CC 2012-09-25_09.a. Appeal CUP The Pike and Elm StreetTO:
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL I\M"
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH,'~=OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: RYAN FOSTER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-007; LOCATION
- SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PIKE AND SOUTH ELM STREET;
APPLICANT - PETER BURTNESS AND ANNIE ROBERTS (APPEAL
OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL)
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25,2012
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) adopt the attached Resolution denying the
appeal and approving Conditional Use Permit 12-007, and 2) instruct the City Clerk to
file a Notice of Determination.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL SERVICES:
None identified by staff.
Item 9.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND:
Current Entitlement
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2060 on April 15, 2008. 'This
Resolution approved an entitlement for a tentative tract map (subdivision) and planned
unit development consisting of eighteen (1 8) townhomes and five (5) studio apartments
(24.5 equivalent dwelling units; refer to density discussion below) on the 1.27-acre
property. Due to State-mandated extensions, this entitlement is valid through April 15,
201 5.
Proposed Proiect
The applicants, who recently purchased the property, propose to develop the 1.27-acre . .
site with twenty-three (23) Lo-bedroom apartments, five (5) studio apartments and a
1,004 square-foot commercial building. This is equivalent to 25.5 dwelling units. The
proposed project includes sixty-three (63) total parking spaces - forty-six (46) garage
spaces and seventeen (17) surface spaces.
Planning Commission Approval
The Planning Commission first considered the proposed project at its meeting of July
17, 2012. The Commission commented on the project and provided direction to the
Item 9.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 3
applicant based on public comment received at the meeting and continued its
consideration of the project to August 21, 2012. The applicant made several revisions
to the proposed project based on direction from the Commission, and the Commission
approved the project at its meeting of August 21, 2012 (Attachment 1). The Planning
Commission staff report and related materials can be accessed at:
http://www.arrovonrande.ora/calendar/08/21/2012/18:00/plannina-commission-meetinq/.
This approval was appealed on August 28,2012 (Attachment 2).
ANALYSIS OF ISSLIES:
Zoning
The project site is located in the Office Mixed-Use (OIVlU) zoning district, which allows
for various combinations of residential, office and commercial uses. The OMU zoning
district, along with other mixed-use zoning districts located throughout the City, was
created to provide consistency between the City's Zoning Map and Land Use Element,
which was overhauled as part of the 2001 General Plan update. These mixed-use
zoning districts replaced the former General Commercial (GC) zoning district. As stated
in Municipal Code Section 16.36.020(H), the primary purpose of the OMU zoning district
is to:
"...provide areas for the establishment of corporate, administrative, and medical
offices and facilities, commercial services that are required to support major
business medical development, and multi-family housing. Retail facilities and
support business are encouraged to serve nearby office and residential
uses. Typical uses include, but are not limited to, professional and medical
offices, business-related retail and service functions, restaurants, health clubs,
financial institutions, medical and health care facilities and multi-family
housing. " [emphasis added by stav
Density
The OMU zoning district allows two different maximum densities: twenty (20) dwelling .. .
units per acre for mixed-use projects, and fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre for
residential projects. The minimum required density is 75% of the maximum density.
Municipal Code Section 16.04.070 defines a mixed-use project as:
". . .a project, which combines both commercial and residential uses, where the
residential component is typically located above or behind the commercial use. "
As a mixed-use project (containing both residential and commercial uses), the proposed
project is allowed a maximum density of twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. Based on
a project site of 1.27 acres, the project's maximum allowed density is 25.5 dwelling units
(Municipal Code Section 16.48.060 allows rounding up to the next half number).
Item 9.a. - Page 3
CITY COLlNClL
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 4
The proposed project includes twenty-eight physical dwelling units: twenty-three (23)
two-bedroom apartments and five (5) studio apartments. This is equivalent to 25.5
dwelling units per Municipal Code Section 16.36.030(C)(2). Density equivalencies are
used to reflect the proportional impact of a dwelling unit based on its size - e.g., a four-
bedroom dwelling unit has a greater impact than a one-bedroom dwelling unit in terms
of water use, traffic generation, etc.
The previously approved townhouse project includes twenty-three (23) physical dwelling
units, which is equivalent to 24.5 dwelling units. This is due to the inclusion of eight (8)
three-bedroom units, each of which is equivalent to 1.5 dwelling units. The difference in
density equivalence between the previously approved townhouse project and the
proposed project is one (I) dwelling unit (24.5 vs. 25.5).
Proiect Revisions
The applicant has revised the plans for the proposed project subsequent to the Planning . . omm mission's approval to address concerns regarding-the commercial building. he
manager's office and on-site laundry facility have been moved to the ground floor of the
studio apartment building and the commercial building footprint has been reduced from
1,200 square-feet to 1,604 square-feet. The commercial building has been shifted to
the north and west to accommodate a greater setback along South Elm Street.
Additional articulation has been added to the rear of the commercial building (facing 7-
11). After further consultation with the owner of the 7-1 1 property, a pedestrian gate
has been added to the project, allowing residents to access the 7-1 1 property from the
interior of the project site. The project still exceeds minimum requirements for open
space, averaging 352 square-feet of open space per dwelling unit.
Commercial Building
The proposed project includes a 1,004 square-foot commercial building. No specific
use has been identified for this space. Any future use of the space will be subject to the
provisions of Municipal Code Section 16.36.030 (Commercial and Mixed-Use
Regulations). This section specifies which uses are permitted, permitted with approval
of a minor use permit, permitted with approval of a conditional use permit, or not
permitted. Any commercial use that will operate outside the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00
PM will require approval of either a minor use permit or conditional use permit per
Municipal Code Section 16.48.065(D)(3).
Parking
The City's Municipal Code (Section 16.56.060) defines off-street parking requirements
by land use. The off-street parking requirement for apartments is one (1) space per
studio apartment and 2.5 spaces per two-bedroom apartment. The off-street parking
requirement for commercial uses is one (1) space per 250 square-feet of gross floor
area. The off-street parking requirements for the proposed project are as follows:
Item 9.a. - Page 4
CITY COLlNClL
CONSIDERATION OF CLIP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 5
The proposed project includes a total of sixty-three (63) off-street parking spaces -
forty-six (46) spaces in two-car garages and seventeen (17) surface spaces. Municipal
Code Section 16.56.050 allows the total off-street parking requirement to be reduced by
up to 20% for shared uses, such as residential and commercial. The proposed project
is utilizing a parking reduction of 6% (4 spaces), consistent with Municipal Code Section
16.56.050. Staff supports the utilization of this reduction based on the residential and
commercial uses having different hours of operation, and absent the 1,004 square-foot
commercial building, the project is fully parked per Municipal Code Section 16.56.050.
While residential uses are essentially 24-hour operations, peak parking demand
(especially for guest parking) typically occurs in the evening and overnight.
Approximately twelve (12) of the seventeen (1 7) surface parking spaces are intended to
be used for guest parking. As stated above, no commercial use can operate outside the
hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM without approval of either a minor use permit or conditional
use permit. The utilization of a shared parking reduction could provide grounds to deny
such a permit for a commercial use operating outside the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Use
Studio apartment
Two-bedroom apartment
Commercial
Total
Traffic
Several traffic-related concerns have been raised by neighboring property owners,
including:
Quantity
5
23
1004
Increased traffic volume;
Safety of intersection (crosswalks, vehicle queuing, blind spots, etc); and
Pedestrian routes to Fairgrove Elementary School (sidewalks, access ramps,
etc);
Required Off-Street Parking
5
57 5
4.02
In reviewing the proposed project, staff calculated the expected peak-hour trips that the
project will generate. Consistent with City Council Resolution No. 351 1, these
calculations were made using traffic generation rates published in 2002 by the San
Diego Council of Governments (SANDAG) (this is the most recent edition). Based on
these calculations, the proposed project is expected to generate an additional 208
vehicle trips per day, with 18.73 peak-hour trips occurring in the PM (based on 28
dwelling units and a 1,004 square-feet of commercial space). This increase is well
within the parameters of the City's General Plan, which provides policies to guide future
growth of the City. Furthermore, the City's established threshold for determining when a
traffic study is required for a development project is twenty (20) peak-hour trips (General
Plan Policy CT2-3). Because the project is expected to generate less than twenty (20)
peak-hour trips, the applicant was not required to submit a traffic study.
67
Item 9.a. - Page 5
CITY COLlNClL
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,201 2
PAGE 6
There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding traffic generation rates vs. traffic
counts based on past public comment relating to the proposed project. Traffic
generation rates are used to estimate traffic that a project will generate if built, based on
its use category (residential, commercial, etc.) and size (number of dwelling units,
square-feet, etc.). This estimate includes both a daily total and a peak-hour total.
Peak-hour simply refers to the highest number of trips that a project is estimated to
generate in any one (1) hour. As stated above, the City uses traffic generation rates
published by the San Diego Council of Governments (SANDAG). These rates are
updated periodically; they were last updated in 2002. Conversely, traffic counts are
real-world counts of vehicles passing through a specific intersection taken at a specific
day and time. Traffic counts are included in traffic studies to evaluate existing
conditions at those intersections that may be impacted by a project. No traffic counts
were taken at any intersections for evaluation of the proposed project, as no traffic study
was required for the proposed project because the anticipated increase in peak-hour
traffic (18.73) is less than the City's established threshold (20).
The project was reviewed by the Traffic Commission (Attachment 3) and also the City's
Traffic Consultant (Attachment 4). The Consultant agrees with staffs assessment that
the additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed project does not warrant a
traffic study, as existing levels of service (LOS) at nearby intersections will not be
significantly impacted. The Consultant did suggest that the intersection at the Pike and
South Elm Street be re-striped and a raised island installed to increase safety and
efficiency. The Planning Commission's approval of the project included a condition of
approval (CoA #120) to implement this suggestion.
Adiacent Aqricultural Use
The project site is adjacent to a property that contains both the Halcyon Cemetery and
an active farm, owned by the Temple of the People. This property is located to the east
of the project, just outside of Arroyo Grande's City limits. Municipal Code Section
16.12.170(E) requires a 100' buffer between agricultural uses and non-agricultural uses
to minimize any potential conflicts between uses. South Elm Street provides a physical
buffer of approximately seventy (70) feet. At a distance of lll', Unit 20 will be the
closest structure in the proposed project to the agricultural use (the closest existing
residential structure in the neighborhood is approximately 89' from the agricultural use).
The project site frontage facing the agricultural use will be landscaped with various trees
and shrubs to provide a vegetative barrier for dust and noise control. Off-street parking
spaces will be located within the 100' buffer, behind the vegetative barrier.
The Temple of the People has submitted a letter requesting that any approval of the
proposed project include mitigation requiring the installation of new fencing along the
perimeter of both the cemetery and agricultural use and prohibition of on-street parking
along the east side of South Elm Street. The stated basis for this request is that:
Item 9.a. - Page 6
CITY COLlNClL
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 7
"Nothing will prevent these 'high density' residents from crossing into the farm
fields to poach crops, nor prevent the urination and defecation of their animals on
the farm land. In this modern farming era, agricultural sanitation is of critical
importance and a major reason why farmers continuously discourage any
trespassing onto their land. Encroachment from this high density population on
farm land will be uncontrolled. "
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any mitigation measures
imposed upon a project be "roughly proportional" to that project's impacts (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4)(B)). There is an existing wire fence with black netting
along the western perimeter of the farm and an existing wire fence without netting along
the perimeter of the cemetery. There are approximately 3,400 people living within a %
mile radius (the average distance traveled during a 5-minute walk) of the cemetery and
farm (US Census). Based on the citywide average of 2.33 persons per renter-occupied
household, the proposed project will add sixty-five (65) people to this total, an increase
of 1.9%. While the term "roughly proportional" is subjective, it is the opinion of staff that
the proposed project's proportional impacts to the cemetery and farm do not warrant the
installation of new replacement fencing around the cemetery or farm. The Planning
Commission agreed with staffs assessment and did not include any provisions for new
fencing in its approval of the project.
Site Drainaae
Stormwater runoff for the proposed project will be directed towards the southeast corner
of the ~roiect site. The proposed proiect will comply with all applicable policies and . - . -
codes regarding drainage'(re'ference Conditions of ~p~roval #82-#91), including interim
low-impact development (LID) standards. The goal of low-impact development is to
detain and retain (percolate) as much stormwater on-site as possible through the use of
disconnected down-spouts, vegetated swales, porous paving systems, etc. The
remaining stormwater run-off that is unable to be detained and retained on-site will flow
through a fossil filter and into a 12" drainage pipe. This pipe will run under South Elm
Street and connect to a new 48" drainage pipe that will replace the existing drainage
ditch that runs along the east side of South Elm Street, terminating at a city-owned
drainage basin south of Paul Place. All structures will be built with rain gutters and
down-spouts.
Underaroundina of Utilities
Municipal Code Section 16.68.050 requires new development to convert existing
overhead utilities to underground utilities. There are five (5) utility poles along the
perimeter of the project site, which provide overhead feeds to adjacent properties on
Paul Place and Russ Court. There is also an existing transformer mounted on the
northernmost pole that will likely be relocated into an underground vault. The ultimate
design of the utility conversion will be determined by PG&E, which will oversee all of the
work to convert the utilities under contract with the project applicant (who is responsible
for all costs associated with the conversion). Any damage caused to existing
Item 9.a. - Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 8
improvements (fences, gardens, patios) required to facilitate the conversion will' be
repaired in-kind as required by PG&E easements. The City will not issue any
certificates of occupancy until all utility work is satisfactorily completed.
Staff spoke with Bob Burke, PG&E Project Manager regarding the process of
undergrounding existing overhead utilities. Mr. Burke is familiar with the specifics of the
project site, having worked with the previous property owner to generate an
undergrounding plan for the previously approved project. Mr. Burke stated that while
there are several options for connecting the new underground utilities to the existing
residences, the voltage and quality of electricity entering the residence will not change.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Adopt the attached Resolution, denying the appeal and approving Conditional Use
Permit 12-007 and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination;
2) Do not adopt the attached Resolution; or
3) Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Approval of the proposed project will increase the City's apartment stock by twenty-eight
(28) units (23 2-bedroom and 5 studio apartments), serving approximately sixty-five (65)
persons and provide a neighborhood-scale commercial use in the Office Mixed-Use
(OMU) zoning district, consistent with both General Plan policies and Development
Code standards.
DISADVANTAGES:
Approval of the proposed project will impact the existing neighborhood, as it will develop
an empty 1.27-acre site that is adjacent to residences and commercial and agricultural
uses, although these impacts (traffic, ambient noise, etc) are considered to be less than
significant and expected for infill development of this type.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has reviewed the proposed project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and has prepared a Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT:
A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune on Friday, September 14, 2012.
Also on September 14, 2012, a notice of public hearing was sent to sixty-seven (67)
property owners within a 300' radius of the proposed project.
Item 9.a. - Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 12-007 (APPEAL)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes, August 21, 2012
2. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 12-007
3. Traffic Commission Minutes, August 6, 2012
4. Memorandum from Omni-Means
Item 9.a. - Page 9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-007 AND APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-007; LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PIKE AND SOUTH ELM
STREET; APPLIED FOR BY PETER BURTNESS AND
ANNIE ROBERTS
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 12-007 to develop a mixed-
use project consisting of twenty-three (23) two-bedroom apartments, five (5) studio
apartments and a 1,200 square-foot commercial building on 1.27 acres of vacant land in
the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving Conditional Use
Permit 12-007 on August 21,2012; and
WHEREAS, the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval on
August 28,2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the appeal and reviewed the project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA
and has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the
project is adequate; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of has considered the appeal and reviewed the project at a
duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the
provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of
this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan,
and the development policies and standards of the City.
The proposed mixed-use project is allowed in the Office Mixed-Use
(OMU) zoning district per Section 16.36.030 of the Municipal Code and
complies with all applicable development standards for the OMU zoning
district as set forth in Municipal Code Section 16.36.020. Additionally, the
proposed mixed-use project is consistent with Housing Element Policy
A. 9., which states:
Item 9.a. - Page 10
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 2 of 18
"The City shall continue to enable and encourage multiple-family, rental
apartments, senior, mobile home and special needs housing, in
appropriate locations and densities. These multiple family residential
alternative housing types tend to be more affordable than prevailing
single-family residential low and medium density developments. "
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the
district in which it is to be established or located.
The proposed mixed-use project would not impair the integrity or
character of the Oftice Mixed-Use (OMU) zoning district, as it is consistent
with the stated purpose of the OMU zoning district per Municipal Code
Section 16.36.020(H), which is to 'provide areas for the establishment of
corporate, administrative, and medical offces and facilities, commercial
services that are required to support major business medical
development, and multi-family housing. Retail facilities and support
business are encouraged to serve nearby oftice and residential uses.
Typical uses include, but are not limited to, professional and medical
oftices, business-related retail and service functions, restaurants, health
clubs, financial institutions, medical and health care facilities and multi-
family housing. "
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed.
The site is suitable for the proposed mixed-use, as the development
meets applicable development standards relating to density, parking,
building height, setbacks and open space.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure public health and safety.
There are adequate provisions for all utilities and services necessary to
ensure public health and safety. Water and sewer services will be
provided by the City of Arroyo Grande, electrical service will be provided
by PG&E, natural gas will be provided by Southern California Gas
Company and trash and recycling services will be provided by South
County Sanitary Services.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the
vicinity.
Item 9.a. - Page 11
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 3 of 18
The proposed mixed-use will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity as it will comply with all applicable codes and
standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Conditional Use
Permit 12-007 with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit
"A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by , seconded by , and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 25Ih day of September, 2012.
Item 9.a. - Page 12
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,201 2
PAGE 4 of 18
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, ClTY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, ClTY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, ClTY ATTORNEY
Item 9.a. - Page 13
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 5 of 18
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-007
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PIKE
AND SOUTH ELM STREET
This approval authorizes the development of a mixed-use project consisting of twenty-
three (23) two-bedroom apartments, five (5) studio apartments and a 1,200 square-foot
commercial building on 1.27 acres of vacant land in the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zoning
district.
PLANNING DlVlSON CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permit 12-007.
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to
the City Council at its meeting of September 25, 2012 and marked Exhibit "B".
4. The applicant shall agree to defend at hislher sole expense any action brought
against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of
the issuance of said approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof,
or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the
City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees
which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay
as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its
own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not
relieve applicant of hislher obligations under this condition.
5. Development shall conform to the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zoning district
standards except as otherwise approved.
6. All conditions of approval for the project shall be included in construction
drawings.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
7. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall pay all applicable in-lieu inclusionary housing fees per Municipal
Code Section 16.80.050.
8. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall re-stripe South
Elm Street from the Pike to the southern boundary of the City to include Class II
Item 9.a. - Page 14
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 6 of 18
bicycle lanes on each side of South Elm Street and a stop limit line on South Elm
Street at the intersection to The Pike, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development.
BUILDING DIVISION CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDI'I'IONS:
BUILDING CODES
9. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of all California Building and
Fire Codes, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
DISABLED ACCESS
10. Provide complete compliance with State and Federal disabled access
requirements.
FlRE LANES
11. Prior to occupancy, all fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police
Department and Fire Department guidelines.
FlRE FLOWIFIRE HYDRANTS
12. Project shall have a fire flow based on the California Fire Code appendix Ill-A.
13. Prior to combustible materials being placed on site, fire hydrants shall be installed
& operational, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards.
FlRE SPRINKLERS
14. Prior to Occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire
Department guidelines.
15. Provide Fire Department approved access & sprinkler-system per National Fire
Protection Association Standards.
FEES
16. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due (for your information, the
"Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions" is
provided below).
17. Water Meter, service main, distribution, and availability fees, to be based on
codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
18. Water neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
Item 9.a. - Page 15
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 7 of 18
building permit issuance.
19. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
20. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
21. Sewer hook-up & facility Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
22. Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
23. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) fee and State Green Building
fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit
issuance in accordance with State mandate.
24. Park Development fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
25. Park Improvements fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
26. Community Centers fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
27. Fire Protection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
28. Police Facilities fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
29. Impact fees to specific capital improvement projects as determined by the Director
of Community Development.
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:
Item 9.a. - Page 16
RESOLU'IION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 8 of 18
(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.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
30. 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
Maintenance Services.
31. Perform construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through
Friday, 7 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
Item 9.a. - Page 17
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 9 of 18
outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or approved by the
Community Development Director. The City may hold the developer or contractor
responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these
hours.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
32. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications.
33. Submit three (3) full-size paper copies and one (I) full-size mylar copy of approved
improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction.
34. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed
by the Community Development Director. One (1) set of mylar prints and an
electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required.
35. The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the Community Development 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 Community Development
Director.
36. 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.
f. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
37. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets,
utilities and retaining walls.
38. Landscape and irrigation plans are required within the public right of way, and shall
be approved by the Director of Community Development and Director of
Maintenance Services. In addition, the Director of Community Development shall
approve any landscaping or irrigation within a public right-of-way or otherwise to be
Item 9.a. - Page 18
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 10of 18
maintained by the City.
39. Demonstrate interior vehicular access and driveway aisles meet safe
deliveryttrashtemergency truck turning radii access throughout site.
40. A bus shelter with bench is to be constructed in the right-of-way adjacent to the 7-
I I store.
WATER
41. Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande
does not allow the use of hydrant meters.
42. Each parcel shall have separate water meters; optionally, each unit may have a
separate water meter. Duplex service lines shall be used if feasible. A registered
professional engineer or architect shall determine the sizes of the water meter(s)
required.
43. Extend a water main from the intersection of The Pike and South Elm Street
southerly along the property frontage as shown on the schematic drawings.
44. Extend a water main from the intersection of The Pike and South Elm Street
westerly along the property frontage as shown on the schematic drawings.
45. 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
high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be
submitted to the Director of Maintenance Services 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 for each new residential unit based on
the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
46. Existing water service lateral to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and
capped at the main in accordance with City Standards and the requirements of the
Director of Maintenance Services.
47. The onsite water service main will be looped through the site connecting to the City
water main both in Pike Street and South Elm Street. A water line easement will
be dedicated to the City.
48. The existing water pressure of the City water main in this area is above 80 psi.
Pressure-regulating valves will be necessary according to the current UPC for
each water service proposed.
Item 9.a. - Page 19
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,201 2
PAGE 11 of 18
49. A fire hydrant is to be placed on the looped water main.
50. Buildings required to use automatic fire sprinkler systems shall have individual
service connections. A fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the fire
services needed for each building.
51. A separate meter is required to serve the commercial building. The size of the
meter is to be determined by a registered professional engineer.
52. A separate meter is required to serve the site landscaping. The size of the meter
is to be determined by a registered professional engineer or architect.
SEWER
53. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral.
54. All new sewer mains must be a minimum diameter of 8 inches.
55. All sewer laterals within the public right-of-way or easement must have a minimum
slope of 2%.
56. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be
constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards.
57. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped
at the main per the requirements of the Director of Maintenance Services.
58. Obtain approval from the San Luis Obispo South County Sanitation District for the
development's impact to District facilities prior to construction permit issuance.
59. Connection will be made to the OCSD sewer main in Elm Street.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
60. Underground all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the
Development Code.
61. Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving.
62. The Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for
review and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Community
Development Director for approval.
63. Prior to approving any building within the project for occupancy, all public utilities
shall be operational.
Item 9.a. - Page 20
RESOLU'TION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 120f 18
STREETS
64. Obtain approval from the Director of Maintenance Services prior to excavating in
any street recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director shall approve the
method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry
seal, or fog seal.
65. All trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned
and filled with epoxy.
66. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards.
67. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test, but shall not
be less than 3 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of Class II aggregate base or the
existing structural section of the existing streets where applicable.
68. Overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal South Elm Street from The Pike to the southern
boundary of the project site.
69. Construct 2-inch overlay of W Type B asphalt pavement over all trench cuts to the
centerline of the street per City Standard 135-AG.
70. Grind all overlay areas 2 inches to facilitate matching the overlay to the existing
grade.
71. Construct a City benchmark at the southwest corner of The Pike and South Elm
Street.
CURB. GUlTER, AND SIDEWALK
72. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Community
Development Director.
a. Replace cracked sidewalk pavement, if required.
b. Remove cracked and broken concrete curb, gutter if necessary.
73. Color any such new facilities as directed by the Community Development Director.
74. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
75. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary.
76. Construct new driveway approach in accordance with Title 24 of the California
Building Code, Chapter 1 1.
Item 9.a. - Page 21
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 13 of 18
77. Install root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to
prevent damage due to root growth.
GRADING
78. Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance.
79. 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.
80. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community
Development Director for walls not constructed per City standards.
81. The floor of the trash enclosure shall slope to the back of the enclosure so as not
to allow storm water to be released to the parking lot and shall be provided with a
drain inlet connected to the grease interceptor or to a landscape area for filtration.
DRAINAGE
82. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow.
83. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan.
84. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has established a goal of elimination
of all runoff from new development or redeveloped properties. The City, as well
as SLO County and the other cities in the County, is now participating in a joint
study that will better define how, or to what extent, that can be accomplished. At
the completion of the studies there will be a set of guidelines and
hydromodification regulations. Low Impact Development (I-ID) will be the
standard. Currently the City is utilizing Interim Guidelines that include a
calculation by the applicant of the additional stormwater runoff that will be
generated by their project. With that information the applicant will develop a plan
for handling on-site drainage including a determination of how much runoff it may
be possible to percolate, or store for irrigation purposes, or otherwise use on site.
Stonnwater runoff that cannot be retained on site for percolation or use must be
treated through the use of bioswales and then directed into the appropriate
drainage system described in the Drainage Master Plan. Redeveloped
properties will be required at a minimum to provide bioswales for the treatment of
runoff even if no additional runoff is generated by the proposed project.
Item 9.a. - Page 22
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 14 of 18
85. Storm drain inlets, both public and private, will be required to be stenciled with
the warning: "Drains to Creek" or other appropriate advice as directed by the
City.
86. Replace the existing drop inlet in the property frontage with new City Standard
drop inlet with fossil filter insert and replace the existing underground pipes
crossing South Elm Street between the project site and the retention basin with
RCP storm drain Pipe sized to accommodate flows.
87. Construct a 48" RCP storm drain line in the earth ditch along South Elm Street
from the intersection of The Pike and South Elm Street to the southerly edge of the
property frontage, or an alternative acceptable to the Community Development
Director.
88. Provide drainage calculations for both onsite and offsite proposed improvements.
89. Perform detailed drainage calculations verifying the South Elm Basin has sufficient
capacity to handle the increased storm water runoff or retain onsite as necessary.
90. Project lies within Zone "A and requires storm drain infiltration. Show how this will
be accomplished in accordance with City Standards and in compliance with City
Ordinance.
91. Consider use of existing drainage easement along the west and south property
lines to provide storm water quality treatment.
DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS
92. All easements, abandonments, lot mergers or similar documents to be recorded as
a separate document, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 112 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.
93. 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, except that street tree easements shall exclude the area covered
by public utility easements.
94. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be reserved 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.
95. Dedicate a blanket Public Utility Easement (PUE) over the project site for sanitary
sewer, water and the various public utility companies.
Item 9.a. - Page 23
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 15of 18
PERMITS
96. 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.
97. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on site.
FEES
98. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due.
99. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval:
a. Map check fee for lot merger.
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. lnspection fee of subdivision or public works construction plans based on
an approved construction cost estimate.
AGREEMENTS
100. lnspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant
shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required
improvements.
101. Subdivision lmprovement 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.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES
102. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code
Section 16.68.090, lmprovement Securities.
103. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by
the Community Development Director.
104. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost
Item 9.a. - Page 24
RESOLU'I'ION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 16 of 18
estimate approved by the Community Development Director:
a. Faithful Performance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of all public
improvements,
b. Labor and Materials: 50% of the approved estimated cost of all public
improvements
c. One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all public
improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
OTHER DOCUMENTATION
105. Tax Certificate: The applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's
office 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. This shall be submitted prior to placing the lot merger on the
City Council Agenda for approval.
106. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the
Community Development Director prior to checking the lot merger.
107. Subdivision Guarantee: A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the
Community Development Director with the final submittal of the lot merger.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT
108. The final lot merger shall be recorded with all pertinent conditions of approval
satisfied.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
109. All utilities shall be operational.
110. 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 Community Development
Director.
11 1. Prior to the final 10% of occupancies for the project are issued, all improvements
shall be fully constructed and accepted by the City.
Item 9.a. - Page 25
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 170f 18
RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITION:
112. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final landscape
plan, subject to review by and approval of the Director of Recreation Services.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
113. Provide decorative paving or alternating colored banding along the project
driveway.
114. Revise the landscape plan palette as follows:
Replace Western Redbud, Crepe Myrtle and Purple Leaf Plum with
Chinese Pistache or Japanese Maple;
Do not use Purple Fountain Grass;
Replace Podocarpus gracilior with Hymenosporum;
• Replace Catalina Cherry with Brisbane Box;
Do not use Myoporum.
11 5. Include automatic garage door openers.
116. Investigate a pedestrian connection to neighboring commercial use.
11 7. Encourage neighborhood-serving use in commercial building.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
118. The Planning Commission shall review the issue of parking on the east side of
South Elm Street six (6) months from issuance of a certificate of occupancy, at
which time the applicanttowner may be required to install "no parking" signs.
119. The applicant shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for
review that include transom windows on the west-facing wall of the upstairs
bedrooms in plans "Al" and "A2".
120. The applicant shall design and construct striping and island intersection safety
improvements according to the conceptual design prepared by Omni-Means;
said striping and island improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with a
Item 9.a. - Page 26
RESOLUTION NO.
SEPTEMBER 25,2012
PAGE 18 of 18
City ADA ramp project, as determined feasible by the Director of Community
Development.
Item 9.a. - Page 27
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION
P i k
e
P l
a
c
e
A
p
a
r t m e n t s 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012
GE
N
E
R
A
L
SI
T
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
C
O
R
N
E
R
of
th
e
PI
K
E
an
d
EL
M
ST
AR
R
O
Y
O
GR
A
N
D
E
,
CA
AS
S
E
S
S
O
R
'
S
PA
R
C
E
L
NU
M
B
E
R
:
0
7
7
Ǧ 33
2
Ǧ 02
5
,
07
7
Ǧ 33
2
Ǧ 02
6
,
an
d
07
7
Ǧ 3
an
d
07
7
Ǧ 33
2
Ǧ 02
7
LO
T
SI
Z
E
:
5
5
,
3
1
2
.
2
s.
f
.
(1
.
2
7
ac
r
e
s
)
LA
N
D
US
E
DE
S
I
G
N
A
T
I
O
N
:
M
I
X
E
D
US
E
ZO
N
I
N
G
:
O
F
F
I
C
E
Ǧ
MI
X
E
D
US
E
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
DE
N
S
I
T
Y
AL
L
O
W
E
D
2
0
U
N
I
T
S
pe
r
AC
R
E
20
x 1.
2
7
=
2
5
.
4
u
n
i
t
s
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
u
n
i
t
s
5 St
u
d
i
o
s
x 0.
5
=
2.
5
un
i
t
s
2 Ǧ BE
D
R
O
O
M
S
x 23
=
23
u
n
i
t
s
TO
T
A
L
2
5
.
5
PA
R
K
I
N
G
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
St
u
d
i
o
Ǧ
1 sp
a
c
e
pe
r
un
i
t
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
2+
Be
d
r
o
o
m
s
Ǧ
2 co
v
e
r
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
4
6
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
+0.
5
un
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
pe
r
un
i
t
1
1
.
5
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Ǧ
1 sp
a
c
e
/
2
5
0
s.
f
.
(g
r
o
s
s
)
5
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
To
t
a
l
6
8
80
%
Co
m
m
o
n
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ǧ 5s
p
a
c
e
s
TO
T
A
L
6
3
S
P
A
C
E
D
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
23
Tw
o
Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
4
6
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
Un
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
Of
f
Ǧ St
r
e
e
t
Sp
a
c
e
s
1
7
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
TO
T
A
L
6
3
S
P
A
C
E
S
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
LO
T
CO
V
E
R
E
A
G
E
PL
A
N
A FO
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
x 4
70
0
8
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
PL
A
N
A2
FO
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
x 3.
5
64
6
8
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
PL
A
N
B FO
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
x 2
34
7
2
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
PL
A
N
C FO
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
23
9
6
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
PL
A
N
D FO
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
19
5
5
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
FO
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
10
0
4
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
14
1
3
0
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
FL
A
T
W
O
R
K
36
9
4
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
PU
B
L
I
C
OP
E
N
SP
A
C
E
34
2
8
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
PR
I
V
A
T
E
OP
E
N
SP
A
C
E
64
3
6
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
53
2
1
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
TO
T
A
L
55
3
1
2
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
P1.0
Ti
t
l
e
Sh
e
e
t
Ǧ
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Da
t
a
Si
t
e
Pl
a
n
N
OW
N
E
R
S
:
P
E
T
E
R
BU
R
T
N
E
S
S
&AN
N
I
E
RO
B
E
R
T
S
P.
O
.
Bo
x
11
4
SA
N
T
A
BA
R
B
A
R
A
,
CA
93
1
0
2
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
S
T
E
V
E
N
PU
G
L
I
S
I
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
DA
N
A
ST
R
E
E
T
SA
N
LU
I
S
OB
I
S
P
O
,
CA
93
4
0
1
(o
)
59
5
Ǧ 19
6
2
(f
)
59
5
Ǧ 19
8
0
DI
R
E
C
T
O
R
Y
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PR
O
J
E
C
T
DA
T
A
&ST
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
S
S .O a k P a r k R o a d
E .G r a n d A v e n u e S.Elm Street
S.Halcyon Road
Fa
i
r
Oa
k
s
Av
e
n
u
e
Th
e
Pi
k
e
SI
T
E
As
h
St
r
e
e
t
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
Av
e
n
u
e
10
1
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
MA
P
P1.0TITLE SHEET Ǧ PROJECT DATA P2.0ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN P3.0PLAN A DUPLEX P3.1PLAN A2 DUPLEX P3.2PLAN B DUPLEX P3.3PLAN C TOWNHOUSES P3.4PLAN D STUDIOS,MANAGER'S OFFICE and LAUNDRY ROOM P3.5COMMERCIAL BUILDING G Ǧ 1PRELIMINARY GRADING,DRAINAGE &UTILITIES G Ǧ 2SITE SECTIONS CL Ǧ 1CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET INDEX A PROPOSAL FOR A MIXED USE PROJECT.THE PROJECT INCLUDES 28 MULTI Ǧ FAMLY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN DUPLEX,TOWNHOME AND STUDIO CONFIRGURATIONS AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
OP
E
N
SP
A
C
E
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
28
un
i
t
s
x 35
0
s.
f
.
9
8
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
feet
PR
I
V
A
T
E
OP
E
N
SP
A
C
E
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
UN
I
T
1
24
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
UN
I
T
2 th
r
u
6 (2
9
0
ea
c
h
)
14
5
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
7
30
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
8
34
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
9
30
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
10
65
2
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
11
&12
(1
3
8
ea
c
h
)
27
6
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
13
20
3
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
14
38
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
15
th
r
u
19
(2
9
0
ea
c
h
)
14
5
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
20
31
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
21
th
r
u
23
(1
1
2
ea
c
h
)
33
6
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
24
&25
(1
6
3
ea
c
h
)
32
6
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
25
&27
(6
5
ea
c
h
)
13
0
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Un
i
t
28
85
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
TO
T
A
L
64
3
6
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
PU
B
L
I
C
OP
E
N
SP
A
C
E
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
Ar
e
a
1
23
0
4
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Ar
e
a
2
29
7
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
Ar
e
a
3
82
7
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
TO
T
A
L
34
2
8
sq
u
a
r
e
feet
TO
T
A
L
OP
E
N
SP
A
C
E
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
98
6
4
sq
u
a
r
e
feet EXHIBIT B
S O U T H E L M S T R E E T
T H E P I K E
S00°14'59"E 99.31'M
B E N C H M A R K E L :7 2 .8 2 W M
T P E D
S S C O
J P
J P
J P
J P J P
E X I S T I N G
B U I L D I N G
E X I S T I N G
P A R K I N G L O T
P G &E
S
N 00°14'59"W 279.97'
N 8 9 °4 5 '3 0 "E
6 0 .0 2 'M
S 0 7 °5 3 '2 9 "E 2 1 .9 3 'N 0 0 °1 4 '5 9 "W 4 0 .3 4 'M N 0 0 °1 4 '5 9 "W 8 7 .4 6 'M
S 8 2°
3 2'
0 0 "E 9 .7 9 'M
N 8 9 °4 5 '3 0 "E
1 5 2 .2 1 'M S 8 9 °4 5 '3 0 "W
1 5 6 .9 9 'M
L =2 8.
2 5 'R =2 1 0 .0 0
29
0
s.
f
.
up
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10 11 12 13 14
up
15
16 17
waste
recycle up up
Un
i
t
1
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
7
Pl
a
n
C
Un
i
t
12
Ab
o
v
e
Un
i
t
11
Ab
o
v
e
Un
i
t
14
Ab
o
v
e
Un
i
t
13
Ab
o
v
e
Un
i
t
3
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
2
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
4
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
6
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
5
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
8
Pl
a
n
C
Un
i
t
9
Pl
a
n
C
Un
i
t
10
Pl
a
n
C
Pl
a
n
B
Pl
a
n
B
Un
i
t
15
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
16
Pl
a
n
A
Un
i
t
17
Pl
a
n
A2
Un
i
t
18
Pl
a
n
A2
Un
i
t
19
Pl
a
n
A2
Un
i
t
20
Pl
a
n
A2
Un
i
t
21
Pl
a
n
A2
Un
i
t
22
Pl
a
n
A2
Un
i
t
23
Pl
a
n
A2
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
10'Ǧ 0"Setback
10
'
Ǧ 0"
Se
t
b
a
c
k
5'
Ǧ 0"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10'Ǧ 0"Setback
10
'
Ǧ 0"
Se
t
b
a
c
k
VI
S
U
A
L
TR
I
A
N
G
L
E
(E )D r a i n a g e E a s e m e n t
(E)Drainage
Easement 18
'
Ǧ 1"
25
'
Ǧ 0"
18'Ǧ 0"
25'Ǧ 0"
18'Ǧ 0"
10
'
Ǧ 0"
VISUAL TRIANGLE VISUAL TRIANGLE
10
'
Ǧ 0"
10
'
Ǧ 0"
10
'
Ǧ 0"
41'Ǧ 0"
29'Ǧ 9"
22'Ǧ 9"
5'Ǧ 0"
Setback
3'Ǧ 0"
Setback
10'Ǧ 0"
10'Ǧ 0"10'Ǧ 0"
18
'
Ǧ 0"
24
'
Ǧ 0"
18'Ǧ 0"
18'Ǧ 0"
27'Ǧ 10"
18'Ǧ 0"
9'Ǧ 0"9'Ǧ 0"
200 s.f.
65
2
s.
f
.
24
0
s.
f
.
11
2
s.
f
.
11
2
s.
f
.
11
2
s.
f
.
29
0
s.
f
.
29
0
s.
f
.
29
0
s.
f
.
29
0
s.
f
.
240 s.f.300 s.f.290 s.f.290 s.f.290 s.f.290 s.f.290 s.f.240 s.f.
16
3
s.
f
.
16
3
s.
f
.
16
3
s.
f
.
Co
m
m
o
n
Ar
e
a
15
5
6
s.
f
.
Co
m
m
o
n
Area
84
5
s.f.
10
'
Ǧ 0"
25
7
s.
f
.
AC DRIVEWAY
AC
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
AC
PA
V
I
N
G
AC
PAVING
CONC.WALK
CONC.WALK
CONC.WALK
CONC.WALK
CONC.WALK
C O N C .W A L K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
CONC.WALK
(N)Wood Fence along Property Line
38
s.
f
.
38
s.
f
.
38
s.
f
.
38
s.
f
.
16
5
s.
f
.
10 0 10 20 40 5 2 4 6 8 SCALE:1"=20'Ǧ 0"
70
'
Ǧ 2"
8
AC
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
15'Ǧ 9"
LOT 20
10'Ǧ 6"10'Ǧ 10"
6'Ǧ 5"
10'Ǧ 0"
Ne
w
Fe
n
c
e
wi
t
h
Ga
t
e
Un
i
t
25
Un
i
t
27
(a
b
o
v
e
)
Pl
a
n
D
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
'
s
Of
f
i
c
e
Un
i
t
28
(a
b
o
v
e
)
Pl
a
n
D
Un
i
t
24
Un
i
t
26
(a
b
o
v
e
)
Pl
a
n
D
10
'
Ǧ 6"
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012
SI
T
E
PL
A
N
wi
t
h
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
Si
t
e
Pl
a
n
wi
t
h
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
P2.0
2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
1
"
x 20
'
1
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
8'
3
"
x 7'
9
"
Di
n
i
n
g
9'
4
"
x 8'
5
"
Li
v
i
n
g
12
'
6
"
x 12
'
4
"
47
'
Ǧ 10
"
20
'
Ǧ 8"
3'
Ǧ 2 1/
2
"
4'Ǧ 0"
6'
9
"
x 3'
7
"
up
storage
dn
li
n
e
n
33'Ǧ 2"
23
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
Ba
t
h
2
5'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
up
storage
dn
li
n
e
n
20
'
Ǧ 8"
1"
3'
Ǧ 2 1/
2
"
33'Ǧ 2"
37'Ǧ 2"
23
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
1"48
'
Ǧ 0"
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Fr
o
n
t
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Re
a
r
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Right Elevation
Le
f
t
Elevation Mission tile Exposed rafter tails Stucco smooth trowel finish Vinyl windows with Simulated Stone Sill Exterior Door
Tw
o
2 Be
d
r
o
o
m
Ǧ 2Bath Apartments with a 2 Ǧ Car Garage
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
398 s.f.
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
744 s.f.
To
t
a
l
Ǧ
1,
1
4
2
s.
f
.
+478 s.f.garage
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
8'
3
"
x 7'
9
"
Di
n
i
n
g
9'
4
"
x 8'
5
"
Li
v
i
n
g
12
'
6
"
x 12
'
4
"
2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
1
"
x 20
'
1
"
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
1
0
"
x 16
'
0
"
Of
f
i
c
e
/
D
e
n
7'
5
"
x 9'
9
"
Ba
t
h
2
5'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
6'
9
"
x 3'
7
"
storage
12 4 9'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.8'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.
24'Ǧ 9"Proposed Building Height
30'Allowed Max.Building Height MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED Maximum Hei g ht Allowed30'or 2 stories PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT Plate Hei g ht9.08 Floor Framin g 1.23 Plate Hei g ht8.08 Roof Truss Hei g ht (16'7"@ 4:12)5.53 Roof Framin g Section0.50 Roof Sheathin g &Tile 0.33 TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 24.75
8'
x 3'
6
"
8'
x 3'
6
"
Unit 1 Street Elevation
4
0
2
4
8
16
GR
A
P
H
I
C
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=1'
Ǧ 0"
Painted or Tile Trim Plant Shelf
Of
f
i
c
e
/
D
e
n
7'
5
"
x 9'
9
"
5'
2
"
x
5'
9
"
Ba
t
h
1
9'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
Ba
t
h
1
9'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
Bd
r
m
2
12
'
0
"
x 12
'
4
"
Bd
r
m
2
12
'
0
"
x 12
'
4
"
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
1
0
"
x 16
'
0
"
5'
2
"
x
5'
9
"
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012
Pl
a
n
A Du
p
l
e
x
P3.0
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED Maximum Hei g ht Allowed30'or 2 stories PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT Plate Hei g ht9.08 Floor Framin g 1.23 Plate Hei g ht8.08 Roof Truss Hei g ht (17'7"@ 4:12)5.86 Roof Framin g Section0.50 Roof Sheathin g &Tile 0.33 TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 25.08
2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
1
"
x 20
'
1
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
8'
3
"
x 7'
9
"Di
n
i
n
g
9'
4
"
x 10
'
5
"
Li
v
i
n
g
12
'
6
"
x 14
'
4
"
47
'
Ǧ 10
"
20
'
Ǧ 8"
3'
Ǧ 2 1/
2
"
39'Ǧ 2"
35'Ǧ 2"4'Ǧ 0"
6'
9
"
x 3'
7
"
up
storage
dn
li
n
e
n
35'Ǧ 2"
23
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Fr
o
n
t
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Re
a
r
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Right Elevation
Le
f
t
Elevation
Ba
t
h
2
5'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
Ba
t
h
1
9'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
Of
f
i
c
e
/
D
e
n
8'
5
"
x 9'
9
"
up
storage
dn
li
n
e
n
1"
20
'
Ǧ 8"
3'
Ǧ 2 1/
2
"
1"
23
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
48
'
Ǧ 0"
Tw
o
2 Be
d
r
o
o
m
Ǧ 2Bath Apartments with a 2 Ǧ Car Garage
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
446 s.f.
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
774 s.f.
To
t
a
l
Ǧ
1,
2
2
0
s.
f
.
+478 s.f.garage
2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
1
"
x 20
'
1
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
8'
3
"
x 7'
9
"
Di
n
i
n
g
9'
4
"
x 10
'
5
"
Li
v
i
n
g
12
'
6
"
x 14
'
4
"
6'
9
"
x 3'
7
"
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
1
0
"
x 16
'
0
"
Ba
t
h
2
5'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
Ba
t
h
1
9'
0
"
x 10
'
0
"
Of
f
i
c
e
/
D
e
n
8'
5
"
x 9'
9
"
storage
9'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.8'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.
25'Ǧ 1"Proposed Building Height
12 4 30'Allowed Max.Building Height Mission tile Exposed rafter tails Stucco smooth trowel finish Vinyl windows with Simulated Stone Sill Exterior Door Unit 20 Street Elevation
4
0
2
4
8
16
GR
A
P
H
I
C
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=1'
Ǧ 0"
Painted or Tile Trim Plant Shelf
5'
2
"
x
5'
9
"
5'
2
"
x
5'
9
"
Bd
r
m
2
13
'
1
0
"
x 11
'
1
0
"
Bd
r
m
2
13
'
1
0
"
x 11
'
1
0
"
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
1
0
"
x 16
'
0
"
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012 P3.1
Pl
a
n
A2
Du
p
l
e
x
22'Ǧ 2"
dn
41
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
5
"
x 20
'
1
"
Pl
a
n
C 2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
5
"
x 20
'
1
"
21
'
Ǧ 2 1/
2
"
20
'
Ǧ 9"
up
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
14
'
1
"
x 9'
0
"
Li
v
i
n
g
14
'
1
"
x 12
'
0
"
Bd
r
m
2
12
'
0
"
x 12
'
1
"
Bd
r
m
1
12
'
0
"
x 14
'
7
"
5'
x 5'
4
"
Ba
t
h
1
12
'
0
"
x 5'
0
"
5'
x 5'
6
"
up dn
41
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
1"
41
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
84
'
Ǧ 0"
23
'
Ǧ 6"
18
'
Ǧ 5 1/
2
"
18
'
Ǧ 5 1/
2
"
23
'
Ǧ 6"
1"
41
'
Ǧ 11
1/
2
"
84
'
Ǧ 0"
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Fr
o
n
t
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Re
a
r
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Right Elevation Left Elevation MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED Maximum Hei g ht Allowed30'or 2 stories PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT Plate Hei g ht8.08 Floor Framin g 1.23 Plate Hei g ht8.08 Roof Truss Hei g ht (11'1"@ 4:12)3.69 Roof Framin g Section0.50 Roof Sheathin g &Tile 0.33 TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 21.91 Stucco Guardrail Stucco Exterior Door
Tw
o
2 Be
d
r
o
o
m
Ǧ 1Bath Apartments with a 2 Ǧ Car Garage
Li
v
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
Ǧ
903 s.f.
Ga
r
a
g
e
Ǧ
43
4
s.f.
Pl
a
n
C Ga
r
a
g
e
Ǧ434 s.f.
2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
5
"
x 20
'
1
"
Pl
a
n
C 2 Ǧ Ca
r
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
5
"
x 20
'
1
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
14
'
1
"
x 9'
0
"
Li
v
i
n
g
14
'
1
"
x 12
'
0
"
Bd
r
m
2
12
'
0
"
x 12
'
1
"
Bd
r
m
1
12
'
0
"
x 14
'
7
"
5'
x 5'
4
"
12
4
Mission tile Exposed rafter tails 8'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.8'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.21'Ǧ 11"Proposed Building Height 30'Allowed Max.Building Height
5'4"x 7'2"
5'4"x 7'2"
4
0
2
4
8
16
GR
A
P
H
I
C
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=1'
Ǧ 0"
Un
i
t
13
&14
R
e
a
r
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
12
4
Un
i
t
13
&14
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012
Pl
a
n
B Du
p
l
e
x
P3.2
32'Ǧ 0"
2'Ǧ 0"
Fr
o
n
t
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Re
a
r
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Right Elevation Left Elevation MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED Maximum Hei g ht Allowed30'or 2 stories PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT Plate Hei g ht9.08 Floor Framin g 1.23 Plate Hei g ht8.08 Roof Truss Hei g ht (15'0"@ 4:12)5.00 Roof Framin g Section0.50 Roof Sheathin g &Tile 0.33 TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 24.22
Fo
u
r
2 Be
d
r
o
o
m
Ǧ 1.5 Baths Apartments
wi
t
h
de
t
a
c
h
e
d
2 Ǧ Car Garage in Plan B
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
59
9
s.f.
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
54
2
s.f.
To
t
a
l
Li
v
i
n
g
Ǧ
1,
1
4
1
s.f.
12
4
9'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.8'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.24'Ǧ 2 1/2"Proposed Building Height 30'Allowed Max.Building Height
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
30'Ǧ 0"
Li
v
i
n
g
13
'
2
"
x 16
'
6
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
9'
2
"
x 8'
1
"
Di
n
i
n
g
9'
1
0
"
x 12
'
1
1
"
up
up
up
up
1"
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
1"
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
1"
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
79
'
Ǧ 11
"
Li
v
i
n
g
13
'
2
"
x 16
'
6
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
9'
2
"
x 8'
1
"
Di
n
i
n
g
9'
1
0
"
x 12
'
1
1
"
Li
v
i
n
g
13
'
2
"
x 16
'
6
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
9'
2
"
x 8'
1
"
Di
n
i
n
g
9'
1
0
"
x 12
'
1
1
"
Li
v
i
n
g
13
'
2
"
x 16
'
6
"
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
9'
2
"
x 8'
1
"
Di
n
i
n
g
9'
1
0
"
x 12
'
1
1
"
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
0
"
x 12
'
0
"
Bd
r
m
2
11
'
6
"
x 11
'
1
"
Ba
t
h
1
11
'
6
"
x 5'
6
"
Bd
r
m
2
11
'
6
"
x 11
'
1
"
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
0
"
x 12
'
0
"
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
dn
de
s
k
L
Ba
t
h
1
11
'
6
"
x 5'
6
"
dn
de
s
k
L
dn
de
s
k
L
dn
de
s
k
L
1"
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
1"
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
1"
19
'
Ǧ 11
"
79
'
Ǧ 11
"
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
0
"
x 12
'
0
"
Bd
r
m
2
11
'
6
"
x 11
'
1
"
Ba
t
h
1
11
'
6
"
x 5'
6
"
Bd
r
m
1
13
'
0
"
x 12
'
0
"
Bd
r
m
2
11
'
6
"
x 11
'
1
"
Ba
t
h
1
11
'
6
"
x 5'
6
"
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
dn
de
s
k
L
dn
de
s
k
L
26'Ǧ 6"3'Ǧ 6"
Stucco Exterior Door Mission tile Exposed rafter tails Vinyl windows with Simulated Stone Sill
4
0
2
4
8
16
GR
A
P
H
I
C
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=1'
Ǧ 0"
2'Ǧ 0"
32'Ǧ 0"
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012
Pl
a
n
C To
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
P3.3
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED Maximum Hei g ht Allowed30'or 2 stories PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT Plate Hei g ht8.08 Floor Framin g 1.23 Plate Hei g ht8.08 Roof Truss Hei g ht (11'0"@ 4:12)3.67 Roof Framin g Section0.50 Roof Sheathin g &Tile 0.33 TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 21.89
Fi
v
e
53
7
s.
f
.
St
u
d
i
o
Apartments
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
1,620 s.f.
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Ǧ
1,081 s.f.
To
t
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Area Ǧ2,701 s.f.
4
0
2
4
8
16
GR
A
P
H
I
C
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=1'
Ǧ 0"
21'Ǧ 10 1/2"Proposed Building Height
30
'
AL
L
O
W
E
D
MA
X
.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
HE
I
G
H
T
8'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.8'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.
Up
p
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Lo
w
e
r
Fl
o
o
r
Fr
o
n
t
Elevation Rear Elevation Right Elevation Left Elevation
Dn
st
u
d
i
o
21
'
1
"
x 24
'
1
"
st
u
d
i
o
21
'
1
"
x 24
'
1
"
st
u
d
i
o
21
'
1
"
x 24
'
1
"
st
u
d
i
o
21
'
1
"
x 24
'
1
"
st
u
d
i
o
21
'
1
"
x 24
'
1
"
La
u
n
d
r
y
Ro
o
m
15
'
0
"
x 8'
0
"
Up
St
o
r
a
g
e
8'
8
"
x 8'
0
"
Si
t
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
'
s
Of
f
i
c
e
23
'
1
1
"
x 12
'
7
"
74
'
Ǧ 11
"
8'
Ǧ 0"
22'Ǧ 0"7'Ǧ 6"
10
'
Ǧ 7"
68
'
Ǧ 4"
4'
Ǧ 0"
82
'
Ǧ 11
"
74
'
Ǧ 11
"
8'
Ǧ 0"
82
'
Ǧ 11
"
10
'
Ǧ 7"
68
'
Ǧ 4"
4'
Ǧ 0"
22'Ǧ 0"
Mission tile Exposed Rafter Tails Stucco Guardrain Stucco finish Vinyl windows with Simulated Stone Sill Exterior Door 12
4
de
c
k
8'
0
"
x 10
'
7
"
de
c
k
8'
7
"
x 7'
6
"
de
c
k
8'
7
"
x 7'
6
"
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012
Pl
a
n
D St
u
d
i
o
s
P3.4
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED Maximum Hei g ht Allowed30'or 2 stories PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT Plate Hei g ht12.08 Roof Truss Hei g ht (10'0"@ 4:12)3.33 Roof Framin g Section0.50 Roof Sheathin g &Tile 0.33 TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 16.24
Fr
o
n
t
Ǧ Pa
r
k
i
n
g
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ri
g
h
t
Ǧ Se
v
e
n
El
e
v
e
n
Elevation South Elm Street Ǧ Right Elevation
Fl
o
o
r
Pl
a
n
12'Ǧ 1"Plate Ht.16'Ǧ 3"Proposed Building Ht.Mission tile Exposed rafter tails Stucco finish Tile Surround 30'Allowed Max.Building Height
12
4
25'Ǧ 0"
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Le
a
s
e
Sp
a
c
e
43
'
1
"
x 24
'
1
"
1,
2
0
0
s.
f
.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Building
4
0
2
4
8
16
GR
A
P
H
I
C
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=1'
Ǧ 0"
Vinyl windows with Simulated Stone Sill
20
'
Ǧ 0"
24
'
Ǧ 0"
44
'
Ǧ 0"
10'Ǧ 1"
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
S t e v e n P u g l i s i
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
58
3
D
a
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
a
9
3
4
0
1
Ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
6
2
F
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
5
9
5
.
1
9
8
0
SHEET #All ideas,designs,arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by,and the property of,Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect,and were created and developed for use,and in conjunction with,the specific project described herein.None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by,or disclosed to any person,firm,or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same,and no copying,reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi,A.I.A.Architect.REVISIONS:k.prater DATE:SCALE:JOB:DRAWN:12 Ǧ 003 25 May 2012 As Noted H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.13 V E T S L G U P REN.DATE I N E A T C E T I C R A D E S N E C I L S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I S I
P i
k e P l a c e A p a r t m e n t s
fo
r
Pe
t
e
r
Bu
r
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
An
n
i
e
Ro
b
e
r
t
s
at
th
e
Co
r
n
e
r
of
Pi
k
e
an
d
El
m
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 July 2012 26 July 2012 18 September 2012
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
P3.5
up
PIKE PLACE APARTMENTS
PIKE PLACE APARTMENTS
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 1
MINUTES
AUGUST 21, 2012
CODE AMENDMENT 12-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-001 AND LOT MERGER 12-
001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 279 AND 295 ALDER STREET, APPLIED FOR BY
TODD TOSE (ALDER HOUSE)", as modified to amend Condition of Approval No. 12 and
Mitigation Measure No. 12.1 to be consistent with Condition of Approval No. 28, to encourage
the employees to park in the designated parking lot, and to have an arborist look at the cedar
tree to determine if it is viable, a cost/benefit analysis of saving the tree be done. Commissioner
Ruth seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sperow, Ruth, Barneich, Martin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Keen
8.a. Continued Conditional Use Permit No. 12-007; Location Southwest Corner of
The Pike and South Elm Street; Applicant— Peter Burtness and Annie Roberts.
Associate Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning
Commission review the proposed project and adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use
Permit 12-007. Mr. Foster reported the bonus rooms have been reduced in size, the applicant
addressed the privacy issues by reducing the windows in size, and the Traffic Commission and
City's on-call traffic consultant reviewed the circulation and safety concerns.
Associate Planner Foster responded to questions from the Commission regarding the proposed
project.
Steve Puglisi, project architect, Steve Puglisi Architecture, reported on the following: relocation
of the trash containers, the number of windows being adjusted, the size of the bonus rooms
have been reduced, reported the Traffic Commission comments, and answered questions from
the Commission.
Chair Ruth opened the public hearing. The following people spoke against the proposed project
and expressed their concern with: the residents adjacent to the project having to pay costs
associated with undergrounding existing utilities, the proposed commercial building and
location, a laundromat in the commercial building, traffic, no green space, lack of parking,
ingress/egress, lack of landscaping, negative impact on the entire community, second-floor
bathroom locations, undergrounding of utilities, two story buildings, poor lighting along The Pike
and at The Pike/Elm Street, elevation, drainage, gutters, shared parking reduction, common
driveways being too narrow, garage width, striping is dangerous, the Traffic Commission met
before school started, trees in front yards will be lost, loss of view of eucalyptus trees, bike lane
striping, placement of mail boxes, placement of apartment sign, commercial building sign, how
will trash be placed on Elm Street due to parked vehicles, there should be some type of
mitigation for 100 year old cemetery, and parking should be eliminated along Elm Street along
the farm area.
- Michael Van Belleghem, South Elm Street - Gillian Wilson, La Vista Court
- Kate Corella, Basin Street - Kim Greene, Paul Place
- Larry Royal, Russ Court - Ann McMullen, South Elm Street
- Stacy Mitchell, Paul Place - Karen White, Hiawatha Lane, Halcyon
The Commission took a break at 8:35 pm and reconvened at 8:48 pm.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 21, 2012
The following people continued to speak against the proposed project and expressed their
concern with: high density, the sand, project is a financial risk, drainage percolation, the sewer
line, power poles, abandoned septic tanks, circuit breakers, and siren being too close o building.
- Teri Peterson, Paul Place - Ron Snyder, Paul Place
- Julie Shires,
Steve Puglisi, project architect, Steve Puglisi Architecture, Associate Planner Foster, Assistant
City Engineer Mike Linn, and Community Development Director Teresa McClish answered
questions from the Commission.
Peter Burtness, owner, addressed the setback of the commercial building.
Commissioner Ruth reported that the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) liked the proposed
project.
There were no further comments received, and the public comment period was closed.
Commissioner Barneich provided the following comments: can vote in the affirmative; like the
style and trees; ok with the drainage, bonus room, parking; like the manager on-site, don't think
there is a nexus for fencing the cemetery.
Commissioner Martin provided the following comments: likes Plan A2; transoms would be
beneficial; striping at the intersection would help, and supports the project.
Commissioner Sperow provided the following comments: the density is high, would like to see
more green space, see commercial building flipped, the developer should not have to fence
cemetery, and PG&E will take care of utilities.
Commissioner Ruth provided the following comments: the project is zoned for Mixed-Use,
trouble with the commercial building, architecture is nice, do not feel the developer should be
asked to fence around cemetery, transoms would be nice as it would break up the big wall, the
bonus/den room is a nice feature, and likes look back review provision.
Action: Commissioner Barneich moved to adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-007; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
PIKE AND SOUTH ELM STREET; APPLIED FOR BY PETER BURTNESS AND ANNIE
ROBERTS"as modified that there be a look back provision of six months after the project
is built to review the parking on both sides of South Elm (east side), the applicant look at
the option of adding transom window to the bedroom, the applicant be responsible for the
striping of the crosswalk and island". Commissioner Martin seconded, and the motion passed
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barneich, Martin, Ruth
NOES: Sperow
ABSENT: Keen
8.c. Appeal of Determination Relating to Viewshed Review Case No. 12-002; Location —
940 Cameron Court; Appellant—Arlene Pilkington. (McCLISH/NYGAARD)
ATTACHMENT 2
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Date e//
Name and Address of Appellants' R."IV 4)2 Z �, re/e/ reW-Ccr7/
U 7
Appeal of f/fe /-7i/cet'i2-e-e P/t° 3�c--?- ���' /- -°° 7
Case No.
Approved/Denied by P.4* let 74- on PA-7//2—
Date
Reason for Appeal /) ��� � )`y � S'/�f e 17 ,, z fz'7"iz vs/0 2V `Y=
Pie /7,v-74e //e /.264,./.e.z A /1 r5'
t' r5//y!P. .v 70 77/ r t l/"P 4 i C 7`(u
Signature --
Mailing Address //## 'i—z ` i /1-27e-A8 'a ems ' C/Y y3 -
Telephone 7a.- " SVfa 0"le9'`� ?COQ(- 745 ��2/'i�
p joandra (lam40 y koo,core
Fee - $253.00 Receipt No. j (0 1
Date 8 a ��
RECEIVED
W � AUG282012
Director of egis ative and nformation Services/City Clerk CRY OP ARROYO GRANDE
LOMMUN!lYDEVELOPMENT
C 1V�9e.t.vr
C '. CT2 V`r�
�laAAJX-
ass
•
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL APPLCATION CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
The Planning Commission,and the architect(Steve Puglisi)both admitted that the
commercial property served no purpose to the surrounding community and was only put
in to gain the maximum density for the mixed use zoning and they still approved it.
There are too many issues with undergrounding PG&E, Charter Cable and AT&T lines
that have not be fully researched before the project was passed. We have been kept in the
dark and it affects our everyday lives after the project is built, Our discussions with
PG&E inspectors indicate that there may be problems with our lines not being compatible
with their hooking up to our poles, The developers will not discuss any of their plans
with us as their architect has advised them not to speak with us. There is also a lot of
intrusion on our property and we are expected to cooperate with the builders but the same
respect is not given to us. We can give you a more detailed explanation at the City
Council hearing.
ATTACHMENT 3
ACTION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2012
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hall called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners: Commissioner Matthew Brownlee, Commissioner Jim Carson, Chair Zachary
Hall, and Vice-Chair Steven Ross were present. Commissioner Borda was absent.
Staff present: Assistant City Engineer Mike Linn, Police Commander Beau Pryor, Associate
Planner Ryan Foster, and Traffic Commission Clerk Chris Judge.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Carson led the pledge of allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
5.a. Approval of Minutes
Vice Chair Ross moved to approve as modified the minutes of the July 2, 2012, meeting, with a
reference on Page 2 to Chair Hall corrected to Vice-Chair Ross. Commissioner Carson
seconded, and the motion unanimously passed by voice vote.
6. BUSINESS ITEMS
6.a. Review of Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety Concerns for The Pike and South Elm
Street Intersection
Assistant City Engineer Michael Linn presented the staff report. Mr. Linn and Associate Planner
Ryan Foster responded to Commissioners' questions.
Vice Chair Ross opened the item to public comment.
Debra Dykzeul, South Elm Street, spoke about the hazards of the intersection especially during
school time.
Rachel Anderson, Paul Place, spoke about the incomplete sidewalks and missing curb ramps in
the vicinity.
Marshall Anderson, Paul Place, spoke about the dangers of the crosswalk and intersection, and
requested that the City re-evaluate parking within the proposed development.
Kate Corella, Basin Street, spoke against a traffic island at the intersection.
Kim Greene, Paul Place, spoke about various issues at the intersection and vicinity, and
submitted pictures of the area for the record.
Joan Dralle, Paul Place, spoke about the potential increase in traffic at the intersection from the
proposed development.
heryl Crow, The Pike, spoke about traffic at peak-hours and issues with the crosswalk.
here were no further comments received, and the public comment period was closed.
Commission discussion ensued during which the following issues were considered: vehicle and
pedestrian safety at the intersection; the construction of a traffic island; safety issues relating to
MINUTES: TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 2 OF 3
MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2012
vehicles from the proposed development entering the intersection; parking at the proposed
development; missing sidewalks and curb ramps in the vicinity.
ACTION: Vice-Chair Ross moved to advise against the construction of a traffic island within the
crosswalk at the intersection of The Pike and South Elm Street. Commissioner Brownlee
seconded and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Ross, Brownlee, Carson and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Borda
Chair Hall moved to advise staff to study the pedestrian activity in the area and the potential
impacts from the proposed project. Motion failed for lack of a second.
ACTION: Commissioner Carson moved to advise against considering signalization of the
intersection of The Pike and South Elm Street. Vice-Chair Ross seconded and the motion
passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Carson, Ross, Brownlee, and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Borda
ACTION: Commissioner Brownlee moved to recommend that the City investigate the potential
for completing the sidewalk on the north side of The Pike, opposite the proposed development.
Chair Hall seconded and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Brownlee, Hall, and Carson
NOES: Ross
ABSENT: Borda
The Commission advised staff to consider ways to improve the safety of the crosswalk at the
intersection
6.b. Consideration of the Proposed Construction of an On-Street Bulb-Out and Parking
Spaces Adjacent to 1172 East Grand Avenue
Assistant City Engineer Michael Linn presented the staff report and responded to
Commissioners' questions.
Chair Hall opened the item to public comment.
John Prior, architect for the project, gave addition details about the proposed improvements,
answered commissioners' questions, and submitted letters of support for the project and a
diagram of the proposed improvements for the record.
Orrin Cocks, project applicant, spoke about the project.
There were no further comments received and the public comment period was closed.
Commission discussion ensued, during which the following issues were considered: street
drainage; impediments to sight distances for southbound Brisco Road traffic; bike safety on
Grand Avenue; setting a precedent for other businesses to cut parking stalls into sidewalk;
access for delivery vehicles and people with disabilities.
ACTION: Commissioner Carson moved to recommend against the proposed construction of an
on-street bulb-out and parking spaces adjacent to 1172 East Grand Avenue. Vice-Chair Ross
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Carson, Ross, Brownlee and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Borda
ATTACHMENT 4
A T -
D ;' ' 1 ` _
ENGINE ERS •PLANNER S
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Arroyo Grande Date: August 20,2012
Attn: Ryan Foster Project: The Pike/Elm • partment
From: Martin Inouye, Todd Tregenza Traffic Imp
Re: Traffic Peer Review of the Job No.: 25-127
Traffic Impacts of the Proposed File No.: C M001
Apartment Project
CC:
INTRODUCTION
As understood,the proposed Pike Place apartment project went before the'4, , lanning Commission on
July 17th of this year and several traffic-related concerns were raised at that ime. Therefore,the intent of
this memorandum is to peer review the traffic-related information made available on the project and
address the following concerns raised:
• Not enough parking;
• Intersection should be signalized;
• Crosswalk should be lighted;
• Additional traffic creates a safety hazar•.
PROPOSED PROJECT,TRIP GE RATIO AND PARKING
The proposed Pike Place project is to c,, struct 28 apartments(23 2-bedroom units and 5 studio units)and
a 1,200 square-fo mercial buildi " on 1.27 acre e southwest corner of the Pike and South Elm
Street. Figure 1 nts the project site plan.
d 'i3bt,
Using SanDAG Trip Generation manual as required, the Arroyo Grande Traffic Impact Study Policy
and based on the proposed number of apartment urifs and commercial footage, 14.88 AM and 19.44
estimated PM peak-hour.trips(15.12 PM peak hour trips for residential, 1.44 AM and 4.32 PM peak hour
trips for commer ' 1)will be generated,as presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1:
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE
Land Use Units Quantity AM Trips AM Trips PM Trips PM Trips
per Unit Generated per Unit Generated
ments/Studios wellin 28 0.48 13.44 0.54 15.12
. -rcial Buildin: ,000 112 1.2 1.2 1.44 3.6 4.32
-, TO 14.88 19.44
Based on the pro ted trip generation,the project falls below the 20 peak hour trip threshold that triggers
a full traffi .act study according to the City's Traffic Impact Study Policy document.
The individual parking requirements by use for the proposed project are listed in Table 2. As presented in
Table 2, a total of 67.3 parking spaces is required for the project.
1
943 Reserve Drive, Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95678 — (916)782-8688 fax(916) 782-8689
August 20t,2012
TABLE 2:
PARKING REQUIREMENT CALCULATION
Use Requirement Total
Studio apartment 1 space/unit 5
Two-bedroom apartment 2.5 spaces/unit 57.5
Commercial building 1 space/250 square-feet 4.8
TOTAL 67.3
FIGURE 1:
ler
PROJECT SITE PLAN
-- --, THE PIKE
...._, arm r
, i . .,,,,t , ,
r
„ills
-iiion 1 OP I ■
, e
1 - 1 - ----A
Hili ' ii,,, A
I it, 1.... , \
1 Illei I JO,A.; 1...........
, I . I I filar ;11 4.:r r , .. a
1 , ���. 1 1 _miss= +
1 n� .,,,,,7_ ,,,,,;;l m '�.'° — N, ,
Alio , 1 1 II" II___ -- MIME ;‘,
i
E
4k'
. a
I. in IMUM ®ill ..ap mg
p— In t2
t m
10 tr,� J
.
1w ---. ._..I
•roject includes s' hree(63)total parking spaces—forty-six(46)garage spaces and seventeen
ace spaces. ; - on the requirement,this is 94%of the required total(a reduction of 6%or 4
spa. •nsistent unicipal Code Section 16.56.050(Common Parking Facilities),which allows up
to a 2 b c_,' parking requirements for shared uses.This reduction cannot exceed the lowest
number • • parking spaces for an individual use,which in this instance is 4.8 spaces. Therefore,
the City's p• g for this project is met.
Based on the above evaluation of proposed traffic and parking relative to City policy,projected traffic fell
below the significance threshold for further evaluation of"safety hazards"and proposed parking meets or
exceeds the City's requirement for off-street parking for this project.
2
943 Reserve Drive, Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95678 - (916)782-8688 fax(916)782-8689
August 20th,2012
PIKE/ELM STREET INTERSECTION
OMNI-MEANS specifically reviewed the The Pike/Elm Street intersection to address concerns
regarding possible future signalization,crosswalk lighting,and intersection layout. The cu - t
configuration of the intersection, its traffic control, lighting and location of crosswalks di• concerns
and potential recommendations for improvement.Limited traffic data was available fo• -valuation
and therefore no traffic signal warrant analysis was performed as part of this task. P owing
recommendations for improvements are also presented in Figure 2:
• Recommend construction of raised island median for pedestrian ref d to he . •ound
through lane and bike lane delineation and alignment.
• Add southbound right turn merge arrows to indicate upcomi drop.
• Stripe dedicated left turn pocket to separate through traff turning traffic and help i
intersection operations. This will also align eastbound, estbound opposing left turn poc
• Restripe westbound shared through/left turn lane to dedi ted left turn et,and restripe right
turn pocket as shared through/right turn lane.
• Revised crosswalks and pedestrian ramps need to be designed to be A A compliant.
These improvements will generally improve vehicular and pedestrian sa ty at the The Pike/Elm Street
intersection by providing more standardized pgigstrian facilities and by more clearly defining expected
driver behavior with improved striping. New ADA-compliant crosswalk and raised pedestrian refuge
area will significantly improve safety at the intersection. Cur- ntly,the cro design is not ADA
compliant and does not comply with City standards.
LIGHTING
The intersection currently has minimal lighting,Nth onl single street light on the southwest corner.
The crosswalk on the no. ide of the intersection especially lacks adequate illumination. Additional
lighting should be imp ed with the improvements presented in Figure 2 to ensure safe pedestrian
crossing at all Gros at all times of day. Addition 'ghting will also increase vehicular safety by
lighting two or orners of the t section.
3
943 Reserve Drive, Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95678 — (916)782-8688 fax(916)782-8689
. ,_
iv
i 4.44 -#.;, -,:,,,,,,,,,,,,•
, .,,,,,„..,.: , ., ... .0 .,.. t. ...t.-
t
es
yMw
}
z. .
t .
b.
t 4,47:
t
\-. f I •
1
\ ".
• ,,.� 15 ! �.,. Dim ic' e. . .,,,,.
% ,,,, _ 1 ,
6 t '-+;..',...„,.IL ° "PTIt.„. 44rt ' ' •'^,1, - .• I N 5 e "a..
I -, i''.,,,:;:.,,, 1 d , Ill
t ,,, . ,-,..,.. .' , ' : - ..'
` a
..,...\ Na 1
al- 4. [,-,. ii.L::::-.,1,-,:,.t,,--1717.
01 - -, . i °�„, ;.err- ".....I k i.:+ .
Elm and Pike Improvements Fi.ure 2
CElm and Pike Improveme
enonou a.v.. 5veam.aaw•u�c,wu-.��ae.eve.eo.00�ow - _ be w.m-+na-m