Update Consultant �'� , DATE: JULY 19, 2001 r SUBJECT: Land Use Study Area 7E — E. Myrtle & Cherry Area (StiUwell, Estes, Janowicz, et al.) �; I Attached is a composite map of the property o�vnership in the land use study � , I area 7E, south of Arroyo Grande Creek, north of E. Cherry Avenue exterrded. As � discussed in the Draft EiR, pages 52 and 53, there are approximately 22 a�res east of . the Noc�uera Place, Single Family Residential (S�R} — Medium Density t4.5 dulac) � subdivision, currently classifie� and zoned Fiural Residential (1 clulac), equivalsnt to the proposed SFR — Lo�v Density classification of the 2001 General Plan Update. . Several owners in the area have requested "R-1 " or.single 4amily 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 altematives enable, summarized as foilouvs: `� a) I` the entire 22 acres �vere classified SFR-MD, it uvould enable a maxirnum of approximately 99 homes; � �, b) If the entire 22 acres v�fere classified SFR-LMD, it wouid enable a maximurn of 55 homes; ' ° c) If the entice 22 acres remains classified SFR-LD (The new name for City Rural " Residentiaq, it would enable approximately 26 homes (at least four non- i , conforming smaUer parcels aiready exist); and, d) A combination of LM and MD with the �n�estern 8 +/- acres MD and tne eastern 14 ° h acres LM. �; I i Based on the parcel configuration, location of existing houses, rudimanta;y private road easements, drainage and utilitizs and other design constrain[s, staff recommends 'd)' — a combination of Low Medium and Medium Density 5ingle Family Residential. As a ;. prerequisite to rezoning,. s[aff.also recommends a requirement for a neiahborhood ,i i SI 'd ESOS68bS06 - stquetz� dzt :Zt 90 IT de - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I assessment district to provide for area �vater, sewer, drainage, park and street improvements needed to.enable individual property subdivisions. A,conceptual neighborhood development plan would coordinate street, drainage and utility desi.gn, consider preliminary subdivision patterns and estimate costs to enabie the o�vners to pursue future tract or parcel rnaps individua.11y, after area infrastructure is committed or constructed. i; Planninc� considerations wouid include an °agriculture buffer" to minirnize compatibi!ity ' �� problems with the Ag Preserve to the south of E. Cherry, a creek-sida park trail . extension along the north side of E. Myrtle adjoining Arroyo Grande Creek, and circulation impacts on the adjacent residential areas. !r li Staff will be prepared to discuss ihese alternatives for General Plan Uodate recommendation to the City Council at tonighYs continu=d pubiic hearing. -, - - ti , i i; � � ' "t , 9l 'd E50566bS06 st�uetltl dEL �� T 90 T,I da ;ep 09 . 06 1�2: 16p Rtlantis - 8054995053 p. 4. ; D�J]E� THI� PRO��CT require an EIR? �`� The C:alifomta EnWronmentai Qualfty Act, � F� � � � s - � WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EIIt AND A NEGATIVE ,' DECLARAT101Y(NEG.DEG)? . . A Negative Declaration is a document that states upon completion of an initial study,that there is no substanrial evidence that the project may have a signiScant effect on the environment . . tln EIR is an informational dceument which will inform the public agency decision-makers and the public generally of: o ,the significaat environmental effects of a project , o poSSlble W8yS to*t+�nimi�r.SigIIi$C6IIt effCC1S o reasonable attematives to the project HOVV DOES THE A.GFNCY DECIDE? . A Negative Declacation can be prepared only when.there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record befor�the lead agency that the project may.have a significant effect on the environment(PRC $21080(c)),(.14 C.C.R. §15070) . Aa EIR must be prepared when there is substantiai evidence in the record that suppons a fair argument that significant effects may occuz (PRC§21.080(d)) e The existence of controversy over the effects of a pmject dces not require pn.�paretion of an E[R if there is no sabstantial evidence in the t+ecord that the . . project may have a sigaificant environmental effect (PRC §21.082.2) There is no reference at all in both Staff Advisory Minutes . from February 18, 2004 and July 1, 2004 for which environmental study tool should be usedWhen and where was this decided? How can this be? • , Jl.L.14.2006 5=01PM FIRROYO GRwYDE .CIT'f N0.963 P.3QV37 � , - deve�opmenf siantlqrtls fof tradjfional Singte Pomity 2oning pot sjze ontl setbacksJ.Given ihe' � ireedom to ctljvst fhese standards for site-specifie conditions allows devetapmeM to respond to ��s ' iha comrnu�iiy's v�sion.This wil� ereote q higher qualify neighborhood wilh o strong sense of , . ploce.The siie contlifions qncl.amenilies indude�ot siza variotion. con:ervation of existing`and � ' historical homes, pfeservq�ion of ihe Arroyo Gfonde Creek cortidor.provision of a vegetated � .. channel.provision o(indusianory housing, ond impfemenlotion oF an ogriculturot b�ffer. -�� Environmenta!Review:Enviro�rr�entct revie+v in ancordonce,with fhe Cditomia Environmenta! 'V �QualiTy Act (GEQ�) wili be reqvired tor eoeh devebpment proposaL CerliFiGation oF on , environrpental docuri9ent for Subareo 1 is iII.Prncess-FwM1Ke-c�e+EelC � nT roposals i�Subareo 2 ' , � ,W ' . —" ' . . n individual proposals are brr�itte[7� ''-. . Proposed Phosing o1 Development In the�Neighborhood Pian Area ' . __- \ Oe�elopment will commence in Suboreo 1 qs soon as the Nejghbothood Plon is adopted. ` ' I�diJduol homes are onficipated to be bult primarily by o single home buildar/developer. J Deveio,pment ol Subo�ea 1 is estimoted to be Iargely CompleteC with�n 2.5 yeors. Once ihe '/ �� Neighborhood Plan is adoptetl.tlevelopment in Subareo 2 could begin at ihe iqndo.vners '% . discretion,pendn9 opproval by the Community DevetopmenY Depertmenl. � �.. , Spaclal Condilional Uses � ihe Nei e zornng spec��ie3'6yl-�e'i60T'�TPtan.�er qin . nditionot�ses such as doycqre. ch�rches, ond private schaols mqy be g�anteq subject to p -' ' co�dironal use permiL�t is fhe ciN's responsibiliy to app�ove,contlitionolly approve.or deny � � such requests in accordance wiih ihe zoning of RSF-MD. Adminishallon and tmplemeM�on ot}he Me�gh6orhood Pion � . � Suborea L w11i require o Homeowners I�ssocialion (HOn)�to administer mointanance ot open ' zpace,parks,ontl comrnon areas, as we11 os ihe Covenonis. ConCitions. and Resirictions ' �CC8R5). The developer of Subo�eo 1 Wii!s�bmit proposed by-laws and oAicles oF incorporation for the � HOA and CCSRs for the Stote o(CqGiomia DepoAment of Real Estate and Ihe�fy of.Arroyo ,. ' Grande�Cammunity DevetopmenYOepartment review and approvoi_ r ��-5-f' V I � �� , � , ., ,_ ,. TOOBDSaC k Itl E t tes N C� V�I �G d lnN rd�N hb tMed•GI W ' e n eaPl n�-�-g6 tlec I � ""'_'._____ " _'_—__."—'_"_' , _' _ "'___'—__' �_—" " '_—'_"'— —_'_ "._'_'_'_,—" ii . . I� g •d ESO5664506 siauel�� dbb =2T 90 60 da ,� � __._...._-_ _ _ . � � ... _.._,-..._ _._ " , I, _. ___ _ __ ___ ___ .. .__ � FROM cCUDBEDD FqX I.p. :805 473 Sa89 Jul. 1B 20P'.6 03:08PM Pa',�, NOTES „ STAFF ADVI80RY COMMITTEE (SAC)` , . JULY 1, 2004 '1:00 P.M. t, STAFF ADVISORY COMMI7TEE MEM&ERS PRESENT: V�ctor Devens, Public Works; Larry I; Schmidt, Building; $tave Andrews, poiice; Dan Hernandez. Parks, Recreation & Facifities: Dave ; Crockett. Code Enforcement OTficer, Kely FiaHemnn, Associale Plan�er: Jim Bergman, Assistant f Planner; Andrea Koch, Planning Intern. 5TAFF MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Fibich, Fire: Rob Strong, Communily Dsve�opmeht Director. 'i APPROVAL OF.N�TES: Minutes of June 3, 2004 and June 17, 2004 approved with minor . correcGons. ORAL COMMUNICATIOM3: None. ? PROJECTS: A. VESTINt3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. D4-002; pLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN7 ''� 04-002; NEIGHBORHOOD Pl..AP1; APpUCAN7 - CHERRY C.REEK, LLC; LOCATION - :f CHERRY AYE 8 MYRTLE STREET. `Pro}ect Pianner-Kelly Neffernon , ' I, Descriotion: Review of new development and Neighborhood Plan bordering Cherry and Myr1e 'i. streets. Issues: � � - Represantative and Appticants • Cherry Creek is the new name of the project formerfy known as Creekside Estates of '` Anoyo Grande. • All exterior lots except for one are a m�nimum of6.000 squaro feet. Tho interlor 7ots are ,� � smaller and can provide more aHordable housing. • Proposing a 100' agricultural buffer with redwood trees and possibly oaks as components. Buffer is 85' trom curb to first habitable structure. ^ Witl submit a �andscape plan. `� R uests ermission for streets narrowor.(32' th2n tha usual stan ardJr4fY}:— • The General an discussas estaDiishing a regional recreationa) trail elong Arroyo ; ' Grande Creok from Strother Park to the ucean. The preTened creek irail alignmunt is r, along the south Side of �reek. Existlng property Ownership pattems within the project I area and further west make astablishing trai! difficuit. ? . � Not pracqcai to provide creek trail crossing to park because of tong riparian corridor. � - Perks, Re�c�eation & Facllltiesr This would also be expensive becauso the tiei! woutd �, need io meel ADA standarcls. � FuWre possibility of buiiding path across the creek io conneci to Paulding School; but this is not politicaUy(easible right now and thereFore not includetl in the project plans. �'4 - Spoke With most ot the owners of properties surrounding the project site to obiain their ' opinions about nearby Dixson Ranch. Most liked the Ranch and only noted minor negative impacts from it. � � • Consulled with Counry Agricultural Cemmissioner and discovered a 300'.selback is— ,� l k needed from one of the pestlades somelemes applied at Dixson Ranch. �� f I — .. �I - ------ — ------ - ---- - ----------- -- -- � Sto��t•ad dSO =Zi so ci: da� e •d esossebsae G '�� __ . Sep 11 �06 12: 07p Ftlantis 9054895053 p_ 9 �� . . '�-_._—_. --. .-- —_ -- pRX 1�_ :865 4T3_5489 Jui. IB 2006 03:08PM P3. �. FROt't :CDU&EDD . - ' � ' i - NOTES � . � , PAGE 2 �'i� , � SAC MEETING . � � . Jufy 4.10A4 � . • 1f forcec! to make agricullural setback much larger, as Dixson Ranch represan5atives ; _ want, wili lose devolopable land fo• this project and other poten4al projects williin the �.: , Neighborhootl Ptan area. The project woutd have to be completely redesignetl. , �� East Cherry needs to be dedicated fo the Ciry. Infeaslble to obtain necessary signalu�es ot ail involvetl property owners so City may need to exercise eminent domein. tf the City does nn� acquire East Cherry. it will not be part of the projer,l and raside�ts wi�l hava to drive down an u�improved gravel road. A future Clty Council would have to deal with . this issue in such evenl. � �� Community Oevetopment , • Both tho Pianning Commission and City Coun have discussed this project as a Pre- Application. �The most.significant fssues were lot size nd the agricuttural buffe�, which � was especiatly an�iss�e with,the City COUncii. • The appficants have redeslgned the projeCt to increase lot size whlle maintaining a , variely ot lot size9 for d'rverslty. � . � � � � The proposed tlevetopmant is almost at the maximum density allowed for the prupeRy. Neiyhbor.oissent iimited tho proposed densiry from being higher. • Will the City mainlain the project's streets? Represeniafivo: Yes . • What areas wiU be commonly owned and maintainad? Representativer Open space, agricWturaf bulfe� . Parks, Recreation & Facilities • Concerned that it Clty is responsible (or a maintanance district, could be liable fc�r any , accidents on the �arrow streets. , Also, the redwoodg and oaks proposed as part of the agricullural buffer are high maintenance. • What facihfies wfll�be part,of the open space7 � Representafive: Picnic benches and a DG or concrete path. OG might be preferreble because rt is porvious and would prevent run-offto the creek. • Parks Dept. preters use of concrete path In open space because lower maintenance. ' • The applicant would have more fiexibility if a HomeownePs Association were eslablished ; to maintain common facilities. If a maintenance tlistrict is estabtlshed instead, requests ' . 2 conirolted pedestr{an crossings at intersections for pedestrians att2c[etl to open '. ' space. � Representetiv� and app!lcants: Wifling fo prov/de pedestdan wafkway. Low IrdffrC �' ` volumes end nairow strsets slowing tre�c.wip a/so promote pedestrian safety. Which paM1y would have responsibility for street tree main!enance9 Represeniative: Prioperly owners would be,esponsiDle for t[ees in fronf of their hon�es. Buiiding and Fire Ensure pubiic facllit{es are ADA-compfiant. .,--� Fire access can be made acceptable even.though the tuming radlus appears too tight. • Eliminate the planting strip in the center of the intemal road for acceptable fire access. • Sprinkiering buitdings woutd provitle applicant the flexibility to compromise tha fire access, allowln9 one access instead of two and an aecess of less than 20'. . ProviQe a minimum fire tlow oi 'ID00 'gallons/minute/2 hours if the buildings a�e sprinklered. � . Ohtain demotition permit to damalish existing garage. I � • Do not place combustiblas on property �ntil the fire conditions are satisfied. �� . For any water wells, show or obtain abandonments. + � . " - ' ..'i ;e�p 11 •06 12: 08p Rtlantis 8054895053 p. 30 ;; FRDM' :CDD8EDD FRX N0. c825 473 5489 ' Ju1. 16 2006 03:07PM P2 C NOTE3 SAC MEETING � PAGE 3 ' JUIy'1.20U4 . . ; Puhlic Works • Pave ove�water and sewar easements,which sfiould boih be a minimum o( 15'. � ■ Connect pfojeCY to City sewer, It insist on providing sewers as shown on plans, need to i prove that. sewer system can accommodate project as weti as potentiat future ' daveiopment of phase 2. The sewer study musi show location of sewer mains and � amount of fiil needed for gravity-(eeding prior to deeming apptication complete. ;i � lncrease waie► main from Garden to Allen from 6" to e" i(cannot prove that B" main has sufficient floLV when main at Branch Miii and EasF Cherry is off-line._ • Extend w�ter line wfth blowout aaoss lhe property frontage. � Underground new and some existing utilities. Arrange meeting with Charter, PG&E, and � SBC regarding this. Shaw which poles will be removed and which poles wiii remain prior � to Planning Commission review. �� Develop parking pian Tor review at July 19'"Tratfic Commission meeting. �'� �State law rsquires 40' curb-to-curb width, so may need wider streets. Make case for �� desired narrower slreets at Traffie Commission meeting. � Applicant should submii ati requasted materials by July 10°1 '12"' because Traffic Commisslon packets wilt be dishibuted on Ju�y 14'". � ;' • Continuing sidewalk on othef side of Myttle in interior oi project is probaby negotiable to preserve oid oak trees near histaic home. , ?�. � • Why is there no sidewatk on the north side ot East Cherty? , , Reptesentafive and A,oplicanf: Proposed maendering OG paih instead to maximize landscaprng and to discourage pedestrian ac6vify a/ong the Qixson Ranch, as desired by he ixson Ranch and!he C' Council.. t D �Y I + Locate driveways in pairs ic� maximize space tor on-street parking. Identi(y on parking i ptan. iu: • Provide surveyed benchmark to easi of East Cherry. ' . Provide soils report. ''' • For any water welis, show or obtain abandonments. '! . Dreinage siudy seems inaCequate. Proposed 48" drainage pipa with bends probabiy II .%� O dces not have as muCh carrying Capaaty a5 a straight one. Why is the proposed drainage pipe 48" in diameter instead of fhe 72"discussed during the Pre-Application? �! '� Representalive: Instalfrng two 72"drainage pipes is Inleasible. Would bs unnec�ssery, ! ' di�cu�t to ;nstalf. �equire a drdinage siriwYure on tba Dixson Ranch propedy, and would y�heve ta daytight in the crsels, v�hich would be an enveronmental issue. Avoid using open ditches because breeding ground tor mosqwtoes that could carry West I . _ Nile vints. h • Lfne drainage ditch abng Noguera Place with concrete for easy maintenance if the City will own it. - Appllcant; 7tse Gfry wil!not own this d+ich; rt is Just for a few propeRy owners.' !� . Show overiay and escape route in dralnage study and 'obtain stamp of person who !;; ' ' prepared it.' ' • Instati tassil fuei filters on drop iniets. J � • Show private access easements for tlag lot properties. !� • Pay ali the usual fees, including inspection, grading, map check, and plan check fees. • Provide all the necessary agreements, Inctuding Inspection, draft open space, and ; maintenance agreaments. s , • Provide the usual bonds. , - Revlse the traftic study to inciude recommended tranc control at E. Che[ry and Brench (I Road, and revise levels ot service per the City's traffic study policy. , • Add to the Tentativo Map the name and registration of the person preparing il. i' ',� i; i n Se�P 11 .06 12: 09p Rtlantis 8054995053 p, il �FROM :CDD8EDD PLiX ND: :805 473 5489 � Jul. 18 200G 03:07PM P1 , NOT�s ` SAC MEET�NG PAGE 4 , July '1,2004 • On map, show Iand contours, acreage; name of ttie intemal road, and the locetions of buildings, setbacks, septic tanks, and water Weiis. " ReprBSSntative suggested showing selbacks on an attachment because the map is already visualry duttered. - �,. Police • • Streets shouid have parking on both sides and should be a minimum of 32' to 36' in +' width. . Wili need to make argument to Traffic Commission Justifying proposed parking on.only �; one slde of the street. ' 14 ` ction: Revlew by iho Pianning Commission and the City Council. ` B. 'fEMPQRA6tY USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04U18; APPUCANT — AGVIA; �OCATION — '" ViLLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Project Planner—Jim Bergman. Descriotion: Request tor use of Nelsan Green between Mason artd Short Streets tor the annual '' Summer Book Fas6vaf, Issues: ' None „ . i, Conditions: � Same conditions as applied in p�evlous years to this projed. • DISCUSSION 17EMS: Nane. '� Adjourned at 2:55. Posc-tr fax Noce ��s» � D P,,,�,► '�^; To p�.�eCn -h F'°'" �-'\ D o. . CDNei+t Co. �..�1 O . • C' . N T �o�. P�K �?- _S�.tZD �� . /� , . Fa[/ —. V J i0x 0 g � 4 s _ '',i. , 4 i '.I� 'f ;ep 11 06 12: 1Op Rtlantis 8054895053 p_ 12 " FROM :CDD&EDD FWC, NO. :805 473 5489 Jul. 18 2006 03:BBPM. PS � oF panorpc . " ,. 9 tiinco�ronnlEO �'Z � , , , , �' O �4e!��A �' � _ ,� t Jul. •0. �•1� � ct�icoRN�P STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC) CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM � , 215 E. BRANCH STREET THURSDAY, JULY 1, 2�04 � ;OO P,.I�N.�~ NOTE 71ME STAFF ADVISOFtY COMWIITTEE MERABERS: CommuniF�r Development Di�ector, Chief B�ilding Inspector, Fire Chief, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director, Police Commander, Public Works Director " i itOLL CALL: � APPROVAL OP NOTES: June 17, 2004. ; � I.� ORAL COMMUNICATtONS: — Public may discuss, business not scheduled on this agenda. ' , � II. PROJECTS: � !i 1y� 4- �►a 5-tvv�.� A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP "CASE NO. 04-002; PLANNED UNIT '; DEVELOPMENT D4002; NEtGHBORHOOD PE.AN; APPLICANT — CREEKSIdE �'. ESTATES OF ARRY� GRANDE, LLC; IOCATION — CHERRY AVE 8 MYRTLE STREET. Project Planner— Kepy Heffernon ' Review of neW development and Neighborhood Plan bordering Cherry and MyRle ` streets. � B. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-018; APPLICANT — AGVIA; ` LOCATION —VILLAGE pF ARROYO GRANDE. Project Planner-Jim Bergman. ' , , Request for use of ail of Nelson Green betweert Mason and Short Streets for the ' annuai Summer Book Festival. iil. DISCUSSION iTEM5: s IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/3TAFF COMMENTS: + V. CORFtESPONDENGE FOR THE SAC RECEIVEp AFTER AGENDA ! PREPARATIOPI: tV. AdJOURNMENT: In addifion to a SAC agantla, this is also a notice to interestad public agencies requesting th�lr review entl commems. The SAC may act upon any IMm (s) not appearing on the postea egentla if it is determined hy a two-thirds - vofe oF the full committee that tharo is a need to take immediate aclion end that lhe neod for action aurte to tha altentlon o(fhe commitlea�fter the egantla was posted. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THk AMERICRNS WiTH OISABfUT1ES�ACT. IF YOU NEEO SPEC�AI. ASSISTAN��E 70 '� � PARTICIPATE W A CITY ME•ETING. PLEASE GONTACT THE OIREGTOR OP ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES f473- �,F 5ata) AT LEnST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETiNG �O ENSURE THq7 REASUNaB�E ARRANGEMENTS C,4N � ,r SE MADE TOTO THE�MEETMG. � � _J ,; . ----- --- � ,. FRG1 :CDD8EDD FRX W. :805" 473 5489 Jul. 1B 2[366 04:10NM PI ' " Poet-N'F8x Nots 7677 on'^ . � �o�s► � �. ._ To Ile.e,v, t� F.�, �.,� p Q ;, co�o�. cn. p` . C� PAone M t'nor�n a .�^t �•S�'I'ZLJ . . ,. Fwx.x �C'� Fu� - '�TES ,, J RY COMMITTEE {SAC) ►-ttstcJARY 18, 20U4 ° _ . aA.M. � STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEM$ERS PRESENT: Larry Schmidt, Buiiding; Victor Dever,'s, Pubiic Wo�ks; Randy Steffan(Acling Chie�, Fire: Dan Hemandez, Parks & Recreation; Rob Strong, '�' Community Development Director, Oave Crockett, Code Enforcement Officer, Kelly Heffemon, l�csociate Pianner, Jim Bergr*�an, l�ssistaM Planner; Andrea Koch, Planning Intem. � � STAFF MEMBERS A6SENT: Steve Andrews, Police; Terry Fibich, Fire (substitufed by Randy ': SteHan). ;: " APPROVAL OF NOTES: Minutes oi 1l2112004 SAC mseting approved, with minor ''' modifications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PROJEGTS: 4. A. CUP 04-0�1; Applicant—Sprint; Representative—TriC+a Knight; Location —200 Hillcresl brive. i� Project Planner—Keily Heffemon. ;� Descriotion: InstaliaTion of six 46' high panei antennas on existing o"2-toot monopine: assc�ciated , equipment cabinets to be bcated at ihe northwest oomer oi the propeity. Issues: • Applicant told Public Works that no grading or access roads are proposed. �, • Kelly Heffemon suggested that applicant discuss the landscaping and irrigation plans with ';' Shane Taylor in PubliC 1Norks Conditions: Public Works ° ' • Show any relevant grading on pfans. - Show plans to cross the existing 8"water main wilh utifitles and show separation: (Submit '; . these plans before tha Planning Commission hearing.) � Regrade accass road from Hillcrest to the water tank and apply Class 2 base. Building and Fire � • Obtain building permlts before c�nstruction. ' Action: Project to be reviewed by ARC on Marcri 1" and by the Planning Commission on Maroh '_ 16'� " B. PRE 04-004; Applicant — Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC: Representative — ,' ,` Dacnien Mavis; Location—Off Myrtle Street. Project Planner— KeUy Heftemon. Descriotion: Proposed new 37-!ot subdivision and Neighborhood Plan off Myrtle St�eet. l . , f LZ 'd � ES0966tiS06 scyuej�y dlE =Zi 90 6(l ',:dag � `,i . . . _ . � � ._._ _. _ _. ; FW.ii`7 :CDD3EDD FRX rD. :605 473 5489 . ,.lul_ 36 20El6 E14:10PM P7_"f, NOTES - SAC MEETING �� DRAFT . PAGE 2 , FEBRUARY 18,2004 r Rob Strong deslgnated Keily Heflemon as the Acting Community Development Director for.this ? project and left the room bafore discussion ensued due to a potentiai conflict of interest on his :': ; part. tssues: ' • Project subject to a fuil Neighborhood Plan for the Genaral Plan. --� Issues conceming drainage, open space and circulation. - • Development subjec[ to a '!00' ag. buffec . � Applicant obtalning traffic analysis stucly. -� Appticant stated that project design is intended to efiminate thru-traffic, a concern o,` - neighbors. a • Applicant looking for a meihod to undarground dralnage and_route it io the creek. Needs I'- to determine how to direct drainage over land !f the drains clog. Looking for direction .':. trom the Clty regarding this. • Appiicants and RRM hava held 3 workshops with propeRy owners in Neighborhood Plan _ area and adjacent areas. Common issues were�-1} Concems regarding t�affic impact to �s Cherry St. and Branch Mill Rd. interseetion, desire to make intersection safer, 2) Uesire '4 ' for pedestrian.bridge linking proposed park to school;_ and 3) Drainage-Some want to 'i prevent Oooding experieneed in the past,want back parts of their property gi4en ta City 4 in easements. , • Public Works and Parks. Fac0lties 8 Recreation agree ihat costs for lon�-term ';�_. matntenance ot the proposed pedestrian 6ridge.make it infeasible. I • Guidelines for Neighborhood Plan probabiy similar to those ior Specific Plan. P12n wiii „ �_ designate density and address Infrastructure needs and results oF T�d�c Analysis: • Neighborhood Plan will be a Planned Development Oyerfay. • Probable future conneccion of area with Lopez Drive as discussed in General Plan. � No current plans to realign Highway 227. � � Applicant considering instaliing sidewalks on external driva and not on intemal drive to widen intemai drive aocess. • Keily Heffernon requested change of name for Creekside Project to prevent confusion '? wfth another currenily proposad project: Pubiic Works ' ■ Don Spagnolo to comment further on circulation issues. • Inslali 8"water main trom propeny froniage at E. Cherry lo Lierly Lane. (Currently th�s main is only 4".) • Connect 6" main under Myrtle Street to the 6' main at Lierly Lane and ali tfie necessary " - meins on site. . • Two sewer mains closest to project site not.deap enough to gravity-teed. Inslali paraliel sewer main from manhole at inlersection oF Pac�c Coast Railway and E. Cherry all the way down f. Cherry. 5ize needs to be su�cient for any futuie developmeN on Caldwotl Trust property-at least 8"_ '^ • Install two 72" pipes to repiace current earthen ditch (ealled for in Drainage Master Flan). i: ' Project Can probably tap into on-site tlrainage system. i • Pr,ovide AC berm alon ` g propeAy adjacent to agricWtutal uses, Agricuftural conservation ?, � easement on property may stipulate appropriate actions. ? i ■ Extend Myrtle Street tomatch the Village. � Conduc! new tiood sludy because FEMA Maps are otd. I �l - �; . ---- ---...--- — -- - ---- ---------- gZ •d ESOS6BbS08 stzueT�d dzE :zT 90 601,� da� n. �P.JM :CDD8EDD FRX hD. �:805 473 54B? Jul_ 18 200fi E30:SBPM P3i: li NOTES SAC MEETING DRAFT PAGE 3 �',; PEBRUARY�8, 2004 ' Buiiding and Fire ' • Provide oompliant fire acCess through entire project or instait sptinklers throughout aU ' units. Prefer use of sprinklers. � • Loi#2 nesds sprinklers regardless of accesswidth. !� • Provide 20' wide accass, 36' wide if parking on both sides of street. • Provide flre hydrants per City standards at 300' intervals on each side so that each hydrant is '150' from another one. Required fire 11ow of 1000 gal.lminJ2 hours. • If garage of Vanderveer house is demoiished, obtain permit to build a new garage {�er the Map Act. • Add any speciai setbacks (I.e. for agriculture, creek) to Final Map. � • Obtain tlood certificates for each building permit. (FEMA Flood Maps show 100-year '�, ffood zone extends weN into the developmenf.) Parks. Recreation 8 Facilities • Remove proposed park area and increase lot size. Cify, especialiy Police, noYinterested ',: in green space in middle ot city due to maintenance issues, lack of access for poliaj. , • .Provide deep root barriers for street Vees. Property owners responsibte for maintaining trees in front of 4heir homes. •. Assessment dis[rict probably necessary to maintain open space around riparian coRidor. ' � Provide low-maintenance open space, such as a picnic area; that is unobtrusive to the riparian coRidor. � • ,Plant trees on City's street tree list. (Wiii provide list to applicani.} � { Action: ARC on March 1": PC and CC review in March. C. ARCH 03-ODS; Applicant — Phif Zeidman; Representative - Irvin Klein; Location — 528 E. : Branch,Street. ProJect Planner— Ryan Foster. I Dascriation: Proposai to relocate and remodel exlstMg building end construd one (Y) new ',� mixeal-use building. Appiicant not present at SAC meeting. Issues: I�� • This project was reviewed before ..as a proposed segment ot the Planned Unit ; Development (PUD) at East Vitlage Plaza.. During this time, ARC determined that the " � existing house, due to hlstoric character, should be retainecl rather than demolished as ' originally suggested'by the applicant. ARC additionally recommended an alternalive site 'i ' Plan_ '; ' � - ' The orlglnal PUD was approved by the Pianning Commission and appealed m the Clty ',. � Council. (fhe �eason for the appeal was not this parcei.) ;: � Applicant has now submitted new site plan. It i�ciudes more resldeMiaF mizsd-use as F: desired by the City Council. � ' � New plan looks as if it wili camply with Vifiage Mixetl-USe pa�king standards requlred by i: the pevelopmenl Code. ;, • Before famal review oi project, need to determi�e whett�er this proJect is a substantial ;i alteraUon 10 the previous PUD. Probably is a subslaMial alte�ation because it includes 2 ''i 1 r i I units not de icted in che lans ori inail submitted, lr structures, 2 evets, and 3 esldenta p P 9 Y - Staff has not deemed pian complete yet need to first determine appropriate concoms to �; ' address. I � , ;: ' , ; � S , j -- - , --- --- - - ---- � � 6Z 'd ESOS6BbS08 sc3uei3H dZE =Zi 9U 6IJ da�, i! , n i 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 lefter into the record regarding the Reservoir#1 project expressing concerns with regard to removal and �eplacements 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 sixt�five foot communication tower; and a potential • ; - reduction in propeRy values. Gene Blanchard, 419 GreenwoocJ 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 inJited the Council to a showing of the movie Rachel's Daughters on October 24�' 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. I , George Smith spoke in oppositiom regarding the decision to reione the parcel next to ' � the Greenwood lract and spoke of a past initiative to overturn a zone change decision at this location. He stated the voters overwhelmingly.overtumed 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. invoivement as a concemed citizen with a history of concem 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 Lierly Lane, 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 a�ea. ' !+ i ,, ; - :� CITY COUNCIL-MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 5. i 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 Disbu'rsement Ratification. � Action: Approved the listing of cash disbursements for the period September 16, i 2001 through September 30, 2001. �` 8.b. Statement of Ihvestment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of "r. 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 intertund i - 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: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None � ABSENT: None . '� There being SAYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. ' 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 9.a. Consideration of the 2001 General Plan Update Policy Documents and Elements and Einal Environmental Impact Report(FEIR): ' Consultant Rob Strong presented the staff report.. Staff recommended the adoption of three Resolutions which are the cuimination of public hearings held on July 31, August 16, August 23, August 28, September 4, September 6, and October 3, 2001. He said ';;. Council 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 imtegral 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 pre4ious 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 cu�rent 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 Plan wouid be Single Family Residential Medium , --- —— - _ . , CITY COUNCIL�ININUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 6 ' i Density with a required Neighborhood Plan. He said the Neighborhood Plan would be a prerequisite to any subdivision or parcel 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 Ferrara 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 it 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. � r Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, also spoke on _behalf of Mike Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, regarding Land Area 7E, opposing the recommended land use classification. :which. could result in a maximum density of 60-80 units. Slie said there are currently less than 12 units at this location. She stated she did not support rezoning this area af a higher density. She indicated that they and many of the residents on Lierly Lane support Mr. Dortman's plan to buld 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 backto one Per acre. �: Wayne King thanked the Council for its consideration regarding the Vanderveen property. �. ; Hearing no fuither public comments, Mayor.Lady closed the Pubiic Hearing. f, , 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 hag done a gallant job in its participation and iYs 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 concemed tFiat the decision.by a majority of the Council regarding the Vanderveen property upzone lacked the same pubiic 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 ihe Vanderveen request. 's. , , , . i f 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 Iegal 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 � Ernironmental 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 Council feels they want to move forward with the recommendation on the . t 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 CEQA analysis as provided by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7 that considers loss of prime soils as a significant adverse environmental ' � impact. Consultant Strong stated he had add�essed that at a p�evious meeting and explained that because the current General Plan does not wntain 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. . li., 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 � eliminate the Ordinance aitogether 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 consistentiy. 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 Councii decision regarding the Ordinance that wouid be subject to environmental review. - _ , � CITY COUNCIL•MINUTES ', OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGEB Consultant Strong replied that each change, whether it is a Development Code change 'a 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 broad terms the cumulative effect of development of the City'over the 20-year planning period. He stafed 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 Vandenreen 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 agricultural parcels within the City of Arroyo Grande, 30 parcels of which are 10 acres or less and 25 parceis are five ac�es 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 i � majority of the Council is willing to undo an ag mitigation 25-years old thaf 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 question because he does not answer to another Council Member, he answers to the citizens of Arroyo Grande. He concluded by stating he stood by his decision. �; _ --.. _ � f CITY COUNCIL-MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 9 Council Member Dickens asked City Attomey 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 Atiorney Carmel responded yes, and explained that one way, was through the � traditional IegislatiVe process, explaining that General Plan Amendments can legally occur at least four times per year. He explained that the othertwo 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 wou�d 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,within 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. � I Council Member Dickens referred to the Ag Element, Objective Ag1 where it says "Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate loss of prime soils...". He said that he would have a difficuit time looking at this document based 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 clear 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 to 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 be appropriate to mitigate it, not minimize it. He ; concluded by saying those were the areas that he had concems with in the document " � and Jie 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 9� 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,forward with, including all the changes that were . ^ made during deliberations. He referred to the Vanderyeen property and stated he had ;t given a lot of thought to the entire process and to this property. He said he had a lot of �k 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 }f � � � � ��. , I; I . ,. , 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 i believed that he was protecting prime agriculture; however, �he was also looking at areas that have nof 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 seyeral 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 that 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 woulii not support a clear definition at.this time without , seeing any project information to assign a percentage to one use or the otfier, He concluded by supporting the General Plan Update. Council Member Runels stated tFiat being in the agricutture 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 �.se designation. He said he believed ' r 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 r 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 forvuard. ` Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara proposed some text changes in Exhibit A, Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, and Exhibit B, Statement of ` Overriding Considerations., Ne requested that the Council 8gree 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, Clean 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 B 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 parUcular document. He + requested that Finding #6 be omitted. ` i� --. F . . "_ _ ` ' " " ii__. CITY COUNCILi�AINUTES OCTOBER 9,2001 ' i` PAGE 71 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 Attomey Carmel stated he ;�� thought they dealt with different issues. He said the Constitutional Compiiance 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; i however, it states something that was not stated in any other of the "Overriding I� Consideration Findings. He also commented fhat it was the only finding that deals with economic issues. r. Following further Council and,staff discussion, tlie 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 subdiyision pattern , ' • � , � ; . Planned development will provide opportunities ''' for construction and new business employment and contribute to increased revenue from additional property and sales taxes, a' positiye ecoriomic impact on the fiscal heelth ,. 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 6�night. With regard to the E. Cherry property and an overview of past discussions with Mr. Dorfman regarding the property, he stated he believed that a compromise was reached with the Mixed Use classification of the property. He 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 agricuRure, but that was the reality of compromise. ;; ,�. � s� , �. • — --, — � I CITY COUNCILMINUTES j 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 4he density. Ne stated that his position on 7E was that he was not comfortable leaving it Medium '� Density at the last �ineeting 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. , � Ne 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 hea�d 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 Uanderveen property and referred to,the Land Use Map depicting the field of green with a pa,tch 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 'i; 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 after reviewing the surveys, 'f chairing the Long Range Planning Committee and lieing as involved, there is no way that he was voting to convert prime ag: He said that the Council, with the exception of 's 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 fecord 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 end 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 property. Mayor Pro Tem said the last issue he wanted to raise is similar to the wording � suggested by Council Member;Dickens of Ag1. He saiii he was not pleased with this wording at the last meeting and his views 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 to minimal parcels, perhaps five-acre parceis, and , ,i . --- --- -- - - - �. . ',„: CITY COUNCIL•MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 ' PAGE13 - 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 summarize, 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 tfie 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 i 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 pubiic 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 a 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 i � document. He noted that fhe 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 Attorney 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 i' that and the General Plan Elements. City Attorney Carmel responded there would not be a direct connection. On the followi ng rol�call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady ° NOES: None ABSENT: 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 PIan.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 Element, Agricultural and Open Space/Conservation � ---- _—_ -- -- _ - - i:. _ . _ .. • � CITY COUNCIL�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 Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin; Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady � NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, tFie motion is hereby declared to be passed. � Council� IV�m6er Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution adopting the 2001 General Plan Update including Land Use; Agricultu�e 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 foilowing roll-cail yote, to wit: � ' AYES: Lubin, Runels, Lady . NOES: Dickens, Ferrara �,; ABSENT: None ' i 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 af 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 seeking direction from the Council on whether to proceed to o6tain 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$25,000. ;; , Council Member Lubin asked if the PEG fund would be ongoing whether or not the � Council decided to proceed. City Manager Adams replied it would. '' Council Member Runels asked for clarification that it this was not considered a utility tax. City Manager Adams responded it was not; it is a special fee that is established in , i - _ . ! �i , � � j :;(iKi1Y0 GttNNDE (iENf'_Iti1L PLAN ;UtJS WUkNSfIOP PUL'LIC INPUT I ��8 � Slrongly Ac�ree Somewhat Somewhat Stronc�ly No Opinion m ! A9ree Disagree Disac�ree Q Number % Namber % Number °/u NumGer % Number % ': < .. ' ny • a�n . ��✓aa; ij^.� �� *S'w s. ' L. :e x ',' S` � � -',r,}�; o i.`.1,.. 'Z:,d >S�V f: p 5 Fh� V^_��Y� e�yY .� �$.siR , =��3e�y� Z X Yx S : t �.: � 3 2> ! ♦ i '.♦ ,� i n t .. � � hat:5houJd.�`e_theGharact�r,oP.thetlqlage7< �.a,.�.:.,;a. �;� . >,.,< .�� ...° •, .< .. � ;., ,. �r.», ° ,...., ' � FO .Y�n .. . :? .i . r •.�: A. Maintained As Is 42 37 5 0 50.0% 4A.0% 6.0% 0,0°k B. Encourac�e Comp�emenlary Uses 72 14 0 0 83.7% 16.3% 0.0% 0.0% m C. Ouldoor Uses 77 0 1 0 0 99.5°/a 9.3% 1.2% 0.�% �n D. More Tourist-Orienled Uses 3�J 33 3 13 � 44.3% 37.5% 3.A% 23.6% � E. Attracf a Major Desiination 11 34 15 30 � 0 12.2°k �7.8% 16.7% 53.6% W F. Intensi(calion Of Housin� 3 12 11 57 i � - 3.6% 14.5°/a ' i 13.3°h 80.3;'0 1.4% IG. Prohibil Cumpeling Developmenls � �15 � 23 15 25 19.7% I30.3% 19.7°!0 43.4% H. Expanded Community Facililies/Cily Hall 17 95 19 21 J 18.5% 98.0% 20.7% �6.8% 9.9% -- ------- ----- --.. .__, -------' ----- --- -- '- - - --- I. Cullural Uses 53 25 13 0 r 58.2% 27.5% 14.3°io 0.0°/u J. Pedeslrlan Oriealed Slreel hnprovements 6� 17 1 0 j I 76.9% --- 21.8°,�0 _ 1.3% _ 0.0%- - 1.3%_ �,� K. Vehic�darOdeNedStreellrtiprovemenis 4 4 2UT a3 ii v'+ � ' J 5.1%a 5.1% ' J5.4% 57.�% 1.9°/a ---- --------------- ----- ---- ---- --- ---- --- - -- --- +� L. Re-Roidin� a( Bus and Truck TrafOc 51 1•f � 12 r�p ti3.6% � I•7.5% J.fl°,'a 18.2°'0 __ --� --------._.....-------- -_...---' '" t�1. Parhin� lmprovemeids 41 i6-- ----_ _5 ----- g-- "-_ _--� _ _---- ,N ,¢ 57.7"/0 ?2.5% 7.0°io 1fi.4S� �Q I� I � I � ., I � I c P. I Q � I EIP Assxi��es�March 24, 1998 a R I W ' ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAf� �IONS 'rVORKSHOP pUBUC INPUT I�I� � ` � 0 - - �D Slrongly Ac�rec Somewhat Somewhal 5tronyly No Opinion o Agree Disagreo Disagree � Number - % Numhe� % Number %a Number °/a Number % ' � hatTypes 4t Hoiismg ShaUld 8e, ;' "� s; f °' ;� * � , " , >< � + ., N > o.'. x ;. R f'i sw1 . v�, a ! - z r :' p ' 't < i > E{ICOl11.ii-�81�7 :7: C ' ' _� Y' ,s :-, r . ..o..:� f ' �i" :.: x�,�,,..Y � e.. ' .> .. A ••:-...,.....::3:..`s...s:..._.. ��'� .u.._.una:: -..; ....�' t ......u.. ;. . . .:..�......... •� .. . �p � . Lorp� l.ol, RurnllEstele SFD AO � 33 1.1 2 � ��.W.�� 50,0% 35.9'/0 12.D'/o 9.A% 1� � ( ------------------- - - - - --- ---- -+- ----_.. B. "Typlcai" Loi 5ingle Family Cetached 39 35� � 6 � 2�' .. '�l.0% � 43.4'/0 7.2'/0 �1��1 �.3'/0 -�'' '------.....------_.-'-"-----".-'------ --'--' _-'_....'- �----�----.' -'•--_ "'- ._.__... . .-'--' . ....."' M C. 5mall i_ol, Sin�!e Family De(ached ZG 32 12 20 � -�-�'� _ ___ 20_9% 35.0% 13.3% 34.5`/0 _ 7 D. Seniors Housinc� Z5 �36 9 2� 1 �' 34.7"/0 50.0% 12.5% 5.6°/a 1.6% a -----°-- -_...._.__._...---- ------- ----- --- ----' --- ----- -----� --- ---- E. Towntiomes 5 �6 16 15 6.9% 50.0% 22,2% A1.7% F. Low Rise Renlal Aparimenls 11 26 20 28 12.9% 30:6'/0 23,5% 47.5% G. Low Rise Ownership Condominlums 6 31 10 22 01"/0 44.9% 14.5% 57.9°,'0 �� H. High Oensity Residenllal- --_�-- - 1 �---- 7 [ --13 -- - - _ 74 - -- _ - - - 1.1% � 7.4°io 1J.7"/o Ha.t"/o - --- - ' -- - --�=- � --- . .._. . r._. __ . . . I. Encourage Ihe Developmenl of Flousing lor 7 7_1 21 45 �ower Income Housing7 7.4% 22.3% 22.7% 61.6% m hat I„ype of Residetttial Ne�ghborhoods , � „�r,s :; t .;t �� , . Should 6e Deve�:ed7� 4' : t ,x S � •s• ' � > • � �A ..�..._.«_. ....._... .u •: _..�.......::.....„ .,. ......a..:....s.. ......:�....... . ...�r i ..._....... i......._...... ,..c.......... .............. . ....... ...._...._. ...._._.......,- A. 7rad Housing 3 5 28 55 �n 3.3"/0 5.5% 30.0% 64.0"/o p ------- ----- - .__.. .---- -._._... .......--- ---- --------.._�. __._.,. ... ._._._._ �-- --- - 8. Neo-Tradilional Neighborhoods 23 44 14 12 1 �" U`1a{ •.l! '•• ^ : '� . ; � 24.7% 47.3% 15.1% 24.5% 7.3% � i.: � , ,:�, fi . . li � C. "Fil"IRe(lecl Environmental Resources 86 9 2 0 , 88.7% 9.3% 2.1% D.0% � . � � . EIP Assacialesiblarch ZQ 199tl . �3� � ;Ep ��9 '06 12: 15p Rtlantis 8054895053 p. 3 URBAN LAHD USE ELENiEMT a�si�xrriac a�irr,zc�i�c.v��+u¢Anow�w�m Residential land uses,rangirg fmm large-fot sngle-famiry homes tn mulOple-fartuly apariment bufld'mgs are the predomirk�n*.uses within the Crty of Arroya Grande. Most of the land withi�the Gty desigrtated for resdential use has been develoQed• The dsnand fw additional residenlial devebprtient is evidenced by requests for conversion of non-resideritial dauificatia�s to resdPntia� devgnations as wPJI as requests to inaease the density allowed within residential and riorrresdential classifxations• Residential density, zoning mtegories and population der�aty shown on the Urban land Use 0ement, Map 3 are summarrzai on Table; LI1-1. Res6dentia! Densitv Tabte LU-A Oas,iflodon p16��' ��t 7�rs1nc/N9n L6t S¢¢ PaSOrGA�bt�o�d van Pooutatlon DeRbN versons/aae Agricu(tu2(Ag) 1 du/l0ac Gen o�Exdusive Aykvt[u2/ 2.4p/du 0.24 p/ac 20 ac (currQntly 10 ac In Crty) � i du/20ac 0.12 p/ac Consenrdtion/ 1 du/l0ac. OS&PF 2.4" 0.24 p/ac Open 5pace(GOS) i d�JSac Sac,SDac,&20 ac 0.5 p/ac l:ounry R�ddential i du/Sac Cnurrty RR/S-10ac 2.4" 0.5 p/ac Rural(RR) County R�dential 1 du/Z�/aac.* Courrty RS(Propase� 2_4^ 1.0 p/ac Suburban(RS) (Cnunty W O arrently ailows 1-3 ac lo�) "-Sngle Fam'u-y 'Rt�dentlal(SFR) --------- vr Low nerts iau 2 �fsc_ R Phac. L4' 1.0 /ac tnw Der�sity(iD) ' RHl1'h3c.(duster) 2.4 1. p aC 1 du lac Gty RR/1 ac. 2.4" 2.4 p/ac ��?��N, '�'" . Low Medum Density(L.M) 2.5 duJlac. Gty RS --- 2.4" 6.0 p ac /�-L '�Z�i�. _ hSedium DersR.y(MD) 4.5 duJa[ Gty SF 2.4" 30.8 p/aC ;�p ,;�jt-�� --__---- ---- - JJ Multi-Famiy Residential (MFR) l�-��1/_c"_��?P.Y_ - M2dfurtl tHgh Densty(MHD) � - TownhouseJCondo 9.0 du/ac Gty MF 2.0 p/du 18.0 p/ac Mobile Home Paric(MHP}12.0 du/ac M19-IP-MHD 1.5 p/du 18.0 p/ac High Oensity(HD) 14 du/ac Gty MFA 2.0 p/du 28.0 pJac Apartrnen� Very High Densty(VtiD} 25 du/ac Senior Residential Z.0 p/du 50,0 p/ac � Mixed Use(MU} Yllage Core{VC) ZS duJac See 2.0 pJdu 50.0 p/ac Office(0) p�t PD, SP ancl CF �e !�E- 5 �ep 09 'O6, .2: 41p Atlantis 8054895053 p. 5 FPOM :CDDBEDD FRX N0. :805 473 5469 Jun. 02 2606 02:45PM Pil � L� �""d `7� P:O.Boz S50 (_� v ieL(/!?�ll'.P . 214 fiaet Braneh Strcet Arroyo Grvnde,CA 93421 Phonc:(B0�473•5420 COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENC FAX:(sos�a73-o�ss E-Mall:age(�p@arroyogrande. Jenuary 24, 20Q5 Mr.Tony 7a�iorvicz 447 Lierly Lanc Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Subject: Conditional Use Per�nit 03-OOZ; Convcrston of structure to a second dwe)ling unit; 44'1 Lierly Lane. Mr. Janowicz, This letter is to clarify our cotrespondence dated January 12, 2005 and o�ir subsequent meeting on January 20, 2005_ Thc Communiry Uevclopment Depanment again appreciates yrour current progess including improvements to the heater, gas lines, paint, carpet and clectrical systems. As we discussed, the Commvnity Development llcpartment would like to see issuance of a demolition permit and residontial sprink2er permit as s�>on ns possible and substantial conformanee of the conditions of approvei within six months. We apotogi�e for and retract our statement that you cannot allow occttpancy of the I struch�re prior to completion ofthe eonditions of approval oFConditional Use Pormit 03- 002. If you have. sny furiher questions, please fed frec to contect the Commmrity Development Department at (803) 473-SA20. �^ � erel , o S on o mu velopihent Di tor • . 7" He� a � Ass ta e ;ep �9 'Ob _: 41p Rtlantis 8054895053 p_ 6 � �� . ADMINISTRATIVE (TEM NO. 6 t� � ` P.O.B ox 550 � ^' aQ� 214 East Branch Slreet _'�`�2�" V��Z"`"`� ArroyoGrande�CA93t21 Phone: (80�473-5420 �MMUNCI"Y DEVELOPh1ENT FAX:(80�473-0386 E-Tiaii:ageity@arroyogrande.org June 1, 2006 Tony Janowicz 447 Lierly Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Subject: Approval of Plot Plan Review 06-009; Location —795 East Cherry Ave. Dear Mr. Janowicz, i 7he Acting Communi:y Development Director has approved your application for a Plot Plan Review to remove the existing house and accessory structures on the subject property a�d construct a new home and garage further back on the lot. This approval is based on the finding that reiocating the residence further away from adjacent Agricultural property wouid better the situation byproviding an opportunity to widen both East Cherry Ave. and Lierly Lane, currentiy not possibie with the existing situation. The residence would also be approximately thirty-five feet (35') further away from the active Agricuitural land thar. the current configuration. The pertinent Development Code Section is 16.48.110.C.3 (nonconforming uses, structures and lots). The City Attorney concurs with this finding. r �V•� � 7he Acting Community Development Director's approvai of this project wiil be reported ' to the Planning Commission at its meeti�g of June 6, 2006. If the Planning Commission concurs and no appeat is received, the approvai �vill become effective on June 16, ZU06. Please note that this approval is subject to.the attached conditions of approvai. � " Piease review these conditions carefully; as the applicant, you are responsible to ..ensure that these conditions are satisfied. n„• _ �' If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development Department at j805) 473-5420. S i�e ly � /�� --- 1� /�J / � �� , Q� �. Kelly F rerno AICP � �� ' Acfing Community Development Director � �� , . c: Tim Carmel, City Attorney \ � I Jonathan Hurst, Building OfFicial �� , (,�-f-f��it� M ;�n a�� .-�"r�s February 13, 2004 Ptanning Commission City of Arroyo Grande Re: Conditional Use Permit#03 - 002. Applicant: Janowitz As you are aware, there are two elements for "your consideratian . . . . , the approval of a substandard nonconforming dwelling and the access via Lieriy Lane, an eight foot wide easement. The preexisting dwelling falls fall short of the secondary dwelling ordinance on the foilowing requirements: 1. Size. The existing dwelling, while having a footprint of 1504 sq.it, 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 ciosed 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 dwelting ordinance requires common utility meters. The proposed secondary dwelling has separate meters. � 3.lnterior 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 wi?h 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 eventuafly the area would be zoned multi-family as called for in the General Plan update subiect to the development of a neiqhborhood plan: The possability of this happening in the near term is not likely since the majority of the parcet owners on Lierly Lane and east are not in a� agreement as to the area's future. L •d ESOS68bS�8 si3uej�d dZy :Zt 90 60 dar I �p • �g� p : 43p Atlantis 8054895053 p • 9 , �� 7ichael G. Titus 40=! Lierly Lane Arro}o Grande, CA 93420 As presentiy proposed I am opposed to granting a permanent use permit to the i applicant unless tt�e existing dwetiing is altered to meet the ordinance and the health I and safety requirements are met. � Respectfuliy, I� Mike Titus CC: Rob Strong, Community Deveiopment Director Steve Adams, City Manager � - i � -- - - _ - - -- - - .._ _ _ i 10.a. pRROy� O� C,p FINCORPORATED 9.l u ° m � JULY l0. 1911 * c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL , FROM: DANIEL HERNANDEZ, PARKS, RECREATION AND FACILITIES DIRECTOR TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEYf(jj SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AND THE 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION (400 WEST BRANCH STREET) DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review, approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached Lease Agreement (the "Lease") with the 5 Cities Community Services Foundation (the "Foundation") of property located at 400 West Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. FUNDING: The Foundation is responsible for all funding and related costs associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed recreational facility. Additionally, the Foundation is responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments related to the subject property. DISCUSSION: The City of Arroyo Grande ("City") owns approximately 5.3 acres of certain real property located at 400 West Branch Street (the "Property"), Arroyo Grande, adjacent to the Woman's Club and Community Center. The Property was acquired from the County of San Luis Obispo and was deeded to the City with a deed restriction requiring the premises to be used for municipal facilities or to be leased to a private non-profit organization for the use and fulfillment of a charitabie purpose, specifically including youth recreation. , On December 13, 2005, the City Council considered a pre-application review of a proposed community recreational center to be constructed on the Property (the "ProjecY') by the Foundation, a private non-profit organization. The proposed Project is a 58,602 square feet structure which is intended to be utilized for a flexible arrangement of youth oriented recreational activities including, but not limited to, basketball, volleybali, exercise rooms, dance and aerobics. At the pre-application hearing, the City Councii provided comment and recommended that the Project move forward, and that CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AND THE 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 2 the construction of the Project take place only after design and approval of funding for the Brisco/ Halcyon Interchange improvements is completed. On October 11, 2006, the City Parks and Recreation Commission considered the attached Lease and recommended that the City Council approve the Lease. The Lease The Lease provides for a fifty (50) year initial term with annual automatic extensions. Beginning with the first day of January of the year where the Lease will have an unexpired term of nineteen (19) years, and each first day of January thereafter, an additional year is added automatically to the remainder of the initial term, unless a notice of nonrenewal is given. The Lease includes specific provisions which require the commencement of construction of the proposed Project improvements by no later than five (5) years after completion of the Brisco /Halcyon Interchange improvements. The Lease further requires such improvements to the Property to be completed no later than ten (10) years following the commencement of construction. The Foundation will be required to pay the City one dollar ($1.00) per year as well as pay for all utilities, taxes and assessments. The Lease is necessary for the Foundation to secure financing for the Project. The Foundation's legal counsel, J Johnson, has reviewed and approved the Lease. If approved by the Council, the Lease will be agendized for consideration and ratification by the County Board of Supervisors, as required by the deed restriction. ALTERNATIVES: The following aiternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Lease; 2. Provide comment and direction to staff; and 3. Do not approve Lease. Attachment: 1. Lease Agreement ' LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT ("Lease") is made and entered into this day of , 2006, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, California, by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ("City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICE FOUNDATION ("5 Cities Foundation"), a California non-profit corporation, with reference to the following facts and intentions: � RECITALS � WHEREAS, City is the owner of a real property located at 400 West Branch Street in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California and legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein ("hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"); WHEREAS, the Premises are zoned Public Facilities and were deeded to the City by the County of San Luis Obispo with a deed restriction requiring the premises to be used for Municipal Facilities or to be leased to a private nonprofit organization for use and fulfillment of a charitable purpose, including community recreation; WHEREAS, consistent with the deed restriction, the 5 Cities Foundation proposes to lease the Premises from City for the purpose of community recreation and related purposes; WHEREAS, the 5 Cities Foundation proposes to build certain improvements upon the Premises consisting of a community center totaling approximately 58,602 square feet, with facilities that include, but are not limited to, a flexible arrangement of basketball and volleyball courts, community and exercise rooms for gymnastics, dance and aerobics (hereinafter referred to as the "ProjecY'); WHEREAS, the parties find that it would be to their mutual advantage and overall public benefit for City to lease the Premises to the 5 Cities Foundation as described herein in order for 5 Cities Center to proceed with the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein, contained and other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall, for all purposes of this Lease, have the following meaning as set forth below. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 1 of 17 1.1 5 Cities Foundation shall refer to the meaning assigned thereto in the preamble hereto. Additionally, 5 Cities Foundation shall also refer singularly and collectively to 5 Cities Foundation and 5 Cities Foundation's officers, members, agents, employees, and independent contractors as well as to all persons and entities claiming through any of these persons or entities 1.2 City shall refer to the meaning assigned thereto in the preainble hereto. Additionally, City shall also refer to singularly and collectively to City and the respective Council members, officials, officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, and independent contractors of these persons or entities 1.3 Improvements. The term "improvements" or "improvemenY' includes, but is not limited to, construction, grading, restorations, alterations, rebuilding, additions, changes, repairs, upgrades, replacements, remodeling, reconditioning, or modifications of any and all portions of the Premises of which includes, but is not limited to, all portions under, on and above the Premises. 1.4 Laws and Orders. The term "laws and orders" includes all laws, statutes, ordinances, standards, rules, requirements, regulations, decrees, judgments, or orders now in force or hereafter enacted, promulgated, or issued by all federal, state, county, city, or other governmental agencies, courts, departments, commissions, boards, and officers. The term also includes government measures regulating or enforcing public access, occupational, health, fire, earthquake, or safety standards for employers, employees, landlords, or tenants. 1.5 Lease Commencement Date. The Lease commencement date is the date of Lease set forth in Article 1, Section 1.6. 1.6 Lease Term. This Lease shall be effective as of the day and year first above written and shall remain in effect for an initial term of fifty (50) years therefrom; provided, however, that beginning with the first day of January of the year in which the Lease will have an unexpired term of nineteen (19) years, and each first day of January thereafter, a year shall be added automatically to the remainder of the initial term unless a notice of nonrenewal is given as provided herein. If either party desires not to renew this Lease, that party shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of this Lease on the other party at least ninety (90) days prior to the automatic annual renewal date of this Lease specified above. 1.7 Premises. The Premises refers to the building and real property and any and all improvements thereon located at 400 West Branch Street in the City legally described in Exhibit A and which is the subject of this Lease. ARTICLE 2. LEASE, CONDITION, FAILURE TO COMMENCE/COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 2 of 17 2.1 Lease of Premises. In consideration of the rents, covenants, and agreements contained in this Lease, City hereby leases to 5 Cities Foundation, and 5 Cities Foundation hereby leases from City the Premises. 2.2 Lease Conditional upon Approval by City for Use. 5 Cities Foundation acknowledges that this Lease is subject to and conditioned upon final approval of the Project by City and that this Lease does not warrant, represent, promise, guarantee or secure final approval of the Project. 5 Cities Foundation acknowledges that this Lease may, at City's sole discretion, be subject to and conditioned upon design completion and approval of funding for improvements related to the Brisco/Halcyon intersection. 2.3 Name of Landlord and Tenant. The landlord is the City of Arroyo Grande and the tenant is the 5 Cities Foundation. 2.4 Present Condition of Premises. 5 Cities Foundation represents that it has conducted an inspection and examination of the Premises that are the subject of this Lease and acknowledges that the Premises is currently a vacant unimproved parcel and requires improvement to make the Premises usable for the Project 2.4.1 As-Is Condition. 5 Cities Foundation accepts the Premises as-is, in their present condition or state as of the date of this Lease, including any and all patent or latent defects, without any representation or warranty, express or implied in fact or by law, by City and without recourse against City as to the nature, condition, or usability of the Premises. 2.5 Failure to Commence Improvements. 5 Cities Foundation hereby acknowledges that failure to commence Improvements (the "Improvement Commencement Date") as described herein reasonably after, but by no later than five (5) years after the completion date of the Brisco/ Halcyon interchange improvements will result in the City being vested with the right to cancel, without.incurring any liability, the remaining term of the Lease. 2.6 Failure to Complete Improvements. 5 Cities Foundation hereby acknowledges that failure to begin, subsequently sustain, and ultimately complete construction of Improvements within a reasonable time following execution of this Lease for any reason whatsoever will result in the City being vested with the right to cancel, without incurring any liability, the remaining term of the Lease. For purposes of this Lease, a reasonable time for completion of construction shall be ten (10) years from the Improvement Commencement Date described above. 2.6.1 Such time for completion shall be extended for so long as 5 Cities Foundation shall be prevented from completing the construction improvements by interference or delays beyond the reasonable control of 5 Cities Foundation, as determined by City in its sole discretion. 2.7 Reservation of Rights. City reserves all rights in the economic value of the leasehold, and all rights reserved to the City by operation of law. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 3 of 17 ARTICLE 3. RENT AND ADDITIONAL RENT. 3.1 Base Rent. 5 Cities Foundation shall pay to City on or before the last business day of the first month of each Lease.year a base rent in the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) per year for each year of the Lease term. 3.2 Additional Rent. In addition to the base rent, 5 Cities Foundation shall pay an additional rent comprised of the payment of all utilities (Article 5), payment of assessments, both currently levied and imposed in the future and possessory interest taxes (Article 6), and the payment of insurance (Article 7). ARTICLE 4. USE OF PREMISES. 4.1 Permitted Use and Maintenance of Premises. During the Lease term, 5 Cities Foundation shall solely use the Premises consistent with the terms and conditions set forth in the final approval by City for the Project which shall be oriented to community recreation and youth sports and events and related incidental uses generally appurtenant to the business of the 5 Cities Foundation. 5 Cities Foundation may use the Premises for special events relating to the community, subject to obtaining City's authorized written consent. 5 Cities Foundation shall landscape and maintain the grounds outside the building in a manner consistent with the final approval of the Project. 5 Cities Foundation shall not use or permit the Premises to be used for any other purpose without City's prior written consent, which may be granted or withheld in City's sole discretion. During the Lease Term, 5 Cities Foundation, at its sole cost and expense and at no cost and expense to City, shall continuously and without exception repair, maintain, and make improvements to all portions of the Premises to ensure that all portions thereof are in a good order, safe condition, and repair in compliance with all laws and orders. 4.2 City's Right of Access to and Use of Premises. City and its agents shall have the right at all reasonable times to enter the Premises to perform functions, including, but not limited to the following: inspect the Premises; show the Premises to prospective purchasers or mortgagees; serve, post, and keep posted notices required by law or that City considers necessary for the protection of City or the Premises; inspect the Premises for any purpose connected with the care and management of the Premises; perform services required of City; take possession due to any breach of this Lease; perform any covenants of 5 Cities Foundation that 5 Cities Foundation fails to perform, or for any other purpose reasonably connected with City's interest in the Premises. City also reserves the right to use the grounds outside the building and may use the building itself without charge for functions, activities, or meetings on mutually agreed upon dates and times by requesting the same from 5 Cities Foundation, whose consent to such use by City shall not be unreasonably withheld. ARTICLE 5 UTILITIES. 5.1 Payment of Utility Services as Additional Rent. 5 Cities Foundation shall initiate, contract for, and obtain, in its name, all utility services required for the Premises, including LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 4 of 17 gas, electricity, telephone, cable, internet, water, janitorial, trash removal, sewer, and any other utility used, utilized or consumed in the Premises during the Lease term. 5 Cities Foundation shall pay, and hold City and the Premises free and harmless from all charges for utility services as they become due as part of the rental of the Premises. All such charges shall be paid by 5 Cities Foundation directly to the provider of the service and shall be paid as they become due and payable, but in any event before delinquency. City may elect to immediately terminate this Lease if 5 Cities Foundation fails or refuses to pay the charges for utility services as assessed or incurred. ARTICLE 6. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. 6.1 Payment of Taxes and Assessments as Additional Rent. The execution of this lease may create a taxable property interest in the Premises for the 5 Cities Foundation. In such event 5 Cities Foundation shall pay such possessory interest taxes when due and hold the City harmless therefor. In the event that a special assessment is imposed on the Premises that relates to 5 Cities Foundation's use of the Premises, 5 Cities Foundation shall be responsible foc payment of such assessment(s). The City may elect to immediately terminate this Lease if 5 Cities Foundation fails or refuses to pay taxes and/ or assessments. ARTICLE 7. EXCULPATION, INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE. 7.1 Exculpation. To the fullest extent permitted by law, 5 Cities Foundation, on its behalf and on behalf of all 5 Cities Foundation parties, waives all claims, in law, equity, or otherwise, against City, its officials, employees and agents, and knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of, and agrees that City parties shall not be liable to 5 Cities Foundation parties, for any of the following: injury to or death of any person; or loss of, injury or damage to, or destruction of any tangible or intangible property, including the resulting loss of use, economic losses, and consequential or resulting damage of any kind from any cause. City parties shall not be liable under this clause regardless of whether the liability results from any active or passive act, error, omission, or negligence of any of City parties; or is based on claims in which liability without fault or strict liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on any of City parties. This exculpation clause shall not apply to claims against City parties to the extent that a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction establishes that the injury, loss, damage, or destruction was proximately caused by City parties' fraud, willful injury to person or property, sole active negligence, or violation of law. Such exculpation shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease until all claims within the scope of this exculpation clause are fully, finally, and absolutely barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 5 Cities Foundation acknowledges that this section was negotiated with City, that the consideration for it is fair and adequate, and that 5 Cities Foundation had a fair opportunity to negotiate, accept, reject, modify, or alter it. With respect to the exculpation provided in this Article, 5 Cities Foundation waives the benefits of Section 1542 of the Civil Code, that provides that "a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 5 of 17 7.2 Insurance. Without limiting 5 Cities Foundation indemnification of City, 5 Cities Foundation shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the Lease, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with Five Cifies Foundation's operation and use of the Premises. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by Five Cities Foundation. 7.2.1 Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: a. 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 while land is unimproved and $3,000,000 per occurrence upon commencement, throughout, and after construction of improvements; b. 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 $5,000,000 per accident. If 5 Cities Foundation owns no vehicles, this requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy described above. If 5 Cities Foundation or its employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, 5 Cities Foundation shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. c. Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Ovec 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 5 Cities Foundation, assigns or others. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $5,000,000 per occurrence. 7.2.2 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention. Any deductibles or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or 5 Cities Foundation shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 6 of 17 7.2.3 Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability policy is to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provision: a. City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of premises owned, occupied or used by 5 Cities Foundation. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers; b. 5 Cities Foundation's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, o�cials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of Five Cities Foundation's insurance and shall not contribute with it; c. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers; d. Coverage shall state that 5 Cities Foundation's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability; e. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City; f. 5 Cities Foundation 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. 5 Cities Foundation also agrees to require all approved assigns to do likewise. 7.2.4 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. BesYs rating of no less than A- or better and a minimum financial size VII. 7.2.5 Verification of Coverage. 5 Cities Foundation shall furnish City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause prior to commencing any work on or occupying the Premises. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by City before 5 Cities Foundation takes possession of the Premises and any work commences. As an alternative to City's forms, 5 Cities Foundation's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 7 of 17 7.2.6 Aggregate Limits/Blanket Coverage. If any of the required insurance coverage's contain aggregate limits, or apply to other operations or tenancy of 5 Cities Foundation outside this Lease, 5 Cities Foundation shall give City prompt, written notice of any incident, occurrence, claim, settlement or judgment against such insurance which in 5 Cities Foundation's best judgment will diminish the protection such insurance affords City. Further, 5 Cities Foundation shall immediately take all steps to restore such aggregate limits or shall provide other insurance protection for such aggregate limits. 7.2.7 Modification of Coverage. City reserves the right at any time during the term of this Lease to change the amounts and types of insurance required hereunder by giving 5 Cities Foundation ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. 7.2.8 Failure to Procure Insurance. Within the foregoing constraints, 5 Cities Foundation's failure to procure or maintain required insurance or a self-insurance program shall constitute a material breach of contract under which City may immediately terminate this Lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance to protect City's interests and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and recover all monies so paid from 5 Cities Foundation with market interest. 7.2.9 Underlying Insurance. 5 Cities Foundation shall be responsible for requiring indemnification and insurance from its employees ' receiving mileage allowance, consultants, agents and subcontractors, if any, in the same amounts and including the same terms as specified herein, to protect 5 Cities Foundation's and City's interests, and for ensuring that such persons comply with any applicable insurance statutes. 7.2.10 Personal Property of 5 Cities Foundation. City may continue to provide property insurance for the Premises. Said property insurance shall not provide coverage for 5 Cities Foundation's personal property. 5 Cities Foundation waives any claim against the City's insurance for or relating to damage to its personal property. 7.3 Indemnification. 5 Cities Foundation, its Board of Directors, and the directors individually, shall, at 5 Cities Foundation's sole expense, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to City, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and City parties from and against any and all claims from any cause, that arise out of, result from, or relate to this Lease, the tenancy created under this Lease, or the Premises, including the use or occupancy, or manner of use or occupancy, of the Premises by 5 Cities Foundation parties; any negligent act of 5 Cities Foundation parties or of any invitee, guest, or licensee of 5 Cities Foundation, or any other person authorized by 5 Cities Foundation to use the Premises or any portion thereof; 5 Cities Foundation's conducting of its business; any improvements, activities, work, or things done, omitted, permitted, allowed, or suffered by 5 Cities Foundation parties in, at, to or about the Premises, including the violation of or failure to comply with any applicable laws and orders in existence on the date of Lease or enacted, promulgated, or issued after the date of Lease; and any breach or default in performance of any obligation of 5 Cities Foundation's part to be performed under this Lease, whether before or during the Lease term or after its expiration or earlier termination. The intention of the parties being that with respect to compliance with laws LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 8 of 17 and orders that 5 Cities Foundation, during the Lease term, shall discharge and perform all the obligations of City, as well as all the obligations of 5 Cities Foundation, related to the Premises, and indemnify City therefrom, so that at all times the rental of the Premises shall be net to City without deduction or expenses on account of any such laws and orders. 7.4 Definition of Claims. For purposes of this Lease, "claims" means any and all claims, losses, costs, damage, expenses, liabilities, liens, actions, cause of action (whether in tort or contract, law or equity, or otherwise), charges, assessments, fines, and penalties of any kind (including consultant and expert expenses, court costs, and attorney fees as defined in this Lease). 7.5 Type of Injury or Loss Defined. This indemnification extends to and includes claims for injury to any persons (including death at any time resulting from that injury); loss of, injury or damage to, or destruction of property (including all loss of use resulting from that loss, injury, damage, or destruction); and all economic losses and consequential or resulting damage of any kind. 7.6 Effect of Negligence, Strict Liability, or Willful Misconduct. Such indemnification shall apply regardless of the active or passive negligence of City parties and regardless of whether liability without fault or strict liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on City parties. The indemnification shall not apply to the extent that a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction establishes that a claim against one City party was proximately caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of that City party. In that event, however, this indemnification shall remain valid for all other City parties. 7.7 Survival of Indemnification. The clauses of this Article shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease until all claims against City parties involving any of the indemnified matters are fully, finally, and absolutely barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ARTICLE 8. ASSIGNMENT. 8.1 Approval of Assignment. 5 Cities Foundation shall not, without the City's prior written consent, permit assignment of any of its rights, delegation of any of its duties, assignment of all or any interest in this Lease, by operation of law or otherwise; sublet all or any part of the Premises or any right or privilege appurtenant to the Premises; or suffer any other person, other than City's agents and servants, to occupy or use all or any part of the Premises. In City's sole and absolute discretion, City may withhold its consent to any assignment, sublease, occupation, or use. City shall not be bound by any standard of reasonableness in exercising this discretion. Any assignment, subletting, occupation, or use by another person or entity without City's prior written consent shall be void and shall, at City's option, terminate this Lease. If 5 Cities Foundation requests City to consent to a proposed assignment, subletting, occupation, or use by any other person or entity, 5 Cities Foundation shall pay to City, whether or not consent is ultimately given, City's actual attorney fees and costs, as defined in this Lease, incurred in connection with each such LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 9 of 17 request. City's consent to one assignment, subletting, occupation, or use by any other person or entity shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment, subletting, occupation, or use by another person or entity. The City reserves the right, at City's absolute discretion, to modify the terms and conditions of this Lease to any assign or sublet including, but not limited to, term and rent. As used in this provision, "assignmenY' and "delegation" shall mean any sale, gift, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance, or other transfer of all or any portion of the rights, obligations, or liabilities in or arising from this Lease to any person or entity, whether by operation of law or otherwise, and regardless of the legal form of the transaction in which the attempted transfer occurs. 8.2 Successors and Assigns. Subject to section 8.1, this Lease shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective legal representatives, successors, and approved assigns. ARTICLE 9. TERMINATION OF LEASE BEFORE EXPIRATION OF LEASE TERM. 9.1 Grounds for Termination. 9.1.1 Breach of Lease. Either party to the Lease may terminate this Lease if the other party has committed a breach of the Lease as defined in Article 11. There is no monetary penalty for such termination, except for any costs and fees expressly provided for in Articles 9, 11, 13 and 14. 9.2 Termination Procedure. The party exercising the right to terminate shall provide written notice of the intent to terminate to the other party. - If the termination is pursuant to section 9.1.1, the party shall give a prior written notice of at least ninety (90) calendar days prior to the date of the intended termination. The notice shall state the reason for the termination. 9.3 City's Purchase of Improvements Upon Termination. Upon termination of the Lease by City, as set forth in subsection 9.1.1, City shall not be responsible for any reimbursement, whether in whole or in part, for 5 Cities Foundation's actual out of pocket costs for the permanent improvements (or any other improvements) that 5 Cities Foundation made to the Premises. For purposes of this Article, "permanent improvements" shall mean those improvements that are affixed or attached to the Premises and not removable without material injury to the Premises. 9.4 Rights and Obligations Cease. All rights and obligations of the parties shall cease on termination of the Lease unless otherwise provided by the terms of the Lease. Neither party shall be liable to the other for damages of any kind, including without limitation incidental or consequential damages, resulting from any termination of this Lease, except as specifically provided for herein. ARTICLE 10. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 10 of 17 10.1 Removal of 5 Cities Foundation Property. On the expiration or earlier termination of the Lease term, 5 Cities Foundation shall quit the Premises and surrender possession to City. On expiration or termination 5 Cities Foundation shall remove or cause to be removed from the Premises all debris and rubbish, any items of personal property exclusively owned by 5 Cities Foundation, and any other non-permanent improvements that 5 Cities Foundation placed on the Premises, unless City approves their remaining on the Premises in which case ownership of any such improvements automatically passes to City. 5 Cities Foundation shall repair all damage or injury that may occur to the Premises caused by 5 Cities Foundation's removal of those items and shall restore the Premises to their condition that existed when the Lease commenced. ARTICLE 11. DEFAULT. 11.1 Acts of Default. Any of the following events or occurrences shall constitute a material, breach of the Lease by 5 Cities Foundation and, after the expiration of any applicable grace period, shall constitute an event of default, each being a separate event of default: 11.1.1 Failure to Pay Costs or Charges. The failure by 5 Cities Foundation to pay any amount in full when it is due under the Lease. 11.1.2 Failure to Perform Obligation. The failure by 5 Cities Foundation to perForm any obligation under the Lease, which by its nature 5 Cities Foundation has no capacity to cure. T1.1.3 Failure to'Perform After Notification. The failure by 5 Cities Foundation to perform any other obligation under this Lease, if the failure has continued for a period of ten (10) days after City demands in writing that 5 Cities Foundation cure the failure. If, however, by its nature the failure cannot be cured within ten (10) days, 5 Cities Foundation may have a longer period as reasonably needed to cure the failure, but this is conditioned upon 5 Cities Foundation promptly commencing to cure within the ten (10) day period and thereafter diligently completing the cure. 5 Cities Foundation shall indemnify, defend and hold City harmless against any liability, claim, damage, loss, or penalty that may be threatened or may in fact arise from that failure during the period the failure is uncured. 11.1.4 Assignment. Any of the following: A general assignment by 5 Cities Foundation for the benefit of 5 Cities Foundation's creditors; any voluntary filing, petition, or application by 5 Cities Foundation under any law relating to insolvency or bankruptcy, whether for a declaration of bankruptcy, a reorganization, an arrangement, or otherwise; the abandonment, vacation, or surrender of the Premises by 5 Cities Foundation without City's prior written consent; or the dispossession of 5 Cities Foundation from the Premises (other than by City) by process of law or otherwise; 11.1.5 Appointment of Trustee or Receiver. The appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of 5 Cities Foundation's assets; or the attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of all or substantially all of 5 Cities LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 11 of 17 Foundation's assets located at the Premises or of 5 Cities Foundation's interest in this Lease, unless the appointment or attachment, execution, or seizure is discharged within thirty (30) days; or the involuntary filing against 5 Cities Foundation, or any general partner of 5 Cities Foundation if 5 Cities Foundation is a partnership, of: a. A petition to have 5 Cities Foundation, or any partner of 5 Cities Foundation if 5 Cities Foundation is a partnership, declared bankrupt, or b. A petition for reorganization or arrangement of 5 Cities Foundation under any law relating to insolvency or bankruptcy, unless, in the case of involuntary filing, it is dismissed within sixty (60) days; 11.1.6 Abandonment. The abandonment of the Premises by 5 Cities Foundation for thirty (30) or more consecutive days. 11.1.7 Waiver. Waiver by City of any default in pertormance by 5 Cities Foundation of any of the terms, promises, or conditions contained herein shall not be deemed a continuing waiver of the same or any subsequent default. In the event any officer, agent or employee of City shall consent to an act or failure to act in violation of any provisions of this Lease, such act or failure to act shall be immediately corrected upon a request from City in writing. 11.2 Remedy on Event of Default. If an event of Default occurs, the nondefaulting party shall have the right to terminate the Lease and to pursue any remedy now or later available to the nondefaulting party at law or in equity. ARTICLE 12. EXPIRATION OF THE LEASE TERM. 12.1 Ownership of Improvements by City. Upon the expiration or termination of the Lease, any and all improvements made to the Premises by 5 Cities Foundation shall automatically, without compensation or reimbursement to and without any act of 5 Cities Foundation or any third party, become the City's property. ARTICLE 13. ATTORNEYS' FEES. 13.1 Attorneys' Fees. Costs. and Expenses. In any litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding in law or equity by which one party to the Lease seeks to enforce its contract rights under the Lease, to resolve an alleged dispute, breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this Lease, to seek a declaration of any rights or obligations under this Lease, or to interpret the provisions of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party actual attorneys' fees incurred to resolve the dispute and to enforce the final judgment, award, decision, or order and such fees, costs; or expenses shall be in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled. The award of attorneys' fees shall be deemed to have accrued upon the commencement of the action and shall be paid whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment, award, decision, or order. "Proceeding" shall LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 12 of 17 mean any action, suit, claim, arbitration, alternative dispute resolution mechanism, investigation, administrative hearing, or any othe� proceeding, including but not limited to civil, criminal, administrative, regulatory, or investigative. The attorneys' fees to be awarded the prevailing party may be determined by the court or other decision maker in the same action or proceeding or in a separate action brought for that purpose. Any judgment, award, decision, or order entered in such action or proceeding shall contain a specific provision providing for the recovery of actual attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing such judgment, award, decision, or order. The award of attorneys' fees shall not be computed in accordance with any court schedule, but shall be made so as to fully reimburse the prevailing party for all attorneys' fees, paralegal' fees, and expenses actually incurred in good faith, regardless of the size of the judgment, award, decision, or order, it being the intention of the parties to fully compensate the prevailing party for all actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, and costs and expenses paid or incurred in good faith. This provision applies to the entire Lease. ARTICLE 14. EMINENT DOMAIN 14.1 If the whole of the Premises should be taken by any public or quasi- public authority under the power or threat of eminent domain during the Term, or if a substantial portion of the Premises should be taken so as to materially impair the use of the Premises contemplated by 5 Cities Foundation, and thereby frustrate 5 Cities Foundation's purpose in entering into this Lease, then, in either of such events, this Lease shall terminate at the time of such taking. In such event, of the compensation and damages payable for or on account of the Property, exclusive of the buildings and improvements thereon, 5 Cities Foundation and lender, as their interests may appear, shall receive a sum equal to the worth at the time of the compensation award of the amount by which the fair rental value of the Premises exceeds the rent payable pursuant to the terms of this Lease for the balance of the Term; the balance of such compensation and damages shall be payable to and be the sole property of the City. All compensation and damages payable for or on account of the buildings and improvements located on the Property and constituting a part of the Premises shall be divided among City, 5 Cities Foundation, and its lender as follows: 14.1.1 All compensation and damages payable for or on account of buildings and improvements having a remaining useful life less than the remaining Term as of the date of such taking shall be payable to and be the sole property of 5 Cities Foundation and its lender, as their interests may appear; and 14.1.2 A proportionate share of all compensation and damages payable for or on account of buildings and improvements having a remaining useful life greater than the remaining Term as of the date of such taking, determined by the ratio that the then remaining Term bears to the then remaining useful life of such buildings and improvements, shall be payable to and be the sole property of 5 Cities Foundation and its lender, as their interests may appear, and the remaining share thereof shall be payable to and be the sole property of City. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 13 of 17 14.2 If less than the whole of the Premises should be taken by any public or quasi-public authority under the power or threat of eminent domain during the Term and this Lease is not terminated as provided in Section 14.1 above, 5 Cities Foundation shall promptly reconstruct and restore the Premises, with respect to the portion of the Premises not so taken, as an integral unit of the same quality and character as existed prior to such taking. The compensation and damages payable for, or on account of, such taking shall be applied to the reconstruction and restoration of the Premises by 5 Cities Foundation by application, first, of any sums payable for or on account of the buildings and improvements situated on the Property. The remainder, if any, after reconstruction and restoration shall be divided among Landlord, 5 Cities Foundation and Lender in the manner provided in Section 14.1 above. ARTICLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS. 15.1 Notices. To be effective, all notices, requests, demands, and other communications required or permitted under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Notice is deemed effective on delivery if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given and delivery is confirmed by a receipt. Notice is deemed effective on the second day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given, by first class mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and properly addressed as set forth below. Any correctly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the party to be notified shall be deemed effective as of the first date that said notice was refused, unclaimed, or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities. The addresses for purposes of giving notice are as set forth below but each party may change its address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. If to: 5 CITIES FOUNDATION: 5 Cities Community Service Foundation 400 West Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0633 CITY: City of Arroyo Grande Attn: City Manager P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0550 15.2 Discrimination Prohibited. No person shall, on the grounds of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under this Lease. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 14 of 17 , 15.3 Nondiscrimination. Equal Employment Practices and Affirmative Action Program. 5 Cities Foundation shall comply with the nondiscrimination laws of the United States of America, the State of California, and City in performing this Lease. 5 Cities Foundation shall not discriminate in its employment practices against any employee, or applicant for employment because of such person's race, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, physical handicap, or sexual orientation. 15.4 No Mortgaging Leasehold. 5 Cities Foundation shall have no right to subject the leasehold estate or the Premises to any mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest. 15.5 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in this Lease. 15.6 Effectiveness. This Lease shall be effective only when signed by both parties to the Lease and approved by formal action of the City Council of City. 15.7 Necessary Acts/Other Instruments. The parties shall at their own cost and expense execute any and all other documents and instruments and shall take any and all actions as may be reasonably required, necessary, or appropriate to evidence or carry out the intent and purposes of this Lease. 15.8 Good Faith. Each party to this Lease shall act in good faith in pertorming their respective obligations set forth in this Lease. 15.9 Waiver. The waiver of any breach of any condition, covenant, term, or provision of this Lease by any party to this Lease shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach under the Lease, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 15.10 Authorizations. All officers and individuals executing, this and other documents on behalf of the respective parties do hereby certify and warrant that they have the capacity and have been duly authorized to so execute said documents on behalf of the entity so indicated. Each signatory shall also indemnify the other party to this Lease, and hold them harmless, from any and all damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other expenses, if the signatory is not so authorized. 15.11 Headings and Captions. The captions and headings of this Lease are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed a part of this Lease and shall not be used in interpreting this Lease or in determining any of the rights or obligations of the parties to this Lease. 15.12 Word Usage. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the plural and singular words shall each be deemed to include the other; "shall," "will," or"agrees" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive or discretionary; "or" is not exclusive; the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; and "includes" and "including" are not limiting. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 15 of 17 15.13 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Lease shall be or become illegal, invalid, null, void, unenforceable, or against public policy, in whole or in part, or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, null, or void, or against public policy, the term, provision, covenant, or condition shall be deemed severable, and the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired, or invalidated. The term, provision, covenant, or condition that is so invalidated, voided, or held to be unenforceable shall be modified or changed by the parties to the extent possible to carry out the intentions and directives set forth in this Lease. 15.14 Counterpart Execution. This Lease may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 15.15 Entire Agreement. This Lease constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the parties pertaining to the Lease and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, promises, representations, warranties, understandings, or undertakings by either of the parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature. No party has been induced to enter into this Lease by, nor is any party relying on, any representation or warranty outside those expressly set forth in this Lease. 15.16 Amendments: This Lease may be altered, amended, modified, or supplemented only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties to this Lease and by no other means. No alteration, amendment, modification, or supplement of this Lease shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by both parties. Each party waives their future right to claim, contest, or assert that this Lease was modified, canceled, superseded, or changed by any oral agreement, course of conduct, waiver, or estoppel. 15.17 Ambiguities. Each party and its counsel have participated fully in the review and revision of this Lease. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed the Lease with the approval of its City Council, and caused its official seal to be affixed and 5 Cities Foundation has executed the Lease in accordance with the authorization of its Board of Directors and has caused its official seal to be affixed. LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 16 of 17 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BY: Tony Ferrara, Mayor Date: Attest: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Date: As Approved to form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney Date: 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION By: Its: Date: LEASE AGREEMENT 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Page 17 of 17